Tip of the Hat to Commissioner Sam Adams who closed the right turn from Interstate onto Greeley after the second serious car/bike crash in two weeks.
Wag of the Finger to the Portland Police Bureau who declined to issue a citation or conduct an investigation despite eyewitness accounts that would suggest the possibility of erratic driving by the operator of the car.
65 responses to “Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger: Interstate and Greeley”
Closing this intersection was the necessary step. The long term solution there isn’t easy, however.
Really, though, when are the police going to start ticketing motorists for failing to yield the right of way to cyclists in their lane, as the law requires? If drivers had a better sense of their legal obligations, these types of accidents wouldn’t be as common. This is the third time the police have publicly stated, in effect, that the law isn’t being enforced. Most people will read that as ‘keep doing what you’re doing, it’s all the cyclists’ fault.’
There need to be enforcement actions. Stings. And the press needs to be there to document it.
What can the public do to help make this happen? Citizen complaints?
Stings cost money. Find a way to fund the OT, and you can probably get the departments to undertake them.
All the reports I have seen indicate the truck was displaying turn signals, and the cycle breezed by and was struck, was the bicycle fault all the way…
I see far too many bikes disregarding the lights and signals… all over town, breezing through against red seems a spot to some… sorry about the death but he seemed to have it coming…
Dick, do you even know what the laws are? Doesn’t matter if he had his signal on: the bike had the right to pass. Your comments are beyond callous. Have you ever ridden a bike?
Dick Barnard, if you are referring to the recent death at Interstate & Greeley you are absolutely 100% incorrect in your assumptions. In this case both bicyclist and garbage truck were stopped at the light at the top of the hill at Interstate & Overlook. Once green, both began to descend the hill. The garbage truck overtook the bicyclist, passed the bicylist, then proceeded to turn right directly in front of the bicyclist who was traveling legally and properly down the bike lane.
I don’t expect to alter your obvious stereotypes regarding the bicyclist community but I do expect you to report factual reality if you choose to espouse your opinions.
If you read the comments posted on the Trib’s coverage of this story, you will be shocked and dismayed at the lack of understanding of the laws pertaining to this case, to say nothing of the saddening lack of humanity displayed by the subhumans posting there.
Once green, both began to descend the hill. The garbage truck overtook the bicyclist, passed the bicylist, then proceeded to turn right directly in front of the bicyclist who was traveling legally and properly down the bike lane.
Has anyone determined the speed of the bicyclist? It seems that the truck passed him, then he caught up as he gained speed downhill. He skidded before he hit the truck. I think this is a lot less clearcut than we would like to think.
Unfortunately Dick seems to reflect common ignorance about the responsibility of drivers when turning across a bike lane. The bike has the right-of-way just as a pedestrian would if they were in the crosswalk. Of course, a lot of drivers ignore that as well. I have seen drivers simply slowly force their way through a crowded crosswalk, knowing the pedestrians will stop rather than walk in front them and their ton of steel.
Here is a good editorial that appeared in the nw examiner, there is no on line version of this so i scanned it;
“Share the road with bicycles” is the motto, but the nature of the conflict between cars and bikes on Portland streets often resembles a war. That conflict produced a tragedy on West Burnside last month when a young bicyclist was run over by a cement truck. Two weeks later, a young man was crushed by a garbage truck in North Portland.
Unfortunately, they were the kind of acci dents that could happen again. Both trucks were turning right and apparently didn’t or couldn’t see the riders on their right. Neither driver was cited. Local art student Tracey Sparling was following traffic laws and usual procedures when she pulled away from a stop light. Riding in the bike lane alongside the truck, she was apparently too low and too close to the truck’s mirrors to be seen.
When the worst kind of tragedy can occur without negligence on anyone’s part, there is something terribly wrong with the rules and practices at play. Until we change something, only luck and circumstance will avert c’ontinual collisions.
The tired refrain that bicyclists should sim ply follow the same traffic laws that apply to motor vehicl¢p, is unrealistic. If they ride in the middle of a lane: drivers will congest in road rage behind them. If they ride between the traffic lane and the parking lane, they are vul nerable to opening car doors and are extremely hard to account for by motorists making right turns in front of them. We still have no answer for this particular situation.
When I’m behind the wheel, I’ve found righttQrns in front of bikers extremely dicey. One has to allow considerable clearance, because the biker may gain on you as you slow
‘down to turn. There’s no obvious way to read whether the cyclist intends to pass before you turn or to let you turn first.
Conventional traffic laws never allow a vehicle to turn across a lane of same-direction traffic, yet this procedure across bike lanes is required on many of our busy streets. If it’s too dangerous when cars are in the right-hand lane, for cars to try this, it’s certainly too dan gerous when bikes are there.
