I was amused to read in the latest issue of Portland Monthly that Editor-in-Chief Ted Katauskas recently got nabbed for blowing a red light – on his bike.
Like many others (both drivers and cyclists) he was given the opportunity to reduce the $242 fine to a $30 fee to attend a new “Share the Road Safety Class”.
This class, sanctioned by the courts and run by the Trauma Nurses Talk Tough organization (with help from a number of local transportation agencies), is proving very popular, with 100+ participants each month.
Let’s hope we all learn to share the road more safely!
While I’m on the topic, I also want to give a shout out to the Evergreen Safety Council, an organization that provides driver training and safety classes for commercial drivers.
47 responses to “Learning to Share the Road”
This is a joke! Bicycles don’t pose a danger to anybody and therefore should be free to run red lights without fear of a ticket. I guarantee you more bicyclists get tickets for red light running than cars do, because the city wants to discourage us from riding our bikes. The only people that need to learn how to share the road are car drivers!
That’s a patently false comment. A bicycle traveling 20mph througha red light can pose a serious danger to a pedestrian or another cyclist. A bicycle running a red light can also cause a car trying to avoid the cyclist to manuever into a crash. Finally, I don’t see any reason why society at large should pay the trauma hospital bills of someone who decides to break a law. Besides, Portland encourages people to ride bikes. I agree with the city enforcing traffic laws
ahhh… now there’s a tasty comment for some discussion….
Obviously red lights have a purpose when there is a lot of traffic around. And I would not go so far to say that bicycles don’t pose a danger to anybody…
However, when there is NO traffic and a careful cyclist is very aware of his environment, it seems silly to sit and wait for the color of a light to change.
I would compare the bicyclist more to a pedestrian in this situation than an automobile driver. I haven’t heard of many people receiving $242 tickets in town recently for walking on a red light—yet it happens countless times each day. All one has to do is walk outside and observe.
Weren’t stop signs and lights originally installed to SPEED UP traffic and increase throughput and safety!?!
Lately when I hit a red light with no cross-traffic I have been getting off my bike and walking it across the street. My thinking is that I could only get a ticket for jay-walking (which I assume is less than failure to stop on a bike) and that an officer is less likely to try to enforce jay-walking. Are my assumptions here correct?
However, when there is NO traffic and a careful cyclist is very aware of his environment, it seems silly to sit and wait for the color of a light to change.
But then the same can be said when you are in an automobile. If you are really that careful, there won’t be any police around to give you a ticket either.
If you’ve ever been downtown at 3-4am, you’ll notice that most people ignore the lights. Everyone from peds and bikes, to cars and garbage trucks… That said, the only lights I’ve ever run are the ones where I can’t get my bike to set off the magnetic loop, and even then, only after I’ve been moving my bike around there for a few minutes.
Getting off your bike is a good trick. I make right turns across the streetcar tracks from the left lane on red lights all the time: You ride up to the crosswalk, stop for the red light, get off your bike into the crosswalk, walk across the street on the walk signal, get back onto your bike, and go… It is completely legal, but people aren’t expecting it so it is a good way to get hit…
Whatever happened to the concept that the laws apply to everyone on the road, let’s ALL follow them?
That means vehicles AND bikes. Or bikes AND vehicles, depending on which point of view you want to take.
A $242 ticket is a bit outrageous – I think that crosses the line into “fundraising” territory.
I think having to wait 30 minutes while the cops run your plates and ID is deterrent enough.
I think having to wait 30 minutes while the cops run your plates and ID is deterrent enough.
Apparently not. If they are writing tickets someone wasn’t deterred. And I doubt that $242 even covers the cost of having people to do the enforcement.
This is no joke. Bicyclists are totally irresponsible when it comes following the law and abiding by traffic control devices meant to apply to all vehicles, including bicycles. There is hardly a day that goes by that I don’t see a bicyclist blowing through a red light or stop sign, and even when cars are stopped going in the same direction. This is the same irresponsible arrogance that is continually expressed when it comes to any proposal to tax bicyclists.
