Updated: Police; Truck driver will not be cited

This may be the straw that breaks the camel\’s back.

Failure to yield???? Hello?

De facto failure to yield?

At a loss for words.

Obviously the rules do not apply when WE are the victims, so I\’m trying to remember why it is that we are supposed to obey them.

Oh right, they\’ll write me a ticket.

Perhaps PPB hasn\’t yet heard of the vulnerable users statute?

Let\’s make sure the D.A. has heard of it…

if enough cyclists show up we could shut west burnside down this evening

What a joke. A total, utter, yet not-at-all-surprising, joke.

I think it would be far more insulting to have the driver prosecuted on a $242 failure to yield ticket than it would be to issue no ticket at all.

\”if enough cyclists show up we could shut west burnside down this evening\” – BURR#8

Well, being as failure to yeild is obviously not illegal at the corner of 14th and West Burnside, the police shouldn\’t have a problem with this.

What time? Should this possibly be organized with a day or two of notice to increase turnout?

give a date and i time, i will be there.

this is an outrage.

Can a Citizen Initiated Violation Prosecution be made by a third party, or does it have to be done by the person in the accident?

ORS 153.058 – I\’ve looked through the statute briefly, but don\’t see anything definitive either way.

friday sounds good but good luck on getting a silent crowd

i would show up and block burnside. i\’ve delt with too many cops who are prejudiced against bikes…even the ones who ride. let them deal with the traffic problems. this is wrong wrong wrong. i want to be safe on the road.

I\’m thinking that a candlelight vigil in the intersection would be the most appropriate response. Friday\’s likely the best day, too.

I\’ll head over there

It\’s amazing how effectively Kruger cut out the rest of the legal system, just by saying \”no citation will be issued.\” Who needs judges or juries?

Wow, so everybody here is apparently a lawyer. Nobody seems open to the possibility that:

a. it was indeed an accident
b. cyclists can be and frequently are at fault in accident situtation
c. frequently break the very laws they complain about automobiles breaking (running stop signs, for example).

And wear your helmets. You cannot complain about other people not respecting your safety if you do not respect it yourself.

Do I drive, yes. Do I ride (defensively), yes.

I\’ll be there.

believe it or not, accidents do happen

It\’s possible that she was both riding completely legally, and not positioned safely for crossing the intersection. If the driver can\’t see you because of where you\’re positioned, there\’s not much the driver can do to keep from hitting you.

A failure to yield conviction isn\’t about the money or punishment. It\’s about establishing fault.

Having the traffic court find the driver at fault for the accident is an important piece in the puzzle of further legal remedies.

a $242 failure to yield ticket doesn\’t seem like much, but it firmly establishes fault in the crash, which makes the results of any follow-up civil actions that much more certain.

True, I suppose, but if the driver was negligent, it\’s really not necessary to have that little piece of paper to successfully prosecute the case.

And I would still feel insulted to have this incident reduced to a \”failure to yield.\” That should be reserved for fender benders. When somebody suffers serious injuries or death, that\’s a whole other level of violation we should be talking about.

Us vs. Them hypocricy.

Actually, now that I think about it, the cyclist who died in that incident was the one who violated the other cyclist\’s right of way.

There will be a slow ride up Burnside to the site of the accident tomorrow (Friday).

It will start from the west approach of the Burnside Bridge (where the Burnside is closed to motor vehicles).

Meet at 6pm.
Ride at 6:30.

Candles, flowers, notes…bring whatever you think is appropriate.

I\’ll be there tonight

There is a special Breakfast on Hawthorn Bridge tomorrow.

https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/shift/2007-10/msg00069.html

The sun won\’t rise until 7:23 tomorrow. I\’m planning on bringing a light for that as well.

Tim, post 43:

I think you laid out one scenario that would explain why a driver might not receive a citation, or even be negligent.

Beyond whether the driver is or isn\’t at fault, planners need to reconfigure how bike lanes are laid out. How many bikers have been hit and/or died due to autos making right turns? Relying on the driver to yield to bikers isn\’t working!

i f\’ing hate to say it, but the scenario in #43 is all too common and, so sadly, mostly the bikers fault. i come up parallel to left-turners all the time. but i know they have the right of way — even if they are cars and i \”know\” they see me. now, if the biker was there first, the trucker is negligent, as he should have seen her. its just a guess, but the biker pulling up is a common site.

this doesnt negate the tragedy if its the case, and it also doesnt mean we shouldnt consider that there may be ways to help prevent this — more the reason for separate bike lanes, and so forth. and, yes, education in the bike community.

i ride with my child in tow all the time, and it has really helped me to think twice about every move i make, and learn not only what lame things drivers may do, but consider why they may do them (and why they might not be so lame).

i am hoping to make it by tomorrow night (cant tonight), cuz awareness is good for everyone … keep your eyes open drivers and bikers alike. peace to the family and friends of the biker. and hopefully some answers too.