Instead of facing this and other dangerous predicaments created by mixing bicycles and cars on busy streets, our bike-friendly city advises us to watch for bicyclists. Higher fines are proposed for hitting bikers. The burden is put on motorists to exercise more care. Mean while, any reduction in the prerogatives of bike riders is seen as a surrender to auto-oriented culture.
This is where I see the parallels to war time thinking. Bicycle-first forces know the inherent dangers in our current system. They believe safety will improve when enough riders climb on two wheels to change the pace and protocol on the roadways. Until that happy day, thet;e will be martyrs to the cause, and each one will be memorialized as a victim of a system that favors motor vehicles over bicycles.
Believe it or not, I favor their goal. I would like a city where biking and walking were
the primary means of travel and auto use was severely limited. This is no fantasyland to anyone who has been to Europe or almost any major college campus in America.
The question is how we get there. I want a safety-first approach that promotes bike rid ing by making it so safe and comfortable that “average” people will take it up as a matter
of convenience and pleasure. We need bike paths separated from vehicular traffic for main routes. When it’s not possible to provide phys ical separation between the modes of travel, bike riders should be directed to side streets. Promising safety measures have been offered in the aftermath of the two recent tragedies, but there is still a reluctance to give up on the notion that cyclists and drivers can be taught to share busy roadways.
I see the city’s present strategy as embold eningthe hardcore riders with the righteous ness of their cause and tolerating collisions as the unavoidable price of victory. This strategy may get us to the bicycle :Mecca many dream of, but I worry about the long (perhaps unend ing) war before we get there. Being on the right side of the law (or the right side of a vehide) can be deadly.
Even the law is not as clear as Ross suggests:
ORS 811.415 (2)(c) “Overtaking and passing upon the right is permitted if the overtaking vehicle is a bicycle that may safely make the passage under the existing conditions.”
Otherwise, the biker commits the offense of “unsafe passing on the right.”
Whether or not a motorist is violating ORS 811.050 “Failure to yield to rider on bicycle lane” or ORS 811.060 “Vehicular assault of bicyclist or pedestrian” is not under the control of a cyclist. The cyclist can, however, if properly educated, avoid violating ORS 811.415 (2)(c).
In my first year of cycling on Portland streets, 1970, I made my first and last mistake of unsafely passing on the right. I survived with a few scrapes. I am glad that the intersection in question is being closed, because even an experienced cyclist can be suckered into an unsafe situation by laws or lane markings that have no physical ability to ward off death.
As a regular bike commuter I am always ready to be safe, even if that means being illegal. That is what the Street teaches.
Unfornately “safe & legal” does not exist. Had Tracy run the red on Burnside (assuming she saw a gap), she would still be with us. Same with Brett…had he taken the lane in front of the truck, he would have been fine.
Enough of this rant against bikers who run stop signs, lights, etc….we are doing it in part because that is safer. We are taught this every day by the “school of the streets.” If you don’t believe me…get on a bike and check it out. And for sure, if we misjudge a situation, we pay big time in life and limb. Police policy against bike riders only makes it worse…we have the added distraction of watching for cops in addition to all the vehicles that could do us in.
ORS 811.415 (2)(c) “Overtaking and passing upon the right is permitted if the overtaking vehicle is a bicycle that may safely make the passage under the existing conditions.”
Otherwise, the biker commits the offense of “unsafe passing on the right.”
Doug, your interpretation of this law in regards to ORS 811.050 is incorrect. The law you reference (ORS 811.415 (2)(c)) applies only when bicyclists and automobiles are traveling in the SAME lane of travel, not when bikes are traveling on a designated bike lane next to a vehicle lane.
Under Oregon law bike lanes are legally considered the same as if it was an additional vehicular traffic lane. Oregon law requires motor vehicles to first yield the right-of-way to bicyclists occupying the bike lane, just as vehicles changing lanes on a multi-lane roadway must first yield the right-of-way to other vehicles occupying the lane the driver would like to enter.
The cyclist can, however, if properly educated, avoid violating ORS 811.415 (2)(c).
If a biker is traveling in a designated bike lane, they will never violate ORS 811.415 (2)(c) under ANY circumstances as this law was not intended for nor applicable to streets with bike lanes.
If you really want to fix the problem, put every police officer on a bike and take away their car. The streets will be safe for bicyclists within a couple months.
The law is pretty meaningless if your dead!
Adam Photographic: if stings cost so much money, why does the Portland Police department set up so many stings against cyclists all over town?
Seems like those stings are exempt from your logic; I heard that while one of those stings on cyclists was in progress, another cyclist got hit at the same intersection of Interstate/Greeley. Maybe if the police was running a sting at that location, nobody would be hurt today.
