Trucker’s problems should lead to reforms
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on October 25th, 2007 at 11:31 am
As detailed yesterday by the Oregonian (and later discussed on this site), the driver of the AGG Enterprises garbage truck that killed Brett Jarolimek last week had a slew of speeding infractions on his record.
Now, I’ve learned that speeding was the least of his problems.
According to my research and to sources who have requested to remain anonymous, the truck driver’s “checkered past” includes:
- Felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance in 1997. (He was charged with drug dealing, but pled to this lesser charge.)
- His Oregon driver’s license was suspended for failing to appear in court for a seatbelt violation. The license had just been reinstated on August 22, 2007.
- A civil negligence lawsuit was filed against him and AGG Enterprises in September 2006. According to copies of the lawsuit I obtained from the Multnomah County Courthouse, the plaintiff alleged that he “smashed into the rear” of their vehicle after they stopped to make a left turn at NE 15th and Lombard. The complaint (dated August 29, 2006) alleges the truck driver was “driving at a speed greater than was reasonable for the conditions, failing to maintain proper control of his vehicle, failing to keep a proper lookout, and/or following too closely.” The plaintiff claimed the collision resulted in just under $80,000 in non-economic injuries and damages. The suit was settled out of court and was dismissed by the Court on June 21, 2007.
You’ll notice that I’ve left the driver’s name out of this story because this is not about him. My reason for posting this information is to make it clear that if someone like this allowed to operate a large, potentially dangerous vehicle on our roads, something is amiss.
This new information should bring even more scrutiny to the issue of how our city regulates drivers of large trucks and the companies that hire them.
The question now is, what can we do about it?
We need to begin a conversation and partnership with the trucking and freight industries about these key issues:
- new equipment requirements for trucks,
- more regulation in the hiring process,
- more oversight of the companies that operate within city limits,
- and improved driver safety training policies and practices specifically around bicycles.
The good news — and if there’s a silver lining to our recent tragedies — is that I’ve already spoken to folks inside PDOT and City Hall that are working on these very issues. (I talked about this with Commissioner Adams in a sit-down interview yesterday that I will publish later today).
Large trucks have enough inherent safety issues by themselves, adding derelict drivers into the mix is a recipe for tragedy.
Email This Post
Possibly related posts
October 25th, 2007 11:37
I think cousin Sue is - and should - come for a visit to AGG and this guy again.
October 25th, 2007 11:39
I hope for their sake that AGG has a whopping big insurance policy, because if I were Brett's family I would be suing their pants off. If they didn't know about his driving record when they hired him, they should have. If they did know, they are absurdly negligent.
October 25th, 2007 11:41
What about the careless riding done by the majority of cyclists in this town...Do some research on that...
October 25th, 2007 11:47
"What about the careless riding done by the majority of cyclists in this town...Do some research on that..."
Big Diesel,
There's no need to research that, because I already know it's problem. Yes, there are a lot of bicyclists whose riding could use more caution, consideration, and care.
There are also many who ride responsibly.
There are also many careless motorists...and many who drive great.
If you truly care about safety you would understand that this issue is not about who's to blame or the "cars vs. bikes" garbage some of the local media likes to stir up.
Efforts to educate all road users need to improve dramatically. Perhaps these recent tragedies will help highlight the urgency for that effort. I hope you'll be a part of the solution instead of just throwing stones.
Thanks for your comment.
October 25th, 2007 11:47
DMV needs to make changes to keep people with driving records like this out of motor vehicles. This is far beyond bicycle safety, a person with this type of record is a risk for anyone near a road.
October 25th, 2007 11:50
Big Diesel I actually agree with you. It would be great to have some numbers on that because all I hear now is people saying all cyclists break the law based on their perceptions. Just because you have a bias or perceive of something a particular way doesn't necessarily mean that it is true.
I also challenge you to find a habitually dangerous cyclist is is a significant risk to kill someone one of these days, like some of the people we have driving large trucks these days.
October 25th, 2007 11:51
I can imagine that AGG was following the hiring practices set forth by DMV. The guy was probably not on the short list... but hey, he's a warm body. A crappy driving warm body from what it appears.
October 25th, 2007 11:51
Big Diesel,
I did some research and discovered that all these recent deaths had nothing to do with careless riding but had everything to do with drivers of huge vehicles failing to take the proper precautions. Maybe you can state a SINGLE instance in which a motorists has been seriously injured by one of the behavior you are so concerned about, we'll be waiting to hear from you.
October 25th, 2007 11:55
Big Diesel #3
There you go again. Try proving the "majority" part of your statement ("careless" for that matter). After you accomplish that, try suing them for all the death and destruction they've caused.
Also, your statement implyes that you think the driver in question deserves the privilege of a CDL license. Even with his recoerd? Please explain.
October 25th, 2007 11:56
How about some regulations regaurding CDL Three strikes of any degree and you loss your commercial license!!!
Big Diesel, I think more education for bikes and motorized vehicles alike has been mentioned many times since this discussion began. I hate it when I see bikers blowing lights and sign. I hate it more when I see cyclsts dressed in black riding at night without lights. Some of us are part of the problem some drivers are also poorly educated about the laws regaurding pedestrians and bicycles. WE ALL need to get smarter, more cautious and most of all more PATIENT.
If I was in charge of hiring at a company and I needed someone with a cdl I sure as hell wouldn't hire someone with a traffic record like that.
October 25th, 2007 11:56
We may not like Big Diesel's comment, but I think he brings up an important point.
Whether we like it or not, bicyclists have an image problem with a significant number of Portlanders.
I think until we can start to win that PR battle and change the perception that too many of us ride carelessly (flipping off motorists doesn't help either), transforming our city to be safer for bikes will be a much tougher battle.
October 25th, 2007 12:00
Here are some disturbing statistics from the Oregon State Police:
http://flashalert.net/news.html?id=1002
Correction: Toxicology Test Results - Operation Trucker Check XIII - 10/11/07
(Note: Cascade Locks Port of Entry is on Interstate 84)
The following are the analysis results of the 468 urine samples obtained:
• 9 (1.92%) drivers tested positive for the presence of amphetamines.
• 2 (0.43%) tested positive for benzodiazepines.
• 1 (0.21%) tested positive for cocaine.
• 19 (4.06%) tested positive for the presence of cannabinoid (marijuana).
• 14 (2.99%) tested positive for opiates (e.g., oxycodone).
• 3 (0.64%) tested positive for propoxyphene (synthetic opiates).
• 5 (1.07%) tested positive for more than one drug category.
• No drivers tested positive for barbiturates or methadone.
• Overall, 42 (8.97%) of the 468 drivers who provided urine tested positive in at least one drug category.
October 25th, 2007 12:05
I second Jonathan's comments. A day doesn't go by when I'm not shocked by the stupid things my fellow cyclists do. It blows my mind how dumb, arrogant and careless many riders are.
That said, the above story is alarming.
October 25th, 2007 12:06
So AGG is a waste hauler, and waste haulers are regulated by Metro, and the Metro council is made up of people like Rex Burkholder, (one of the founder the BTA.) So, if AGG isn't acting in the public interest, (specifically, isn't hiring safe drivers,) maybe people should complain to Metro, and then maybe AGG will not be hiring any drivers ever again...