If something gets organized can someone send me an email so I can participate?

Thank you

a.O (#49):

I think your suggestion is a good standard for \”due care\” in this situation. My scenario posited the cyclist pulling up alongside, into his blind spot, so even if he was exercising \”due care,\” or perhaps even \”extra care,\” he might not be at fault, for example, if he didn\’t happen to be looking at his mirror during the second or two she crossed his range of view.

Instead of–or in addition to–focusing on the possibility of the driver\’s personal negligence, I would also focus on how those mirrors are mounted on trucks. For example, if the configuration allows too much of a blind spot, we might see positive change in the standard of \”due care\” required of trucking companies in the installation of range-of-sight equipment on large vehicles (and on this note I suggest that the \”wide right turn\” notices mentioned by Jordan in #55 help to put other vehicles on notice), rather than pinning the blame on a single individual who might have done everything he could have.

I\’m not surprised this happened. On the bike this summer it became clear to me that bike lanes at intersections have this potentially fatal flaw that compounds the possibility that motor vehicle drivers will not see a cyclist to their right in a bike lane at an intersection.

At least as one solution to the problem to consider, at intersections, bikes should be merging with motor vehicles or vice versa as seems to have been suggested by earlier comments by other people.

\”… bike lanes at intersections have this potentially fatal flaw that compounds the possibility that motor vehicle drivers will not see a cyclist to their right in a bike lane at an intersection.\”

Just an idea:
Take for example the eastside of the Hawthorne: A sign telling \”Joe Leadfoot\” that he/she must \”yield to bikes\” actually seems to work. Perhaps a solution is to sign darn near any right turn on a bike lane with a similar heads up. Post it on the stripe separating bike/ auto lanes with a few bollards leading up to it. Ok, yes this might cost some $, but it\’s better than another tragedy like this.

I have seen so much of this legalized slaughter ,I t sickens me that AHUMAN LIFE IS TREATED LESS BECAUSE OF THE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION THEY CHOOSE!!! When will death on a bike matter,to Police? ,city government….Stop Killing us!!!!!

Why don\’t you all wait until the investigation is complete to see what the police are actually doing? Nobody here saw what happened so put down the damn pitchforks. It sounds like the fault of both involved, though, as usual, the biker lost. Don\’t think that regardless of the outcome, the driver will ever get off scott free too. You can\’t just shake off killing someone on accident.

I agree with Viddy: cyclists could drive more defensively. Today, I was bumped by a car (my handle bars, from the side; I did not lose control). It was frightening, and I was initially angry, but in fact, I was as much at fault – and as dumb – as the vehicle. While either the driver or myself could have prevented the situation, once we realized what was happening, we were also both able to prevent it from being worse.

Having said that, however, and without particular reference to this case, I think a lot of the anger felt toward the city is misdirected – I believe A.O. could shed better light on this subject, but it seems to me that Oregon has particularly weak laws when it comes to fatal car crashes.

If my understanding is correct, a majority of states have laws that would allow for prosecution under manslaughter charges in cases not resulting from criminal negligence; I understand that Oregon does not. Without judging this biker or driver, it seems that Salem could and should pass laws that allow for something between a citation and a murder charge, and that clarify for police how they should proceed in situations such as this one.

Not seeing her because there\’s a lot of blindspots in a big, elevated truck seems likely.

But \”not seeing\” something doesn\’t change the fact that he failed to yield the right of way. I\’ve been t-boned (in my car) because I didn\’t see another car coming. I told the cop I didn\’t see the car, but it apparently doesn\’t matter: I still got a ticket. (btw: it was at the crest of a hill and the oncoming car was hidden. I was exonerated in court.)

Whether there was a blindspot or glare on the windshield or whatever, the fact is the driver failed to yield. Undoubtedly, he failed to yield accidentally, or perhaps he failed to use \”due caution,\” but he definitely failed to yield her right of way.

I\’m trying to imagine what about the accident would warrant not issuing the citation. Because \”I didn\’t see her\” isn\’t a valid excuse.

Doesn\’t Portland have video cameras running in some downtown intersections?