Let’s see, three cyclists run over in the past month, two killed, motorists at partial or full fault in all cases, zero citations. It seems PPB isn’t much interested in protecting cyclists. The pattern is pretty clear – I wonder why it is so.
Kudos to Commissioner Adams and PDOT for trying to improve things, but it sure would be nice if PPB was interested in doing their jobs.
The law is pretty meaningless if your dead!
This is part of the problem. As the NW Examiner writer notes, he isn’t always sure when turning whether the cyclist will stop and wait or go through. If someone has their signal on, I assume they are going to turn in front of me and stop. I may have the law on my side, but I don’t want to be dead. For drivers, however, that makes cyclists’ behavior unpredictable which is bad for all of us.
Every time I ride my bike I try to remember that most people in cars are at least somewhat high, drunk or distracted. I also try to remember what it might feel like to be crushed to death by a cement truck.
This is riding defensively.
Now, if only drivers might imagine waking up every day for the rest of their lives, knowing that they killed someone. Worse than citations, and who’s right, who’s wrong.
This would make more defensive DRIVERS.
Dan,
You can claim that “Under Oregon law bike lanes are legally considered the same as if it was an additional vehicular traffic lane.” That doesn’t make it so. The courts might or might not agree with you, but it sure doesn’t say that in the statutes (give me a quote if it does).
Regardless of the law, it was obviously unsafe what the dead cyclists did. If the law does mean what you say it does, it will only invite more deaths. I learned the hard way not to ride to the right of motorists who might not see or remember me, but at least I wasn’t injured or killed by the lesson.
Closing the “Right Turn” option is overkill. Now
drivers will burn more fuel to get back to that
point to go on the street they wanted to turn into. I don’t know if there’s a perfect fix (after all, some drivers will still make a right
turn there and cyclists will assume none will),
but the cyclists will be the losers in any of
these collisions (metal vs soft bodies) so no
matter they may assume or expect, they got to
LOOK! LOOK! And LOOK AGAIN!
Bob T
To answer some questions–I have two bikes and very much enjoy riding on a decent day, not suitable for riding in the rain or snow, and the law is pretty clear, the biker in this case was wrong, there was not room on the right to pass safely, so he paid the ultimate penalty… the driver was not cited.. so bikers join me while riding and stop for stop lights and signs…
the law is pretty clear, the biker in this case was wrong,
No Dick. This is not a legally debatable issue. The biker was no more responsible than a pedestrian in a crosswalk. The driver has to make sure no one is in the bike lane, the same way the driver is responsible for making sure there is no one in the crosswalk when turning right.
I am beginning to agree with the folks who have called for citations to be issued against these drivers. And there definitely needs to be re-testing of drivers. Its pretty clear a lot of people don’t know what the law is.
ORS 811.050 Failure to yield to rider on bicycle lane; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure of a motor vehicle operator to yield to a rider on a bicycle lane if the person is operating a motor vehicle and the person does not yield the right of way to a person operating a bicycle, electric assisted bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, moped, motor assisted scooter or motorized wheelchair upon a bicycle lane.
How plain does it need to be?
“the biker in this case was wrong, there was not room on the right to pass safely,”
The biker was not attempting to pass anyone. The biker was traveling straight down a completely separate, designated travel lane.
“so bikers join me while riding and stop for stop lights and signs…”
Again… there was NO STOP LIGHT or STOP SIGN.
I told you before and you continue ignore it. So I’ll say it again Dick. I don’t expect to alter your stereotypes regarding the bicyclist community but I do expect you to report factual reality if you choose to espouse your opinions.
To Doug:
“Regardless of the law, it was obviously unsafe what the dead cyclists did.”
How is a dump truck passing a bicyclist and then subsequently making a right hand turn directly into a biker the bicyclists fault?
“If the law does mean what you say it does, it will only invite more deaths. I learned the hard way not to ride to the right of motorists who might not see or remember me, but at least I wasn’t injured or killed by the lesson.”
Regardless, the biker who was killed DID NOT PASS the vehicle on the right, so your entire claim that the biker may have violated some law or was inherently unsafe is an utterly moot point as the scenario you are presenting never even happened.
What is with you two? Do you just make up scenarios and manipulate facts that fit your ideology and then present it as truth?
How about this scenerio: What if it had been an automobile traveling down a separate designated lane of travel on Interstate instead of a bicyclist. Would you be still be blaming that driver and be calling them unsafe for traveling to the right of the dump truck? Telling them that it was their fault because they should have known and anticipated that the truck to their left may be about to cut to the right directly in front of them? I HIGHLY doubt you would. You’d be blaming the dump truck who cut the other driver off.
