gosmsgo

Portland's motto should be......

"Sure some people get crushed to death by trucks but look at all these people riding!!!!"

buzzman

huh?

and what should Texas and Florida's motto be? "We kill 'em faster so they don't breed."?

Portland's rider share is substantially higher than other states but their accident/fatality rate is much lower.

I don't understand your comment- is your implication Portland's riders are at a greater risk than those in other cities and states- and what statistical analysis do you have to support such an opinion, if that is indeed the point you are trying to make?

what is the purpose of your comment in the midst of the on-going discussion of this thread?- it reads more like a non-sequitur to me than a contribution- is that your point? I don't get it. Please illuminate.

bragi

I don't doubt police bias in police reports- I've been pulled over on my bike by police a few times simply because the officer didn't like bikes- nor do I doubt that some motorists behave aggresively towards bicyclists out of sheer frustration with the general traffic situation. However, I do not at all have a hard time believing that, in a majority of accidents, the cyclist is at fault. I can't even count the times I have stopped at a red light only to see other cyclists blow through the intersection with only a glance to check for approaching traffic. I've seen other cyclists jump from the street to the sidewalk and back to the street in such a quick, seemingly random manner that I can well imagine motorists' confusion. I've also seen cyclists at four-way stops expecting to be treated as pedestrians; that is, not waiting their turn, but proceding through the intersection almost as soon as they get there. Let's not be too biased ourselves. The majority of cyclists follow the rules of the road, but a significant percentage, either through ignorance or apathy, do not, and one of the consequences of that is that they get injured or killed. Another consequence is that drivers, when they see a cyclist, automatically assume that he or she is a lot like the idiot that they had to deal with a few days earlier.

randya

you sure are making a lot of assumptions here. plus, confusing and yes even pissing off motorists is not illegal in and of itself, and is completely independent from crashing into them. And if you're saying that motorists who dislike bicyclists' behavior are deliberately hitting cyclists to 'teach them a lesson' that's yet another thing in which case the motorist would be at fault (but could make up any lie that they wanted when questioned by the police).

noisebeam

One is supposed to travel at 21mph in a narrow lane adjacent to stopped/slower traffic that might turn across you path?

Al

Helmet Head

Do not underestimate the role that bike lanes alone play in causing even a traffic cycling savvy guy like Randya to think this (that it's normal and not "too fast for conditions" to pass potential right-turners on the right, much less at 21 mph). This is what many experienced cyclists seem to think (judging by how they ride) even in CA where, as you know, the law requires right turning motorists to merge into the bike lane before turning right.

If someone passes them on their left and then begins to slow to and below their speed, they just pass them on the right, even as they are approaching a place where the overtaker may be turning right. As far as I can tell, it doesn't occur to them that there is anything wrong with passing on the right like that, and I think the presence of the bike lane goes a long way towards inhibiting them from sensing this.

bragi

Respectfully, I don't think I'm making any unwarranted assumptions here at all. I'm not saying that many motorists deliberately run into cyclists (if they do, they're committing a serious crime, which is way beyond the scope of what I'm discussing here, which are accidents). What I am saying is that, in more instances than many of us care to admit, cyclists' own behavior is the cause of the accidents that injure them. Not always, but at least as often as not. They do something stupid, and then the second law of motion does the rest. And, please, be reasonable: confusing motorists is not "completely independent" from colliding with them. Car drivers who confuse one another crash all the time; why should bikes be any different? That's one of the main reasons we have have traffic laws: so everyone has a clearer idea of what's going to happen next.

Helmet Head

The basic speed law says you must operate at or below the speed that is safe for the given conditions. If the leftmost lane is stopped on a freeway posted at 65 mph, is it is safe to drive at 65 mph in the adjacent lane? These are judgment calls, but I think it's certainly arguably that 65 mph is too fast for such conditions.

Similarly, riding near the curb in a bike lane at 21 mph while passing a slowing potential right-turner in the adjacent traffic lane on your left is also arguably too fast for such conditions.

