(Image: Google Street View)
A collision involving a pickup truck and a bicycle critically injured a man biking southbound on 26th Avenue just before 10 a.m. Sunday morning.
Police said the injured man’s leg was severed after the northbound truck turned left onto Powell in front of him. Alistair Corkett, 22, was “transported to a Portland hospital with life-threatening injuries” but is expected to survive.
Kenji Sugahara, executive director of the Oregon Bicycle Racing Association, said in an email Sunday afternoon that Corkett was “a development rider for one of our teams in PDX.”
Brandon Bruins, a manager at the Clackamas Bike Gallery, said Corkett and a man who was riding with him were both employees there, and that Corkett had raced bicycles for years. Bruins said he’d been told Corkett was speaking to people after treatment.
Steve Remy, another friend of Corkett’s, said the man riding with Corkett was Anthony Disano.
According to the online map of traffic injuries since 2004 created for the Portland Bureau of Transportation’s Vision Zero campaign, this is the most dangerous intersection on Powell between SE 7th and SE Cesar Chavez, with 73 injuries from 2004 to 2013: 60 people in cars, eight people on bikes and five people on foot.
Here’s the full news release from the Portland Police Bureau:
On Sunday May 10, 2015, at 9:52 a.m., Central Precinct officers responded to Southeast 26th Avenue and Powell Boulevard on the report that a man riding a bicycle had a leg severed after being struck by a man driving a pick-up truck.
Officers and medical personnel arrived and located the injured man in his 20s. The victim has been transported to a Portland hospital with life-threatening injuries. Several passersby stopped to provide medical aid until paramedics arrived at the scene.
The driver of the truck remained at the scene and has been detained by police for further investigation.
Preliminary information indicates that the truck driver was northbound on 26th Avenue and the bicycle rider and a friend were riding southbound on 26th Avenue. The truck driver turned left in front of the bicycle riders, colliding with the victim.
The Traffic Division’s Major Crash Team has responded to the scene to investigate the crash.
The department added in a later update:
The driver of the pick-up, 42-year-old Barry Scott Allen, was detained and released as the investigation continues. Drugs and/or alcohol do not appear to be a factor at this time.
Once the investigation is complete, the case will be given to the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office for review.
Advertisement
This is one of the most important bike crossings of Powell, with bike lanes and bike boxes in both directions. It’s the main corner in front of Cleveland High School.
The 20s Bikeway project, which is nearing completion, is currently considering creating an alternative neighborhood greenway route on 28th Avenue, a lower-traffic street two blocks east. That would require a new signalized crossing. As of April 30 the Oregon Department of Transportation, which controls Powell Boulevard, had not yet decided whether to approve that new city-requested signal because it is so close to the existing one at 26th.
Beneath this post, several readers have had things to say about this intersection and the surrounding area. From Ezm:
Another Car v Bike happened in this intersection 2-3 weeks ago. Driver hit a high school kid, similar circumstances, although I don’t think the injury was nearly as bad.
I live a block away, cross here on feet or bike several times a day. The intersection is very straight forward, few if any vision obstructions. Yet daily I see drivers not following signage, not respecting the bike box, and just generally not yielding or driving with caution.
Car traffic has a tendency to get jammed here during the rush, especially as parents drop kids at school. A lot of what I see is frustrated drivers, on powell and 26th alike, pushing the light and driving super aggressive.
From Carter:
I have to bike through this intersection on my bike several times a day and I feel like I’m gambling with my life every time. 1) The N/S light is way too short (and the E/W too long), so everyone speeds through. 2) No one enforces the green boxes, so a lot of the cars turn right on red 3) There are no alternatives for crossing Powell within 6 blocks 4) Traffic on 26th has gotten progressively worse over the years with no change in traffic patterns to accommodate it (a left turn signal would be pretty useful).
The section directly in front of Cleveland HS is especially dangerous with the bike lane frequently blocked by buses in the bus stop, parents dropping off/picking up their kids at school (because the kids can’t seem to walk half a block, I guess), and, during rainy season, a poorly drained lake at the corner. All factors that force cyclists into the car lane.
And reader Stevie Mare noted the number of crashes at this intersection.
KATU.com has a photo of the truck that was involved.
Nearby resident Dan Kaufman, whose children attend Cleveland High School, is organizing a “super legal slow-down of this intersection at afternoon rush hour” on Monday.
Nicholas Caleb, a candidate running for city council against incumbent Transportation Commissioner Steve Novick, shared the news on his campaign Facebook page:
As soon as I arrived home from a wonderful, leisurely day at Sunday Parkways, I saw this terrible news.
The reality of cycling in Portland is that it is extremely dangerous. The infrastructure that should be in place to protect cyclists has not been installed & each passing day without it means life threatening danger for cyclists who venture out into the streets. Fragile human bodies stand no chance when they come in contact with metal machines weighing in at thousands of pounds and moving fast. Helmets and reflective clothing won’t change this reality. We need real safety infrastructure & traffic laws to be strictly enforced in order to protect human lives.
I will fight for a society much closer to what we experience at Sunday Parkways.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Sad to hear.
Tragic, sad, idiotic, preventable. Life will never be the same for that unfortunate cyclist. Because a driver just didn’t pay attention.
I just got back from a morning ride up to Council Crest. On the way down, on SW Vista Ave, some lady in a white Subaru pretty much tailgated me all the way back (I could hear her revving the engine behind me), even though I was doing 25-30 mph. Then she proceeded to cut me off at the intersection with SW Park Pl. WTF?!? I guess she was late for a squash game at the MAC or something. My first run in with aggressive drivers in three months; hope it’s the last.
“Because a driver just didn’t pay attention.”
Why is it always “I didn’t see you” or “You came out of nowhere”? Is it *that* hard for drivers to pay attention while driving a massive high speed vehicle? I drive on rare occasion when necessary (to get out of town, haul larger objects, etc…) and I’m hyper-vigilant the entire time. Yet even as a driver it’s getting scarier each day – increasing numbers of other drivers are not paying attention and flat-out driving like a$$.
I wonder… how many more of these serious injuries involving bicyclists, drivers, and pedestrians will it take for the city to give a damn about safety?
As you know the reasons are simple:
1) the “law of the jungle” mentality of some drivers, is to only look out for things that are a bigger threat to them; and sadly
2) the current judicial and enforcement “system” makes it very easy to use this as a “legitimate excuse” to reducing responsibility for the outcome of one’s driving behavior and shift the incident from an avoidable collision to an accident.
what exactly could “the city” do to stop someone from taking a left turn in front of a cyclist illegally? ban all left turns?
The vehicle(s) proceeding straight through the intersection clearly have the right of way, so undoubtedly the driver will be cited for failing to yield.
“what exactly could ‘the city’ do to stop someone from taking a left turn in front of a cyclist illegally?”
One place to start would be to mete out real consequences to those who hurt others with their automobiles, rather than doling out slaps on the wrist. As El Biciclero has pointed out here repeatedly, we live in a culture that tends to look the other way in situations where someone in a car maims another person who happens to be in their path. This needs to change, both in the specific instances and more generally through a change in tone. Vision Zero is one strategy through which to pursue this. But to work there has to be a commitment to make it happen, not just words.
and how would that exactly stop some one from making bad decisions?
Make the punishments heavy enough to put a climate of fear over motoring. Damaging another human being in a car should be a life-altering (for the worse) experience. We are too socially permissive of negligent, casual driving.
Possibly. Murder is against the law with punishment as severe as a death penalty in some states, yet there are how many murders every year?
Not nearly as many as there would be if we lived in murder-permissive civilization.
There are a heck of a lot fewer murders than car-caused deaths.
still not seeing how it would stop anything as long as the two modalities share the same road. people are incarcerated and put to death for murder. People still murder.
They could make left turns only possible on a left arrow. Remove the choice. One can only turn when one is told with no oncoming traffic.
Based on experiences on 2nd Ave in Seattle where this is the case- Left turns across the bikeway only allowed when there is a left turn arrow – Drivers regularly ignore the red arrows and there is no police enforcement. In a perfect world this would be a decent solution. In reality I’ve had people roll their windows down and complain to me that they’re “confused” about no left on a red signal.
That’s one solution. It would increase delay to Powell during peak times and might be flashing yellow during off-peak, like during this crash time, so the outcome might not have changed.
Intersection geometry could alter the outcome as well, with a modern roundabout.
maybe. and roundabouts may only change the problem to right hooks however.
how so? There are no bike lanes in modern roundabouts, and in an ideal design the operational speed is 20 mph or less.
The best modern roundabout design for cyclists provides two choices. The more confident cyclist should merge with through traffic and circulate like a motorist. This is made easier by the low-speed operational environment of the modern roundabout, which should not exceed 20 mph (30 kph).
