home

Crash on SE Hawthorne at 10th offers a lesson in caution

Posted by Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) on August 13th, 2010 at 11:20 am

Aftermath of a collision at SE 10th
cand Hawthorne yesterday.
(Photos: Christopher Perez)

The collision on the transit mall downtown wasn't the only bike-involved crash yesterday. Reader Christopher Perez was the first person on the scene of a collision on SE Hawthorne about two hours before Richard Krebs was struck while crossing SW Morrison.

Perez witnessed the collision and provided a detailed account and photos on his Flickr page. Here are some excerpts from what he saw (emphasis mine):

"Both east bound lanes of traffic are stopped due to construction on the east side of Hawthorn at SE 12th. At 10th, both lanes of traffic provide a break for cross traffic.

On the north side of 10th, a silver Hundai see's [sic] her chance to cross the intersection and proceeds very quickly through two lanes of traffic that effectively block any view of on-coming cyclists.

Just prior to this, a young man on a newly rebuilt bike passed me on the left and reentered the bike lane about a 1/2 a block ahead of me... He was the fastest of the group of riders, of which I was now second in lead of.

I watched as the silver Hundai started across the intersection and saw she did not look up the road to the west to see what traffic conditions were. I saw how the bicyclist continued to ride rather quickly into the intersection.

I shouted very loudly "NO!"

The cyclist hit the Hundai on the right front fender just behind the tire. I watched as his front rim turned and watched as he went over his handlebars and as his full body hit the windshield."

After the collision. The
man in black is the one who
was involved w/ the crash.

Thankfully, the man on the bike did not sustain serious injuries (unless they've flared up overnight). Perez reports that, after rolling off the car, the man, "suddenly leaped up, cursing and gesticulating wildly." Perez also noted a few "bottom line" observations that are worth sharing here:

The automobile proceeded through the intersection with no regard for on-coming bicyclists in the bike lane.

The bicyclist proceeded east up Hawthorne with no regard to cross traffic.

Both were traveling rather more quickly than I would have felt comfortable traveling at.

Hawthorne from the river to SE 12th during the PM commute is always a tricky area traffic-wise; add in all the construction and you've got the recipe for crashes. Best advice is to keep speeds reasonable and always expect that the other vehicle does not see you.

-- View a few more of Perez's photos here.

Email This Post Email This Post

Possibly related posts


Gravatars make better comments... Get yours here.
Please notify the publisher about offensive comments.
Comments
  • JK12 August 13, 2010 at 11:53 am

    This brings up a good point that I never see in any discussions of accidents in Portland. The visibility at MANY intersections is TERRIBLE. Apparently it's legal to park all the way to the corner, and even if there's no car there, someone's hedges are out of control, there's a bus stop or newspaper machines or something else blocking the view.

    I am mostly a cyclist but I drive too, and I have never felt as vulnerable in either mode as I do in Portland, simply because you CANNOT SEE when you need to see. I am tired of trying to squint through the windows of parked cars to see what's coming.

    I know this wasn't the exact situation here, but it's another example of how not being able to see causes destruction.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Nik August 13, 2010 at 11:57 am

    That sort of stopped traffic cut-through always makes me cringe. The person going through can't see anything in far lanes that aren't stopped. Sounds like the driver in this case was unaware of or not thinking about the bike lane.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • dan August 13, 2010 at 11:59 am

    Yikes, thanks for printing this. That's on my commute, and I never thought of this particular scenario. I can easily imagine this happening to me...but now I'll know to be careful.

    Though the driver is clearly in the wrong, I can easily understand how it could have happened...if I had been driving in that situation, I'm not sure if I would have remembered to check for bike traffic or not, and I bike through there every day.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) August 13, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    i think the law actually says that you cannot park w/in 50-feet of a corner if your vehicle is over 6-feet tall.

    of course, like myriad other traffic safety-related laws, this is likely rarely enforced.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous August 13, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    If the autos were stopped at the intersection on Hawthorne at 10th, does that mean that legally the cyclist has to stop there as well (As if maybe there is a pedestrian crossing and the cars are stopped for them?)

    I'm not sure of the answer. I'd prefer to hear from someone that knows- not someone who is guessing.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Michael M. August 13, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    These are exactly the kinds of conditions that existed on NE Broadway when traffic was frequently backed up in the run-up to the B'way Bridge closure. Vehicles would dart through clear intersections without the operators being able to see (even if the drivers were trying to look) whether bikes were approaching the intersection. And riding westbound, it was very hard to see whether any vehicles were crossing the intersection until you were almost upon it.

    Defense, defense, defense. We would all do well, however we get around, to accept that big construction projects generally mean exercising more caution than usual and travelling at slower speeds than usual. Glad everyone seems to be okay in this incident.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jeff August 13, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    the guy crushed a windshield with this back and he's "OK"??? I'm guessing he's got some bruising today at least and is probably picking a little glass out of his back. Adrenaline is a funny thing.
    E. Hawthorne has been rough the past couple weeks. Slow down folks, whereever you have to be is not that important.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Michael M. August 13, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    @Anonymous #5 -- A tragic incident on TV Highway this past winter involved the type of situation you're asking about. A motorist didn't stop despite the fact that the car in the lane next to him was stopped, and killed a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk. The motorist who didn't stop didn't even get a failure-to-yield citation; the determination made by cops on the scene was that there was no way he could've seen the pedestrian and therefore he wasn't at fault.

    Personally, I think this is wrong. At the very least, IMO, it is reckless driving/riding. If you are travelling adjacent to a lane in which vehicles headed the same direction are stopped, common sense should tell you that there is a reason why. It might not be necessary for you to come to complete stop, depending upon the circumstances and conditions, but at the very least you should take it as a cue to proceed with extreme caution.

    But legally, there's no requirement to stop.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • GlowBoy August 13, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    Well, of course common sense dictates that if traffic next to you is stopped you should be more on alert.