It just happened that yesterday evening that I was in my truck at a signalized intersection with walk – don’t walk signals waiting for a red light to turn green to make a right turn. The traffic controls at this particular intersection included “No Right Turn on a Red Light”. When the light turned green, I started forward only to have an adult kamikaze style bicyclist fly off the sidewalk crossing about two feet from my front bumper. I hit the breaks and the horn simultaneously. Had I started out any faster, I would have mowed this idiot down. Now maybe this guy is a real piece of work whom is color blind unable to see red and/or is illiterate and unable to read a four letter words like “STOP”, but his was the usual bicyclist reaction in a situation of thios type, shouting some other four letter words and display of the middle index finger. Yet he was the one at fault breaking the law while placing only himself in danger. Had this jerk ended up under my radiator, he would not have only had to pay his own medical expenses, but I guarantee you he would have paid for any damage to my truck too!
The real issue here is this type of arrogance happens way too often and on a daily baisu, just like the auto body technician who on Foster Road was killed because he was riding the wrong way in a bike lane, or in downtown where the majority of bicyclists ignore the signal system weaving in and out riding on the white line between stopped cars and trucks. In addition to the need for better enforcement of traffic laws aimed at bicyclists, there needs to be a lot more bicycle stings in areas with a high concentration of bike travel.
As for sharing the road, two thoughts: 1. Sharing the road must also include directly sharing the financial responsibility for the roads. 2. Has anybody told TriMet about sharing the road? Specifically with financier stakeholder motorists? TriMet insists on monopolizing the roads by parking their whale like busses in travel lanes and creating unnecessary congestion when boarding passengers. Sharing is a universal term that must also apply to TriMet if there are any expectations that it apply to everybody else.
Bikes ARE vehicles, and they need to follow the rules of the road, just like everybody else out there. The whole point of the traffic law system is that we are all safer if we collectively observe a common set of rules designed to get us where we need to go without hurting each other. This system was established after years of letting people use their own judgment proved unsafe. Observing the rules of the road is an obligation of EVERY vehicle operator, human powered or otherwise. Bicyclists are going to have to get over this idea that they are entitled to be exempted according to their whim. It is unsafe and undemocratic.
Just walking home today, I saw two guys on mountain bikes blow by me on the sidewalk outside PGE Park.
Bicycles, esp. on sidewalks, pose a danger to pedestrians.
As a non-driver, transit user and pedestrian, I view the bicycle lobby as just another selfish special-interest group, like the auto drivers and LRT crowd. I am really not particularly sympathetic to their cause.
I saw two guys on mountain bikes blow by me on the sidewalk outside PGE Park.
Bicycles are legal on the sidewalks outside PGE Park aren’t they?
The whole point of the traffic law system is that we are all safer if we collectively observe a common set of rules designed to get us where we need to go without hurting each other
I think that is correct. Which is why many of us, in fact the overwhelming majority of us, substitute our own judgment for the exact law in specific circumstances where we think that is appropriate.
I guarantee you if you stay within the speed limit on the freeway most of the traffic will be passing you. Motorists routinely break the traffic laws where they believe it is safe, both from an accident and from a ticket.
I think most of us agree that bicyclists, like motorists, have an obligation to ride safely. And most of us recognize that some of them don’t always do that, just as there are motorists who don’t. Most of use also recognize that the potential consequences of riding a bike in an unsafe manner are not nearly as dire as the potential consequences of driving a couple ton vehicle unsafely.
Very well said, Ross. My point exactly.
Without repeating your whole post, I’d just like to re-emphasize two of your very well said points, “Which is why many of us, in fact the overwhelming majority of us, substitute our own judgment for the exact law in specific circumstances where we think that is appropriate.”
“…I think most of us agree that bicyclists, like motorists, have an obligation to ride safely. And most of us recognize that some of them don’t always do that, just as there are motorists who don’t.”
enough said.
“This is no joke. Bicyclists are totally irresponsible when it comes following the law and abiding by traffic control devices meant to apply to all vehicles, including bicycles.”
This statement is subtle bigotry; a blanket stereotype thrust onto an entire population of citizens, in this case, individuals who happen to ride bicycles. This statement is offensive, irresponsible, and disrespectful to individuals whom ride bicycles, yet follow the letter of law.
