Big sale at Community Cycling Center

Words of wisdom from the guy on the windshield

Posted by on July 15th, 2008 at 9:26 am

oregonian front page-1.jpg

For the third time in less than a week,
“Bikes vs. Cars” makes the front page.

The windshield-surfer from yesterday’s road rage incident has become something of a local celebrity.

The cell-phone video of his wild ride was replayed numerous times on the TV news last night and it was even played and discussed on NBC’s Today Show this morning. Also today, The Oregonian has put a still image from that video on the entire above-the-fold section of their newsstand edition (that makes three times in less than a week that “Bikes vs. Cars” has made the front page, yippee!).

Since the incident, I’ve noticed two comments come in from Mr. Windshield himself — Jason Rehnberg (he apparently prefers the nickname “flow”).

“Some say I should not have said anything and just rode off peacefully, well… there could have been a kid in the road next time and silence equals death.”
–Jason Rehnberg

In the first one, he recounts what happened, beginning with, “Wow, I had no idea this would go so far.”

He also admits that he used “some profane language” against the driver, James Millican (who’s now in the slammer), but that after his initial comment of “Slow down gashole,” he said “very little.”

Rehnberg also stands by his actions:

“Some say I should not have said anything and just rode off peacefully, well… there could have been a kid in the road next time and silence equals death.”

In his second comment, Rehnberg reflects on the effectiveness of yelling at someone to change their behavior.

“I must agree that in most cases yelling and using profanity are very ineffective solutions in getting someone to change their behavior. I prefer to wave and blow kisses at the people who honk at me and call me a jerk or worse for nothing more than slowing them down for a few seconds.”

But he adds that sometimes kisses and waves don’t always do the trick and when, “someone does something so extreme, you just got to shout it out loud… I felt it my civic duty to say something.”

In retrospect, Rehnberg admits that “slow down gashole” is, “not the slickest way to handle the situation” but that it’s “hardly worth running a person down for such a comment.”

I also noticed a comment from a man who lives in the neighborhood where this road rage incident took place. He wrote in to “thank the biker for confronting the driver,” and added that, “At the least I hope the guy can never drive again. If that’s the case then you did change his behavior.”

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

107 Comments
  • Avatar
    Forseti July 15, 2008 at 9:35 am

    \”At the least I hope the guy can never drive again.\”

    That should really be the most important part of the punishment, shouldn\’t it? You\’ve shown such a high likelihood of injuring or killing someone when you\’re behind the wheel of the car that you\’re just going to have to find another way to get around out there – for everyone\’s safety. Take the Max, take a bus, buy a pair of good walking shoes, or – *gasp!* – ride a bike. But since people driving cars are America\’s leading cause of death, we don\’t want *you* behind the wheel any more.

    And it will never happen.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Craig July 15, 2008 at 9:45 am

    I don\’t know why I find this funny…but…I think it if funny you (Jonathan) are snapping pics of the O while it is still in the paper thingy.
    Otherwise, solid article, as usual.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    djasonpenney July 15, 2008 at 9:46 am

    I too live in a residential neighborhood that outsiders tend to use as a through street. I regularly see 30 foot skid or tmarks in front of my house and the stop sign at the end of our block gets knocked over about once a year.

    In this regard I think WashCo and MultCo civil authorities are the same: neither one seems to have the gumption to stand up and say that safety takes preference over the convenience of motorists.

    Until we make our streets safe for pedestrians and cyclists, people are going to hide in their single-occupancy \”gashole\” vehicles, which in turn seems to encourage the authorities to make the streets even more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.

