chipcom 

"Randy (I don’t know him personally but have read many of his posts on bikeforums.net) "

randya I presume?

Bekologist

I don't know when 'road' bikes got 23c tires, but they're a little tiny for practical bicycling on roads, unless you want to puzzy-foot your way around debris and still get a lot of flats anyway.

Do 'roadies' like thin tires because speed takes precedence over safety and versatility? Do 'roadies' think because their bike can't handle road grit, they assume drivers will recognize this as well?

Or will many drivers do like the bus driver, and pass too close when a biker is out of the bike lane, and in the travel lane? Or, should there be no bike lanes at all, to make riding easier on roadies and the fast and few 'cycling like a vehicle' riders?

Would riding in the debris filled bike accomodation made the bus/biker interaction any easier on the biker? If there were no bike lane, would he have been in the same approximate lane position? Would the driver have still tried to pass closely? Arguably so on all points.

genec

So how does one stay "out of the way" all the time? Very near my house is a 35MPH boulevard that is the only way for me to get in or out of the area... it is lined on both sides by parked cars... there are some sidewalks, but they are not continuous, so the only way for me to ride anywhere from my house is to ride on the boulvard... and the parked cars are a hazard as folks are always popping out of them... so I ride 5 feet away... now I am "in their way."

There is no way to avoid it... and this situation occurs often in this city and I am sure many times over around the US... Cyclists will be "in the way."

Now since the effort for a motorist to avoid me is a little movement of their foot and arm... I don't see how motorists have room to get upset at all... I mean jeeze... they are in a freaking machine that does all the work, all they really do is just sit there. Seems to me motorists are being awful selfish about "all the effort" they have to make.

genec

Quite honestly, narrow tires are an issue... my solution was to simply build a heavy duty bike for my commuting needs and keep my skinny tire bike for fun fast rides... rides that involve less traffic.

Yeah, I took the practical aproach as I often found pot holes, road cracks and what have you on my daily commute and I also found it more important to keep my head up and watching traffic then to worry about what my tires might run into. That bike also has great lighting and a mirror. My road "sport bike" does not... and I generally don't commute on the light "sport bike."

Roody

In my experience, busses are a special problem for us because they travel at about the same speed as we do, and they use the same rightmost part of the road as we do. This inevitably leads to competition and often rage.

The street I live on is 5 narrow lanes and heavily travelled by busses. I have found that I can safely pass a bus by getting into the left lane. However, he will want to pass me again shortly, then I will pass him again, and a game of leapfrog ensues....

I guess I used to get angry, but I eventually realized that he's just trying to maintain a schedule and serve his customers, and he is not easily able to go into the left lane to pass me, as he will have to get over to the right again to discharge people within a block. My first choice of a solution is to hang back of the bus and wait until he stops for a lot of passengers, then pass in the left lane and pedal like hell to stay out in front of him, hoping that a red light or another stop will give me more distance. If that is not feasible, I will just stay behind the bus and bide my time until I can safely overtake him and stay overtaken. At times, I have even cut over to a parallel street to escape him. The competition for space between bus drivers and cyclists seems unavoidable, so it's best to just avoid the lepafrogging that leads to road rage on both sides.

(I could not view the video on this computer, so I'm not commenting on this particular case. But you did ask for firsthand personal experience, of which I have plenty.)

