home

DA finds no criminal negligence in Kathryn Rickson fatality

Posted by Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) on September 26th, 2012 at 12:52 pm

Community gathering for Kathryn Rickson-32
(Photos © J. Maus/BikePortland)

The Multnomah County District Attorney's office released a memo (PDF) today on their investigation into the death of Kathryn Rickson. They have determined that the state cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the man driving the semi-trailer truck, Dawayne Eacret, could have seen Rickson prior to the collision at SW 3rd and Madison and therefore he cannot be held criminally liable for hitting her.

Rickson suffered fatal injuries in the collision on the evening of May 16th, 2012. Eacret was in the process of turning right (south) onto SW 3rd from Madison when Rickson became pinned under the truck's right front fender. She was transported to OHSU but died shortly after arrival.

The focus of the DA's decision boiled down to whether or not Eacret could have seen Rickson, either on the road prior to the intersection or in his rear-view mirror prior to making his right turn. The case was investigated by Officer Pete Kurronen of the Portland Police Bureau and the lead DA was Deputy DA Glen Banfield. In addition to a detailed investigation of the vehicles and the roadway, they used three main witnesses in the case; the truck's passenger and two people in a car that was following directly behind the truck when the collision happened.

"If we cannot prove that Mr. Eacret was aware of her presence it cannot be said that he then consciously disregarded the risk of hitting her."
— Multnomah County DA

According to the investigation, scrape marks from Rickson's bicycle prove that the front of the truck was already turned to the right (facing south on 3rd Ave) prior to the collision. Vehicle evidence and witness statements also indicate that the truck's right turn signal was on at the time of the collision. In the DA's memo, one of the witnesses inside the car said the truck was "barely moving" just prior to making the right-turn:

Here's more from the car's passenger:

"I know for sure that the truck was already turning when the bicyclist went by us on our right at a good clip.” She said the truck driver could not have done anything to avoid the crash. Ms. Sirois reported that the traffic light was green when the truck started to turn right.

The driver of the car that was directly behind the truck said she knew the truck was going to turn because it had slowed down so much. She also told investigators that she believed the truck swung to the left before making the turn. (This is a common move by large trucks to make sure the rear wheels clear the corner on narrow turns. It's not illegal, but it is specifically discouraged in the ODOT Truck Operator's Manual).

Here's more from the car's driver:

"Ms. Ackerman said the truck’s right turn signal must have been on because she knew the truck was turning. Ms. Ackerman said she was 10 feet from the rear bumper of the truck. She said the truck driver could not have avoided the accident."

The other main witness was Eacret's passenger. He told investigators he "did not remember seeing a bicyclist in front of them" as they traveled east on Madison. As for whether or not Eacret swung left prior to the right turn, the passenger said he, "could not recall with certainty but believed Mr. Eacret did not swing left before making the turn." The truck's passenger saw Rickson out of his "peripheral" vision approaching the truck prior to the impact.

As for the driver, Mr. Eacret, he has been a commercial truck driver since 1986. He reported to investigators that he "never saw or passed a bicyclist" as he came down Madison. He couldn't recall precisely when he turned on his signal, but the DA's memo does say that, "the light was green and he checked his mirrors before turning and did not see anyone in his mirrors."

"Mr. Eacret said as he was turning he continued to check his mirrors because he is cognizant of bicyclist and pedestrians," reads the memo.

Eacret was "uncertain" whether he swung left prior to the turn. Its also worth noting that was not using a cell phone at the time and his blood contained no alcohol or controlled substances.

Along with witness statements, investigators tried to reconstruct exactly where Rickson was traveling prior to the collision. Surveillance camera footage from City Hall (located one block west of 3rd and Madison) captured both Rickson and the truck between SW 4th and 5th Avenues. From the footage, investigators have determined that Eacret had a 13 second head start on Rickson from 4th Ave. eastbound.

The DA's memo notes that Rickson was riding in the middle of the right traffic lane between 4th and 5th (where there is no bike lane). This is important because Officer Kurronen concluded that the driver of the truck, "cannot see a cyclist if the cyclist is lined up directly behind the trailer."

So, the question is; when did Rickson move from the middle of the right lane (between 5th and 4th) to the bike lane (which starts between 4th and 3rd)? And, did she move to the bike lane early enough to be seen in Eacret's side mirror and therefore have some obligation to avoid her?

The DA knows from witness statements that Rickson did indeed move into the bike lane at some point, but the surveillance footage doesn't show that block.

Using calculations of speed and distance extrapolated from the surveillance footage and matched with witness statements, Officer Kurronen determined that at speeds of 12.5 mph to 16.6 mph, Rickson would have been between 83 and 110 feet behind the truck when it started its turn.

With these facts and observations on the table, in order for a criminal prosecution, the DA had to prove that Eacret's actions were "criminally negligent" or "reckless" under the circumstances. Those two terms are defined by law:

Criminal Negligence means that a person “fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.” Recklessly means that a person is “aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists.”

Looking at the circumstances, the DA's memo spells out why they have declined to prosecute Mr. Eacret.

The DA says Eacret never passed Rickson prior to his turn and that, "instead, all indication is that she approached his truck from behind." While Officer Kurronen determined the truck's side-view mirrors wouldn't help in seeing Rickson while she was directly behind the truck, the DA's memo states that, "The same test indicates that if Ms. Rickson was... to the right/in the bicycle lane, she would be visible in the standard flat side view mirror but would be very small and difficult to see in the truck’s convex mirror." (The memo also notes that Rickson had a flashing white headlight on her bike.)

Here's more about that key question of when Rickson entered the bike lane (emphasis mine):

"It is unknown when Ms. Rickson moved from out of Mr. Eacret’s view in the middle of the right traffic lane to the bicycle lane. If Ms. Rickson moved over after the truck was angled into the start of its turn, then the mirrors would have been useless for spotting her. We know that Mr. Eacret had a 13 second head start from 4th Ave, which put him at 3rd Ave some time ahead of Ms. Rickson. What we don’t know and cannot know beyond a reasonable doubt is whether Ms. Rickson moved into the bicycle lane in time to become visible to Mr. Eacret before he made his turn."

The DA says Eacret, "did what he was supposed to do in his situation" and that, "there was nothing he could have done to avoid the collision."

"Mr. Eacret followed the proper procedure and rules of the road as he approached 3rd Ave and before he made his turn... He slowed to almost a stop, checked his mirrors and slowly made his turn while continuing to check his mirrors. According to Ms. Sirois who was in the car directly behind Mr. Eacret’s truck, the first time anyone ever noticed Ms. Rickson was after Mr. Eacret had already started his turn...

If we cannot prove that Mr. Eacret was aware of her presence it cannot be said that he then consciously disregarded the risk of hitting her."

In their conclusion, the DA says that, "This tragic event was an accident and is not chargeable as a felony homicide or other traffic crime."

I have also followed up with the PPB Traffic Division to confirm that they do not plan on issuing a traffic citation.

——

Community gathering for Kathryn Rickson-16
Mourners at an event for Kathryn Rickson back in May.

When I first read this decision, I immediately thought of Tracey Sparling, another young woman who died following a collision with a large truck back in October 2007. Similar to that case, the DA declined to prosecute because they determined it was simply impossible for the truck operator to have seen her. The PPB didn't cite that driver either because, as an officer told me at the time, "We've determined that there was just no way he could have seen her."

While Oregon's "Failure to yield" law seems clear, it clearly isn't. This tragic and sad case once again clarifies that when it comes to yielding the right of way, as a PPB Sergeant explained to me back in 2008, it's a matter of perception. "Basically," said the officer, "the driver has to perceive he has to yield the right of way."

I'm not sure what the right answer is here; but something about this remains very unsettling to me. How can we allow large vehicles on the road whose driver's are physically unable to see other people on the roadway? Why do we have bike lanes to the right of lanes where right turns are permitted? Should we just accept that people will continue to die in these right hooks? And that when they do, we'll just have to shrug our shoulders and call it a "tragic accident"?

UPDATE, 4:42 pm: The Bicycle Transportation Alliance says via a blog post that it's "time to act" and they are renewing a push for several safety measures.

Email This Post Email This Post

Possibly related posts


Gravatars make better comments... Get yours here.
Please notify the publisher about offensive comments.
Comments
  • David September 26, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    That intersection is scary. One of the worst moments I have had riding happened right there. My girlfriend (J) and I were riding at a decent clip in the bike lane passing cars (they had traffic--we didn't). When my girlfriend entered the intersection (I was about 100 feet behind her), one of the cars decided to turn last minute. J braked hard and hugged the curb and I started yelling, and the car actually stopped before running her over. It could have been so bad. Driver took off, probably not nearly as shaken as we were.

    2 points:
    1. Something should be done about that stretch of road before somebody else dies.
    2. If they found that there was no way that the truck driver could have seen her, we need to make changes so that this doesn't happen again--no right turns for large trucks there, better visibility requirements for trucks, I don't know...something! Let's not just wash our hands of this and say, "Welp, he couldn't have seen her, next."

    Recommended Thumb up 12

    • jim September 26, 2012 at 8:36 pm

      No bike lane passing where cars are turning. obvious

      Recommended Thumb up 10

      • Randall S. September 27, 2012 at 8:17 am

        So then we agree that cars shouldn't be allowed to turn there? Good! Although a better long-term solution would be separate bike/car lights.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • John September 27, 2012 at 9:30 am

          No. Merge into line on approach to the intersection. If you must overtake, overtake on the left of right turning cars. If you're in front of, behind, or to the left of a right turning car, it can't hit you.

          Recommended Thumb up 7

        • Judy September 27, 2012 at 9:35 am

          We are not agreeing that cars shouldn't be allowed to turn. This is the same situation at every intersection. Cyclists should not be passing through an intersection in a bike lane to the right of cars..

          Recommended Thumb up 8

          • John Lascurettes September 29, 2012 at 12:38 pm

            Judy, it is the law that if there is a bike lane (a lane of traffic), that the car driver must yield to the traffic in the next lane (bike lane). There is no ambiguity about it. So as far as "shoulds and should nots": Cars should (MUST!) yield to bikes in the bike lane next to them, bikes should be careful.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

            • Judy September 29, 2012 at 12:54 pm

              John, it may be the bad law in Oregon but not anywhere else. Good luck with that with drivers drivers visiting from anywhere else. And, as we see in this situation and many others this law is not working very well. There seem to be a great many right hooks up there in Portland. There is the expectation of safety and the inability of the drivers to see the cyclist. If you are in traffic lane in front of the turning driver he sees you. and if you are in the traffic lane behind him, you see him and can pass left. Passing to the right through an intersection is stupid.

              Recommended Thumb up 5

            • 007 October 7, 2012 at 12:49 pm

              Exactly! I do not know who all these people are that keep saying not to pass cars on the right. WTF? It's crazy! They obviously are not experienced cyclists.

              Recommended Thumb up 1

      • David September 27, 2012 at 8:24 am

        As in cars wouldn't be able to overtake cyclists in the bike lane, or that cyclists should be traveling the same speed or slower as cars?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Judy September 27, 2012 at 9:38 am

          Cyclist should be passing on the left near or through and intersection.. just as all passing is done on the left.

          Recommended Thumb up 6

          • David September 27, 2012 at 1:07 pm

            So every time a cyclist is going faster than a car, they should leave the bike lane and go around the car on the left? What if, like on Broadway downtown, there are multiple car lanes going in the same direction? Your idea is to have the people on bikes leave the bike lane and then travel across multiple car lanes to pass the gridlocked cars?

            I'm not trying to be rude but honestly you sound like somebody who hasn't actually ridden a bike in an urban environment. Your advice just isn't practical.

            Recommended Thumb up 3

            • Mighk Wilson September 27, 2012 at 1:27 pm

              You argue as if passing is an entitlement. Passing -- by any driver, including bicyclists -- is ALLOWED, given it is safe and legal to do so at that time and place.

              Cyclists can't complain that motorists pass when it's not safe, then whine when they can't do the same and expect to be taken seriously.

              Recommended Thumb up 8

              • David September 27, 2012 at 1:34 pm

                Both of your examples--a car passing a cyclist too closely (in which cyclists end up whining) and a cyclist in a bike lane passing a car on the right-hand side--are examples in which the cyclist _legally_ has the right of way.

                I'm not trying to act like it's an entitlement--I'm trying to explain how the roadway currently functions based on the rules of the road.

                Recommended Thumb up 3

                • Mighk Wilson September 27, 2012 at 2:41 pm

                  One must differentiate between RULES and LAWS. Traffic rules are (or at least should be) the basis for traffic laws It's actually adherence to the RULES that keeps us safer. A bike lane encourages (and in some cases forces) cyclists to violate the basic RULE that says don't pass on the right, especially in places where other vehicles could turn across your path. By providing bike lanes a government must make the LAW conflict with the RULES.

                  Recommended Thumb up 1

            • John September 27, 2012 at 2:13 pm

              I have close to 30 years experience riding in all kinds of urban environments. I would rather lane split at a prudent speed than ride along the curb. Lane splitting you don't have to worry about someone making a 90 degree turn across your path, plus your vision is not blocked at intersections. Frankly, the idea of riding at full tilt in a bike lane alongside gridlocked traffic is suicidal.