October 25th, 2007 12:08
AGG and others that employ people to drive / haul as their main job function (UPS, US Postal Service, FedEx, DHL, etc.): How could it possibly pencil out in your line of business to hire individuals that are habitual traffic offenders. What responsible entity would contine to hire you as a hauler given your total negligence. It's time to clean house in the trucking / freight industry. These companies better come to terms that these are supposed to be PROFESSIONALS not criminals behind their wheels!
October 25th, 2007 12:09
Thanks for managing this comment page and keeping the focus where it should be. Big Diesel has a point but loses credibility in words like "majority" that cannot be backed up.
I love to ride my bike. I have for more than 20 years. I believe cycling makes me a better driver. It breaks my heart to see other cyclists riding irresponsibly and making a poor name for those of us who do try to show/expect respect.
However, those cyclist will in the end only hurt themselves. Poor driving kills and maims people.
October 25th, 2007 12:11
Why do cities such as Amsterdam and Stockholm have such low collision rates? What education and focus do they do for citizens that we can learn and incorporate? There will always be jerks who do stupid stuff, but what can the rest of us who want to be reasonable do?
October 25th, 2007 12:46
"Felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance in 1997. (He was charged with drug dealing, but pled to this lesser charge.)"
That someone dealt drugs at one point is completely unrelated to their driving history and should not in anyway be taken into account in this discussion in my opinion. We have a legal system in which once you have served your time/paid your dues, you are technically free and I personally do not want to see that change for the sake of all our security. We've got to remember that "security" and "safety" are loaded terms that can be used to pass all sorts of regulations that erode at all our rights and we need to be careful to not mix issues in the name of the cause for safer streets for all.
In the end it does not matter how many laws we pass for how people should behave on the roads b/c having a law will not keep someone from doing something stupid and killing another road user. The laws may make it easier to punish them and for the community to feel that justice is served, but that punishment will not make the deceased return to us. Education and economics are the key here. Portland is a city with many modes of transportation and drivers need to understand how to behave around them and we need to have better and regular testing. We then need to hold businesses that hire people who fail the tests accountable and fine them enough that it actually hurts and it is in their interest to ensure all their drivers are well trained and well behaved.
October 25th, 2007 12:47
MC #16,
Unfortunately those riders do NOT only hurt themselves. They contribute to the stereotype of cycling scofflaws which we then have to deal with as here. And there is also a very real, physical backlash against other cyclists. I've dealt with it; we probably all have.
BD #3, okay, we get your point. You've made it. Again and again and again and again. Got something new?
Here's something that doesn't quite jive with your good drivers/bad cyclists fantasy.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/10/lookout_for_the_new_downtown_p.html
A new traffic camera in Portland caught 226 drivers running one red light on its FIRST day of operation.
So does that mean that until all those scofflaw drivers get with the program, you, and other law-abiding drivers should get no protection or consideration? Are you responsible for their behavior? How are you supposed to get them on board?
Well, what the hell am I supposed to do about some hardcore wannabe who tries so hard to be too cool for school?
I have as much control over him as you do over this wingnut with 25 speeding tickets.
Big Diesel 43,000 people die every year on the roads.
As someone said around these parts recently, that's 2 jumbo jets, falling from the sky - every week.
It ain't bikes doing that.
October 25th, 2007 12:47
I hope Big Diesel wasn’t just writing those words to be inflammatory. I also agree that some cyclists are careless and irresponsible, but that those actions more often hurt the reputations of other cyclists and/or themselves more often then killing another human being (an exception might be if a car skids to avoid a cyclist making a “rogue” move and in turn injures or kills someone). What a lot of car drivers don’t seem to realize is the power they wield with this huge piece of metal they are driving and how much harm it can cause if not used correctly and cautiously (especially larger trucks). I think EVERY SINGLE PERSON should be made to both drive a car and ride a bike (maybe in a controlled environment?) to “be in the other person’s shoes”. I know for a fact I am a better driver because of the fact that I ride a bike, and vice versa. I know the dangers of both, am aware that both are on the road, and know that cars/trucks are indeed necessary from time to time.
That said, I reiterate my thoughts of the need for more education, on both sides. I know there is no funding for such things, but maybe funding should be made a priority, as transportation takes up a huge part of our lives, and why should be we feel unsafe during those parts, whether riding a bike, walking, driving a truck, or rollerblading? This guy obviously should not have been on the road, with his past driving record, yet he slipped through the cracks and the inevitable happened, someone got killed. It could have been a pedestrian, it could have been another driver, this time it was a cyclist.
October 25th, 2007 12:49
I know the owner and operator of a garbage hauling business in Portland. He is a cyclist and we have frequent conversations about safe riding. He went to the head of his safety committee the morning the story broke. His safety person showed him the notes of the safety meeting last week covering safety regarding cyclists with all the drivers signatures. At least some business owners with fleet operations are taking this item seriously.
October 25th, 2007 12:53
Great reporting, Jonathan. But why bother to say your tips came from anonymous sources if you independently verified them? Makes it sound fishy when it isn't.
I also don't understand the decision to withhold the guy's name. Call a spade a spade. To a large extent, this story is about a bad apple, and the way that Oregon DMV and and private company hiring practices are unable or unwilling to throw out the rot.
The important thing is that you got out relevant information that not been reported elsewhere. Scoop!
October 25th, 2007 12:55
I'm happy that BigDiesel participates in this forum because BigDiesel's posts illustrate a certain point of view. This point of view sees things not as they really are but through a filter of fear and resulting anger.
When all road users wear 2000 pounds or more of armor, it partially masks the violence that underlies individual motor vehicle operation. But when some road users shed the armor by cycling or walking, the underlying violence becomes more visible. It becomes possible for me (when acting as a motorist) to kill someone completely accidentally. If I can, with no malice at all, merely bump into someone and kill them, I ought to be afraid every time I get behind the wheel of my car. And personally, I am.
I think this fear is why many motorists want bicycles off the road (not me personally, although I think there's much progress to be made in how we do shared use facilities). Even when cyclists are following the letter of the law and cycling with utmost awareness, control, and regard for the laws of physics, a concious motorists sharing the road with the bicycle will realize that there's potential for disaster if any number of things goes wrong. The physical proximity of the armored and the unarmored and the speeds and physics involved makes this so.
But when motorists see a cyclist flaunt the norms that the law tries to create, the violence of motor vehicles is even more visible for all to see. And I think the resulting fear fuels a lot of anger. Here's the thought process for the motorist: "Hey, that jerk on a bicycle almost made me a killer! I'm obeying the law, they're not, and as a result I almost hit them and if I hit them they could die and I'd have to live with that for a long time. They and everybody who looks like them must be a real asshole."
I imagine that it doesn't take many cyclist blowing stop lights/signs or acting erraticly for a motorist to get a warped perception of reality and start substituting perception for data. (This means that you see things as you decided they are at one point in time--usually a time of strong emotion--rather than seeing things as they are continually arising in experience or as they are based on large amounts of data.)
Anyway, none of this is directed personally at BigDiesel, who may not see things from the warped perspective that I've described. But thanks also go to BigDiesel to providing a window into at least one example of a very prevelant viewpoint.
October 25th, 2007 12:59
Jonathan (#4):
If you truly care about safety you would understand that this issue is not about who's to blame or the "cars vs. bikes" garbage some of the local media likes to stir up.