I\’m really having a hard time with this one – to me, I think both are at fault, as the driver didn\’t yield, but I also blame the cyclist for putting herself in that position. The number one rule for when you drive a car is to be defensive; never assume that the other guy is paying attention or sees you. Always assume that the other guy is dangerous and always be aware of your surrounding. The same needs to be said for when you\’re on a bicycle. Yes, it was failure to yield, but if you were the driver sitting in the truck and you see nothing to yield to, what would you do? If I didn\’t see anybody, I\’d assume that it was clear and would make the turn. Are we requiring that drivers need to sit at a new green light for 5 seconds just to make sure everything has cleared before moving? (Which, isn\’t a bad idea – Once again, drive defensively) Yes, he failed to yield to something he couldn\’t see, which I guess could be negligence, or it could be an accident that could have been prevented by both parties. Bike lanes are just a bad idea and its time that bicycles are REQUIRED to take the lane when in the downtown area. NO MORE BIKE LANES!!! If there was no bike lane and she was taking the lane as any other vehicle would have done, she would have been queued either in front of of behind the truck, and we wouldn\’t have to talk about this horrible trajedy.

I can shed some light on the \”not issuing a citation\” issue. If the investigating officer were to issue a citation for say Failure to Yield to a Bicyclist in a Bike Lane (ORS 811.050) and the driver immediately pleaded guilty and paid the fine, it makes it difficult to later prosecute for a criminal violation due to double jeopardy. So the investigating officer by not issuing the cite is leaving the door open for more serious charges if the D.A. or Grand Jury chooses.

Having said that, its unlikely that there will be any criminal charges regardless of who was at fault as it would be extremely difficult to prove that the driver of the cement truck knowingly or negligently (remember that negligence is a legal term and not always the same as the Webster\’s version) drove into the cyclist. It\’s very likely that he didn\’t, in fact couldn\’t, see her if she stopped right next to him

I\’m suprised that these types of collisions don\’t happen more often as the design and configuration of many types of vehicles, like large trucks, makes it difficult for drivers to see immediately to the side below the level of their windows.

When I\’m in that situation, I make it a point to actually pull a little in front of the vehicle if possible and look back at the driver and try to make eye contact. That gets me out of their blind spot and I know they see me.

Citations can be issued long after the fact. In the most serious cases, the police will be as methodical and careful as possible in the investigation, so that, among other things, any potential prosecution won\’t be tarnished. This might mean that a citation isn\’t issued until a later time. (And of course it could mean that a citation isn\’t eventually issued.)

It seems \”Truck Driver Will Not Be Cited\” could be potentially misleading, as it is probably more natural to mentally add the word \”ever\” to the end of the headline rather than the word \”today.\” It is better explained later in the article, but I wonder if that was the updated part?

Jonathan, thank you for the information added later. But would it be possible to display the article in a way that makes it more clear what was the original information and what was the additional information? Sometimes you display your edits. Knowing how the article read before and after the update might allow us to better understand the context behind the initial comments posted.

Speaking of making the news, I commend Jonathan for his efforts to hold other news outlets accountable for how they cover bike-related stories. Whereas some reporters are very supportive and sensitive towards cyclists’ position and perspectives, some jump toward favoring drivers while implying blame toward cyclists, even before facts roll in. Television and print publications reach the masses, and those types of outlets could play a key role in making the shift in awareness, sensitivity, and respect that is needed if bikes and motor vehicles are to safely share these roads. Some outlets have made great strides in supporting this movement, whereas others show plenty of room for improvement in reporting.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting or over analyzing, but does anyone else see a problem with this story and police report verbiage:

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_101107_news_cyclist_killed.15ed4964a.html

Rather than saying that \”a truck collided with a cyclist\” it says that the \”cyclist collided with the truck…\” I know that complete details of this investigation are to be determined, but it seems evident that the truck ran over or “collided” with the young woman, not vice versa (leaving any talk of “blame” aside here; it is unfair to draw conclusions about the driver, as we don’t know all of the facts, and we haven’t heard the individual’s perspective. Let’s be fair and careful before jumping to conclusions). Now, I have seen what happens when cyclists fail to look and collide with parked or stopped cars. But this incident does not sound like a case of a bike cruising into a truck. I think that we should focus on the big picture here and not become stagnated by minutia, but this was one small reporting detail that did catch my eye. I hope that the media addresses this case in a manner that does justice to both the cyclist and truck driver. And I hope that it does the right thing: use this horrific loss as a sad opportunity to raise awareness about how our shared streets can and must become safer- as lives are on the line- rather than fueling detrimental “vehicles vs. bikes” conflicts and mentalities.