              Recommended Thumb up 5

              • jim September 27, 2012 at 9:23 pm

                Lane splitting is not a legal option.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

                • spare_wheel September 29, 2012 at 1:58 pm

                  i care more about my safety than i do some minor traffic statute.

                  Recommended Thumb up 1

    • 007 October 7, 2012 at 12:42 pm

      i ride that stretch of Madison every weekday after work. Buses should be on the left and a bike lane should cover the whole distance from 6th Ave to the bridge.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tony September 26, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    Thanks for the very comprehensive reporting on this.

    As a side note, has anyone else noticed that someone removed one of the wheels of the ghost bike for this fatality? Who maintains/installs these memorials?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) September 26, 2012 at 1:20 pm

      Hey Tony,

      I've noticed. It happens. Not everyone cares why the bike is there.

      Also, Kathryn's ghost bike is likely to be moved and/or removed soon. That block is owned by the federal gov't and the admin staff who oversee it are in touch with me trying to get it moved to city property across the street. But the city doesn't want it either.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • matt picio September 26, 2012 at 5:23 pm

        I don't see how that's a Fed issue - the ghost bike is on the sidewalk, which is nominally part of the public ROW. It should be entirely a city issue, since the city dictates items like sidewalk blockages.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Jim September 26, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    From a fellow biker (who passes this intersection every day) to another, please please please be careful about passing cars on the right. I often take the lane and ride behind cars just to eliminate the possibility of this type of collision. I feel so sorry for Kathryn Rickson's loved ones and Mr. Eacret. Blame isn't important, having this never happen again, whatever it takes, is the most important thing.

    Recommended Thumb up 33

  • Dave September 26, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    Honestly, this sounds like a reasonable decision to me given the evidence and the circumstances, but I will also say it's yet another example of poor infrastructure and to some extent muddy, unclear law exacerbating a rather tricky mix of vehicles. We can put responsibility on the truck driver to look out for cyclists and pedestrians, but if the road design and law put them out of his possible field of vision, is it really his fault if he doesn't see them (given that he made reasonable effort to)?

    It's also unclear whether Rickson could have been able to stop before the collision with the truck.

    Certainly, in any case, it is a tragedy that a person died, but I'm not sure it's necessarily an unreasonable decision to find the truck driver innocent here.

    It's a complicated problem, and a good example of why you have to take the transportation system as a whole, along with infrastructure, law and education, into account when looking at how to make things better.

    Recommended Thumb up 25

    • pixelgate September 26, 2012 at 1:32 pm

      I agree. I don't really see how you can fault the driver based on the evidence. Sad situation, everyone should be very cautious when riding.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • 9watts September 26, 2012 at 2:29 pm

        Thanks very much for the detailed report, Jonathan. I wonder if all fatal crashes involving people on bikes get this level of attention in a court of law? I hope so, but will admit I've not heard this much detailed forensics spelled out before.

        I vote for cargo transported downtown by pedal power. It would mean lots of good jobs for locals (+), a shift toward more bikes on city streets (+), and we hope less uncertainty when it comes to this kind of conflict (+).

        Recommended Thumb up 10

      • dan September 26, 2012 at 2:58 pm

        Yes...it does not appear to be the driver's "fault", if it's appropriate to use that word here. However, if the infrastructure is such that everyone is operating their vehicles lawfully and it's _impossible_ for the driver to see the cyclist, well, we have an infrastructure problem.

        Recommended Thumb up 6

        • Dave September 26, 2012 at 3:00 pm

          Right. So we should take action based on that fact, and instead of trying to punish the driver of the truck, we should be hounding the city to DO SOMETHING about this problem that's happening all over our city, where our infrastructure and law are forcing people on bicycles into precarious situations.

          Recommended Thumb up 6

    • 007 October 7, 2012 at 1:09 pm

      Madison there is downhill. No doubt in my mind he should have yielded and she couldn't stop in time. A lot of drivers think whoever is at the intersection first gets to go first when it is the law to yield to the bike lane no matter what.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Lascurettes September 26, 2012 at 1:33 pm

    The DA says Eacret, "did what he was supposed to do in his situation"

    Sure sounds like it from your description. It also sounds like Rickson made a series of bad choices in staying visible and asserting her right of way (whether right or wrong). This all goes to show – tractor-trailer trucks don't belong in a tight downtown core. They just don't.

    Recommended Thumb up 14

  • Bjorn September 26, 2012 at 1:42 pm

    I find the statement to be pretty disingenuous, would it have mattered if the truck had just passed the cyclist? Doubtful Brett was killed by a right hook right after a truck passed him and that didn't matter. These DA's are always going to find some reason not to charge the driver as long as they aren't drunk. The complete lack of accountability is the number one reason the city needs to work towards eliminating unnecessary trips by semi trucks on surface streets.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

    • Caleb September 26, 2012 at 5:13 pm

      Always? Complete lack? What reasons have you for these claims?

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Bjorn September 26, 2012 at 9:15 pm

        Can you name a case of a truck driver hitting and killing a cyclist in portland where they were held accountable but were not drunk? I suppose that occasionally they have to pay a 242 dollar fine, but that is the only penalty I can think of and if you think 242 dollars per death is accountability, well then... The truth is that unless you are drunk you get a pass for killing someone even if they have the right of way, because it "could have happened to anyone, I mean between the sun glare and the convex mirrors... etc etc etc"

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • gr8fulday September 26, 2012 at 10:29 pm

          I remembering hearing my grandfather say over and over again throughout my life " It's better to be alive than to be dead right" You think she had the right of way. That obviously didn't keep her alive. The driver was cleared of all wrong doing- no criminal and important too is no traffic citation. However, the driver didn't get a "free pass." He has to live with this tragedy the rest of his life. If the investigation found she had the right way, I think the driver would have been cited for such. If you read the entire memo posted by the DA, (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-_Kv2GsQnEfakU1UlZjeURPbFE/edit?pli=1) Ms. Rickson was well behind the truck when it began it's turn. He had a turn signal on and was not driving at a reckless speed. It was an accident. The driver was absolutely as cautious as he could have been.
          When riding in traffic on a weekly basis, I never assume I can be seen. I never assume that some law is going to keep me alive. Share the road goes both ways. Help drivers out. If I see them signaling, I slow down and let them turn. I might have the right of way in the bike lane, but I would rather be alive than dead.

          Recommended Thumb up 8

          • Bjorn September 26, 2012 at 11:22 pm

            My grandpa told me never to bring a knife to a gunfight, I'd still hope that they'd prosecute a person who shot me for no reason even if I happened to have a knife. The idea that the current law requires that the person who fails to yield the right of way to confess to the cop that they saw the person they hit with enough time to stop but decided to keep on going or otherwise they are fine might be part of the problem, but I think that it is more that the law doesn't necessarily say that, but that is how DA's and cops are choosing to interpret it.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Caleb September 28, 2012 at 1:14 pm

          No, I can't name a case of a truck driver hitting and killing a cyclist in Portland where they were held accountable but were not drunk, because I don't proactively seek out these things, and I haven't yet come across such a case occurring, but that doesn't mean I, or anybody else, should assume this is a case in which a truck driver should be held accountable for the death of the cyclist.

          To claim what will "always" happen is to make a claim about a long period of time which may or may not hold changes you can't possibly foresee. Yes, statistics of past incidents might say drivers were not held accountable by your standards, but do those statistics give the conditions and subsequent reasoning behind every incident's result? I imagine that information is somewhere, but since you haven't cited it, I have no reason to believe you're taking such information into account, so I naturally tend toward thinking you might not be considering that those conditions and reasoning have potential, so far as we can know, to vary widely in future incidents. That's the main reason I question your use of the word "always". Yes, I'm splitting this hair, because public opinion and subsequently so much more is often highly subject to language and the prompting and resulting assumptions behind it.

          And I'll gripe about the proposed "complete lack" of accountability. Legally, drivers can only be held accountable for what the law holds them accountable to, and prosecuted only for what evidence shows they have done. If somebody dies after a driver fails in following a $242 law, but there is no evidence to prove the driver willfully neglected anything else, then authorities can only legally hold the driver accountable to that $242 law. As unfortunate as you think that is, this is the case because law is meant to be impartial to avoid wrongfully convicting people, which has happened in many situations because convicting figures couldn't keep their minds free of uninformed, biased conclusions. Would you tolerate innocent people being convicted?

          In a case such as this, there was no evidence to show the driver did anything out of accordance with the law. So what do you want the driver to be held accountable for? If you want him to be held accountable for Rickson's death, then you want him to be blamed entirely for something that was the result of their collaborative movement. Since we apparently don't have the evidence to prove that either the driver or cyclist were out of accordance with the law (the reason people are calling this an "accident"), then wanting to convict him for her death would be wanting to act without evidence. Is that what you're pushing for? Do you want the driver to be held accountable for Rickson's death, though we can't say at all just how much her own choices weighed in on her death?

          Recommended Thumb up 1

          • 9watts September 28, 2012 at 2:00 pm

            "If somebody dies after a driver fails in following a $242 law, but there is no evidence to prove the driver willfully neglected anything else, then authorities can only legally hold the driver accountable to that $242 law."

            I hear what you are saying, Caleb, but perhaps some people's reaction is complicated by the fact that others, like Wanda Cortese, whose culpability in the minds of some observers was much more than zero, also got a $236 ticket for 'failing to maintain the lane,' and we have yet to learn whether that was the sum of the penalties meted out by our law enforcement/justice system.

            "As unfortunate as you think that is, this is the case because law is meant to be impartial to avoid wrongfully convicting people..."

            I was with you up to that statement. Wrongful convictions are a feature of our 'justice' system it seems, but taking a narrow, technical view of fault in dreadful collisions like those we learn about in the pages of bikeportland is not properly ascribed to or explained I don't think by a desire to avoid wrongful convictions, but rather is due to a consistently deferential stance within the justice system vis-a-vis those who drive motorized vehicles.
            Hank Bersani, Christeen Osborn, Steven Dayley, Reese Wilson, Karl Moritz
            = straight roads good visibility

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • Caleb September 29, 2012 at 11:10 pm

              I can imagine the frustration people are facing as penalty disclosure in past cases remains at a minimum. In fact, I assume their opinions are complicated by such factors, as well as their own convictions about how to interact with society. This much, though not explicitly stated, I consider evident in the posts I respond to, and in reaction I'm just trying to encourage an unassuming mind in us all, that we might strive for as accurate a perspective as possible on the events under scrutiny. If I were to make claims that other people didn't find true, then I would hope they would ask me what information prompts those claims, and then scrutinize that information, too.

              I just don't see any use in predictions pertaining to distant times when we struggle enough making information about current events accurate. When somebody makes such predictions, they have a reason, right? Some have stated they want a new DA. I think it seems clear they believe the DA won't practice integrity they're looking for in future cases. Could you imagine jailing or executing somebody for something we assume they will do but haven't done yet? I imagine people would cry "injustice". In the same way, is it "just" to remove public figures such as the DA based upon our predictions...especially those that stem from assumptions on past events, as well? Sure...it might be preferable for many, but where's our integrity if we push for such things?

              I agree that wrongful convictions are a part of our "justice" system, as that's primarily what inspires my disdain for lofty claims. When I said law is meant to be impartial to avoid wrongful convictions, I was referring to the system of checks that are integral to the concept of our legal system (which I admit I know little about) whose creators, I thought, intended to prevent wrongful convictions. I suppose such checks could have also been implemented by those who sought to circumvent the law, though. I have no doubt people with either intention create and change laws still today, but the fact stands that if the law can't convict without clear evidence, it can't wrongfully convict through evidence. Of course, law can't rightfully convict without clear evidence, either, but I personally don't find the former as a tolerated means to the latter an acceptable practice.

              I would like to add that I don't think the view on fault is necessarily narrow. After all, broad views consist of narrow views. Sometimes investigators, prosecutors, etc can only act on a portion of a broad view, because a lack of information doesn't allow them to make use of the rest of it according to the law. The law might be narrow, yes, but that's one reason there are many laws, and I imagine holding authorities accountable would be difficult if the law was broad.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • 007 October 7, 2012 at 1:16 pm

          Bjorn, all drivers have to say when they hit a ped or a cyclist is "I didn't see him." But that's no excuse if they hit another car. Shows where the value is -- on the property. Maybe if we insure our bodies and brains, then the power structures and insurance companies will defend us.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • 007 October 7, 2012 at 1:13 pm

      Bjorn, I've been right hooked twice by vehicles that just passed me. One a city employee who hit & ran but other drivers chased him down, and one a hit & run where I ended up in the hospital.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Andy September 26, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    You have to ride defensively, particularly when large trucks are involved. I personally don't assume that someone will not turn right unless I have made eye contact with them.