    But frankly, for cyclists this is THE NORM. At busy times, the general purpose lanes back up behind intersections, and those of us in bike lanes have to ride next to parked cars. I'm always on higher alert than usual in this situation (which happens to me daily in congested Beaverton), but there's no need to crawl along, and let's not forget that the fault lies 100% with the driver of the car in this case.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • GlowBoy August 13, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    Oops, I should have said "have to ride next to stopped cars" not "parked cars."

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • naess August 13, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    jonathan@4: unfortunately, when you are in most vehicles you are sitting at about what, 3 or 4 feet so even a car at 6 feet high is a major L.o.S. blockage.

    -naess

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spiffy August 13, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    ah yes, the cars were stopped due to traffic backed up in the car lanes...

    the bikes were not stopped because there wasn't enough traffic backed up in their lane...

    the vehicle crossed without being sure that all 4 lanes (3 car + 1 bike) were clear of oncoming vehicles...

    the person on the bike was quick and reacted well to save themselves and their bike (which looks like it has some nice components)... hopefully they're not too sore today after the adrenaline wears off...

    had the bike being going just a little bit faster this might not have ended so well as they could have been in front of the car...

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • matt picio August 13, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    Anon (#5) - Oregon Revised Statutes permits cyclists to pass traffic on the right "if it is safe to do so". The statute does not stipulate what constitutes "safe". The cars leaving the gap were obeying state law since they were stopped - the cyclist was not under an obligation to stop also unless a pedestrian was crossing, or unless it was "unsafe" to pass. (again, no criteria for determining "safe"/"unsafe" is given in the statutes.

    The cyclist should have been watching both sides of 10th while approaching it, and with the gap, he should also have been slowing down if his view of 10th was obstructed - how much, when and where are a matter of dispute, but the basic speed law requires a vehicle operator to slow down when circumstances warrant it - and it sounds like in this case they did.

    It's likely that culpability is shared in this collision, which should make the insurance claims interesting. (not in a good way)

    GlowBoy (#8) "Fault" from a traffic standpoint probably lies entirely with the driver, since 10th has a stop sign and Hawthorne does not. Civil liability is likely shared, however, since both parties probably were in violation of the basic speed law. ("shared" doesn't mean "equal" - the police don't care about "shared" so much as the insurance companies do)

    I'm not saying the cyclist was at fault - but it seems evident that the cyclist was a contributing factor to the collision at the least.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel August 13, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    "The bicyclist proceeded east up Hawthorne with no regard to cross traffic."
    It sounds to me like the bicyclist had right of way and was traveling below the posted speed limit. The fault was entirely with the c***er.

    "Both were traveling rather more quickly than I would have felt comfortable traveling at."
    As long as I ride safely I have every right to ride at the posted speed limit.
    I am *NOT* going to slow down because another cyclist feels "uncomfortable".

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Stig August 13, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    I've nearly been nailed quite a few times at the crosswalks on the 205 path by motorists in the far lane speeding past cars that have already stopped to allow myself and others to cross. If we all take it slow and keep our hands over the brakes we should be safe.

    If someone had a pram (empty) and some spare time I bet they could change some motorists' habits just by crossing legally at crosswalks on 4 lane roads where aggressive driving is common.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel August 13, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    "since both parties probably were in violation of the basic speed law."

    You have no evidence to back this statement up. Judging from the lack of serious injuries its quite likely that the cyclist was going 10-15 mph. IMO, this is a safe speed given the circumstances.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jeff August 13, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    spare_wheel, how can you say it was safe given the circumstances with a straight face? I think the collision itself says otherwise.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • commuter August 13, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    You just have to ride defensively. Right of way doesn't mean anything when you're going up against a car or bus. Hawthorne has been quite tricky in the last month and whenever there is construction, frustrated drivers sometimes do things like making quick turns down a side street without signaling or drifting or driving in a bike lane to make the first right turn.
    Whenever cars are stopped or backed up and I'm in a bike lane next to them, I usually cut my speed down by almost half.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Adam August 13, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    It seems from my experience and as displayed in this incident, that cross traffic should not be permitted on Hawthorne during rush-hour. There are enough traffic lights to allow traffic to cross on designated streets, that permitting cross traffic on rarely used side roads does not seem necessary. this area is often congested, cyclists are riding at high speeds coming off the bridge, and there is a lot of jockeying for position and lane changing as cars and cyclists disperse around the east-side. Without changes, everyone definitely needs to slow down a bit.

    On a side note, it seems there is an occasional tendency for the courteous nature of Portland drivers to result in unpredictable behavior on the road and increased danger. It's hard to say if this incident (cars stopping short to allow a car across) was unexpected to the cyclist.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bug on window August 13, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    well, that is me. Sorry folks thought I was going to fast. I was going the speed limit and was aware of the other riders just not the car that sped across three lanes of traffic. I'm ok though. Thank you for your concern

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • whitey August 13, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    prolly one them dang fixed gears. maybe if he had brakes and a bright yellow vest this poor woman would still have a windshield

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Christopher Perez August 13, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    Two things in reply to "spare_wheel" -

    1) I'm not suggesting that you slow down because I feel "uncomfortable". Why would I ever wish to infringe on your basic rights to do what ever you want, even if your actions appear to be unsafe? Rather, I am attempting to tie the fact that the rider had no clear line of sight to the left (blocked by large SUV-like vehicles) with his speed (see #2 next).

    2) When I spoke with the officer at the scene, I put the cyclist's speed in excess of 20mph. While the rider was perhaps running under the speed limit, he was cranking pretty hard and, again, with stopped traffic two lanes deep he had no clear line of sight to the left.