Also, as far as reporting goes, Jonathan, I support you in posting the photograph of the post-fatality scene. The victim’s body and identity were not tactlessly exposed in the photo. It was a sad look at the scene of a tragic event that we must keep in our minds forever. I understand that some were upset by the photo, and that is certainly understandable. But I don’t believe that posting it was gratuitous or disrespectful. These are strange times; we live in a society where adults and children abundantly absorb fictitious, removed representations of death on a daily basis via television dramas, movies, and video games, yet sometimes fail to see the reality behind life and the tragedy of death when it happens in our community and around the world. The mass media is a key player in propagating this cultural phenomenon- where people become so removed from important realities and facts, so distracted, that some don’t seem to care. Back during the Viet Nam War, television news showed real, raw footage of what was happening over there every night, and what it looked like as soldiers returned (in flag-draped boxes, rolling off military planes on conveyer belts). This is what American families watched as they ate dinner. These days, I feel that we are too often deprived of such frank, honest reporting. Perhaps if Americans in general were less removed from the realities that surround us, we as a society would have more consideration for the profundity of human life and death, whether while driving out on the road, keeping eyes carefully peeled for cyclists, and on other levels. Again, this is a general observation, not an accusatory remark towards the truck driver involved in today’s tragedy (the blind spot possibility is so sad in both directions). Ultimately, thank goodness for our community- this online forum and catalyst for unity. What is happening here gives me hope; people are coming together- connecting rather than disconnecting (a paradigm shift in how “news” generally works). Portland is a predominantly positive place to be, and we can’t forget that during this time.

Thanks to those who’ve organized a vigil. The idea of slowly walking the bikes sounds very powerful, respectful, and meditative; good thinking. Be strong, be peaceful, and be careful, everyone. Let\’s all come together around this tragedy.

Finally- most importantly- my heart aches tonight for the loss of this young woman’s life. My deepest sympathies go out to her family and loved ones. I will be thinking of her as I ride each day.

Knowing that one is the holier than thou bicyclist occupying a bike lane does not add up to having license to ignore your own duty of due care if (and it is a big if) the bicyclist pulled alongside the signalling cement truck, stopped and then proceeded when the light changed ASSuming the cement truck driver would see her.

We all have a duty to exercise due care under the circumstances as we encounter them, to avoid a risk of harm to ourselves. Just because he was driving the big bad dump truck and she was on teh bicycle, one can not assume he is the functional equivalent of the devil, and she was Mother Teresa.

I posted in the other thread re: bicyclists in blind spots on large trucks making right turns. It is an issue bicyclists and drivers both need to be aware of, and both need to exercise care. But it occurs to me the bicyclist is in the best position to know when the risk exists. A truck driver does not encounter a bicycle at every corner at which a right turn is being made.

Think how the cement truck driver must feel.

I like all this talk of defensive biking tactics. It is helpful for me, as a recently minted biker. So here\’s my contribution: While I don\’t do this often, one strategy I use at busy intersections (other than merging with traffic) is to move over into the pedestrian walkway. It is usually farther away from traffic and unlikely to be in anybody\’s blind spot.

I think the horribly stark contrast between the huge and heavy cement truck and the exposed cyclist makes this fatality harshly moving to a greater audience. The lack of citation shows the vulnerability of all cyclists to be institutional as well as physical.

As Schrauf describes, my practice is that if I have a bike lane, it\’s mine to use and I go the front. If there\’s not, I line up with traffic at an intersection, rather than passing on the right. Even if there is a bike lane, I\’ll hang behind a first-in-line car with a turn signal on, or wheels not completely pointed straight. I assume they can\’t see me, had a bad day, are changing radio stations, drinking coffee and on the phone, want to turn right on red and beat pedestrians into the crosswalk.

Question #1: I know where the typical blindspots are with cars. Where are they for large trucks, like cement trucks or semi-trucks?

Question #2: Do any legislators, council members, or other policy and lawmakers monitor this site?