    This is particularly a problem when bicycle traffic is going faster than car traffic because the driver is more likely to be unaware that you are there.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

    • Caleb September 26, 2012 at 5:15 pm

      Agreed. I glance repeatedly at the wheels directing the vehicle whenever right hooks are possible.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Bjorn September 26, 2012 at 11:49 pm

        She may have done that as the driver stated that he swung left before turning right so if she was looking at the truck tires it would have appeared he was moving into the other lane before he turned.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Caleb September 28, 2012 at 1:15 pm

          Yes, I was thinking this also.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

    • spare_wheel September 30, 2012 at 6:03 am

      i have yet to learn how to read intent from a motorist's eyes. i am also just not quick enough to glance at a wheel and predict when a motorist will decide to turn. does the BTA or someone else offer advanced cycling classes where i can learn these skills?

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Ian Brett Cooper September 30, 2012 at 8:03 am

        You are absolutely right. There is no way to judge what a car will do based on eye contact or wheel orientation. This is why cyclists must match their speed to the situation, reducing it in situations where motorists pose a potential threat. Blasting through an intersection on the right of gridlocked traffic is suicide. A bike lane won't save a cyclist from harm if she is acting in ways likely to get her killed.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Paulie September 26, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    Bike lanes are unnecessary when the speed limit is 20MPH and the street is level or heading downhill. I feel they put you at greater risk. Sharrows would be safer. The only time bike lanes make sense are when there is a large differential in speed between bikes and automobile traffic. If you're going close to the same speed, you should just mix the traffic.

    This was a tragic situation, and I can't blame the truck driver for this incident.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

    • Chris I September 26, 2012 at 2:51 pm

      Bike lanes are necessary to enable cyclists to pass congested auto traffic. Make bikes wait in line with the cars, and you've just removed any speed advantage they might have. The goal should be to design safer intersections, just like the Dutch have done. Separate infrastructure is safer if it's done right.

      Recommended Thumb up 10

      • Josh September 27, 2012 at 12:40 pm

        Bike lanes are *not* necessary to allow cyclists to pass congested auto traffic. A wide curb lane does the same thing, but without creating the illusion that the cyclist has a safe lane of their own.

        Seattle law, for example, allows bicycles to pass motorists on the right whenever it is safe to do so. (But then, Seattle also doesn't have a law prohibiting motorists from safely merging right into the bike lane before making a right turn, or a mandatory bike lane law -- those two legal defects contribute to many issues in Oregon.)

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Chris I September 27, 2012 at 1:53 pm

          In practice, I believe they are. I ride in outer-east Portland, where bike lanes are rare, and often terminate before intersections. Even when there is a wide curb space, I am often unable to pass on the right because cars will shift over prior to making a right turn. So when I come up on a red light, cars are scattered all over the place, and I often have to mount the sidewalk to get around them. This effect even happens when there is a striped bike lane, but compliance is generally much better.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

    • 007 October 7, 2012 at 1:24 pm

      Paulie, because I make the effort to bike to work, I'm not going to sit through green lights in backed up traffic on Madison because you think it is improper to ride faster than cars. That's one of the benefits of urban riding. If you know how to ride, you'll get there faster than if you drive. Start bike commuting every day, you'll understand.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • dwainedibbly September 26, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    On a positive note, this week Mercedes-Benz showed off some new, fuel-efficient trucks which have the side guards which would help prevent fatalities like this. The economics may be the only thing which get this sort of thing installed on trucks. Safety isn't going to do it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • JRB September 26, 2012 at 2:14 pm

    As others have opined, it seems to me that the fault here does not lie with either Kathryn Rickson or Dawayne Eacret, but with a combination of factors beyond either of their control. Kathryn's death, however, was preventable, and the blame for this tragedy lies with the laws and bike infrastructure that put her in a position where even when she was acting lawfully she was at grave risk from a driver also acting lawfully.

    Unfortunately, I doubt that this and other senseless cyclist deaths will be enough to prompt our lawmakers to make the reforms necessary to prevent this from happening again. Commerce and motor vehicles are literally the kings of the road. I am afraid that in the eyes of our society no sacrifice is considered too great to maintain their privileged position.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Chris September 26, 2012 at 2:14 pm

    I say the solution to preventing right hooks is to change the Oregon Vehicle Code thusly:

    For all intersections with no right-turn lane, bike lanes end 30 feet before the intersections. From that point until exiting the intersection, bicyclists proceeding straight are required to take the right-most lane (with hand signal) and motorists proceeding straight in the right-most lane are required to yield the lane.

    And it's a Class B violation to pass a bicyclist on the left within 50 feet of any intersection when turning right at the intersection. The PPB's made-up law about having to "perceive" the bicyclist is specifically disclaimed as a requirement for the violation.

    And throw in a rule about no more building bike lanes in door zones while you're at it.

    Recommended Thumb up 12

    • Over and Doubt September 26, 2012 at 4:43 pm

      Meh, given likelihood of enforcement. Good try, though.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Pete September 26, 2012 at 5:57 pm

      In California the rules are designed around bikes merging through right-turning traffic when going straight. The lane markings are even dotted a certain distance before the turn to indicate the merge. Where I live there are many stop lights and I've gotten in the habit of signaling and taking the lane in certain intersections (as the rules are designed to allow), but we don't have many hills or big trucks along my common routes. On greens I tend to just assert myself on the line, which would force a driver to swing pretty wide to the left to cut me off.

      Having lived in Oregon for over a decade prior to moving here I wasn't used to it but now prefer it. Someone proposed this change in Oregon several years back and it was debated in length here on BP, but obviously never followed through legislatively. The perception is that drivers aren't allowed to use bike lanes as right-turn lanes there, but I learned in Ray Thomas' class that there isn't actually specific verbiage legally forbidding it (shhh! :).

      Often I find this merging works well with motorists as it doesn't cork their right on red (I get occasional waves and thanks even), and I see other cyclists doing this but not many. Of course you still get the occasional ignorant driver honking behind you, especially when I take the lane at upcoming lane drops to prevent those who continue down the bike lane to cut other drivers off on the right. The relevant rule is CA Vehicle Code 21202, exemption 4. I've even considered making a jersey that says on the back "HONK if you don't get CVC 21202!"...

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • 007 October 7, 2012 at 1:31 pm

        When I approach a green box, I put my bike in it whereas other cyclists just line up in the bike lane. I think my tactic is safer because it prevents a driver from even thinking of turning right and it allows a lot of cyclists to congregate in the box and start at the same time. This is what the green box is meant for but nobody uses them correctly.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • 007 October 7, 2012 at 1:27 pm

      Chris, drivers still do not understand "yield to the bike lane." I think your idea is beyond the comprehension of most of them.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan V September 26, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    Maybe we just need to stop mixing modes of travel; bikes and peds don't mix (Esplanade), bikes and cars/trucks don't mix (ad infinitum), and, in many instances, cars and trucks don't mix well (especially in bad weather). Separate, defensible lanes (barriers or big buffers)...

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • spare_wheel September 26, 2012 at 3:16 pm

      its ironic that you are using an accident partly caused by "bike infrastructure" to support the argument that bikes and cars/trucks don't mix. bikes and cars mix just fine when both are in the lane. and in downtown pdx where traffic is timed to ~15 mph there is little reason to not take the lane...everywhere. imo, we need to paint sharrows all over downtown and make it the usa's first woonerf zone.

      Recommended Thumb up 9

      • Dave September 26, 2012 at 3:33 pm

        I would say it's a collision partly caused by *bad* bicycle infrastructure - and a woonerf is actually typically (in the Netherlands) a residential zone with no/little through traffic. Speed limits are set to walking speed, and bicycle and foot traffic are prioritized heavily.

        It's not just any area where cars and bikes share the road. Downtown Portland definitely doesn't qualify for that kind of designation, no matter how many sharrows you put down. Streets like SW Broadway would almost surely have separate cycle infrastructure in the Netherlands.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • 007 October 7, 2012 at 1:32 pm

      Right-o. Separation. Ban internal combustion vehicles from downtown, especially diesel-spewing trucks.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • lyle September 26, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    I wanted to point out that the fact that she was in the lane of traffic approaching 3rd isn't something I think can be blamed on her, or labelled negligent, even though the report states that it was a major factor in determining blame. Probably 80% of the time I follow this path towards the bridge, buses will be stacked up and waiting on the City hall block, in addition to a queue of cars waiting to turn right into madison from 4th, who seem to frequently (if not always) 'lurch' into the area where you'd follow if you were going on the path the bike lane would take you through the intersection.

    Even if there aren't buses stacking up, sticking ass-out into the right lane, etc., I've just come to the point where I assume that I need to be in the lane of traffic, even going so far as to be in the left lane, and do it reflexively at this point.

    That said, I think that it's a reminder to drive defensively, especially around big rigs, and especially when they're downtown or in narrow confines.

    I just assume I will be hit and killed if I assume that they can see me or are aware of my presence at all times, and ride accordingly.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Spiffy September 26, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    did not see anyone in his mirrors

    yet there was somebody there...

    I'm tired of people using this admission of guilt as a defense statement...

    he clearly didn't check to see if the bike lane was clear, he just didn't see anybody...

    there's a huge difference between not seeing somebody and there being nobody there... if you're driving a huge motor vehicle and you don't see something that's there then you're driving recklessly and it's your fault when you hit it...

    the cyclist would not have continued if "Rickson would have been between 83 and 110 feet behind the truck when it started its turn."... I mean, seriously, how many riders see a truck turn 80' in front of them and don't stop for it?

    The driver of the car that was directly behind the truck said she knew the truck was going to turn because it had slowed down so much.

    Ms. Ackerman said the truck’s right turn signal must have been on because she knew the truck was turning.

    so the main witness isn't sure the truck's signal was on before turning, they only assumed themselves that the truck was turning because it slowed down a lot and swung left, in the opposite direction of the cyclist, before actually making a turn...

    we need a new DA...

    Recommended Thumb up 6

    • Bjorn September 26, 2012 at 3:08 pm

      Ginsberg? Thomas? maybe getting behind a DA candidate who isn't so quick to drop these cases is a good suggestion.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) September 26, 2012 at 3:26 pm

        I don't think either of you are being fair or conscious of the facts in your assessments of the DA (and by extension the PPB). The PPB spent about 100 hours on this case (they tell me). And DA Chuck Sparks, who wasn't the lead author of this but whom guided the case, is about as bike-sensitive as someone can be. I trust the current DA and the PPB's handling of this case. There will always be bias in these cases because the person on the bike is dead and we can't talk to them... But given the constraints of the law, I don't see how one could disagree with the DA's decision. Yes, my heart is not feeling good about living in a society where this decision has to be made... But the issue here isn't with the cops, the DA, the truck driver, or with Kathryn... I think it's a larger context issue about road design, traffic law, traffic culture, social norms, vehicle codes, and so on.

        Recommended Thumb up 13

        • Bjorn September 26, 2012 at 9:19 pm

          I agree that a conviction is hard to obtain because any defense attorney is going to trot out the "it could have happened to anyone defense" but I still feel that the prosecution should go forward because:

          1. In portland we might be surprised by jurors with higher expectations about noticing people in bike lanes and crosswalks.

          2. Having actual cases where prosecutions failed would be helpful in getting tougher laws, currently a lot of legislators are under the mistaken impression that we have laws that protect vulnerable road users, clearly we don't.

          Recommended Thumb up 6

          • Bjorn September 26, 2012 at 9:21 pm

            At the very least maybe we'd have a better argument for eliminating the mandatory sidepath law. Clearly she would have been safer staying in the main vehicle lane even though the Oregonian so botched their story that people seem to think she was passing on the right of the truck with no bike lane present.

            Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Caleb September 26, 2012 at 6:11 pm

      Spiffy, what makes you so certain he "clearly" didn't check to see if anybody was in the lane? Based upon the information in this article, it's easy to imagine she was behind the truck at the time he might have looked to see if anybody was in the lane. Further, even if she was within his vision, but he didn't "see" her, he wouldn't have been driving "recklessly" as defined by law, because he wouldn't have "seen" the threat to her safety.

      I also wondered as I read the article why anybody would not slow down or stop and wait for the truck to make the right turn if they were 80 feet behind it when the turn started, but why exactly do you consider such wonder a reason to question the DA's integrity? If she did indeed see the truck was turning right at 80 feet from behind, she clearly didn't let the truck make its turn before continuing.

      At 10 mph, it would take 7.5 seconds to travel 110 feet and 5.7 to travel 83 feet. At 16.6 mph, 4.5 and 3.4 seconds. Maybe she actually sped up and was going 20, when it would take just 3.8 and 2.8. At all speeds mentioned, that's quite a bit of time, but still an easy amount of time to consume paying attention to other happenings such as looking for other cyclists before getting in the bike lane, watching cars, watching pedestrians, bicycle issues, dwelling on a day at work or something at home, just spacing out, whatever. Maybe she simply didn't realize he was indeed turning right until it was too late.

      Otherwise, what alternative are you trying to get across? That the truck driver knew she was coming and thought he could turn before she arrived? That he wasn't looking for anybody at all? Without evidence, the DA can't do much about these possibilities.