    Watching this whole event unfold, to me it was clear that both parties contributed to this event.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Todd August 13, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    @spare_wheel
    lol, you do have every right to ride at the speed limit. Without recognizing the reality of your actions, you can also get killed if you rode at the speed limit in all conditions. The comment about both people proceeding too fast holds true. Its not a comment about legalility, it was a comment regarding survival. Riding a bike fast, while legal, will eventually result in serious injury or death in my opinion. The driver should still be ticketed for failure to yield of course. The cyclist learned a lesson at low cost: there are other morons in this world and you have to look out for yourself. others won't do it for you.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • toddistic August 13, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    fwiw, common sense would indicate that if auto traffic is stopped with space at an uncontrolled intersection, it would be prudent to slow down prior to crossing.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Christopher Perez August 13, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    bug on window - Man! I was scared for you!! When you laid there on the street while I rode up I wasn't sure you were getting up.

    I'm happy to hear you were alright. Sorry to see your newly rebuilt bike crash tested.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel August 13, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    "spare_wheel, how can you say it was safe given the circumstances with a straight face? I think the collision itself says otherwise."

    riding safely does not protect you from inattentive idiots. (i have the scars to prove it.)

    "Riding a bike fast, while legal, will eventually result in serious injury or death in my opinion."

    In the long run we are all dead.
    -JMK

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel August 13, 2010 at 2:54 pm

    "cars stopping short to allow a car across"

    I hate it when drivers cede their right of way. On one occasion I sat at an intersection for 2 mins while the car blocked traffic and frantically gesticulated at me. The "courteous" driver flipped me off when they finally drove off.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan August 13, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    My understanding of the situation is that car traffic was stopped at 12th and _backed up_ to 10th. Cars that were unable to cross the intersection at 10th (because cars were stopped on the far side of the intersection) stopped short of the intersection to allow cross traffic to pass, as they should have.

    Bikes in the bike lane had no obligation to stop in this case. That's like saying that when a car in the left lane stops and is waiting to make a left turn across Hawthorne, motorists in the adjacent lane (traveling the same direction) also need to stop. We all know that's not the case. The bike lane is a separate lane of traffic -- a different situation from _sharing_ a lane with cars and filtering up the right side when the cars stop (a procedure which can be sketchy for a number of reasons).

    If cars had stopped even though their forward progress was not obstructed (i.e., to allow a pedestrian to cross at the intersection), cyclists could assume that they had stopped specifically to yield to cross traffic. Unfortunately, it seems that cars were stopped because they couldn't cross the intersection, so there were no warning signs for the cyclist.

    So, to reiterate from above: I see this as the motorist's responsibility, not the cyclist's. Bug on window, glad to hear that you're OK. Hope that your ride is also OK, or at least can be repaired.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • toddistic August 13, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    if you look at the photos, you'll notice that guy has no brakes on his fixed gear. my suggestion is that he invest in a brake or two and stop pretending he is in a lucas brunell youtube video. if he wants to go fast without brakes I recommend he learn to ride his track bike on steep banks of Alpenrose.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mercier 531 August 13, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    I have a suggestion for commuters as an alternate route during the construction (and for that matter, this is a better eastbound route all of the time). When you come down off of the Hawthorne Bridge, turn right on SE 7th and then turn left on SE Harrison. Follow Harrison through Ladd's Addition - it is used by hundreds of cyclists every day and it is very safe. I live on this street and am unaware of any accidents between bikes and cars. One word of warning, however, is for the intersection of SE 20th and SE Harrison (this is a 4-way stop). Cars do not seem to understand that bikes going east or west at this intersection can go straight although cars cannot.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • matt picio August 13, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    spare_wheel (#16) - It's a qualified statement, and there is evidence - a collision occurred. Police and/or a judge will be the ultimate authority on whether it was "safe", but I would argue that 15mph is too fast for a cyclist if there is no clear line of visibility. At that speed, a cyclist travels 22' per second, leaving probably 1 second or less to identify a problem and successfully stop or avoid it.

    ("probably" meaning that the gap was likely no more than 20-30')

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous August 13, 2010 at 3:46 pm

    I like to know if the cyclist was wearing a helmet or any visible article of clothing? Did the bike have visable lights? turnsignals? Probably not.

    Looks like he is wearing all black making himself kinda stealth in the shadows and extreme glaring sunlight. Most likely invisible at night too....

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • 151 August 13, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    If you're talking about the black bike with the white aero rim, it has a front brake.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Max Rockbin August 13, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    Why not ride on SE Clay. It's a bike street. It's one block away from Hawthorne. It's MUCH safer, less crowded, faster (I think). Easy bridge access.
    ??
    I don't get why anyone rides on Hawthorne.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tom August 13, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    Fixed gear bikes aren't dangerous, but the young male riders riding them tend to lack traffic skills and good judgment.

    If you are passing stopped cars you have to look out for stuff like this.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Steve B. August 13, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    This sort of collision happens all too often.
    It's what we get when we put bike lanes on the right side, and don't provide adequate site lines, traffic controls, and other signage that would help prevent these crashes. West Broadway is another place where this type of crash could be prevented, but will always be likely due to the engineering of the bikeway.

    This sort of neglect is exactly why we need to seriously consider (and BUILD) separated infrastructure, and when separation is not possible, we need to use other tools to make our bikeways crash-proof. Until then, those who don't bike will remain "Interested, but concerned."

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel August 13, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    @Christopher Perez
    If I were passed by a fixie I would add 10 mph to their speed too.

    More seriously, I agree that 20+ mph would be unwise in that situation. Nevertheless, the legal blame is still entirely on the SUV driver.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • David August 13, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    I really try not to call people morons, but Max, what are you talking about??

    Do you understand that at that point Hawthorne is a one-way road where he got hit, eastbound? What bridge do you think this cyclist was going to, heading east?

