randya

https://bikeportland.org/2011/02/15/b...pokesman-47980

B. Carfree

I wish the police spokesperson would explain just how much brighter than the legal requirements a cyclist's rear light must be before the motorist who runs you down isn't allowed to hide behind, "I didn't see the light."

Maybe it's time to put some bikes, with lights, that explode on contact out in the streets. A few "bike explodes motorist" incidents and the motorists will begin seeing the bikes. Or, I suppose there is the nonviolent, legal route of changing our laws to include strict liability like most of Western Europe. Under strict liability (as opposed to our current no liability), a motorist is presumed at fault in all collisions with cyclists/peds unless it can be proven that the cyclist/ped did something that made the wreck absolutely unavoidable such as running into a stopped car.

CB HI

Not surprising from any police department in the Portland area. Blame the cyclist first is their montra.

DX-MAN

I'll bet a friggin' TONGUE OF FIRE spewing off the back of a bike will get a motorist's attention -- properly shielded, even in the rain!

Taillight? We don' need no stinkin' TALLIGHT...!

crhilton

Scary. Absolving the guy because visibility was low...

crhilton

I wonder if police departments like this one would be above simply making things up to get the motorist off. They're not above simply ignoring the law.

RunningPirate

DX, are you suggesting a flame-thrower? That is just scary, dangerous and socially unacceptable. In other words: It's brilliant!

On a more serious note, I understand that DiNotte makes taillights (albeit spendy) that will blind most folks and can be seen from outer-space...but then the defense would be "I was blinded by the light"

beebe

This seems to be a little less clear cut than cyclists want to make it out to be. There's no conclusive evidence that either party was completely at fault, and placing blame just to side with cyclists when there is not enough evidence to make a valid claim of fault is counter-productive. It is entirely reasonable to point out the law stating that one must travel at a speed where they can avoid any obstacles in the road. On the other hand, it is reasonable to ask why any cyclist in their right mind would be stopped in the middle of a 50mph road on a rainy night.

TheHen

Yes, one can wonder why the cyclist was stopped. However, not only will we never be able to ask him, the reason we will never get his answer is because this motorist was operating his vehicle in clear violation of the law. Under Oregon's basic speed law, one must not travel so fast as to put others at risk. If you can run into a legally lit non-moving object, you are clearly outrunning your vision, which is speeding. The motorist is so clearly at fault here that I can't believe anyone could seriously defend him or claim there is any doubt. Really, driving is so much more than just keeping the rubber side down.

crhilton

The cyclist may have some fault, but running into something with a red light on it in the middle of a roadway is not acceptable.

CB HI

And the cops saying that distracted driving did not play any part in the collision this early in the so called investigation speaks volumes to the cops bias.

beebe, do some research on cyclist killed in the Portland area. Boy killed by bus, police claim cyclist fault. Man killed by garbage truck, police claim cyclist fault. Woman killed by cement truck, police claim cyclist fault. And now this case.

RunningPirate

For that matter, if "the bike did not have a light" (or a bright-enough light, for that matter) is the [supposed] reason for these incidents, then how come more folks aren't running in to parked cars? I mean, those don't have any lights, but people manage to avoid them...

iforgotmename

Left turn???

randya

I'm more inclined to wonder if the cyclist was actually stopped, rather than why the cyclist was stopped

randya

reflectors

crhilton

I see your point, but roads like this one don't allow parking for good reason (speed and amount of traffic).

Digital_Cowboy

You know what? I am sick and tired of motorists being able to hit cyclists or pedestrians and then using one of the two most popular "excuses," i.e. "I didn't see you/but, but, but officer I didn't see him," or "but, officer s/he just swerved into my path with no warning."

In this case the undisputed facts are that it was night, it was raining, and it was windy (although I have yet to figure out what the wind has to do with being able to see or not see a cyclist) when the motorist traveling at 50+ MPH (as is the "norm" on said road) when the driver strikes a cyclist. "Everyone" seems to be making all kinds of excuses do to the weather/road conditions as to why the motorist isn't to blame for the crash.

