invisiblehand

In Portland, does the cyclist have right of way when in the bike lane?

donnamb 

Yes, with a few exceptions.

811.050 Failure to yield to rider on bicycle lane; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure of a motor vehicle operator to yield to a rider on a bicycle lane if the person is operating a motor vehicle and the person does not yield the right of way to a person operating a bicycle, electric assisted bicycle, moped, motor assisted scooter or motorized wheelchair upon a bicycle lane.

(2) This section does not require a person operating a moped to yield the right of way to a bicycle or a motor assisted scooter if the moped is operated on a bicycle lane in the manner permitted under ORS 811.440.

(3) The offense described in this section, failure of a motor vehicle operator to yield to a rider on a bicycle lane, is a Class B traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §698; 1985 c.16 §336; 1991 c.417 §4; 1997 c.400 §8; 2001 c.749 §23]

The exceptions:

811.440 When motor vehicles may operate on bicycle lane. This section provides exemptions from the prohibitions under ORS 811.435 and 814.210 against operating motor vehicles on bicycle lanes and paths. The following vehicles are not subject to ORS 811.435 and 814.210 under the circumstances described:

(1) A person may operate a moped on a bicycle lane that is immediately adjacent to the roadway only while the moped is being exclusively powered by human power.

(2) A person may operate a motor vehicle upon a bicycle lane when:

(a) Making a turn;

(b) Entering or leaving an alley, private road or driveway; or

(c) Required in the course of official duty.

(3) An implement of husbandry may momentarily cross into a bicycle lane to permit other vehicles to overtake and pass the implement of husbandry.

(4) A person may operate a motorized wheelchair on a bicycle lane or path.

(5) A person may operate a motor assisted scooter on a bicycle lane or path. [1983 c.338 §645; 1991 c.417 §1; 2001 c.749 §24]

RobertHurst

Hi Donna.

Did the driver of the truck in the 14th-and-Burnside incident ever get cited with this class B traffic violation?

Robert

toddistic

No he was not, nor was the garbage truck driver who killed a bike shop worker today.

Lt. Kruger and his goons only enforce the law when it works to their best interest political interest.

donnamb 

No, Robert, and Todd brings up an important point. We've got internal troubles with the Traffic Division at present which have eroded our confidence that the police even attempt to fairly analyze collisions involving bikes. When you've got police officers involved who can defend citing cyclists who leave a bike lane to make a legal left turn (tickets that were later thrown out), how can you possibly trust their ability to fairly determine fault in a collision? <sigh>

invisiblehand

What is unclear is whether the exceptions you listed also apply to right of way.

That is, my read is that the cyclist has right of way regardless. But that motorists can operate the vehicle within the bike lane under those circumstances.

So it is a little mystifying why the truck drivers were not cited.

donnamb 

If you were more familiar with the internal issues in the Traffic Division, you would not be mystified.

Spokebreaker

Things may change a bit next year when the "Vulnerable Roadway Users" law takes effect. (one can hope)

It's going to depend a lot on the DA's office and the new head of the Traffic Division. Getting Lt. Kruger out of there would be a good start. The former commander, Bill Sinnott was much more conscientious about protecting cyclists and pedestrians from traffic.

invisiblehand

The specifics are unclear to me as a casual observer 2000+ miles away. But if I understand Donna's comment, then an unbiased leader in law enforcement would be a big step forward.

I just read through one of the articles associated with the prior right-turn incident. Is it the case that there is a dispute regarding the proper method for vehicles making a right turn?

(1) Vehicle merges right blocking the lane followed by the right turn.

versus

(2) Vehicle sees whether bike lane is clear followed by the right turn from the standard travel lane.

donnamb 

Right now, #2 is the law. There's a certain faction in the Portland Police Bureau who would like the city to lobby during the next legislative session to change the law to #1. They are all for making our bike lane law be like California's - where motorists start to merge into the bike lane 200 feet before making a right turn. There's one major problem with that and it is specific to almost all of Portland and the metro area, as well as some other Oregon cities. Our city blocks are only 200 feet long. Now, that certain faction in the PPB knows that very well, since they work in the Traffic Division - and yet they keep going on and on about it and keep saying "just like California" over and over to anyone who will print their quotes. The thing is, our blocks are never going to be longer than 200 feet.