    Also, if you do head east on Clay it goes straight into Ladd's which is a direct route to nowhere...except Ladd's.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • max rockbin August 13, 2010 at 6:57 pm

    Clay enters Ladd's and then you go onto Harrison, which is also a great bike path with very very little traffic. It's one of the most bike friendly streets in SE and it's just a couple of blocks from Hawthorne.

    By the way, I mentioned the bridge because Clay works if you're going to the bridge too.

    I just don't get why anyone whose destination is not on Hawthorne would ride on it when there are such great alternatives. I ride on Clay & Harrison all the time and avoid Hawthorne like the plague. It's worth a couple blocks (literally) to me not to ride in that (obviously) dangerous traffic.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SkidMark August 13, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    whitey said: prolly one them dang fixed gears. maybe if he had brakes and a bright yellow vest this poor woman would still have a windshield

    He has a front brake and he had a gigantic pink Ortlieb backpack. Neon pink not bright enough? Also it was daytime so this is irrelevant. Bicyles are part of traffic, people in cars should expect them to be on the street and they should be able to see them.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Giant Hogweed August 13, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    JK12 #1; Jonathan #4

    ORS 811.550 (17) No parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection.

    Page 45 of the Oregon Driver Manual: no parking within 20 feet of a marked or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

    For some reason, on the city parking enforcement site this last regulation is omitted when quoting the ODM: http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=34793&a=60292

    City parking regs: Blocking Visibility:

    Vehicles cannot park within 50 feet of an intersection if they fit the following descriptions: (Note: This restriction does not apply to the area of the street where the direction of traffic is leaving an intersection on a one-way street.)
    The vehicle or a view-obstructing attachment to your vehicle is more than 6 feet in height.
    The vehicle design, modification, or load obscures the visibility or view of:
    a. Approaching traffic
    b. Any traffic control sign
    c. Any traffic control signal
    d. Any pedestrian in a crosswalk; or
    The vehicle has the window area obscured due to shaded, curtained or blocked by a load of packages, freight, or parcels.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • David August 13, 2010 at 8:38 pm

    @ Max

    When you come over the Hawthorne bridge headed east you get dumped off onto Hawthorne, directly onto the bike lane. You should take a look during rush hour sometime at all the cyclists not getting run over.

    I try to avoid Hawthorne heading further eastbound when it narrows and the bike lanes disappear, but being terrified of the first 12 blocks of it is crazy despite the recent events.

    I will never understand the "Blame the Victim" mentality that so many drivers, and apparently cyclists, tend to take. Bug on window got drilled by a driver who fucked up. End of story.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SD August 13, 2010 at 11:53 pm

    Agree with David.

    It is pointless to look at an accident retrospectively and say "the injured should have been more careful." When I drive a car, I think about bikes. This driver did not. That is the variable that has to change.

    To estimate another bicyclist's speed or judge their cycling as dangerous is irresponsible.

    It is ok for people to ride slowly, at whatever level, but please stop criticizing cyclists that ride faster.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bug on window August 14, 2010 at 1:33 am

    Thank you all, good or bad.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • mineo tanabe August 14, 2010 at 2:50 am

    a man in black with a black bike?
    Even if In a sunny day I think cyclists should be aware they are in risk.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Red Five August 14, 2010 at 7:09 am

    geeze the guy learned his lesson, and i'm sure the lady in the car didn't feel too good about it. It's just people, all of us citizens of PDX trying to get somewhere. There is no "us vs.them" here.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Vance Longwell August 14, 2010 at 8:00 am

    How is this accidental crash a, "...lesson in caution..."? Based upon the timeline of events stated here, it seems to me that the involved highway user at the intersection behind a control device, in this case, presumably, a stop sign, is at fault. Given that the bicycle rider possessed the right-of-way, it's simply moot to consider anything further.

    This is a huge error on the part of the motorist here. Giant. If the facts, as stated, are true then there is little to be gained second-guessing the bicycle rider. I personally use time when I SHOULD expect the right of way, and when conditions warrant, to further scan my surroundings, and plan my next moves. I have to, "take my eyes off the road" when I do that. Sooner or later I'm going to have to. It's asinine to scold this rider, or to impugn their riding skills, for not reacting in time to avoid this crash.

    The motorist in this crash was obliged to stay behind the plane of the signalling device until such time traffic lanes were clear. This driver did not do that, as evidenced by the damaged bicycle rider here, end of story. The bicycle rider had the right of way, and probably the expectation of that right of way. About the time somebody else's failure to observe the law interferes with this, there's nothing the bicycle rider can do. Speculating otherwise takes away from the fact this is absolutely, 100%, the driver's fault. No amount of caution, or any other dreamy abstraction, can prevent you from getting mowed down by a driver this oblivious and self-involved.

    I will now applaud the riding skills of the bicycle rider here. I choose to presume that their mastery, my assumption as it's unstated, mitigated this crash and facilitated their survival. Caution, smaution.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel August 14, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Because someone asked why I ride Hawthorne:

    1. Hawthorne's bike signal lights are timed perfectly for very fast riders.
    2. When I stop at a bike signal I can show off my track stand skilz.
    3. Every time I ride Clay I run stop signs. Seriously, why take the risk?
    4. New pavement+140 psi tires!!1!!1!!!!!
    5. I enjoy the shocked expression on cag...erm...drivers faces as I pass them.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • better safe than sorry August 14, 2010 at 9:50 am

    Well, as they say, you might have the right of way but you don't have a force field.

    If there are two lanes of traffic blocking a view of you from the person who is going to be crossing the intersection it might be a good idea for your own safety to not proceed though an intersection at your top speed.

    If your main concern is speed or getting a workout, sure, rip around in traffic like you're on the tour d'France. But there may be a price to pay for riding like this.

