A few weeks ago, the BTA unveiled their Senate Bill 299 (PDF here), an “omnibus” bill that includes several new provisions.
The last section (Section 6) of that bill included amendments to ORS 811.440 which deals with laws pertaining to, “When motor vehicles may operate on bicycle lane.”
In their initial draft of the bill, the BTA sought to add an amendment that have given explicit legal rights for vehicles to enter a bike lane when,
“overtaking or passing on the right a vehicle signaling an intention to make a left turn.”
This confused and concerned many cyclists. They wondered why the BTA would be lobbying to add language to a law that would allow cars to drive in the bike lane.
One response left on a BTA blog post said,
“I think that it is a dangerous move to make the solid white line of a bike lane more permeable and that is what this new language seems to do.”
And another,
“I don’t think cyclists should pander to driver’s impatience. Let’s…keep the car provisions out of this bill entirely”.
And another,
“This provision will create…a multiple threat condition for the pedestrian. It essentially turns the bike lane into an additional lane to be used by speeding motorists! Please get this out of the bill!”
BTA Policy Director Scott Bricker defended the proposed amendment by saying members of the BTA Legislative Committee — the body that guides all BTA legislative policy — sought to “clarify how all traffic uses the roadways” and they wanted to “make the law more seamless”.
Bricker explained that in getting a bill to pass in Salem, one must consider a variety of viewpoints and appeal to legislators with a wide range of opinions about bicycles and bike lanes.
However I just got an update that, after a meeting with the BTA Legislative Committee today, they have decided to remove these Section 6 amendments (lines 41 and 42) from the existing bill draft and re-submit the bill next week.
Bricker said that although some members of the Legislative Committee felt strongly about keeping these motor vehicle-related amendments in the bill, they heard cyclists’ concerns and decided to respond.
In addition to those changes Bricker says they’ll add language that before entering a bike lane (in any situation) cars must,
“first yield right-of-way to other occupants of the bike lane.”
This is a great example of how your input does make a difference and how lucky we are that the BTA listens to it!
Keep up with the ’07 bike legislation on the BTA website.
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.
So, the BTA is removing the only good part of the bill. I’m not surprised.
Actually, section 5 is only half bad. It has good intentions, but it is extremely poorly worded. It applies when “a roadway is too narrow for a driver of a motor vehicle and a bicyclist to travel
safely side by side” There is no such roadway. There are many lanes that narrow, but no roadways.
Section 5 also uses the phrase “making it necessary to drive the motor vehicle to the left of the center
of the roadway to avoid the bicyclist.” It is never necessary to go around a cyclist to avoid him. The motorist always has the option to brake. If passing is unsafe, he has the obligation to brake.
But their attitude is what I expect from a paint and path, cyclist inferiority organization.
It’s so easy to picture the disasterous results of motorists getting into the habit of legally swerving into the bike lane to avoid a car with its left turn signal on.
I’m glad to see it gone.
I am, too. I need to check out the BTA’s site more often – I’m totally against that wording, it would remove what little legal protection cyclists currently have in bicycle lanes. I’d rather see the legislature get upset and remove the bike lanes than open them up to a hodgepodge of rules as to when a car can or can’t be in them.
I to had problems with this part of the bill, referring to it as the Kruger Bill, for he wants this same thing to happen sadly.
There is no need for the right of way to be given over to a motor vehicle in the bike lane ever, period….
I commend them for pulling it from the bill, but am worried that, due to how deals are made in legislation, this will be forced to be added back to the bill……
Also, the wording of the bill dealing with entering and exiting crosswalks is not clear at all, and is a great concern to me.
The language is open ended, and leaves too much personal discretion to whoever the ticketing officer, or observer of such a violation might be……
It does not mention what is required if you are riding down the street, just encompasses any and all entry by bike into a crosswalk, effectively requiring a yield any time you enter a crosswalk, from anywhere.
Would be great if another look was taken at that one, to help protect us all from the recently discovered abuse of badly worded ordinances.
thank You,
Dabby
I’m glad to learn about this. If all motorists were as responsible around cyclists as I am sure the members of the BTA legislative committee are when they drive a car, the provision wouldn’t be any problem. Sad to say, I highly doubt that even most motorists would use such rights responsibly. They sure don’t in other states.
I think this is good news as long as it’s loud and clear (yeah, right) cars aren’t allowed in bike lanes. I don’t see any reason why drivers ever need to be in one except to get into a parallel parking spot or the odd place such as entering I-5 from NE Broadway where they have to cross the blue bike lane (poorly designed spot).
Also agree with above comment that it’s not ok to cross the center line to go around a bicyclis just because ya don’t want to wait 3 seconds. I see this often. Following a bicyclist does not give one license to go into another car’s lane – head on. Slow down for christ sake.
Didn’t the Bike Advisory Committee vote unanimously against this when Officer Kruger presented this as the traffic division’s preferred solution? I believe the BTA’s policy guy was there too. This was months ago.
I think the BAC discussion and vote was over whether cars should wait to make a right turn in the bike lane or not. Kruger wanted so; the BAC voted not. Unless I misremember.
While I think removing section 6 from ORS 811.440 is the right thing to do, it doesn’t matter if the law isn’t enforced. For all the times I’ve been cut-off, squeezed and bumped, I’ve never once seen the local PD set up an enforcement action for bike lane violations. If it’s happening, great. But it needs to happen enough that the word gets out that it’s not OK to drive in the bike lane.
Not to mention that it’s also not ok to PARK in the bike lane. This gets enforced downtown, but not in the rest of the city, and DEFINITELY not in outlying communities.
Dee,
Just FYI, the Police Bureau’s bike lane idea was a totally separate thing.
I am very saddened that in addition to keeping watch on regular legislation and auto-centric policies, we must also watch the BTA for legislation which reduces our safety. One would think that they are one organization which we can trust. However my trust after this and other issues, is seriously degrading.