phoebeisis

The cyclist must have extremely minor injuries(more likely no demonstrable injuries) if the ER bill(or doc in the Box) was just $600.It couldn't have been more than a cursory exam-maybe an XRay-probably not.His injuries plus lost wages~$700 are really small claims stuff.It won't help him that he breaking the law when he sustained the injuries.I can't picture a jury(of car drivers) giving him any more than his actual losses-he can forget that $48000.
The bus driver is dead;if he was given much time to come up with a story,he might have said that the passenger told him that he was a plain clothes,or off duty cop.The bus company can now say something like that-if the driver had the good sense to say nothing.
What was the driver supposed to do;he suddenly has some nut blocking the road?
1)Just sit there?This is the CS lawyerly thing to do.Wait for the nut to start tossing rocks thru the window?He had no idea how long this A-Hole was going to delay everyone on the bus.Yeah,he could call the cops and wait.
2)Run him over,"I feared for the lives of my passengers,I thought he had a gun,so I ran him over."
3)Get out and push him out of the way?No-some idiot might drive off with the bus.
4)Have a good samaritan push him out of the way!
I don't have any sympathy for someone pulling S_ _T like that.Screwing with everyone on the bus because he wanted the driver to make eye contact with him?Duh-did he really think that everyone on the bus was going to put up with that?!If I was on the bus,I would have gotten off and pushed him out of the way-wouldn't you??
Yeah-cars and buses should be more bicycle aware;but pissing off a bus load of folks won't really help the cause.Thanks.Charlie
ROODY-good points-are relative speeds are close.I have frequently had more interaction with buses than I liked.Now I out run them or hit the sidewalk-shoulder.I don't need to pick a fight with a 50,000lb bus and 50 passengers.The guy is a flaming AH-he needs to grow up-the world doesn't revolve around him.

I-Like-To-Bike

You don't ever seem to get the point. I'm writing in response to those who make claims that motorists get bent out of shape because those "other guy" cyclists (the "incompetent" or "lawless" cyclists whipping boys) are riding in an illegal manner. As you correctly point out, the cyclist actions that get motorists worked up often are quite legal.

Daily Commute

Lane position issue

Ironically, what got Randy in trouble may have been being too courteous to start off with.

Given that he judged the bike lane too debris-filled, Randy was being overly courteous by sticking so far to the right side of the traffic lane. Being that far over let many cars pass him safely in the lane, but busses are just too big. I've made the same mistake, but until Randy stopped the bus, he didn't make any major mistakes.

After a couple bad experiences with busses, I practice a little reverse dynamic lane positioning when I see them in my rear-view mirror. I pull to the left to make sure the bus driver chooses between passing in the next lane or waiting behind. The leap-frog roody describes is a basic part of urban riding, so it doesn't bother me. I just make sure the busses give me plenty of room when they "leap" around me.

Facilities for all cyclists?

Bekologist, you don't think roadies should be allowed on the road? I keep hearing stuff about designing bike facilities for all cyclists. Maybe "all" means "cyclists like me who like to ride in bike lanes with tough-built bikes." But even if Randy had thicker tires, it's a lot safer to ride on clean pavement than gravel, especially when busses are willing to buzz you. When it's wet out, I'll sometimes move farther to the left just because traffic has dried out the lane where car tires go.

But the bottom line is that if the bike lane isn't safe for your bike but the traffic lane is, you should be in the traffic lane. And if the bike lane has gravel, dirt or water but the traffic lane doesn't, you should be in the traffic lane.

"We built you bike lanes, so stay off our roads"

Here's another example of why bike lanes make many motorists think that cyclists should not ride in traffic. (For many, many more examples, look here.) This is from a commentary published in the print version of the Oregonian. I love how the writer says Randy "admits" that he wasn't in a bike lane because of gravel? Admits?:


Does anybody here agree with Tiffany Lee Brown?

Bike lanes, a gift or an imposition?

Some of the difference of opinion on when a cyclist should leave a bike lane depends on how you perceive the bike lanes. If you think the lanes are a gift to cyclists, you will be mad when cyclists "nit-pick" and complain about their gift ("it's too dirty"). If you think the lanes are an imposition on cyclists, you will demand that they be kept up properly if anyone expects cyclists to ride in them. Most of the motorists writing to the Oregonian clearly think the bike lanes are a gift for which we cyclists should be grateful regardless of actual lane conditions.

Lawsuit

phoebeisis, my guess (and this is a guess) is that Randy is asking for punitive damages for assisting the assault.