Even if you disagree - you think 21 mph not too fast for those conditions - I'm disappointed that guys like you and Randya don't even seem to see how it's arguable that it is too fast and in violation of the basic speed law.


When Speeding Isn't Speeding
The "Basic" Speed Law

"Absolute" speed states set an upper limit, above which your speed is considered illegal. Drive one mile over the limit and you are a law breaker. But these states also have a way to ticket you when you are driving under the speed limit if an officer concludes your speed was unsafe. Called the "basic" speed law, it prohibits driving at an unsafe speed, even if that speed is below the posted limit.

In all states, tickets for driving under the speed limit, but too fast to be safe, are often referred to as "driving too fast for conditions." For example, driving exactly at the 65 mph posted limit on the freeway would not be smart amidst slower and heavy traffic, in a dense fog, or in a driving rainstorm or blizzard.

The difference between fighting one of these tickets and a speeding ticket for going over the speed limit is that here the prosecution has the burden of proving you were driving unsafely. (Again, that's because the posted speed limit is presumed to be safe.) This means the officer must testify that, given the unusual road, weather, or traffic conditions, your below-the-limit speed was unsafe. This can be tough to do unless you were involved in an accident, since the cop may be hard put to come up with enough hard evidence to rebut the presumption established by the posted limit.

Police most often rely on the "basic" speed law after an accident. They reason that you were driving too fast, no matter how slow you were driving, because you were in an accident. However, you do not have to despair if you were in an accident and are charged with violating the "basic" law for driving at an unsafe below-the-limit speed. The fact that you've had an accident is not absolute proof that you were driving unsafely. Accidents, after all, are not always caused by your violating the law. Often they are caused when another driver screwed up.
...

public.findlaw.com/traffic-ticket-violation-law/fighting-traffic-ticket/speeding-not-speeding(2).html

Blue Order

I'm aware of the basic speed law. Arguably, traveling at 21 MPH in a 35 MPH zone could be a violation of the basic speed law, depending on conditions.

However, the law does not require you to anticipate the illegal actions of other vehicle operators. Brett was not required to slow down when entering an intersection, just in case somebody might run a red light. Similarly, Brett was not required to anticipate that the truck driver would turn against his right of way.

And in fact, the truck driver gave every indication that he was observing the law-- he passed Brett, and he stopped at the intersection, with his turn signal on. To an approaching cyclist, the truck driver appeared to be following the law, which requires him to stop, with his turn signal on, and yield the right of way to any approaching cyclists. There was no indication that the truck driver was not going to yield the right of way.

Therefore, absent a legal duty to anticipate illegal behavior, there's no argument to be made that Brett was riding too fast for conditions.

randya

now you've gone and developed the bad habit of putting words into other people's mouths, and actions as well. Where have I ever stated that I personally would perform such a pass in such a manner?

noisebeam

You haven't and HH did say you would either.

Al

randya

The garbage truck driver screwed up when he turned right, across the bike lane and into Brett's path, compounded by the fact that he did not have a properly functioning right-side mirror that would have enabled him to see Brett's approach.

Blue Order

You're forgetting that in Bizarro world, the cyclist is always wrong.

Helmet Head

No, as Al has also pointed out, now you've gone and developed the bad habit of putting words into other people's mouths. Where have I ever written anything that stated or implied that you personally would perform such a pass in such a manner?



Nice dodge.

Helmet Head

I'm not denying that. But nothing the truck driver did wrong has anything to do with the objection that you and Blue Order have to the contention that the cyclist was riding too fast for conditions in violation of the basic speed law.

Blue Order

Sure it does-- it has everything to do with it.

Helmet Head

Blue Order, I think you've stated the case as clearly and persuasively as it could be made. But 21 mph is still arguably too fast for the condition of a cyclist legally passing on the right a truck driver stopped apparently in order to legally yield to the cyclist before turning right, and it's important that we convey this within the cycling community.