The less confident cyclist should be provided a ramp to exit the street and use a shared use path around the roundabout. Such paths should be at least ten feet wide (3 m) and cyclist operate at low speeds, crossing at the pedestrian crossings. http://tinyurl.com/roundabouts-and-bikes Sometimes space constraints, as with other intersection types, limit ideal design.
Bikes in roundabouts videos:
Clearwater Beach, Florida: http://vimeo.com/54317041
La Jolla, California : http://vimeo.com/61988764
Washington: http://tinyurl.com/reidmiddletonRAB
Bend, Oregon: http://tinyurl.com/bikesRABBendOR
New York DOT: http://tinyurl.com/bikeRABNYdot
Yes. Please let PBOT know at 503-823-SAFE (7233) or safe@portlandoregon.gov.
Just a few months ago three kids were killed while legally using a crosswalk. The driver was temporarily distracted, but the incident was classified as an accident and the driver wasn’t charged. THIS is what needs to stop. From the DA’s press release: “Oregon courts have held that “mere inadvertence, brief inattention, or errors in judgment” are not sufficient to charge a person with criminal homicide.” This needs to be changed. If you’re not paying attention, you’re not fulfilling your duties and responsibilities as a motor vehicle operator. I don’t think we’ll see any real change until drivers start losing licenses and going to prison.
“we live in a culture that tends to look the other way in situations where someone in a car maims another person who happens to be in their path. ”
You know… like this:
Legal killing: A Springfield man won’t face criminal homicide charges for “unwittingly” running a red light and crashing his pickup into three young children in a crosswalk, killing them.
from today’s Monday Roundup…
Better regulation and education for driver’s licenses would be a good start. Yearly book testing to renew a license with a driving skills test once every five years would help ensure that those with licenses actually know the laws and have the skills to safely handle a vehicle on the street. Having the licensee pay the full cost of all the testing means the city doesn’t lose out. Actual punishment for driving without a license or with an expired or suspended license, or without insurance might help deter people from getting in their cars anyway.
Mistakes and accidents are bound to happen; I realize we’re all human. But if most people were to start with a mentality that getting in their vehicle and pulling it into the public right of way represents a potential danger to other people, maybe we could get somewhere in helping to reduce the number of collisions on the road.
The factors that play into causing the majority of accidents – distraction, excessive speed, impatience, etc. – are not a mystery. The real problem is the mentality that “it won’t happen to me because I’m a good driver.” The city has plenty of tools in its toolbox to start working on the problem. It lacks completely the wherewithall put them to use.
!yltcaxe
Better road users is one of several strategies in a Safe Systems/Vision Zero holistic program.
We need to treat cars/trucks like helicopters. No, we probably can’t legislate away stupidity, rage, and poor judgment, but we could conceivably reduce the destructive potential of those choosing to exercise their right to any of the above by making it much, much harder to earn the driving privilege and much, much easier to lose it. And not just the privilege, but access to vehicles as well. I’ve said it before:
Do something egregious enough to get your license suspended (for traffic reasons; I can’t figure out why failure to pay child support, e.g., is attached to driving privileges)? Leave you car in the garage and take the bus, walk, bum rides, ride a bike, etc. until your suspension is up.
Get caught driving while suspended? Impound the car and revoke the license. You could redeem your car from impound if you wanted to, say, sell it; otherwise, after so long in impound it would go to auction or crusher.
Get caught driving while revoked? As soon as it can be ascertained that the car you were in was not stolen, said car goes directly to auction or crusher.
If you think revocation of your license poses such a hardship that you will be unable to provide for yourself or your family, then make very careful decisions about how you will drive, and think how much harder it would be from jail.
Other prohibitions on buying or renting cars by revoked, would-be drivers would need to be put in place as well, but I’m sure our brilliant lawmakers could come up with something.
So, I drive a big 40 foot long yellow school bus. I will be out there M-F about 4pm heading south. The drivers out there are predatory and feel entitlement because they are impatient and tend to forget that we all must share the road. I am very well aware of how dangerous all intersections are and this one in particular. I live in the neighborhood as well.
@Kyle In the military our level of responsibility was to confirm the result of an action, not to perform an action. Excuses become useless and pathetic.
For example, “I did not see you” automatically becomes an admission of guilt for negligence. This is the real problem with civilian motor vehicle operating regulations, because there is no real punishment for infractions that produce death or injury that would have been criminal if produced any other way. Excuses and pathetic gestures like staying at the scene – as if they had any other choice – somehow buy them good will.
This young man who lost a limb because a man whose access to machinery should have been revoked for life was allowed to continue endangering the public. Unfortunately, the vast majority of American motor vehicle operators I encounter have no idea what they are doing and don’t understand the law, because they don’t really have to. One simply has to take a short multiple choice questionnaire and pass marginally, and never have to do it again in their lifetime.
This is horrific to read 🙁
Awful news.
Yikes!
I’m glad no one has yet asked whether the man on the bike was wearing a helmet or reflective clothing.
What’s wrong with want to start a conversation?
Seriously? Helmets don’t protect your leg from being severed.
No, I’m not being serious.
Poe’s law, named after its author Nathan Poe,[1] is a literary adage which stipulates that, without a clear indicator of an author’s intention, it is often impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of such extremism.[2] Someone will likely mistake the parody for a genuine article, or vice-versa.[3]
@JohnDavisforOR Where are you now?
Wishing this cyclist had been wearing a reflective vest.
I was hit in exactly the same way: going south on SE 7th, crossing Morrison, and the driver never came to a full stop. I got lucky: I just clipped, so when I flew 20 feet thru the air, I only broke a few ribs, punctured my ribs, and had some internal organs bruised. Landed on my head & back together, so the helmet saved my life. I think it’s always worth the conversation to support helmets. Just like we do seat belts.
That said, I got off lucky when I was hit. I hope this guy recovers & is back riding before too long.
While questions of whether the person riding was or wasn’t wearing a helmet or visibility gear, don’t yet seem to have been posted to bikeportland, I’ve little doubt that many people reading and hearing about this collision, have been asking exactly those questions.
Bike helmets, visibility gear, and skill and knowledge related to riding in traffic amongst motor vehicles, all are basic safety measures that can help people riding bikes, avoid collisions.
It’s impossible to know, especially at this early point after this particular collision, whether or not helmets or visibility gear, or lack of them, whichever is the case, had any bearing on this collision having occurred.
In many common traffic situations, it seems that split seconds of awareness can mean the difference between close calls and collisions occurring, or not occurring.
Seriously? He was hit in broad daylight, and (as noted above) a helmet wouldn’t do anything to save his leg. He might’ve been more visible and protected wearing a safety orange colored padded space suit; should we pass a law to make that mandatory? I’ve read enough of our comments to know they can be a little off the deep end, but this takes the cake.
I’m curious if the driver of the truck was wearing a 5 point harness and a firesuit?
Exactly, I have a 5 point harness in my car, thinking about upgrading to 6 point for comfort, and I think every car should have one. They are a heck of a lot lighter than an airbag and the added structure needed to support an airbag in a wreck. About 2 pounds of belts and 10 pounds of structure compared to the 7 pounds and 50 pounds of structure needed for an airbag. Think about how much extra gas is needed to tote all that extra weight around, multiplied by all the airbags in a car.
Don’t forget to repaint your car in a hi-viz color as well. That drab grey blends in with the skyline during dusk and dawn.
“Seriously? He was hit in broad daylight, and (as noted above) a helmet wouldn’t do anything to save his leg. He might’ve been more visible and protected wearing a safety orange colored padded space suit; should we pass a law to make that mandatory? I’ve read enough of our comments to know they can be a little off the deep end, but this takes the cake.” resopmok
Yes, I’m serious. What is it you think I’m saying, that I did not write in the comment you’re responding to?
I did write, rather straight out, that it’s impossible to know whether use of safety gear could have been a factor that would have helped prevent this particular collision from happening.
Visibility of road users, definitely is a factor of consideration in understanding the occurrence of collisions. Investigators of this collision will be having to try answer the question of how visible were the persons riding, to other road users.
Actually, aside from helmets, you did not specify straight out what visibility or safety gear might have been present to help prevent this accident. Given that the accident occurred in broad daylight, the only conceivable thing not mentioned in the article that might have impeded the truck driver’s view of cyclists entering the intersection would have been another vehicle in front of them, and given the height of the truck’s cab over most other traffic, that too seems unlikely.
From what you wrote, it seems like you’re blaming the victim in this accident which, even from the preliminary evidence, is a pretty ridiculous assertion given the circumstances. Thus arose my question about whether you’re actually being serious, or just being controversial for the sake of doing so.
“…you did not specify straight out what visibility or safety gear might have been present to help prevent this accident. …” resopmok
Some people riding bikes, run their lights during the day: headlights and tail lights, as people riding motorcycles, are required to by law. On busy city streets, using daytime running lights may make particular sense, though I see some guys on the low traffic Fairmount Blvd loop that run them during the day.