I flipped off the critical mass idjits yesterday – and I’m 100% sure that I’m on their film they were taking while making my #20 bus 20 minutes late.
What about motorists running red lights and stop signs? This is outrageously selfish and dangerous, yet it can been seen at almost any intersection within a minute or two. It can even be witnessed in full view of police that do nothing whatsoever in response.
So just how do bicyclists and the Bicycle Transportation Alliance group substitute their own judgment for exact law in specific circumstances where it is thought to be appropriate, and how does that affect their public image? By disrupting traffic with mass demonstration rides or by demonstrating chauvinism through consistently showing aggression to motor vehicle use and attempting to shift the blame for anything and everything onto motorists? Or what about by going down to Salem to ask for and lobby the legislature to make exceptions to traffic laws for bicyclists and asking for more bicycle infrastructure, but expecting that infrastructure to be paid for by coming out of somebody else’s pocket? The exceptions to traffic laws have included subjects such as stop signs should not apply to bicyclists, or passing on the right is OK (as long as it can be done safely, but safety is for the most part left up to the discretion of the bicyclist rider) Both are exceptions to common sense safety standards with the passing on the right often flaunted by bicyclists to taunt drivers. Responsible? I think not.
And then there is the latest one; pushing for a statute that fixed gear bicycles don’t need brakes, a move that is outwardly based on arrogance suggesting those who ride fixed gear bicyclists can do so and stop their bikes without incident. So what happens when a novice rides a fixed gear bicycle (nothing to stop them) or someone without the physical strength to stop a bike with no brakes, or even if someone that has the muscle to ride one, but his or her leg cramps up or a foot slips off the pedal when attempting to use physical strength to stop the bike? There is no license, no physical requirement and no test for the people who want to ride fixed gear bicycles – so not requiring brakes on them compromises safety in the same irresponsible manner as a drunk behind the wheel of a car. And for the record, motorists do run red lights, but when is the last anyone saw a motorist pass a line cars of waiting for a light to turn green and purposefully and arrogantly cross an intersection with the signal red?
Over all bicyclists are unwilling to accept accountability for their actions, or the financial responsibility to pay for the bicycle infrastructure they say they need and use. That makes the image of the average bicyclist one of irresponsibility, and no different than Paris Hilton crying to mommy “that it isn’t fair”, referring to accepting responsibility and paying the price tag for her actions.
Terry, I would be astounded if you could find ANY instance of the BTA advocating that cyclists violate traffic laws.
They do work to make and change laws to reflect the reality of cycling.
Over all bicyclists are unwilling to accept accountability for their actions
That is pure BS.
no different than Paris Hilton
Paris Hilton is a motorist who was driving her car drunk, does that tell you anything about motorists in general? I doubt it.
“There is no license, no physical requirement and no test for the people who want to ride fixed gear bicycles – so not requiring brakes on them compromises safety in the same irresponsible manner as a drunk behind the wheel of a car. And for the record, motorists do run red lights, but when is the last anyone saw a motorist pass a line cars of waiting for a light to turn green and purposefully and arrogantly cross an intersection with the signal red?”
Terry,
My guess is that you have never actually ridden a fixed gear bike. Is that right? Arrogance is writing with authority on things which you don’t fully understand.
As for cars….just today down by OMSI more than 10 cars went out of line and around down crossing gates by the rail line. I see motorists break laws all the time- failing to signal being the most common. The difference is when I am in a car I am driving a lethal vehicle. When I’m on my bike most of the risk is to myself. Since most of the traffic laws were written for motorist and with little understanding of how cyclists ride safely, I’m willing to take a measure that may technically illegal if I feel like it improves my safety.
I’d be happy to go for a bike ride with you sometime. It sounds like you could learn some things from experiencing life on the road on a sub 30 pound vehicle facing vehichles that could easily kill you.
I’ll say it again: What is the problem with every road user being held to the same standards, same laws, etc.?
I am required to follow the law; if I choose not to I run the risk of being cited by a police officer. Same should be true of any motorist or bicyclist.
