On Dec 9, 8:23*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 12:46*am, Jay Beattie wrote:





On Dec 8, 9:03*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 8, 9:00*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

On Dec 8, 4:38*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Are you aware of the Trotwood vs. Selz case, and what Bob Mionske and
of course Steve Magas have explained regarding that?

http://ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-1...ase-revisited/

http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/...aking-with-bob...

Yes, they're wrong -- at least in Oregon. *I know that because of
this:

"Evidence was sufficient to support conviction for impeding traffic,
even though defendant's conviction involved his use of bicycle and
definition of offense referred only to motor vehicles; nothing in
vehicle code provided that such offense be applied only to motor
vehicles. ORS 811.130(1), 814.400. State v. Potter (2002) 57 P.3d 944,
185 Or.App. 81."

So, go ahead and impede traffic in Ohio, but not here. *You'll get
busted. *

First, I'd have thought you could talk to Mionske about this. *Both of
you are in PDX, IIRC.

Why would I? *I can read statutes, in fact, I've even written a few.

Um... perhaps because law is more complicated than that? *If statutes
could be perfectly understood by only one lawyer reading and
understanding, there would never be a need to have two opposing
lawyers in court, would there?

The courts frequently agree with my view of statutes, most recently:
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A138923.htm Dealing with
bicycles and the so-called "bicycle bill" : Bicycle Transp. Alliance,
Inc. v. City of Portland, By and Through 133 Or.App. 422, 891 P.2d 692
(1995). Wrongful death statute:Union Bank of California, N.A. v.
Copeland Lumber Yards, Inc.
213 Or.App. 308, 160 P.3d 1032 (2007); UCC: GPL Treatment, Ltd. v.
Louisiana-Pacific Corp.,323 Or. 116, 914 P.2d 682 (1996); Longshore
Act: Trachsel v. Rogers Terminal & Shipping Corp.597 F.3d 947 (9th
Cir. 2010). I could go on . . . and on, really. Exactly what do you
think I do for a day job? Yes, I could be wrong interpreting a
statute, but my error rate is substantially lower than arm-chair
statute readers.


Besides, law has many specialties. *I don't know what's your area of
practice, but the lawyers I know specialize. *One lawyer I know well
does a lot of attorney malpractice cases - which seems to further
indicate not all attorneys are equal!

Your point? "Bicycle law" is hardly a specialty -- it's just run of
the mill fender bender work from the bicyclists perspective. I do
"bicycle law" -- products work for Specialized, Trek and others, but
their products break so infrequently, I rarely get a file. I've also
done a few plaintiffs cases for bicyclists, but the injuries are
rarely significant, and most of the time, there is huge comparative
fault, at least in the cases I've handled. I'm identified with the
defense bar and do not get high profile plaintiffs' cases (too bad, I
could use a contingent fee).


Second, although IANAL, we both know that there are bad decisions.
If, in the case you cite, it seems the conviction was based on a law
regarding _motor_ vehicles, it was a bad decision. *There's no
guarantee that appeals at a high enough level would overturn it (even
the US Supreme Court makes bad decisions) but I expect that someone
willing to pay for appeals would have eventually gotten it reversed.
(And BTW, that would be a productive thing for your BTA to do. *Or the
near-useless LAB.)

A bicycle is treated identically to a motor vehicle for most purposes,
including the impeding statute. *Sorry, that's the law. *The opinion
was correctly decided, and there is no impetus for changing the law.

Hmm. *Correct me if I'm wrong; but ISTM that you're effectively
claiming that if a cyclist can't keep up with the motor vehicles in a
narrow lane, he's not allowed to ride that road.

No, you ride as far right as practicable. If you want to take the
lane, then you have to be travelling at the speed of traffic. If you
cannot travel at the speed of traffic, then you have to yield, viz.,
get out of the lane or off the road.

Correct? *Because you're saying that O.R.S. § 811.130 , although it
specifically says "motor vehicle," must apply also to bicycles. *And
you're saying a cyclist has to ride as far right as "practicable" even
though that statute, § 814.430, *specifically grants permission to a
cyclist "to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is
too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side."

