Updated: Cyclist dies after collision with garbage truck
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on October 22nd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
scene at 2:17pm.
More photos below
(Photo © Jonathan Maus)
A bicyclist died in a collision with a garbage truck sometime around 12:30 today at the northwest corner of N. Interstate and Greeley in North Portland. I’m on the scene right now and just finished talking with Traffic Division Lieutenant Mark Kruger as well as other people on the scene.
Based on those conversations, here’s what seemed to have happen:
- The bicyclist (who was in a marked bike lane) and the truck were traveling south (downhill) on N. Interstate Ave.
- The truck overtook the cyclist mid-way down the hill.
-
The truck signaled a turn to go right (south) on Greeley and then
it collided with the bicyclistthe bike and truck collided with each other.
According to Kruger, the driver says he checked his mirrors before making the turn and he also had a passenger with him when the collision occurred.
The police have done blood work on the driver and initial statements say there appears to be no impairment involved.
The scene:
The truck came to a stop at the apex of the corner of N. Interstate and Greeley. The intersection is the first intersection at the end of a long (and fast if you’re on a bike) downhill that begins up at Overlook Park. The bike is still wedged almost entirely beneath the rear wheels of the truck. It appears to be a high-end black Orbea road bike.
A few news crews were on the scene (I just did an interview with KGW) and I expect coverage on the local TV stations tonight at 5:00.
I imagine it will be several hours before we know the identity of the victim. Lt. Kruger says it was a male in what appeared to be his mid-30s. The medical examiner is not able to release the name yet. The victim was Brett Jarolimek.
Note: This is within several yards of where that cyclist was involved with a strange run-in with a MAX train a few weeks ago.
More photos from the scene (These were all taken from 2:10 to 2:30pm):
(Photo © Jonathan Maus)
*Note: If you’re trying to reach me by phone, I dropped it in water this morning and it’s still not working. Please use email if you can - jonathan[at]bikeportland[dot]org.
Email This Post
Possibly related posts
October 22nd, 2007 13:51
Why Why Why? This is getting scary and rediculous.
October 22nd, 2007 14:18
I don't mean to sound cinical but I don't think this is grounds for getting freaked out. I think another ghost bike and ride of silence would be in order, but don't get scared. It's the beginning of the rainy season, there are always a bunch of accidents during the start of the rainy season.
October 22nd, 2007 14:19
It was at the intersection of Greely and Interstate.
October 22nd, 2007 14:20
Looks like another right hook, folks, if the KGW pic is accurate. Right turning traffic onto Greeley from southbound Interstate crosses both a bike lane and a crosswalk at that intersection.
October 22nd, 2007 14:22
It's not raining today, so I don't think that's a valid excuse
October 22nd, 2007 14:22
Looks like another cyclist was not paying attention yet again..... How many will it take ?????
October 22nd, 2007 14:32
The Greeley/Interstate intersection is notably dangerous, especially when cyclists on the southbound grade are not prepared for light changes, 'right on red' traffic (regardless of potential driver culpability) or ignore traffic signals altogether.
In any case, my sympathies are extended to the cyclists family and to the driver as well.
October 22nd, 2007 14:38
O-Live is reporting a pedestrian injured as well.
Let's see how this works itself out.
However, I can see in the response from the TV station sites that news directors are eagerly sniffing the wind for controversy. November sweeps are coming...
October 22nd, 2007 14:40
Perhaps people should leave there speculations for after the details come out. Regardless I pray this is the last incident.
Lets all keep our heads up out there.
October 22nd, 2007 14:41
Big Diesel (#4) what makes you write that? Judging by the photo this happened a few yards after the intersection.
October 22nd, 2007 14:48
Michael - where are you seeing a photo?
October 22nd, 2007 14:49
There is a picture on the KGW-TV site. Hard to tell much from it.
October 22nd, 2007 14:51
Tasha, photo at:
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_101907_news_bicyclist_killed.19726ae10.html
I'm also refreshing the story at Oregonlive, no photos there yet.
October 22nd, 2007 14:56
I rode by minutes after it happened. I saw the bike under the back inside right set of truck wheels and thought I saw the rider under the truck as well. The truck driver was visibly upset and I assumed he hadn't signalled his right turn.
October 22nd, 2007 14:56
My thoughts and condolencesare with the friends and family of this cyclist.
Please be safe, everyone!
October 22nd, 2007 14:58
Jonathan,
I do not know the details but wanted to report that last Wednesday morning the timings of the Interstate and Greeley lights were changed. I came through the intersection and car passed behind me. I thought they ran a red light but when turning to look at their light I saw they had not and for a brief second both lights were green. I called the city's traffic office after I saw a close car on car wreck that evening. On Thursday the Overlook neighborhood association sent out a warning about changes with that light.
It will make me frustrated if the cause of this accident was due to the light timing changes.
October 22nd, 2007 15:00
brd, that will be extremely important information if that was indeed the cause of this collision.
October 22nd, 2007 15:02
Not that there are *any* details yet (looking at you Big Diesel) but Interstate @ Greeley is really scary. Vehicles frequently make that right turn without signaling and the light change can be sudden making it difficult to come to a stop if you've got enough speed going down the hill.
October 22nd, 2007 15:02
By the photo, it appears the person was riding down Greeley and then cut across to pick-up Interstate on the inside (or wrong side) lane and didn't see the truck as it rounded the corner. I may be speculating, but that's a spot I ride through every weekday. I'll be getting another call from mom to make sure it wasn't me. Sooooo sad!
October 22nd, 2007 15:08
I was wrong in my speculating. Got to ride defensively out there. Figure that a vehicle doesn't see you at all...100% of the time.
October 22nd, 2007 15:09
I road down Interstate today and that truck was in a position that made it appear like it was making a right turn from Interstate southbound onto Greeley. You can see it in the photo.
October 22nd, 2007 15:11
very sad
October 22nd, 2007 15:15
I ride this way to and from work every shift I have at Kaiser's urgent care at the top of the hill. That intersection is dangerous and I always feel it is my solemn responsibility to watch for the drivers making that right turn onto Greely. The hill is a great place to pick-up speed to the Rose Quarter, so I think a lot of us get going so fast that we don't want to slow down if there is a potential problem.
This makes me very sad. All my coworkers are worried about my safety as I ride home.
To the rest of you who ride this area and are thinking it's too dangerous: remember that there is a wide sidewalk you can take with a controlled, signaled crosswalk at the bottom of the hill. Keep riding!
-Ian
October 22nd, 2007 15:17
He "checked his mirrors."
Regardless of whether he checked his mirrors or not, what exactly does he thing happens to cyclists once he passes them?? Do they magically disappear?
You pass them . . . and guess what?? They're still there!
There's a phase in childhood development when a child realizes that even though you've covered something up, it's still there!
Apparently there are adults running around who haven't gotten through that phase.
Just shaking my head and waiting for him to be "not cited."
October 22nd, 2007 15:20
Big Diesel, Post 4:
Looks like another cyclist was not paying attention yet again..... How many will it take ?????
As opposed to the driver, who passed a cyclist, and then made a turn?
Was this one of those cyclists tonyt is talking about, who "magically disappear" once you pass them? Is that how it works in Big Diesel land?
October 22nd, 2007 15:23
I think this IS grounds for getting freaked out. How many deaths in Portland city limits this year? If I remember right, we successfully made it through 2006 without a single one. And there have been many this year and we still have over two months left to go.
Very, very sad.