      The witness who decided a signal must have been on because they thought the truck was turning certainly jumped to a conclusion, but even the uncertainty of the signal being used or not is no reason to come down on the DA. After all, he didn't say the witness used sound logic, or that he agreed the signal must have been on.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • beck September 27, 2012 at 3:21 pm

      please. you've never been in the cab of a truck. i am a truck driver. i am a cyclist. i bike to work to drive my truck. i've been assaulted by a truck driver. i've been yelled at and spit on. i know your point of view but do you know mine when i'm in that truck? you have no idea how many blind spots there are and how quickly your environment can change. why don't you stop for a minute and think. perhaps ms. rickson was riding around with her head in the clouds. who knows what was going on with her. you as a cyclist automatically think you can do no wrong. things like incomplete stops, riding around in the dark with no lights or reflective anything on. blaming everyone around you except for yourself. this was an incredibly tragic accident but don't go pointing the finger at the driver because you assume truck drivers just don't give a shit.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • Dave September 27, 2012 at 3:35 pm

        Just for the record, I have been continually impressed by the care given me by truck drivers in Portland. I used to live quite close to the Pepsi, Portland Bottling and Franz factories in NE Portland, and I always, and I mean always, felt they were watching what they were doing when driving trucks around those areas. It's far more than I can say about the average person operating automobiles around the city. So thank you for that. I'm willing to give a truck driver the benefit of the doubt that they were driving carefully in a tough situation unless the opposite is obvious.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

    • 007 October 7, 2012 at 1:36 pm

      And just because he said he looked in his mirror...

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Erik E September 26, 2012 at 3:02 pm

    Just wanted to mention you have to ride in the middle of the lane between 4th and 5h because of all the ruts and bumps left in the street by the busses. If you have any speed going down the street there in the dark you risk crashing just like the guy did on Vancouver/Broadway a few months back.
    Isn't it Copenhagen that doesnt' allow traffic in the downtown core, if they can do it why can't we?? And I remember reading (on here) about a city in the States that eliminated all right turns from their public transit system, which at least is the city saying "Hey right turns are a safty hazard to our citizens". And...can't we start a campaign to require right-side truck guards on all truck traffic in Oregon?
    This was a tragic situation and I would really like to see something good come out of this; everyone involved deserves that at the very least.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • 007 October 7, 2012 at 1:47 pm

      Those ruts on Madison NEED TO BE FIXED NOW! They are a real safety hazard to cyclists. PBOT ARE YOU LISTENING? Before someone gets hurt badly.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe September 26, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    Every Ghost bike I ride past my heart drops, give the peace sign to them.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • q`Tzal September 26, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    We need to hold the trucking industry to higher standards on safety equipment, and especially better mirrors and more lights.

    We also need to identify streets and intersections that geometrically will not safely support routine access by large trucks. Oversized cargo like wind turbine blades and the Space Shuttle going to LA require special permits and escorts; perhaps we need to clearly redefine "oversized" in urban areas to reflect the hazards of "normal" truck sizes in increasingly dense urban settings. Perhaps off hours truck access, perhaps large trucks only with police escort.

    The trucking industry will take this as an attack on profitability but safety standards should never be considered a cost choice.
    We all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That right to "life" should include the right not to be killed by the defectors freight mode.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Psyfalcon September 26, 2012 at 4:06 pm

      I bet it would make a lot of truck drivers very happy too.

      Give me a giant truck and tell me to drive it to NY? Ok. Drive it IN NYC, not so good. It costs the drivers who are paid by the mile, and the city and people who are collateral damage. I'd really like to see loads delivered by van or box truck off of the very major streets. Pay those drivers hourly too, so they aren't trying to rush.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • q`Tzal September 26, 2012 at 7:42 pm

        I would prefer automated delivery by tubes.
        Some of these systems are still in use on a large scale. Hospitals still use pneumatic tubes for timely delivery of tissue and liquid samples, stores commonly use them for secure delivery of cash to and from the POS; heck even Denver International Airport uses a a 25 cm diameter system for moving aircraft parts.
        Pneumatic power works for low mass and shorter runs. Vacuum power dies off at even shorter runs and lower masses. That combined with the ease of a single leak in a system compromising the entire system you can see why they haven't propagated.

        While it would be sweet to completely replace trucking with full cargo container sized tubes or even pallet sized tubes like in the CargoCap system I've begun to think the only way to actually roll this out is by infiltration.

        While driving 53' trailers these last few months I've noticed that there is a lot of freight that is bulk: powders, liquids, granular(like breakfast cereal) or just plain small. The Cargo Cap system has a good idea in that a smaller size allows the use of pipe jacking instead of tunnel drilling.

        I think that the cost of implementation could be exponentially reduced by going with 1' to 2' diameter cargo capsules; the smaller the better. If the cost of transport of tiny capsules across an Internet of freight is cheap enough businesses will be begging for more lines and bigger diameters.

        Then just let market forces run their course.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

  • John Schubert September 26, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    Maus, you ask, "Why do we have bike lanes to the right of lanes where right turns are permitted?" The answer is because we're doing it wrong. At some point, it ceases to be a mistake and instead becomes deadly malpractice. After numerous deaths in Portland, Seattle, Davis, Minneapolis, Blackstone Virginia, numerous other America cities, Copenhagen and Amsterdam, I submit we reached this point long ago.
    You have in the past attacked me personally, to the extent of doubting my sincerity, when I wrote that it was wrong to put bike lanes to the right of right turn lanes. Have you changed your opinion on that?
    I'm curious about the statements from the district attorney about what could be seen in the truck's mirror.
    Did the district attorney's office conduct a time/motion study to determine whether they thought it made sense to expect someone driving a truck -- a very demanding job -- to squint into a mirror looking for a cyclist as the cyclist comes into view, while also looking ahead to maneuver the truck and stay clear of traffic ahead? (Note that, according to your description, the cyclist would be overtaking the truck at a speed probably between 15 and 20 feet per second.)
    Did the district attorney's office get an exemplar truck and see where a bike is or isn't visible in the mirror?
    I've done this exact experiment with a Chrysler minivan, and the results are chilling. It's rather stunning how many blind spots there are. A bicyclist can position himself to be invisible to the van driver behind the van's B pillar, C pillar or D pillar. The bicyclist is not visible during a head turn, nor visible in the van's inside mirror, nor visible in the van's right side mirror.
    The cyclists who die in these right-hook collisions are the true innocents. They aren't the ones discussing the subject in this forum. They're the ones who haven't given any thought to the operating limitations of trucks, and they make the mistake of trusting their lives to a poorly-designed bike lane.
    My advice to all cyclists: asking other road users to "respect" you when you hide from them. Ride to be seen. "Respect" is a lousy surrogate for safe behavior.
    My advice to the engineers: "Make them feel safe" is a failed experiment. Enough deaths, already!
    John Schubert
    Limeport.org

    Recommended Thumb up 14

    • ScottB September 26, 2012 at 4:52 pm

      It's not a right turn lane, it's a through+right turn lane.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • Judy September 27, 2012 at 8:34 am

        It's a right turn lane if someone is turning right.. and if you are going through.. you should not be to the right of them.. you should be directly behing them since you don't know who is going through or right...and then.. if they are turning right.. you should be going through on their left. To think you can pass on the right of what could be a right turn lane is idiotic. And, for an infrastructure to be designed that way is criminal.

        Recommended Thumb up 6

  • Todd Boulanger September 26, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    "Right Sizing Freight" for urban areas is the next frontier of traffic and roadway safety.

    I am always shocked at the size of trucks making deliveries of beer and other beverages in many of our cities.

    Why drive a tractor trailer for dropping off a couple of beer kegs? It would make parking in loading zones much easier for drivers and make it less stressful for them to operate in congested cities. It would also open up the market to green delivery vehicles that could actually be make regionally...plus there may be more delivery jobs required.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • esther c September 27, 2012 at 11:05 am

      Especially in this era of high unemployment. ITs not like we don't have the manpower to transfer the freight into smaller trucks. 20 or 30 years ago beer was delivered in much smaller vehicles.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Mighk Wilson September 27, 2012 at 11:12 am

        As long as you're willing to pay more for the goods you buy. As for me, I'm not going to pass any vehicle on the right when its driver has the slightest opportunity to turn right.

        So many voices here saying essentially: "I'm not going to change, but everybody else has to." You might want to question why you feel that way.

        Recommended Thumb up 6

        • are September 27, 2012 at 2:06 pm

          i think everyone should be "willing" to pay more for a paper cup at starbucks. in fact, i think the city ought to impose a tax on them.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Alan 1.0 September 27, 2012 at 9:08 pm

          I hope that society will look for a better solution to this problem than figuring out how to divvy up the tort setttlements for innocent victims among consumers of freight services.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • are September 28, 2012 at 2:29 pm

            actually, i would suggest that society as a whole simply take care of compensating people who are inevitably injured or killed by stuff that the law of numbers says is going to happen. proving fault in individual cases for purposes of criminal or civil liability is cumbersome and perpetuates a lot of poor behaviors, such as denying fault. i do think we ought also to greatly reduce our dependence on these large, cumbersome vehicles (by which i mean not only semis in the urban core, but the private automobile more generally).

            Recommended Thumb up 2

            • Caleb September 29, 2012 at 11:17 pm

              I would like to see humanity move away from automobiles, too, but I don't think I agree with using the law of numbers as a means for determining compensation. No matter what statistics say, physical conditions determine current events, and physical conditions are unique in every instance, thus statistics don't truly tell us what will happen in any specific case. Further, how would we go about determining when the minority outcome(s) should be assumed?

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • esther c October 3, 2012 at 1:27 am

          Hell yes, I'd be willing to pay a nickle more for a beer if it saved the lives of persons sharing the road with the truck delivering it.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • 007 October 7, 2012 at 1:51 pm

        People are drinking a lot more beer now. LOL.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Todd Boulanger September 26, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    Also...PBOT...where are those easy to install tools for improving intersection visibility and saving lives ... like the Black Spot Mirrors the Dutch use at intersections with high bike volumes?

    How many more stories have to be written like this? Its been over 4 years of community discussion.

    Perhaps Freightliner would "sponsor" them in the City?

    http://bikeportland.org/2008/05/13/black-spot-mirrors-save-lives-in-amsterdam-7542

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • ScottB September 26, 2012 at 4:54 pm

      Who's going to pay to maintain them? How would a parabolic mirror on the far side of the intersection have helped in this case?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kristen September 26, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    JM, thanks for the report. It's always interesting when the facts are laid out like that.

    It sounds to me like the cyclist made a bad choice in trying to pass a turning truck. She was in the lane in one block, and then in a bike lane the block just before collision. The truck was far enough ahead of her that she could have seen the turn signal, seen the intent to turn, and slow up/merge into the traffic lane. 13 seconds is a very long time to not see a truck's turn signal as you approach from the back.

    Yeah, I'm blaming the victim. At some point, bad infrastructure or not, we all gotta take responsibility for our actions. We're using the roads, we know the risks and hazards, and if we're not watching out for those risks and hazards then I don't know who will. It's not the other road users' responsibility to watch out for us; that's all on our own shoulders.

    So the infrastructure is crap. If you're going to use it, also use the brains in your head to stay safe until the infrastructure is not crap. So large semi trucks should not be in the downtown core. Get the city to pass a law about it. Until then, ride in a way that keeps you safe.

    Recommended Thumb up 21

    • John Brooking September 26, 2012 at 7:30 pm

      "So the infrastructure is crap. If you're going to use it, also use the brains in your head to stay safe until the infrastructure is not crap."

      Or demand that engineers stop building crap that lures innocents to their deaths when used as designed. And advocates stop asking for it.

      Recommended Thumb up 10

      • 007 October 7, 2012 at 2:02 pm

        John, exactly. This is why so many people will not ride their bikes. They do not want to die.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • beck September 27, 2012 at 3:25 pm

      thanks for being logical on your post.
      -a truck driver

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • 007 October 7, 2012 at 1:59 pm

      Kristen, ride a bike to work downtown every day for a month and then see how tough you are. I can tell you from my 20 years of experience cycling to work that a vehicle won't necessarily have it's turn signal on as I pass it, but sometime between then and when the light turns green, the driver decides to turn on their blinker. So, while the driver gets credit for using his blinker, he didn't actually have it on when I was behind him.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Totaled108 September 26, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    As an avid bike rider and commercial truck driver, The same size the the one being driven in the case. I am overly caustion in downtown when in a truck and on bikes. I never pass on the right at intersections that are rights are what most people do. I take the lane, split lanes on the left side of cars when traffic is slow or stopped. And SLOWING down near these intersection.

    Obviously the main fault is a piss poor attempt to add onto, instead of starting from scratch.

    Also, as of late, less and less cyclists at night are using lights. I have had close calls when riding my bike with these ninjas and salmon.