Front and rear views of someone on a bike, are the smaller area of visibility, relative to side views. That area of visibility is obviously smaller than than provided by the front and rear of cars and trucks. Even front and rear views of people on motor vehicles, are almost always larger than that of people riding bikes.
Being vulnerable road users in a mixed vehicle traffic environment that includes the use of motor vehicles, people riding bikes are well advised to take advantage of all the safety enhancing help they can get.
In the aftermath of collisions involving people riding bikes and people driving, questioning whether reasonable measures were taken by people biking, that may have helped aid their visibility to other road users, and possibly have helped reduce the chances of the collision happening…is not ‘blaming the victim’.
Conscientious people should be able to consider all possible contributing elements relating to why a collision may have occurred, without jumping to conclusions before facts are in, that the person or persons injured in the collision, are at fault for the collision having happened.
“Bike helmets, visibility gear, and skill and knowledge related to riding in traffic amongst motor vehicles, all are basic safety measures that can help people riding bikes, avoid collisions.”
Wait a minute. Have you (again) forgotten that the aggressor, the source of the carnage, the weapon if you will was in this case the machine turning left? It’s all to the good to remember that we-who-ride can be extra vigilant, perspicacious, always expecting people driving to make stupid moves, your insistence on (only) this rankles.
If it had been a bike+rider turning left instead of a pickup truck, there would have been no limb severing. It is as simple as that.
Let’s also not forget that there were two riders, riding together; that arguably already upped their visibility by being in a group of two – more surface area, more objects in motion, etc. This has got to be either driver inattention or aggression. There was mention of a yellow light. Either the bike riders or the truck driver may or may have not been gunning to make the yellow, but in any case, the bikes, going straight, still had ROW. Did the truck even have a blinker on? That’s the question I want answered more than did a rider have a helmet or a day-glo vest.
The interesting thing about the yellow is that it was the same for both N/W- and S-bound parties. But the straight-has-right-of-way-over-turning seems to trump this, though in our highly imperfect world I won’t be surprised to learn that the police muddle the fault-finding/citation thing because *both* parties were traveling against a yellow light.
When entering an intersection, Oregon uses an interpretation of the yellow that requires you to stop if you can. ORS 811.260 states in part “If a driver cannot stop in safety, the driver may drive cautiously through the intersection.”
On several occasions I have had the experience of being in the intersection waiting for a gap in on-coming traffic so I could make a left turn, seeing the light turn yellow and having the on-coming motorist gun it to make it into the intersection “on the yellow.” I think it is far more likely that on Sunday morning at 26th/Powell that the motorist simply failed to yield the right of way, but the requirement to yield could possibly apply to the on-coming traffic depending on the signal.
I’m beginning to think at a GoPro camera should be on my helmet and in my car.
“…Did the truck even have a blinker on?…” John Lascurettes
That’s an mportant question to answer; and if the blinker was on, from what distance relative to the intersection, and also, in this particular situation, how visible was the blinker to other road users?
Another important question to answer: could the driver make do with a smaller, lighter vehicle? Trucks are dangerous and expensive to drive, I wonder if the driver was using the truck recreationally or for a legitimate purpose.
I don’t know if the model or what size it is has been specified, but I think another story has reported that vehicle drive, was a pickup truck. Pickups aren’t all big vehicles. Even a standard size pickup isn’t so big, if it hasn’t lifted and fitted with big rims and tires.
There are some pickups on the road with all that stuff, which truly make them like monsters. Even they though, can and are driven safely by good drivers. No road where motor vehicles are in use, is ever going to be a particularly safe place for someone to ride a bike.
I figure bikeportland’s staff’s intentions are good, when they like to say that ‘biking is safe’, but the reality is, biking amongst motor vehicles is very risky. Intersections are particularly dangerous. When I ride, I worry a lot about the left hook. Particularly at intersections where the light cycles are long. People get frustrated, waiting for the light to change, and their concentration lapses. Or, the light is green, and they try to get through the intersection before it changes to yellow or red, because they don’t want to have to wait three minutes through a red light cycle.
Biking defensively is about the best thing a person riding can do. And even then, the potential for something to go wrong, is a constant.
“…that the aggressor…” watts
Nothing reported so far, has indicated that the person driving was an aggressor; in other words: that the person driving, attacked the person on the bike. What’s been reported, is that for whatever reasons, possibly yet to be learned fully, the person driving, turned at a right angle relative to the direction the person riding was traveling, in a situation that contributed to the occurrence of a collision.
This was a collision between someone driving a motor vehicle, and someone riding a bike. These kinds of collisions are never good. The person riding the bike stands a far greater chance of losing their life, whether or not they’re the one turning.
“…the person driving, turned at a right angle relative to the direction the person riding was traveling, in a situation that contributed to the occurrence of a collision.”
O.K., if you prefer the obtuse to the straightforward….
My point was that the person riding a bike did nothing to endanger anyone else, and had the person in the pickup truck not been in a truck but on a bike as well, the chances of a crash occurring, never mind the severity of one, would have been much, much, much lower. I have never heard of someone on a bike severing anyone’s leg in the course of a collision. It seems pretty much inconceivable.
“…and had the person in the pickup truck not been in a truck…” watts
The mere fact of his driving a pickup truck, does not by itself make him an aggressor.
“The mere fact of his driving a pickup truck, does not by itself make him an aggressor.”
O.K. What do you call it when the difference between an impatient person making a left turn across the path of another road user on a bike and in a pickup can result in this kind of carnage? I appreciate you objecting to the word aggressor and welcome suggestions for a better word, but the fact remains that as flawed humans when you put us in cars bad things that wouldn’t happen outside of cars sometimes happen. Cars are a bad fit; they exaggerate the mistakes, the lapses of attention, the proclivity toward aggression, the carelessness that we exhibit as humans
Do you disagree with that?
From slim bits of info about the collision I’ve read about here on bikeportland stories and over at the Oregonian, I’d venture to say that ‘careless’, as used in Oregon statutes for careless driving, may characterize this driver. Results of a full investigation of the collision, people involved, and witnesses, that I hope is being conducted, may discover more about the driver, and how he was driving before the actual collision.
Another Car v Bike happened in this intersection 2-3 weeks ago. Driver hit a high school kid, similar circumstances, although I don’t think the injury was nearly as bad.
I live a block away, cross here on feet or bike several times a day. The intersection is very straight forward, few if any vision obstructions. Yet daily I see drivers not following signage, not respecting the bike box, and just generally not yielding or driving with caution.
Car traffic has a tendency to get jammed here during the rush, especially as parents drop kids at school. A lot of what I see is frustrated drivers, on powell and 26th alike, pushing the light and driving super agreasive.
Ugh:( this is down the street from me. The road is closed off and now the rerouted traffic is racing down our street at insane speeds. I have seen this same accident happen at that intersection with two cars. Portland needs to do something about that intersection! It’s dangerous for everyone. Powell is crazy people drive like they are on the freeway. I am so sad for the cyclists involved. Horrible.
Powell is a state highway. They’ve been soooo receptive to safety improvements on other state highways, like Barbur, I’m certain they’ll respond as quickly.
when they close off a street like this they need to put a couple motorcycle cops on the alternate routes to catch aggressive drivers…
actually, maybe they should randomly close streets just to set up a sting to catch people speeding down side-streets…
This is right in front of Cleveland High School where children walk and ride bikes, and get off the bus. I wonder how many have been killed and injured within 200 yards of this intersection?
Powell is unnecessarily dangerous and deadly for a neighborhood street – if they can’t make a highway safe there, then there shouldn’t be one – Period!
73 reported injuries since 2004
http://pdx.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=28c26c3acc604f2cba87aff0fe7f7b24
Hope the driver has lots and lots of insurance.
A left hook (car turns left, hits rider traveling straight in opposite direction) is a real danger, not just to cyclists but to motorcyclists and other drivers too. Hard for the going-straight person to guard against, because the closing speed is high(er) and there is usually little or no warning of the turning person’s maneuver.
Just read the KATU story and, judging from the picture of the truck, I’m guessing there may not be a big insurance pot for the cyclist to go after
🙁
We need higher mandatory liability limits.
Agreed, but in the meantime I recommend everyone get umbrella insurance to increase your own coverage. You can get it set up so that if you are hit by an uninsured person your coverage will pay out to you, and 1.5 million costs less than you’d think a year.
The PIP (personal injury protection) that you’re required to have if you have an auto insurance policy will also help cover injuries such as these.
The base 15k in PIP isn’t going to last long with a serious injury, and can only be used within the first year. As someone who was seriously injured by a driver I have ended up with lots of medical payments due to cronic injuries caused by the car that hit me which I have no way to recover. We need higher minimums and to do more to keep uninsured drivers off the road. In the meantime, the only thing you can really do is increase your own insurance coverage… I definately recommend that anyone hurt by a driver makes sure to try to get money to pay for future medical expenses too, because although you might feel better for awhile a serious injury is going to lead to complications down the road.