I could be mistaken, but doesn't the law require motorists (and cyclists) to travel at a speed that is safe and reasonable for the conditions at that time? And I am sorry, but if it is night, and raining and visibility is such that a rear taillight that fits the legal requirement is "impossible" to be seen then motorists need to slow their speed so that they CAN see any objects that may be in the road in front of them. I've lost track of the number of cars pulling out of intersections after it's been raining that tires squeal, because the driver is going too fast.

Drivers also need to remember that unless the sign with the speed limit specifically lists both a min and max speed that the speed listed on a speed limit sign is the max under IDEAL conditions. And uh, when was the last time that the conditions at any time of day are ideal for going the posted speed limit?

When a motorist tells a LEO "I didn't see him/her" said LEO needs to take that statement down as the admission of guilt that it is. Because what the motorist is really saying is that "I was too distracted to be paying attention to driving." The same with the "but officer s/he just 'swerved' into my path."

The most likely reason why a cyclist will "just 'swerve'" into the path of a motorist is because they were trying to avoid debris, or other objects in their path. As I think that most of us will agree cyclists rarely swerve into the path of a car or into the travel lane for "no reason" at all. And as has been said isn't it the responsibility of motorists (and cyclists) to travel at such a speed so as to be able to react to any object or person that appears in their path.

hurricane harry

Maybe he was walking his bike through the intersection, which would have made him a pedestrian.

Keith99

A very reasonable point.

In light of your point I'm rethinking jsut how I'm going to take the point that the cyclist was stopped in the 'curb lane'.

If I take that as true it does raise a lot of questions, that is someplace where it makes no sense for a cyclist to be (the road has a bike lane and it seems this is in the intersection, in any case far too late to be getting to the left for a turn).

But what if I don't take it as gospel? What if I ask what is the evidence he was stopped there? Is it only the drivers report? Lacking skidmarks from an attempt to stop it does seem that is the only likely source of the alleged position of the cyclist.

Digital_Cowboy

If I remember correctly, the spokesman was quoted as saying that he didn't know of any "reasonable" reason why a cyclist would stop in the middle of the travel lane of a road where traffic is known to travel at 50+ MPH. Without trying to "clear" the lane. Hmm, there is at least one reason that I can think of. The cyclists pant leg gets caught in the chain. I think that we all know that if one get's their pant leg caught in the chain that until you clear the chain ya ain't going anywhere.

ItsJustMe

Hm, I'm thinking I need a second MagicShine taillight.

B. Carfree

There was something about a witness. Since I rarely see people out walking in the rain in the PNW, I wouldn't be surprised if the only "witness" is the killer. If I had to bet my life and the only two choices are the story as presented or a version in which the motorist struck the cyclist from behind while the cyclist was in the bike lane and then the motorist moved back into the lane to the left of the bike lane, dropping the victim as he moved, I'd go with the latter. I hope more, and more credible, details of this killing emerge.

unterhausen

someone that passed by the scene after the collision said there was a crowd gathered, so there may have been witnesses. It really doesn't sound right, the guy's body may have ended up in the traffic lane, but that doesn't mean that was where he was hit. Apparently there is a wide shoulder to the right of the bike lane there that becomes a right turn lane further down the road. I suspect that speed had something to do with this; I see a lot of people that don't slow down when visibility and conditions would suggest a slower speed.

John E

I suspect motorist speed has a lot to do with this case.

phoebeisis

So the bike lane is set up so the the riders have moving cars on both sides?
Because of the turn lanes, I assume?
Riding a bike at night is especially dangerous.
One reason folks take to the sidewalks at night is to avoid getting run down- not that this is the case here- no sidewalks available.
If you are careful sidewalks can be safer. You can't get run down from behind by a car- not that this is the case here.

Don't give me the " numbers show side walk riding is more dangerous"- this is true for unselected riders, but not for riders aware of sidewalks shortcomings.