Remember, these are the same people who issue tickets to cyclists who leave the bike lane to make safe and legal left turns. How in the world am I supposed to trust their judgment? They don't even recognize when it's appropriate for us to leave the bike lane for our own safety!

randya

I think they should get rid of the bike lanes and put HUGE sharrows markings in the lane on these streets. Bicycle traffic has exceeded the capacity of the bike lanes in many places and the bike lanes are a right-hook death-trap anyway. Destination positioning is the way to go.

donnamb 

I totally agree with you about the miserable excuses for bike lanes downtown. Downhills, as well. I wants me some more sharrows, too. There are some bike lanes I do like and are safe, and I'd prefer to keep those. Just another tool in the toolbox, you know what I mean?

randya

the city needs to be smarter about their bicycle infrastructure. they also need to make a conscious decision *which they share and discuss beforehand* whether they go with the vehicular model, pedestrian model or some hybrid. I think they are defacto going with some version of Amsterdam without fully airing it with the public. I am concerned that they don't have the funding or political will to really pull it off yet, and I'd be more than happy with the vehicular model, large scale implementation of sharrows, realignment of police priorities, and a whole lot of motorist ed.

Bekologist

having ridden a bit in Portland, bike lanes make a lot of sense heading out of the city along the high speed arterials leading towards Gresham or Beaverton.

bike lanes make sense along high speed arterials leading out of just about ANY U.S. city if they are AASHTO standard or better.

randya

all of the highest crash intersections in portland are out east, major arterial crossings on 82nd, 122nd, Powell, Division, Foster, etc., I'm not sure what the bicyclist crash data for those locations are, but I rarely see cyclists when I'm out that way. I don't know about the AASHTO standards, if they allow death-trap right-hook and door-zone bike lanes they are F'd. In the inner city I think sharrows would make a lot more sense, the inner city roads don't all have enough ROW width for designated turn lanes (although some arterials like Hawthorne would if they completely reconfigured the lanes). but the city has stalled on sharrows for at least a decade, waiting for the MUTCD to adopt them. the city also seems intent on trying to have it both ways, increasing both bicycle and motor traffic. the Burnside couplet project is an excellent example, I think they are trying to increase motor capacity under the guise of community development.

am I frustrated and critical? You bet! The city has squandered a lot of excellent opportunities. It's too bad it takes two tragedies like those that occurred this month to get them moving. maybe downtown should be car free, but each new office or residential tower has multiple levels of new underground parking.

Bekologist

have you ridden out towards Beaverton? not a lot of 'door zone' bike lanes on the higher speed roads out there, just wide accomodating striped bike lanes (from what I remember). the bike lanes were the 'slower traffic keep right' road position even a "VC" trained bicyclist would be riding in.

And east towards Gresham too, i don't recall seeing many bicyclists, but not a lot of door zone bike lanes (lack of on street parking) along Division?and other roads as I rode to the Springwater Cooridor. just high speed roads, four and five foot wide bike lanes.

there certainely need to be intersection modifications to prevent bike lanes from being striped to the right of right turning traffic.

however, do bicyclists have the right of way in a bike lane? Seems like they have legal right of way and priority over turning traffic. not always upheld by the motorists, unfortunately.

randya

you lose the curbside parking in the eastern outer city and the western suburbs, but I don't ride there much, I ride mostly inner city, curbside parking is sacred there, and a lot of the ROW is pretty narrow, not much room to carve out for bike lanes, I'm sure the Interstate and NE 14th bike lanes were minimal or less, it wouldn't have matter much anyway in the recent fatalities. and in case I haven't answered the OP yet, yes, the cyclists had the right of way in both instances, and both truck drivers should have been cited for failure to yield at a minimum.

invisiblehand

Wow ... those are short blocks. I can understand the police position, but it seems that a little common sense needs to be applied here given the short blocks.

