Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On 12/9/2010 11:43 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 1:55 am, wrote:


Vehicular Cycling pays minor lip service to 'looked but failed to see'
incidents but insists, contrary to all statistical evidence, that
merely following the basic rules of the road for drivers of vehicles
will bestow upon one all the tools reasonably necessary to avoid them.

Nope, that's a lie. We've been over this repeatedly.

If what you say were true, then the book _Effective Cycling_, the
pamphlet "Street Smarts" and the recognized cycling courses like Smart
Cycling by the LAB, the Florida Bicycle Association's "CycleSavvy"
course, Can-Bike's courses, and Franklin's _Cyclecraft_ wouldn't teach
things like instant turns, emergency braking and other crash avoidance
techniques.

I was curious about what the Quebec Highway code says about your
controlling the lane so I looked it up.

--First your idea about having a right to be on the road is relative:

295. The person responsible for the maintenance of a public highway may,
by means of the proper signs or signals,

(1) indicate traffic stops;
(2) prohibit U-turns at such locations as may be determined by him;
(3) lay out pedestrian walkways;
(4) reserve traffic lanes for certain manoeuvres or for the exclusive
use of bicycles, certain classes of road vehicles or road vehicles
carrying the number of passengers indicated by proper signs;
(4.1) regulate bicycle traffic in a cycle lane;
(4.2) prohibit, limit or otherwise regulate bicycle traffic in lanes
used by road vehicles or in places used by pedestrians;


-- 4.2 should be of note as far as your right to the road.

--Second, a car is not allowed to pass a bike in the same lane unless
it's safe to do so (not sure who determines safe...) and if he has to
cross a solid line he can:

341. No driver of a road vehicle may pass a bicycle within the same
traffic lane unless there is sufficient space to allow him to do so in
safety.
--snip
Exceptions.
344. The driver of a road vehicle may cross a line described in section
326.1 providing that he can do so in safety, to pass a farm tractor or
other farm machine, a road vehicle carrying a slow-moving vehicle sign,
a horse-drawn vehicle or a bicycle.



--And specific to your riding in the middle of the lane, it doesn't look
like it's going to get big support he

487. Subject to section 492, every person on a bicycle must ride on the
extreme right-hand side of the roadway in the same direction as traffic,
except where that space is obstructed or when he is about to make a left
turn.

491. Subject to section 479, no person may ride a bicycle on a public
highway on which the maximum speed allowed is over 50 km/h unless


(1) he uses a cycle lane separated from the roadway and specially laid
out to prevent vehicles from crossing over from the roadway to the cycle
lane or vice versa, or having that effect
(2) he is 12 years of age or over; or
(3) he is taking part in an excursion led by a person of full age.

Cycle lane.
492. Where the public highway includes a cycle lane, persons riding a
bicycle other than a power-assisted bicycle must use the cycle lane.

--I've trimmed things that didn't pertain to bikes so here's the link if
you want to read the whole thing:

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gou...2/C24_2_A.html


I doubt that Quebec is the only place in North America that has these
laws but will you now claim that everyone riding legally in Quebec is
skulking on the "Extreme" right of the road?

On 12/9/2010 11:55 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:43 am, Duane wrote:


Don't you find that people tend to pass you more closely when you take
the whole road and tend to give you more distance when you're somewhat
to the right? That's be my experience for the most part. The maniac
drivers trying to terrorize me are not the norm.

Here's a graph showing the results of one study on that specific
topic. The author says the further he was left, the more clearance he
got. The closest passing happened when the cyclist was furthest to
the right, and they were all in-lane passes, i.e. people who figured
they could sqeeze by without going over the line.

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...gplotchart.jpg

Didn't ask YOU for a study, I asked the guy that I was responding to
what he felt personally.

I can google for "college professors are idiots" and get lots of hits.

On 12/9/2010 12:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:30 am, Duane wrote:


Right but I think that this is only with the "Vehicular Cycling as
Religious Calling" crowd. What I've read of vehicular cycling is just
suggestions on some things that CAN work for you when you're forced into
the road with cars.