October 22nd, 2007 15:24
TonyT refers to object permanence.
Yeah, I think drivers are often surprised to see me keeping up with them when they "think" they have passed me.
I was explaining the difference in California and Oregon bike lane law to my non-biking co-workers today and they asked me which I preferred.
This and the downtown cement truck incident have me re-evaluating my thoughts. I'm sure the folks who are going to comment are typing as I do...
October 22nd, 2007 15:26
Re; post #19
I believe that it's called object permanence or something to that effect. I'm getting tired of this "I cant see it so it must not be there" mentality with PDX drivers...
Godspeed rider...
October 22nd, 2007 15:31
Cyclists can get their speed going and keep up with most big trucks and some cars on the hill. I wonder what the driver saw when he "checked" his mirror, probably nothing if the rider was in the ever famous blind spot. What was everybody thinking here? And it was the most beautiful day on top of it all.
October 22nd, 2007 15:31
What I don't understand in these cases* is this: the truck MUST HAVE PASSED THE CYCLIST at some point prior to the crash. Therefore, the driver knew that there was a cyclist nearby on the road and should have taken extra care.
Shouldn't drivers be held accountable for keeping track of the "big picture" around their vehicles instead of being allowed to say, "Oh well, I checked my mirror and I didn't see anything..."?
*Circumstances surrounding the cement truck incident make this scenario possible, but unclear. In the case of the garbage struck, it does sound quite probable that the driver did pass the cyclist in advance of the crash, and therefore should have known the cyclist was there.
October 22nd, 2007 15:33
Here's what I'm thinking. If you're in an accident, and you kill somebody, and you're found at fault in any judicial proceeding, you lose your license for life. Period.
October 22nd, 2007 15:42
Sorry- the comment in post #28 was in reference to post #24 not #19
October 22nd, 2007 15:45
It ain't an "accident" rixtir.
It's a collision caused by failure to follow the law and common freakin' sense.
Call it carelessness, inattention, disregard for safety, whatever you want, but not an accident.
That word needs to be abolished relative to road collisions. It absolves people of their responsibility, as if nothing could have been done to prevent it. Oops.
October 22nd, 2007 15:54
Another one of ours killed AGAIN! Trucks, buses, etc. with high front ends need better mirrors such as those big round ones mounted at the FRONT of the vehicle.
The mirrors they are using today obviously are not adequate and this needs to be addressed YESTERDAY!
October 22nd, 2007 15:55
@ #6, looks like another truck driver not paying attention again. How many of these will it take????
A truck driver who can't judge the speed of a cyclist/vehicle he is overtaking and then makes a fatal right turn across their path should not have a CDL.
October 22nd, 2007 15:55
In the law, there are accidental injuries, and there are intentional injuries. If the driver didn't intend to kill the other person, it's an "accident." if the driver did intend to kill the other person, it's "intentional."
The legal meanings shouldn't be confused with the road safety meanings.
October 22nd, 2007 15:57
Terrible to see another collision & death.
Keep safe everyone!
October 22nd, 2007 15:57
I paid extra for the convex mirrors that are on my van, because they eliminate my blind spots. I couldn't imagine driving a large vehicle without them now. If you have never seen these before find some and check them out to get an idea of how they work. If he really looked in a properly adjusted convex mirror before turning the cyclist would have been visible.
Bjorn
October 22nd, 2007 16:08
i really fail to see how this can be anything other than the truck driver's fault.
with the bike lane bisecting and crossing the turn lane, it's exactly the same thing as a car merging into the next lane and hitting a car in the lane it's driving in.
flat out, if you turn/merge into a lane and are hit by a car that's doing anything short of speeding excessively or driving impaired, it's YOUR FAULT.
i'd like to see LT. Kruger state otherwise.
October 22nd, 2007 16:13
I am so so sorry for all involved. And this is starting to kind of freak me out. Just last week I (once again) had a driver pass me then immediately turn right into a gas station driveway. I shouted, clamped the brakes, and swerved into the driveway myself missing being hit by inches. All of us who ride regularly have these stories. I can't help thinking that in the majority of these situations it's a simple case of someone in a vehicle in a hurry. What a waste.
October 22nd, 2007 16:13
What can we do to make this stop? There are already laws about yielding to cyclists for a right turn, but obviously that isn't working. I think we should file a suit against the companies who aren't using convex mirrors and who don't require frequent driving skills test.
Wildfire fighters(I'm one thank you) are required to go through an 8 hour course every year before they can go out and fight. Why not drivers? Obviously they are not capable of driving their rigs without causing harm.
Mike
October 22nd, 2007 16:16
This has to stop!
We need laws to punish motorists (commercial & private), and protect cyclists on the road.
We need to separate bike lanes on high traffic streets!
This has to stop!
October 22nd, 2007 16:18
Hi
I rode down Interstate this morning down the hill, the light pattern was strange at this very intersection, it was red, and I was slowing down well ahead uphill, then it changed to green for only, like 2 seconds...then turned turned yellow/red instantly i slowed down instantly as there was a rider in front of me as well and he turned to me and said, "that was strange" I said the same thing, then we went on the green...I think the same thing happened to this rider, but he didn't have a chance to stop instantly. this sends chills up my spine cause if i was down that hill at a fast speed seeing the green light, I'd assume it would stay for more than 2 seconds.
October 22nd, 2007 16:19
A bit of clarification:
tonyt posted:
It ain't an "accident" rixtir.
It's a collision caused by failure to follow the law and common freakin' sense.
Call it carelessness, inattention, disregard for safety, whatever you want, but not an accident.
That word needs to be abolished relative to road collisions. It absolves people of their responsibility, as if nothing could have been done to prevent it. Oops.
To which I replied:
In the law, there are accidental injuries, and there are intentional injuries. If the driver didn't intend to kill the other person, it's an "accident." if the driver did intend to kill the other person, it's "intentional."
The legal meanings shouldn't be confused with the road safety meanings.
Actually, what you described tonyt is "negligent injury," which is "accidental"-- as distinguished from "intentional injury." However, calling an injury "accidental" does not absolve the person at fault of their responsibility-- they're still liable for their negligence.
October 22nd, 2007 16:20
This needs to stop, now. The police must start enforcing the laws, and penalize people for taking illegal actions that result in a person's death.
October 22nd, 2007 16:20
I don’t look at these things as “whose fault is it”, I look it as “how can everyone be safer on the roads?. When there are two “accidents” within less than two weeks of each other, something’s got to give. Bikers need to be more aware, even over cautious for awhile and cars (especially trucks) need to slow WAY down and be super diligent about checking their mirrors and using their turn signals.
I know ever since Tracey was killed, I have been almost annoyingly obedient of traffic signals, and a little slower when I approach intersections where cars might be turning right, especially as the wet weather sets in and days gets darker and shorter. I don’t want to live in mortal fear of getting killed by a car, but with close calls almost every single day, I feel we must be proactive for our own safety.
And something needs to be done about these blind spots and better safety training for drivers of large vehicles.
October 22nd, 2007 16:22
Can we start a right-hook awareness campaign? I've nearly been done in by several careless drivers over the years when on my bike. When I drive, I always, always check over my right shoulder before making the turn. I realize that big, high trucks may be harder to see out of, but that's no excuse. Get bigger mirrors, install cameras, something. Anything.
In lieu of that, maybe we should just ride smack in the middle of the road, all the time. No bikes on the right == no chance for a right hook.
Any catchy slogan ideas?
"Be all right --> look right, go right."