    Here are some examples of some poor civil engineering choices:

    http://sanjosehatespedestrians.priss.org/

    Be sure to follow the links to see how civil engineers there really hate pedestrians. And don\’t think that it\’s only California; K\’Tesh has displayed at least one truly horrific choice that ODOT made at a WES crossing in Tigard.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Anonymous July 15, 2008 at 9:49 am

    I saw this video played on NBC\’s Today Show this morning (and I wasn\’t glad to see it playing there). Perhaps we can create a great public education campaign with all of this momentum (positive or not). Don\’t forget why we\’re out there everyday riding!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jonathan Maus (Editor) July 15, 2008 at 9:49 am

    \”I think it is funny you (Jonathan) are snapping pics of the O while it is still in the paper thingy.\”

    Craig,

    I do this to give the headline more context and to show that it is the newsstand edition, versus what is delivered to homes.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    2GOAT July 15, 2008 at 10:06 am

    Given these 3 events, the focus trully should be on road rage. There is an actual site, http://www.roadragers.com/what-is-road-rage.htm
    that addresses road rage. Granted the site is focused on motorist vs motorist conflict, but many of the suggestions they offer to defuse the \”rage\” really apply to all people in traffic.
    I do acknowlegde that in Bicyclist vs Motor vehicle, the cyclist is the vulnerable member and justifiably threatened by any inattentive motion of a car but there has to be a more constructive mechanism to deal with the rage.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Antonia July 15, 2008 at 10:28 am

    Something similar happened here in SF recently, caught on video, but Im not sure any further action was taken.
    http://current.com/items/89088884_when_cars_and_bikes_share_more_than_the_road

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Michael July 15, 2008 at 10:30 am

    Off topic, I can\’t wait for some good news. Seems kinda depressing lately. That\’s why I don\’t watch the nightly news on tv, seems like it\’s not news unless it\’s bad news. That\’s what I love about this site, you usually give an update on some development or event that I can look forward to and didn\’t know about. You do a great job of equally covering everything bike related in and around our fair city, thank you for that. Here\’s to hoping for more love, peace, and greater things to come for Portland and those of us who call it home.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    SmilingMonk July 15, 2008 at 10:30 am

    I found the cell phone video very frightening!

    I hope the driver spends a LONG time in jail thinking about his drunken actions.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Mr DeJerk July 15, 2008 at 10:33 am

    This is very interesting… Newspaper headlines, on a certain span of time, will tell a story better than the content of the articles isolated. Most of the times (specially speaking of mediocre mainstream papers), they are a manipulated story. Just check the headlines from September 12th 2001 and on, and you\’ll have a story being created and leading a nation to a war.
    This week\’s story from the Oregonian is one about a conflict, too, as it has been pointed out, of \”bikes vs cars\”.
    Regardless of how much they are overplaying this or that side, what people that have the O as main source of information are receiving, is a story of a conflict that will only escalate. There are so many efforts being put to pretend this conflict is unavoidable, but my opinion is that this city is already too small for the slogan \”Share the Road\”. It is impossible, at this point, to coexist peacefully without giving preference/right of way to one mode of transportation over the other. Beyond cases of road rage, sensitive cyclists are threatened by cars, and motorists have their \”freedom to move as fast as they can\” threatened by something \”smaller\” than them. Should we address this conflict more openly, or should we isolate the cases that reflect that because we are afraid to have to stand for what we really believe in (and maybe hurting someone\’s feelings)?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Pete July 15, 2008 at 10:34 am

    Jonathan (#5): I did notice the edition here at the office has a different headline: \”Motorist vs. bicyclist… vs. hood of car\”.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    david July 15, 2008 at 10:37 am

    Snapping the shot in the paper box shows what the general public would see passing by. The immpact/shock sell!

    I do laugh that the cyclist admits his minor \’faults\’. I blow kisses and wave sometimes but if it gets close I too go right for the yelling or maybe a hand gesture. I know I may be inciting a fight but how else should you respond? I get buzzed by someone everytime I ride. It\’s almost normal.

    I have been an advocate for speed bumps in residential streets. It seems that someone has to die first before that happens though. Seeing the video, that guy must have been going way over 30mph before skidding to a stop. Speed bumps probably would have thrown the cyclist off the hood but then maybe the driver wouldn\’t be going so fast in the first palce.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jasun Wurster July 15, 2008 at 10:40 am

    Mr. Rehnberg makes a very valid point that I agree with about speaking out. It is the responsibility of the people that live in an area to strengthen it\’s community by speaking up to make others aware and accountable to their acts.