Closing this right turn was the right decision. It should never have been designed into the intersection when MAX was built. Relatively few vehicles make the turn from s-bound Interstate to n-bound Greeley…unless they are lost. Closing it is a wise and overdue safety adjustment.
How is a dump truck passing a bicyclist and then subsequently making a right hand turn directly into a biker the bicyclists fault?
Again Dan, its not clear that is what happened. I keep hearing different versions. One has them leaving the light at the top of the hill at the same time. Essentially the driver pulled ahead of the bicyclist who then caught up with him at the bottom of the hill. He skidded before he hit the truck. Its not clear at all that the bicyclist wasn’t over the speed limit – it isn’t really hard to do on that hill. So now you have a driver who had no reason to expect a high-speed vehicle to be passing on his right.
That doesn’t make the driver right. It just makes the responsibility shared. As it is in most accidents.
Relatively few vehicles make the turn from s-bound Interstate to n-bound Greeley
Right. Because the real alternative for most southbound trucks is Going.
Typically, I have taken the traffic lane on that stretch of Interstate, because the hill is steep enough that I can travel at the speed limit. Probably, to be legal, I should use the bike lane. But hey, I’m still alive. I think I’ll stick with my strategy. :/
Nuovo –
The solution for that hill may be to get rid of the bike lane. People ought to take the lane when they can anyway. And most people can there.
Dan,
Did I state that “a dump truck passing a bicyclist and then subsequently making a right hand turn” was the cyclist’s fault? No.
Did I state any facts (much less manipulate them) regarding any of the accidents? No.
I am pleased that this intersection will be closed. As a cyclist, I am in favor of actions that improve safety for cyclists.
However, I think that cyclist education will save more lives than obsessing about giving tickets to motorists after the fact. Had the cyclists known the “five points of the Smith System” which I first learned back in (automobile) Drivers Ed in the nineteen sixties, they would have had at least three mental tools that might have helped them to avoid injury or death. While I agree that it can be useful as a cyclist to “know your rights” I believe that it is essential for cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists to be educated how to walk, ride, and drive defensively.
“That doesn’t make the driver right. It just makes the responsibility shared. As it is in most accidents.”
I’m not claiming that the biker was completely in the right. However, I am pointing out that the scenarios that Doug and Dick are putting forth to place fault on the bicyclist are COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE given the factors that ARE known (there was no red light, there was no stop sign, nobody was trying to pass on the right) and the transportation infrastructure that IS in place (two southbound designated lanes of travel). Yet somehow, there is a strange insistence in clinging to impossibilities.
That being said, I will definitely grant that fault cannot be entirely attributed to the driver.
Dan,
I put forth no scenarios placing fault on any cyclists.
However, I think that cyclist education will save more lives than obsessing about giving tickets to motorists after the fact.
“Education” is more than giving people information and expecting them to remember it. The problem is that several people here have apparently concluded from the lack of tickets given in these two incidents that the drivers were not in violation.
The fact that they are firmly convinced a cyclist in a bike lane is supposed to yield to a vehicle turning right reflects experience. A lot of us, me included, give the vehicle the right of way.
They have been mis-educated by experience and had that education reinforced by the lack of tickets in these two incidents.
Doug, I reflected on your comments and I see that you don’t explicitly state that the accident was the bikers fault. Your words do seem to indicate to me however that it was only due to his actions that the incident occurred. From those statements I construed that you placed fault on the bicyclist. For that I apologize.
Ultimately, it appears that we simply disagree on what defines a lane of travel, and the legal obligations of roadway users.
On a last note, perhaps I should have put this out earlier. I am a daily bike commuter who travels down Interstate Avenue. I know precisely the dangers that bikers are exposed to going down this hill. Do I ride my bike down the hill, oblivious to the world and singing “The Law is on my side!” No, of course not. I am instead intimately aware of my surroundings and completely aware of the dangers that vehicles descending the hill pose to me. Dangers, by the way, that are completely irrelevant of the speed that I am traveling on my bike. This astuteness while biking, however, is no excuse for others, particularly drivers, to not exhibit their own.
I have only seen one post in this thread saying that the motorists who turned were not at fault.
I hope Ross is not suggesting that cyclists should pass a moving vehicle on the right when it has right turn signals on or is slowing down as it is approaching an intersection. They may have the legal right-of-way in a bike lane, but, as Ross himself does, they must be taught that they can’t trust the law to protect their safety.
“Regardless of the law, it was obviously unsafe what the dead cyclists did.”
That is the straw man argument of the week: You could make the same statement about people that “got in the way of a bullet”, even if the person that fired said bullet had been aiming for them.
Although the law says that bicycles have to ride in the bike lane if there is one, and while I regularly leave the bike lane to go on the left side of right turning cars, that is actually illegal.