For example:http://www.bicyclinglife.com/practic...ng/VCIntro.htm

So to avoid hazardous conditions bicyclists should politely merge left,
and ride nearer the center of a vehicle lane until the hazards are past
-- just as any other driver would do. Some may think this unsafe for
bicyclists, but this is normal practice for all slow drivers: drive to
the right when it s safe, but use a full lane when needed. The law is
the same for bicyclists precisely because this is the best and safest
way to operate a bicycle in traffic. As one police chief says, "It s
just common sense and standard traffic rules."

This one is telling you to move left to avoid hazards, then go back to
the right. But a zealot would interpret this differently. I don't see
anywhere that tells you to not get out of the way if it's not safe.

I certainly don't see anywhere that it tells you "get out of the way
if a truck is behind you." Is that what you meant by "not safe"?

No.


And did you read as far as this?: "Politely taking enough space for
your own safety is the heart and core of safely cycling in traffic.
You can't be safe unless you're willing to take some space; even if
you have to delay some cars."

You have a different understanding of "enough space for your own safety"
than I do. Apparently you need the whole lane to prevent you from being
afraid to ride in front of a truck.

On Dec 9, 1:10*am, RobertH wrote:
On Dec 8, 10:14 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I have NEVER said I always "aim for," or ride in, the middle of a
lane. *I have many times said I share a lane whenever it's safe to do
so. *However, it's not safe to do so in a ten foot lane, unless
perhaps the passing vehicle is a motorcycle or other bicycle.

Right. But when in you are "controlling the lane," as I specified, you
always aim for the general center of the lane?

No.

Is the 'lane-controlling' center lane
position more about theater?

It's not theater, it's practicality. If I can safely let someone
pass, I do so.

Probably on such a street I would be riding close to the middle of the
road, not the middle of the lane. But it massively depends, on so many
things. I also don't mind moving over to help someone pass if
possible. If a street required constant "lane controlling" in front of
anxious traffic I would also try to find a better one.

And I generally prefer to do the same. In fact, I've recently (with
some other cyclists) spent hundreds of hours on a city bike map to
show other cyclists where many of those lesser-known, "better" streets
are.

But there are times there are no "better" streets. There are times
your destination requires riding a street with lanes too narrow to
allow safe passing. We need to preserve our right to ride those
streets safely.

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 9, 1:57*am, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 8, 10:30*pm, James wrote:



Frank Krygowski wrote:

DR picked you up on this once already today.

I have NEVER said I always "aim for," or ride in, the middle of a
lane. *I have many times said I share a lane whenever it's safe to do
so. *However, it's not safe to do so in a ten foot lane, unless
perhaps the passing vehicle is a motorcycle or other bicycle.

In a previous post in this thread you wrote:

* I'm going to continue to ride in the center of the lane,
* and I'm not going to cede
* my legal right to the road out of fear the trucker is really a
* murderer.

Need you be reminded of your own words twice in one day? *Or does
"middle" not also mean "centre" in your dictionary?

Let's add his subsequent:
"Fourth, I rode in Portland again this year. *I absolutely controlled
the lane many times, AS ALWAYS."

Sounds like his standard tactic.

Let me make that clear, if it confused you. Every time I ride, I have
to control the lane sometimes. I did not mean I always ride the
center of every lane.

I have explicitly said MANY times that I share the lane when there is
enough room for safe passing.

- Frank Krygowski

Dan O wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:00 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:38 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 8, 4:54 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
snip



Probably the same place he always rides, being that very few people
shift their position in the lane based on vehicles approaching from
the rear. "Oh, look, its an Escalade, better get left." "No, its
just a Prius, I should ride further right." "But wait, its a
Kenworth, better go down the center." Really, I'm riding a bike, not
a yoyo.
Your hypothetical also assumes that the truck is going to try to pass
you in your own lane rather than cross the centerline and pass at a
safe (and legally required) distance. You can make that assumption
sometimes, but not all the time. And if there is a place where
everyone always tries to pass too closely (I admit, there are such
places), then taking the road may be the safe thing to do. It also
requires you to pull off when there are cars piled up behind you to
let them pass. In that case, you are no different than the slow moving
lawn tractor driving down the road. The fact that you are on a bike
does not make you special and immune from the "slow moving vehicle
must yield" laws.
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. Also, if you want bicycles to be treated like vehicles, then
you can't cherry pick. That simply endorses the view of most
motorists that bicyclists see them self as the chosen ones. In fact, I
ride a bike with the arc of the covenant in a front pannier to part
traffic. That's how chosen I am.