    Reading other blogs about this story is really saddening because their are a majority of people who chastise the victim for speaking out. Perhaps it is because of this Silent Majority why our soceity is not as civil as it could be.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] Somehow a guy with a cellphone got video of it. There’s lots more at the bikeportland blog. […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Andy July 15, 2008 at 10:54 am

    We have cars blowing through our neighborhood all the time. Absolutely do we feel like we have to say something, or they\’ll just keep doing it. I can\’t imagine just sitting quietly by and watching cars race by with kids playing in front of the house.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    SkidMark July 15, 2008 at 10:56 am

    I hate speed bumps AKA \”Sleeping Policemen\”, in a car or on a bike.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    toddistic July 15, 2008 at 10:58 am

    It is one\’s social responsibility to hold others accountable for their actions. the whole \”keep quiet mind your own business\” mantra that floats around here is pure relativism at its finest!

    As Pastor Martin Niemöller said:

    When the Nazis came for the communists,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a communist.

    When they locked up the social democrats,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a social democrat.

    When they came for the trade unionists,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a trade unionist.

    When they came for the Jews,
    I remained silent;
    I wasn\’t a Jew.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Chad July 15, 2008 at 10:59 am

    (a little off topic, but it needs to be said)

    Jonathan, good job this morning on OPB and, well hell, every time you speak for us (whether some like it or not).

    The responsibility that falls upon your shoulders during times like this has got to be immense, but in every instance you have made more than a few of us \”road users\” very, very happy to have you as the most vocal (and most heard) member of our community.

    Thank you.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Elisabeth July 15, 2008 at 10:59 am

    Really sad, but hopefully, this will lead to some more impetus to locate funding to traffic calm our bicycle boulevards to a FAR greater extent, so that these kinds of conflicts can be minimized or mitigated.

    If Lincoln had had a semi-diverter at 50th or some such thing, I would guess ten to one, this event would not have unfolded, because there would not have been a driver speeding down the street using it as a cut-through in the first place. Ditto for the Clinton Road Rage incident that happened last year.

    With more & more & more bikes on the road, I think the argument could be made that we are really going to have to start seeking funding to create better bike boulevard networks that do not allow for such speeding traffic that is not from the neighborhood.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    anonymous July 15, 2008 at 11:21 am

    @david:

    \”I blow kisses and wave sometimes but if it gets close I too go right for the yelling or maybe a hand gesture. I know I may be inciting a fight but how else should you respond? I get buzzed by someone everytime I ride. It\’s almost normal.\”

    I think it depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to satiate your immediate anger, then your middle digit may do the trick.

    But you need to acknowledge that you are consciously escalating the conflict. Worse, you are consciously escalating a conflict that you cannot win. You are providing satisfaction to the very person who is antagonizing you. Ignoring the person or waving (in a non-ironic fashion, of course) is the most defusing response.

    Violence rarely erupts spontaneously. Violence is the result of actions and reactions. Your reaction to an idiotic action by a driver may determine whether violence occurs. If violence occurs, you will almost certainly lose.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Robert Dobbs July 15, 2008 at 11:26 am

    anonymous @20

    Your reaction to an idiotic action by a driver may determine whether violence occurs. If violence occurs, you will almost certainly lose.

    I agree. We should all lie supine and beg for mercy from our motorized overlords.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    joel July 15, 2008 at 11:32 am

    Yo Portland quit driving and riding drunk! Stay home and sleep it off. Both of the violent events in the past week were the result of boozed up jerks who I have no pity on, regardless of their transit choices. I feel that despite the danger of violent actions we as citizens of Portland need to continue to tell our neighbors when we feel they are acting dangerously in their cars and on their bikes. Its called a community.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    mad mike July 15, 2008 at 11:33 am

    I think we should stage a steel-cage style, mixed-martial arts fight between the driver of yesterday\’s rampaging car and the bike-swinging maniac from the other day. They can have a blood-caked fight to the death, with the winner being awarded a contract to write moronic and sensationalistic stories for the Oregonian that will serve to dumb down our collective IQ even further.