With all due respect, I believe the commentary in this blog, and the overwhelming majority of the responses here, stir up more "cars vs. bikes" garbage than the local media does.
October 25th, 2007 13:01
Responding to Matthew's (post #14), Metro does not regulate waste haulers. The local governments franchise and or license them, not Metro. Metro is in charge of disposal of solid waste in the region, the local governments regulate collection.
As a bike commuter, I agree that there needs to be better communication and cooperation between our community and drivers. When drivers see bikes ingnoring the traffic laws it only gives them an excuise to dismiss our concerns about safety. Bad cyclists and bad drivers make up the minority of those of us on the roads. The only problem is that we pay a bigger price for their and our mistakes.
October 25th, 2007 13:05
"I believe the commentary in this blog, and the overwhelming majority of the responses here, stir up more "cars vs. bikes" garbage than the local media does"
Tim,
Thanks for your feedback.
I try to report the news as objectively as I can and offer perspectives from contributors and guest authors with a moderate and reasonable tone.
Please remember, that I do not control how people comment (although I reserve the right to delete or censor them when necessary).
October 25th, 2007 13:05
[...] and Bike Gallery employee; apparently, the driver of the truck has a distressingly long and varied record of traffic violations and other illegal activities. That’s the second person killed by a large truck while riding [...]
October 25th, 2007 13:07
I think this is just more proof that Brett's death is the type of "accident" that is entirely preventable.
Like I said before, there were zero bicycle-related deaths in 2006... That proves that we don't need to accept these tragedies as collateral for living in a city with heavy bicyle traffic.
This guy should never have been allowed to drive such a large vehicle-- that has such a supposedly large blind spot. It's an irresponsible system (NOT unpreventable circumstances) that allows an "accident" like this to happen.
October 25th, 2007 13:10
The comment about the public perception of cyclist is a critical point. I make a daily point to wave and thank drivers that show me the slightest courtesy or let me have the right of way. I see a lot of other cyclist do the same, but it only takes one A-hole, to undo a lot of positive work.
For example, while riding to the start of the memorial ride for Tracie, I saw a rider blatantly blow a red light, swerve between a few cars causing them to brake and upon arriving, don a mask anarchist style and start decrying the "death machines". I'll call him Mr. Mohawk. Mr. Mohawk, single handedly just gave credence to the diatribe of people like Lars Larson's and Big Diesel.
If we want to change the perception for the positive, then we as cyclist need to start holding each other accountable. For example, talk to your friends about wearing a helmet, ask people on cell phones while riding in the bike lane to pull over, help educate lane peers about good riding form.
Thanks for your attention
October 25th, 2007 13:11
I'd still like to see the question of enforcement addressed. The refusal of the Portland Police Department to ticket these drivers is unconscionable. Some sort of pressure needs to be exerted towards this. I know Mark Ginsberg addressed this a bit, but left it a bit open. Perhaps it's a bit too early to pursue this but I'd certainly like to hear how this is addressed at the Sam Adams meeting.
I also realize that this is just one small aspect of the problem. There are many others that need to be addressed as well; riding defensively, riding with safety devices, infrastructure improvements, etc. But enforcement of the law is a critical piece of the puzzle. That goes equally for both drivers and cyclists.
The bottom line is no one has more of a stake in this then cyclists. We are the only ones putting ourselves at such risk of bodily injury and yes, death. I have yet to hear the story of the auto driver or trucker being injured by a cyclist.
October 25th, 2007 13:15
As a cyclist and a driver I have a hard time agreeing with the statement that a minority of drivers are bad drivers, there seems to be an awful lot of them and many of them seem to be resistnat of efforts to curtail their behavior. A perfect example of this is the resistance that has been put up to photo radar and red light cameras. I do know that when I am driving or cycling I am much more concerned with bad drivers, mostly because they can kill me!
October 25th, 2007 13:15
I think when cousin Sue comes for another visit, the State should be an invited guest. Specifically, the DMV, for issuing CDL's to habitual offenders, and the DOT for failure to regulate AGG.
October 25th, 2007 13:34
I fail to see how focusing on this one particular individual or the endless cyclist-motorist sniping will do anything to change the situation on the streets significantly.
more education, a refocusing of enforcement priorities and reengineering of poorly designed on-street facilities is what is really needed.
October 25th, 2007 13:41
I as a company owner and a CDL holder will never defend CDL holders that violate laws willfully. Those drivers have no place in this industry.
Bike riders need to pay better attention to their surroundings while riding. I have seen countless riders tooling along the streets with their Ipods on and clueless about traffic around them as if they have a force field around them,. I have also encountered riders who run stop signs, weave in and out of traffic and never signal their intentions. And I have also seen riders who are courteous, professional riders who abide by the law.
Sadly it is the bad riders who are causing the problems.....
October 25th, 2007 13:43
I think there’s a culture of impatience in our “modern times” that needs to be addressed if any traffic issues are going to be discussed. Fast food, multitasking, allowing right (and left on one way roads) turns on red, cyclists and cars blowing through stop signs/lights, even pedestrians ignoring walk/don’t walk signs : it all stems from all road users being impatient and unable to wait for signals that are designed to keep us safe.
Garbage trucks in a hurry to get to their next job, so don’t take that extra second or two to look over their shoulder once more. Drivers want to get home from work 2 minutes sooner, so they weave in and out of traffic to get there. Bike messengers get paid per job (I think?) so they flout laws to get their rush jobs done quicker. And on and on and on. No rules or regulations will do anyone any good if this level impatience continues. I know it’s a deeper issue and not easily solved, but it’s a point that needs to be brought up and not ignored when discussing other options.
October 25th, 2007 13:48
And I see plenty of motorists who run stops signs, violate the speed limit, park illegally, execute unpredictable manuevers, fail to yield the right of way, etc. And yet this DOESN'T colors my impression of motorists. It colors my impression of careless assholes. Get the bad drivers on bikes, get the bad cyclists in cars, and you're likely to observe tons of law-breaking, potentially deadly behavior from both.
Big Diesel, I'm going to step up and say it: either unclog your ears or stop trolling. Whichever one the problem is, *FIX IT NOW*.
October 25th, 2007 13:55
Big Diesel (#33):
It's also the bad drivers. Not ALL drivers, of course (and not ALL cyclists, as you point out), but the bad ones. I'm all for placing responsibility where it belongs, but I'd love to see every user of the road stop attributing culpability to those that operate a certain type of vehicle (be it gas-powered or human-powered), and focus instead on those who don't operate their vehicles safely.
October 25th, 2007 13:57
Big Diesel #33 "I as a company owner and a CDL holder will never defend CDL holders that violate laws willfully. Those drivers have no place in this industry."
Glad to hear it.
"Bike riders need to pay better attention to their surroundings while riding." ...... "And I have also seen riders who are courteous, professional riders who abide by the law."
I agree that there are cyclists and drivers who need to pay better attention. Also I agree that there are cyclist and drivers who are courteous, professional, and abide by the law.
"Sadly it is the bad riders who are causing the problems....."
And drivers. I think you can probably agree.(?)
So, as a CDL holder maybe suggest what I can do to help make roads safer for cyclist and drivers more aware of cyclists. (in addition to following laws).