No reason to pass

Finally, no one has explained why the bus driver should have wanted to pass the cyclist at all. The cyclist caught up with the driver, so, overall, traffic obviously was not going faster than the bicycle. No one (bus driver, auto driver, or cyclist) should pass unless they can stay ahead. This whole incident wouldn't have happened if the driver had showed a little patience.

Note: I edited this to correct a type-o after Bekologist quoted a portion.

Bekologist

All true, Daily commute. But that last sentence should read 'if your bike isn't safe to use the bike lane, but it's delicate enough to require smooth pavement, maybe you should be at home on a trainer."


And as a daily commuter, a bicyclist needs to choose equipment suitable to the job. That includes bikes that can handle road debris. Yes, people wearing full kits on expensive road bikes with skinny tires should not delude themselves into thinking they are riding a 'versatile' enough bike to go play in urban traffic- what if the bicyclist was on a push bike, or a unicycle? Should they be allowed full use of the lane?

Of course they should. They should also know how, and plan, on yielding the right of way in situations like the one this Portland bicyclist faced with the bus.

The 'leapfrog' bus negotiation technique, one every urban biker should be familiar with, recognizes the inherent differences in the mass and 'social weight' of mass transit, without holding up traffic via unecessary lane grabbing. This may not have helped in this bicyclist's case, except he could have simply moved right in the lane.


And an anti bike lane stance would do little in Portland except get less people out on their bikes. In Seattle, bike lanes aren't any of this 'danger alleys' Dally Commute makes them out to be. They actually contribute to a lot of people turning into bicycle commuters...Wow, drivers think bikes should use a bike lane....How wacky is that?

When there's not a bike lane, bikes still use the roads, but a bike lane, like on the bridge seen in this video, lets more people use that bridge for biking than if the bridge had no bicycle accomodations.

That's the only real 'awful' truth about bike lanes, Daily Commute- when implemented with the slightest sense of proper planning, a lot more bicyclists get out and ride !!!

Daily Commute

It's interesting that one of the arguments people in favor of segregated bicycle facilities use is that out-of-shape people without special, top-of-the-line bicycles might have trouble riding in traffic. Now, the same people say that people without a bike specially outfitted for urban warfare should stay off the road.

Let's stop talking about the guy with the 700x23 road tires. What about the guy with the cheap wally-world bike tires?

[Edit in response to Bekologist, one post below: The wally-world tires have no kevlar liner and are easier to puncture than a properly-outfitted commuter. Also, the roadie tires should do better than a wally-world tire on dirt or gravel because wally-world tires tend to be knobbies, which have far worse handling than slicks or road tires.]

But the point is that when bike lanes aren't in as good a condition as the traffic lanes, cyclists must be allowed to choose to ride in the traffic lanes. And no cop, judge, or jury (all of whom would likely be non-cyclists) should be allowed to second-guess that judgment.

And as to the "anti-bike-lane" stance, I'm much more of a bike lane skeptic. But it's foolish to argue that there are no downsides to bike lanes. Like almost everything else in traffic engineering, there are advantages and disadvantages. The outrage of many Portlanders to a cyclist who dared to ride in the traffic lane (even barely) demonstrates one of the downsides.

Also, in my town, one of the arguments used to argue for an extensive bike lane network is that cyclists say they are yelled or honked at now. Portland is frequently used as an example of how bike lanes have the mystical power to make everything better. The Oregonian comment and letters to the editor prove how wrong that argument is.

Bekologist

all wally world bikes handle better in gravel than your typical roadie bike, so i can see the problem there....

the only 'foolish' assumption you could draw from this incident, Daily, is dismissing bike lanes because of it! Oregon had a 'mandatory facilities' use law that just got lifted this past year, didn't it? Maybe that colored the populace on where they thought bikes should be?