October 22nd, 2007 16:24
Elliot, the police don't penalize anybody, the courts do. And in Oregon, we simply don't have adequate laws with which to penalize somebody who negligently takes a life. If you want that to change, you're going to have to work for it.
October 22nd, 2007 16:25
Bikers need to be more aware, even over cautious for awhile
For awhile?
Bikers ALWAYS need to be over cautious.
October 22nd, 2007 16:25
@ # 41
1. File a lawsuit against the city regarding the flawed bike lane designs they are using.
2. Reassign all the officers on the traffic division with glaring pro-motorist/anti-cyclist attitudes and agendas, and start throwing the book at these truck drivers.
October 22nd, 2007 16:26
This incident reminds me that there is something I've been meaning to post here. Is there a forum where motorists can ask specific questions about how to handle various areas? There are some places (Like when coming off of the Hawthorne Bridge) that seem well defined in the eyes of the law but don't seem to work that way. I don't want to hurt anyone, and I always watch out for everyone (including those I often see run redlights and stop signs, and I mean that as bikes, pedestrians and motorists).. but anyway, some areas seem impossible, and I'm never sure how to handle it short of stopping int he middle of the road.
Thanks.
October 22nd, 2007 16:27
"In lieu of that, maybe we should just ride smack in the middle of the road, all the time. No bikes on the right == no chance for a right hook."
yeah, right. except that people will just get pissed off, pass into the opposite direction lane to get by, and then right hook you as they're getting back into the right lane.
October 22nd, 2007 16:31
Question: Since it was a garbage truck, they often have driver's seats on the right side of the vehicle, what side of the truck was the driver sitting on when the accident happened?
Very sad, indeed. We all as users of the roads have to be aware of our surroundings. I think that our drivers education needs to be expanded, to include cycling safety, both drivers and cyclists, in light of all the recent deaths.
The Oregonian had a editoral on Sunday about the numbers of people killed each year due to auto accidents. We as a society need to make it a piority to keep each other safe.
October 22nd, 2007 16:31
Ok people here is the deal,
Most of the cyclist in this city do a decent job of sharing the road and following the rules of street level cycling. However us drivers of the the "Death Machines" have noticed alot of cyclist being extreamly disregardent of commen sence and or intelligable thinking while they are "Sharing" the road. These trucks do not stop on a dime. These trucks do not have the periferal view that you do on a bike. These trucks weigh up to 108000lbs and have a three second delay from the time a driver notices he needs to stop untill he actually starts to stop.
So when an irradic cyclist is traveling at a snails pace in the non opposing lane of traffic and you pass them and then 45 seconds later after you HAVE BEEN RIDING YOUR BRAKES DOWN A 4.5% GRADED HILL start to make a right hand turn with Blinker on clearly identifying intention to turn and check mirrorsto see same said cyclist 20 yrds behind you, you start to turn not knowing that the dummy on a bike has not been slowing at all and is now out speeding you by 5 - 10 mph. Smells like a crap when ist thrown back huh.
Next time you see a garbage truck or any other large vehicle pretend that the driver is blind, even if you have made direct eye contact never assume.
hay this might be a fair equivalant to what happened today. A speeding car trys to pass a slow moving train. Car knows what the train will do. The train might even know what the car is going to do. Doesnt mean the train can stop intime.
Lets not forget the cyclist collided with my co-worker.
October 22nd, 2007 16:32
"The truck overtook the cyclist, then made a right hand turn".
Sigh.
October 22nd, 2007 16:33
In response to post # 16 from brd regarding the traffic signal timing:
City Signals & St. Lighting staff did make some signal timing changes last Wednesday at N Interstate & Greeley to improve efficiency. While observing the new timing, we noticed that several north-bound left-turners seemed to be running the red light. So, we restored the original signal timings last Friday and plan to study the intersection further before making any other changes. In light of unfortunate crash today, we will also check to see if we can do anything to improve intersection safety, especially for cyclists.
Bill Kloos
Signals & St. Lighting Division Manager
PDOT
October 22nd, 2007 16:34
I'm taking the lane the whole way home today. If I get right hooked, I'm going to call my wife tell her I'm ok (assuming I'm ok) then I'm going to tear into the car with my ULock. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
October 22nd, 2007 16:36
Tasha- you're sooo right; motorists need to slow WAY down!
It's unbelievable how fast and self absorbed folks are while they drive. Even on so-called bike blvds, not to mention high speed routes like this, it's not uncommon to see drivers going 20+ mph over the limit. We need greater safety infrastructure in place and enforcement from the PPB!
October 22nd, 2007 16:41
"If I get right hooked, I'm going to call my wife tell her I'm ok (assuming I'm ok) then I'm going to tear into the car with my ULock. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!"
is it really worth it? that might feel good while you're doing it, but the corresponding bullets hitting you won't.
and, the type of people who drive aggressively and maliciously towards bikes are much more likely to carry firearms.
i don't think people realize that something like 30% of people on the road have guns in their car.
October 22nd, 2007 16:43
Lyle (#52)-
My sarcasm pseudo-tag didn't come through. Of course taking the lane all the time isn't an option. But as it stands right now, unless drivers start looking right before going right, bike lanes can be suicide lanes.
I do know that Oregon law requires a rider to right as far to the right as is safe and practical. Well, bike lane design seems to rely on drivers checking their blind spots. That obviously isn't going too well, so how is a bike lane "safe and practical"?
October 22nd, 2007 16:44
The way the local media is reporting the story isn't helping any from what I can see. I've looked at KATU, KOIN, and the Oregonian and they all write something like this: The truck was going down the hill, signaled to turn, started the turn, and the bicycle ran into the truck.
None of them mention that the bicycle was traveling in a bike lane. That oversight causes them to miss an opportunity to educate their driving readers on the driver's responsibility to yield the right of way to the bicycle in the bike lane when making a right hand turn.
The fact that the turn signal is on is irrelevant. The driver is still required to yield the right of way to the bicycle. They include the turn signal thing as if it exonerates the driver and omit any mention of the bike lane.
Am I paranoid to see this as an intentional bias in their telling of the story?
October 22nd, 2007 16:44
"However us drivers of the the "Death Machines" have noticed alot of cyclist being extreamly disregardent of commen sence and or intelligable thinking while they are "Sharing" the road. These trucks do not stop on a dime."
wow, forget about 'if you don't know how to say it nicely, don't say it'. how about 'if you don't know how to say it, don't say it.'?
i think i speak for all of us when i say, hopefully you're not relying on reading road signs to guide you when you're out there driving those good 'ol death machines.
October 22nd, 2007 16:45
@ #54,
Ok Mike, here's the deal....
First, use spell check. It makes you look like fool when you kant right korrektlee.
Second, don't come on a bike forum telling cyclists it's their fault when a GIGANTIC truck kills one of their commrades. It's beyond bad form. I'd say it borders on putrid.
Third, WAKE UP Dingus! The reason a bike "collided with [your] co-worker" is because he/she was negligent and crossed another traffic lane (yes, we're traffic too!) with out checking to see who was there.
You make me sick!
October 22nd, 2007 16:48
"Am I paranoid to see this as an intentional bias in their telling of the story?"
are you kidding? that's what the corporate news media exists to do... to act as a biased and influenced news source. all pretense has been completely abandoned.
watch the 11 o'clock news and see how many ads there are for cars/car sales compared to bikes/bike sales.
October 22nd, 2007 16:50
Am I paranoid to see this as an intentional bias in their telling of the story?