    But if you're riding for transportation make an effort to pay attention to what is going on on the road around you. Pay attention to traffic conditions and adjust your speed accordingly.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that all those construction signs and barricades are distracting to drivers and you really need to ride defensively when they are around.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bug on window August 14, 2010 at 11:00 am

    Vance, thank you for your comment. The car driver was ticketed, I'm healing, and the insurance is cooperating. to all the people with comments of finger wagging, non of you have any right to comment on this. Jonathan did a bad job in his attempts to bring you this story which should have read for us to be careful because car drivers are still dangerous. It felt like I was reading a fox news report. In the end I'm still going to ride on whatever street I'd like and I'm still going to pass all you very passive yellow jackets. Hopefully you all can go back to your self serving smugness and find something better to do then comment on what I should have done....even though not all of you saw what happened. it would be nice if this was the last comment but I understand the internet allows us to be anonymous idiots so I just hope you all just go ride your bikes and keep your heads up and be safe.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • ARSENAL August 14, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    Idiot ride your track bike at Alpenrose.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bug on window August 14, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Thanks for the advice Hugh

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jim O'Horo August 14, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    Bug, I hope the aches & pains have subsided and that no other injury has appeared.

    Vance, I agree that the driver of the car is responsible for this collision. She had a duty to make sure there was no other traffic approaching from the right and to yield if necessary. Though her vision was probably obstructed, that didn’t relieve her of her duty. There’s a good chance Bug’s vision was partially obstructed too. Nonetheless, Bug had a right to proceed straight in his unobstructed lane at any speed up to the legal limit. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I think I recall that the limit there is 35mph. If so and he was going 20mph, that’s well below the limit. Whether or not that was too fast for conditions was a matter of judgment, and his own judgment is what he relied on. He was riding a fixie with, as far as I can tell, a front brake. He has a right to do that. He also has a right to wear black clothes, white clothes or, in Portland, no clothes at all. The (secondary?) issue here isn’t about his right to exercise his rights. Just because we have a right to do something, it isn’t always right and/or prudent to do it. I think Jonathan’s headline is appropriate. I got the sense that he’s trying to convey the notion that sometimes we’d be better off if we didn’t push our rights to the limit.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • dutch August 14, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    This is one of the many instances where I find it is much safer to be riding a tallbike. It sounds crazy, but I think its crazy how yall cyclists pedal all around town without being able to see over traffic at whats coming at ya at the next intersection.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • ARSENAL August 14, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    So learn to ride your bike because as Tom states "Fixed gear bikes aren't dangerous, but the young male riders riding them tend to lack traffic skills and good judgment."
    Thanks Tom for that comment!
    You stupid cyclists should just get hoverounds and call it quits. Stay out of the road!!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tom August 14, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    #50 Ah well I wouldn't call being aware of your surroundings and riding appropriately to be 'passive'.

    #51 I don't know how this has anything to do with track bikes except for the misguided feelings of invincibility some of the noob/young riders that such bikes are fashionable with bring to the road.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • David August 14, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    @ Jim

    The limit on that part of Hawthorne is 25mph.

    (Not saying that Bug was speeding here--I'd be surprised if he could get it up to the limit that fast--just wanted to get the facts right.)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob August 14, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    "...In the end I'm still going to ride on whatever street I'd like and I'm still going to pass all you very passive yellow jackets. Hopefully you all can go back to your self serving smugness ..." bug on window #50

    You may have had the right of way over the motor vehicle in this situation, but in your comment, it seems to be you that's being unduly smug. It's a bit of extraordinary luck that you escaped the collision without at least a bunch of broken bones or even the loss of your life.

    It's great that unlike some people that ride fixies, you've opted to at least equip the bike with a brake. How much that might have had to do with minimizing the impact of the collision is something you'd likely know better than anyone reading or commenting here.

    As far as the black clothing you were wearing, it's difficult to know for certain whether having worn something brighter or more visible might have made a difference in the motor vehicle driver's ability to detect your presence in time to themselves brake and possibly avoid colliding with you, but it very well might have. It's this type of reason that the people you contemptuously refer to as "... passive yellow jackets..." wear that gear, some of them even going so far as to run daylight lighting.

    Witness Christopher Perez (excerpted in maus's story) says:

    "...On the north side of 10th, a silver Hundai see's [sic] her chance to cross the intersection and proceeds very quickly through two lanes of traffic that effectively block any view of on-coming cyclists. .... I watched as the silver Hundai started across the intersection and saw she did not look up the road to the west to see what traffic conditions were. I saw how the bicyclist continued to ride rather quickly into the intersection. ..."

    If witnes Perez account is accurate, this driver apparently did not turn their head up the street at all in the direction cyclists were coming from. What Perez account doesn't note and didn't need to, is that peripheral vision allows people some vision without requiring them to physically turn their head. So it's possible this driver may actually have looked your way, but didn't see you until it was too late.

    If not this particular driver, another driver or other road user in a very similar situation, may very well be more likely to see people approaching on bikes when the rider, the bike, or both are somehow equipped to make them more visible to other road users. And again, to whatever extent Perez's account is accurate, if you were riding as he says, “... quickly into the intersection...”, it may have helped if you, assuming you realized this intersection's safety was affected by nearby road construction, would have have proceeded a little more slowly and cautiously through it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Duncan August 14, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    Be careful Bug... right doesn't mean shit if you are dead.

    I have had the same thing happen to me- someone tries to nose across a multi lane street (Grand in my case) and doesnt see a bike in the lane (with lights in my case)... it sucks. Take the attitude that every cross street driver doesnt see you, every parked car will door you, every bus right (or left) hook you. Plan accordingly- far from being passive it requires being proactive.