We just added an umbrella policy. The insurance company first required us to up limits on the basic policy as condition of the umbrella. $400/year to get $1M coverage.
In my opinion, if you’re a homeowner and a cyclist, an umbrella policy is a no-brainer, but there are other benefits as well.
You can mandate all you want with regard to insurance and licensing but significant numbers of people still choose to drive illegally.
Absolutely agree.
What we also need MORE is motorists actually HAVING the required insurance. The Insurance Information Institute estimates 9.0 percent of Oregon drivers are UNINSURED.
http://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/uninsured-motorists
I personally know three people who were involved in crashes caused by motorists without insurance. Two involved injuries.
Rather than having to provide proof of insurance every two years with vehicle registration renewal, I think it should be required every time you put gas in your vehicle. I envision a tag like the Fred Meyer rewards card you can get your 3 cent per gallon discount.
I like the idea of easily visible stickers, like registration.
I wasn’t thinking of a sticker, but rather a tag with a bar code that tied to an auto insurance website or a state data base. Or maybe you’d have an app on your phone proving insurance.
You or the attendant would have to scan it at the pump before the pump would dispense gas. So as to avoid someone being stranded due to some “glitch,” maybe the pump would allow a maximum of two gallons to be sold without getting a positive confirmation from the card reader at the pump.
… because government monitoring of how much and where one drives wouldn’t cause any concerns about privacy or anything. And of course the large oil corporations that collect this information wouldn’t try to use it for their own purposes or advertising, and there’d be no risk of that information leaking from poor IT/security practices or anything. I’m sure I’m the only one to think of a trivial bypass of such measures by claiming the gas is for a lawn mower, boat, camp stove, tractor, etc.
When one’s insurance lapses, it is already reported to the state by the company that provided the lapsed policy. This already triggers a driver’s license suspension unless the driver provides proof of coverage under a new policy. Penalties for driving on a suspended license are already pretty steep. How much do you want to prioritize police traffic enforcement to catch those people vs. other police efforts like bike theft, criminal investigations, and so forth?
Sources… Not in WA or OR as far as I know.
My source in this case is my own experience. When I switched insurance companies, the paperwork on the new company got screwed up and I received a suspension notice in the mail. When I called my insurance company to “wtf?!” at them, they realized the mistake and explained that this is how it works. I had to go in to DMV and sign a sworn affidavit plus present the new insurance card to get them to rescind the suspension. DMV told me that the sworn affidavit is really just icing on the cake; they actually verify my policy number and expiration date with the insurance company through some sort of e-clearance system. That verification isn’t done as a matter of routine, only as a requirement to clear a pending suspension. (And no, I’m not required to file SR22 or anything like that, so there’s no reason why anyone else would be different.)
Well it doesn’t typically happen. I have more than one car, and sometimes I drop insurance off my truck that I won’t be driving in the winter. They never notify the state as far as I know, and I’ve never had my license suspended.
Looks like a Burner’s truck. Probably not insured at all.
I have to bike through this intersection on my bike several times a day and I feel like I’m gambling with my life every time. 1) The N/S light is way too short (and the E/W too long), so everyone speeds through. 2) No one enforces the green boxes, so a lot of the cars turn right on red 3) There are no alternatives for crossing Powell within 6 blocks 4) Traffic on 26th has gotten progressively worse over the years with no change in traffic patterns to accommodate it (a left turn signal would be pretty useful).
The section directly in front of Cleveland HS is especially dangerous with the bike lane frequently blocked by buses in the bus stop, parents dropping off/picking up their kids at school (because the kids can’t seem to walk half a block, I guess), and, during rainy season, a poorly drained lake at the corner. All factors that force cyclists into the car lane.
“parents dropping off/picking up their kids at school”
Why do so many drivers around here think that it’s perfectly acceptable to temporarily park in a bike lane? I see it happening all the time with impunity.
Because it *is* perfectly acceptable – the law provides for it:
“When applicable, this subsection exempts vehicles stopped, standing or parked momentarily to pick up or discharge a passenger.” (ORS 811.560)
The same law exempts school buses and trucks, both of which stop in front of Cleveland High. The real question is why is it acceptable for *any* vehicle to stop and load/unload on 26th rather than one of the other adjacent streets? The traffic load on 26th is too high for that to be safe and drop-offs should really be on either 28th or Franklin. That’s not going to happen, though, because really the main issue is that the streets around Cleveland High are totally unacceptable for car/bus pick up and drop off from an engineering standpoint.
Unfortunately, it’s a challenging situation – the area grew up organically, so the structural issues involved are not easily addressed.
although technically a generally legal move, it’s illegal here on 26th because it also impedes traffic since you can’t get out of the narrow travel lane far enough to allow vehicles to pass you within their lane…
Ah yes, the sacred “Right Turn On Red”…
This is horrible news and another reminder that we need existing laws actually enforced (how many people here have near misses every single day?) & infrastructure installed to protect cyclists.
We were right there when it happened. Horrific situation.
Is the 20’s bikeway reroute in this article related to the bike lane expansion that people in Eastmoreland are rallying against because they don’t want to lose on-street parking?
I hope this tragedy helps put things in perspective for people. Creating safe routes for people to travel, and saving lives and limbs, is much more important than preserving on-street parking. Let’s get the 20’s bikeway done right!
I hope that the struck cyclist has the best possible recovery, given the circumstances. It’s such a tragedy.
I don’t think it is – this is a good bit north of the route choices in question in Eastmoreland.
As to Eastmoreland bike lane protest, nobody in Eastmorleand cares except the three mansions across from Reed on Moreland Ave. They want additional parking on Woodstock in addition to there private driveways and Moreland Ave.
And, from what we saw, the Bicycle clipped the rear right bumper. The bikes were blowing through the intersection on a yellow. We helped with the young man when he went down. Please be careful folks!
If that’s the case, how did his leg get run over?
By “blow” you must mean proceeding through an intersection where they had the right of way.
I’m not sure if you haven’t been driving long, or just aren’t familiar, but if you’re going straight you have the right of way. The truck is the only one that “blew” through.
The Truck was in the process of turning when the bicyclist entered the intersection from what I saw. Were you there?
If you believe that a left turning vehicle has the right-of-way in an intersection, I would ask that you familiarize yourself with the Orgegon law regarding left turns
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/811.350
or please, please, please stop driving.
Several things, I’ve lived in the immediate neighborhood 26 years, this has always been a problematic intersection. The state would never allow a left turn signal because it would slow traffic on Powell too much!!!! I used to drive this to work every morning, car or scooter,and at rush traffic backs up and you can wait several cycles to make a left turn from 28th. I’m not justifying people’s impatience, but I’m sure every driver has somewhere they need to be. Our work a day world gets faster and faster. When the bike boxes went in, it slowed the intersection more! My son got hit here a few years ago by a parent dropping off their precious teenager at school! I quit using 28th and take alternative routes unless I’m walking. Usually the intersection works better on the weekends without the rush/business traffic. Solutions: State put in left turn signals!!! And, the rest of us, drivers, riders and walkers…cross respectively and responsibly…as if your life depended on it. Don’t expect others to watch out for you. One last thing…there will never be enough traffic officers to monitor every problematic intersection in a City with over 10,000 miles of streets. We each have to slow down, pay attention and follow the rules!!!
Oops, I wrote “turn left on 28th”…I meant 26th!!!
I just wanted to add here that I have been riding that area since Highschool in the early 80’s. This intersection has always been dangerous, trying to go straight through there on a bike is very dangerous. Turning in a car off of 26th onto Powell Blvd take several cycles of the light so N/S drivers blow right through not allowing other road users the ability to turn E/W onto Powell Blvd. Lights are jumped at above speed limit pace every cycle of the lights. I have always avoided this intersection even in a car if I plan to turn onto Powell Blvd from 26th. I always drop down below the park and take the bike friendly 21st Ave across Powell where there is a light and crosswalk! Cyclist take 21St ave it’s a safe and easy route across Powell and connects to Lad’s Edition. Use Gladstone or Clinton to get down to 21st Ave.
To get to Cleveland High School from the south there’s not really any alternative to using 26th.
Yes there is 21st Ave on the other end of the park, which has been a bike thoroughfare since the 80’s. That is what they put the cross walk in on 28th after Cleveland students protested.
I’m familiar with the signal at 21st and Powell. That’s the route I choose when heading to downtown. But expecting kids living in Reedway, Eastmoreland, and Kenilworth to go as far west as 21st only to return east to Cleveland at 26th/Powell is a bit much.
I’m always much more scared crossing Powell at 21st than at 26th… on 21st there’s usually a couple cars turning left in each direction waiting for each other to turn… if you try to go around them you risk getting left-hooked by the oncoming vehicle… or somebody a couple cars back will decide to suddenly illegally pass on the right because the person behind the turning car isn’t…
no, I’ll take my chances at 26th where everybody has their own clearly defined lanes…
Quick note: at the request of a witness who says he picked the man’s leg off the street this morning and applied the first tourniquet, I’ve unpublished several comments he made on this thread.