    I hate that this happens, no one should have to fear for their life when they simply want to mave from one place to another.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • jim September 26, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    It is illegal to pass a turning vehicle in Oregon. They just screwed up royally when they started making bike lanes that allow this sort of situation happen. The clear choice is to eliminate bike lanes near intersections, let the right lane be a shared lane. Yeah that means the bicyclist will have to wait in line and smell dirty exhaust, however it also means that they will not be right hooked. If there is anybody to blame it would be the Portland board of transportation for engineering such an unsafe situation that continuously costs these poor cyclists their lives. Yes they should probably be more vigilant and aware of their surroundings, but that just doesn't always work. There will always be someone just riding along in their own world oblivious to the potential dangers around them. It is responsible of the city to create a false sense of safety with these through bike lanes at the right of where a large turning vehicle can not see them, unfair for the cyclist and the driver. I doubt that all cyclists would agree with my viewpoint, for many of them their priorities are getting from point A to point B as fast as possible with as few stops as possible, they claim they have a great 360 degree vision that is oh so safe- failed fantasy

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • wsbob September 26, 2012 at 7:09 pm

    "...How can we allow large vehicles on the road whose driver's are physically unable to see other people on the roadway? ..." maus/bikeportland

    For this type of collision, in their mirrors, I suppose bikeportland's publisher-editor is speaking of. Given the comparative speed Rickson apparently was traveling, it's questionable whether a driver of even a small vehicle would have been able to see her. As people have already noted, bikes show up small in mirrors, even more so in convex mirrors.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Kevin Wagoner September 26, 2012 at 7:30 pm

    It seems so unfair to know someone could kill me tomorrow and not be held accountable.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

    • Caleb September 26, 2012 at 8:26 pm

      What exactly do you want the man who drove the truck to be held accountable for? What's "fair" to you?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • jim September 26, 2012 at 8:34 pm

      You don't honestly believe that this was the drivers fault do you?

      Recommended Thumb up 5

    • ScottB September 27, 2012 at 1:17 pm

      Criminally responsible is not the same as civily responsible. The driver can still be sued in civil court.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • are September 28, 2012 at 2:31 pm

        if the available evidence is what is recited in the prosecutor's memo, a civil case would be very difficult to make. which is not to say that the trucking company might not pay in settlement what they might otherwise have had to pay in lawyer's fees.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Opus the Poet September 26, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    The problem here is not "could the driver see the cyclist" or even "should the driver see the cyclist" when it should be "did the driver yield to the cyclist in the bike lane". That should be the standard right there, with no excuses for not being able to see out of the vehicle. If you can't see a cyclist, then you're driving a vehicle with defective equipment. If you can only see a cyclist in a small area at a certain time then you can't see the cyclist and you have a vehicle with defective equipment. Then you can give drivers a choice in what rope to be hanged with (metaphor, drivers don't deserve to be hanged fir hitting a cyclist), driving with defective equipment, or failing to yield to a cyclist in a bike lane. Make the defective equipment carry a large fine for the owner as well as for the driver.

    Recommended Thumb up 10

    • 9watts September 26, 2012 at 7:40 pm

      You make a lot of sense, Opus.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Judy September 26, 2012 at 11:15 pm

      Actually I don't think Opus makes sense. Putting a bike lane to the right of a turning lane is poor infrastructure design. Every cyclist should expect right turning vehicles at any intersection where right turns exist and, they should not be riding through the intersection in a "bike Lane" that is to the right. They should be to the left of any possible right turning vehicle or in the center of the lane as any motorist going straight would be.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • wsbob September 26, 2012 at 11:57 pm

        Oregon's law keeping motor vehicles out of bike lanes work fine for cyclists...that know how to use them. Approaching an intersection in the bike lane, it's possible for people on bikes to position themselves relative to motor vehicles in the adjoining main travel lane, so as to preclude right hooks. That technique and other bike in traffic skills are good reasons Oregonians should consider putting together a bike specific knowledge skills-road test program.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • El Biciclero September 28, 2012 at 10:40 am

          Be it known to all and sundry that wsbob and I agree on this point, as worded by wsbob here.

          I think bob describes nicely the "give and take" necessary when negotiating with drivers in adjacent lanes. Fore/aft positioning of one's bike relative to adjacent cars is a key component of avoiding right hooks in everyday bike lane usage. It is part of the larger concept of staying out of blind spots. There is no need to take away the relative freedom cyclists have to pass traffic jams in bike lanes, as long as that freedom can be exercised responsibly.

          How to operate "responsibly" (in a self-preserving sense, not a legal sense) is not something all cyclists know how to do. A "program" (not a mandatory licensing scheme) for educating cyclists would be a great thing. There are several available, from "Safe Routes to Schools" for kids, to "Commuting workshops" put on by local bike shops, all the way up to LAB courses that teach advanced traffic negotiation skills. I'm mostly an autodidact when it comes to street skills. My own experience as a cyclist and a driver, my reading of laws and other material, and my ability to put 2 & 2 together have resulted in my not crashing a bike since I was 11 years old--despite years of (fast) riding and commuting both in and out of "traffic"--so I can attest that that method works, as well.

          It would go a long way toward educating cyclists if there were a way to raise awareness of cycling educational opportunities. I think hitting it in schools--when kids are young and their interest in getting around by themselves is high--is a great idea. Even putting up billboards or small signs along bikeways to remind cyclists of safe operating principles could be helpful. I see the signs on the freeway that say "Click it or Ticket" to remind motorists to wear seat belts, or the truck-passing instructional signs that show a car passing a truck and have a little dotted line that shows how far past the truck you should be before you move back over. Things like that could serve to educate cyclists and motorists, if done properly.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

        • spare_wheel September 29, 2012 at 2:10 pm

          a statement that illustrates your lack of experience with heavy urban traffic. during commuting hours its often impossible to thread a wall of vehicles to "position [oneself] relative to motor vehicles in the adjoining main travel lane."

          Recommended Thumb up 1

          • wsbob September 29, 2012 at 8:02 pm

            Instead of working on a rude and obnoxious assumption about my experience in heavy urban traffic, which you know very little about, you would have been more productive by working to clarify before posting, your statement: "... during commuting hours its often impossible to thread a wall of vehicles to "position [oneself] relative to motor vehicles in the adjoining main travel lane."

            Threading? Not sure what that has to do with riding in a bike lane, that's located alongside a main travel lane with heavy urban traffic. Why you find it often impossible during commuting hours for a person on a bike in the bike lane to position themselves relative to motor vehicles in the adjoining main travel lane so as to preclude right hooks, isn't explained in your comment.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

    • staborrez September 27, 2012 at 6:47 am

      All motor vechicles have blind spots. Even bikes with mirrors have blind spots. If anything most commerical trucks at least warn the people traveling behind them of thier blind spots, most have stickers on the trailers describing the blind spots and often also have stickers that show them verying left for right turns or even right turns from the left lanes.

      Unfortunately this will always be a problem down town, even with the best of civil designs and such.

      Shifting the delevery loads to smaller vechicles isn't necessarily a good option either. Yes trucks are dangerous, but for each semi that must unload (probably on the east side) and reload into say 5 or 6 panel vans. You'll do nothing but increase the amount of motor vehicle traffic. And as pointed out in an earlier post, vans have blind spots too. So by taking the semi's off the streets you're actually increasing the odds of this accident happening in the future bu number one increasing the amount of traffic in the downtown area, and number two increasing the amount of traffic with bigger than average blind spots.

      This is clearly a sad event. But I would have to reluctantly blame the cycleists on the accident. Reguardless of law or design, common sense must the one thing that guides your actions when biking on shared spaces. And common sense dictates that you don't pass on the right where right hand turns are permited.

      As I teach my kids as they ride on the streets, and I say it so much that they groan when I tell them and have it repeat it too me.

      "Cars always win".....

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • jim September 27, 2012 at 9:38 pm

      You also can't see someone when they are in front of a steam roller, they might get flattened, they probably shouldn't have been there though. Your argument is weak as in when the driver begins his turn there is no one in his mirror, the bike entered the blind spot after he began his turn, not his fault.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • 007 October 7, 2012 at 2:08 pm

      Right on, Opus! It's basic and I wish PBOT and BTA would put billboards or something all over the place: "Yield to the Bike Lane." No ifs ands or buts.
      I don't know how these people are getting their ODL without knowing that essential law.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Judy September 26, 2012 at 10:01 pm

    It makes no sense to me to be in a bike lane at an intersection. In California the bike lane becomes dashed at the intersection so the cyclist may leave it and control the lane corresponding to the direction that the cyclist will travel through to. It makes no sense to be traveling to the right of turning vehicles. I don't know how they can be expected to see. I think there is also a blind spot there. Motorists are not supposed to turn right from a left turn lane. Motorists merge right.. close to the curb to make a right turn and cyclists should be merging left to go straight through... controlling the through lane and passing any turning vehicles to the left. I don't consider Portland bike infrastructure to be "Bike Friendly" if this is what is expected cycling behaviour. This is not how cyclists are instructed to drive their bikes here.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Jake September 26, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    I got right-hooked in this same intersection a couple years ago--luckily I walked away with a pair of bloody elbows. A woman I work with was also right-hooked there a few months prior. The person who hit me was an avid cyclist who was in the practice of looking out for bikes. Sticking a bike lane where cars are turning right is terrible infrastructure, period. If you're going to use the bike lane in those situations, please be defensive. It's a poor design choice.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • GlowBoy September 26, 2012 at 11:31 pm

    Hey, don't take away my bike lane on Madison just because some riders don't look for right hooks! I use that thing! Hell, I ride down Hall Blvd in Beaverton on my daily commute, and Madison is NOTHING in comparison to the Hall/Greenway disaster. (And yes, on Madison I watch the adjacent cars like a hawk and often SLOW DOWN at 3rd if I think there's a chance of a right hook).

    The reason removing the bike lane approaching 3rd would mess things up is that when you're coming down Madison at 5-6pm, car traffic is REALLY CONGESTED. The last thing I want to do is merge with that stupid car traffic and wait half a dozen extra stoplight cycles to get through that 2 block stretch. One of the things I love about biking -- and one of the things that helps level the playing field -- is that I get to bypass the cager backups. C'mon people, don't force us back to the 80s.

    If you remove the bike lane, unless you make it physically impossible to do so cyclists are still going to pass on the right. And if you do make it physically impossible to pass on the right, cyclists are going to hop up on the sidewalk -- either on foot or (illegally) on wheels -- to get around the car backup. Which will be an even worse mess, and will probably be more dangerous.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Judy September 26, 2012 at 11:47 pm

      So, people should get killed so you can go fast? And the motorists should be responsible? And you think that they should watch out for you but not the other way around? The way it's done in other parts of the country is that you have bike lanes.. but, they become dashed well before intersections where you would merge with motorvehicles. You may have to slow down a little... if there was traffic to get through the intersection and then merge back into the bike lane.. If a cyclists decides to pass on the right.. then it would be their fault if they get killed.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • El Biciclero September 28, 2012 at 9:51 am

        Hey, LOTS of people get killed so drivers can go fast--to the tune of about 30,000 every year. Why all of the sudden is "people not getting killed" some kind of standard? Pedestrians get run over in crosswalks all the time; should we make crosswalks dashed so that drivers can turn while people are crossing?

        Here's another question to answer for the "just merge into the through lane" solution: downtown is one thing, if everyone is going 15mph, but have you ever tried to merge into 45mph traffic on, say, Beaverton's Murray Blvd? I've been nearly right-hooked along that road numerous times. Even "merging" into 15-20mph traffic on some downtown streets is nearly impossible when drivers are running bumper-to-bumper and not about to let someone going slower than they are into "their" lane.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Ian Brett Cooper September 30, 2012 at 4:15 pm

          Actually it's a million every year. 30,000 is only counting the US. There's a whole world out there where people are getting killed by motorists.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • El Biciclero October 1, 2012 at 9:49 am

            Right. Should have specified "...in the U.S."

            Recommended Thumb up 0

    • jim September 27, 2012 at 9:44 pm

      It sounds like you are putting your speed factor ahead of everybody's safety.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mike September 27, 2012 at 1:40 am

    In my 17 years of bicycle commuting one thing I learned from the get-go is never....never pass cars on the right no matter what. I use to say, "yeah but it's their fault, it's the motorists fault!" Now with 39 years under my belt I'm a little more reserved, now it's, "yeah but a lot of good their fault does when your dead."

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • 007 October 7, 2012 at 2:25 pm

      Well, with 20 years "under my belt" in Portland, 20 elsewhere, and at the age of 55, I say, move over and get out of my way because I pass cars on the right and cyclists on the left.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Schubert September 27, 2012 at 3:57 am

    People often accuse me of blaming the victim, but not this time. I differ with Kristen on this. I blame the city government and the infrastructure. How many times have we seen promises that green bike lanes "raise awareness" and "provide a place for cyclists to feel secure" and "tell others where to expect cyclists?" The victim believed these overpromises.
    I'm stunned by the notion that a city should insist on having fewer trucks, or smaller trucks, making deliveries. That ain't gonna happen. Get realistic.
    Nor does it make anyone safer to make truck driving an ever-more-complex job. Spend a couple hours in the cab of a truck maneuvering in the city. It's hard work that demands immense concentration. Adding more things to look at, to divide the driver's attention in multiple ways, just guarantees more collisions.
    Note to Judy: the dashed bike lane at intersections has problems. Such a bike lane killed Alice Swanson in Washington, DC. How was Alice to know that the dashing meant, "You have to leave this bike lane to avoid getting killed?" She didn't know.
    Every bicyclist can be 100 percent safe from these collisions by being aware. People reading these blogs know this, but Rickson didn't get the memo. Why? Rickson got the green paint memo instead, and the green paint memo filled up the 'bicycle safety' part of her brain's in-box. This has happened enough times, in enough places, that there should be no doubt about this facility design.
    John Schubert
    Limeport.org

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • ScottB September 27, 2012 at 1:23 pm

      John,
      Prove it. Show us where, anywhere, the City promised green bike lanes were anything more than highlighted locations where conflicts might occur.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • spare_wheel September 28, 2012 at 12:22 pm

      "Every bicyclist can be 100 percent safe from these collisions by being aware."

