This photo (looking south towards
Springwater entrance) shows where new
bike lane has been installed).
File photo: 7/1/5/06
Springwater entrance) shows where new
bike lane has been installed).
File photo: 7/1/5/06
A new northbound bike lane has been installed on SE 4th Ave. between the entrance to the Springwater Corridor Trail and SE Caruthers Street (see map below).
If you ride in this area please be advised that due to a construction project, there is an ongoing enhanced police presence in this area (which I warned you about months ago but I still get calls and emails about).
I repeat, please be aware that cops are paying close attention to cyclists in this area.
I have already gotten a tip from someone who was pulled over today and given a warning for not riding in this new bike lane (yes, it is a law).
Here is a map of the location (new bike lane in blue):
Location of new bike lane in blue.
Link to map
Link to map
Matt Picio has more photos of these bike lanes.
[Thanks to Dat for the tip!]
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.
I’m glad the cops are patrolling this area. Just the other day I saw a pack of rabid cyclists devour a cement truck in less than 30 seconds. Chilling.
bull@#$%^, I rode down the trail the other day and saw a cop both directions, just circling for prey. From the sounds of it they change the layout of lanes every other day. They had the bike lanes coned off in a confusing manner and stop signs were covered with bags when I went through. Grrr.
I went through on Tuesday and a large flatbed truck full of cement bags was parked in the bike lane.
No sign of any no parking enforcement.
Trucks are often parked there and it’s no big deal, but why put a bike lane there if it’s going to be frequently blocked?
The bike lanes at this location were totally unnecessary. What I’d really like to see is someone clean this street regularly, it’s always filled with sand and grit from Ross Island’s operation.
If someone gets ticketed, it’s worth finding out if there was a public hearing to find the lane suitable for use:
If there wasn’t a hearing, it’s not a legal bike lane.
Also note that section 2 below has probably not been complied with, and therefore riding in the bike lane is not legally required.
814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is adjacent to or near the roadway.
(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds, after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.
(3) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle lane or path, is a Class D traffic violation.
So Jonathan since you say it “is a law” do you know the answer to the above questions? I don’t mean to sound snooty only wondering…
“I went through on Tuesday and a large flatbed truck full of cement bags was parked in the bike lane. No sign of any no parking enforcement. Trucks are often parked there and it’s no big deal…”
Regularly, almost daily, on Caruthers
there are trucks blocking both the bike lane and the wider lane, forcing cyclists (and motorists) into the oncoming traffic lane *blindly* if they want to continue down the street. This is a serious hazard to everyone on the road. Nothing is ever done. And I saw the same flatbed truck parked on 4th in the bike lane. As I have said before, the City’s awareness of these obvious hazards without any action can only lead a reasonable person to one conclusion: The City’s real concern is not cyclist safety.
Since the striping only went in a few days ago, I’d be very surprised if the hearing required by ORS 814.420(2) has been held yet. Moreover, notice of such hearings must be reasonably calculated to reach likely users. Here’s a fun legal theory: I bet you could make a compelling argument that, if not published on bikeportland, such notice is not reasonably calculated to reach users. Have you heard anything about this hearing, Jonathan?
How about the motorcycle cop I saw cruising the Eastbank Esplanade yesterday afternoon? That was pretty awesome…
While we’re at it, do any of you legal types know the rules as far as vehicles parked so they block bike lanes? Seems like every other day either a construction vehicle or a bus or an armored car is blocking the bike lane coming up Broadway into downtown. A few weeks ago I politely scolded an armored car driver and he did this weird panic thing and drove off like I was going to hold him up or something! A few days later they were again parked in the lane and I said something to his partner, who just laughed at me. Next time I am ready to call the police about enforcement, but do these types of vehicles have a pass if they can’t fit into a regular parking place (or their business is important enough that they don’t have to?)