It's so ingrained they don't see it. If we want these reporters to start writing better reports, get them on a bike and watch how their perspectives change when they get right hooked etc.:
Old perspective: The truck turned and the cyclist ran into the truck."
New perspective: The truck turned into the cyclist's path, colliding with the cyclist.
October 22nd, 2007 16:51
Tbird (#65),
Please keep in mind that on this site we value perspectives from all sides and even though this is an emotional time, criticizing another commenter never helps the conversation.
October 22nd, 2007 16:53
"The way the local media is reporting the story isn’t helping any from what I can see. I’ve looked at KATU, KOIN, and the Oregonian and they all write something like this: The truck was going down the hill, signaled to turn, started the turn, and the bicycle ran into the truck."
The thing is, they are all simply reporting what was told to them by the Police Bureau, and that's the way they make their statements.
October 22nd, 2007 16:54
Lemme guess: Cyclist was in the truck's blind spot, rear passenger side. Truck right-hooks and kills cyclist.
Countermeasure: Cyclist use rear-view mirror to move away from truck's blind spot to the middle of the lane, in front of truck, way ahead of truck's effective distance, causing truck to slow down before making right turn, behind cyclist.
October 22nd, 2007 16:54
A short time ago my doctor advised me that I should regard motor vehicles as insentient beasts. I must not have taken it to heart because tomorrow I'm going in to have an elbow x-rayed that I injured when I was right-hooked by one of these insentient beasts. By grace, I was going slow enough that I got off with nothing worse than a sprained elbow. In the month since my accident three cyclists have been killed and one critically injured. I'm starting to get the point.
I agree with Lyle that it's hard to see how this could not be the driver's fault. At the same time, I doubt that's any consolation to the cyclist's friends and family and certainly not to the cyclist.
October 22nd, 2007 16:55
Though the law states that the cyclist has the right of way it really doesn’t matter when physics get involved. As a car-free, year-round cyclist I appreciate the road rights extended to me and the hard work that got these laws in place. With that said, I think common sense and common courtesy should be the guide behind the law. And that, to me at least, says that within a reasonable distance prescribed by the speed limit a moving and signaling vehicle and a cyclist should not over take one another. In other words, if a cyclist approaches a signaling vehicle it should not be allowed to pass on the right within a prescribed distance. By the same token a vehicle intending to turn right should not be allowed to pass a cyclist prior to making the turn within the same prescribed distance.
Granted, I don’t know the details in this tragedy and don’t know who violated my notion of common sense and common courtesy, but it seems to me that the technical right of way is not serving cyclists well. It invites reckless decisions by cyclists and frustrates many well meaning motorists trying to turn right. My fear is that a backlash is coming as indicated by recent suggestions in the press and by the police that Oregon adopt the California approach where the bike lanes are shared with right turning cars. I think this approach would be a disaster for cyclist rights and safety and hope we can head this off by taking the lead in sensibly addressing right turn issues. I would gladly forgo my technical right to pass a vehicle just before it turns right in exchange for much greater clarity and strict enforcement of the law protecting me from a right turning vehicle.
Sadly, these accidents are the awareness campaign. But if cyclists don't back down on their right of way while in the bike lane under any circumstance, this campaign is going to back fire on us.
October 22nd, 2007 16:59
I'm sorry, but when a vehicle passes a cyclist on a downhill, they should realize that the cyclist is still there. Any driver would know that if they passed another vehicle. Another thing is that lots of drivers don't realize how fast a cyclist can go downhill. Judging from the bike, (a carbon Orbea), the cyclist had an appreciation for a higher end road bike and was probably descending at 25+ mph. I would think probably 30+ mph which would make braking an issue if the truck turned into his path.
It was dry, a beautiful day and probably out for a ride. So sad...
October 22nd, 2007 17:03
Perhaps the only error the cyclist made was to trust the bike lane and the truck driver. Bike lanes on steep downhill descents are death traps. This is a perfect example of a location where all cyclists should take the lane, pass right turning traffic on the left and/or make the traffic wait behind you. The city has a huge liability for the design and installation of these unsafe bike lanes.
October 22nd, 2007 17:05
I think the media uses the turn signal as a shorthand way of assigning blame without actually explicitly saying it.
Cyclist killed, but the vehicles turn signal was on (driver not at fault).
-is suspiciously similar to-
Police shot and killed a man, but he had a criminal record (he deserved it).
October 22nd, 2007 17:05
I gotta wonder if the cyclist was riding the top of his bars and couldn't reach the aero brifters to brake in time...
cross levers might be a roadie faux-pas, but they're quite helpful for reacting quickly in traffic.
October 22nd, 2007 17:09
I ride on Interstate every day on my way to work and always slow way down at this intersection even if it means sacrificing momentum. Between vehicles turning right onto Greeley and vehicles making right turns on red onto Interstate south from Greeley, this is simply not an intersection where anyone should be blazing down the hill. Although we may have right of way in that lane, I tend to agree that the law of gross tonnage has some applicability and I would rather be alive than "right."
October 22nd, 2007 17:12
It's beginning to dawn on me that Portland, for all of its enlightened bicycle-friendliness is coddling its bicycling denizens.
Laws, bike lanes, and other hard-won bike physical accommodations DON'T protect ANYONE.
Bicyclists NEED knowledge of specific defense driving countermeasures. Does Portland or Oregon require bicycle driving education in public schools? I bet NOT.
October 22nd, 2007 17:16
Every time I ride from NoPo to downtown, I go through that intersection - but I am always coming down Greeley merging onto Interstate because I feel totally uncomfortable riding down the steep incline of Interstate with its red lights and narrow bike lane. I would have to burn up my brakes to be able to stop easily if the lights on that hill turned red. As #71 said, you can easily get up to 25+ mph on that hill, which is a death sentence as we've seen here. Taking Greeley instead of Interstate has its own problems (crossing Swan Island traffic, and then back again across the lane that become the I-5 on-ramp), but it just goes to show that at all times we need to ride defensively. It may be fun to get up speed on a hill, but if you can't respond to a situation, then you are putting yourself in danger. I am in no way blaming the victim here - the fault is clearly on the driver since he OVERTOOK the bike (Hello?!!) - but I feel that we have to treat cars as if drivers are completely oblivious to our presence and ride accordingly. If it slows us down or makes out ride "less fun" because we can't shoot down a hill at 30mph, fine. I'd rather make it home in one piece.
October 22nd, 2007 17:16
Asher, I agree in general with what you're saying in post 70 about common sense and common courtesy. However, the law doesn't allow cyclists to pass on the right unless it is safe to do so, nor does it allow drivers to turn right unless it is safe to do so.
What you suggest is adding a specific "safe distance" to the law, which may be a good idea. Of course, people will continue to ignore the law, and then lie about how observant of the law they always are when the laws of physics catch up to them.
"Yes, my turn signal was on."
"Yes, I checked my mirror."
"Yes, I observed the minimum safe distance."
October 22nd, 2007 17:24
Are bike lanes unsafe? Should I start to ride in the middle of the right hand lane?
October 22nd, 2007 17:25
Pass a bike anyplace, and make a turn over a bike lane, or even a turn without a bike lane, always assume the bike is there. Perhaps the driver did so assume, checked his mirror, and just failed to see the bicycle and assumed the bicycle had gone elsewhere.
I can only add to the statements of sorrow for everyone involved.