“Its not clear at all that the bicyclist wasn’t over the speed limit – it isn’t really hard to do on that hill.”
It isn’t hard to do on a bicycle, but I have a hard time imagining that the garbage truck would have beat them down the hill if they hadn’t been going too fast too. Garbage trucks just don’t accelerate very quickly, and he would have had to slow down to make the curve. So if the bicyclist was really going 35+, it seems like the bicyclist would have passed the garbage truck before they made the turn, unless the garbage truck was doing 35+ as well.
Matthew –
We are talking about a guy who trained as a racer, I suspect he could have been going well over 35 mph. I don’t know what his acceleration is, but I doubt it is greater than a garbage truck coming out of the flat stretch starting from the light.
Its obvious he was behind the truck and moving fast if he skidded into it. Depending on his speed he may not have been visible again to the truck until just before he hit it.
Isn’t the trucks speed down the hill is really irrelevant? The problem at the corner had nothing to do with the truck speed.
I hope Ross is not suggesting that cyclists should pass a moving vehicle on the right when it has right turn signals on or is slowing down as it is approaching an intersection.
I am suggesting that they should be safe doing that. Just as I think pedestrians should be able to safely cross in a crosswalk without being run over by vehicles making a turn.
I assume I should be able to safely cross the street in front of a car stopped at a stop sign. But I have almost got run over several times and now try to make eye contact and if I can’t wait until the car pulls out. Even with that I almost got hit once by the next car who barely paused at the stop sign assuming I would stay out of the way.
I live in the world as it is, not as I think it should be. But I note a certain willingness here to defend the world as it is regardless and I don’t think we have to accept that it will be unsafe for anyone not sheathed in a ton of steel.
We are talking about a guy who trained as a racer, I suspect he could have been going well over 35 mph. I don’t know what his acceleration is, but I doubt it is greater than a garbage truck coming out of the flat stretch starting from the light.
I’ve hit 42 on Greeley, which isn’t as steep, (and legal,) and I haven’t trained as anything. (And I do it because it is actually safer: I’m going faster than the cars/trucks coming off of Swan Island, so I can actually make the merge at rush hour.) But that is kind of irrelevant, we don’t issue speeding tickets to everyone that drives sports cars just cause “they could have gone over the speed limit,” the ability to commit the crime has never implied guilt. I doubt that Brett’s acceleration is faster (at least that day) than a garbage truck too, cause if it was, he’d probably still be alive, but I don’t think it is that far behind…
“Its obvious he was behind the truck and moving fast if he skidded into it. Depending on his speed he may not have been visible again to the truck until just before he hit it.
Correct, but that is a rather sharp corner, the truck couldn’t have made that turn at 30 mph without rolling over. So, the truck was slowing down before the turn, and was probably doing 10-15 mph when it actually did turn. And that is my point, all that slowing down takes time, time for a bicycle at 30 mph to catch up with the truck.
“Isn’t the trucks speed down the hill is really irrelevant? The problem at the corner had nothing to do with the truck speed.”
I’m not sure how it is any more irrelevant than the bicycle speed. If Brett had been going over the speed limit, and the truck hadn’t, Brett would have been in front of the garbage truck. If the truck sped down the hill, slammed on his brakes and turned hard to make the corner, then the truck would have been in front of Brett. And it was…
Ross, I hope that my criticism of how bicycle laws and bicycle lanes have been implemented in Portland does not put me in the category of those who are defending the world the way it is.
In my own experience, the model bicycle laws advocated by Portland’s own Ray Thomas at http://bikelaws.org/laws/UVC-model-bike.pdf are a better way to do things. They require motorists to merge with cyclists before turning right.
A good example in Portland is the northbound bike lane on SE 26th north of Powell. It ends a reasonable distance before the intersection with SE Clinton, so that bicycles and motor vehicles have a safer passage through the intersection.
I know that PDOT’s engineers and Roger Geller do not agree with me, but that does not make me a defender of the status quo by any means. If you can educate motorists, by all means do so.
And Dan, I agree with you about the legal obligations of motorists. It is just that I believe that the law also imposes certain obligations of due care on both pedestrians and cyclists. I also believe these obligations do not relieve motorists of their obligations or liability.
I’d just like to point out that the driver of the garbage truck has a name too. I’m not sure what it is, but it’s a pretty dubious tactic to repeat the name of the cyclist over and over while referring to the driver of the garbage truck as “the truck”.
The point it, two human beings were involved. Mistakes were likely made, as they are in the case of all collisions. Let’s not try to characterize any single party as less or more human than the other.
Thanks.