21 mph is about as fast as most cyclists could sustain (assuming this is not a downhill), and riding at that speed in these classic right hook conditions is too fast, and clearly not exhibiting appropriate care for the potentially hazardous situation (just as driving 65 mph adjacent to a stopped lane on the freeway is not exhibiting appropriate care for that situation). This is exactly the kind of context in which the basic speed law is supposed to apply, and also why traffic cycling instructors teach not to pass on the right, much less doing it at that speed at a place where the vehicle can and might turn right. It's not requiring you to anticipate the illegal action of another driver, it's about requiring you to anticipate reasonably likely behavior of other drivers.

If you're stopped in the leftmost freeway lane, you are required to signal and look back to make sure it's clear as much as you reasonably can before merging right into the adjacent lane.

The reason driving in that lane at 65 mph adjacent to a lane of stopped traffic is in violation of the basic speed law is not because you need to anticipate the potential illegal behavior of someone suddenly pulling out, but because of the reasonably likely behavior of someone wanting to pull out and not noticing you approaching because you're still so far back just a few seconds before getting there at 65 mph.

Similarly, the reason that cycling in the bike lane at 21 mph when approaching a vehicle signaling right at an intersection is in violation of the basic speed law is not because you need to anticipate the potential illegal behavior of that driver suddenly turning right, but because of the reasonably likely behavior of that driver not noticing you approaching because you're still so far back just a few seconds before getting there at 21 mph, and suddenly turning right in front of, or into, you.

Note that 21 mph is over 30 feet per second. The driver needs to check all the normal places for potentially conflicting vehicular traffic, as well as the bike lane, before turning right, and there is nothing that says he needs to check the bike lane last right before he goes. The bike lane could be clear for over 200 feet when he checks it, and if he hesitates for just a few seconds to make sure it's clear in other directions before proceeding he could still easily cut off the 21 mph cyclist when he turns right. It is simply not reasonably safe to pass at that speed in that situation. I mean, there's a very good basic reason we don't do it, and one way to put is because it's in violation of the basic speed law.




How so?

Nothing the truck driver did wrong has anything to do with the issue of whether the cyclist was riding too fast because 21 mph would have been too fast for the conditions even if the cyclist lucked out and the truck driver did nothing wrong, noticed the cyclist and yielded properly (note: passing a cyclist riding along in a bike lane does not constitute noticing the cyclist, not by a long shot).

The cyclist was in violation of the basic speed law not because the truck driver turned right without noticing the 21 mph cyclist, but because he might have done that (which would have been true whether he actually yielded or not - and thus has nothing to do with whether the truck did anything wrong).

randya

It was a downhill and the truck driver couldn't have checked because his broken mirror was improperly positioned.

Blue Order

I think there's a significant, but perhaps subtle difference between what's "legal" and what's "safe." It's legal to pass vehicles on the right here in Oregon. At intersections, I don't think it's safe, and so I hold back. Nothing in the law requires me to hold back. Similarly, when I drive, and approach an intersection at which I have the right of way, I back off the gas as I enter the intersection, just in case somebody is running the red light. Again, nothing in the law requires me to back off the gas, and in either situation, if another driver violates the law, either by turning right against my right of way, or by running the red light, it is the other driver who is legally at fault, even if I fail to take a simple safety precaution.

I think it's one thing to advise cyclists to take safety precautions above and beyond what the law expects of them. I think it's another thing entirely for the police and Helmet Head to absolve a law-breaking driver of his liability for the crash his law-breaking has caused, and to shift the blame to the cyclist who was riding within the law. That is inexcusable.

It is a downhill, and Brett was ahead of the garbage truck until it passed him on the downhill.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The driver cannot legally make that turn. Therefore, what you're talking about IS requiring the cyclist to anticipate the illegal behavior of the driver. And because the law specifically absolves drivers of that responsibility to anticipate illegal behavior (unless it is plainly obvious that the driver will violate the law), there is no "potentially hazardous situation" that brings the basic speed law into play.