He expressed horror and also said the truck “was in the process of turning when the bicyclist entered the intersection” on a yellow light.
I unpublished because he asked me to after several other people responded harshly to the implication that the person on the bike might be at fault. I’ve summarized the content of his comments because they’re newsworthy, but deferred to his request to unpublish them because he has obviously had a very difficult day and doesn’t need to be in the middle of this right now.
Everyone: please act with compassion toward one another in this awful situation and refrain from passing judgment on the situation (even if you were present) until more of the facts are established.
I agree with your sentiment Michael and it was probably a good idea to remove the original post, but I didn’t see any “harsh” responses.
Thanks, SD. And yes, we wouldn’t have unpublished them if the original poster hadn’t asked us to on an already very bad day for him. Hopefully the summary I posted covers both sides of the matter adequately.
And just for the record: even if a person is entering an intersection on a yellow, someone going straight has the right of way over someone turning.
“Picked the man’s leg off the street…”
Not something any of us would ever want to do! And not something this person is ever going to forget.
Who expects their Sunday in Portland to suddenly turn so traumatic??
Witnesses with credible accounts of circumstances of the collision will be important to investigators’ efforts to understand how the collision happened, and why. It was a responsible move for bikeportland to unpublish the witnesses’ comments at his request. At this point, bikeportland readers knowing there were witnesses, is good.
For people thinking about how responsibility for collisions should be assigned, and that have questions about how well prepared laws and the judicial system are, to do that, there was an opinion piece in today’s Oregonian, on that subject:
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/05/when_a_tragic_accident_is_just.html#incart_2box_opinion_index.ssf
…the opinion piece is in response to a tragic collision involving someone driving, and people crossing the street; and the conclusion the district attorney had to come to in deciding whether or not charges could be brought against the person driving.
That opinion by the Oregonian Editorial Board was BS.
“That opinion by the Oregonian Editorial Board was BS.” J_R
I’d be interested in reading what your reasons for thinking so, are. The Oregonian editorial, fairly simply, laid out the situation related to citing road users for collisions they’re involved in.
Neither law enforcement or the justice system can charge people for acts the law doesn’t provide for. Anyone with ideas for altering current laws in ways they feel would more justly and effectively reduce collisions, is welcome to put their ideas into some readable form, and propose them for other people’s consideration. Why not give it a try?
“Why not give it a try?”
Here we go again: wsbob’s favorite riposte: why don’t you come up with the draft text of a law, shop it around, and see where this goes?
“…“Why not give it a try?” wsbob
watts…so why don’t you give it a try, for a change, instead of just complaining about people that encourage you to do so?
http://bikeportland.org/2014/09/20/san-diego-bike-coalition-board-member-critical-condition-rear-end-collision-111212#comment-5542435
It’s a witnesses statement and it is a part of the story. You can change the statement to be from a witness who does not wish to be named, but to remove it altogether seems like whitewashing.
SE 26th at Powell and south of that intersection has become a nightmare with the recent increases in big truck traffic from the Brooklyn yard and speeders. I’ve been nagging the city about enforcement but haven’t gotten anywhere with them yet. I don’t even know if they can since there are missing speed limit signs they haven’t gotten around to replacing.
Did you call in missing speed limit signs to 823-SAFE, or 823-1700?
Is there anything set up for this guy. I want to help out with a little cash if I can. He will have to sue the city before he ever sees a penny from the guy who hit him.
I want out officials in City hall and the Police department as well ODOT to start to be accountable for the people who face the dangers of Powell. This should not be confused with taking the blame, but instead what are we finally gonna do about and who is gonna champion it for us.
TV news just dug up the driver’s record. Surprise, surprise: a history of violations and endangering the public. Go figure, it seems being a screwup once, correlates strongly with being a screwup again. Should’ve lost his license a while ago.
I’ve actually witnessed a bike / car accident at this intersection, though the injuries in that case weren’t significant. Be careful everyone and watch out for each other.
Can the DMV, city, or state of Oregon be sued, if they are in fact allowing drivers to continue owning 6000+ pound vehicles after they’ve violated safe driving laws? After reading about crosswalk stings on this site, we know it is the case that cars are becoming allowed weapons in the hands of certain unlawful drivers. Let’s get cars out of the hands of irresponsible drivers.
How does the state prevent someone from buying a car?
It could refuse to register it at least. The registration form is ODL/ID/ Customer #.
The lack of a license plate is a good tip off that something is wrong.
I think the bike riders here in Portland are among the worst, most careless and most aggressive that I’ve ever seen.
A bike is far more agile and responsive than a car, not to mention nearly impossible to see at times. It’s a rider’s responsibility to watch everything all the time and be ready for anything.
That truck turning left – you have to anticipate that as a bike, not tear into intersections like everyone sees and loves you.
I spent five years as a messenger in Manhattan. Bikers here wouldn’t last five minutes riding with Portland carelessness.
” It’s a rider’s responsibility to watch everything all the time and be ready for anything.”
Is that not also true of automobile drivers? And yet, here we are, that responsibility having lapsed on the part of one or both parties involved. A bicycle has good maneuverability, but that doesn’t make it possible to avoid any/everything. Pedestrians are even more capable of rapid direction change, but that doesn’t make them immune from collisions, even if they are paying attention and being defensive.
Red light cameras. Yesterday.
Screw putting them in the hands of the government; they’ll just sit on the footage.
Get permission from private property owners to put Wi-Fi solar powered webcams on their site aimed at the intersection.
EVERY intersection.
Find some local techy to set up a cloud DVR for footage archiving but all video streams of public streets and intersections would be open, live and free for anyone to view. Hopefully a couple days worth could be retained for all cameras while footage important to an incident could be offloaded to a legal firm.
Who knows: live cameras at every intersection or known hazard could make everyone behave, including abusive authority figures.
If putting up cameras, its critical to provided indication, and the right kind of indication, that the intersection is being watched. Studies have shown people behave significantly better in general when they believe they are being watched. What seems work especially well are eyeballs, or so called watchful eyes. An interesting project might be to take baseline footage at an intersection, then paint eyeballs on the road, maybe placemaking style, or using art crosswalks, then compare the new footage to baseline.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-illusion-of-being-observed-can-make-you-better-person/
Also see…
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140209-being-watched-why-thats-good
This has been shown for various situations, but I could not find that this had ever been tried for improving road safety independent of red light cameras. Maybe a good Vision Zero project.
Never said they should be invisible or hidden. I’d want the fact that the cameras provide live and useful footage to be something that angry drivers can verify on YouTube at their leisure; hopefully not while driving.
Private property owners seem less able to issue citations. Let’s focus on feasible solutions.
<exasperated incredulity>
Where at ANY point did I suggest that private property owners should be issuing citations?!?!?
Or even MENTION citations?
</exasperated incredulity>
POLICE speed cameras can’t issue citations in Oregon; only the physical officer physically on site is authorized to physically issue a citation. I see this as a big problem.
Red light cameras, with which I have no problem being everywhere, only work well within the very regimented domain of a signalized 4-way intersection.
They only collect video for the miniscule physical area and equally miniscule time slice where a red light violation takes place.
Then the footage is either owned by the red light camera company or the police neither of which has any motivation to release it for anything less than a court order.
If the recent police abuse prosecutions in other big American cites shows anything it’s that the only witness statement that will stand up in court in a life-and-death situation is the witness statement of a video camera.
Red light camera systems will only ever cover signalized intersections. There are SO many other places people are getting injured and killed on American roads with no one to speak for them.
There isn’t enough money nor popular support for all the police enforcement that would be needed to force people to drive safely.
So I propose an entirely decentralized system of cameras that:
() explicitly shares all video to the public for free
() only records public travel ways; roads AND sidewalks. (1) (2)
() streaming as live as possible to a web service as easy as possible to use so retired people could keep an eye on parts of their neighborhood that are important to them.
() retains a minimum of 48 hours of footage from all cameras
() any video requested after the fact bumps all specified and adjacent camera footage to 5 business days retention status
() any video requested by legal firms, courts or police would be flagged for permanent retention but not hidden from the public in any way. Just because a lawyer wants to use camera footage in court does not make it secret.
() hopefully has multiple overlapping views. A 4-way intersection should reasonably have at least 4 cameras aiming from a corner towards the corner diagonally opposite.
() is as cost free for the property owner as possible. Solar power with batteries and Wi-Fi data link means the worst negotiation point is where to put it.
There is no reason not to drag our police departments, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century with current technologies that would allow for much more efficient use of manpower.
We can’t delude ourselves into believing that a public entity such as ODOT or PPD will be concerned with anything other than greasing the squeakiest wheel.