I am required to maintain my motor vehicle property, which includes maintaining certain safety devices (including seat belts, headlights, taillights, brake lights, turn signals, brakes, tires, etc.) and I can be cited for not maintaining/using them. Failure to have brakes on my car does not justify my running a red light; in fact it makes me at fault. Other motorists, and bicyclists, should be held to the same standard.
If bicyclists have a problem with motorists not following the laws, do they call the police to report a dangerous situation? Have motorists ever been cited/arrested for a motor vehicle code violation in which a bicyclist was a victim? I’m pretty darn sure that motorists have gone to jail for assualt with a motor vehicle, for hitting bicyclists.
What goes around comes around, and bicyclists must follow the law the same. Today, on Tualatin Road I had a group of four bicyclists who felt as though they needed to ride two-abreast, and thus two of the four bikes were outside the bike lane. Now, if me and another motorist tried the same stunt and drove into the bike lane, I’d fully expect to get cited for it (especially if I hit one of those bikes.) It’s a matter of respect, and I don’t see it coming from many members of the bike community. Those who display respect, will get it in return and I’ll be happy to make way for a bicyclist who is operating their bike within the law.
BTW, regarding bikes on sidewalks, one may want to brush up on ORS 814.410:
814.410 Unsafe operation of bicycle on sidewalk; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of unsafe operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk if the person does any of the following:
(b) Operates a bicycle upon a sidewalk and does not give an audible warning before overtaking and passing a pedestrian and does not yield the right of way to all pedestrians on the sidewalk.
(c) Operates a bicycle on a sidewalk in a careless manner that endangers or would be likely to endanger any person or property.
(d) Operates the bicycle at a speed greater than an ordinary walk when approaching or entering a crosswalk, approaching or crossing a driveway or crossing a curb cut or pedestrian ramp and a motor vehicle is approaching the crosswalk, driveway, curb cut or pedestrian ramp. This paragraph does not require reduced speeds for bicycles at places on sidewalks or other pedestrian ways other than places where the path for pedestrians or bicycle traffic approaches or crosses that for motor vehicle traffic.
(e) Operates an electric assisted bicycle on a sidewalk.
(2) Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, a bicyclist on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk has the same rights and duties as a pedestrian on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk.
(3) The offense described in this section, unsafe operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §699; 1985 c.16 §337; 1997 c.400 §7; 2005 c.316 §2]
“I’ll say it again”
This is expected at this point ;)
“What is the problem with every road user being held to the same standards, same laws, etc.?”
Well for one, equal isn’t always equitable. Something tells me an 18 wheeler and a bike are pretty different vehicles and probably deserve a different approach from a law enforcement standpoint.
“I am required to follow the law; if I choose not to I run the risk of being cited by a police officer. Same should be true of any motorist or bicyclist.”
It is true of any motorist or bicyclist. What’s your point. Think cyclists don’t get cited? Head over the bikeportland.org for tons of discussions on citations.
“Other motorists, and bicyclists, should be held to the same standard.”
Er, they are…and again, your point is?
“If bicyclists have a problem with motorists not following the laws, do they call the police to report a dangerous situation?”
If a tree falls in a forest…again, what is your point?
“Have motorists ever been cited/arrested for a motor vehicle code violation in which a bicyclist was a victim? I’m pretty darn sure that motorists have gone to jail for assualt with a motor vehicle, for hitting bicyclists.”
Actually, they usually do no jail time- even when they are at fault and the cyclist dies.
“Now, if me and another motorist tried the same stunt and drove into the bike lane, I’d fully expect to get cited for it (especially if I hit one of those bikes.)”
Would you really expect to get cited for it? Most infractions by all vehicles are not cited- we just don’t have the number of police you seem to want for 100% compliance.
“It’s a matter of respect, and I don’t see it coming from many members of the bike community. Those who display respect, will get it in return and I’ll be happy to make way for a bicyclist who is operating their bike within the law.”
That’s very big of you. Fortunatly, by law, we don’t get that choice. Our mandate is to drive within the law regardless of how others happen to be acting.
Erik, further to your comments, you might be interested in this story from today’s Oregonian:
The last thing Timothy M. O’Donnell did in life was signal a left turn.