This obviously is a very tragic event. As a Bicycle rider, motorcycle rider and trucker, I can see different points of view As a Bicycle rider and motorcycle rider, I Realize that I will lose if insist on my legal right of way when I\’m up against 4 and 5 thousand pound cars and 80 thousand pound trucks, making sure I am seen and even giving right of way when I have it legally, is often used by me to avoid becoming a grease spot on the road. As a trucker, these rigs have blind spots, directly behind you, and right along the cab near the right front wheel.
Unless, the truck has a Right Front Fender mount mirror and I didn\’t see one in the photos, and all mirrors are properly adjusted. Common sense tells me NOT to pull up alongside a heavy truck (perhaps even with its right turn signal on?) but to hold back. If the driver didn\’t see her, as he states, it makes sense that perhaps she pulled up alongside him in his blindspot after he was stopped? Lets with hold judgement until all the FACTS are in. This is a lose lose for everyone, someone has lost a daughter, sister friend and the driver has to live with the fact he has killed someone his fault or not.

re: the post about California law requiring vehicles making right turns to occupy the bike lane. Trucks require lots of room to make right turns, being up against the curb does not allow them to make said turn either at all, or without pulling out into oncoming traffic, This law would work well for cars but not large trucks

wow, even if he was totally sober and it was a complete accident the girl is dead. isn\’t that called manslaughter?

Driver not cited. So what else is new? Bicycling and walking aren\’t taken seriously by the auto-centered as valid forms of transportation. We read countless times that a driver gets away with murder because \”they didn\’t see\” the pedestrian/cyclist.\” If a car hits a car, that excuse NEVER flies.

You can bet your life that if the truck driver had hit a car and killed the driver, he/she would\’ve been charged with manslaughter or something.

Oh, maybe not. Because the driver worked for a BUSINESS, and we don\’t want to make a BUSINESS be responsible for anything. However, had the driver been in a privately owned vehicle, THEN the driver would have been cited.

Mindless majority rules.

As a fellow cyclist, I\’m deeply saddened every time I hear of tragic accidents involving bike riders. However, as a humanitarian, I feel the same when I hear of auto related deaths as well.

Many posting here seem to want to think that the driver maliciously ran down this cyclist or something. When I think about the details released at this point, I can see how this easily could have happened.

Stopping next to a truck of this size, with it\’s mirrors that sit well above the height of a rider\’s head, it\’s easy to see how it\’s possible the driver had no idea that she was there.

The dreaded right turn scenario is an all too frequent cyclist related accident. It\’s one we should all anticipate as we ride near autos through intersections. Riding near big rigs of this size only increases that risk. My main question, that I have yet to see an answer to in the reports, is whether or not the driver\’s turn signal was on?

Lots of posts on this thread. Too many for me to read.

Bottom line for me is that the truck was in motion and he could not see where he was going. His truck was moving through space he could not see. How can that possilby be not negligent. I\’m sure people are going to tell me how this happens all the time. But I still think it is wrong. When you are in motion. You need to have visibility into the space your are moving or don\’t move. Or if you drive through space you can\’t see and you strike something, their should be consequences.

It is exacly like driving with your eyes closed. It\’s probally legal but it should not be.

You kill somebody when driving where you can\’t see. That is negligent homicide in this layman\’s book. The lawyers may call it something else, or nothing at all.

Common sense tells me NOT to pull up alongside a heavy truck (perhaps even with its right turn signal on?) but to hold back.

The problem is common sense takes time and life experience to develop, and a 19 year old isn\’t going to have the same life experience to draw upon that someone 20 or 30 years older will have.

Yes, we cyclists need to use our common sense, but we also need to develop and draw upon a body of common knowledge on safe cycling practices– developed only through the collective time and experience of all cyclists– that will help keep us safe.

Yes, rixtir, I think you\’ve said it well. Experience is a key factor here, sad as it is. I am teaching my 19 year old to drive a car. He has had his permit for several months now but his lack of driving experience has caused him to make errors that a grown adult like myself would not make. My heart goes out to the families of both the victim and the driver of the truck.

Part of the problem is that bike lanes entice us to pass on the right or pull up on the right of a vehicle stopped at a light. Where else in the world of traffic that drives on the right, do you find a right hand lane is not a turn lane but the left hand lane is. This is just poor traffic planning.

Pulling up in the bike lane beside a larger vehicle requires you to find the drivers line of sight and get in it. In the case of large vehicles that pretty much means putting yourself 10 feet in front of the truck and jumping up and down.

I\’ve seen it a lot in other cities where the bike lane dividing line is a dashed line within a certain distance of an intersection. This basically indicates that the bike lane is a legal turning lane.

Some will say that just takes away from our rights to the road as cyclists, but if it eliminates the situation where a vehicle turning right has to cut across a traveled lane of traffic then I\’ll deal with being delayed.

Take the lane. Drivers often don\’t see me when I pull up to their right after they\’ve stopped, especially downtown – they don\’t expect us to be there. After a few close encounters I now either wait to see their intent, if I\’m in the bike lane, or I take their lane and follow. I\’d rather be alive than \”dead\” right.