Of course bikes should be allowed the full use of the lane. And bike lanes help get more people riding. And, by and large, well implemented bike lanes make travel easier for the 'experienced' roadie, the urban commando, the kids, the putterers, the not so fit, and the wally world bikers. Everybody!!!

chipcom 

Considering that it is supposedly illegal for busses to use the other lane, yes, Randy probably should have taken the lane rather than hugging the line, if that (riding the roadway at all) was legal. (I am not familiar with Oregon's or Portland's laws). But I wouldn't say that was his only mistake. Reaching out and smacking the bus wasn't exactly a textbook safety move, was it? One protrusion, one piece of debris or one pothole could have made such a move fatal.

phoebeisis

Wow,I can't believe anyone would prefer no bike lane to bike lanes.I live in New Orleans which has no bike lanes,and isn't particularily bike friendly.I was in Flagstaff AZ all Sept.There is no comparison.Flagstaff has lots of wide,well marked bike lanes.It was a real pleasure riding in that city;I could cruise along in a lane knowing that vehicles would(probably-you always have to listen,peek back) pass no closer than 4 feet.At home every pass is 2 feet or less-you can feel the wind blast,and everytime you are hoping this idiot has good depth perception,and isn't fully loaded-yet.Some of this was the city-folks in Flagstaff are very bike aware,and almost too polite(I-54 yo flatlander-would be crawling up a hill,and they would wait 10 seconds for me to pass instead of just crossing ahead of me).
No one who has spent time in a no bike lane city would chose no bike lanes over lanes.Thanks.Charlie
PS-Daily Commute-yes,no doubt he hopes to get $48000 in punitive damages,but I doubt that a jury of non bikers will ever do that-not that this will ever go to trial.

Daily Commute

I didn't "dismiss bike lanes" because of this incident. I said that this incident demontrates one of the downsides of bike lanes. There's a big difference.

Also, Oregon did not eliminate its mandatory bike lane law. It made exceptions which permit a cyclist to leave the lane if he or she convinces a cop, judge and jury (all probably non-cyclists) that he or she had a good enough reason to leave the lane. Unfortunately, the letters relating to this incident show that the Portlanders who would sit on the jury seem to think cyclists should use the sidewalk when a bike lane is unusable.

And chipcom, I agree that hitting the side of the bus was dangerous. There are semi-frequent posts in this forum celebrating anti-motor-vehicle road rage. This incident shows how foolish that can be.

SamHouston

The cyclist had another avenue. City buses are clearly marked and he probably had a watch or telephone that could tell him when the unsafe passing occured. He was there so he'd know where it happened. All of that info, especially coming from an active advocate, would be of interest to the transportation authority that oversees bus transit and probably works hard to protect itself from liability. One way they do this is to strictly regulate drivers and record any incident or complaint. They may even listen more closely now in Portland as its reputation for being a cycling city is well known and a topic of recent debate.
I've complained of poor driving to transportation authorities and have gotten acceptable responses showing an attentiveness to safety related complaints. To a traffic/transit authority you as a witness willing to complain are a source of free regulation and citizen complaints could catch a situation before it costs a great deal more money.

He wasn't struck, there was no accident and the numbers are on all sides of transit buses. Had a peace officer been present he may have been charged with obstructing traffic. Stopping a transit vehicle unnecessarily is a seperate, more serious charge in some areas. As it was he was assualted and every means should be used to find and prosecute anyone willing to physically assualt a stranger in front of so many witnesses. I'm surprised that this individual hasn't been located, he was likely recorded getting on and then getting off at his destination. The police should be ashamed at a lack of results with so much fine, clear video.

