Comments
This page lists all comments made on BikePortland.org, with recent comments appearing on the top.
You can stay in touch with the conversation by subscribing to the comments feed in your RSS reader.
Return to the Front Page.
Home | Forums | Close Calls | Photos | Stolen Bikes | Links | Jobs | About |
This page lists all comments made on BikePortland.org, with recent comments appearing on the top.
You can stay in touch with the conversation by subscribing to the comments feed in your RSS reader.
Return to the Front Page.
113 comments 45 comments 32 comments 30 comments 29 comments
Comment by Deborah — September 6, 2008 @ 11:52 am | Link
How do we build and enhance a bike club in Oregon to compete with Cascade Bicyle Club in WA?
In response to Oregon ranks fourth in new Bike Friendly State rankings 36
Comment by Deborah — September 6, 2008 @ 11:44 am | Link
ditto on the thanks to all! This connection will be wonderful.
In response to The SK Northwest saga is over: Property owner gives up on trail fight 16
Comment by matt picio — September 6, 2008 @ 11:34 am | Link
Jonathan (#12) - it's not just bike lanes. ORS 814.420 refers to "bike lane or path" - it also means that when riding on Johnson Creek Boulevard between SE 45th and SE Bell, you're breaking the law, because a bike path - the Springwater - is immediately adjacent to the road right-of-way. There are few paths next to roads in Oregon, but if they exist, then ORS 814.420 effectively denies us access to the roads when we clearly have a right to be there.
I applaud the League for reducing our ranking based on that. The mandatory clause needs to go - as we increase the number of cyclists past the point that the bike lanes can hold them all, and if auto VMT continues to decline as fossil fuel availability declines, we'll need to repurpose road lanes to accommodate that shift - and we can't have poorly-thought out laws like 814.420 hampering us from doing that.
In response to From Seattle: How we're coping with fourth place 15
Comment by matt picio — September 6, 2008 @ 11:24 am | Link
Ron (#7) - I don't know that Clinton is such a great example. Sure, it's a wildly successful bike boulevard, but it sees a large amount of cut-through traffic trying to avoid Division, enough that the city is discussing and planning signage and other potential measures to encourage cars to stay off Clinton.
In response to BTA announces meetings for “Let's Get Going!” effort 8
Comment by janis — September 6, 2008 @ 11:17 am | Link
The poster session was very interesting with a ton of variety.
I got a lot of interest in the City of Portland's Women on Bikes program. Seems it has been an inspiration to other cities! Yea.
Thanks for covering the conference Jonathan.
Cheers, Janis
In response to In Seattle: A science fair for transportation wonks 3
Comment by wsbob — September 6, 2008 @ 10:55 am | Link
PoPo, thanks...I don't know about anyone else, but I feel like that explanation helped me understand the situation a little better.
I've been reading and thinking about all the comments, plus editor Maus's original article, as I've tried to decide whether I felt the D.A. was right to not proceed with the reckless driving charge.
Here again, from Maus's article, is the reference to the ORS about reckless driving:Ben O’Glasser
"O’Glasser then referred me to ORS 161.085 (9), which explains the definition of the mental state required for a Reckless charge. Here’s the salient excerpt from that statute:
“…a [reckless] person is aware of and consciously disregards 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 disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.”".
I'm not a lawyer, but as a fairly ordinary citizen reading that excerpt, I think about what would need to be proven in regards to the driver of the car to meet that description; was he driving like a wildman, aware and consciously speeding or weaving back and forth across the road? No one has said that.; was he under the influence of some substance?; I don't remember that reported to be the case.
What I imagine the driver is suggesting, is that in reaching down for something on the floorboards(not sure that's exactly right, but close), he momentarily lost control of the vehicle in what turned out to be a critical moment. I bet lot of people might be irritated to have to admit it, but they'd probably also readily concede that momentarily losing control of a vehicle is something that happens occasionally, often doesn't result in dire consequences, and isn't necessarily reckless driving.
They'd call that sort of thing an 'accident'. Even for the driver in this incident, they'd probably call what happened here, an accident, even though the guy seems like a flake, who might casually be regarded as an accident waiting to happen.