    Happy times, indeed

    p.s. let\’s get us some more calming, soothing local singletrack access in town, eh? Rare is the road-rage incident on dirt, or so I\’ve noticed…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Paul Souders July 15, 2008 at 11:33 am

    @2GOAT (#3):

    \”Given these 3 events, the focus trully should be on road rage.\”

    What he said.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    bArbaroo July 15, 2008 at 11:46 am

    I second what Chad #18 said!

    I so appreciate your articulate and reasonable voice in the (other)media.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Toby July 15, 2008 at 11:47 am

    Glad to see the O give equal headlines, But it sucks they had the opportunity.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    toddistic July 15, 2008 at 11:50 am

    i\’m pretty sure the Oregonian had to give equal headlines, otherwise their bias would have been so completely oblvious it would have ecilpsed their \”journalistic integrity\”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    n8m July 15, 2008 at 11:51 am

    Does anyone know if James Millican is an Oregonian reader (esp. of the recent car vs. bike articles), and thus a participant in the Oregonian sponsered \”Cars vs. Bikes\” war? Im curious.

    Perhaps his act of violence was inspired by the Oregonian. The Oregonian should get proper credit for inciting violence on our streets.

    Americans love war. War sells. Congratulations Oregonian.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Forseti July 15, 2008 at 11:53 am

    @ #26:

    LOL, you said \”the Oregonian\” and \”journalistic integrity\” in the same sentence. Good one!!

    [don\’t worry, I noticed the quotes]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    nancy July 15, 2008 at 11:57 am

    Oh the hypocrisy! Awesome work, as usual, \”bicycle community\”.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Diogo July 15, 2008 at 12:00 pm

    I agree with DeJerk – these coverages are preparing the field for future actions to come; they\’re sending home the message of conflict and law-breaking bicyclists, and the ultimate result can only be one: crackdown on cyclists.

    There\’s not much what can be done against drivers that is not already being done. However, regarding bikes, expect increasing repression and enforcement. That is the only answer this society has for every problem: repression, police force, even if it doesn\’t achieve nothing. Unfortunately we cannot expect the public debate to go deep into the issue, to pay attention to the nuances. Its just much easier to say: \”enforce the law\”, punish the \”bad guys\” – always this black and white approach.

    \”They\” are just waiting for a tipping point, a 9/11 that will justify the tough actions to come. It will come as soon as a cyclist injure someone when running a stop sign, for example. And that will eventually happen, because accidents happen. But repression probably, as usual, will not change anything.

    Which is crazy! We\’ve been seeing so many accidents involving cars and bikes. Sometimes the bikes are breaking the law, sometimes the cars are – but ALWAYS it is the cyclists who gets hurt. That should be enough to understand that the legal paradigm does not assure safety – but, again, that is beyond what most people are willing to question. But, for me, that means that if I don\’t want to get hurt or hurt someone else, traffic laws should not be the guiding principle, but rather the law of physics. As I see it, you can be right according to the law but still be wrong if you are endangering yourself or others by trusting that the law will protect you. I told my partner after the deaths of cyclists last year: who cares if they were right according to the law; ultimatelly the responsibility is yours, always, because your goal in the road is to survive and not to be \”right\”… Anyways…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    bean July 15, 2008 at 12:10 pm

    I like to give the \”thumbs-down\” sign when I see a bad driver out there. It gets the point across without being overly rude, obnoxious, etc…
    It takes a little practice to get in the habit, instead of \”the bird\”.

    Jonathan: job well done.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Roma July 15, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    @toddistic #17:

    I don\’t know if you could have possibly twisted that quote anymore out of context.

    Choosing not to yell at a passing motorist can hardly be considered the same thing as passively watching as a fascist government kills masses of people. What point are you trying to make? That if we don\’t yell at speeding cars pretty soon we\’ll be in prison camps?

    Can anyone really provide an example of where the community at large actually made people stop speeding by yelling at them as they drove by?

    I\’m not pro speeding, I\’m just saying this method is not effective and only makes the problem worse.

    Maybe instead of setting up stings to catch cyclists rolling through stop signs the police should be concentrating on people who speed through residential neighborhoods.

    I see cars roll through stop signs all the time, I\’m just not deluded enough to believe that yelling at them is going to change their behavior.