Actually, you're required to signal and look back whether you're stopped or moving.

The driver who is stopped has a legal duty to wait until he can make the lane change safely. If the driver violates that legal duty, he is still at fault, even if the driver who collides with him is also at fault for "speeding." If the driver who is stopped is signaling his intention to change lanes, there may be a duty to approach with caution. If there is a line of cars stopped, there may be a duty to anticipate the reasonably likely behavior of somebody pulling into your lane. If you're traveling on a residential street and children are playing ball at the curb, there is absolutely a duty to anticipate the reasonably likely behavior that one of them may run into the street after the ball, and to adjust your speed accordingly.

If you're traveling through an intersection, there's no duty whatsoever to anticipate that somebody will run the red light, and there's no duty to anticipate that somebody will make a turn across your right of way.

That "not noticing you" part? That's illegal. Any way you try to slice this, Helmet Head, you're attempting to absolve the driver of his violations[s] of the law and shift the blame to the cyclist, just as the PPB did.

A driver can turn across a lane without looking before he proceeds, and he's not both in violation of the law, and negligent?

It's illegal to proceed across somebody's right of way if they are approaching so close as to make it unsafe to proceed. It's illegal to proceed without keeping a proper lookout. It's illegal to fail to yield to bikes in the bike lane. It's not illegal, and it's not negligent, to pass on the right in the bike lane. Perhaps not wise, but definitely not illegal.

There's a very good basic reason engineers build bridges, and lawyers practice law, and it is applicable in this case. The basic speed law is not.

Blue Order

Because the truck driver appeared to be observing the law, and the cyclist was under no legal obligation to anticipate that the truck driver would violate the law. Therefore, there was no "unsafe condition" that would bring the basic speed law into play.


That's not the law.

Helmet Head

Blue Order, you don't seem to be distinguishing the difference between entering/crossing an intersection at 21 mph in a real traffic lane that is not to the right of a traffic lane from which right turns are allowed and entering/crossing an intersection at 21 mph in a bike lane that is to the right of a traffic lane from which right turns are allowed.

The law may not make an explicit distinction either, but it does implicitly in terms of how reasonably expectable behavior is the standard, which is also fundamental to the basic speed law.

Anyway, this illustrates a big problem with bike lanes - they require that drivers operate in a manner that is contrary to the rules of the road they use on roads without bike lanes. In particular, they require that drivers turning right remember to check for and yield to through traffic on their right before turning right, which is an abnormal traffic behavior.

Blue Order

Bicycles are real vehicles, and the bicycle lane is a real traffic lane.

Unless vehicles turning left have their own traffic signal, vehicles turning left at an intersection must yield the right of way to oncoming vehicles, and failure to do so is a violation of the law. No "I didn't see him," no "I thought I could make it," no "I looked a minute ago but didn't look just before I turned." If you fail to yield, you're in violation.

If a vehicle is making a right turn at an intersection, and there is a bike lane to the right of that vehicle, similar rules apply, and the driver's excuses are just as irrelevant, as is the basic speed law.

Helmet Head

Interesting that you find analogy in the two types of situations.

Checking for and yielding to oncoming through traffic prior to turning left across their path is normal traffic behavior.

Checking for and yielding to same-direction through traffic on your right prior to legally turning right across their path is abnormal traffic behavior.

Blue Order

Not in Oregon-- it's the law here.

Allister

Personally, in those circumstances, I'd let the truck make it's turn, either by sitting behind, or passing on the other side (not normally ideal with trucks wide turn radius). I understand the guy was an experienced rider, so I figure there was more to it than that. I'm still struggling to see how this could happen to an experienced cyclist. Right hooks are surely a common enough threat to be wary of them irrespective of what the law says.

Indeed. 'Faster than the truck driver thought he was going', is not the same as 'too fast for conditions.'