IMO this advocate could've used the system as a far better weapon that day and avoided a dangerous situation for everyone involved.

kb0tnv

AMEN! (regarding the bike lanes)


Keep Cycling!

kb0tnv

They can point to sidewalks... or yell "get on the sidewalk" all they want. Most of the time where I ride there is no sidewalk! I think most people forget the concept: SideWALK. I would have to walk my bike which is totally not the concept. I think all parties envolved were in the wrong. After trying to get the bus drivers attention he should have just let the bus go by and get down the bus information. The driver and passenger are totally in the wrong. I believe it is legal to move out of the bike lane if it is a danger to the cyclist. Once the cyclist moves onto the road closer to motor traffic they should be slowing and passing safely. The driver shouldn't have let the passenger off. Sadly bike lanes tend to make motorists think this is the ONLY place cyclists can ride. They think we are riding "illegal" if we go outside them or God forbide... actually move into their lane or cross several lanes to make a legal left hand turn. Segregation isn't the best way. There will never be a bike lane for every road. We must get more education out there for both cyclists & motorists. Mortorists must be held accountable as equally must cyclists for their actions! I see bicyclists and motorists getting away with things. However the cyclists aren't getting away with murder like motorists do! That is the ultimate sadness.

Keep Cycling!

sbhikes

Even if he would have taken more of the lane there still would have been letters to the editor blaming him for not using the bike lane. The video didn't indicate there was anything wrong with the bike lane.

Now, if the bike lane had been covered in snow or filled to the brim with parked cars that would be another story. It would be obvious the bike lane was of no use. But microscopic pebbles and bits of glass just aren't visible on the video. So don't blame the bike lane. Blame the video.

Daily Commute

If the cyclist had taken more of the lane, the bus would not have been able to pass. No passenger would have gotten off. There would have been no confrontation.

bigskymacadam

This is my contention. I get buzzed by buses, cabs, etc. I learned earlier on that getting upset over getting buzzed really doesn't make my day. Nor anyone elses. So what's the big deal? It made nat'l news and that posed a number of questions.

I was surprised at all the anti cyclist sentiment displayed at the Oregonian from drivers. It shows that there are a lot of bad apples cycling on the roads who give us all a bad name by acting dangerously or inappropriately. Albright's actions only aggravated the situation and this kind publicity stands to hurt cycling advocacy. I could not even side with Albright in conversations at work. (Actually I didn't 'side' with either parties, they all made bad choices)


I feel fortunate that I read forums like BF. I learned a lot about gear, commuting, etc. Your average person wanting to commute or cycle has no idea how to share the road or ride in traffic nor take the time to. There's no education asked of them unless they seek it out themselves.

Brian, I agree with your other two objectives as well. They make sense to me.

Brian Ratliff

The problem with simply pointing to the infractions done by moterists in comparing to cyclists is that there is a difference in perceptions. The prototypical moterist is the one who obeys most, if not all laws (exept for the speed limit, of course). The problem is that the prototypical cyclist, in the eyes of most moterists, is the one who runs red lights, buzzes pedestrians, and is unpredictable. Because there are so many more drivers than there are cyclists, there is no hope of dragging the perception of moterists down to the perception level of cyclists.

All we can do then, is to either try to drag the perception of cyclists up to the level of moterists, or create a system where the perception does not really matter (i.e. the moterist knows how to behave around cyclists in any condition). Cyclist education does the former, and drivers' ed the latter. Because of the realities of outreach, I think we must be working on both ends in equal proportions. We can reach all moterists (through the drivers' license) but that won't solve all the problems. We cannot reach many of the cyclists, but the ones which can be reached can work to solve the rest.

Brian Ratliff

The bus would have still passed. One thing I have learned about buses is that, compared to trucks of similar size, buses have the same amount of power, but are much lighter, therefore can accelerate quickly and intimidate using both size and speed. The bus would have kept to its schedule and passed exactly the same way, except it would have passed closer to the cyclist and would have cut off cars to its left.

In this situation, taking the lane would not be the right response. There would be no real reason for it, because of the bike lane by the side (despite the gravel) and not even justified by an approaching intersection, and it probably would not have had the desired effect on the bus' behavior.