October 25th, 2007 13:58
I see big diesel saying over and over again that it is the bad cyclists causing the problems, but I just don't see that bourne out by the evidence. Were either of the two cyclists killed recently by large trucks running stop signs, weaving in and out of traffic, or wearing ipods? No No, and No. In fact of the 4 bike on car incidents this year 3 times the motorist was at fault, and during the 4th which did involve a cyclist riding the wrong way the motorist must have felt at fault as they fled from the scene.
Ipod's aren't illegal in Oregon anyway and I fail to see how listening to one is any worse than listening to a cars radio with the windows rolled up. It may not be the safest way to ride, but I wonder if big diesel allows his drivers to listen to radios or to have the windows rolled up while driving?
It is clear to me that obtaining and maintaining a CDL is a lot easier than I thought it would be, as amazingly even a drunk driving conviction doesn't disqualify you from obtaining one. While it might increase the operating expenses of a trucking company I would like to see a higher bar set for the safety record of anyone allowed to drive such a large vehicle.
The biggest difference I see between driving a bike vs a semi is that on a bike I ride safely to keep from being hurt or killed while a semi driver is driving safely to keep from hurting or killing someone else. If a semi driver can be at fault, and kill someone and there are no consequences then there isn't much reason to drive safely.
Bjorn
October 25th, 2007 13:59
Can we just get rid of one silly idea that comes up again and again on these forums? That's the idea that somehow bikers will get "respect" when they start "following the laws". If you believe this absurdity, I encourage you to do the following experiment:
Go to a major surface road in your neighborhood - one where there's some real traffic and an intersection and things are flowing well. Now watch those cars for 5 minutes or so and keep track of:
* how many of these cars are going faster than the posted limit
* how many of these drivers are in vehicles that are designed without concern to limiting the damage they cause if they hit another vehicle or a cyclist
* how many of them do not signal when turning or changing lanes
These are behaviors (especially speeding and driving high clearance "buff" looking vehicles) that are strongly correlated with killing pedestrians and cyclists. Two of them are completely in disregard of traffic laws.
And you'll find that almost no one "disrepects" these people. Because they're perceived as powerful. Respect in the US is about power for a lot of people (I'd guess that Big D falls in this category, but this isn't about one person).
Cyclists and pedestrians are not powerful - so expecting the likes of them to change their attitudes cause we start being all OCD about traffic laws is silly.
Following the law is its own reward - follow the laws cause it'll make you feel self-respect. But don't expect anyone else, *especially* the problem drivers who you're probably worried about, to respect you for it.
If you want respect from them, do what every other despised minority has done on their rise to dignity:
demonstrate the political power to fine them, jail them and make their lives generally miserable if they kill or injure you.
October 25th, 2007 14:00
I think we all need to work on our riding (or driving) skills. It definitely isn't just motorists being dangerous out there. I do think that it's absurd that the driver was able to hold a CDL with a record like that. DMV needs to make more of an effort to teach drivers how to drive cooperatively with cyclists.
October 25th, 2007 14:01
See Near Miss #422. Almost the exact same event. Has anyone ever done some statistical analysis on the near misses?
http://bikeportland.org/2005/08/09/wanted-your-close-calls/#comment-557905
October 25th, 2007 14:02
Ok....so this AGG driver has a long long history of moving violations and losing his license.
What gets me is not only that AGG would hire someone with this kind of record, but that they would continue to employ this guy after the incedents within the last year that are outlined in the story above.
If that information is correct, AGG was already tied up in a lawsuit from a previous accident by this guy, and the fact that they settled would lead me to believe that there was at least some merit in the lawsuit.
Also, it appears that the guy lost his license and it wasn't reinstated until late August of this year.
So, my question is....if the guy didn't have a license prior to late August, was he still driving for AGG during that time?
And I would sure hope that losing your license for infractions committed in your personal vehicle would also mean that he loses his CDL too.
You would sure think that a safe and responsible employer would periodically check to see if their drivers have a valid license.
If there is any good that can come from this tragic situation, hopefully it is that the powers that be take a harder look at the hiring practices and periodic record checks of commercial drivers, as well as what role the DMV or DOT have in oversight.
That is something that transcends the bike vs. car debate. An unsafe truck driver can kill any other road user almost as easily as they can a cyclist.
October 25th, 2007 14:09
Bjorn (#37):
re: iPods on bikes, at least for me, when riding on a crowded street, I rely on my sense of hearing just as much as I do on my sense of sight, much more so than I do when I'm driving. When you're on your bike, your attention is almost always on the road ahead, because surface irregularities can screw you up more than they would in your car, which also has much less of a tendency to drift if you happen to turn your head -- thus, hearing is a lot more crucial to me for safe riding than for safe driving.
Also, on my bike, I don't have several thousand pounds of steel to protect me if I don't happen to hear something coming.
October 25th, 2007 14:11
Bjorn,
I don't think that the cyclist victims were to blame either. I think the "problem" that bad cyclists cause is the "image problem" that we all deal with. the one that results in the automatic "cyclist was at fault." As easy as it is to blame others for this image problem (Lt Kruger, drivers, etc), I would prefer to take steps toward improving cyclists image. For one, I think that I'll be more vocal with the few cyclist I see running the red. (That really pisses me off when I'm following the rules.)
October 25th, 2007 14:11
This event was a tragedy and probably could have been avoided. But the driver's criminal history is not relevant unless he broke the law or did something wrong as part of this accident. Is there any indication that he did something wrong? If not, then I think this story is off base.
October 25th, 2007 14:13
Jeff TB #36, Tasha# 34, and Tim #35
Don't get me started on the 4-wheelers the writing space is not big enough. Those drivers are worse than some cyclists. They are jabbering or texting on their phones and not paying any attention.
I would suggest that if a cyclist and truck that are side by side at a light or stop sign, get the truck drivers attention in a " courteous " manner so that he/she knows you are there. Or hang back and ASSUME that the truck is going to turn right.
October 25th, 2007 14:14
I think consumer power is a powerful, powerful thing.
For instance. One thing that I've noticed when I'm bicycling is that FedEx drivers are a LOT more courteous than UPS drivers. Both trucks do exactly the same thing, but the attitudes, patience and care of the drivers I've encountered are vastly different. I wonder if FedEx has some sort of safe driver program?
I noticed that a FedEx driver was even featured in the Portland Walks! movie about pedestrian safety that the City of Portlandn Bureau of Transportation put together recently, talking about the need for him as a FedEx employee to take extra care on the road around vulnerable road users when he was making his deliveries.
As a result of how I am treated as a bicyclist on the roadways by UPS, I don't use their services at all. I go with FedEx every time.
I think truck companies have to remember that the ONLY thing we as citizens have to judge them by is the way their employees drive.
October 25th, 2007 14:21
@ BD #33
Cyclists are human just like everyone else. my guess is that the percentage of 'bad' cyclists is almost exactly equal to the percentage of 'bad' motorists on the road, do we really need to go into the list of driver distractions and violations that are easily observable anywhere out on the streets?
GIVE IT UP ALREADY, nothing you are saying hasn't been heard before and it's not constructive.
October 25th, 2007 14:22
Tasha,
I think you hit the nail right on the head. While better road/bike infrastructure, improved laws and stricter law enforcement are all laudable, I'm afraid they won't make a huge difference and make our streets more bike friendly in a tangible way, as measured by the number of bike/car collissions resulting in injury or death.