    Hell I got a $240 ticket for rolling through a stop sign at 5mph on my bike, and I still do it every day…at the same intersection no less.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    BURR July 15, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    How many motorists actually slow down to less than 5 to 10 mph at a stop sign?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    toddistic July 15, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    I do not feel that is out of context or twisted. It represents a fundamental point, those who threaten without fear of reprissal are emboldened and actions remain unchanged. A passive approach when it comes to negative interactions continues the status quo of second class citizens.

    Yelling at a car doesn\’t nessecarly change a driver\’s behavior all the time but it may. That\’s the point.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Roma July 15, 2008 at 12:55 pm

    \”…those who threaten without fear of reprissal are emboldened and actions remain unchanged.\”

    those who threaten without fear of reprisal, have no fear of reprisal as a general rule.

    \”A passive approach when it comes to negative interactions continues the status quo of second class citizens.\”

    Are cyclists second class citizens? What about Yates yelling out of his car at the drunk cyclist breaking the law – was he a second class citizen challenging the staus quo?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    travis July 15, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    i think the oregonian is a rag. these headlines will probably do more damage to cyclist/motorist relations…

    take away this asshole\’s license for sure, but the O should stop making it look like its all biker vs driver… i\’ve had crazy things happen to me biking, driving, walking, skateboarding….

    its human vs human.

    also, the heat makes people go nuts!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    MIke July 15, 2008 at 1:05 pm

    I am all for yelling. But maybe if one day we all made some lemonade and passed it out to cars to thank them for driving slowly and sharing the streets. We can call it yelling quitely.

    As I am writing this I hear cars zipping down my street at about 40 mph. I better get back to yelling at them.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Tony Fuentes July 15, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    So…

    A few days ago someone under the influence used a bike as a weapon…now someone under the influence used their car as a weapon…

    Please, please, please let the next angry drunk be on a Segway…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Zaphod July 15, 2008 at 1:16 pm

    Tangentially…

    Urban design teaches us that people react to the built environment. If a road is designed with traffic calming elements, they will slow down.

    As an unintentional experiment, take some of the extremely narrow non-arterials off of Hawthorne where two cars cannot pass at the same time going opposite directions. One car has to yield. The dynamics cause the drivers to go slow. If bikes are in the road, it is a rare case where a driver will get agitated. The reason is that it\’s clear that this road doesn\’t support high speeds. Also the cyclists on the road can\’t easily squeeze right to allow the pass for cars behind.

    It seems that all parties reach a natural conclusion to work together. To be fair, this means the cyclists have advantage while cars have to defer.

    Next consider intentional traffic calming such as bio-swales, street art, speed humps, and other elements that make going over 15 mph in a car feel risky and sketch. Here again, all users are reacting to the environment. Cyclists are drawn to the safety and motorists go slowly. They also will avoid these roads for anything but local destinations.

    I find that ambiguity is often cause for stress for all road users. This relates to the main article and comments in that what starts as stress can escalate into road rage. If the the problem is diffused through design, we\’re all calmer, happier and safer.

    And even more tangentially…hopefully our mayor elect will continue to make this a top priority.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    cyclist July 15, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    How many motorists actually slow down to less than 5 to 10 mph at a stop sign?

    I certainly do when I\’m driving my car. 5mph is really not all that slow, all things considered, if you don\’t come to something close to a complete stop you\’re libel to kill someone.

    I think that the pull speed on a car (the speed that an automatic travels without hitting the gas) isn\’t more than 1mph or 2mph, there aren\’t many people around here who are going faster than that when they go through a stop sign (at least in my experience, on a bike and in a car).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Ian July 15, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    I just have this comment for all the cyclists that think they own the road (not every cyclist):
    1.) Stay in the bike lane if there are no obstuction in it.
    2.) If there is no bike lane ride on the far right side of the shoulder. As far over as you can safely ride.
    3.) If there are multiple cyclists ride single file. It is illegal to ride side by side (and dumb and dangerous). Plus you can draft and ride that much faster (if your in a group).
    4.) Please signal your turns and obey traffic law.
    5.) Yield to pedestrians (this one is huge!)