Just after noon today, as he and four fellow bicyclists prepared to wheel onto a side road in Washington County, a 26-year-old Idaho woman driving a 2008 Dodge Avenger struck O’Donnell, according to the Washington County Sheriff’s Office.
O’Donnell, 66, of Aloha died at the scene.
Sheriff’s Sgt. Bill Steele said the group of five cyclists was riding south on Northwest Cornelius-Schefflin Road north of Cornelius. The accident occurred as the group approached Northwest Long Road.
O’Donnell, riding second in the single-file line, signaled for a left turn, drifting left as he prepared to turn. The car, driven by Jennifer Knight of Hayden, Idaho, ran into O’Donnell as she passed the group, apparently in a no-passing zone, according to the sheriff’s office.
Knight was cited for driving while suspended, careless driving and passing in a no-passing zone, Steele said. None of the other cyclists was injured, he said.
You shouldn’t be so sure. There are a lot of factors involved, but if there was a walk signal – you would have been at fault.
But I also believe that starting your travel from the sidewalk is not illegal (much like pulling a car from the curb) and in this case the straight bound traffic would have right of way over the right turn bound traffic.
But my point is that it is not nearly as cut-and-dried as you would make out, and I would be more careful if I were you about assuming that just because you are in a car and a bicycle annoys you in some way that you are in the right and the bicycle is in the wrong.
There are many situations where bicycles break the law, and some of them actually put someone at risk.
But the number of people killed by bicycles every year in Oregon is insignificant compared to the number of people killed by cars.
So laws or not – shouldn’t we be trying to save lives?
A vehicle is a 3000lb (which is a small vehicle, many are 5000lbs or more) weapon.
Many things annoy me from all camps. Bicycles are *required* by Oregon law to ride in the bike lane if there is one provided. The only exceptions are to avoid hazards or to turn left. I have been stuck behind a bicyclist who rode in the lane and wouldn’t use the bike lane.
Bicycles are also not legally allowed to ride side by side if they impede traffic in ANY way, according to Oregon law.
But Cars piss me off too. I bike commute a couple days a week, and cars come too close for comfort many many times.
Busses piss me off with the way some drivers feel they own the road, especially winding down around 1st and Arthur on the way to the Ross Island Bridge. Some drivers can make the curves, and others take up two lanes of traffic. If I am beside one, I will NEVER let them into my lane. If they can’t fit the bus in the lane, the bus should not be there.
But I take transit at least twice a week, usually more. And there is always some dumb ass driver cutting off the bus or something where I think “what the heck?”.
On Powell at the east end of the Ross Island brodge, there are ALWAYS cars trying to turn left across Powell or out of the neighborhoods – despite the MANY “no left turn” signs, and all of the many double yellow lines.
There are no demographics or groups that are perfect angels, and no one is perfect.
Every group has their moments.
So what we must remember is that CARS EASILY KILL. Even other people in cars! Therefore I personally believe they should have the highest bar to pass.
Erik, further to your comments, you might be interested in this story from today’s Oregonian:
So? Did the motorist not get cited for causing that? Frankly I think he got off light for just getting a couple tickets, but more than likely the family of the deceased will sue him in civil court, and he’ll lose and pay thousands in damages. Should he have gone to jail? Probably.
Well for one, equal isn’t always equitable. Something tells me an 18 wheeler and a bike are pretty different vehicles and probably deserve a different approach from a law enforcement standpoint.
So what you’re saying is that certain road users should have to adhere the laws to a higher percentage (semi trucks must have 100% compliance) but other road users (pedestrians and bikes) should only follow the law when it’s merely convenient for them?
If a tree falls in a forest…again, what is your point?
I never discussed anything about trees falling in forest, so I’ll return the favor – what’s your point? My discussion was about road users equally adhering to the laws; to the best of my recollection a tree is not a roadway user, cannot adhere to laws, and if a tree in a forest blocks a road, I don’t think you can issue a ticket to the tree. But you can take a chainsaw to it.
Did the motorist not get cited for causing that?
I doubt O’Donnels’ friends and family care very much.
Erik,
Sorry you missed the reference to trees- I presumed you were familiar with the saying. My point was that you asked a ton of rhetorical questions in what I can only take as a bit of an emotive rant.