Had there been a narrow lane (with no bike lane or shoulder) in this situation, my response would be different; cyclists must work with the available space. In a narrow lane, I would, as I have done before crossing bridges, take the lane and not let anyone pass.

If there had been a WOL, I would again suggest that the cyclist work with any and all available space to avoid the confrontation. Because there are no cross-street intersections involved, whether the extra space was due to a bike lane or a wide outside lane would have made no difference.

Finally, I believe it is at least illegal, if not a bit risky, for a moterist to change lanes on a non-freeway type bridge.

Brian Ratliff

I ride on semi roadie bikes with 700x23c tires and it handles gravel just fine. I've even taken my road bike out on back country gravel roads without much problem (a bit hard on the hands though).

The mandatory facilities law did not get lifted, but exceptions were added which (depending on whether you see the glass as half full or half empty) pretty much eliminated the requirment for using the bike lane, not that it was enforced much anyway.

Here is what was passed:

These clarifications were passed just last year.

Note that part 3c covers this case study. One interesting side note is that this situation happened before the bike lane law was clarified, but I don't think that any citations were issued in any case, so maybe this does not matter. The lawyer and the BTA suggest that this law change is a matter of "housekeeping" and "clarification" rather than a "change." Perhaps this is simply pro-bike spin, but it could be that use of the term "clarification" suggests that these exceptions were already recognized in legal and/or enforcement terms prior to the formal law change.

noisebeam

One thing to consider about tyre type is the typical vs. unusual road surface. Where I commute roads are generally in very good shape. I use 25c and many others use smaller. I ride on hardpack dirt with these as well.
But if there is a huge downpour it may wash 2-3" thick mud with pebbles in the gutter or bike lane. A rare case and for only short patches. A 37c tire with knobbies may make it rideable. But of coure the knobbies main problem is not that they slow me down, but they make the 99% of the rest of the ride more unsafe with poorer traction on good pavement. So after a storm I'll still use 25c tires and ride around the mud/pebble patches.
Of couse however there are regions in the country where the thick gravel/mud may be more than the odd occurance.
Also, what gives better grip? 37c knobbies of thin gravel or 25c slicks? It may be the later.

Al

derath

Ok, I have ignored all of these threads up until now but I just finally wanted to chime in. I tend to agree with SBhikes sentiment. To answer the OP subject "Is the cyclist right?"

The answer is no.

Why do I say that? Because while the bus DID pass the cyclist very close, closer than most would like. But there was no contact. The bus did not HIT the cyclist physically. Nothing the bus did justifys the cyclists actions of riding down the sidewalk to catch up (I saw pedestrians on the sidewalk. He was willing to risk a pedestrian collision). Nor does it justify his blocking the bus by getting in front of it.

I have had this sort of situation happen plenty while driving in my CAR. A person passes very close, either because they were not paying attention and drifted over some. Or they are driving fast and cutting in and out. It is annoying, considered aggressive driving etc. Does that give me the right to pull over into the shoulder and gun it to get ahead of them and then brake to force them to stop? Heck no. If I were to do that and the hit me, it would be MY fault.

Why didn't the bus simply merge left to pass? I don't know. There wasnt a clear camera shot on that side. Maybe there were cars in the way. Maybe since it was bad weather the bus driver felt it was safer to just hold his line and pass rather than try to negotiate a lane change at the time (a bus is no Mini Cooper). Maybe he had a bus stop soon and did not feel he could move left and then back right in time with traffic.

Bottom line is that this situation shows road rage is not limited to car vs car. In this instance the cyclist lost his cool and made some bad choices. The bus driver also lost his cool. I certainly don't want to say I think the actions of the bus driver and passenger are justified. But if the cyclist had taken the incident as we all do, both in cars and bicycles, as part of driving in traffic, none of it would have happened.

I have ridden in traffic enough, both as a cyclist and car driver, to know that you take your life into your hands in both cases.

-D