      Considering that quite a few bike fatalities are caused by drunk drivers your statement is very insensitive.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Kristi Finney-Dunn September 29, 2012 at 4:44 pm

        RIP Dustin Finney.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

  • krissie September 27, 2012 at 5:47 am

    A cyclist in Cleveland was killed by a semi-truck's right-hook. That driver was found guilty and sentenced to two years in prison. Look up Sylvia Bingham's case.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Mighk Wilson September 27, 2012 at 6:03 am

    There are basic rules for vehicular movement which are the foundation (or should be, at least) for our traffic laws. One of those very basic rules is that we pass on the left, not the right, and certainly not on the right in a location where other vehicles could be turning right.

    Question for everyone here:
    Let's say you are biking along and you overtake another bicyclist on the right as you approach an intersection. That cyclist makes a right turn without signaling or scanning back and the two of you collide. Who's at fault? Both of you are, but who is at greater fault? The cyclist who didn't signal or the one who passed on the right? Signaling is a courtesy, especially if turning right, because conventional rules dictate that the following driver yields to the one in front no matter what. Passing on the right on the other hand is a violation of the basic principles of vehicular movement. (And if the following cyclist was not wearing a helmet and hit his/her head hard enough to be killed or disabled, would we be calling for the other cyclist's head on a platter, or just saying, "Hey, it was just an accident."?)

    A key principle of safety in any realm is to REMOVE points of failure. A bike lane which encourages cyclists to pass to the right of vehicles whose drivers are permitted to turn right is a point of failure that has been ADDED to the roadway.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

  • resopmok September 27, 2012 at 6:07 am

    Probably the simplest, cheapest and most effective "solution" would be to make the trailer guards (mentioned earlier in this thread) mandatory for all trailer trucks operating in the downtown core. This way companies who will be effected can focus their money on the portion of their fleet that services downtown. This way, we won't be adding crazy new rules, costing the public or anyone huge sums of money, and using a device known and proven to be effective at its stated goal. In this case, Rickson probably would've hit the guard at a high rate of speed and sustained injuries, but she wouldn't have been crushed under the truck's wheels.

    So much passion here focused on blaming this person or that person and looking for/finding fault where it doesn't really exist. It's that "affect heuristic" coming to rear its ugly head again.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Mighk Wilson September 27, 2012 at 6:11 am

      Isn't it better to avoid the collision in the first place?

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • Chris I September 27, 2012 at 9:32 am

        Are they mutually exclusive?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • jim September 27, 2012 at 9:47 pm

      trailer guards are not to keep bikes out of the tires, they are for improving mpg

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mighk Wilson September 27, 2012 at 6:14 am

    Let me make it clear: I do NOT blame the cyclist for her death, because her community and the infrastructure repeatedly told her it was okay to violate a basic principle of vehicular movement. The community created the problem, so the community needs to solve it.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Paul Tay September 27, 2012 at 7:24 am

    Mashable quotes:
    J. Maus: "it's a larger context issue about road design, traffic law, traffic culture, social norms, vehicle codes, and so on."

    J. Schubert: "Every bicyclist can be 100 percent safe from these collisions by being aware. People reading these blogs know this, but Rickson didn't get the memo. Why? Rickson got the green paint memo instead, and the green paint memo filled up the 'bicycle safety' part of her brain's in-box. This has happened enough times, in enough places, that there should be no doubt about this facility design."

    M. Wilson: "I do NOT blame the cyclist for her death, because her community and the infrastructure repeatedly told her it was okay to violate a basic principle of vehicular movement. The community created the problem, so the community needs to solve it."

    PDX new cycling tagline: "We don't really have a clue either." :-)

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Joe September 27, 2012 at 8:40 am

    Its always not as eazy at it sounds, huge trucks and smaller objects don't go well together, today near Jefferson traffic circle nightmare watched as large truck needed to go down this small street. even going up the curb to make the turn. * BTW he was coming up on me fast * we need to get cars/trucks to slow down!

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Red Hippie September 27, 2012 at 9:07 am

    Great reporting Jonathan,

    Tough issue to draw a conclusion from. As long as you have bikes and cars/trucks sharing the same roads you are going to have these issues unless there are some major changes. Look at motorcycles which have been required by Law to have day time running lights for over thirty years. This is so that they can be seen. Same applies for a bicycle. Think about what it must be like as a driver to look to your right and see a cyclist 150' behind in a chaotic scene? Think Light/no light.

    There is also a diver/cyclist education component here. There is a system of education for drivers that can be reinforced through continual training and the insurance industry. For cyclist the only available training is informal.

    So how do we minimize these issues? There are two tracks I see. Separate the traffic with separate bike infrastructure, or have more requirements in terms of both licensure/training and equipment (lights) for cyclists. Neither are popular or practical for various economic and societal reasons, but until we as a society are willing to go there, then occasional deaths such as this or by the Crystal must be considered acceptable loss rates. Tough to fathom life in these terms, but we do it every day in other forms of social policy (health, recalls, etc.).

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Gravity Fed September 27, 2012 at 9:26 am

    This has to be one of the most difficult bicycle fatality stories Ive ever followed. As I read and re-read the facts presented and the comments here while considering my own perspective(s) Im left with only increased anxiety.

    As a driver of trucks and fast cars with zero accidents in 33 years, a motorcyclist, and a 2500-mile a year streets of Portland cyclist Im having a very tough time deciding what is really right and who or what is to blame. Not that I need to blame but how do I make sense of this very sad tragedy in a way that might increase my safety as a cyclist? Moreover I struggle to understand how to operate a motor vehicle safely in such a chaotic complex environment of poorly understood often conflicting laws and rules. Mixed with this are the often unpredictable humans behind the wheels and handlebars.

    I love Portland. And the cycling scene is a huge part of why I moved here 14 years ago. But this place makes me as a skilled driver and very experienced two-wheel operator very uncertain as to what is right, legal and non-life threatening. Ive pedaled the streets of DC, NYC, Taipei, Den Hague, and many more. Somehow many of these places seemed safer. Even in the places where cyclists had no rights or protection. At least you know you have none. But here in Portland, for example, the complexity of traffic laws and rules coupled with the uncertainty of all participants is what is getting people killed.

    I agree with Mr. Maus: "I think it's a larger context issue about road design, traffic law, traffic culture, social norms, vehicle codes, and so on."

    The problem here is much larger than most of the commenters here have acknowledged. I can only hope that no one ever ends up the driver or the cyclist in this story. But at this stage I don't know how to confidently avoid either.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

    • jim September 27, 2012 at 9:57 pm

      Portlands planners have created a false sense of security for cyclists that results in them being road kill just as they were pedaling along peacefully in their own special (but unknowingly dangerous) bike lane. The answer is to undo what the pbot has given us and redesign these intersections so they are safe. It won't happen overnight in spite of people getting hurt or killed. The Broadway intersection at I-5 took many years to get corrected in spite of repeated bike accidents there. Cyclists need make safety a higher priority than speed, this needs to be reaffirmed to the pbot.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • spare_wheel September 28, 2012 at 12:18 pm

        word.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Jake September 27, 2012 at 9:44 am

    Trailer guards wouldn't have done any good; she was under the front fender of the tractor. I've spent a lot of time reviewing crash reports and I work in bike/ped transportation planning and design. The right call was made here, and it should force folks to reflect on whether the infrastructure we have is properly designed (no, it isn't). I always give the bike/ped the benefit of the doubt BTW.

    Put yourself in that similar situation; you are in a car or even on your bike you wait for a ped and slowly start your right turn and a cyclist overtakes you on your right. Heck, we even have amongst us a perjorative term for this (shoaling) and yet when our infrastructure encourages or instructs people to do just that to a motor vehicle, or worse a large commercial vehicle, we place the blame almost universally on the driver. Driving a truck requires that you are looking at multiple locations almost at once and contending with blind spots. Schubert's summation is on the spot.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Dave September 27, 2012 at 9:47 am

    Just to mention, in the Netherlands, when there are separated bicycle facilities to the right of auto traffic, they are typically grade-separated, on the same grade as the sidewalk, and the sidewalk and cycle facility remain grade-separated through intersections, so that a right-turning car has to essentially go over a speed bump to turn onto another street.

    This has the effect of both slowing the car down, and putting a big thing in the intersection that says to the person driving "hey, this is not your right of way, it's someone else's."

    There is also never on-street parking blocking the driver's view of the sidewalk/bicycle facility, so between that and the cyclists being 8 inches higher up, they have a clear view.

    To me, that seems like a pretty reasonable way of doing things, on high-traffic streets that would potentially call for separation.

    I agree that much of the bicycle 'infrastructure' (which is almost all paint) that we currently create has a tendency to put people on bicycles in precarious situations.

    Also, SW Madison from 5th down to the Hawthorne Bridge is one of the most confusing, messy stretches of road in all of inner Portland, auto traffic and bus traffic both changing lanes OVER the bike lane, it's really crazy.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • brownstone2 September 27, 2012 at 9:32 pm

      That is not grade separated. A curb height change is a useful distinction, but even an 8 inch climb is not grade separation.
      Grade Separated means 'total' separation of the two traffic pavements - one over or under the other - so there absolutely no crossing conflict between the users. Think interstate flyovers, or exit ramps leading to overpasses. That sort of thing.
      City streets almost all have on-grade crossings where conflicting users are separated by time to create horizontal space and not by vertical space.
      Most of the European bike facilities (most by miles) have on-grade crossings, but usually these are better managed, by pavement shape, color, markings, signs and signals, to minimize two objects trying to be in the same place at the same time. Although more limited in mileage, there are fully grade separated bicycle facilities that carry significant bike traffic - bicycle freeways. Here in the US, there are a few purpose built fully grade separated bike paths, and quite a few miles of Rails-To-Trials where grade separated rail ROW has been recycled into bike paths - first the trains had no conflicts and now it's bikes.

      This crash appears to have been avoidable if the cyclist had refused to try overtaking a moving truck that was just entering an intersection. At that position, it's impossible for a cyclist or pedestrian on the right to be sure if the truck is about to turn or go straight. This is no place for guessing games, stop and wait to move behind the truck. Only issue here is that the vehicle following the truck has to be willing to allow the cyclist to move into the motor lane in front of them. Not all drivers can deal with this.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Woodstock_Cyclist September 27, 2012 at 9:53 am

    I am trying to conclude an argument with an acquaintance. Does anyone know whether Kathryn Rickson had a drivers license? This person contends that if she had, she would have known not to pass the truck on the right. I contend that it doesn't really matter, but that she probably had a license anyway, so the real problems have more to do with design, signage, and so on. Thanks.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Mighk Wilson September 27, 2012 at 10:35 am

      I'd say the license is irrelevant. In the Orlando area we're in the midst of a big pedestrian safety campaign. Lots of motorists are exclaiming "I didn't know..." when it comes to crosswalk laws. I imagine most of them have valid driver's licenses. A license is not an education.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

    • are September 27, 2012 at 3:20 pm

      ask your acquaintance whether she knows what is the law in oregon with respect to a motorist making a right turn across a striped bike lane. does your acquaintance have a license? everyone "knows" not to pass on the right, regardless whether she has a license. at least everyone who thinks through the possible scenarios. but the statutes in oregon make an unfortunate exception in this case, misleading people who have not thought it through.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • John Schubert September 27, 2012 at 10:13 am

    Sigh. Right on cue....
    Another fatal right-hook, this one in Montreal.
    Whether you call it a bike lane, a cycle track, a sidepath, or whatever..... the behavior isn't safe.
    The people behind these designs have a lot of answering to do.
    John Schubert
    Limeport.org
    ttp://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Lachine+attempts+make+intersection+safer+after+cyclist/7298441/story.html

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • ScottB September 27, 2012 at 1:28 pm

      And the people who use the transportation systems without thinking also need to be accountable. No one want's to pay for perfectly safe roads. Instead of complaining, why not propose a solution.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Mighk Wilson September 27, 2012 at 1:30 pm

        John (and I, and others) HAVE proposed a solution: good training for cyclists.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

    • brownstone2 September 27, 2012 at 9:49 pm

      John,
      Being able to move out into the motor lane, to pass on the left or to follow the truck until it has turned or gone straight through the intersection is not such an easy or obvious choice.
      This cyclist was estimated to be traveling "fast" at 12 MPH.
      Typically, that is "very slow" for motor vehicles in a 30 MPH speed limit area.
      "Taking A Lane" between motor vehicles moving at 20 MPH when you are comfortable at 12 MPH requires a pair of brass balls, because you either force the 2nd vehicle to slow down, or hope they do, or those balls have a shot of adrenaline so the cyclist can accelerate up to 20, and then be prepared to brake hard if the front vehicle suddenly slows to make a turn.
      One just does not know what the driver ahead will be doing, till they do it.