What is needed is a wholesale shift in the prevailing attitude and level of responsibility of all users of the road. We can debate how much cyclists should alter their behavior vs. just motorists, but given that motorists are making up the vast majority of road users and driving around in vehicles that can cause much more harm, I think it's fair to demand that the strongest effort is made to change their attitudes and behaviors, focused on sharing the road and respecting the rights (and lives) of cyclists and pedestrians.
October 25th, 2007 14:25
Burr #44
My guess is that you are one of the outlaw cyclists that give cycling a black eye... Stay in your fantasy world.
October 25th, 2007 14:28
Yes,
I think peer more pressure from cyclist could help to curtail bad behavior by other cyclists. This will help with the image problem. It won't make us any safer if motorists don't change their behavior since it is their mistakes that account for most of the carnage. I also vow to be more vocal when I see other cyclist failing to obey the law.
October 25th, 2007 14:46
I agree with Bjorn #37
"If a semi driver can be at fault, and kill someone and there are no consequences then there isn't much reason to drive safely."
The police are at fault by refusing to enforce the laws. The laws are there for a reason and if they are not enforced, what message does this send to the public? There are no consequences. The least the police can do is issue a citation for failure to yield. But Lt. Kruger has refused to do this, time and again...
October 25th, 2007 14:46
If people aren't capable of seeing that all cyclists aren't the same, then they aren't people whose opinions I care about. These are the same people who see all black people as the same, or all women as the same, or all drivers as the same. Pick your social category. It's just plain stupid to think like that. Such attitudes have no place in any reasonable discussion.
October 25th, 2007 14:47
BD #44
Inflammatory and unhelpful.
Thank you for your insights/experiences as an owner/operator. No thank you for the speculation on someone’s riding style based on their post.
October 25th, 2007 14:51
Jonathan,
I was mistaken w/ BD #44 it should be BD#46. Would you please correct. Thanks
October 25th, 2007 14:59
Question- perhaps a legal one. I have been looking at bike lanes and crosswalks for the past couple of days.
Without exception the line marking a bike lane ends at the first line of a crosswalk in the perpendicular direction.
So the line for the bike lane on a north bound street ends at the crosswalk of the east-west street. It then resumes on the far side. Sometimes it doesnt.
When it doesn't resume at what point does the bike lane end?
I'm inclined to contend that bike lanes end at intersections- the cyclist is supposed to walk his bike across the street in the crosswalk, then resume on the far side.
Anyone have any citations or intelligent rebuttals?
If this is the case- there is no bike lane in the middle of intersections- I fear this kind of blows the "Failure to Yeild" argument out of the water.
October 25th, 2007 15:09
"Sadly it is the bad riders who are causing the problems....."
Would that be the girl stopped in the bike lane crushed under the wheels of the cement truck that didn't check the blind spot? Or the rider in the bike lane, following the rules of the road, crushed by the garbage truck who lost sight of traffic in the lane he was crossing? Neither case has a hint of malpractice by the cyclist. How can they be causing the problems?
Most cyclists understand that they are taking a risk when they ride illegally or in bad form, and this community is not so hair triggered as to vilify others when the cyclists are at fault in crashes. In these cases it is clear that the riders are NOT at fault and people are outraged by the failure of the system and the drivers.
Big Diesel - you are wrong and foolish.
October 25th, 2007 15:24
remember in elementary school where you rode your bike through cones, learned the signals, stopped correctly, and all that stuff? usually they handed out reflective stickers and a certificate... at least they did in 1980...
Let's do that again for grownups during pedalpalooza, and make it fun. for completing the course, you get a special reflective sticker that "proves" your commited to biking responsibly. that way if you see someone being a d-bag with the sticker on their bike, you can call them out for it, and if they don't have the sticker, you can invite them to pedalpalooza.
you could do things like controled brakes, signal test, obstacle course... maybe have a big cardboard van 'back up' into the course, cardboard dogs crossing the street, maybe some cage bikes mimicing car situations... i don't know, think punk safety class.
at least it would show that we care.
October 25th, 2007 15:31
It appears to me that riding safely and riding legally are not one in the same.
If Brett had taken the lane on Interstate or the young woman had seen a gap and run the red on W. Burnside, they would both be alive. They were riding legally, and are both dead.
J-walking is the safest way across the street...no presumption of right of way and heightened awareness of risk. Bicyclists may be better off running red lights rather than waiting around for the green and gettin slammed or worse.
Laws are nice, but they do not rule the road; its more like wits and luck are in charge. Police are no help; only the laws of physics rule, and the bicyclist almost always loses. Trust no car.
October 25th, 2007 15:31
I ride just about every day and drive about 2-3 days a week as well.
It is true that the majority of cyclists break one specific law A LOT. Stop signs. The very clear majority do not come to a complete stop behind the line. No use trying to argue it or accuse me of not having proof. We all see it every day. I ride down Salmon every morning. 1 in 100 stop at the sign at 23rd or 24th or whatever that street is. But if you eliminate the stop sign issue, it's also very clear that the majority of cyclists follow the laws pretty well. We've got a long way to go in some areas but all in all things are pretty good. The red light runners and speeders are in the minority.
Just another reason to move to an Idaho-type stop sign law for bikes. Only sensible thing to do really.
Just had to get that off my chest.
Now, if we can just get some accountability in the commercial transport industry....
October 25th, 2007 15:32
In response to post #46
The trucker driver was required by law to yield the right of way to the cyclist.
link
October 25th, 2007 15:38
OK, so we're not all perfect:
http://www.katu.com/news/10793876.html
And that, fellow cyclist, is why I yelled at you when you blew past me this morning as I waited at the light in front of the hospital on Vancouver.
What's odd is so many drivers think cyclists don't get tickets (see KGW comments collecting since yesterday...)
But there you have it. Every time some distracted CDL driver takes out a human life by acting on their impatience without taking their ignorance into mind, the curmudegons and flat-earthers trot out stories such as this to illustrate how confoundingly pesky those cyclists are (how they make that leap is beyond me and I imagine it is going to be between them and their makers eventualy.)
So, let's shape up out there. The whole world is, apparently, watching.
October 25th, 2007 15:45
"Always check your blind spot, always check your blind spot, ALWAYS CHECK YOUR BLIND SPOT. EVERY TIME." More than just about anything else, this was hammered into my head during high school driver's ed. I learned the lesson again when I took my drivers test, failing it the first try for not doing a head check (in an alley, btw, easing around the end of car that was barely protruding into the alley.)
Why is it so unreasonable to expect drivers to complete this simple task? I do a head check every time I cross a bike lane in my car; this doesn't prevent me from reaching my destinations in a timely manner. If either of these commercial vehicles had taken out a motorist on I-5 because they failed to check their blind spot, would we even be having this conversation?
October 25th, 2007 15:59
I'm inclined to contend that bike lanes end at intersections- the cyclist is supposed to walk his bike across the street in the crosswalk, then resume on the far side.
Anyone have any citations or intelligent rebuttals?
The state's got a fine rebuttal to your rather dubious contention at http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/. You can either read it in the super-friendly Oregon Bicyclist Manual at http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/bike_manual_06.pdf or glean it from the legalese at http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/bike_ped_statutes_2007.pdf.
Perusal of either one will reveal that a bicycle is considered a vehicle under Oregon law and that it is 100% legitimate to ride on a road in the absence of a bike lane wherever bicycles have not explicitly been prohibited by law.