    Glad your OK.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel August 14, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    @49 Its possible to ride for both a workout and transportation. I've been commuting for over 20 years and have been injured in a collision twice. In both cases there was nothing I could have done to avoid the accident. Even those who ride 7 mph while wearing day-glo vests are completely at the mercy of a bad decision by an idiot driving a lethal weapon.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jim O'Horo August 14, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    @ David

    Thanks for the correction. That's why I said I wasn't sure. Yes, even if he'd been doing 25, he still had a legal right to do so.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tony Columbo August 14, 2010 at 7:08 pm

    If we managed our road system the same way we manage cyclists – no rules, no cost, and no accountability. We'd have mayhem.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Red Five August 14, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    I feel like we should doing some sort of Portland passive-agressive protest. Like get in a big nude huddle but not really tell anybody what we are pissed about.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • She August 14, 2010 at 11:26 pm

    The one thing no one has seemed to comment on is the fact that the auto drive had a stop sign and the bicycle did not. He was traveling in an clear lane with right of way and she crossed it. I certainly would not expect to be hit in that situation.

    Bug I am glad you are ok, I am also glad to hear the driver was ticketed.

    And I am sure she is not feeling too great about the situation either!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous August 14, 2010 at 11:50 pm

    "Here lies the body of William Jay
    who died maintaining his right of way.
    He was right, dead right, as he sped along
    but he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."

    (origin lost to time and ravages of the intarweb)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob August 15, 2010 at 1:04 am

    "The one thing no one has seemed to comment on is the fact that the auto drive had a stop sign and the bicycle did not. He was traveling in an clear lane with right of way and she crossed it. I certainly would not expect to be hit in that situation. ..." She #64

    Reread Perez's account of the incident:

    "... On the north side of 10th, a silver Hundai see's [sic] her chance to cross the intersection and proceeds very quickly through two lanes of traffic that effectively block any view of on-coming cyclists. ..."

    To borrow from Perez's comment, it's said the driver had a stop sign, but the lanes of traffic blocked any view of on-coming cyclists. Would you really trust that all road users pausing at that stop sign and looking across 4 traffic lanes, two of which are backed up with cars blocking view of cyclists using the bike lane, could be counted on to be on the watch for oncoming cyclists in the bike lane(reminder: not absolutely sure, but the bike lane may not be striped through this intersection.)?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • malka August 15, 2010 at 7:42 am

    I'm new to Portland and decided to move here because I wanted to live without a car. So far, commuting by bike has been relatively safe and incident-free. (Knock on wood!) However, I am fully aware of the potential dangers (from motorists as well as other cyclists) and do everything in my power to avoid a situation like the one on Hawthorne. It seems to me that the discord between cyclists and motorists is grounded not so much in differences but in commonalities: both sides suffer from too much arrogance and senselessness.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel August 15, 2010 at 9:41 am

    "but the bike lane may not be striped through this intersection"

    There are very few blocks of bike lane in pdx that do not have significant striping gaps. I guess you don't ride much in PDX...wsbob.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel August 15, 2010 at 9:46 am

    "both sides suffer from too much arrogance and senselessness"

    and the point of this is...

    "and do everything in my power to avoid a situation like the one on Hawthorne"

    its interesting how those who cast stones are all perfect riders who *never* take a risk and *never* break laws/statutes. the stench of hypocrisy is very thick on this thread.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SkidMark August 15, 2010 at 10:00 am

    My motto is "ride fast, take chances, safety third" but that doesn't excuse a car driver from "not seeing me" or violating my right of way when I am obeying the law, which is most of the time.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SkidMark August 15, 2010 at 10:05 am

    I also agree with Dutch's statement about tallbikes. You are seen my even the most clueless zombiefied drivers, and you can see so much further ahead. Ther's usually a signpost or a newspaper box to lean against so you rarely have to dismount. And falling off a tallbike is no fun, so you tend to ride more cautiously.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob August 15, 2010 at 10:41 am

    "...(reminder: not absolutely sure, but the bike lane may not be striped through this intersection.)..." wsbob #66

    "... There are very few blocks of bike lane in pdx that do not have significant striping gaps. I guess you don't ride much in PDX...wsbob." spare_wheel #68

    Despite however much you ride in Portland, apparently you're not sufficiently aware of that section of Hawthorne Blvd to have been able to say with certainty for everyone that chances to read this thread, either:

    'Yes, bike lanes are striped through this intersection', or 'No, bike lanes are not striped through this intersection'.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Michael M. August 15, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    @spare_wheel #68 -- It's pretty easy not to break laws or take risks, except when you break laws or take risks as a result of inattention or distraction. Caution is plenty hard to maintain at all times. For me, the value of accounts like this one is that they serve as a reminder to be cautious, which is pretty much summed up in the way JM headlined the story. Others may not see it that way, that's their prerogative.

    All the rest -- the second-guessing, the chastising, the defensiveness, etc. -- is secondary. Nobody is perfect, nor do I see anyone here claiming to be. Risk assessment can be very much in the eye of the beholder, and it is all-too-human (if not terribly helpful) to say "I told you so" in response to behavior that one person maintains is risky and another does not, when the outcome isn't desirable. I don't see anything hypocritical about that -- churlish, perhaps, but not hypocritical.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • MIndful Cyclist August 15, 2010 at 8:20 pm

    @Michael M.: You make some great points. I really think the bottom line is we all hate, as cyclists, to see a cyclist get hurt or even killed. Whenever we see or hear about an accident involving a bike, we think that could have been ourselves.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are August 15, 2010 at 8:57 pm

    re comment 73, bike lanes are not striped through intersections, period.
    http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/part9.pdf
    a block away from this incident, at southeast hawthorne and 11th, the point was made rather forcefully, not so very long ago:
    http://bikeportland.org/2009/12/18/judge-woman-hit-in-unpainted-bike-lane-is-not-protected-by-law/

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Pete August 15, 2010 at 11:08 pm

    Mindful Cyclist (#74): So true. Just watched the news report of a German tourist killed by a hit-and-run driver in San Fran (reportedly caught and charged with vehicular manslaughter). Makes me shudder and be thankful my close calls are just that.