      Passing the truck on the left - sure, if you are sure it really is turning right. If it's not, it could just as easily suddenly turn left, into the lane you are in.

      Sorry, it's not really the roadway engineering, and certainly not the right hand bike lane that is the problem. It's basic cyclist education about how to behave around 50 foot long trucks and buses, especially when they are already moving. It's also basic driver education about to signal, look and turn big rigs, though this driver appears to have pretty much done it right.

      Some truck drivers insist on high speed turns from two lanes out. John, there is no way that a cyclist seeing a truck moving smoothly at high speed two lanes over would predict that that truck will be making a 20 MPH right turn; particularly if the truck is moving fast enough to overtake the cyclist at the intersection.

      Again, this does not appear to be the case in this crash, but it's the cause of many NYC bike and ped fatalities. It may be a right hook, but not the one that happened here.
      On-grade intersections are conflicts, by definition. Everyone has to learn the choreography and they can dance safely together. Or else....

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Mighk Wilson September 28, 2012 at 5:21 am

        Oh please, it doesn't take "brass balls" to make a lane change. We have 65 year-old women graduates of CyclingSavvy who used to be sidewalk riders who'll tell you you're full of it. It's just a matter of being observant and communicating effectively.

        A 20 mph overtaking speed means the driver needs less than 150 feet to slow to the cyclist's speed. One changes lanes only when there is enough room to not cause the need for extreme action on the part of the driver in the new lane. And this is true whether the lane-changer is a bicyclist or a motorist.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

      • are September 28, 2012 at 2:35 pm

        people were not moving twenty at the time this happened. everyone was stopped waiting for the truck to execute its turn.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • esther c September 27, 2012 at 11:10 am

    My mantra when I ride is "you may have the right of way. You don't have a force field."

    Zipping down the bike lane at 15 or 20mph past traffic going at a crawl may be legal but it's essential to be sure they all know you're there before you cross an intersection.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Mighk Wilson September 27, 2012 at 11:20 am

      That's a misunderstanding of what "right-of-way" is. No-one "has the right-of-way." Right-of-way laws are written to determine which party is required to Yield right-of-way to which other parties. The driver behind yields to the driver in front. The driver changing lanes yields to the driver in the new lane. Drivers yield to pedestrians who are lawfully in a crosswalk. Etc.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • lil'stink September 27, 2012 at 11:36 am

    I don't get all the "pass on the left, not the right" comments. Madison is a one way street, as are almost all the streets that intersect it. Passing on the left doesn't work too well if it forces the cyclist into traffic.

    There is no easy answer for this problem. Just be safe and keep your head on a swivel. I prefer to ride in traffic on Madison, as it is easy to maintain pace. If I do pass on the right, I always assume that the car(s) in front of me are going to do something stupid and unexpected, a "basic rule" if you will.

    Perhaps bicycle safety classes would be helpful. If I had to guess the majority of cyclists in this town couldn't do an emregency manuever or hop a curb if their life (unfortunately) depended on it.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Mighk Wilson September 27, 2012 at 11:40 am

      Passing does not "force" you into traffic. Passing is a choice you make. You do it in the same way other drivers do: check behind, wait for an adequate gap, signal, get cooperation from the driver in the new lane if necessary, then change lanes if it's feasible. I pass on one-way streets all the time.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Alan 1.0 September 27, 2012 at 9:01 pm

      bunnyhop: the Godwin of transportation biking threads

      Recommended Thumb up 5

  • GlowBoy September 27, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    "So, people should get killed so you can go fast?"- Judy
    No. People are getting killed because sometimes drivers and/or cyclists (depending on the situation) fail to pay attention and exercise due care and common sense. The nanny state can't make everything idiot-proof for you.

    "You may have to slow down a little... "
    Have you ever been on SW Madison during evening rush hour? Having to merge with traffic wouldn't make you "slow down a little". It would make you STOP. And stay stopped for quite some time. As I mentioned above, it would create a crazy and dangerous mess with cyclists taking to the sidewalks to get around the backup.

    And I also made QUITE clear above that I DO slow down a little on Madison as I approach 3rd, sometimes a lot, and often making eye contact with driver(s), all depending on the placement and movement of cars to my left. I recognize that cars should yield to me if they're turning, but I also recognize that many do not. This is a basic Defensive Driving concept (which might resonate better if Oregon were a state that actually required Drivers Ed and more people were actually trained in it).

    Funny now we've suddenly got a bunch of folks saying you should never, EVER pass anyone on the right. Really? I'm not buying into this new axiom that passing on the right violates some sacred natural law of vehicular movement. Didn't the BTA successfully lobby just a few years ago to LEGALIZE bikes passing on the right when there is no bike lane? Because cyclists were doing it anyway? Don't you pass MAX trains on the right when you bike or ride on SW Morrison or Yamhill? Don't cars pass each other on the right on the freeways and on multilane arterials without everybody getting killed? Don't drivers pass on the right when they're passing a left-turning vehicle that's waiting for oncoming traffic? There are lots of legitimate examples of passing on the right in the real world.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Judy September 27, 2012 at 3:24 pm

      Yes, when there are continuos lines of traffic cars pass each other on the right.. but, cars don't cross the right lane and make a right turn from the left lane, they merge right and turn from the right lane, the cars behind them either wait for the turn or merge left to pass them on the left. No matter how slow you have to go, at the intersection you shouldn't be passing through the intersection in a bike lane, or to the right of traffic that may turn right into you. You are also making the traffic worse..by disallowing the right turns from occuring. If you pass to the left, the motorists can complete their turns and you can move along more quickly and safely. They can legalize supidity too, but we are not sheep that have to follow what is obviously not going to keep us alive..

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Josh September 27, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    GlowBoy
    The reason removing the bike lane approaching 3rd would mess things up is that when you're coming down Madison at 5-6pm, car traffic is REALLY CONGESTED. The last thing I want to do is merge with that stupid car traffic and wait half a dozen extra stoplight cycles to get through that 2 block stretch. ....
    If you remove the bike lane, unless you make it physically impossible to do so cyclists are still going to pass on the right.

    But will they pass on the right with the naive expectation that all right-turning motorists will see and yield to small, rapidly-overtaking, hard-to-see cyclists to their right?

    Or will they pass more cautiously on the right, warily watching each vehicle they pass?

    That's the approach Seattle uses -- bicycles may legally pass other vehicles on the right, within the same lane, when it is safe to do so. That puts the burden on the cyclist to determine it is safe to pass on the right.

    This does not encourage as many beginner cyclists as having a bike lane that continues to an intersection, that's clear. But it also doesn't encourage as many beginner cyclists to ride the suicide slot.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Disgruntled September 27, 2012 at 8:43 pm

    I did some calculations and came up with the fact that the driver had 3-8 seconds of visibility of the bicyclists in the lane assuming she went to the bike lane shortly after it started. That is sufficient time to check to ensure that there are no bicyclists. I think the driver swerved left against better judgement and caught a cyclist unaware. He may have been going slow but not that slow. He might have not been able to see her because of his dangerous move to the left which could have confused the bicyclist.

    Somehow drivers think that turning a turn signal gives them the right of way, or that because the are bigger they can do so. I don't argue with trucks when they do this stuff but I sure do notice it. When confronted most truck drivers look like they had no idea what they could have done wrong. I suspect most shouldn't be driving because of lack of knowledge and skills, just based on my interactions with large trucks.

    As for this situation, it may not have been negligence but it sure comes close to it. The only solution I see is not using the bike lanes at these types of corners when you see large vehicles around. Use the lane even if it slows others down. If you are going to use the bike lane, be aware that there are always drivers who don't look or ignore you, and be prepared. The city also needs to look at intersections like this and either extend the bike lane back so everyone has a good chance of seeing the bicyclist or eliminate right turns.

    I am not in favor of the California style of merge through the bike lane. The merge part is where the cars and bicycles interact and most cars don't know how to merge. This happens a lot at 14th and Everett where the standard is to use the bike lane and parking strip as the turn lane. A nice, but now scratched, BMW did that do me, luckily only pushing me off the road and dinging his car on my exposed metal handlebar part.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • spare_wheel September 29, 2012 at 2:23 pm

      sorry but preventing fatalities is more important than catering to the aesthetic wishes of separated infrastructure proponents. imo all bike lanes should end or cross-over before any intersection that allows vehicle right turns (without a signal). how many more people have to die from right hooks before we admit that our infrastructure encourages cyclists to take huge risks?

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • wsbob September 30, 2012 at 11:23 pm

      "...I did some calculations and came up with the fact that the driver had 3-8 seconds of visibility of the bicyclists in the lane assuming she went to the bike lane shortly after it started. That is sufficient time to check to ensure that there are no bicyclists. ..." Disgruntled

      Within that 3-8 second period of time, the driver of the truck had other areas outside the truck to be looking, in addition to down the side of his truck by way of his mirrors. That responsibility likely wouldn't have allowed the 3-8 seconds to be spent entirely on looking in the mirrors for a view down the side of the truck for people on bikes in the bike lane, advancing past his truck. As noted in the DA's memo, once the truck started into the turn radius, image of the view down the side of the truck would have turned away from the bike lane.

      People riding in the bike lane are not obliged, to pass a truck that has slowed down in the main travel lane, at an intersection and may be preparing to make a right hand turn. Driver's of motor vehicles have some responsibility, but not absolute responsibility, to watch for and take precautions to ensure the safety of vulnerable road users. Vulnerable road users also bear some responsibility for taking precautions to ensure their own safety. A state level, bike specific in traffic knowledge and skills initiative could possibly help them in that respect, preventing injuries and loss of life to vulnerable road users.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Ian Brett Cooper October 1, 2012 at 3:58 am

        "Driver's of motor vehicles have some responsibility, but not absolute responsibility, to watch for and take precautions to ensure the safety of vulnerable road users."

        I think that's a pretty cynical reinterpretation of the absolute responsibility all road users have to operate their vehicles safely.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Alan 1.0 September 27, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    SMIDSY. Carhead. First roadway design failed Ms. Rickson, then the legal system did.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Alan 1.0 September 27, 2012 at 9:09 pm

    I hope that society will look for a better solution to this problem than figuring out how to divvy up the tort settlements for innocent victims among consumers of freight services.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Alan 1.0 September 27, 2012 at 9:15 pm

      sorry, duplicate, delete!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob September 28, 2012 at 1:41 am

    I do wonder about the truck driver's passenger, and whether from his visual vantage point in the passenger seat, he viewed as much as was possible in terms of monitoring the bike lane as the truck commenced to turn right. With regards to what the truck's passenger saw, the PD memo states:

    "...Mr. Reed said as the truck made its turn, he saw the bicyclist out of his
    “peripheral” vision approach the right side of the truck. ..." Schrunk, DA, Kathryn Rickson Death Investigation

    I'm taking 'peripheral vision' to essentially mean, out of the corner of the truck passenger's eye. Trying not to be overly picky, I'm wondering if, as the truck began its right turn, the truck's passenger actively had his head turned to the right, or to the rear, possibly with the window rolled down and his head sticking out, looking down the bike lane.

    I suppose the truck's trailer sticks out past the cab somewhat, impairing the passenger's direct view to the rear, down the side of the trailer while the truck and trailer are both pointed straight, but as the cab begins to turn right, the passenger's direct view to the rear, past the side of the trailer will at some point open up. Some of you truck driver readers of bikeportland, like q`Tzal, might be able to shed some light on this question.

    I'm wondering if someone in the passenger seat of a truck making a right turn can help the driver to see to the rear of the truck, or whether, leaning out the window and looking back, they'd just be blocking the driver's view of his mirrors, reducing his visibility down the side of the trailer,

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ian Brett Cooper September 29, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    It seems very clear that motorists' vision to the rear right is either unclear, or motorists can get away with claiming it's unclear when they don't look. The answer to this is obvious to me. Cyclists have to take their safety into their own hands by doing one of two simple things:

    1. Stay in the traffic lane, in line with other vehicles, and wait your turn as you approach an intersection. This is the safest solution.

    2. If you must use a bike lane (which I advise against), never NEVER attempt to overtake on the curbside at an intersection. Such behavior is suicidal - it's like playing Russian Roulette.