We are on our own as always but having irrefutable video evidence will bring some equity to the historic imbalance of power in the automobile’s war on all life.
(1) Some of the most disturbing crash video I’ve seen is from external CCTV of a street level store front as a high speed vehicle mows down people who thought they were safe on the sidewalk… Then the driver tries to leave because the only obvious witnesses are dead or unconscious.
(2) with physical obstructions in/on the camera blocking view of private property.
The report is everyone entered on a yellow light. Red light enforcement would not have been triggered.
Has anyone been in touch with Clackamas Bike Gallery in regards to a donation fund yet?
When do we lower speed limits on all streets not designated as a freeway? My suspicion, besides the obvious fact that reducing speed limits to 25 MPH saves Lives by 40%, but people in general might be less harried, relax a little as they drive if 25 MPH was the max.
It would be interesting to find out why so many people leave kids (older kids too boot?) off at a local high school. I road my bike from 3rd grade through 12th or walked the mere mile or 2.
However….
Part of the problem might be a boundary issue.
I discovered our child would go to Cleveland, and we live clear up at SE 52nd near SE Woodstock. Don’t get me wrong, I would encourage riding & it is only about 2.5 miles.. but that seems far for a local school, especially considering Franklin is barely a 1/4 mile from us.
Redraw some boundaries, arrange classrooms and instruction according to nearby population needs at each school? More outreach encouraging actively arriving at school via foot and bike?
Perhaps Portland could be bold enough to lower speed limits and save Lives. I recall streets adjacent to school and near neighborhoods and services in many parts of Europe, all with limits 20 mph or less.
When are we going to crack down on poor driving records, male people much more accountable? There is no excuse for allowing someone who has more than once been accountable for endangering anyone on the road the right to a driver’s license.
I sincerely feel it is not a right but privilege to be able to drive, heard that throughout my life, but the actions legally say something completely different.
What you’re calling for has (recently) started to be called Vision Zero. Our city officials have been talking it up here lately. But ODOT couldn’t care less. And this being an ODOT ‘facility,’ we may have to wait a looooong time. But PBOT could put pressure on their counterparts at ODOT, encourage the old guard to retire, etc.
Portland, no city in Oregon, can set it’s own speed limits other than in school and business zones (defined by the State).
Even the OAR 734.020.00515 that permits Portland to use an alternate investigation method, still leaves control with the State.
Not necessarily a bad thing for Portland. Liability can be a pit to get stuck in and very costly. The current system somewhat shields cities, big and small. PBOT and ODOT have begun discussing how to move forward on OAR 734.020.0015 (3).
News comes in from the eye witness that the truck was in the process of turning when the bike entered the intersection on a yellow light.
Could it be the biker endangered himself with the kind of recklessness I see in biker daily in Portland?
The determination of who has right of way at an intersection with traffic signals isn’t governed the same as with stop signs. Just because the truck got there first doesn’t mean they have right of way over oncoming traffic. And that the light was yellow also makes no difference, the turning vehicle is required to wait until the intersection is clear. Perhaps things work differently in New York, but last I checked, this is the case across all 50 states.
You might want to clue yourself in to who has the right of way in this situation. (hint: it wasn’t the truck). Until then, I suggest you put away your keys before you injure or kill someone.
This intersection is a big problem. PBOT really needs to put the screws on ODOT to get a dedicated light at 28th. Too many high school kids playing Frogger just to cross the street. Not to mention a Somali population that lives just south of Powell.
Exactly three weeks ago, my wife and I were riding our tandem at 160th & Halsey when we were hit by a woman who was just sure that she could beat us across Barr Rd (she couldn’t). She hit us at about a 45 degree angle still driving at the 40 mph speed limit. Fortunately, we are both still alive and have all our limbs. But, it was close – very close. My left elbow had to be completely rebuilt, and the chance of ever having full use of my left arm again are slim. Oh, did I mention, I’m left-handed?
I started riding avidly in the Portland area in 1980. In the past 35 years the cycling scene has changed dramatically, and for the better. I am one of the few who can remember when the SE 26th Ave bike lanes were added. You think it’s a dangerous street now – think about how bad it was then. But we still have a long way to go. Greater insurance liability limits are not the answer. That only helps after someone is hurt. We need to continue to be more visible and require bicycle awareness education in order to get a driver license. The greater the expectation that drivers will encounter a cyclist on any street and at any intersection, the safer we will be.
The really upsetting part of this story is the driver hasn’t been cited. Why not? That he made an illegal left turn is glaringly obvious. If drivers know that they will be held accountable for their actions that hurt other people, they will be more careful. If they think they can get away with it, we create a war zone mentality.
Thanks for pointing out the not-yet-cited part of the story. As you say, this sends a very powerful if perhaps also subliminal signal to anyone in a car that they may get off – even if this guy does, eventually, get cited, and he probably will.
Someone always wants to know why the driver wasn’t cited. The answer is always the same, double jeopardy. If the DA determines there was a crime, the driver will be charged. If not, the driver will be cited by the police.
In either case, civil penalties still apply, if possible.
I’m not a lawyer, but I think your explanation is nonsense. I’d like a real lawyer to explain it.
I found the following definition:
“A second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction or multiple punishments for same offense. The evil sought to be avoided by prohibiting double jeopardy is double trial and double conviction, not necessarily double punishment.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, “No person shall … be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This provision, known as the Double Jeopardy Clause, prohibits state and federal governments from prosecuting individuals for the same crime on more than one occasion, or imposing more than one punishment for a single offense. Each of the 50 states offers similar protection through its own constitution, statutes, and Common Law.”
As I understand it, additional charges or amended charges can be levied against an offender. It seems it’s just sloppiness on the part of the law enforcement personnel or prosecutors.
“… riding our tandem at 160th & Halsey when we were hit by a woman who was just sure that she could beat us across Barr Rd (she couldn’t).”
People seem to inaccurately judge bicycle speeds, and that’s *especially* true with tandems. Even other bicyclists seem to frequently get it wrong. I’m always more worried on the tandem than riding individually. I can take drastic evasive action with a short wheelbase and only my own weight to move; the options are much more limited when it might not even be possible to warn the stoker in time to react.
This is just terrible… I can’t stand that intersection, and for my daily commute just about always use the one down at 21st, which isn’t a whole lot better. Blerghghg.
Like to see Bike Gallery institute a company policy that all company trucks must be driven at 10MPH below posted speed limits. Company management should brag about this and use it as a major advertising hook–i.e. “We’re Bike Gallery. Yes, we need motor vehicles but we try to be civilized about it.” That might put their advertising up at the awesome level of River City’s.
What does the Bike Gallery have to do with this story? Did I miss something?
The assault victim works there.
Oh, I see. Thanks.
“Brandon Bruins, a manager at the Clackamas Bike Gallery, said Corkett and a man who was riding with him were both employees there, and that Corkett had raced bicycles for years. “
I might start crossing @ 21st, seems slower/safer. Or maybe cut through Powell park and cross at the crosswalk, where cars are only coming at you in 2 directions
Downhill bike rider. The big thing I’ve been trying to tell non riders is that bikes go faster than you think. Driver may have seen them and still not yielded because bikes are “slow”.
The mechanics of actually severing a leg in the street. Can we at least get this guy an equipment violation for sharp edges or something?
How tactless of Nick Caleb to use a tragedy as an opportunity for campaign messaging.
How about all Portland-area bike wholesalers and manufacturers who have company motor vehicles driving below posted speeds? Advertise as a group? King, Cyclone, others? Any comments? Here’s a free slogan “Yes, we have to drive sometimes but we try to be civilized about it.”
This is awful. We need protected bike lanes!
26th is too narrow. It would require major reconstruction here. There are plenty of places in Portland without bike infrastructure. Turn signal phases would be relatively inexpensive compared to roadway reconstruction for multiple blocks.
I meant for Powell, but 26th is definitely not too narrow. Remove street parking and the left turn lane on 26th and there’s plenty of room for raised, Copenhagen-style bike lanes.
I’m failing to see how protected bike lanes would have helped this situation (which happened in an intersection).
http://protectedintersection.com/
I’m disappointed in the language used in this article. This was not a collision between a bicycle and a truck. There were people operating them. Bike Portland should know better and use “person riding a bike” and “the person turned his truck”; not “the bike” and “the truck turned”.
One of the postings on the Oregonian website on Sunday morning had the following quote:
“When Weiss asked Portland police spokesman Sgt. Brian Schmautz for clarification, here’s what Schmautz said “..yielding the right of way, and determining whether a traffic violation has occurred, comes down to a matter of perception. Basically, the driver has to perceive he has to yield the right of way.”
I’ve looked for this on the Portland police website, the Oregonian, and those of KGW, KOIN, and KPTV. Does anyone know if this is accurate or where it came from?
If anyone can track it down, I’d like to get explanations from the mayor and the police chief about why their spokesman is offering up a new excuse for motorists based on “a matter of perception.”