As for the infractions. Think about that for a moment. She killed someone. She was driving while suspended and was in the wrong. She was essentially given a ticket- and all you can think of is that her family might win thousands in court (not very probable, by the way)?
As for the equity/equal point- yes, I do think that vehicles that can kill others, that weigh thousands and thousands of pounds should have different rules than say pedestrians and cyclists.
Finally, you talk alot about how others don’t understand because they don’t ride the bus like you do. For your information I am about a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 split between bus, car and bike. My question for you: how often do you commute by bike? If not often, why would you pretend to speak with authority on what it is all about? I suggest you get out there and experience it over time and then let us know what you think.
When I went to Holland many years ago I met with the Dutch Bicyclists Union and learned a lot of things. One that is pertinent is that Dutch traffic law is based on the principle that drivers of the most potentially dangerous vehicle have greater responsibility for avoiding crashes with more vulnerable road users. In addition, all Dutch children get “licensed” to ride bicycles, which helps a lot when (if) they seek a drivers license, which takes about 3 years of lessons to attain.
Dutch crash rates are about 1/10 ours. Education works. But motorists who hit cyclists or pedestrians automatically had licenses suspended. Of course, their enforcement is much greater and I doubt the woman who murdered the cyclist in Cornelius would have been driving at all.
As for whether people who ride bicycles (taxpayers all, Terry) pay for roads, the latest financial information we have compiled at Metro for the Regional Transportation Plan update shows that 85% of funds for modernization actually come from local property taxes, urban renewal fees and system development charges. Gas taxes don’t even cover maintenance anymore, much less expansion.
As for the equity/equal point- yes, I do think that vehicles that can kill others, that weigh thousands and thousands of pounds should have different rules than say pedestrians and cyclists.
Do we not require motorists to take two tests to prove their competency to operate a motor vehicle, obtain a license that must be periodically reviewed, and maintain a minimum level of insurance?
Does DMV and local police departments not have the right to restrict one’s privilege to drive?
Now, are bicyclists required to take a test? Obtain a license? Renew the license? Be subject to various DMV laws? Obtain insurance?
Can a bicyclist have their right to operate on public right-of-ways be suspended (other than by being thrown in jail)?
Operators of larger commercial trucks have even more rules and regulations, and a tougher license. They are also limited in the number of hours they can drive, are subject to random drug checks, and are pulled off the road every couple hundred miles (at weigh stations).
What more do you want from motorists?
As for whether I bike – no, I do not currently, but I have in the past. I’m well aware of the dangers on the road and have faced virtually all of them. I know what it takes to be safe on a bike or in a car. I also know that riding in front of a car (which seems to be a major issue, bikes pulling to the front of stopped cars at intersections, instead of the legal action of getting in the lane behind the last car), running a red light/stop sign, and riding outside a designated bike lane is plain stupid.
Rex –
I normally agree with much of what you have to say, but I take issue with using the word “murder” before all of the facts are in and (if necessary) a substantial legal process has at least started.
Clearly a homicide was involved, perhaps involuntary manslaughter, for example. When a death is involved in an accident, it is always a tragedy, and tempers can flare. I hope that public officials can exercise restraint in commentary until evidence from all sides is revealed. “Murder” implies intent… I think it is fair to say negligence was involved, carelessness, etc., but murder elevates the situation to a new level which is not yet supported in my opinion by the available facts.
– Bob R.
Erik,
First you said this: “I’ll say it again: What is the problem with every road user being held to the same standards, same laws, etc.?”
Which led to my equity/equal statement…which you then seemed to agree with. Logical coherence would help in trying to track exactly what your issues are.
Erik asked: Can a bicyclist have their right to operate on public right-of-ways be suspended (other than by being thrown in jail)?
Yes, by court order such as (but not limited to) a restraining order.
If a person is convicted of committed repeated offences using a bicycle, then can in theory be restricted in their activities. I do not know if this has ever been done, but any criminal judge or traffic judge could issue such an order under the appropriate circumstances.
– Bob R.