#105…

Have you ever driven a truck???

I drive a truck about the size of your average cement truck nearly 200 miles a week in Portland, I also ride 60 miles a week commuting back and forth to work. Needless to say I can definately see both sides of this issue.

Comments like the one above show our ignorance to other users of the road and help foster a \”us vs. them\” mentality that will, if left unchecked, create an all out war on our city streets that we as cyclists will always lose due to our obvious vunerabilities.

We expect cars to undertand what it\’s like to ride a bike, why then do we feel that we are somehow excempt from trying to understand what it is like to drive a truck, bus, or any other large vehicle.

It\’s important, as bicycle commuters, to show that we are not only forward thinking when it comes to our own personal transportation, but also that we are forward thinking when it comes to ALL forms of transportation that we share the road with in that we take the time to imagine what it\’s like to drive something other than a bike.

It will keep us all alive longer AND help us peacefully co-exist with our on road neighbors.

–

The tragedy that is shared by the victim\’s friends and family AND the driver of the truck will remain heavy upon their hearts long after we\’ve all moved on to the next finger-pointing session.

They are all in my thoughts tonight.

I am an avid rider, and driver.

I drive a 25\’ Box Truck, and do my absolute best to keep an eye out for riders that pull up alongside me like that, and even with the best mirrors on our trucks that money can buy, you STILL cannot see someone on a bike pull up next to you.

Out of habit, I always pause once the light turns green for 1-2 seconds, just to make sure, and I have still had riders pull up alongside at full speed, with no lights, or helmet, and just glide by me without paying attention to what my intentions were (blinkers).

This is not the first time its happened with this kind of accident, and wont be the last.

Its sad for the rider who lost her life tragically like this, but the outrage at the driver is uncalled for. What is he supposed to do, shut the truck off, get out, walk around, and make sure there is nothing he can hit?

Bikers need to take responsibility for their actions, and safety out there.

I wear a helmet, have a flashing LED light in front, flashing red LED in rear, and a small bell if needed, to warn people around me that I am there. I ALWAYS assume a driver is going to turn in front of me, and watch a drivers head turning and looking at things to guage what their intentions are (it does work)

biker at fault

The truck driver was stopped, had his signal on. Why would you pull up alongside a vehicle that is turning right? She obviously did not pay attention and see his turn signal. She should have stayed back behind, parallel to the trucks rear bumper, and let him turn, since he was there first. He was definately not at fault. You people are extemists and hopefully will get cited for willfully delaying traffic now that there is record on here as to your plans.

I\’ve heard a rumor that an eyewitness at the scene of Tracy Sparling\’s death *says* that the truck driver didn\’t activate his turn signal until AFTER he had run over and crushed Tracy Sparling to death.

If this (rumored) eyewitness is correct, then it\’s likly that Tracy Sparling felt perfectly safe in pulling up alongside the truck and waiting for the light to turn green

If the truck the driver was NOT signalling a right-hand turn, Tracy Sparling could have logically assumed that, when the light turned green, the truck driver would drive straight ahead in his lane, and that she could safely remain in her lane.

Who is this rumored eyewitness? If you are out there, please come forward and speak out! This question about whether or not the drive used his turn signal makes a HUGE difference in whether or not the truck driver is criminally negligent.

wsbob:

Annoyed by the click-click-click? That\’s your reason?

Please, stay off the road. You are not intelligent enough to be trusted with a car.

Hah! Thanks Mick for that great advice! I knew somebody would respond in the manner you did. I wish I could say that my practice of not turning the signal on until the light changes is unique to me, but it\’s not. It\’s common. You\’re supposed to signal 100\’ from and intersection, so sitting at an intersection waiting for the light to change might be illegal, but are you going to get cited if you turn the signal on before you roll?

The point of me mentioning it, is that generally, in the case of motor vehicles situated conventionally in front of or behind the vehicle you happen to be driving, this isn\’t a problem, and that\’s why I think I and a lot of other drivers follow this practice. You\’re not going anywhere…you\’re just sitting there, so nobody needs to know where you\’re going until the light changes, until now, with the introduction of bike lanes.

Everybody in motor vehicle can generally see each other far more easily than they can a bicycle, especially a solitary bicycle pulling up on their right side in a bike lane after motor vehicle traffic has been immobile while waiting for a light to change. This and the the inevitable lapse in concentration of motor vehicle drivers waiting for long duration traffic signals to change contributes to the creation of what I feel is a fatal flaw in bike lanes at intersections.