Can anyone help?
J_R, maybe there’s an ORS that gives guidelines as to how accurate a driver’s perception must be before they’re allowed to drive, but the Oregon Driver Manual doesn’t mention perception. It states: “A green signal means go. Cautiously enter the intersection…Be aware of any vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians remaining in the intersection before you move ahead…Remember: If you are making a left or right turn, you must yield to oncoming traffic and pedestrians.” http://www.odot.state.or.us/forms/dmv/37.pdf (see pg 24-25 of the PDF or 32-33 of the online page).
Isn’t that what DMV driver’s license tests are for, to make sure drivers are able to properly perceive (see) bikes, people walking, signeage, etc?
Oh–but as to the accuracy of Sgt. Brian Schmautz’s statement–which I now realize is what you meant–I didn’t see that myself…
Hmm–could that quote have been taken from this? http://bikeportland.org/2007/10/24/when-failure-to-yield-isnt-5663
Thanks for that reference. I was under the impression that the quote was from a statement made on May 10, 2014. Obviously that was not the case; I’m glad I didn’t start a campaign railing against PPB based on that old quote (even if it was unfounded at that time.)
“I’d like to get explanations from the mayor and the police chief about why their spokesman is offering up a new excuse for motorists based on ‘a matter of perception.'”
Perhaps the Portland police are reading from the same playbook as the Eugene law enforcement who couldn’t figure out how to cite the man who ran a red light and then killed three children in a crosswalk (from today’s Monday Roundup –
“In order to prosecute LaThorpe, authorities would have needed proof that he ‘should have been aware’ of a problem with his own driving at the time of the crash, Gardner said.”
Dragging perception, judgment, and all the other exonerating bits into this is classic Car-head. When someone in a car does something irrevocable like kill or maim someone not in a car, law enforcement bends over backwards to find some weasel-clause to get them off. But when someone on a bike does anything a cop notices or imagines to be problematic, even when it is legal and harms no one, they get cited.
unfortunately there is a difference between “citing” a driver and “prosecuting” a driver.
– Citing is a term used for traffic enforcement or issuing a Citation for a traffic infraction. (only police do this)
– Prosecuting means that the state would be filing criminal charges against the driver for committing a crime. (only a DA can do this)
Unfortunately the two do not go hand and hand, most traffic laws do not allow for criminal prosecution and vice versa. Or to be more clear it is extremely hard (and costly, politically and to tax payers) for the DA to seek criminal charges of someone operating a motor vehicle, literally voids most criminal law. A person driving a car can literally get a way with murder in 99% of instances.
This is what needs to change in our criminal legal system, DA’s should be bound to prosecute when someone operating a vehicle causes bodily harm or death. And the term “accident” should be legally defined as any collision that only causes damage to property and does not cause damage or harm to any person.
We would only need to pass one law to change all of this, adding “traffic violence” to the criminal code and defining it as “any traffic collision that causes harm or death to a person” would open a huge door for DA’s to prosecute negligent drivers.
Talk about scared straight?! Drivers would drive with the “fear” of making a mistake like nobodies business! I wouldn’t be surprised if the complete opposite effect of everyone being cited for driving to slow, to carefully and with to much purpose would happen.
“Basically, the driver has to perceive he has to yield the right of way.”
I am trying to imagine how this would work if the police bothered to take the perspective of the person on a bike…
“Basically, the cyclist has to realize that the driver [who doesn’t have the right of way, ed.] must perceive he has to yield the right of way.” So, in other words, forget it.
Hm. When I look at an example from the ORS, pertaining to yielding to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, it says this:
“811.025 Failure to yield to pedestrian on sidewalk
(1) The driver of a vehicle commits the offense of failure to yield to a pedestrian on a sidewalk if the driver does not yield the right of way to any pedestrian on a sidewalk.”
There is no mention of whether the driver must perceive a need to yield, as it would be if the law said, “…if, after perceiving a need to yield, the driver does not yield…”
If you run over someone, reality is reality, regardless of your “perception”.
oops sidewalk, not crosswalk.
ORS 811.025 is a class B traffic violation, not a crime. I would imagine they maybe could have cited the driver for that, but a $260 ticket is little consolation or remedy. Civil compensation would likely have to stem from some sort of negligence. Criminal conviction would demand proof of reckless disregard or extreme indifference or something along those lines, and one can’t disregard or be indifferent to facts of which one is unaware.
All I was attempting to do was point out that “perceiving a need” to yield was not in the law; I don’t know how it crept into Law Enforcement’s guidelines for issuing citations (in reference to the quote of a quote from Sgt. Brian Schmautz, PPB: “…the driver has to perceive he has to yield the right of way.”). If this is really the way police are making determinations of whether or not a violation occurred, then, “I just didn’t see him, officer!” has truly become the catch-all, get out of jail free card.
I realize there are subtleties involved in whether or not a driver is cited immediately, or only after an investigation to find out whether there is a more serious charge to be brought.
Please share.
Cycling Community,
I’m Alistair’s cycling coach and I’ve setup a GoFundMe campaign to help
defray some of the costs that Alistair will face in the wake of his
accident yesterday. In addition to more surgeries and physical therapy he
faces the expense of prosthetic devices to regain his mobility that will
exceed $50,000.
This fundraising campaign is setup so that all of the money is directed to
Alistair. I am only involved to the extent that I set it up and will be
working to get the word out to the community. Alistair is an incredible
kid, please help if you can.
http://www.gofundme.com/u977qs
thanks,
Bryant Howard
This is the cost of not building highways to Gresham. The higher traffic volumes forces bad decisions all the way down Powell. The pedestrian and bicycle accidents don’t lie.
There is a highway all the way to Gresham. It actually ends in Utah.
Are you wanting to revisit the 1974 decision to abandon the Mt. Hood Freeway?
The city and state know all too well this is a major problem area. Whether they do anything soon is debatable. ODOT has a good chunk of money slated for unnamed changes in the next 5ish years though, and if they can come to terms with the city on the bikeway, that will also help.
I bike across Powell 2x a day to get to 29th and Powell for work. I first tried using this signal to turn left onto the sidewalk but found it terrifying with all the red/yellow light runners on 26th. Now I go up around Cleveland and cross in the crosswalk. Among concerns I’ve seen:
– there are NO GOOD OPTIONS to get across Powell
– police are no help wrt enforcement; rather than ticket non-compliant motorists, a motorcycle cop once yelled at me to get off my bike at the crosswalk to “get more people to stop.” Maybe more people would stop if he ticketed them for failing to stop?
– others have noted the lack of a green arrow for N/S bound traffic. This encourages red light runners that have waited to turn left
– Others have noted the terrible situation and behavior around Cleveland High. Parents and students do the stupidest things ranging from stopping mid-block and mid-lane to drop off to dashing across Powell and/or 26th mid-block with no warning.
This is admittedly a rough spot with lots of things working against it. Unfortunately ODOT and PBOT seem to have just thrown their hands up in frustration and given up. How many more people will be maimed or killed before something changes?
And finally, how was there no Failure to Yield ROW? With that decision, the city remains culpable for the next similar crash.
I was so sad for the cyclist when I heard about this accident on the radio this morning. I hope the driver of the truck is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I will be walking my bike in the crosswalks at this intersection from now on. It sounds so dangerous – I just don’t want to get hit.
I was the cyclist that was nearly hit one week ago, where the driver ran over the kid walking into Cleveland. The light was red on Powell for a second or two, I started riding northbound (first out of the bike box) and as I approached the first lane, someone honked. I looked up, saw a white ford explorer heading eastbound blow through the intersection at 25-30 mph. I turned my bars, he swerved slightly and I felt the wind from the car literally inches from me. He would have killed me at that speed. The kid, unfortunately, was just ahead of me in the walk and got kicked up over the front fender landing on his back. I held c spine until the ambulance showed up and it appeared it was okay. Whoever was out there honking, thank you.
And seriously, this is a dangerous intersection. That kid or I could have easily been dead. It was an older gentleman driver that possibly mistook the gas from the brake. He was accelerating as he passed me into the cross walk. The lady behind me on a bike, helped me with the kid and told me she gives it a two count before she enters the intersection typically. I no longer ride through this intersection.
There was a fund raising site set up for him if anyone is interested in contributing.
http://www.gofundme.com/alistaircorkett
$46,000 already. Wow.
I too must say something in support of neither cyclists nor motorists, but common sense.
I would have to say that nearly 80% of the cyclists (not just in pdx or (Manhattan–whatever), do not obey the rules of the road. That number exaggerates the more elite the cyclist i.e. Pinnarelo = speed)
It seems tighter lycra = arrogance. Some of the worst people I have ever ridden with have been racers.
Cyclists need to slow down and anticipate what the motorist is going to do. Motorists need to understand and accept cyclists just like pot, gay marriage and the fact that Blockbuster video no longer exists and we can all just live in harmony
We all just need to get along. An investigation into what really happened is underway and there are two victims here, folks: Alistaire AND the driver. I am sure he never wanted this to happen no matter what his previous driving record.
