Bicycle Infrastructure and Safety: Death in PDX

On 05/23/2012 10:04 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

snip

I'm not against infrastructure. My point is that infrastructure is
not a guaranty of safety, as it is sometimes sold here in Portland. In
fact, infrastructure engineering and bicycle laws in Portland may
invite right hook accidents. http://www.commuteorlando.com/onther...tions/bikebox/

No, I know you're not and I agree. It's just that in this case, I don't
see how the lane had anything to do with it. If you are in the road in
the right lane and the truck swings out left to try to turn it could be
the same thing.


The truck cannot occupy the bike lane (unlike California, where the
truck would be required to merge in to the bike lane), and right of
way is not clear, i.e. the truck was there first and is signalling
and, in any other state, would have right of way -- yet it must yield
to on-coming bicycle traffic. Under Oregon law, the truck (or car) is
in a situation where it has to execute a right turn from the "second"
lane over -- like exiting a highway from the second lane, in constant
threat of a right hook accident.

If we ride and cars are to the left, even if we have the right of way we
need to pay attention to the cars. Drivers are sometime oblivious.
Right hooks are something that you have to deal with, especially in
areas where riders are forced to keep to the extreme right.


I'm amazed Frank has not chimed in that the accident would have been
avoided if the cyclist had taken the lane and ignored the bike lane.

He must have been indisposed. I'm sure his appearance is imminent. In
PDX, are you legally allowed to ride in the middle of the lane?

On May 24, 5:41*am, Duane wrote:
On 05/23/2012 10:04 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

snip

I'm not against infrastructure. *My point is that infrastructure is
not a guaranty of safety, as it is sometimes sold here in Portland. In
fact, infrastructure engineering and bicycle laws in Portland may
invite right hook accidents.http://www.commuteorlando.com/onther...tions/bikebox/

No, I know you're not and I agree. *It's just that in this case, I don't
see how the lane had anything to do with it. *If you are in the road in
the right lane and the truck swings out left to try to turn it could be
the same thing.

The truck cannot occupy the bike lane (unlike California, where the
truck would be required to merge in to the bike lane), and right of
way is not clear, i.e. the truck was there first and is signalling
and, in any other state, would have right of way -- yet it must yield
to on-coming bicycle traffic. Under Oregon law, the truck (or car) is
in a situation where it has to execute a right turn from the "second"
lane over -- like exiting a highway from the second lane, in constant
threat of a right hook accident.

If we ride and cars are to the left, even if we have the right of way we
need to pay attention to the cars. *Drivers are sometime oblivious.
Right hooks are something that you have to deal with, especially in
areas where riders are forced to keep to the extreme right.

I'm amazed Frank has not chimed in that the accident would have been
avoided if the cyclist had taken the lane and ignored the bike lane.

He must have been indisposed. *I'm sure his appearance is imminent. *In
PDX, are you legally allowed to ride in the middle of the lane?

You are if that's as far right as practicable.

This is about a year old, FWIW:

http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/26/b...-legally-53505

On 05/24/2012 11:27 AM, Dan O wrote:

snip

He must have been indisposed. I'm sure his appearance is imminent. In
PDX, are you legally allowed to ride in the middle of the lane?

You are if that's as far right as practicable.

This is about a year old, FWIW:

http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/26/b...-legally-53505

For us it's:
487. Every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme right-hand side
of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except when about to
make a left turn, when travel against the traffic is authorized or in
cases of necessity.

On May 24, 9:07*am, Duane wrote:
On 05/24/2012 11:27 AM, Dan O wrote:

snip

He must have been indisposed. *I'm sure his appearance is imminent. *In
PDX, are you legally allowed to ride in the middle of the lane?

You are if that's as far right as practicable.

This is about a year old, FWIW:

http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/26/b...e-lane-legally...

For us it's:
487. Every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme right-hand side
of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except when about to
make a left turn, when travel against the traffic is authorized or in
cases of necessity.

"Extreme" sounds a little extreme, but hopefully "necessity" is
interpreted "reasonably".

On 5/24/2012 1:24 PM, Dan O wrote:
On May 24, 9:07 am, wrote:
On 05/24/2012 11:27 AM, Dan O wrote:

snip

He must have been indisposed. I'm sure his appearance is imminent. In
PDX, are you legally allowed to ride in the middle of the lane?

You are if that's as far right as practicable.

This is about a year old, FWIW:

http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/26/b...e-lane-legally...

For us it's:
487. Every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme right-hand side
of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except when about to
make a left turn, when travel against the traffic is authorized or in
cases of necessity.

"Extreme" sounds a little extreme, but hopefully "necessity" is
interpreted "reasonably".

I doubt if "in cases of necessity" is interpreted "I will always ride in
the center of the lane because I'm controlling traffic and it's safer
for me."

I know that I don't have to ride in potholes or through rubbish and
glass etc. though we don't have much rubbish and glass on the roads in
Montreal. Potholes we're famous for but you find them mostly in the
lanes where there's truck traffic, not on the side or in bike lanes. I
know that I can also avoid door zones and pedestrians. Anything else, I
guess I'll find out when the tickets get issued.