October 25th, 2007 16:14
#57
In both cases the bike lane extends through the intersection. I'm sure you can look up the photos and see it.
October 25th, 2007 16:17
NIK- thanks-
What I'm specifically looking for is a statement of the implied bike lane across the intersection where it is not marked.
I dont see it yet.
October 25th, 2007 16:20
Wendy- True enough- in both cases there's a dotted line right there plain as day- Thanks.
October 25th, 2007 16:26
I don't think either side is willing to admit enough responsibility for this serious problem.
(I do find it unbelievable that a company would maintain a driver with this kind of record though)
I dont know what it is going to take to bring drivers and cyclists together for a solution.
I do have a question though, someone here must know how many cyclists have been killed on average over say the last 5 years, within Multnomah county?
October 25th, 2007 16:29
As Burr said in #44, it's *not* bicyclists vs. motorists.
I worked for years performing traffic motion surveys. EVERY vehicle (car, semi & bike) type had a high incidence of scofflaw operators, ignoring traffic control (signals, signs, lanes) and driving stupidly (distractedly, bad turns, speeding, limited sightlines, etc.). Obviously, while sauntering along in defiance of speed limits, lane controls, right-of-way, yada yada, automobile drivers don't blithely blow intersection signals so much, *because they are scared of collisions* with other big metal things but it happens frequently enough to be seen in almost any three hour period of observation. For bicyclists, blowing traffic control is *the norm* which makes those of us which DO observe traffic regulations stand out as impedimentary Freds, etc. Face it, we as vehicle operators mostly seem to share *the same* cultural sense of entitlement to interpret traffic control and law as whatever we feel like at a given moment.
That sense of entitlement is BS. And, yeah, cyclists, I'm lookin' at YOU 'cause you are *my* community (as I rarely use a car any more, but I do drive a bike). I also maintain a motor vehicle operator's license, auto insurance, and I pay taxes, so you motorists listen up, too.
Without getting into the whole Euro vs. American culture nonsense regarding traffic control, and setting aside the issue of separate bike ways (which end up in this country as devolving to MUPs--Multi User Paths--which, like sidewalks, are more dangerous to use than riding in the street), just look at the math:
Traffic signals, speed limits and directional signage are coordinated to manage traffic flow (ignoring signal sensors unresponsive to bicycles for the moment). IF YOU (I mean YOU) as a driver (motorist or cyclist) were to actually make the effort to time yourself on a regular route driving however you normally wreak havoc--I mean, normally drive--on one day and then repeat the exercise while scrupulously obeying traffic control on the SAME DAY OF THE WEEK the following week (like, during the same season--not, say, one day in the summer and then on the 24th of December during xmas rush) and compare the two days of driving, you might see some interesting factors:
How much TIME did driving by yer own instincts save you? Damn little, huh? How much less stress (and fear) did you experience while "burdened" by the rule of law and traffic control?
Here--let me save you the time conducting such an experiment and tell ya--across town, in a car, the time saved driving in yer own little private world ain't worth mentioning! And cycling? The time lost is also a lot less than recovery time or time spent decomposing in some garden somewhere, just because you're pretty sure you're smarter than the numbers used to engineer the traffic controls (yes, sometimes systems are designed poorly or need tweaking to encompass cyclists).
There are interesting alternatives, like Idaho's red light/stop sign laws re: cyclists, bike boxes at stop lines, etc. We *should* examine such measures while also ensuring that driving is taught thoroughly to begin with. Vehicle code (ORS) should inform behavior, but it is not sufficient to control the physcial constraints of roadway intersections (line-of-sight, speed, etc.), so we install traffic controls.
Any vehicle operator ignores physics at their peril, but alertness and courtesy combined with adherence to law will usually preserve yer ass. Would such have saved Tracey and Brett, who were *legally* operating their bicycles on the roadway? Don't think so. I wasn't there, but as far as I can learn, they were both slaughtered by the *actions* of other vehicle operators.
We all want to improve cycling conditions, systems and usage. Until, however, bicyclists as a community conform to the same laws that motorists ostensibly (by their own perception [thank you PPB spokesperson]) must obey, modifying the ORS or municipal infrastructure to enhance cyclist safety will continue to be an uphill social battle.
Gawd. I've used so many electrons here, I won't even get started on LAW ENFORCEMENT (at both ends, cops and drivers).
Obeying the law is not a surrender of independence: it's OUR law, it evolves as impelled by US. Respect the numbers (traffic speed & frequency, vehicle mass, time and distance), if not your fellow humans. But respecting and being generous *to each other* wouldn't hurt, would it?
October 25th, 2007 17:07
[i]'m inclined to contend that bike lanes end at intersections- the cyclist is supposed to walk his bike across the street in the crosswalk, then resume on the far side.[/i]
I'm inclined to think that everyone's synapses are fried and there will be no more productive discussion on these issues until everyone gives it a rest for a few days.
October 25th, 2007 17:17
actually, road peacenik's comments are a perfect example of how motorists completely fail to understand the law as it relates to cyclists and why motorist ed is so desperately needed.
(how do you guys and gals do italics, anyway, html code doesn't seem to work...)
October 25th, 2007 17:23
Well put Lenny @60.
October 25th, 2007 17:49
This morning as I was in the bike lane coming off the Broadway bridge, a City of Portland worker in a truck beside me was trying to turn into the (narrow) lane next to me while talking on his cell phone. It hasn't come up a lot, but I have had a number of close calls with people trying to steer, hold their phones and turn at the same time. Maybe we could ask our city and county reps to make a start by asking their employees not use cell phones while driving.
October 25th, 2007 18:02
I wish people would stop characterizing bad riders and bad motorists as two separate phenomena, independent of each other. They are the same people, just using different modes. The only reason motorists fixate on bad riders and riders on bad motorists is because we need to feel blameless in any situation. There are of course some riders who post here who cannot let go of the idea that "motorists won't respect us until we all follow the rules", but they aren't adding anything to the debate anymore. We are all individuals, not some cohesive kind of club whose members all agree on some kind of action. You couldn't get all the cyclists who post here to agree on everything, let alone all those who don't seek the identity as a cyclist, and don't read bike blogs.
Whatever makes bikers follow the laws better is the same thing that's gonna make drivers follow the law! I have no idea what that is, but I'm guessing it's got to be a combination of education, publicity, a degree of justly applied punitive measures for those not getting the message, and a groundswell of peer pressure. It's a complicated thing, our tolerance for the carnage on our roads, mostly because we're not tolerant of the carnage; we're just tolerant of the behaviors that lead to the carnage, even when we know one causes the other. I know it's possible to change, because for the most part, we are a law-abiding society.
For bicycling to grow in this country, we MUST solve the problem with careless and inconsiderate road users.
October 25th, 2007 18:08
Big Diesel-
In a previous post you mentioned that you are a local business owner that employes truck drivers- and that you are a current CDL holder. Would it be possible to use your company and drivers to show the community how we can all come together to improve our relationship on the road? It seems to me that monthly meetings with a spotlighted local truck driving business might be a good way to share our thoughts, opinions, and perspectives.
Any thoughts on this?
Jeff
October 25th, 2007 18:08
Well said, peejay!
October 25th, 2007 18:16
I agree with rixtir... awesome comments peejay (#75). Thanks for sharing that.