“I’d just like to point out that the driver of the garbage truck has a name too. I’m not sure what it is, but it’s a pretty dubious tactic to repeat the name of the cyclist over and over while referring to the driver of the garbage truck as “the truck”.”
Pick one:
1) “Brett” was easier to type than “the bicycle.” (although I also used that term.)
2) I don’t know what the truck driver’s name is either.
3) When a bicycle/truck collision kills a truck driver, I’ll refer to the truck driver by name, but the bicyclist as “the bicyclist.”
“The point it, two human beings were involved. Mistakes were likely made, as they are in the case of all collisions. Let’s not try to characterize any single party as less or more human than the other.”
Even if that was my purpose, in case you haven’t noticed, I’ve fairly sure who I think is at fault in this collision… And what is less human than killing someone?
I’m not sure how it is any more irrelevant than the bicycle speed.
Because it had nothing to do with the accident. But this started with a description of a truck passing a rider and then turning right in front of him. In fact what apparently happened is they both started at the light together, the bicyclist was well up the street when the truck slowed to turn. The bicyclist then overtook the truck and skidded while trying to stop. If a pedestrian had stepped off the curb, could Brett have stopped any quicker?
time for a bicycle at 30 mph to catch up with the truck.
I am not arguing that Brett must have been going fast to catch the truck. I think Brett was going fast because I would expect him to be going as fast as he could. And Brett was a trained racer, so he was probably was going at a pretty good clip. The only reason for him not to would be caution about turning vehicles…
Matt, actually, to recreate what you’ve been doing in the hypothetical case of a cyclist killing a truck operator, you would have to refer to the cyclist as “the bicycle”, not “the bicyclist”. And, it’s entirely possible for a cyclist to make an error in judgment that results in the death of a truck operator. It’s just less likely that the cyclist will be physically involved in the collision they cause.
Truck operators are not trucks. And, if the consequences of their actions result in a homicide, regardless, they’re still human beings and not pieces of equipment.
Yep, the driver of the truck has a name too: Bryan Lowes.
Whether Bryan Lowes is even qualified to be driving a commercial vehicle, or a vehicle at all is very much up for debate:
http://bikeportland.org/2007/10/24/oregonian-truck-driver-has-had-25-speeding-convictions/
25 speeding tickets in the past 20 years. This certainly seems to cast a doubt on any assumptions about who was operating safely or reasonably.
Yep, the driver of the truck has a name too: Bryan Lowes.
Whether Bryan Lowes is even qualified to be driving a commercial vehicle, or a vehicle at all is very much up for debate:
http://bikeportland.org/2007/10/24/oregonian-truck-driver-has-had-25-speeding-convictions/
25 speeding tickets in the past 20 years. This certainly seems to cast a doubt on any assumptions about who was operating safely or reasonably.
Psymonetta Isnoful:
“you would have to refer to the cyclist as “the bicycle”, not “the bicyclist”.”
And I did:
time for a bicycle at 30 mph to catch up with the truck.
(Okay, I used “a” instead of “the” but they are both the same part of speech.)
I’m not sure how it is any more irrelevant than the bicycle speed.
(The exact phrase.)
This certainly seems to cast a doubt on any assumptions about who was operating safely or reasonably.
Regardless of how reasonably Brett was operating, it clearly wasn’t safely. Brett was an experienced cyclist, so I doubt he just assumed he had the right-of-way and the truck would wait for him. We are never going to know what really happened.
Regardless of how reasonably Brett was operating, it clearly wasn’t safely
I have heard things like this a lot from other cyclists. Things like “I would do xxx differently, and therefore I am safe”, or “If only he had paid more attention”, etc.
I bike in Portland almost everyday and I think these sort of statements are rationalization of the inherent risks of cycling. You can be doing everything exactly right and still not be 100% safe.
I don’t think it is helpful in situations where the cyclists right-of-way was obviously violated to take the psuedo morale high road of “I would have acted differently”. Instead we should focus on reducing risk and increasing safety via education, enforcement and engineering changes.
I bike in Portland almost everyday and I think these sort of statements are rationalization of the inherent risks of cycling.
No. They are reasonable responses to how to protect ones self.
You can be doing everything exactly right and still not be 100% safe.
Of course. But you can do things to make yourself more safe.
I don’t think it is helpful in situations where the cyclists right-of-way was obviously violated to take the psuedo morale high road of “I would have acted differently”
And I don’t think it much matters who has the right of way. I am sure Brett would have acted differently if he had the chance.
I bike in Portland almost everyday and I think these sort of statements are rationalization of the inherent risks of cycling.
No. They are reasonable responses to how to protect ones self.
You can be doing everything exactly right and still not be 100% safe.
Of course. But you can do things to make yourself more safe.