VR Said in response to my description of the bicyclist that crossed my path:
“You shouldn’t be so sure. There are a lot of factors involved, but if there was a walk signal – you would have been at fault. But I also believe that starting your travel from the sidewalk is not illegal (much like pulling a car from the curb) and in this case the straight bound traffic would have right of way over the right turn bound traffic. But my point is that it is not nearly as cut-and-dried as you would make out,”
This was very cut and dried. I was in the travel lane on a two-way street with cars parked on both sides. When the signal turned green I proceeded to start up and make a right turn. It was at that time the adult kamikaze style bicyclist flew off the sidewalk in front of me. I noted there was a walk–don’t walk signal at the intersection because coming off the sidewalk parallel to the street I was turning onto, the DON”T WALK would have been staring the bicyclist in the face. Basically this bicyclist crossed my path against the signal in his direction from the sidewalk. I had the green and the right-of way. I hope this clarifies the situation.
Terry, if you had hit that cyclist, you would have been at fault. You are right, it is very cut and dry, read the Driver’s manual sometime. You can’t hit people, (page 35, 37) and in particular bicycles (page 72, 76, 77) in the crosswalk or to the right of you in an intersection, even if you didn’t see them until the last minute.
One of the problems with bicycles using the sidewalk is that they travel faster than pedestrians and drivers aren’t used to having people approach that quickly. They look and if no one is standing there they assume no one is coming, but bikes move faster than that. It doesn’t take away the driver’s responsibility, but it is a good reason for bikes to stay on the road traveling in the direction of traffic where drivers expect them. It is also a reason bicyclists should be especially careful at intersections if they are on the sidewalk.
I am sure that Terry being at fault wouldn’t make the bicyclist he hit feel any better.
As a regular bicycle commuter, I believe that kamikaze bicyclists such as the one that illegally rode in front of Terry Parker are a threat to me, because they foster ill will among those who should be sharing the roadway.
Matthew should reread Terry’s post. The cyclist crossed in front of him against a red light at high speed using a crosswalk. Terry showed due diligence and didn’t mow him down. The cyclist should have been cited for breaking the law, had he/she been observed by a police officer.
I have no sympathy for bicyclists who fail to use the most basic level of common sense. You don’t go flying from a sidewalk into moving traffic (crosswalk or not, green light or not) and expect not to get hit by a Mack truck. Drivers can’t anticipate a stupid move like that, just like they wouldn’t expect someone to jump out from between parked cars in front of a moving bus. It’s amazing that more cyclists aren’t killed doing stuff like that.
Matthew: The bicyclist would have been cited for not obeying the DON’T WALK signal (same as a red light), and if I had my say, reckless riding and riding on the sidewalk. The intersection is in a business district. A pedestrian in the same situation would have been sited for jaywalking against the DON’T WALK signal.
The cyclist crossed in front of him against a red light at high speed using a crosswalk
I read that differently. I read that he entered a crosswalk going with the green but against a don’t walk sign.
The bicyclist would have been cited for not obeying the DON’T WALK signal (same as a red light)
Its not the same as a red light. You, pedestrian, bicyclist or motorist, are not supposed to be in the intersection when a light turns red. With a don’t walk sign there is no responsibility for pedestrians, or bicyclists to have cleared an intersection. Its the person making the turn who is responsible for assuring it is safe. Terry was clearly in the wrong. The don’t walk sign does not give him the right-of-way.
you don’t go flying from a sidewalk into moving traffic (crosswalk or not, green light or not) and expect not to get hit by a Mack truck.
I don’t step off a curb when a car is stopped at a stop sign until I am sure the driver has seen me. That doesn’t mean its my fault if the driver pulls out without making sure there are no pedestrians.
^^^^
Except, if the car is already turning right, then a bicycle suddenly tears into a crosswalk in front of the car (which, BTW, is already moving), then yes, it is the bicyclists fault. If the cyclist is using the sidewalk, then the crosswalk, he/she is supposed to WALK their bike across the crosswalk. They’re not riding with the traffic, they’re riding next to the pedestrians.
Except, if the car is already turning right, then a bicycle suddenly tears into a crosswalk in front of the car
Its the drivers responsbility to make sure it is safe to make the turn. The bike did not come out of nowhere, it was on the sidewalk approaching the intersection.