On May 24, 9:07*am, Duane wrote:
On 05/24/2012 11:27 AM, Dan O wrote:

snip

He must have been indisposed. *I'm sure his appearance is imminent. *In
PDX, are you legally allowed to ride in the middle of the lane?

You are if that's as far right as practicable.

This is about a year old, FWIW:

http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/26/b...e-lane-legally...

For us it's:
487. Every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme right-hand side
of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except when about to
make a left turn, when travel against the traffic is authorized or in
cases of necessity.

The obligation to ride far right in Oregon only applies when the rider
is traveling less than the speed of traffic. Where the accident
occurred (going down hill, in town on fairly busy street), it's
practically impossible not to travel the speed of traffic.

The "bad" statute is the one that requires bicyclists to be in bicycle
lanes, if they are present.

814.420: Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty.

(1) Except asprovided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a
person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if
the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not
a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is
adjacent to or near the roadway.

(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the
state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds,
after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is
suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.

(3) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if
the person is able to safely move out of the bicycle lane or path for
the purpose of:

(a) Overtaking and passing another bicycle, a vehicle or a pedestrian
that is in the bicycle lane or path and passage cannot safely be made
in the lane or path.
(b) Preparing to execute a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions.
(d) Preparing to execute a right turn where a right turn is
authorized.
(e) Continuing straight at an intersection where the bicycle lane or
path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must turn
right.
(4) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle
lane or path, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §700; 1985 c.
16 §338; 2005 c.316 §3]

Rarely enforced, but still a stupid law. -- Jay Beattie.

On 5/24/2012 3:23 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On May 24, 9:07 am, wrote:
On 05/24/2012 11:27 AM, Dan O wrote:

snip

He must have been indisposed. I'm sure his appearance is imminent. In
PDX, are you legally allowed to ride in the middle of the lane?

You are if that's as far right as practicable.

This is about a year old, FWIW:

http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/26/b...e-lane-legally...

For us it's:
487. Every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme right-hand side
of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except when about to
make a left turn, when travel against the traffic is authorized or in
cases of necessity.

The obligation to ride far right in Oregon only applies when the rider
is traveling less than the speed of traffic. Where the accident
occurred (going down hill, in town on fairly busy street), it's
practically impossible not to travel the speed of traffic.

The "bad" statute is the one that requires bicyclists to be in bicycle
lanes, if they are present.

814.420: Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty.

(1) Except asprovided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a
person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if
the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not
a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is
adjacent to or near the roadway.

(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the
state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds,
after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is
suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.

(3) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if
the person is able to safely move out of the bicycle lane or path for
the purpose of:

(a) Overtaking and passing another bicycle, a vehicle or a pedestrian
that is in the bicycle lane or path and passage cannot safely be made
in the lane or path.
(b) Preparing to execute a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions.
(d) Preparing to execute a right turn where a right turn is
authorized.
(e) Continuing straight at an intersection where the bicycle lane or
path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must turn
right.
(4) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle
lane or path, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §700; 1985 c.
16 §338; 2005 c.316 §3]

Rarely enforced, but still a stupid law. -- Jay Beattie.

We are not forced to use bike paths when existing but are forced to use
bike lanes with the same "unless they're too dangerous" proviso. At any
rate, the "extreme right" requirement would seem to mean in a bike lane
if it existed. Under normal conditions, I'd be in the lane anyway.
They're usually found on streets with fast moving traffic and I don't
remember seeing one that is on a street where parking is allowed. Why
not use it?

The rider to allow us to NOT use bike paths was explicitly written into
the law when some idiots tried to force cyclists on them.

On May 24, 12:23*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On May 24, 9:07*am, Duane wrote:









On 05/24/2012 11:27 AM, Dan O wrote:

snip

He must have been indisposed. *I'm sure his appearance is imminent.. *In
PDX, are you legally allowed to ride in the middle of the lane?

You are if that's as far right as practicable.

This is about a year old, FWIW:

http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/26/b...e-lane-legally....

For us it's:
487. Every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme right-hand side
of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except when about to
make a left turn, when travel against the traffic is authorized or in
cases of necessity.

The obligation to ride far right in Oregon only applies when the rider
is traveling less than the speed of traffic. Where the accident
occurred (going down hill, in town on fairly busy street), it's
practically impossible not to travel the speed of traffic.

The "bad" statute is the one that requires bicyclists to be in bicycle
lanes, if they are present.

814.420: Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty.

(1) Except asprovided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a
person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if
the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not
a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is
adjacent to or near the roadway.

(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the
state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds,
after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is
suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.

(3) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if
the person is able to safely move out of the bicycle lane or path for
the purpose of:

(a) Overtaking and passing another bicycle, a vehicle or a pedestrian
that is in the bicycle lane or path and passage cannot safely be made
in the lane or path.
(b) Preparing to execute a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions.
(d) Preparing to execute a right turn where a right turn is
authorized.
(e) Continuing straight at an intersection where the bicycle lane or
path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must turn
right.
(4) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle
lane or path, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §700; 1985 c.
16 §338; 2005 c.316 §3]

Rarely enforced, but still a stupid law. -- Jay Beattie.