October 25th, 2007 18:18
When I first started riding, I blew through stop signs (at empty intersections, mind you), but stopped at all lights. Then I read on bikeportland about $242 tickets and slowed down to look for cops at intersections.
Then I read on bikeportland about police stings at Ladds Addition. It made me mad, but I thought about the pedestrians and people walking dogs through intersections where bikes are a constant stream and slowed down more out of respect for the neighborhood residents.
Now when I ride through an intersection where cars have obeyed the stop sign and let me pass, I feel compelled (or is it obligated) to stop at the next sign at an empty intersection out of appreciation. Now I pretty much just stop. I wish the smooth steady pace in a leisure commute would not have to be interrupted by a stop where not a car is visible on the cross street, but it's the perception of the neighborhood residents, pedestrians, drivers thing. What’re ya gonna do?
Thank you, Jonathan, for the coverage and dialog of bikeportland.
Thanks for playing BD.
October 25th, 2007 18:45
http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/IMG_0199-bike-lane_1.jpg
October 25th, 2007 19:06
Today while walking home past NW 12th and Davis (or maybe it was 11th or 13th, whichever one heads south) a girl on a bike ran right through the stopsign there. She looked my way and I said "stop sign?" and she smugly flipped me off. At least she was wearing a helmet, I guess.
Seriously though, I post on this site frequently, I sold my car 4 years ago and am a bike-only person and proud of it, but we need to stop pretending cyclists are all saints and drivers are all "evil".
No, Brett wasn't doing anything illegal or wrong, neither was Tracey... but the PERCEPTION drivers have of us and we have of drivers is very skewed and inaccurate.
When drivers see cyclist after cyclist blowing stop signs, they begin to assume all of us do. This is why I have absolutely no problem with cops ticketing people in Ladd's Addition or the stop sign on SE Salmon. Yes, police resources could be used in better places... but the more cyclists are ticketed for wrong doing, the less likely those people are to continue to paint an image of an unlawful bike community in Portland.
October 25th, 2007 19:54
Bravo Klixi, I too bike alot in Portland and daily see more dangerous bikers than I do car drivers. These bikers might need to be riding in the tulies not on the city. I believe that bicyclists can become the majority in Portland, albeit peacefully, expediently, respectfully, flambouyantly, and not daredevilly.
October 25th, 2007 20:06
down in Corvallis last year, a truck tried to go thru a bridge (like the Steel, you know with girders -- i don't know technical names for bridges -- whatever) but the load he was carrying was far too high and he not only hit the crossbeams above, he damaged the bridge enough to close it for 2 weeks.
and this was one small bridge in one small town. there are too many truckers what got too little idea what they are doing. if a guy can't read the height clearance sign and know he can't make it, do we trust him to see bikes, pedestrians and even small cars?
October 25th, 2007 20:27
BURR #72, if this is italicized, then it's a <em> that you need. <i> has been deprecated.
October 25th, 2007 20:27
Grr, can't write that out. Try an EM tag. the I tag has been deprecated.
October 25th, 2007 20:29
there are many issues here , drivers
not obeying the law , and bikers thinking they can do what ever , catch me if you can , thinking , as i drove
across the morrison bridge , i wanted
tp make a right turn on 2nd street ,
no problem , wrong ,all you bikers
blocked me from doing so ,even against
the do not walk sign , and try as i might no way , so i drove up to 4 th
ave , and had to double back ,at least we all were safe , i bike some but not on the road ,so what is the answer , a red, light for bikers , to freeze , another ,for cars and trucks to freeze , then we can all breath ,smog ,all bikers ,can pay for overpasses ,and underpasses ,i now know you bikers are mad at me ,but you asked for it ,you are so ego minded
October 25th, 2007 20:51
ok, after my diatribe about how we all need to follow the traffic laws, I said I didn't know the solution. But I know what isn't the solution: stupid stop sign stings in Ladd Circle. A pointless, expensive, and divisive excercise that fails to differentiate between the safe and the unsafe, done as a big pulicity stunt by the anti-bike faxtion of the PPB that served two purposes: leaving most bikers bitter, and reinforcing most drivers' impressions of bikers as chronic lawbreakers.
Stings are not the solution. Stings in the safest intersection in the city are antithetical to the solution.
October 25th, 2007 21:09
metro and the city need to flex some muscle here and serve notice to agg and the other haulers - hiring poor drivers stops now. they don't necessarily need to tell them who exactly to hire but if some trainwreck like the agg driver kills someone then your contract is done.
October 25th, 2007 21:28
I think making blanket statements about truckers and other commercial drivers is not very productive. Neither is nitpicking one truck driver back in wherever that did whatever stupid thing back in the day. I don't have stats right in front of me but I'm willing to bet they're better drivers then most by a huge factor - they have their career and personal welfare on the line after all. But it doesn't matter regardless. There are always going to be bad drivers. The solution to keeping them off the road in any commercial capacity is to simply not hire them and to punish those who do.
October 25th, 2007 22:20
faction, I meant.
October 25th, 2007 22:43
Jeff (comment 76), now that's quite an idea. It could be Big Diesel's biggest challenge yet. I wonder if he's of a mind that he, his company, and his drivers are good enough to take that one on.
October 25th, 2007 23:07
As I mentioned elsewhere, there is an ACUTE nationwide truck driver shortage. No amount of new rules is going to increase the number of truck drivers available for these jobs (except for perhaps substancially higher wages).
All trucking firms are scraping the bottom of the barrel for half way decent drivers to fill their idle trucks.
Moral: There are going to be bad drivers on the road for some time. We bikers need to ride defensively -- trust no one.
ps: as a long-time trucker -- pulling triple trailers, let me give you some advice: Don't pass on the right. DON'T PASS ON THE RIGHT. Especially don't sneak up behind me when I have my turn signals and PASS ON THE RIGHT!
The blind spot is so HUGE and I cannot see you unless I'm looking out and you're in the right spot at the right time. If you're stopped next to me on the right, I almost certainly cannot see you.
My truck weighs 105,000 lbs. My bike weighs 23 lbs. I don't pass trucks on the right, and neither should you.
October 25th, 2007 23:22
You know how Lt. Mark Kruger is the police investigator for these recent bike "accidents"? I'm curious whatever happened to that whole ordeal with Kruger being pegged as overly into Nazi memorabilia and such...
http://wweek.com/editorial/3015/4820/
October 25th, 2007 23:50
Yes Doctor blind spots suck...I will not pass your truck on the right if your do not pass my bike on the left...as I have less of a blind spot and more of a soft spot.
October 26th, 2007 00:04
Big Diesel: If you bothered to look at anything else on this site you would know that careless cyclists get called onto the carpet all the time.
The difference is if I am on my bike and I make an illegal turn and hit the side of your big truck you don't die.
Yes, some cyclists break the law. Usually the only person this hurts is the cyclist.
I drive a car as well and I see plenty of motorists making moving violations. If you are out there driving then you see it too. I don't know why it doesn't bother when a fellow motorist breaks the law but when a cyclist does it is a big deal to you. It's not like they can run into you and kill you.