Ross, you, like Matthew, failed to read Terry’s posting carefully:
“…coming off the sidewalk parallel to the street I was turning onto, the DON”T WALK would have been staring the bicyclist in the face. Basically this bicyclist crossed my path against the signal in his direction from the sidewalk. I had the green and the right-of way. I hope this clarifies the situation.”
This was a clear violation by the cyclist of ORS 814.410 “Unsafe operation of bicycle on sidewalk” which you should read before making further comments claiming that Terry supposedly did something wrong or illegal.
Aaron is mistaken in one respect. A bicyclist using a sidewalk is not required to walk the bicycle across crosswalks, but merely proceed at the speed of a walk when a vehicle is approaching.
^ I believe that you lose your pedestrian right-of-way when the crosswalk signal is red, if I remember the updated rules of the road that were updated recently. You only have rights in the crosswalk when the crosswalk light is green, or when you are in unsignalized crosswalk (marked or unmarked).
rex burkholder said: “As for whether people who ride bicycles (taxpayers all, Terry) pay for roads, the latest financial information we have compiled at Metro for the Regional Transportation Plan update shows that 85% of funds for modernization actually come from local property taxes, urban renewal fees and system development charges. Gas taxes don’t even cover maintenance anymore, much less expansion.”
The phrase “street modernization” when applied to city streets is a polished crafty term used for a street makeover. Modernization includes such tings as, sidewalk expansion, curb extensions, bike lanes, street lighting (when applied to city streets is far more important to pedestrians and bicyclists than motor vehicles that have headlights), street trees etc. This however is not street or roadway expansion. In most cases street modernization also involves capacity reductions for motor vehicles (including trucks) with the removal of travel lanes and/or busses parking at curb extensions to board passengers that create more congestion. Modernization may be so-called improvements to alternative mode advocates, but usually create negative impacts for drivers on these streets. Paying for projects that make driving conditions worse should not be called improvements and should not be paid for with motorist paid fuel taxes, or come from motorist paid registration and license fees, or for that matter, be paid for from any fee or tax assessed on driving.
Federal Flexible Funding from the Federal Highway Trust fund that only motorists pay into through the federal taxes on motor fuels already and often pay for 50 percent or more of current funding methods. Rex may be correct when the funding is the local match money involved, and he is correct that money for transportation projects is funded through urban renewal tax increment funding. However, in urban renewal districts, taxes on prope5rty improvements doe not help fund schools, police and fire protection, and other government services. However, in non-urban renewal areas, transit users, bicyclists and those property owners that have properties facing the street should be solely financially responsible to pay for this type of anti-auto/anti-freight movement for so-called street modernization projects. Sharing the road must also mean tax equity and alternative mode users directly sharing the financial responsibility. Any present, new or additional taxes or fees assessed on motorists must only go to paying for actual road improvements, and projects that increase (not decrease) road capacity, not for subsidizing other modes of transport.
I’m not saying that the bicyclist in Terry’s situation was right, far from it. What I am saying that the police regularly give tickets to people that don’t yield, in fact, they go so far as to set up stings where the police actually do the jay-walking, and then write up tickets to drivers… Terry has to stop, that is that, and his requests that the estate of the bicyclist pay for his bumper would be thrown out of court.
Also, the phrase “kamikaze bicyclists” implies that the bicyclist had stuffed his frame/bag full of explosives, and was aiming specifically for Terry, (like they did in the Vietnam war.) Since, (I believe,) the bicyclist was simply trying to cross the street, a different term would be appropriate…
coming off the sidewalk parallel to the street I was turning onto
Doug,
You are right. That description is that the bicyclist ran the red light since the street Terry was turning off of was green and the bike was riding parallel to the street he was turning onto. I got distracted by the statement about the walk signal. Since he would have been riding against traffic there may not have been a red light he could see. But that’s one reason why riding against traffic is a bad idea.
This was a clear violation by the cyclist of ORS 814.410 “Unsafe operation of bicycle on sidewalk”
There is no indication the cyclists operation on the sidewalk was unsafe, it was when he ran the red light by getting off the sidewalk that he violated traffic laws.