    I have no problem SHARING the road with cyclists and think it is sad that a few ignorant and arrogant cyclist give the rest of the cycling community such a bad name.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    bikerhal July 15, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    The scary thing is is that Portland is rated as a platinum bicycling friendly city, and I live in a bronze.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    lyle July 15, 2008 at 2:24 pm

    I don\’t have time to read through all the comments to see if this has been posted already, but this story was on The Today Show (NBC national news show) this morning… complete with video and summary of events.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Coaster July 15, 2008 at 2:52 pm

    I agree with Zaphod,
    my neighborhood has narrow little streets where many (physics challenged) road users flock, like families with small children. The wide streets only a few blocks away tend to encourage high speeds. Once again, it\’s coming back to INFRASTRUCTURE.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    N July 15, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    Ian #42,

    Give me a break… If there is no bike lane, you can legally take the whole lane. It\’s safer to take the whole lane.

    I don\’t think any cyclists out there are delusional enough to think they own the road, but they damn sure have a right to it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Coaster July 15, 2008 at 2:56 pm

    Try a horn people! My friend has a small bell for alerting cyclists and peds and an AIR HORN for letting cars know of her presence. The Air horn is loud and effective, and seems more polite than yelling. Plus, you should see the look on a drivers face when they get a toot from what sounds like a semi-truck passing them!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    David July 15, 2008 at 3:15 pm

    Ian #42

    One correction to your list. It is quite legal to ride two abreast in Oregon. But don\’t take it from me, here is the law:

    OR Revised Statutes 814.430(2)(e)

    (2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances: . . .
    (e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

    Two abreast is legal as long as it doesn\’t impede traffic.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jmartens July 15, 2008 at 3:21 pm

    Has Jason or any of you like him stopped to ask yourself why so many people honk and call you a jerk?

    Ever heard the saying \”every action receives an equal and opposite reaction\”?

    Act like a jerk, will be called a jerk.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jasun Wurster July 15, 2008 at 3:38 pm

    Aaaahhhh the law… interpreting and following it,

    Ian #42 –

    I can not find the exact law that explicitly states that riders can ride two abreast… but the City of Portland implies that riding two abreast is legal:

    \”Bicycles should not ride more than two abreast, except on paths or parts of the roadway designated for bicycles. When riding two abreast, you may not impede the normal and reasonable movement of travel.\”

    Source: http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?a=58292&c=34814

    Is it reasonable that a car goes 15 MPH in a residential area behind two bikes? Personally, I live on Alberta and think that the legal speed limit of 30MPH is unreasonable and dangerous.

    Coaster #47 –

    I think that air horns on bikes are great. When I was up in Vancouver, BC last year many cyclists had them ans swore by them. Though here in Oregon there is a law that is worded as such that:

    \”A person shall not install or use any siren or whistle upon a bicycle.\”

    Source: ORS 815.280 (b)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Forseti July 15, 2008 at 3:38 pm

    Re #42:

    Of the 5 comments Ian made, he got the law wrong on 4 of them. David (#48) got one of the inaccuracies. Can anyone identify the other three?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Deborah July 15, 2008 at 3:42 pm

    #40
    >>Please, please, please let the next angry drunk be on a Segway…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Matt July 15, 2008 at 3:44 pm

    N pointed out that you can take the lane if there is no bike lane.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Deborah July 15, 2008 at 3:50 pm

    Speed bumps do not slow drivers down. They do not detour drivers from cutting through the area to avoid a busier street. I live on the 42nd Ave bike Blvd between Powell & Holgate. The nieghborhood raised 8000.00 to install the 8 speed bumps in that section after a child was hit and killed. Daily I see cars, trucks, SUVs hit 50+, I\’ve seen cars airborne, cars that swerve into the bike lane to avoid the bumps. Can I yell anything, yeah sure, get my property trashed.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Matt Picio July 15, 2008 at 4:04 pm

    Jasun (#50) – Fortunately for us, an air horn is neither a siren nor a whistle.