I carry a little picture of some holy lady that they gave me at the
bookstore - right next to my ziplock bag of bandaids.

Is it Bettie Page?
http://www.planetbettie.com/bettiex.htm

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 12/9/2010 12:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Dan O wrote:
On Dec 8, 6:00 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:38 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 8, 4:54 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
snip



Probably the same place he always rides, being that very few people
shift their position in the lane based on vehicles approaching from
the rear. "Oh, look, its an Escalade, better get left." "No, its
just a Prius, I should ride further right." "But wait, its a
Kenworth, better go down the center." Really, I'm riding a bike, not
a yoyo.
Your hypothetical also assumes that the truck is going to try to pass
you in your own lane rather than cross the centerline and pass at a
safe (and legally required) distance. You can make that assumption
sometimes, but not all the time. And if there is a place where
everyone always tries to pass too closely (I admit, there are such
places), then taking the road may be the safe thing to do. It also
requires you to pull off when there are cars piled up behind you to
let them pass. In that case, you are no different than the slow moving
lawn tractor driving down the road. The fact that you are on a bike
does not make you special and immune from the "slow moving vehicle
must yield" laws.
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. Also, if you want bicycles to be treated like vehicles, then
you can't cherry pick. That simply endorses the view of most
motorists that bicyclists see them self as the chosen ones. In fact, I
ride a bike with the arc of the covenant in a front pannier to part
traffic. That's how chosen I am.


I carry a little picture of some holy lady that they gave me at the
bookstore - right next to my ziplock bag of bandaids.

Is it Bettie Page?
http://www.planetbettie.com/bettiex.htm


If not maybe it will be...

On Dec 9, 9:08*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/8/2010 8:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Do you not remember that one of your supporters in this discussion has
frequently bragged about riding sidewalks? *When he said he does, and
you said "what I do depends..." then it certainly sounded to me like
you might ride sidewalks as well.

First, I don't have supporters here. *

I'm talking about James and Dan O. IIRC it was Dan in that case.

Second, your leap of logic
is quite amazing. *Just to clarify though, if I'm in the road
and a truck is screaming up behind me and not going to stop, there
is a possibility that I'm jumping on the sidewalk. *Whereas by your
interpretation, you are going to continue controlling the road.
Good luck with that.

You're describing a terror scene again, and one which I don't seem to
experience. So just how often has that happened to you? Seriously -
is a truck "screaming up behind and not going to stop" a once a week
thing, or once a month, or once a year, or what?

To put it in perspective: I recall _once_ having to ride onto the
shoulder because an oncoming car didn't see me and passed another car,
coming head-on at me. Similarly, I recall _once_ driving my car on a
freeway and having to drive onto the shoulder because an incompetent
semi driver didn't see my car and started merging into my lane. But
those are each once-in-a-lifetime experiences for me, and NOBODY is
saying not to take evasive maneuvers in emergency situations.

But every truck or car approaching from behind is NOT an emergency.
It's a normal part of traffic, and I normally make use of my legal
right to the road...

For example, when the truck is tailgaiting me I'm going to pull to the
side and give him **** as he passes. *I'm not going to continue in the
center of the lane ignoring him.

.... whereas you apparently do cede your right to the road if a truck
drives at your speed, but too closely for your comfort.

You don't read very well do you? *The truck driver is an idiot. *It's
the car passing him and pulling into you that's going to kill you.
Stay there and become road kill then. *Will that prove your point
that you have a right to the road?

I suppose if I do get killed, that will prove I was wrong in that
instance. But let me ask the opposite question: If I have done that
ever since, oh, 1980 or so and have never been killed in the way you
describe, will that prove that I have a right to the road, and that
what I do is safe?

Seriously, what do you think the odds are? IOW, don't you see you're
exaggerating a tiny danger yet again?