Best wishes to both of these men as they recover.
Wow, it is pretty bad when you see people advocate for no consequences for drivers whose inattention or illegal actions cause severe injuries to others, but it crosses into a whole new zone when someone tries to classify them as the victim.
Curious here…riddle me this: how the hell is a cyclist HITTING THE REAR BUMPER OF A VEHICLE the result of a drivers inattention and illegal actions?
Same as if a car hit the rear of a vehicle that turned in front of them when they had the right of way so closely that it was impossible for them to avoid a collision. Do you really not get that when someone illegally cuts someone off they are at fault?
Do you not get that the cyclist was going TOO FAST and hit a truck? One does not sever ones leg by going too slow on a bike. He was obviously going too fast that he couldnt stop, and lost his leg as a result.
“TOO FAST”. Are you sure you don’t mean “at a high rate of speed”? As far as I can tell, the speed limit here is 25 mph, do you think the bicyclists in this incident were going faster than that? Had another car clipped the bumper of the truck after being cut off, would you be certain that the driver was going “TOO FAST”? If you were driving a car straight through an intersection in a 25 mph zone, how fast would you be going? Let’s say you’re driving down the road, minding your own business—even going the speed limit—and a pedestrian jumps in front of you and you hit them. Were you going “TOO FAST”?
Had this cyclist been going EVEN FASTER, the truck would have hit the bicyclist—then who would have been going “TOO FAST”?
Technically, I suppose we could say that anyone who hits anything, regardless of reason, was going “TOO FAST”, since if they had been stopped, they couldn’t have hit it. Regardless of how fast anyone was going, it is still the responsibility of someone turning left without a dedicated signal to yield to any oncoming traffic—even if that traffic is speeding.
Here I fixed it for you:
I’m going to start by pretending my comment is not biased.
I would say that nearly (insert made-up high percentage anecdotal statistic here) of motor vehicle operators are scofflaws that break speed limits laws, don’t make appropriate use of turn signals, and talk on their phones while driving.
It seems higher value car = privilege. Some of the worst drivers I have ever seen own high value cars and SUVs.
Motorists need to slow down, pay attention to the road, and anticipate what other people are going to do in the public right of way. Everyone else should probably pay attention too.
Blah. There were two people involved in this crash, a guy who was driving a 3-ton pickup, and a guy who got maimed. Let’s not forget to pity the guy who really screwed up because I’m sure he’s really sorry.
Huh. Some of the worst people I’ve ridden with are actually cops, ironically (no lie). The strongest people I ride with are damned good racers because of all the starting and stopping we do for red lights and stop signs in the crowded areas we ride.
I’m entertained by your factual-sounding ‘statistics’ though. Have you actually come up with a method for measuring lycra tightness?
Hello? Did you READ what the WITNESS who WATCHED THE ACCIDENT said? You know, the one who saw the leg get severed?
The witness stated that he cyclist HIT THE REAR BUMPER OF THE TRUCK…the CYCLIST HIT THE TRUCK…..and one more time for good measure THE CYCLIST WENT BARRELING THROUGH THE INTERSECTION and CLIPPED THE REAR BUMPER OF THE TRUCK.
Soooo, who was at fault here REALLY? Seems pretty clear from the witness’ statement, no?
I suppose with your last question, and some points earlier raised, you’re implying that you consider that the person riding was at fault for the collision.
It’s possible you’ve correctly identified who is at fault, but not necessarily. Here’s some questions your comment had occur to me:
Did the person driving give sufficient advance notice of his decision to turn across a lane of traffic from the opposite direction? How fast was the person driving? Did the person driving, notice the person on the bike, approaching him, and believe the person on the bike was a sufficient distance away to allow for a safe turn?
By the way…your comments would likely be made just as clearly, and with less annoyance to people reading, if you’d not write words all in caps to stress a point.
Heya WSBOB ( NOTED ON THE CAPS COMMENT – ROGER THAT)
After first hearing this story, I automatically assumed it WAS the cyclist’s fault because I know of the riding style of the said individual…in real life.
After hearing more about it throughout the day on the news and as friends were calling to ask if I’d heard about it, it sounded like the TRUCK WAS at fault, not the cyclist. Then I started leaning that way…it was the TRUCK’S fault.
It wasnt until I came here and read the witness account about how the cyclist barreled through the intersection and clipped the rear bumper, therefore losing his leg, that I then switched BACK to my original idea that it was the cyclist who was at fault.
I then went to Google Maps – Street View so that I could view the intersection for myself since I dont know that particular area of town very well. The intersection is not a large/wide one.
Who cares about how fast the truck was going? The cyclist hit the truck while still in the intersection…how fast could the truck have possibly been going if the cyclist plowed into the rear bumper while the truck was STILL GOING THROUGH the intersection (witness account)? 10 – 15 mph?
To me, I feel the cyclist was going far too fast through the intersection…fast enough to get his leg severed…because he hit a truck…because he was going too fast through the intersection.
The whole thing is just terrible and I feel for everyone involved…and yes, that includes the driver.
Isnt it a cyclist’s responsibility to ride at a SAFE and REASONABLE speed through an intersection..samd as it is for a vehicle?
“…and read the witness account about how the cyclist barreled through the intersection and clipped the rear bumper, …” cyclequeen
By the time I read this bikeportland story, the witnesses’ account had already been unpublished on request to bikeportland staff Michael Andersen:
http://bikeportland.org/2015/05/10/sunday-morning-collision-26th-powell-severs-leg-man-bike-142971#comment-6378794
“…Who cares about how fast the truck was going? …” cyclequeen
What everyone involved in this collision was doing, leading up to the collision, I think is something that’s very important to understanding why the collision occurred. Other related factors too, of course.
Speed the pickup truck was traveling, straight and beginning the turn, is very important. Also important: whether the pickup had its turn indicator light on so that other people using the road could adjust the speed of their own vehicles to help the pickup turn safely.
Most people with some experience using the road, have seen a road user traveling down streets at rather high speed, and then abruptly with out signaling, or a last second signal actuation, cut across a lane, or multiple lanes of traffic. People driving, thinking that with a hair’s breadth from oncoming traffic, they can cut across lanes of traffic, signal or not, isn’t good enough. Doing so is ‘Careless Driving’, maybe even ‘Reckless Driving’, depending upon what other things may characterize the person driving, and their manner of driving.
I don’t agree with bob that often, but seriously turn off your caps lock…
The truck turned in front of the cyclist who had the right of way leaving so little room that he was unable to avoid a collision. The driver was at fault, end of story.
Again, did you read the witness account that said it was THE CYCLIST who barreled through the intersection? I’m no genius, but to me, the term “barreling” through the intersection implies an UNSAFE SPEED, no?
Did the witness say the truck went barreling through the intersection? No, no he didnt…I saw no such mention of the witness stating that.
It is very difficult for even a professional racer to maintain 25mph on a bike. It is extremely unlikely the cyclist was exceeding the speed limit.
Looks like you and I are gonna have some real fun together, Bjorn. I can’t wait!
“It is very difficult for even a professional racer to maintain 25mph on a bike. …” Bjorn
It’s been so long since I’ve been out Powell, that I can’t remember for certain, but I’ve been wondering if 26th southbound is a slight downgrade. Even a bit of a downgrade can make a big difference from level or upgrade, in the rate of speed a brisk riding person on a bike can attain and maintain for awhile.
Nevertheless, even considering a 25 or say 30 mph travel speed by someone on a bike, unless somehow, everything a person driving in that situation did was perfect, such as signaling in advance of the turn, looking ahead sufficiently for oncoming traffic, maintaining appropriate speed… by law, the person driving most likely would be the person primarily responsible for the collision.
Even if in turning across oncoming traffic, another vehicle were to collide with the tail end of the vehicle turning, I think the person turning likely would be primarily at fault.
In terms of practical guidelines for safe riding, (and driving), at least for myself, defensive riding considerations are more important. Right of way doesn’t count for much if a person riding, loses their leg, or worse due to the fault of another road user failing to justifiably grant right of way.
cyclequeen: thanks for skipping the all caps.
I’m actually chuckling right now at the amount of credence you give to a single witness account and the degree of scientific accuracy you ascribe to the term “barreling”. It is a common bias to under- or overestimate speeds of other people when it suits your purposes. Unless this witness had a radar gun, “barreling” is a personal opinion.
As far as your insistence that it must be the bicyclist’s fault because “THE CYCLIST HIT THE TRUCK”, what about another recent case in which a box truck ran a red light directly across the path of a delivery cyclist, and the cyclist ran into the side of the truck as it mangled the bike’s front wheel. Was that bicyclist going “TOO FAST”, or did another vehicle appear in his path so suddenly as to not allow time to react or stop?