I don’t think it is helpful in situations where the cyclists right-of-way was obviously violated to take the psuedo morale high road of “I would have acted differently”
And I don’t think it much matters who has the right of way. I am sure Brett would have acted differently if he had the chance.
“Regardless of how reasonably Brett was operating, it clearly wasn’t safely.”
You can repeat that line over and over again if you want, but it doesn’t make it true…
You can repeat that line over and over again if you want, but it doesn’t make it true…
Matt, the guy was killed. He was killed after skidding under a truck. You can deny it over and over again, but the reality is that had he been able to stop he would be safe and alive.
You don’t measure safely by the world as you wish it was but the world as it is.
Ros, if someone had a heart attack at night, didn’t wake up, and therefor died in their sleep, you wouldn’t say that sleeping is dangerous, would you? Cause that is what you are arguing.
if someone had a heart attack at night, didn’t wake up, and therefor died in their sleep, you wouldn’t say that sleeping is dangerous, would you? Cause that is what you are arguing.
No, it isn’t. If you want to argue that Brett’s speed had nothing to do with the accident fine. Then explain the skid marks. If you want to argue that a truck turning in front of you is something you can’t anticipate, then I wonder how long you will survive because it is a pretty common mistake drivers make. In the real world, riding at high speed down a hill trying to pass a truck with its turn signal on is not a safe thing to do.
Ross, while I would agree that there is ALWAYS something you can do to be more defensive, I think you’re diverting from the main point, which is that Brett had a legal right to the lane and the enforcement system is failing to give any real acknowledgement.
It’s sort of like saying you’d be safer if you allowed left turning traffic traffic to clear an intersection in front of you before proceeding straight, and if instead, you asserted your right to proceed and got hit, saying “if you had been more defensive” you could have avoided the collision.
“Then explain the skid marks.”
Uhmm, okay. The skid marks mean that he applied his brakes:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/815.html
815.280 2a) “A bicycle must be equipped with a brake that enables the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement.”
If you thought you were going to end up under a garbage truck, would you brake? Even if I was only doing 15 mph, I think I’d still try to stop rather than end up under a garbage truck, and when I did, I’d could easily leave a 15-20 foot skid mark. Unless the skid mark is more than ~80 feet long, it don’t tell us that Brett was speeding, it just tells us that Brett was braking. Read this, (which is motorcycle related, but the physics are similar,) for an explanation on how long his skid mark would be. http://www.msgroup.org/forums/mtt/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=956
Braking hard and skidding wears out tires faster than braking softly, and in general I try to avoid situations where I need to brake hard, but skidding your back tire is very very common, fixed gear riders stop by skidding almost every single time they stop…
“because it is a pretty common mistake drivers make.”
This is exactly my point. The driver made a mistake. I’m not saying that the driver deliberately tried to kill Brett, but it was the driver’s fault that Brett died.
It’s sort of like saying you’d be safer if you allowed left turning traffic traffic to clear an intersection in front of you before proceeding straight, and if instead, you asserted your right to proceed and got hit, saying “if you had been more defensive” you could have avoided the collision.
No, its more like stepping into the street at an unmarked crosswalk and getting hit because you assumed the traffic would stop. Or, more exactly, the same as stepping off the curb when there is a car signaling a right turn without making sure the driver knows you are there.
In all cases, the observable behavior of many drivers is different than the legal principle. That is not true of left turning traffic.
I think you’re diverting from the main point, which is that Brett had a legal right to the lane and the enforcement system is failing to give any real acknowledgement.
As I said above, I agree there is problem with the failure of the police to use this as an educational moment. But I actually think the main point is how to stay alive as a cyclist in a world where there are people driving several tons of steel who don’t always follow the traffic codes.
Then explain the skid marks.
On a flat, dry surface, I can create a 2-3′ length of skid mark coming to a stop from about 10mph. Descending a hill, going even 20mph, I can easily imagine laying down 15-20′ of rubber while coming to a sudden stop, that is if the cyclist managed to stay upright. Two tires take longer to stop than four, especially two very skinny tires with low rolling resistance.
It’s all conjecture as to how fast he was actually going, but the skid marks don’t serve as very clear evidence of excessive or even — in any typical usage of the term — unsafe speed.
Two tires take longer to stop than four, especially two very skinny tires with low rolling resistance.
Which, if you consider the issue to be stopping distance, means bikes are not safe at the same speed as an auto. If an auto slammed on its breaks and skidded 15-20 feet before hitting someone, I think most of us would think it was going to fast.