- Frank Krygowski

On 12/9/2010 12:37 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Duane considered Wed, 08 Dec 2010
09:35:55 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/7/2010 9:35 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/7/2010 12:06 PM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/7/2010 12:47 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 7, 9:31 am, Duane wrote:
On 12/7/2010 12:43 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I think it's dangerous for a cyclist to ride the road's edge so as to
not displease the trucker. It's unacceptably dangerous to imply to
the trucker (or any motorist) that he's welcome to pass you with only
tiny clearance.

I feel extremely safe handling it the way I do. I'm making a big deal
of it because Duane mocked the fact that I control the trucker's
behavior.

I didn't mock you. I questioned your assertion that you
on a bicycle are controlling the trucker's behavior. This is
only true if the trucker sees you and allows it. I've had cases
where the truck didn't see me and cases where they didn't allow
it.

Your claim that you can control a truck that weighs several tons more
than you traveling at higher speeds than you, in every case is what
is dangerous here. Not cycling.

So DR, what _do_ you do in that situation? 10 foot lane, 8.5 foot
truck. Do you suddenly bail to ride the sidewalk, or do you bump
along in the gutter, or do you control the lane?

Hmm. So staying in my narrow lane when a truck approaches from behind
is what's dangerous? Despite my having done so for decades with no
problems? Not only has it never been a safety problem, I honestly see
no alternative, if I'm going to ride my bike for transportation.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying assuming that it's safe because
you have control is incorrect. I'm saying that thinking that there
are NO dangers is incorrect. I'm saying to practice defensive driving
at all time instead of relying on some illusion of control or some
statistics. Argue against that if you like but stop arguing against
what you say that I say. This started because I said that you have
to be aware that the truck MAY NOT STOP. You seem to be claiming
that that isn't the case because you've never seen it and statistically
it won't happen.

So is letting the truck go by with inches to spare at best safer than
taking the lane? Or will you stop where you can get off the road, and
wait for a gap in traffic before riding that section? (Where I cross an
overpass regularly with a shoulder less than 2 feet wide, this could
mean waiting for hours.)

Better than having the truck run over me? Remember, we're talking about
a truck that doesn't see me or isn't going to stop. Maybe he's texting.

If that's the case, you are going to be ground meat whichever part of
the road you are using, since the truck will only have 9" each side in
the lane.

In which case I'm getting out of the way.

The fact that this kind of collision is very rare demonstrates that
not being seen at all is also very rare. whereas being clipped and
knocked off to the side, or being forced to dive for the shoulder (if
there is one), pavement (sidewalk to usians) or verge is relatively
common if you invite drivers to pass by squeezing into the side.

I'm not sure about how rare. We lost several here this year from being
rear ended. But anyway, there are all sorts of possibilities. My point
is that you can't make some arbitrary statement like Frank is making
that will always be true. It depends on the situation. I don't think
there are any newbies here. I think most of us don't have a problem
riding our bikes.


Frank dreamed up some scenario so that he could ridicule people and call
them cowards skulking in the ditches. I asked what he'd do if the truck
wasn't stopping. Apparently he'd stay in the center of the lane, in the
full knowledge that the truck would eventually stop because
statistically, there aren't many rear end collisions between trucks and
bikes.

What I would do is take the side of the road and throw bricks at the ****er.

And if the trucker is genuinely that aggressive, that could be
regarded as self-defence.
But drivers who are so aggressive as to force you off the road are
very rare.

They are fortunately very rare but unfortunately some do exist and
taking the lane isn't going to work. I posted just one example that
happened to me this season where staying in the center of the lane would
have been a bad idea.


snip

Defensive driving teaches you to assume that the other guy is going to
do the wrong thing and to be ready for it. Ignoring the speeding truck
behind you because you are in control of the lane and statistics say he
will stop is not very defensive.

Defensive driving also teaches that putting yourself in a position to
be seen is a considerable benefit.

Sure. Maybe you can explain to me how being a foot to the left makes
me more visible to the truck, but I agree with that. In fact, my first
response to Frank's "pop quiz" was that I would make sure that I was
visible and if not...

But it doesn't tell you that you can control anything. In fact, it
tells you to be prepared for unexpected behavior. Like don't pull
out in front of a car with his signal on until you know that he's
actually turning.

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.