October 22nd, 2007 17:29
I'm saddened to read about yet another tragedy on our streets. Unfortunately as stated in a post above, these events trigger awareness, but then on the positive side, hopefully everyone will ride and drive more safely. I for one have been extrememly cognizant of motorists when riding lately, stopping completely at stop signs and signaling each turn, whether vehicles are around or not. When driving, I'm very aware of cyclists and very patient. These accidents in Portland are one of the main reasons I drive to work and ride on country roads when I can (though they are not necessarily safer, there is less traffic).
October 22nd, 2007 17:35
I agree that we should see what plays out in the details. But initially I agree with comment #24. This is dramatically different from the Sparling incident in that the driver clearly saw the cyclist because he passed the person. This is not an issue of a cyclist putting themselves in a vehicle's blind spot. These people were both traveling down the road, and both aware of each other.
No somebody doesn't simply disappear once you pass them.
Damn, I hope these deaths are not in vain.
October 22nd, 2007 17:36
It's pretty well established that out of all the bike / vehicle collisions where blame can be attributed, 50% of the time the cyclist is at fault and 50% of the time the driver is at fault. The knee-jerk reaction on here that it must be the driver's fault here is presumptious (since we don't know all the facts), biased (since it ignores the strong possibility that the cyclist was going at high speed down that hill), and slightly distasteful (since a person just died).
More importantly in the long term, it is also damaging to our public image as the cycling community. Whenever it degenerates to us vs them, we lose. Because it increases driver anger, and makes them more aggresive when we're around. Result? More collisions. And we all know who tends to come out on top in collisions.
I'd guess that maybe 10% of drivers are inconsiderate ***holes, who think bikes shouldn't be allowed on the road, don't look, don't give you room, and risk hitting you. And 10% of cyclists are inconsiderate ***holes, who think cars shouldn't be allowed on the road, don't have lights (or even reflectors) at night, don't bike defensively etc. If we can flulsh those 10% of ***hole cyclists out of their ways, it'll make it safer for all of us.
October 22nd, 2007 17:37
Jonathon
I see brd has already left a similar post about the traffic signals at this intersection, but I feel it should be addressed with PDOT. I used to bike this hill regularly when I lived in North and am very familiar and cautious with this intersection. Saturday I was driving southbound - the first light at the bottom of the hill was green and the immediate second light was red! I had never in car or bike experienced this. Green - yellow maybe once! I barely avoided entering the intersection on the red. Those familiar with the intersections know you can't see the second light until you are through the first. I mentioned it to my partner who rides this route daily, he too had noticed the lights "weren't right".
All of that being said - my tears to the family and friends of the fallen. Please, let's all be careful out there.
October 22nd, 2007 17:40
I was "tail-gaited" and purposefully cut off by a truck (State Vehicle plates) today on SW 10th. The driver proceeded to give me a very vulgar lecture on where bikes belong.
On my way home a Radio Cab drove into the bike lane where SW 6th merges with Broadway and almost struck me. I had to swerved into an area where parked cars might have been to avoid him.
Both of these vehicles had previously overtaken me and I was in a foul mood about the current state of affairs here in Portland and feeling very anti-car. Now, here I am reading about how another cyclist was killed after being overtaken by a commercial vehicle? It's no wonder so many cyclists feel like drivers are "the enemy."
October 22nd, 2007 17:47
Horrible for all involved.
All facts arent out yet.
Assumptions based mostly on the media reports (who typically get it wrong anyway) are just plain guessing.
Just because you have the right of way in a bike lane crossing an intersection, does not mean you should always use it. I dont mean to flame by that comment, but if you are going to pass straight through an intersection in a far right lane which has potentially right turning traffic (signaling or otherwise) you are taking a tremendous risk. You must always be prepared to stop and or take serious evasive action in a situation like this.
I hate tragedy like this. I hurt for the fallen and their family, I hurt for the driver and the ghost he will live with the rest of his life, even if it is found that he is not at fault. We should have compassion on all involved right down to the cop that had to pick up the pieces of another wasted life in the street yet again.
I commute by motorcycle to downtown everyday. I cannot insist on my right of way ever without using excessive caution and keeping second and third options close at hand.
Everyone needs to do a better job out there, and no matter how good you think you are, you can always do better.
As an aside, most of my serious traffic conflicts once I reach the downtown core are bicycle and pedestrian conflicts due to their not adhering to any semblence of the rules of the road, not cars.
Once outside of the core, then its cars.
Prayers for everyone involved.
October 22nd, 2007 17:53
Re: Motorist, post 51
I don't know of any specific forum, but you are welcome to send me an email at kevin.hedahlgmail
There are plenty of intersections around Portland that are confusing to cyclist and motorists alike. Most cyclists are also motorists, so have some insight into how cars react, but not vise-versa. I'd love to answer any questions.
October 22nd, 2007 17:54
@ 83 The 50-50 fault numbers are not 'pretty well established', they were provided by Lt. Kruger, who as we all know has a strong pro-motorist/anti-cyclist bias.
I have evaluated about four years of Portland crash data and my conclusion is that the 'at fault' split for adult cyclists in all crashes is much closer to 58% motorist at fault to 42% cyclist at fault.
These numbers are based on the police data base (with its inherent bias) and ignores the fact that the cyclist:motorist injury/fatality ratio is something like 99:1 regardless of fault.
Charles Komanoff has done some excellent research into police bias in reporting fault in crashes resulting in cyclist fatalities in NYC: http://www.cars-suck.org/research/cyclists.pdf
October 22nd, 2007 17:58
These two tragic deaths in the past few weeks have reminded me of a rule that is followed on the mountain by skiers and snowboarders regarding right-of-way. It goes something like this:
Whoever is in front of you has right-of-way - they cannot see you. Yield to them no matter what.
When I apply that rule while riding my bicycle and scooter, I have never had any problems. While state law says that drivers on the road are supposed to use their mirror, why assume that they are paying attention to you? That is asking for a quick death - ask any motorcyclist.
Yea, you have to slow down when you most want to bomb down a hill, but bicycles don't stop very quickly.
Even motorcycles cannot outstop a car with good brakes, so be very careful with excessive speed!!
And big trucks are simply way too dangerous to get anywhere near - might I suggest completely avoiding them, and giving them a good 20' radius of clearance? All it takes is one of those little bits of metal they always have exposed to whack you in the head at a mere 5 mph to kill you.
Skiers get killed all the time by low (walking)-speed accidents with trees.
Wear your helmet and ride safe!
October 22nd, 2007 18:00
I went to KGW's website and read the article on this accident posted there; they talked about today's cyclist "slamming" into the garbage truck and then, further down, they mention that another cyclist had died earlier this month (Tracey Sparling) after she "slammed into" the cement truck.
Uh.. excuse me, if I recollect properly, both Tracey and the cement truck were at a stop and he rolled over her - she didn't go "slamming" into his truck - to slam into him she'd have to have gotten up to some speed... and my point in mention of this is that news reporters do so much harm with their inaccurate reporting and then non or anti-cycling readers buy it as gospel, so now cyclists are beginning to look like a pack of lemmings going over the cliff as we all start "slamming" into motor vehicles. I'm am so disgusted with KGW for that post I could just spit and my mama told me it is NEVER polite for a lady to spit. Grrrrrrrrrr.
Yeah - we all have to be SUPER careful out there.
Condolences to the family, my prayers to the spirit of the cyclist as he soars on new roads - my heart weighs heavy with yet another senseless death.
Tweety
October 22nd, 2007 18:11
I note that Brian Schmautz is providing comments for the PPB on this incident, they must have told Kruger to be quiet.