    Ian (#42) – Many of your comments are incorrect:

    Bikes may leave the bike lane for a left turn or other hazards, not just obstructions.

    We\’re not required to ride on the shoulder, and the shoulder is not part of the roadway, so riding there is a legal gray area.

    David (#48) already pointed out that riding two abreast is legal, I\’m not sure what the 4th item is that Forseti (#51) is referring to.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Matt Picio July 15, 2008 at 4:09 pm

    Deborah (#54) – I\’ve heard from PDOT that speed humps *do* slow people down, but only if the hump is tall enough and if there at least 3 placed on the street in question. I\’ve ridden (and driven) 42nd between Powell & Holgate, and those speed humps are definitely not tall enough to effectively influence driver behavior. Do you think the neighborhood would be receptive to additional traffic calming measures on that street?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Run CMD July 15, 2008 at 4:10 pm

    So it\’s \”words of wisdom\” from a guy who yelled \”slow down gashole\”. Like he\’s some sort of hero? Does he stop at all stop signs on his bike? I sure hope so. Words of wisdom!? Gimme a break.

    And you claim there is no \”us vs. them\” mentality in your reporting…in my opinion, it\’s a little biased.

    I\’m not even saying it\’s a bad thing.

    I remember years ago when I was on the Shift mailing list. Shift said they were about \”promoting bike fun\” and it seemed 50% of the posts were about bashing SUVs or drivers in general. IMHO – bashing drivers, or even holding cyclists to some lofty moral standard is no promoting bike fun.

    You claim that you don\’t label yourself as a cyclist or a motorist, but it seems clear to me who\’s side you\’re on…and again, I don\’t think it\’s a bad thing.

    Just my two cents.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Deborah July 15, 2008 at 4:25 pm

    Matt Picio #56

    We are very receptive to additional traffic calming measures on this street. One of the ideas being floated is a diversion at Gladstone & 42, possible a rain field type island.

    It took a lot of effort to raise the money for the bumps, so if the city shorted us on height when they installed the bumps do you think they would come back and correct them?

    I\’ve seen two bad bike on bike accidents at 42nd & Rhone, it\’s just a matter if time before we have a car/bike accident over here.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Forseti July 15, 2008 at 4:25 pm

    Good job, Matt (#55). The final inaccuracy is that you are only required to signal your turns if you do not need to use both hands to keep control of the bike. I don\’t have the cite handy right now. But Ian is 1-for-5.

    And that strikes me as a pretty typical level of knowledge for Oregonians of their own traffic laws.

    Really the only conflicts I have with motorists occur when I take the lane and they get impatient and either honk at me (which, yes, does get the finger back at \’em) or actually endanger my life by attempting to pass me too closely or something similar.

    Most people driving cars seem unaware that, for example, I do not have to ride right next to parallel-parked cars. The \”door zone\” is a hazard, and that relieves me from the obligation to ride as far to the right as practicable.

    Most people driving cars also seem unaware that, for example, I do not have to ride as far to the right as practicable if I am able to go the reasonable speed for roadway conditions at the time. On SE Lincoln, where the speed *limit* (i.e., maximum speed allowed under ideal conditions) is either 25 or 20 (it varies), I can easily go within 5mph of the speed limit or even over it. Therefore, I am allowed to take the lane.

    As I am a strong cyclist, I take the lane a lot and this really pisses people off.

    Like Ian, they need to be better educated on the law. Undoubtedly, most of them are licensed to drive in this State!!

    The next one that passes me unsafely is going to get a citizen-initiated citation.