Yeah, that to me is the worst thing about facilities - any requirement
to use them that restricts options. But I like the exception for
"avoiding debris", since *every* bike lane (IME) has more debris than
the adjacent (motor) lanes. I don't kid myself that a judge would buy
this, and have heard they come down pretty hard about this law when it
does reach the bench, but *logically* it seems pretty ironclad to me.
I also read of judgment that bike lanes are *presumed* to have been
found safe and suitable by the state or local authority - that the
public hearing means... um... well, I don't know (sounds good, though,
doesn't it).

On May 24, 3:11*pm, Dan O wrote:
On May 24, 12:23*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:





On May 24, 9:07*am, Duane wrote:

On 05/24/2012 11:27 AM, Dan O wrote:

snip

He must have been indisposed. *I'm sure his appearance is imminent. *In
PDX, are you legally allowed to ride in the middle of the lane?

You are if that's as far right as practicable.

This is about a year old, FWIW:

http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/26/b...e-lane-legally...

For us it's:
487. Every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme right-hand side
of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except when about to
make a left turn, when travel against the traffic is authorized or in
cases of necessity.

The obligation to ride far right in Oregon only applies when the rider
is traveling less than the speed of traffic. Where the accident
occurred (going down hill, in town on fairly busy street), it's
practically impossible not to travel the speed of traffic.

The "bad" statute is the one that requires bicyclists to be in bicycle
lanes, if they are present.

814.420: Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty.

(1) Except asprovided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a
person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if
the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not
a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is
adjacent to or near the roadway.

(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the
state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds,
after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is
suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.

(3) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if
the person is able to safely move out of the bicycle lane or path for
the purpose of:

(a) Overtaking and passing another bicycle, a vehicle or a pedestrian
that is in the bicycle lane or path and passage cannot safely be made
in the lane or path.
(b) Preparing to execute a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions.
(d) Preparing to execute a right turn where a right turn is
authorized.
(e) Continuing straight at an intersection where the bicycle lane or
path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must turn
right.
(4) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle
lane or path, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §700; 1985 c.
16 §338; 2005 c.316 §3]

Rarely enforced, but still a stupid law. -- Jay Beattie.

Yeah, that to me is the worst thing about facilities - any requirement
to use them that restricts options. *But I like the exception for
"avoiding debris", since *every* bike lane (IME) has more debris than
the adjacent (motor) lanes. *I don't kid myself that a judge would buy
this, and have heard they come down pretty hard about this law when it
does reach the bench, but *logically* it seems pretty ironclad to me.
I also read of judgment that bike lanes are *presumed* to have been
found safe and suitable by the state or local authority - that the
public hearing means... um... well, I don't know (sounds good, though,
doesn't it).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's pretty much a non-issue for me except in a couple of places where
I elect to take the road and not some snaking bicycle by-pass. What
get's me are motorist being unfamiliar with the exceptions to the rule
-- like whenever I pull around a bike or move out to avoid a hazard,
cars go whizzing by honking, and sometimes people yell "get in the
bike lane," etc. I feel like yelling, "read the f****** vehicle
code." That's the deal with Portland, everyone thinks he's an expert
-- I used to get flipped off; now I get a lecture, which is usually
wrong.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 25/05/12 10:45, Jay Beattie wrote:
On May 24, 3:11 pm, Dan wrote:

Yeah, that to me is the worst thing about facilities - any requirement
to use them that restricts options. But I like the exception for
"avoiding debris", since *every* bike lane (IME) has more debris than
the adjacent (motor) lanes. I don't kid myself that a judge would buy
this, and have heard they come down pretty hard about this law when it
does reach the bench, but *logically* it seems pretty ironclad to me.
I also read of judgment that bike lanes are *presumed* to have been
found safe and suitable by the state or local authority - that the
public hearing means... um... well, I don't know (sounds good, though,
doesn't it).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's pretty much a non-issue for me except in a couple of places where
I elect to take the road and not some snaking bicycle by-pass. What
get's me are motorist being unfamiliar with the exceptions to the rule
-- like whenever I pull around a bike or move out to avoid a hazard,
cars go whizzing by honking, and sometimes people yell "get in the
bike lane," etc. I feel like yelling, "read the f****** vehicle
code." That's the deal with Portland, everyone thinks he's an expert
-- I used to get flipped off; now I get a lecture, which is usually
wrong.

For some strange reason, there is a marked change in motorists attitude
from the city side of Ringwood to the other. I regularly ride through
there on a Saturday morning, and from the Melbourne city to Ringwood on
Whitehorse Rd there is rarely a problem. From Box Hill to Ringwood it
is a 3 lane road, with 70 - 80 km/h speed limits. As soon as you go
through Ringwood and out to Lilydale, the driver mentality changes
abruptly for the worst. We still have 3 lanes to play in, and the speed
limits are still 70-80 km/h, yet the number of asses (donkeys) that hang
out of their car/truck window yelling at us to ride single file is just
incredible. They toot their horns and pass angrily and aggressively,
shaking their fists and mouth off. There must be something in the air -
and it ain't love!

--
JS.