    JM, the headline is fine, this should be a lesson in caution. I watched a similar situation in Beaverton a few years ago on Murray. I saw the opening and yelled "car left" to the rider in front of me because I just assumed one was coming through. He avoided the hit but also wasn't making the same assumption I was - cars don't leave openings like that for no reason (someone else said it above). Right of way or not, to look out for these situations is the message here.

    California law allows motorcycles to share lanes, but the law limits their speed to only 10 MPH above that of traffic (i.e. only 10 MPH if traffic is stopped). It's all about reaction time, as Matt points out. I ride fast so I know it sucks - many of my evening commutes are slower than I want simply because traffic is stopped. The 10 MPH law doesn't apply to cyclists but it's a good rule of thumb.

    Bug, very glad you're OK! Comments on this site seem to have gotten more vindictive and unreasonable in the past year or so. Cyclists chastised for wearing black and not having lights in broad daylight? Get real!

    SkidMark (#70): Good luck with that attitude. Most drivers are not ordained at the church of bike right-of-way, and there's no excuse to expect a driver to be watching out for you. "Ride like you're invisible" is what I was taught and I've ridden/commuted crash-free for decades (well, car hits anyway - the peloton going down is another story).

    So yeah, call it hypocrisy, but my 'perfect' record comes not from pointing fingers but taking away lessons. I suspect Bug and the driver both learned theirs that day, and we get to make smug comments instead of sympathetic ones this time. Fortunately.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • resopmok August 15, 2010 at 11:19 pm

    It's too bad most people seemed to have zipped by Steve B. #36's comment so we can judge people about their reactions in this situation. The comments about how key visibility is to traffic safety should be an indicator to one of the design problems that bike lanes have, especially those next to parallel parking. This accident could easily have happened with the a car trying to cross from the right side as well, or a car who was sick of waiting in traffic suddenly deciding to turn right onto 10th.

    There is no blanket safe design for on-street cycling facilities, such as bike lanes, and it is obvious to me that this one in particular is severely lacking. Personally, I almost never ride in the bike lane here simply because I know I will be going too fast to avoid being doored. PBOT has just wasted another opportunity to provide cyclists on this route - which amounts to nothing less than a main arterial for those headed to and from the east side via the Hawthorne Bridge - with a world class facility by a simple restriping. Given the volume of cyclists, a dedicated full width lane is not out of the question, combined with signage that allows only turns onto Hawthorne at non-signaled intersections. Big surprise that traffic planners dropped the ball here again.

    In other news, people will continue to operate their vehicles like morons no matter how good the facilities are. I pride myself on spotting idiots and potential road hazards, avoiding bad situations and giving people dirty looks when they take my right of way.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SkidMark August 16, 2010 at 8:59 am

    pete, I rode motorcycles for 13 years on top of riding bicycles for 25+ years, so I do indeed "ride like I am invisible". I haven't been hit by a car since I was 15 years old, when I had less than a year experience riding a bicycle properly in the street.

    "there's no excuse to expect a driver to be watching out for you."

    This is possibly the most ridiculous statement I have ever read. I shouldn't expect drivers to follow the rules of the road and watch out for all road hazards including cyclists and pedestrians? What, drivers should just be allowed to drive around smashing into things?

    They expect us to follow every rule all the time, why shouldn't we be able to do the same?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel August 16, 2010 at 9:07 am

    "Personally, I almost never ride in the bike lane here simply because I know I will be going too fast to avoid being doored."

    If you ride on the left side of the lane dooring is no longer an issue. The lane has been re-striped and is now quite a bit wider.

    I rarely take the lane on Hawthorne because I feel safer riding in the middle of a traffic lane at *precisely* 25 mph (I *never* speed /snark). Beyond 12th its entirely legal to take the lane -- as the dozens of signs warning about bikes in lane indicate.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spiffy August 16, 2010 at 9:24 am

    Bug, thank you for taking out this person's windshield and not getting too hurt... by not avoiding this accident you've raised their awareness and decreased the risk of them hitting the rest of us and causing a more severe injury...

    I wish more people could stop avoiding accidents and let the idiots crash when they're breaking the laws... unfortunately that can often mean death when you're on a bicycle...

    remember that every time you avoid an accident you're really just delaying it for the next person they actually hit...

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are August 16, 2010 at 9:57 am

    i think spiffy comment 80 is onto something. i do not of course recommend actually getting hurt, but (and this somewhat addresses skidmark's concern) i do think there is something to be said for making it very obvious to the motorist exactly what risk they have created and how it could have been avoided. at its simplest level, this can take the form of swerving slightly to the left when a motorist first appears in your mirror, so they can take a hint that you might need a couple of extra feet over there, in case they might otherwise have passed too close. i also think it is important to loudly call out egregious violations: "get off the phone," "thanks for the signal," etc. we may be vulnerable, but we need not be sheep.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • matt picio August 16, 2010 at 10:26 am

    Dan (#28) - Bikes are under no obligation to stop, by they (and all traffic) has an obligation to slow down when lines of sight are obstructed. The motorist clearly violated the law here, in failure to yield. It's possible both parties failed to obey the basic speed law, and all parties are "responsible" for maintaining awareness and being able to safely stop before or avoid hazards.

    Many of us as road users focus much more on our rights than our responsibilities.

    Max (#34) - Hawthorne is much faster getting from the bridge to Ladd Avenue at 12th, and most cyclists have a lot of speed coming off the bridge and don't want to lose momentum. Hawthorne is wide enough up to 12th that it's rarely an issue, but the recent construction is causing a lot more idled traffic.

    and (#39) - Harrison is a great bike path after 28th Avenue. Before that it has a steep hill. Personally I like Salmon and Clinton much better.