You can operate bicycles side by side so long as you do not impede
traffic: "(e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one
other bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a
single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and
reasonable movement of traffic."

That is really clear, but I could talk to an expert to see if it
actually means something other than the plain language.


So by your logic, is cycling in Oregon legal only where there is
enough pavement width to share side by side with a motor vehicle, or
maybe on downhills?

No. One more time with emphasis. You ride as far right as is
practicable. Cars must pass at a safe distance, defined as follows:

O.R.S. § 811.065

(1) A driver of a motor vehicle commits the offense of unsafe passing
of a person operating a bicycle if the driver violates any of the
following requirements:

(a) The driver of a motor vehicle may only pass a person operating a
bicycle by driving to the left of the bicycle at a safe distance and
returning to the lane of travel once the motor vehicle is safely clear
of the overtaken bicycle. For the purposes of this paragraph, a "safe
distance" means a distance that is sufficient to prevent contact with
the person operating the bicycle if the person were to fall into the
driver's lane of traffic. This paragraph does not apply to a driver
operating a motor vehicle:

(A) In a lane that is separate from and adjacent to a designated
bicycle lane;

(B) At a speed not greater than 35 miles per hour; or

(C) When the driver is passing a person operating a bicycle on the
person's right side and the person operating the bicycle is turning
left.

(b) The driver of a motor vehicle may drive to the left of the center
of a roadway to pass a person operating a bicycle proceeding in the
same direction only if the roadway to the left of the center is
unobstructed for a sufficient distance to permit the driver to pass
the person operating the bicycle safely and avoid interference with
oncoming traffic. This paragraph does not authorize driving on the
left side of the center of a roadway when prohibited under ORS
811.295, 811.300 or 811.310 to 811.325.

(c) The driver of a motor vehicle that passes a person operating a
bicycle shall return to an authorized lane of traffic as soon as
practicable.

(2) Passing a person operating a bicycle in a no passing zone in
violation of ORS 811.420 constitutes prima facie evidence of
commission of the offense described in this section, unsafe passing of
a person operating a bicycle, if the passing results in injury to or
the death of the person operating the bicycle.

(3) The offense described in this section, unsafe passing of a person
operating a bicycle, is a Class B traffic violation.


Fourth, I rode in Portland again this year. *I absolutely controlled
the lane many times, as always. *I specifically remember doing that at
5 PM on a Friday, riding uphill on either Morrison or Taylor, for just
one example. *Ditto on 23rd in the NW, etc. *I didn't get busted.

I do all sorts of stupid things and don't get busted. All the streets
you mentioned are narrow and slow, and typically I'm trying to get
around traffic, particularly riding east (downhill).

You specifically said if I impeded traffic in Oregon (i.e., controlled
a lane that was too narrow to share) I'd get busted. *Sorry, Jay, I
did so many times in Oregon, and saw countless other cyclists do the
same, and nobody got busted. I have to do this at least a little on
every bike ride I take, and I never get busted.

And incidentally, the "stupid thing" would be to squeeze into a door
zone or into a gutter to let someone pass by brushing my left elbow.

I don't disagree with that, and in fact, avoiding door swing may put
you in traffic, but you're not in traffic to "control it" -- you're in
traffic to avoid getting hit by a door. The whole idea of being a
traffic hall monitor is ridiculous. You apparently have not gotten
the flip side of hall monitor activity from cars -- people who want to
cut you off or slow you down because they think you are violating the
law, which they usually do not understand anyway.

Get with Mionske. *See what he says. *Seriously.

The Court of Appeals has answered the question. *I don't need to talk
to Bob...

I think it would be a really good idea. *If nothing else, ask him if
he controls a lane that's too narrow for safe passing. *Ask him why.
You could then report back to us about what he says. *It would be
interesting, don't you agree?

No. I could care less what he says, really. Why waste my time? I
care what the legislature and the appellate courts say. "Bob on the
law" is not a cite I can put in a brief or a trial pleading. "Your
honor, Bob Mionske says that I can block traffic." Wow, that would
win the day! I might as well cite to myself. -- Jay Beattie.