I haven\’t yet looked at the bike box people are talking about, but maybe that\’s an answer. The wide blue line seems as though it would be helpful at this intersection. Something obviously needs to be done though.

If there is a bike lane striped right up to the intersection, then I would say the city has liability in this tragic accident for allowing such a dangerous design to be used. Such a bike lane would encourage an inexperienced bicyclist to travel to the right of right-turning motor vehicles, setting them up for this sort of accident.

Facilities should make it easier to travel safely, not harder.

As I posted on the other thread (the rider & Bus Driver), many are ready to codemn the cement truck driver without having \”been in their shoes\”.

Fortunetly, there are cooler geads out there. Be honest with yourself. Although this is not the case here, how many of us have cut across four lanes of traffic with a wave of our hands…our ran a red light in fron of throngs of cars…we can\’t have it both ways.

If we want to be treated with more respect, we have to act the part as well. No, that dosen\’t excuse blatent rudeness on the anyone\’s part, but why wait for the other guy to act first?

Thus far as the facts have been presented, I don\’t believe citations are warranted. (Yes, I am a rider) The tragic death of Tracey was involutary. If something new surfaces, my stance may change. Shouldn\’t we be the better people? No wonder we are fighting such an uphill battle.

Be safe and assume nothing. It may be the law for them to yield, but that will do you no good when you are sitting in a wheelchair or in a coffin.

#117 \”\”When You Should Take a Lane\” that states \”You should also take a lane when you\’re traveling at the same speed as traffic. This will keep you out of motorists\’ blind spots and reduce conflicts with right-turning traffic.\” I think this section would apply to most bicycling in downtown Portland, since I often see bicyclists passing motorists on downtown streets.\”

So why does the city insist on installing hazardous door-zone right-hook bike lanes in the downtown core, and why is the police bureau ticketing cyclists who use better judgement common sense and ignore these death-trap bike lanes???

#118 \”If there is a bike lane striped right up to the intersection, then I would say the city has liability in this tragic accident for allowing such a dangerous design to be used. Such a bike lane would encourage an inexperienced bicyclist to travel to the right of right-turning motor vehicles, setting them up for this sort of accident.

Facilities should make it easier to travel safely, not harder.\”

Bingo on all counts!

Unfortunately, I doubt there will be very much change at either PDOT or the PPB in response to this tragedy, it will continue to be \’business as usual\’….

🙁

I hadn\’t heard that this young woman cyclist, Tracey Sparling, rode her bike with the mentality that she owned the road. Maybe Big Diesel has some kind of inside line on that sort of information that the rest of us don\’t have.

Based on the little bits of information about her posted on various threads on this website and in other news stories, she strikes me as having been kind of a squeaky clean, bright minded kid, inclined to watch her p\’s and q\’s, rather than one of the more annoying, bleep-you, nihilistic hipster, don\’t mess up my phoof-do with a helmet types.

I\’m guessing that Big Diesel is not representative of all the professional truck drivers out there. I\’m guessing that at least some of them read some background material before painting everyone on two wheels with the same broad brush.

wsbob (#116)

Mick said it poorly, but he\’s right – the annoyance of the \”click click click\” is no excuse. All motor vehicles should use turn signals, ALWAYS. And yes, in the 22 years I\’ve been driving, I always have, and have been made fun of because I do it on deserted roads at 2 in the morning. Our habits carry over, and if you let that bad habit carry over, you are a danger to everyone on the road, including yourself. Turn signals are the best preventative safety measure ever put on a motor vehicle. Not using them should be criminally negligent.

If you can\’t be bothered to use them because they annoy you, please, please, PLEASE do not drive anything with a motor until you develop the habit of using them.

——

To those who find it so easy to blame the truck driver – he was making a right turn onto Burnside, which requires a wide turn to avoid crossing into oncoming traffic. Please realize that as with bicycles, starting from a complete stop is the most dangerous time for a truck – the driver is looking left to make sure cross-traffic is not going through the red light illegally, he\’s watching his mirror so his truck doesn\’t clip any poles, canopies, etc, and he\’s watching that he doesn\’t clip any oncoming traffic with his front left bumper, all while trying to see that ped or cyclist in his right-side blind spot. You can\’t look everywhere simultaneouly. The cyclist, meanwhile, is at very low speed with no manueverability and no place to go. It\’s a bad situation, and the two main culprits here are not the driver, nor the cyclist. The two main culprits are bad design and bad engineering. That bike lane should be inboard of the right turn lane, and the lanes should cross half a block back, when vehicles are still in motion and manueverable. And that truck should be designed with better visibility. The truck builder is as responsible in this case as the trucking company – bad design goes all the way back to the manufacturer.