It’s illegal to park in the bike lane. How important you think you are is irrelevant. I encourage you to call the City’s parking enforcement number with the license plate info. Whether you’ll get much of a response is another issue, but at least they won’t be able to claim they didn’t know. And maybe they will even have to move a few Jack-Booted Thugs out of the SE Cyclist Harassment Zone to address the issue.
re: the public hearing requirement. I have a vague recollection of a bike lane thread on this news blog some months back in which someone pointed out that at some point in time there had been an omnibus hearing with the resulting finding that all bike lanes created by the city fit the statutory requirement. I don’t have time to search for that thread, but maybe someone else does.
I haven’t ridden that stretch yet today, so can someone tell me precisely where on the street the lane is? I couldn’t figure it out from the pictures. Is it where the old combination bike and pedestrian path was, on the west side of the street, which resulted in cyclists riding against traffic? There was nothing I hated more than coming face to face with another cyclist when I turned right at that corner to get to the Corridor, often at speed because I did not have a stop sign and they were on the wrong side of the street from their stop sign
That’s hilarious. So, they declared yet-to-be-created bike lanes as legally adequate? Sounds like a pretty obvious due process violation to me…
Or was it only for those already in existence and they hold one periodically for new bike lanes?
I’d really be interested in hearing more about this hearing process, i.e., who holds it, where, what issues are covered, what the statute requires for approval, etc.
“[C]an someone tell me precisely where on the street the lane is?”
There is actually one on both sides, i.e., both southbound and northbound. The southbound one is over where the old combination path was. And it’s connected to the trailhead with painted lines. It occurs to me that the painted connection may mean that there may still be a multi-use area over there, but I’m not sure because I never bother to use the lane. Sshhhh! Also, they’re extra wide, which is nice.
re: hearings.
this is interesting. more details to come when I have more time. but I just got off phone with lawyer Mark Ginsberg.
if someone has time. look up Oregon State court of appeals trial of State vs. Potter.
earlier this year I reported on the case of Jeff Smith… I will dig up that thread and get more info soon.
====
I’ve also talked with lawyer Ray Thomas about this. interesting stuff that deserves attention. I’ll organize my findings and share them with everyone. ..
What’s wrong with using the bike lane?
In this case it’s extra wide, which is kinda nice, and should be more than adequate. I think if anything we should be upset that Motor vehicles are parking in and driving in (like when they turn right a ‘little’ early). Really, take the advice given above and get the plate number and call it in. Insist that the PoPo enforce the parking/ lane blocking violation.
My safety is just as valuable as that of a motorist.
I have pictures of the new bike lanes here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/78468941@N00
Jonathan, you have my permission to edit and use them if you wish.
Remember, if anyone wants to take the time and trouble to do so, you CAN generate a citizen-initiated ticket for the offender. The statute allows trucks to park in the bike lane only while actively engaged in loading and unloading operations – they can’t just park it and sit there for an hour or two.
Take photos, note the date, time, place, and the make, model, color and license plate of the vehicle, and go for it. (I believe Jonathan wrote a story on someone who successfully did this)
Here is a link to the State v. Potter case:
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A115242.htm
It is a Critical Mass rider who was stopped for riding outside the lane (among other things.) The Court ruled that the defendant has to prove the lane is not appropriate (the court ruled it is an affirmative defense, so the burden is on the cyclist.)
Now, the other piece of this is the new bicycle rights from SB 938 (courtesy of BTA). It states:
SB 938—Modifications to Laws Regarding Bicycles (Chapter 316, 2005 Laws)
Amends ORS 811.415, 814.410, and 814.420 to allow a bicyclist to overtake and pass on the right and to identify exceptions when a person is not in violation of the offense of failure to use a bicyclist lane or path. These exceptions are:
* When passing another bicyclist, vehicle, or pedestrian in the bicycle lane or path
* When making a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway
* When avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions
* When making a right turn
* When continuing straight at an intersection when the bicycle lane or path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must turn right.
So it seems to me the automatic response to an officer is to say you believed there were hazardous conditions and ask him to write you up and talk it over in court.