I had a post, (that seems to have been eaten by the spam filter,) that explains how long a skid mark you’ll leave at various speeds. At 30 mph, a car in perfect braking conditions, (no gravel or leaves, dry, and good condition asphalt) will leave an approximately 40 foot skid mark. Yes, a bike will leave a longer one because it doesn’t brake as efficiently, but I should point out that bicycle reaction times are less because they aren’t in little plastic bubbles, and at 44 ft/second, the difference in reaction time will more than make up for the difference in braking time.
It’s all conjecture as to how fast he was actually going, but the skid marks don’t serve as very clear evidence of excessive or even — in any typical usage of the term — unsafe speed.
…and forensics is just magic…
From Ross Williams:
No, its more like stepping into the street at an unmarked crosswalk and getting hit because you assumed the traffic would stop. Or, more exactly, the same as stepping off the curb when there is a car signaling a right turn without making sure the driver knows you are there.
Ross, the first part of this statement is totally wrong. Brett was in a marked lane of travel. The second example is correct in that the responsibility lies on the driver to not run you over in both situations. Chris is right, we can always be more defensive, and that would prevent tragedy in both examples. But I believe I speak for a lot of people when I say that a status quo of unrelenting defensiveness is not acceptable. If the general consesus is that we want to live in fear of the irresponsible minority, then I’ll find a better place to raise my children. A place where people care about each other and follow simple rules that are dictated by common sense for everyone’s well-being. Anyone with me? I know Brett’s there waiting for us.
…and forensics is just magic…
No, it’s not magic at all. It’s physics, and that’s just what I’m pointing out. Providing an answer to that question based on the nothing more than existence and length of skid marks is magic. What’s the diameter of the tire? To what air pressure is it inflated? Of what material is it made? How quickly do the brake pads seize the rim? What’s the incline of the surface? The material with which it’s paved? How much does the cyclist weigh? The bicycle? How is that weight distributed in proportion to the wheels?
All of these factors and more play into stopping distance and how quickly deceleration results in a skid. Not that any of this is particularly relevant given that the truck driver with object permanence issues who had only three weeks earlier gotten back his suspended license can only have been operating his vehicle — bearing even less stopping power — at a greater speed in order to be able to cut off the cyclist.
http://bikeportland.org/2008/01/15/da-no-criminal-negligence-in-jarolimek-case/
“The report also says that [Brett] Jarolimek’s tire left a 36-foot long skid mark leading up to the point of impact and that his speed was likely 22-28 mph going into the collision”
In other words, he wasn’t speeding, and the Police department standing around saying he was, was inappropriate.
In other words, he wasn’t speeding, and the Police department standing around saying he was, was inappropriate.
Some evidence shows Brett may not have been speeding. You can slow a bike without skidding, which he may have tried thinking he would decelerate faster than he did.
Maybe Brett didn’t lock the brakes until a moment after it was too late, and just was slowing before then. Maybe Bryan really couldn’t see Brett when he passed him.
Some older trucks have terrible mirrors that even when well adjusted, can’t show you much.
Forensics is great at some things, but it doesn’t give everything, just a best guess estimation sometimes.
It could have just been a tragic mistake, and the evidence seems to support that somewhat. I’ve driven this section of road in the upper 20’s a few times, and once had the opportunity to brake quickly (the road was completely empty) and the grade made it more difficult to stop quickly.
In my opinion, it was an unfortunate incident of circumstances. The truck was poorly maintained, Bryan had a bad history. Brett may not have stopped or slowed according to the conditions (Basic Speed Law, if I remember), and it led to a death that Bryan will have to live with for the rest of his life.
I think it’s great that the intersection is being improved for safety, but sometimes we just have to learn from our mistakes.
I’ve been hit by a car both on a bike and in a car, and both times I was mad, both times the other driver accidentally drove into me, but neither time the driver was charged criminally.
It’s easier to make things safer for everyone by adding lighting, better shoulders, or removing turn lanes than throwing someone in jail. Just my take.
http://www.katu.com/news/local/17323299.html
PORTLAND, Ore. – A Portland police officer was hurt early Saturday when a sport utility vehicle struck his motorcycle, police said.
The officer, 31-year-old Christopher Cass, suffered a separated shoulder, abrasions and bruises, police said. He was treated and released from an area hospital Saturday morning.
According to police, Cass was heading east on Southeast Washington Street over the Interstate 205 overpass when a 1980s Chevy Blazer heading the same direction turned left into the motorcycle near 92nd Avenue about 1 a.m.
Police said the driver of the Blazer, 22-year-old Andrew Lee Lamb of Vancouver, Wash., was not impaired or speeding and was not injured. He also was not cited.
When the police don’t cite people that hit them, then I can understand their logic of not citing a person that hit a bicyclist…
I’m not familiar with Portland so I am just posting with a suggestion.
Would a stop sign for the right turn lane work with an additional sign “Caution Bicycles” underneath?