With that line of thinking associated with this kind of collision, the D.A. isn't going to be able to make the charge of reckless driving stick. On the other hand, if the Oregon regulatory statutes were revised to place more emphasis on the seriousness of an operator losing control of their vehicle for any reason, with evaluation of contributing circumstances factored in to judgment and penalty, the D.A. might have a shot.
In response to DA drops Reckless Driving charge in Stark Street collision 33
Comment by a.O — September 6, 2008 @ 10:45 am | Link
Jack (#104), do you see the irony in discussing the need for empathy followed by your apparent dismissal of the hard feelings of many bike riders, expressed by Icarus, for having their lives endangered repeatedly by Tri-Met drivers?
Empathy and compassion should be the starting point in our conversation. I understand the concerns of the bus drivers and I think they are legitimate, and many commenters have made clear that they do as well.
But I haven't heard many people who claim to drive busses discussing the facts that there are many bus drivers who actively dislike people riding bikes and some who, whether through negligence or ill intent, have seriously endangered the lives of bicyclists and refused to share the road. Indeed, the spirit of the petition seems to be that they will not make an effort to do so.
That too is a legitimate concern and there needs to be some acknowledgement of that - and some indication that there is a willingness to address this problem - as part of achieving rapproachement.
All I'm saying is that it's a two-way street here.
In response to “I don't hate bikes”; Rose Quarter petitioner reaches out 113
Comment by steve — September 6, 2008 @ 10:34 am | Link
Lot of words to say nuthin' popo.
Lobbying for more money for the prosecutors office, eh? So they can continue to charge people like Rev Phil, but not your fellow employees who murdered James Chasse?
More money so they can ignore cases like the one above, but still find the time to prosecute low level drug users. I say less money for them and the PPB.
Ya'll should lose the spiffy new cars and guns. Start walking your beats with little nerf clubs. No more Tasers, no more rubber bullets, no more pepper spray in the face. Maybe then we will give a crap about what you and your thuggish pals have to say.
Your profession is a sad blight on our community. How a person of conscience can associate themselves with it is beyond me.
In response to DA drops Reckless Driving charge in Stark Street collision 33
Comment by Icarus Falling — September 6, 2008 @ 10:19 am | Link
And I was advocating equal enforcement as well, if you read what I wrote.
By the way, this thread is all about safety in a Transit center.
So that would make a conversation about whether or not there is proper enforcement towards laws of the road broken by bus drivers/ bikes/ and pedestrians very, very relevant.
Look for me in the Transit Center on my bike, as this ill worded petition is not going to make much of a difference.
It is now I believe legal to ride there, and surely will continue to be.
In response to “I don't hate bikes”; Rose Quarter petitioner reaches out 113
Comment by Cøyøte — September 6, 2008 @ 10:09 am | Link
Mary Peters is priming the pump to raid public transit funding. The article mentioned how only the transit account was fully funded and even had a surplus. I am sure raiding these funds will be presented as the only solution a reasonable person of the "driving public" would choose. The Times did their part in the propaganda campaign by implying only big city lawyers would object.
The term "big city lawyers" is appearing as a derogatory label. Do you think the editor might be referring to that lawyer from Chicago? What is his name? O.... something or other, you know, the black fella with large ears and a nice way about him. I can't seem to remember his name....
In response to NY Times: Highway Trust Fund in dire straits 8
Comment by Eileen — September 6, 2008 @ 9:33 am | Link
It would be interesting to actually find out who does more law-breaking, but also pointless. All this finger pointing is divisive and reminds me of my four and seven year old "you started it", "no you did" on and on like broken records until I have to do something dramatic to get their attention or put them in their rooms. I think the best thing to do right now is to let go of all the petty resentments leftover from past encounters with people who aren't even part of this conversation and try to make the best of the situation at hand. Right now there is an experiment underway at the transit center and both the buses and the bikes and the peds have a chance to see if they all can't get along and make it work. If it doesn't work, we'll have to figure something else out. Right now instead of trying to predict the future, why don't you focus on trying to influence the future? Be your own best self and wish the same for others.