    David (#38) - Clay/Ladd's is also a direct route to Clinton, and one which avoids the clustermuck at Clinton & SE 12th.

    David (#42) - Maybe because it's not as simple as you assert it to be.

    SD (#43) - It's pointless to say anyone "should have been more careful" - "should have" is in the past, and cannot be changed. It's perfectly valid to say that all road users should BE more careful - though I have no idea if that's ever effective.

    Estimating the speed or actions of another as dangerous isn't irresponsible, it's an opinion. Like all opinions, it's subject to debate. Ultimately, "dangerous" and "safe" are determined after the fact, in court or by the officer on the scene. But advocating for people to stop talking about it? I don't agree.

    bug on window - Glad you're ok, and please don't take my comments as a criticism, they're meant in a general sense. I don't know the particulars of your incident, and I try to refrain from direct comments unless I know the facts.

    Vance (#47) - I agree 100%, but in a situation where sightlines are blocked, even the party with the right of way has a responsibility to slow down in certain situations. If there's a gap in traffic at the intersection, and sightlines are blocked, there's no way for the rider to know if there are pedestrians in the crosswalk, other traffic about to move through, etc. In the first case, the cyclist would be required to stop, and they would not have the right of way. In the second case, they would not be required to stop, and they would have the right of way. In either case it is prudent for traffic in the bike lane to slow down.

    I agree that legally, in this case, the motorist is at fault from the infraction standpoint, and likely more than 50% from the civil/liability standpoint - but road users have a greater responsibility of awareness and consideration for other users than the law encompasses. Our right to the public road is matched by our responsibilities. Ignore one and you eventually lose the other.

    She (#64) - Actually, I did in post #13. Thanks for reinforcing that. From a legal standpoint, the motorist is guilty of "Failure to Yield".

    spare_wheel (#69) - I know fewer than 6 riders who obey all traffic laws at all times. The most commonly violated is the "complete stop" rule. Granted, I know fewer than 6 motorists woh obey the complete stop rule as well. Good point, though I don't think it's any worse on this thread in particular.

    Spiffy (#80) - I kind of wish we could keep the traffic signals on arterial streets (and the stop signs on the streets which intersect them) and eliminate all other traffic control devices. I agree with that study done recently, take away the signs and drivers will have to slow down and figure it out, and the roads may end up safer. (obviously, not safer for the first 6 weeks, maybe more)

    I could have shortened this post drastically by summarizing:

    1. Slow down
    2. Be aware of your surroundings
    3. Be courteous to other road users

    We all have a choice - claim what's ours or share what's ours. Choice A gives us what we have now, Choice B gives us a whole new world.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • matt picio August 16, 2010 at 10:28 am

    are (#81) - I agree, but sometimes those can be misinterpreted - I know a number of motorists who think that cyclists are trying to hog the road when they move a few feet left to maintain that space.

    I've tried to explain the situation to them, with varying degrees of success.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SkidMark August 16, 2010 at 11:16 am

    Anyone worried about dooring might wanna try looking in car windows for drivers and covering the brakes. Taking the lane where there is a bike lane is rude....and against the law.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel August 16, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    @SkidMark

    Its not rude to take the lane if you are riding at the posted speed limit. And thanks to Zusman's recent ruling there is now legal precedent for taking the lane anywhere there is a "break" in lane striping (oops).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are August 16, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    re comment 84, it is not really feasible to look into each and every car window, and some of them are obstructed anyway. it is not illegal to leave a striped bike lane to avoid a hazard. a narrow bike lane sandwiched between the travel lane and the parking lane is hazardous in itself. while the city attorney does take the position that a bike lane that conforms to the criteria in the 1998 bike plan is by definition "safe," not every bike lane in fact does conform to those criteria.
    http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/02/subparagraph-two.html

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • tom August 16, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    riding on hawthorne in general is dicey. construction or not. take clay or market instead.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SkidMark August 16, 2010 at 6:25 pm

    spare_wheel: I bet if you drive a car you're one of those people that goes 50 in the left lane on the freeway.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bug on window August 16, 2010 at 6:35 pm

    Tom, do us all a favor and shut up already. Go ride your bike on whatever street you want and take your preaching someplace else. There are enough preachers on a soapbox here and your repeated comments are old. I really hope that THIS is the last comment. GO OUTSIDE AND RIDE YOUR BIKE EVERYONE.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Perry August 16, 2010 at 7:25 pm

    When the topic is what other people should be doing - this becomes troll city.

    The "conversation" really stopped being about you, Bug, a while ago...

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel August 17, 2010 at 8:34 am

    skidmark: thanks to that new pavement i've been hitting 30+ mph on hawthorne. excuse me while i go flaggelate myself for being a bad cyclist who wears black and breaks the law.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Duncan August 17, 2010 at 11:03 am

    spare wheel- I do not care if you flaggelate yourself just do not come crying to us when your ninja salmon speeding act puts you in the hospital... ok I made up the salmon part, but still.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SkidMark August 17, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    I've hit 30mph on Salmon before, 42 mph on Burnside. OMG speeding!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • malka August 17, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    Spare_wheel, "the point of this is" I've seen too many cyclists with the same utter disregard for safety and common sense as many motorists. Didn't think I'd have to explain that one. It has nothing to do with "casting stones" or hypocrisy. Are cyclists always blameless whenever they're involved in an accident? If so, let's get that into the law books!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel August 18, 2010 at 8:15 am

    "Are cyclists always blameless whenever they're involved in an accident?"

    Strawman. Sometimes cyclists are blameless, sometimes they are not.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

- Daily bike news since 2005 -
BikePortland.org is a production of
PedalTown Media Inc.
321 SW 4th Ave, Ste. 401
Portland, OR 97204

Powered by WordPress. Theme by Clemens Orth.
Subscribe to RSS feed


Original images and content owned by Pedaltown Media, Inc. - Not to be used without permission.