October 22nd, 2007 18:16
In addition to cycling, I also drive a motorcycle. From that perspective, I have nothing to do but pay close attention to what every driver around me is doing, even more so than when I am on my bike. Cell phones, text messaging, make up, reading (!), eating . . . you wouldn't believe what you can see during a routine drive around Portland. Count how many auto drivers are on their cell phone tomorrow while you ride to work.
I mention this only to underscore that drivers DO NOT pay attention and you must always be the better vehicle driver. And the current state of our laws is simply not designed to help us cyclists out. Maybe when peak oil hits and gas is 10 bux a gallon, but not yet.
I hate to say it, but we are a minority and, to most drivers, a pain in the ass minority. We should continue to fight for better laws and increased awareness. And for the punishment of bad drivers. But we must not trust motorists. Unfortunately, that is not spoken of until tragedy hits.
What a shame. My thoughts to the cyclist and his/her family.
October 22nd, 2007 18:18
I note that Brian Schmautz is providing comments for the PPB on this incident, they must have told Kruger to be quiet.
When all else fails, bring in the pathological liar.
October 22nd, 2007 18:20
"I went to KGW’s website and read the article on this accident posted there; they talked about today’s cyclist "slamming" into the garbage truck and then, further down, they mention that another cyclist had died earlier this month (Tracey Sparling) after she "slammed into" the cement truck."
I agree with you Tweety. I know the online editor at KGW and I just sent him an email saying they need to remove that reference immediately. I will keep you posted.
Update: I just heard back from Frank (KGW's online editor) and he has changed the sentence to:
October 22nd, 2007 18:28
Another crash. Makes me sick to my stomach. My guess is in cases like this some people see them as "accidents". While I vehemently disagree (accidents aren't so easily preventable as this one was), I don't think the two choices are 1) a measly ticket with an "Opps, so sorry"; or 2) jail time, no more driving. We should be calling for at the very least that the driver be called upon to do many, many hours of community service - talking to drivers about traffic safety so that people can learn from his mistake.
October 22nd, 2007 18:31
I am so sad. While all the details about this are still to come, I can imagine the cyclist--apparently my age and riding my favorite, a fast road bike--enjoying the exhilaration of cruising downhill on a beautiful day. This tragedy makes me ache for the cyclist's loved ones and the garbage collector driving the truck, whose life will never be the same, either.
October 22nd, 2007 18:38
Too bad the cyclist can't give his side of the story. He's dead. We'll have to take the driver's word for it that he signalled and checked his mirrors.
-Ian
October 22nd, 2007 18:39
...Also, those photos of the bike crushed under the truck chill me to the f****** bone. Let's all be careful, please.
-Ian
October 22nd, 2007 18:50
# 95
--We should be calling for at the very least that the driver be called upon to do many, many hours of community service - talking to drivers about traffic safety so that people can learn from his mistake.--
This is a rear-end collision. Regardless of the position of the bike- the truck was in front and made a perfectly legal and reasonable turn. Basic traffic law says do not exceed a speed where where you could not stop in time to avoid another vehicle or a stationary object in your path. If the cyclist struck a pedestrian would you be blaming the pedestrian? Obviously not- although the complete lack of logic and common sense on this forum makes me wonder what measure of pretzel-logic you could collectively employ to your purposes.
The biker broke the basic speed law. And the biker is solely and 100% to blame for his own error.
The suggestion that a truck should stop in the middle of an intersection, with a green light, to wait for cyclists overtaking on the right, because they might be traveling too fast to reasonably respond to other traffic is patently absurd.
October 22nd, 2007 18:53
How dare you blame the cyclist?
Big Diesel
October 22nd, 2007 14:22
6
Looks like another cyclist was not paying attention yet again..... How many will it take ?????
October 22nd, 2007 19:01
The photos make me feel ill. It's tough for all involved. I cannot even begin to imagine how the truck driver must feel...and how the biker's family is doing tonight. We've all been in these situations. I'm lucky in Corvallis that so many bikers are on the roadways, as it keeps me in-check whenever I turn...I am always checking my mirrors and trying to be cautious, but when it's raining and dark, oh man! I worry.
October 22nd, 2007 19:22
The suggestion that a truck should stop in the middle of an intersection, with a green light, to wait for cyclists overtaking on the right, because they might be traveling too fast to reasonably respond to other traffic is patently absurd.
Absurd? No, that is the law. The vehicle turning right is supposed to yield to traffic in the bike lane. If he was turning left and he was hit by a vehicle coming toward him, would you blame the driver who hit him? Obviously not.
I am convinced the law needs to be changed to require drivers to move into the bike lane to make their turn. If the truck then needs to swing out to make the turn at least the lane is blocked to start with so no one is passing on the right.
The problem with that is where the driver is delayed by pedestrians the bike lane may be blocked. But a truck swinging into the lane on the left to make a wide turn is essentally supposed to be looking in four different places at once. Given the different speeds of a bicycles, pedestrians and motor vehicles, I think that is expecting too much. And I don't think it is asking too much for a bicyclist to occasionally wait for a vehicle that got to the intersection well ahead of them. Nor is it unreasonable to expect the vehicle to pull in behind a bike to make the turn.
October 22nd, 2007 19:23
Ian #97,
Signaling and checking his mirrors should not absolve the driver from responsibility anymore than signaling a left turn and then turning into traffic would.
Whether he signaled or "looked" should be a moot point. He de facto did not yield per the requirements of the law.
The driver passed the cyclist. Unless he believes in magic, he knew the cyclist was still there. It was the DRIVER'S responsibility to yield before taking that turn.
My question again is, "Where did the driver think the biker went once he passed him?"
If the driver is not cited (as in the case of Tracey Sparling), it's as if the police are saying, "There was nothing more the driver could have done. Since he didn't intend to hit the cyclist, he did nothing wrong." (Wrong on both counts.)
What does not citing say to other drivers?
If you don't mean it, it's okay??
Oops?
October 22nd, 2007 19:23
I am convinced the law needs to be changed to require drivers to move into the bike lane to make their turn.
So then the truck can pass the cyclist, turn into the bike lane with inches to spare, hit the brakes to make that turn, and blame the cyclist for "excessive speed"?
October 22nd, 2007 19:29
To Bill Kloos (post #56). Thank you for participating in the discussion. Two comments:
1. North-bound drivers turning left onto Greeley seem to regularly "run the red" prior to your changes last week. It's quite dangerous for south-bound bikers.
2. Not related to this intersection but the lights seem to have changed around Interstate and the Rose Quarter MAX station as well. For the last week or so I routinely get a green light while there's still a MAX in the intersection.
October 22nd, 2007 19:30
Idiots response is very revealing (as is his chosen screen name). A minority to be sure, but it's scary to know that there are a certain percentage of drivers who have no idea what their responsibilities are behind the wheel.
The next time you make a right turn from the center lane on Broadway you can tell the guy who T-bones you that it's his fault for rear ending you.
October 22nd, 2007 19:35
The next time you make a right turn from the center lane on Broadway you can tell the guy who T-bones you that it's his fault for rear ending you.
See, on idiot's world, once you pass the cyclist, all of your responsibilities are transferred to the cyclist...
October 22nd, 2007 19:35
My heart hurts for the bicycle rider, the driver, the witnesses, the families, everyone touched by this terrible wreck.