In response to “I don't hate bikes”; Rose Quarter petitioner reaches out 113
Comment by km — September 6, 2008 @ 9:30 am | Link
35th and SW Mulnomah Blvd 8/9 at 5pm!!! I was on my bike headed toward Garden Home (where I live)...car came from behind, headed the same direction and decided to take a quick right into John's Market. I hit the skids and tried to turn with the car in hopes of avoiding serious trauma...however, took the card head on - cracked helmet clear through twice, fractured hand, damaged tendons in same hand and got the shoulder rubbed to the muscle! It was grueling and scary, but I got to walk out of the hospital that night and home to my boys. Ruined my race bike...carbon pieces on the road, peeled tires off the bike, cracked rims and bent bars. Crazy stuff!
Stay safe...and wear those helmets.
In response to Wanted: your close calls 668
Comment by Eileen — September 6, 2008 @ 9:23 am | Link
Well that's an interesting problem. Every solution creates its own problems doesn't it? I'm sure it will all work out, they will just find a new way to make people pay taxes. It shouldn't be too difficult. I just hope that the backlash of this doesn't result in people driving more.
In response to NY Times: Highway Trust Fund in dire straits 8
Comment by zagreus — September 6, 2008 @ 9:17 am | Link
Icarus, the thread is about safety in a transit center, not bikes vs. buses per se. As I pointed out in my post, and you ignored, I also oppose automobiles in the transit center, for the same reasons. This is far from a dead issue. It is a pilot project, not set in stone.
Many passengers (pedestrians) were completely unaware of the plans for a bike through the transit center, and you can count on them to express their opionion to the city council when there is a close call. Politiicans respond to pressure. If others can help them more than you can, well...
At no time have I excused bus drivers, truck drivers, or motorists who break the law. I did, in fact, advocate equal enforcement.
In response to “I don't hate bikes”; Rose Quarter petitioner reaches out 113
Comment by YZWolf — September 6, 2008 @ 8:52 am | Link
Give me a break......why is it that when someone disobeys the law, or disregards the LAWFUL order of OUR police, it is the officers fault when that the person gets tasered or physically restained? When did personal responsibilty become the past? Seems to me this is another case of someone who believes that he can do what he wants, when he wants, and how he wants, and everyone one else needs to take a bake seat to his desires. He was found GUILTY by an elected judge of the traffic offenses which were the catalyst for the rest of the stop. A situation created by this individuals refusal to obey a lawful order. Get real, the fault and responsibilty here lies with the person, not the officers. The officers react based on the actions of the citizens. I suggest you all go on a ride along with our officers and see the world through their eyes before you go criticizing them for something you know nothing about.
In response to Phil Sano found guilty for traffic violations in taser incident 42
Comment by Tbird — September 6, 2008 @ 8:50 am | Link
I think the idea of any place in America being bike friendly is laughable. It just ain't so...I wish it were, but then we have wankers like these telling us that the requirement to use a bike lane makes OR less bike friendly. It's not that I care where we rate, but by this standard we could rate The Netherlands less bike friendly than say Washington or Texas for that matter.
Real bike infrastructure that protects ALL users. Beginning with separated bike lanes and laws which require all users to stay in their proper spaces
In response to From Seattle: How we're coping with fourth place 15
Comment by Tom — September 6, 2008 @ 8:32 am | Link
This is great for users of the trail. Does anybody know what will happen with the Ross Island concrete factory? The maps show the trail going straight through it. I couldn't find anything online that talks about that aspect of the connection.
In response to The SK Northwest saga is over: Property owner gives up on trail fight 16
Comment by beth h — September 6, 2008 @ 8:23 am | Link
Whoop! Whoop!
(Showing my age here)
Great news -- thanks to all who had a hand in bringing it about.
In response to The SK Northwest saga is over: Property owner gives up on trail fight 16
Comment by Chris Sullivan — September 6, 2008 @ 8:00 am | Link
Very cool...I just rode this gap last week with my daughter and was wishing desperately for a path. This is great news.