“The statute allows trucks to park in the bike lane only while actively engaged in loading and unloading operations.”
So, does the inverse hold true? Can I park my bike in the car lane while unloading?
“(the court ruled it is an affirmative defense, so the burden is on the cyclist.)”
Not exactly. The state had made the alternative argument that the issue of whether the bike lane was appropriate was an affirmative defense that had to be pled and proved by the defendant. The court did not reach that alternative argument, however, because it concluded that a bike lane was a traffic control device and the state had presented evidence sufficient to satisfy a separately stated statutory presumption that traffic control devices are appropriately placed and comply with the law.
Didn’t that seem like a argument chasing its tale? If bike lanes are only acceptable if approved; and all bike lanes are categorically satisfactory and preapproved, why have the provision at all?
” (c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions”…
So does a sign that says “slow hotel zone” automatically qualify it as a hazardous condition, or do there actually have to be cars doing stupid things there before it counts?
man, i remember when trucks just parked on the side and we all rode through. now the trucks can’t park without breaking the law, and pissing cyclists off. are the bike lanes really necessary there?
Thanks for the link to State v. Potter. Here’s my reading of it:
1. Re impeding traffic: One cannot rely on the plain meaning of the statutory text in understanding one’s obligations as a cyclist. Where the statute appears to exclude bicycles by referring specifically to “motor vehicles,” it really includes all vehicles.
2. Re failing to use a bicycle lane: There is a rebuttable presumption that all bicycle lanes meet the statutory hearing requirement.
a. Unfortunately, it is not clear from the case what evidence the State produced to satisfy its burden of production in allowing the court to uphold the trial court’s finding that its burden had been met. This is what one really needs to know in order to know whether making the “no hearing” argument is a good idea.
b. The “rebuttable presumption” rule crafted by Judge Kistler puts the cyclist in a very difficult legal position. He or she is forced to prove a negative, i.e., that a hearing did not occur.
3. Judge Kistler’s holdings re both charges demonstrate how policy influences judicial discretion in interpreting ambiguous statutory text. Herein lies the font of judicial power.
“So does a sign that says “slow hotel zone” automatically qualify it as a hazardous condition, or do there actually have to be cars doing stupid things there before it counts?”
My guess is that it’s the latter.
I still wonder why there isn’t more enforcement when moving motor vehicles impede into the bike lanes. I see it all the time on N Interstate. Especially the big rigs. Is there even a written law based on this action? It’s especially dicey getting passed by a truck around corners. You don’t know they’re behind you and ready to pass, then bam, there they are pushing you to the curb.
What qualifies as “loading and unloading”? Is it the same “loading and unloading” that applies to a loading zone? Does that include the armored car guy carrying a bag of money out of Nordstrom’s (i.e. the truck zone was full so they park in the bike lane instead).
On Tuesday this week I came out of the Springwater Trail onto 4th ave and rode down the middle of the street while looking for my turn left to the downtown bike path. Not knowing which street I turned left on I went by the first two streets and then moved to the bike lane on the left side of the street as their isn’t one on the right side at that point. I was promptly pulled over by a motorcycle officer Ronals Hoesly ID# 21282 (while I was in the bike lane) and without letting me explain that I was looking for my turnoff (since I hadn’t ridden that way in 3 years and then only once before ) he immediately began writing me a ticket. I told him it was unbelieveable that my actions warranted a ticket for “Fail to use bike lane or path” and that I would see him later in court. I promptly folded up the ticket and put it into my pocket and continued my ride. What I didn’t realize until the end of my ride was that the ticket was for an unbelievable Base Fine of $242.00. I’m a native Oregonian who has been a recreational ride on all the local trails for the last 10 years. In my jobs I’ve travelled all around the world telling people of the bike friendly city that Portland is. Unfortunately I think I may have changed my mind. I hope this e-mail can serve as an early warning to this enforcement trap……Dennis Alton
check out this story from November when PDOT’s Roger Geller testified for the DA about bike lane hearings in a case tried in traffic court by Mark Ginsberg about this exact issue.