Kruger is calling for a California law that allows drivers to enter the bike lane up to 200 feet prior to the turn. In Portland, the basic block is 200 feet long. Then, he wonders why everyone thinks he doesn't care about the safety of bicycle riders. Hmmm...
October 22nd, 2007 19:47
I think if the law was changed to require drivers to move into the bike lane to make their turn like that we would have trucks merging into cyclists in the bike lane and killing them.
The answer is friggin' obvious: if you pass a bike in the bike lane and you are going to be turning right, you slow down and then wait for them to go by (YIELD) like the law requires you to.
October 22nd, 2007 19:51
I did not intend to post anonymously. That was me on #103
October 22nd, 2007 19:52
hi, drivers? you have to signal!!! you know the tremendous effort it requires to lift your pinkie to turn on your signal half a block in advance? now contrast that with the psychotherapy you'll need after you crush someone just starting his or her life under your tires.
god. damn it. i'll be sad when there's a name and a family, but right now i'm just furious.
October 22nd, 2007 19:57
also, skidmark is right. there is nothing wrong with the current law, which this truck and the one last week clearly, 100%, broke. what's wrong is that drivers don't look right when they're turning in order to follow the law. they need to learn to do that (and cyclists need to be careful until they do).
October 22nd, 2007 19:57
Exactly right, SKiDMark:
I think if the law was changed to require drivers to move into the bike lane to make their turn like that we would have trucks merging into cyclists in the bike lane and killing them.
October 22nd, 2007 19:59
drivers don't look right when they're turning in order to follow the law. they need to learn to do that (and cyclists need to be careful until they do).
It's not just a temporary condition.
Cyclists always have, and always will need to be careful.
October 22nd, 2007 20:07
This is unacceptable. I trust all you cyclists, or people of good conscience, or both, agree. Let's turn our energy toward solving this problem in the name of those who have given their lives.
It's time to find solutions, not fake solutions taking away the rights of cyclists and not just admonishing people to be more careful.
It's time for Portlanders to stand up, again, to the tyranny of the automobile.
October 22nd, 2007 20:10
a.O., do you have any ideas on that?
October 22nd, 2007 20:12
I think if the law was changed to require drivers to move into the bike lane to make their turn like that we would have trucks merging into cyclists in the bike lane and killing them.
I would rather deal with a vehicle merging into the lane than one turning right across in front of me. I also think it is less likely to be missed than when a driver is dealing with pedestrians and traffic from three other directions.
October 22nd, 2007 20:25
This is very very sad of course - but no one can blame the driver or the cyclist. We just don't know what happened.
I almost hit a bike with my car while turning right just last week - when I would have thought people were being more cautious because of Tracey Sparling. I arrived at the intersection just as the light turned red so I stopped. I had passed her so I knew she coming up beside me. I drive up Williams every day and am very aware of all the bikes. There were no cars at all coming in the crossing street that I wanted to turn onto. Since we both had to stop - I knew I could turn right on the red in plenty of time before the light turned green and she could continue on straight. I looked right, I look left, I look right again and start to turn - just as the bike goes straight illegally through the red light and in front of me making a legal turn.
If the driver is at fault he should be punished, but if he's not at fault - he shouldn't be condemned.
October 22nd, 2007 20:28
If, as one poster mentioned, "these trucks do not stop on a dime" and "these trucks weigh up to 108000lbs and have a three second delay from the time a driver notices he needs to stop untill[sp] he actually starts to stop" then the question really should be why didn't the truck slow down enough or start slowing down early enough to stop at the bottom of the hill if needed. That's the responsible thing to do if your turn may be delayed at all. You stop, wait for it to be clear and then go. Not starting to stop early enough in this case shows that the driver probably didn't even consider that a bike/pedestrian could appear in his path.
And in all of this, there is yet another option besides stopping and waiting for the bike to pass. It's a crazy idea, but if, when driving, you know you're going too fast to completely stop or to make the turn safely, you have an obligation to go straight (assuming the light was green) ahead and not go ahead with the turn.
October 22nd, 2007 20:29
Having lived and biked in Ca. where the 'merge into lane law' is in effect I can tell you (and so can many other former Ca residents) IT IS SKETCHY to say the least.
No way is this a better alternative.
The solution as I see it is better information/education of right of way laws/protocol for motorists and ACTUAL enforcement of said laws by the PPB, along with some form of separation of bike lanes in high risk/traffic areas.
For crying out loud, there are whole nations out there who have already figured out the mechanics of this system, why is it here in the US we refuse to follow their lead?
October 22nd, 2007 20:30
I think it is much easier to avoid someone who is turning in front of you than someone coming over directly next to you giving you no option but to hop the curb, or crash trying to. And then the crash is (seen in the eyes of the law as) your fault and because the car didn't tag you they get away scot free. Or they kill you and get away scot free. Really no different than right now.
October 22nd, 2007 20:30
We all know our courts won't rule against motorists in a criminal case. I am praying that this guy's family and Tracy's too, will file a torte and make the drivers testify and get a favorable ruling. Portland has plenty of lawers that can make it happen. I wonder how the media would cover that action?
Prayers for the killed riders and their families.
Safety for all.
October 22nd, 2007 20:33
So the truck passed the cyclist, maybe he should have been aware that the cyclist was still there, but it is hard to know exactly where, especially when both the speed of the truck and the cyclist change. Since the truck passed the cyclist and apparently signaled the turn, the cyclist should have been defensively riding and be aware of the intended turn and held back.
October 22nd, 2007 20:36
A couple of tangential observations:
I've been surprised that so many cyclists have mentioned the need to be extra careful, while implying that the two recent victims were to some degree responsible for their own death for not being careful enough. Everyone notes that we don't know what sort of precautions either of them took. But still, it is hinted that a lack of caution on the part of the cyclists contributed to their deaths.
I think it’s possible that this response is a sort of defense mechanism, a way of saying to ourselves, "I'm careful in a way that they were not. Therefore, this kind of accident won't happen to me." So many of the threats we face on the road, however, are random and unpredictable. Saying to ourselves that we are more careful than the two riders that were killed is a way of coping with risks we really can't control.
I've been right hooked twice in the last few months by driver who didn't signal and forced me to make the corner next to them because there is no way I could have stopped. In each case I was 10 feet behind the car in the bike lane traveling about the same speed at the car in one instance, faster than the car in the other. When the cars braked to make the turn, the gap was gone in an instant, and there was nothing I could do but grab both brakes and try to negotiate the turn, hoping to keep enough grip and not lowside.
When riding we look for every little clue to predict driver behavior. But the truth is, we're not mind readers. Sometimes we get caught out, no matter how careful we are. It's understandable that we would speculate about what sort of care the victims took, but there is no way for us to know what they saw and what sort of "read" they had to make.
October 22nd, 2007 20:37
Secondly on the issue of care:
I think it's possible that showing too much deference to cars could make things less safe for us. We could end up conditioning drivers to expect that bicycles are going to stay out of their no matter what they do.
Confidently owning your space is often the safest thing to do. There are times that an aggressive kick puts you on the ahead of possible trouble (some of the potential right hook situation are like that), where dithering puts you as risk of being hit. Being careful is good, but being too timid can send the message that we don't belong there.
What would it take to eliminate the possibility of being right hooked? Ride less than 10 mph through every intersection? Every 200 ft... that’s a lot of slowing. One of the things we have to do to be safe is to be predictable. Solutions to one problem can create other problems.