In response to The SK Northwest saga is over: Property owner gives up on trail fight 16
Comment by Ron — September 6, 2008 @ 7:56 am | Link
Way to go, BTA!
To John, #6, Eliminating cars cutting through isn't that hard. Just look at the SE Clinton bike boulevard. The speed bumps cause drivers to think twice about using Clinton as a shortcut and those bumps really don't impede cyclists in any significant way.
In response to BTA announces meetings for “Let's Get Going!” effort 8
Comment by John Russell — September 6, 2008 @ 3:11 am | Link
Living in Washington, I do have to say that our bike lane laws are generally superior in the aspect of whether or not riding on them is required.
RCW 46.61.770:
"…A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway may use the shoulder of the roadway or any specially designated bicycle lane if such exists…"
Change the ORS to match (or even top) this law, and I will be a happy cyclist.
In response to From Seattle: How we're coping with fourth place 15
Comment by John Russell — September 6, 2008 @ 3:01 am | Link
I just hope that this doesn't mean any less attention is paid to Skidmore. I think that's where the bike boulevard should be going. At least Skidmore has signals at MLK, Williams, and Vancouver. It even goes over I-5 and past interstate.
Even just some turned stop signs would be appreciated so long as it didn't encourage cars to cut through.
In response to BTA announces meetings for “Let's Get Going!” effort 8
Comment by jim — September 6, 2008 @ 2:21 am | Link
8 cents per hr would never pay off the meters, sounds like something Portland would go for. Right now they want to sell the meters for 9 million and lease them back for 12 million and still be responsible for the maintenance.....
In response to Seattle rolls out on-street bike parking 23
Comment by PoPo — September 6, 2008 @ 1:47 am | Link
peejay:
I'm not sure what I can add here, and don't know what you mean by "a more serious approach." This is the District Attorney's decision. The officer clearly charged more than what the deputy district attorney thought he could ultimately prove in court. (The officer only needs "probable cause" to make an arrest and charge for a crime. The District Attorney needs to prove the charge "beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict, which is a much higher standard of proof.) The officer is not in a position to force the DA to prosecute a charge that the DA doesn't think is viable in the courtroom. Jonathan did an excellent job at describing the laws in question and provided comments from the district attorney about his decision. It was an insightful look into the realities of criminal prosecution.
Though I do my best to investigate crimes, I don't prosecute them on a daily basis and don't have nearly as good a perspective on what is or isn't possible in a courtroom as does a district attorney. (Perhaps there is another deputy district attorney on this blog who might share some thoughs?) Am I frustrated sometimes when the DA decides not to prosecute crimes I charge? Yes. However I have yet to meet a deputy district attorney who didn't seem horribly overworked and stretched in countless different directions and yet did their best to do their job earnestly and professionally. There are countless other more lucrative and less stressful jobs they could done with their law degrees. I respect the vast majority of them and their decisions, and don't see anything unusual about this one.
If the public would like cases with fact situations similar to this Stark Street collision to result in more serious consequences, we should lobby the state legislature to change the laws.
Another option might be for us all to pony up the tax money to double or triple or quadruple the district attorney staff so that they might be able to take the time to attempt to prosecute cases they feel are losers from the get go without detriment to the prosecution of other, more serious crimes.
So yes, again, I caution us not to jump to conclusions.
And if you choose to take my comments as veneer, that is your decision. I realized long ago that there are some people who will never like or believe my comments simply because I'm an officer, but I also try to remember that most folks are generally open-minded, and seem to appreciate a larger variety of opinions, perspective and experiences on which to base their own understanding. I'm thinking that you are one of these latter folks, as you mentioned that you were open to persuasion. I appreciate that.
In response to DA drops Reckless Driving charge in Stark Street collision 33
Comment by Klixi — September 6, 2008 @ 12:25 am | Link
Agree with Jessica (#5)
Hopefully they can find a way to link the two paths ASAP so the Caruthers stop sign drama will go away, much to the delight of both truckers and riders. ;p
In response to The SK Northwest saga is over: Property owner gives up on trail fight 16