I too was fined $242 for safely and lawfully crossing SE 11th/12th to get to Clinton Street. The motorcycle officer was vague about what I did wrong, but after a civil discussion it is clear they are targeting bicyclists in SE Portland and it is increasing.
I pointed out I live on Clinton St and all these years of commuting I’ve never seen one of many speeding motorist during commute hours get a ticket; I have witnessed several bicyclists pulled over in the last few years. Yes, there are careless bikers that blow throw stop signs, but their small numbers do not warrant this kind of selective enforcement from the city for minor infractions.
Random $242 tickets for biking to work: the city is telling me to commute by car.
Thanks for that info, Jonathan. If the City is using the BMP as its evidence of having fulfilled the hearing requirement, and the BMP was last revised in 1996, then it seems to me one has to conclude that this evidence would be inapplicable to support the hearing requirement for any bike lane created after the revision date of the BMP.
Is this enough to rebut the rebuttable presumption? I guess we’ll find out in the next case. Or maybe I should just talk to Mark about this.
Reading these stories and comments about this area of SE Portland, it seems obvious to me that the Traffic Division of PPD has decided we bicyclists just don’t belong in industrial areas, period.
Jonathan, is there any way to have more interaction with the head of the Traffic Division, or do your past conversations with him tell you maybe cyclists would have more luck writing to Rosie Sizer for explanation and some relief from this targeting?
My understanding of the Potter decision is that the judge determined that, by the act of the city traffic engineer authorizing and placing the bike lane on the street, comes with the presumption that the city traffic engineer has de facto determined the bike lane to be safe, precluding the need for the public hearing on the safety of the bike lane.
My personal opinion is that this is complete BS, there are plenty of unsafe bike lanes throughout town, and to the best of my knowledge no safety hearings as required by ORS 814.420(2) have ever been held on any of the city’s bike lanes.
as many of you know, I’ve written at length about these issues with how the police are enforcing bike laws.
I think we need to have a large forum discussion with Traffic Divsion, Mayor, and Chief Sizer to talk about this.
The BTA met with Potter’s office a few weeks ago to talk about enforcement. I wanted to be there, but I was told because I’m media that it would not be a good idea for me to be there.
i think the situation needs to be improved. there is work to be done. stay tuned.
I still think we need to start a massive letter-writing campaign to the City Council to slash the police budget.
They’ve obviously got way too many officers and way too much time on their hands, still, if they have time to cite bicyclists for riding outside of the bicycle lane.
I mean, give me a break.
Then again, this is the same police force that once wrote me a ticket for walking in the middle of the street… on a one-lane road with no sidewalks.
And the judge upheld that one, too.
Portland needs police & judicial reform in a REALLY, REALLY bad way.
I agree with you Garlynn. It does appear that street cops have too little to do and the detective divisions are overwhelmed. Perhaps the manpower being wasted on bike enforcement should be shifted to deal with gang violence, drug crimes, property theft, and violent crimes? Seems like a better use of resources than cruising certain neighborhoods looking for two wheeled “outlaws”.
My impression is that PoPo is using the “squeaky wheel” model to service traffic complaints. They get calls from angry motorists or the ‘Ross Island Cement Co.’ and they show up and hand out a bunch of random tickets so they can say they ‘addressed’ the complaint.
My concern is about the legitimacy of the complaints. Motorists far outnumber bicyclists and logically will generate more complaints. I think PoPo should make these specific types of complaints transparent (web, newsletter) to the biking community.
If the way I’m riding my bike to and from work is legitimately causing safety issues for motorists or cement companies, I’d like to know upfront instead of getting a random $242 ticket.
This has probably been said many times before – I just became involved recently this forum since I got a random $242 ticket and I have to admit, my bike commute is not that enjoyable anymore.