October 26th, 2007 01:26
Skidmark-
Yes there are plenty of bad motorists out there, and there will be even more in the future, that is a fact that won't change. This forum about biker survival should be focusing on safer biking habits for those of you who want to survive to ride another day. There will allways be people turning a big rig without seeing what is coming up on his side, you can argue all day about who is to blame. You won't prevent those trucks from making bad turns in the future, and you can't make everybody ride responsibly either. I'm sure there are a number of things that can be done to raise awareness for both sides.
The us against them thing going on here seams wacko to me as it is going in circles repeating itself with no progress.
I first logged on as a frustrated motorist (with bikes) however I am impressed withe the level of resolve from the biking comunnity to improve there safety situation. (I'm frustrted with cars too but those issues are car to car, different forum)
As someone from that other side I don't like to see the stupid flagerant lawbreakers buzzing people in crosswalks, slicing through traffic, and yes riding in blind spots.... I wouldn't dare do those things in my car or it would cost me dearly ($)
I see plenty of responsible bikers all the time, but it must be hard to try and follow the rules when you are stopped and other people around you go right on through. I'm sure after a while it just kind of sucks you in.
Maybe the people that do get caught being stupid should have to wear dunce caps when they ride? -just an idea
October 26th, 2007 02:07
"your do not pass my bike on the left"
With 105,000 lbs, I get very few opportunities to pass ANYTHING on the left. But I do make a lot of right turns. With this bit of info, bikers can use it to stay alive.
All these things are safer than passing on the right because you are SEEN:
Passing on the left
Blow stop signs
Zoobomb down Hwy 26
Critical mass intersections
Listening to your iPod
No helmet
Happy Biking!
October 26th, 2007 03:20
"If Tracy had run the red, she'd be alive"
Well, maybe...but she might have also been killed by cross traffic on a busy, hazardous thoroughfare like Burnside. But as long as we're playing what ifs...
What if Tracy had been acquainted with the principles and practice of vehicular cycling, and instead of coming up to the light hugging the road shoulder, she had merged into a through-traffic lane, as being the position in the roadway closest to her intended direction of travel (ie, through the intersection)? What if she'd then patiently waited for that light to change?
Why, then she'd very likely be alive, and even safe from the traffic on Burnside, provided some rare psycho didn't run the light...(which of course happens, just like lightning sometimes hits people, or driveby shooters, the difference being that those random events are not within our power to prevent, whereas righthooks or getting hit by traffic because we ran a red light ARE within our power to prevent).
So which strategy here makes more sense?
October 26th, 2007 06:38
Antonio #96:
You bring up a good point - that we cannot prevent the very rare freak events, and should mostly be concerned with the more probable ones. But the problem here is that there is an awful lot of the population that don't even recognise a right-hook as wrong! Maybe there will be a new way to deal with how bikes and cars interact when the car wishes to turn right and the bike wishes to go straight. But first, we need to get the message across to as many as possible what the law is right now so that these crashes can become rarer.
That's why it sucks that we have the Krugers of this town shooting their mouths off, making people even less sure of what the law says.
October 26th, 2007 09:05
Antonio #96 touched on a good point. His comments come down to education. I am 36 and have been riding in an urban setting for 29 years. In that time I have developed in-numerable safety skills for riding in the urban environment. Tracie was 19. How much experience did she have.
To get a drivers license, there is a minimum of required knowledge and experience. With a bike there is none required.
BTA does excellent outreach for biker safety. Maybe a focus of their outreach could be directed towards high schools and community colleges, to start teaching urban riding skills much like drivers ed. Maybe this could be a component of drivers ed at schools. It would teach kids how to deal with issues like the intersection from both perspectives.
This could be followed up by inclusion of more bike related information in DMV manual and questions in the test for a drivers license.
Not all safety improvements are made of concrete and paint.
October 26th, 2007 10:12
As a new bicycle commuter I've been following all of the tragic events lately and decided to purchase the book "The Art of Cycling" by Robert Hurst and Maria Streb. Good book with lots of excellent tips on cycling in urban areas. This book makes the point that a cyclist should "mostly" follow the rules of the road but that stopping for every stop sign is something that should be assessed on a case-by-case basis - bicycles aren't motorized vehicles and many of the stop signs are set up more for motorized traffic than for bicycle commuters (with different "momentum" issues for example). I am therefore a bit confused by those who are posting that cyclists should obey "all" the traffic controls vs. those who believe in more flexibility. Not wanting to start a flame war here, but I'm wondering what folks think about the suggestions in this book in the light of the current controversy over these terrible accidents here in Portland.
October 26th, 2007 10:15
I just to stir up this whole subject have to say that maybe the rider could have been somewhat to blame in this issue. It was reported that he was braking heavily when he went under the truck and was crushed. This leads me to believe that he was not as aware of the truck turning right as he should have been. This does not relieve the truck driver of any guilt but maybe this will be a lesson for other riders to be more aware of the other vehicles on the road. I for one as a bicyclist from way back know that pasing on the right of any vehicle is wrong. The truck could have just as easily been a mini van driven by someones grandmother. The fact that the truck driver has a record is irrellavent. Regardless of the driving record of the driver the rider would still be dead. "Laws protect the living" This truck would not have been making the turn very fast and so I believe that the rider was way up the road when the truck started to turn and the bike ran under the wheels of the truck so therefore it wasn't the truck that ran over the bike but the truck was turning and the bike ran into it.
October 26th, 2007 10:18
Though it's apparent that this man shouldn't have been operating a heavy vehicle, I would like to point out how disturbing it is for a "journalist" to always bring up crimes that a person was CHARGED with (and not convicted of), especially when they don't have a place in the story (anyone who has seen a trial, or been on a jury, involving a relatively high amount of a particular illegal substance on a person knows that they are often charged with selling or distributing, even if there's no evidence whatsoever that they were going that route, save the fact that they had more pills/weight than is typical from a low-level buyer).
That goes into the larger issue that lives can be ruined by the media's need to "get a story", and how it's all too common for an innocent person to be blackballed in a newspaper simply because they're accused of a crime. I'm happy that you wrote a story about this man and what he has done, but PLEASE don't attempt to stir more up than is necessary, based on a crime he was never convicted of.
October 26th, 2007 10:24
Oh yeah! I remember reading that about Kruger. What did happen with that?
October 26th, 2007 10:27
A senseless death of a wonderful human being because of an immature, irresponsible and ignorant manboy allowed a professional driver's license. It IS about the driver and individual responsibility.
October 26th, 2007 11:47
Until funding is available to create bicycle lanes seperate from autos/trucks more people will be killed or injured.
Doing bicycle lanes on the cheap by using part of the streets is not a rational solution, it is just cheap.
Always blaming the motorist is also irrational, but in todays society, a scapegoat is always required.
October 26th, 2007 12:25
Byron Estes:
I think following laws is generally good. I try to do it for the most part. But there are a very few but significant exceptions, and I think I and most people would be fibbing if I swore up and down that I follow all laws all the time. There is also a difference in the plain text of the law and the way it gets enforced. An enormous amount of discretion is left to law enforcement.
Take the law regulating bike lanes. The presumption has been created in the law as well as case history that, if there is a bike lane, you pretty much have to be in it, barring some important exceptions that are explicitly enumerated. How those exceptions get enforced is totally dependent on the person doing the enforcing. If a cop is a total anti-cyclist sh*thead, he can enforce those exceptions in a way that completely disregards the practicality and safety of cyclists. For example, if I merge into through-traffic at an intersection, citing the "hazar