My quick response is that bike lanes are probably a poor choice in this situation. Perhaps SHARROWs would be more appropriate since there needs to be more (dynamic) lateral positioning on these busy and short streets.

DCCommuter

Sharrows are in the latest MUTCD. I've been meaning to post about it and I will.

JohnBrooking

Just to be an annoying semantic curmudgeon:
* When you mean cars, say cars, don't just say vehicles.
* When you mean car drivers, say car drivers or motorists, don't just say drivers.
* When you mean car/truck/motorized traffic, say car/truck/motorized traffic, don't just say traffic.

I drive my bike as a vehicle on the public roadway, and it is part of traffic.

invisiblehand

Actually, some of the extra jargon you suggest makes the topic confusing to non-bikeforum types. In my opinion, I think that it is better practice to simply use drivers == auto and riders == bicycle if you want to communicate outside this small community.

Although the comment about "traffic" and "vehicles" is appropriate unless you really mean all traffic/vehicles. In other words, I would say "traffic" instead of "motorized and non-motorized traffic."

At the moment, I am trying to break bikeforum habits.

JohnBrooking

Sorry, I still can't agree. I tend to avoid "driver" altogether, in favor of just "motorist" or "cyclist". If I mean both, I usually say something longer but clearer, such as "car drivers and bicyclists alike".

I do this because I believe, as I think you do too, that the most appropriate way to approach riding your bike in traffic is with the same attitude of caution, consideration, and observance of laws as you do driving a car, if not more. This should be notch up from the relaxed attitude you will probably have out for a leisurely recreational ride in a park or on a path. Therefore, at least for myself, I consider it important to remember that when on the road, I am driving, on my way to somewhere, not just out for a nice ride. Driving means you are paying more attention and taking it seriously, as you need to on the road.

I think it also goes hand-in-hand with the traffic/vehicle terminology. Most people don't think of bicycles as equal vehicles to cars, or of me on my bike as an equal road user. I think they should, and I want the words I use to be consistent with that. So I am a driver, just like the motorists, in my vehicle of choice, which happens not to include an internal combustion engine.

Apologies to everyone else for the slight thread hijack.

Bekologist

and OUR apologies to you, john

driver=motorist

rider or bicyclist=bicyclist

Comprehend the precise nature of language.

Sure, you may ride as if you were driving, but you ride a bike nonetheless.

if you CAN'T decipher the difference between the meaning of 'driver' versus 'bicyclist' in this public forum, it's your loss, and not imperative on the rest of us to distort the meaning of words soley for your benefit.

JohnBrooking

Language is a human construct, so it is as precise as we as a society make it. It's generally a majority opinion. Dictionary writers don't receive definitions of words from on high, they pretty much just document how they are used in the general population. So I don't feel compelled to use the same language everyone else uses just because everyone else does.

I know that to most people, being on a bike = riding. I am capable of deciphering the meanings that other people assign to the words. I have simply decided to use the words in a different way, which I think represent my viewpoint better. I offer my opinions if anyone cares; if you don't agree with me, fine.

In the general sense, I would say "riding" means being conveyed by some sort of vehicle. In a car carrying two people, both are riders, but one is also the driver, meaning the person in charge of operating of the vehicle. On a bike carrying one person, that person is both riding and driving. For myself, I choose to prioritize the driver role when in traffic, and use language that reinforces that.

Bekologist

I'm very happy for you.

if and when you're riding a bike down a portland, OR bike lane, feel free to ride out of the lane as hazardous conditions approach, and recognize that although drivers should legally yield to you, the rider, they may not.