    Had the cyclist in this case done either of these things, she would most likely be alive today. In a road culture in which inattention seem to be regarded as virtues, cyclists cannot afford to be impatient. Passing on the curbside is a deadly mistake that too many cyclists make because they think a bike lane protects them - it doesn't.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • John S. Allen September 30, 2012 at 6:16 am

    Rickson's behavior as described in the investigation is so far off the charts, it being so obvious that the truck was turning, as to suggest a different explanation entirely. What about the brakes on her bicycle? The blog post indicates that both vehicles were thoroughly examined, but can we have details? Was the bicycle still in such condition following the crash that it might provide an answer?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel September 30, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Montreal+cyclist+bicycle+path+dies+truck+collision/6980172/story.html

    "Montreal cyclist on bicycle path dies in truck collision...
    Both cyclist and truck had green traffic light; cyclist had right of way"

    "It is not considered likely that any criminal charges wil be laid against the truck driver, who told police he did not see the cyclist."

    right hooks are the achilles heal of separated infrastructure.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • John S. Allen September 30, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    I agree that right hooks are a major problem, but the Montreal collision was not a right hook. The cyclist was coming from the opposite direction of the truck which turned right, on a two-way separated bikeway. Details, photos and translations from comments in French are here:

    http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=4540

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John S. Allen October 1, 2012 at 5:03 am

    In response to GlowBoy: Oregon law specifically permits bicyclists to overtake on the right only if it can be done in safety, see http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/811.415 . It follows that the bicyclist must use good judgment as to whether it can be done in safety. I consider this reasonable: you can't be cited simply for overtaking on the right, but you can be he held responsible if you do it unsafely. Rickson was responsible, under this law -- unless perhaps her brakes failed. This law also resoundingly answers "no" as to whether people incapable of good judgment should be encouraged to ride bicycles on urban streets (contrary to the 8-to-80, bicycling-for-everybody meme), points out the need for bicyclist education, and highlights the downside of bike lanes which, while sometimes useful (as in facilitating *slow, safe, cautious* overtaking of stopped traffic) also promote a false sense of security.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • are October 1, 2012 at 8:23 am

      811.415(2)(b) would appear to create an exception where the bike is overtaking in a dedicated bike lane. not saying what rickson seems to have done was well advised, not dangerous, etc., but there is not much point in citing statutes here.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • John S. Allen October 1, 2012 at 10:12 am

        Good point, but 2(c) requires the roadway ahead of the overtaking vehicle to be unobstructed. If the truck is turning across the bike lane, as in this case, then the bike lane is obstructed. Citing statutes may seem like nitpicking when we are talking about a fatality rather than only a traffic citation, but then statutes can determine who is held at fault and who must pay compensation -- of great importance to parties to the crash or their survivors, and a main topic of the comments in this thread.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Ian Brett Cooper October 1, 2012 at 10:17 am

          Yeah John, but the wording states that if ANY of the clauses are true, the cyclist can overtake. Sadly, this is not a case of any clause preventing - it's written such that any clause permits. It's stupid and ridiculous, but that's how it reads.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • John S. Allen October 1, 2012 at 12:02 pm

            My reading of section 2 is that all three clauses must be true for this section to allow overtaking on the right. Note the semicolon (which means "and") after 2(a) and the boldface "and" after 2(b). The overtaken driver must be signaling a left turn, there must be sufficient paved width, AND the roadway ahead of the overtaking vehicle must be unobstructed. Section 3, which allows bicyclists more freedom in overtaking on the right in a bike lane, applies only if that is safe, as I already indicated. Is there a lawyer who would care to comment? Where is Bob Mionske now that we need him? :-)

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • are October 1, 2012 at 1:01 pm

              really just proving that we are off on a tangent here, john.

              811.415(1) is the basic rule, don't pass on the right unless you fall within one of the exceptions, and don't pass on the right in any event if you have to leave the paved surface to accomplish the pass.

              811.415(2) sets out three separate, distinct, unrelated exceptions

              exception (a) is when the vehicle you are overtaking is signaling a left turn. two further conditions must be met. the roadway has to be wide enough to accommodate two vehicles side by side, and your path has to be unobstructed. this exception has nothing at all to do with our case, because the truck was not signaling left.

              exception (b) is when the vehicle you are overtaking is in a separately marked lane, to the left of the lane you are in. this exception does arguably apply to our case, and is an argument against striping a bike lane to the right of a travel lane from which a right turn is permitted.

              exception (c) is specific to bicycles and simply says you can overtake if you can overtake safely, sort of a free pass for cyclists, probably to alleviate confusions over whether the roadway is "wide enough" for exception (a) to apply.

              Recommended Thumb up 1

  • John S. Allen October 1, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    I think you are right. I had overlooked exception (b)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Schubert October 1, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    I don't agree with John Allen's statement that "Rickson's behavior as described in the investigation is so far off the charts...." Rickson's behavior, regardless of what we have to say about it here, has been seen many times before. I think it's similar to the behavior of Bryce Lewis, killed in a right hook in Seattle a few years ago.

    I have often said this: many people are surprisingly unknowledgeable about the behavior of other traffic. They simply don't think in terms of what other road users might be doing, where they might be coming from, what they can and can't see, where they can and can't be reasonably expected to look vigilantly, and what the operating characteristics and limitations of their vehicles -- particularly trucks -- affect things. Some people naturally grok these things. Others don't. It doesn't correlate with any other measure of intelligence. I've known of instances where people with great jobs and great professional degrees displayed a lack of understanding of this stuff.

    Which is why it needs to be taught, and why traffic control devices need to reinforce, not undermine, the lesson.

    The beauty of traffic law is that it keeps oblivious people safe. Obey the law, and not only does it keep conflicting traffic from coming at you from outside your zone of vigilance, but also, it gives you a chance to see and avoid other people's mistakes.

    Oregon's green bike lanes just BEG cyclists to feel entitled to breeze right through.

    As long as this discussion has been, we haven't started to discuss the sloppy nature of bicyclist education. Outside of formal books or classes, most education comes in snippets: press releases, pamphlets, signs, slogans. A useful way to think about it these snippets is that they are all advertisements, of varying quality, for their point of view. I dislike the green bike lanes because they are so often praised as "the cyclists's space." In combination with Portland's wacko laws requiring cyclists to pass on the right of right-turning motor traffic, the green bike lane's advertising message is, "This space is for you. It's all yours. Everyone else has to stay out of it." It's been oversold as a guarantee of right of way, when in fact, as Mighk Wilson points out, no such guarantee ever exists in traffic law.

    John Schubert
    Limeport.org

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Ian Brett Cooper October 1, 2012 at 3:37 pm

      I think you've hit on the big catch 22 with today's brand of populist cycling advocacy, and that is that advocates want anybody, regardless of knowledge or experience, to be able to cycle, yet they also tend to support infrastructure that cannot be used safely unless the user is skilled, knowledgeable and experienced. Kathryn Rickson's death is a perfect example of this. A knowledgeable or experienced cyclist would never have attempted to pass a truck on the curbside in that situation.

      I think cycling advocates need to choose a side - either they're for getting people onto bikes safely, or they're for bike facilities. With the current state of cycling (non-)education and the current state of infrastructure (in)competency, they can't have it both ways.

      And let's face facts - a mass cycling education program is not in the works. There is no program set to roll out into schools nationwide. LAB has done virtually nothing on this - they supposedly have a program, but as I understand it, if it is fully fleshed out and ready to go, it's available only on a one-off basis if a school wants it.

      As for infrastructure, I've tried explaining to transportation engineers and other people who might be able to make infrastructure safer, but the ones I've spoken with are not interested, and other cycling advocates I've spoken with say their experience matches mine. Planners and engineers, for the most part, seem to be Kafkaesque bureaucrats whose primary goal appears to be to defend whatever mistakes that have already been made.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • John S. Allen October 1, 2012 at 5:51 pm

      After i wrote my comment, I had second thoughts, and I think I would have chosen the word "improbable" instead of "off the charts". To keep moving forward when the truck is already turning right, and slam into the fender at the front of the cab suggests either that Rickson was very seriously not paying attention orthat her brakes failed. Well, on the other hand, perhaps she saw the situation developing and thought she could sprint her way out of trouble. I based some of my speculation on the evidence that she was riding fast, suggesting that she rode far and fast enough to be fit. But maybe she built her fitness in a spinning class, I've known that type too. Evidence about the condition of the brakes would clarify some of this.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • wsbob October 1, 2012 at 11:01 pm

      "...In combination with Portland's wacko laws requiring cyclists to pass on the right of right-turning motor traffic, ..." John Schubert

      There's no such Portland or Oregon law. ORS 811.415 doesn't require people on bikes to pass on the right of right-turning motor traffic. Bike lanes exist to the right of main travel lanes, but cyclists traveling in them, aren't obliged by law to use them to pass motor vehicles on the right, that are turning right across the bike lane.

      Ian Brett Cooper says: "...A knowledgeable or experienced cyclist would never have attempted to pass a truck on the curbside in that situation. ..."

      "...And let's face facts - a mass cycling education program is not in the works. ..." Ian Brett Cooper

      A broad based state-wide cycling education program should be in the works to confront a lack of bike specific knowledge and experience that may characterize many people that bike. People should be developing, exchanging and discussing ideas about what such a program might consist of and how it would best be made available to the public.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John S. Allen October 1, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    ... to be fit, and i should have said also, have some road sense.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ian Brett Cooper October 2, 2012 at 3:11 am

    wsbob wrote: "A broad based state-wide cycling education program should be in the works to confront a lack of bike specific knowledge and experience that may characterize many people that bike. People should be developing, exchanging and discussing ideas about what such a program might consist of and how it would best be made available to the public."

    I (of course) agree. The problem is, populist bicycle advocates seem to regard such discussion and such programs as elitist. Cyclist education goes against the philosophy that anyone, regardless of knowledge or experience, should be able to cycle.

    Don't get me wrong, I think it would be great if everyone were able to cycle, but the current state of our road transport system is such that cyclists, in order to avoid the potential problems caused by poorly designed infrastructure and stupid traffic laws (such as Portland's or Oregon's homicidal requirement for right-turning drivers to turn through another traffic lane), must have a level of knowledge that suits their local traffic laws and traffic density, otherwise they may end up like Kathryn Rickson.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • wsbob October 2, 2012 at 12:35 pm

      If the material were presented on a state-wide level, through the DMV, D of V ...whatever...it probably wouldn't be very difficult for people of average intelligence to learn bike in traffic skills and knowledge that would enable them to avoid right hooks and other traffic hazards vulnerable road users are potentially exposed to.

      Oregon's street and road infrastructure isn't perfectly designed to enable the safest possible bike travel, and probably wont be able to be so designed for a very long time. In the interim, people intending to use bikes for travel would benefit from helping to create and support a state-wide program that would help prepare people with knowledge and skills for riding within the infrastructure existing today. Such a program isn't for the elite...it's for the common person.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Dave October 2, 2012 at 1:00 pm

      I'm not really sure where this mass of bike advocates who are staunchly against education are (I don't think I've ever met one), but I think it would be a fantastic idea to have education both of how to ride a bike in an urban setting, and about the laws and regulations related to bicycles as mandatory part of both our public education system, and our automobile licensing. Something like the Dutch traffic garden would be awesome for children growing up - basically role-playing the roles of pedestrian, cyclist, and driver in a scale they can cope with, but with realistic laws, and learning the ideas of responsibility and consequence (if you break laws or 'injure' another child as a driver or cyclist, you get the privilege taken away from you).

      I generally *don't* support the idea of requiring a license to ride a bike, but I do highly support the idea of education. I also think it wouldn't be a horrible idea for people to have to pass at least a simple bicycle competency test in order to get a driver's license.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Ian Brett Cooper October 2, 2012 at 1:21 pm

        "I'm not really sure where this mass of bike advocates who are staunchly against education are..."

        Then you haven't been looking. Try suggesting to the average bike advocate that cyclists should learn how to ride on the road using techniques taught by Bikeability in Britain or by LAB and Cycling Savvy here in the US, and see how long it takes for them to start frothing at the mouth and calling you an out-of-touch elitist.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • are October 2, 2012 at 3:56 pm

          please indicate who you mean by "the average bike advocate"

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Ian Brett Cooper October 2, 2012 at 5:17 pm

            The people who typify modern (populist) bike advocacy are very much in evidence online. Go to http://www.bikeforums.net and you'll find them. They support dangerous, though comforting bicycle infrastructure, such as that which killed Kathryn Rickson and the cyclist who was killed in Montreal on July 24th.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

      • wsbob October 3, 2012 at 12:33 am

        I follow various discussions in over at bikeforums. Sometimes I post there, mostly, I don't. The 'advocacy and
        safety' category is where topics relating to safety on the road for bikes most often come up. Opinions on people that ride needing bike specific education, run both for and against, as do opinions about whether it's good or bad to have cars excluded from using bike lanes to prepare for right turns.

        Here's a link to a recent thread that included discussion about various Vehicular Cycling programs of the past, including Bikeability in Britain and those by LAB that Ian mentions. John Forrester, author of the book, Effective Cycling, actively participated. If I remember correctly, he's not big on bike lanes, as are plenty of other people commenting to bikeforums.

        http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/846062-Bicycle-licensing-panned-as-impractical-and-punitive

        Each to his own, but I wouldn't personally dismiss bike lanes as being "...dangerous, though comforting bicycle infrastructure...", or Oregon's law that excludes motor vehicles from bike lanes as being dangerous to people that bike. Potentially so? Yes, but people can be smart if given a chance. Instruct them in how to avoid potentially dangerous situations can allow them to make decisions that will preserve their safety. People riding bikes in traffic, and lacking in knowledge and skills to safely ride the wide range of street and road conditions we have today that they will meet there...is dangerous.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

- 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.