Tonight as I was riding up Williams, a car from a side street pulled out to go straight across my path and stopped dead center in the left lane. I put both hands on the brakes quick and coasted through. In that situation do I brake or do I continue through? If I brake, he may assume that I'm stopping for him and continue on even though there is no way I could have braked enough to avoid a collision.
In the 1/4 second I have to decide, how do I formulate the right response to a driver who violates a traffic statute and puts me a risk? I have to say in those situations, I'm guessing. And I don't always guess right.
October 22nd, 2007 20:41
We all know our courts won't rule against motorists in a criminal case.
What are you talking about? There are no laws for them to enforce. What do you want them to do? Charge the motorist with violating a non-existent law?
October 22nd, 2007 20:53
Dangerous precedence
Do motorist that hit cyclists get citations? The bike lane is a traffic lane, if a vehicle turns right into another vehicle across their lane of travel wouldn't that be a traffic crime? If a motorist hits a bike rider in marked cross walk w/ signals flashing isn't that a traffic crime? Not according to Lt. Mark Krueger. Cyclist keep losing their lives in PDX and these crimes are continually minimizes by the PPB. Dangerous precedence!
October 22nd, 2007 20:54
There are no laws for them to enforce.
You mean like this law?
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.
(2) This section does not require a person operating a moped to yield the right of way to a bicycle or a motor assisted scooter if the moped is operated on a bicycle lane in the manner permitted under ORS 811.440.
(3) The offense described in this section, failure of a motor vehicle operator to yield to a rider on a bicycle lane, is a Class B traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §698; 1985 c.16 §336; 1991 c.417 §4; 1997 c.400 §8; 2001 c.749 §23; 2003 c.341 §7]
October 22nd, 2007 21:02
Stu (#83) - what does high speed have to do with anything?
What, it's okay to hit a cyclist just because they are travelling fast in a bicycle lane?
I agree that everybody should wait for facts before wild speculation ensues.
But I'm just not sure what you're getting at with the speed comment.
October 22nd, 2007 21:10
I passionately don't want to see cars allowed to enter into the bike lanes to make their turns. I think this will send a message that motor vehicles can swoop over into our lane whenever they want to and just crowd us out of our space with nary a thought. I think it would make a huge, negative dent in how non-cyclists see our rights - as a lack of any.
I've already had one anti-cycling co-worker tell me that the bike lanes are a waste of good asphalt at the tax-payers' expense (like I'm not a tax-payer), so people of his ilk would feel they have further protection by the laws to either crowd us out of our lane or squash even more of us flat with only an "Oops! I didn't know there was anyone over there!" and the $242 ticket is issued, yet again. No! No! No! (Please). I think motorists would be even less conscious of the bike lane's existence, because they would then consider it just one more part of "their" road if given the right to block us from it for right turns. I dont want to be sitting behind a line-up of cars, breathing in their exhaust as I wait to continue on in my lane.
There are too many people out there, like my "delightful" co-worker, who think we shouldn't have any rights and don't have a clue what the laws are relating to bikes. These people scream and rail in defense of drivers when deaths like today's occur, pointing the blame all our way because they don't have a clue what the laws are.
I feel that there (drastically) needs to be some high-viz public education, like a feature page in The Oregonian or billboards (hate 'em) reinforcing our rights in the bike lane.
And "Yes", we still should ride like the cars are out to mow us down, because "right of way" does not equal a guaranty of safety.
Tweety "Share the Road, but NOT our Bike Lanes, PLEASE!"
P.S. - Jonathan, thank you for getting KGW to fix that report about Tracey Sparling "slamming" into the truck! Awesome!
October 22nd, 2007 21:10
I haven't read anyone describing it exactly this way yet, but it's kind of sounding as though the driver essentially cut the cyclist off. Just as idiots (comment #99 says):
"The suggestion that a truck should stop in the middle of an intersection, with a green light, to wait for cyclists overtaking on the right, because they might be traveling too fast to reasonably respond to other traffic is patently absurd." idiots (comment #99)
Well, amongst motor vehicle drivers, this seems to be a fairly common viewpoint. They don't seem to see such a situation as one where they the driver inaccurately calculated the distance between themselves and the cyclist they were overtaking, before making their turn in front of the cyclist. Instead, it's the cyclist going too fast. How convenient; first the cyclist is going too slow, but before the motor vehicle has even passed the cyclist, the cyclist is all of a sudden going to fast. Marvelous!
What is wrong with a driver that fails to accurately calculate the speed of a vehicle(bike in this case) the driver is overtaking so as to safely negotiate a turn in front of that vehicle's direction of travel?
I've seen a number of motor vehicle drivers do this all too often; They see the cyclist approaching an intersection the motor vehicle driver wants to make a turn at, and race to slip into a space between the cyclist and the intersection and in order to expedite their turn, and in doing so, they frequently miscalculate the distance and speed of the cyclist in relation to the intersection.
Mr. Garbage Truck driver, I know that amongst other questions, you're asking yourself this question: 'Did I cut the guy off?'. That's a very good question to be asking yourself. It could save some lives in the future.
October 22nd, 2007 21:11
I'd like to clarify that I do not know what happened in today's death, so I am not blaming the driver.
But... the problem of cyclists' negligence is largely self-correcting. Although cyclists can kill and injure others, they rarely do so. Far more often, when they fuck up, they pay the price themselves, if anyone does.
People in automobiles, however, kill more people each year than cancer, heart disease, terrorists, illegal drugs, etc...
You know how, if you get drunk and then kill someone in your car, you go do jail and you have to pay a few grant in fines? Or how, if you rape someone, you get to do hard time in the state pen? Or how, when you lie about evidence in a criminal investigation, you lose your Bar license and get prosecuted yourself?
That's the kind of big legal hammer that needs to start dropping on people who wield their deadly weapons without regard to the lives of others.
Negligent operation of a motor vehicle causing death or serious bodily injury to another person needs to be a felony.
I'm sure that's going to be a very unpopular idea among the "get the fuck off the road!" Nascar set, but I don't care. Their day has come and gone.
Too many people have died for nothing.
October 22nd, 2007 21:11
Aaron, the poster in 122 complained that the courts won't rule against a motorist in a criminal case. There are a number of problems with that statement. For one thing, a traffic violation is not a "crime."
For another, courts don't "rule against" the defendant in a criminal trial-- the court instructs the jury on what the law is, and the jury finds the defendant "guilty" or "not guilty" based on the facts and the law.
Finally, there are no criminal laws to charge motorists with when they kill. Well, there is one, but the standard is gross negligence, which is rarely, if ever, the case. And on January 1, 2008, we will have the vulnerable roadway users bill, which is a step in the right direction, but is still not enough.
Tom 127: there is no "precedent" in police investigations. There may be "policy," but it's not precedential. And no, the offenses you describe are not "crimes," they are "violations."
October 22nd, 2007 21:15
General comment - it seems there are a lot of incidents and close calls with vehicles not realizing a bike on a downhill can be as fast / faster than they are. (I've had 2 such encounters this year - one was *very* close) I think the bike lane law should be changed (BTA take note) to allow cyclists to leave the bike lane if they are traveling at the speed of traffic (this would bring it in line with the "take the lane" statute). In that case, the cyclist could have paced the garbage truck and passed it on the left when it signalled to turn (assuming it *did* signal to turn), or would have had an escape path on the left side (theoretically) when the truck right-hooked the bike lane.
Either way, the cyclist would have had a better chance than being stuck in the bike lane.
Unknown cyclist, whoever you are - Godspeed. Fair skies and rubber side down.
October 22nd, 2007 21:16