—–

And as for Kruger – high-speed cyclists passing cars on the right have NOTHING to do with this particular case. His use of a tragedy to sell his personal anti-cyclist crusade is appalling. This incident occurred when both vehicles were starting off from a dead stop. The mainstream media reporting likewise reflects an anti-bike bias. The stories themselves are usually quite balanced overall, but the opening paragraphs are invariably slanted against bicycles, and many readers will put down their papers in disgust (or change the channel) long before hearing the other side, safely vindicated in their ire towards those \”crazy bike people who don\’t pay taxes and break the laws\”.

————

Oh, and to those who rightfully point out \”I didn\’t see them\” isn\’t an excuse – you\’re absolutely right. Unfortunately, sometimes it\’s the TRUTH. And although they are always legally responsible, that dosn\’t mean it was their fault (in the moral, not legal sense). Have some compassion – they can\’t see in all directions at once. If they\’re changing the radio, or on a cellphone, or not paying attention, that\’s one thing – but some of these people just are in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and the circumstances of a bad intersection or stretch of road make it impossible to register everything around them. It can happen to everyone, even the best of us.

The best way to avoid THIS type of incident, IMO is to require ALL commercial trucks to have a passenger who can physically look out the window and check the blind spot for the driver. This would not only prevent this kind of accident, it would open up a huge new source of minimum-wage employment for the unskilled. Not to mention reducing workers\’ comp claims since there would be someone to help drivers move and unload stuff in the truck, etc.

Matt,
I like your idea of a passenger required. I\’m all for full employment. The blind spot could also be fixed with technology. Convex mirrors at the corner of the cab might do it. If not then it could be done with video cameras. Of course this does nothing about the problem of too many things to watch at one time. I also like the bike box idea (where bikes stop in front of autos instead of to the side) which may have prevented this tragedy.

I don\’t blame the driver. He\’s just a poor guy trying to make a living in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hate for the driver will not bring Tracey back nor will it make anyone feel better.

Oh, I don\’t care if you annoy me or not. It\’s not a matter of annoyance, it\’s a matter of safety.

It doesn\’t matter anyway – it\’s enforced about as often as cars parked in the bike lane.

I think a lot of motorists don\’t belong on the road. I think a lot of cyclists don\’t belong on the road.

Thank god the world doesn\’t revolve around what *I* think. Or a_O, or Rixter, or Dabby, or Jonathan, Donna, Carl or Sergio. I\’m just glad we can all express our opinions, and have dialogue on all these subjects.

Also thank god that the laws are written from consensus and compromise rather than any one person\’s views. The laws suck, but they\’re the lesser of most evils.

\”The truck builder is as responsible in this case as the trucking company – bad design goes all the way back to the manufacturer.\”

Get real. That\’s like saying the bike manufacturer is at fault for not putting airbags in the handlebars.

\”One of the two parties involved here screwed up.\”

Both did. But only one paid for it with her life.

The important question is what can be done to make those same screw ups less likely or less fatal in the future. Mirrors are one thing that seems obvious.

It seems to me there is an inherent contradiction between a through lane for traffic, including bikes, that mnotor vehicles need to turn across.

So the idea of having vehicles pull into the bike lane to turn is another one worth exploring. (I am not sure it is really true that trucks would not do that. I think they would pull into the bike lane and then swing their front end out to make the turn with their back still blocking the lane.

But I think in the meantime, we ought to assume, as I think most pedestrians do, that until there is a clear indication to the contrary, a turning vehicles won\’t yield.

Nicely said, wsbob.

Amazing how all-too-common events like this really draw the wackos out of the woodwork. Thanks for sending them scurrying back into the darkness of their own stupidity.

I\’m not a bicyclist, but I was employed as a truck driver for more than 30 years. The last 12 of those 30 years were spent in a concrete transit-mixer that was, for all practical purposes, identical to the one involved in this accident.

Television news reports showed that the truck had a convex mirror mounted just below the passenger side flat mirror, and a convex mirror mounted on the front of the right fender.

If those mirrors are clean and properly adjusted, there is no \”blind spot\” on the right side of the truck. The images in a convex mirror are small and distorted, but a bicyclist stopped AT ANY POINT alongside on the right would have been plainly visible to the driver.

If eyewitness accounts that the cyclist and truck were both stopped at the intersection before the accident are correct, then my opinion as a professional driver is that the operator of the mixer is 100% at fault in this case.

Sam Knox