    I don\’t get irate and scream at people – I have $140 fines issued to them. I wish more people on bikes did this, and I\’m going to see what I can do about that.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    BURR July 15, 2008 at 4:41 pm

    there are so many things wrong with post #42 it\’s scary to think this person is actually in possession of a driver\’s license…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    k. July 15, 2008 at 4:48 pm

    I couldn\’t help but notice that in the Oregonian article, Jason Rehnberg was quoted as saying he had to go blow off some steam that evening by going zoo bombing. I hate to point this out but I find it kind of ironic that he follows up this incident with a little irresponsible bike riding. How are the zoo bombers much different then this *hole in the car was except that they are on bikes? This is the type of lame hypocrisy that the cycling community needs to figure out. You\’ve got to give respect to get it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Donna July 15, 2008 at 6:28 pm

    I think that air horns on bikes are great. When I was up in Vancouver, BC last year many cyclists had them ans swore by them. Though here in Oregon there is a law that is worded as such that:

    \”A person shall not install or use any siren or whistle upon a bicycle.\”

    Source: ORS 815.280 (b)

    Ah, but an air horn is neither a siren nor a whistle. Strangely enough, I have gotten nothing but complements from the members of the PPB who have seen my air horn on my bike. All 3 of them immediately picked up on its potentially life preserving properties – most likely because they were all members of the SE Bike Patrol and ride enough off-duty to understand the need to make people in cars notice you via sound. I also have a bell on my handlebars. Most people don\’t realize I have an air horn because I so very rarely use it. If I had to use it more than about once a month, I\’d probably move some place that is less hostile to bikes…

    Air horns meant specifically for bicycles are being sold quite openly in many area bike shops.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Rick July 15, 2008 at 8:05 pm

    #59 Can I issue you a citizen-initiated citation for being public nuisance? Your condescending attitude is enough to get a bike stuffed in your face or free hood ride. The Oregonian is not a rag, but it is to the lunatic fringe that live in blogs.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    rixtir July 15, 2008 at 8:16 pm

    That\’s right, Donna. If one looks at the mechanics of how whistles and sirens work, it\’s obvious that an air horn is neither.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Klixi July 15, 2008 at 8:19 pm

    Technically a horn and a whistle are the same thing – they use the same function to produce noise. If anyone disagrees with me you are free to call the PPB and ask yourself.

    (I wish they were legal though.. if cars get horns we should have them too)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Forseti July 15, 2008 at 8:23 pm

    @ #63: See you on the road! You think you\’re bad enough, you give it a try. The O sucks and so do you, Rick.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Rick July 15, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    Thanks #65 for proving my point. Great stuff, indeed.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Torfinn July 15, 2008 at 9:02 pm

    Cyclists need to carry guns.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    wsbob July 15, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    k., comment #61, about Jason (flow) Rehnberg\’s post-windshield riding stress release exercise(zoobombing), the O article also said Rehnberg wore a helmet, and that the bike had lights. Not quite as irresponsible as you thought?

    anonymous, comment #20: I agree with you in part about the advisability of refraining from use of profanity when addressing errant road users. I disagree with the idea that everyone using profanity in that situation consciously escalates a conflict.

    Flow would have to speak for himself in this regard, but I think that for many people using the road, an experience with an inconsiderate or dangerous road user can create an extremely high level of frustration or alarm, in which case, utterance of a profane word is almost reflexive. Saying one doesn\’t necessarily mean a person is consciously escalating a fight, and I don\’t think it justifies further errant behavior on the part of the person that acted to initiate the profane comments in the first place.

    We\’re all supposed to be working to develop self control and everything, but c\’mon…in the end, we\’re all still just people, not pillars of impeccable virtue. Everybody using the road should be in a state of mind that allows them to tell the difference between an invitation to fight and a simple frustrated expression in regards to a screw up.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    KTesh July 15, 2008 at 10:20 pm

    One of the mistakes of #42\’s post…

    Bikes are allowed to ride as far to the *LEFT* as practicable on a one way street…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    rixtir July 15, 2008 at 10:30 pm

    Another error from #42:

    In the absence of a bike lane, cyclists are only required to ride as close as practicable to the right if they are riding at less than the normal speed of traffic.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    brady July 15, 2008 at 10:38 pm

    @Deborah(54) and Matt(56): Maybe not all speed bumps slow people down… but have you ever seen a speed TROUGH? In cross section, looks like a feed trough would… a symmetric trapezoid with long side on the top, level with the road surface, bottom side parallel to this and 8-10 inches lower. I have driven over these in a Navy housing area… I was going about 10 mph… the sign said to go 5 mph… I swear I thought I had broken my axle and/or suspension. I stopped the car and got out to make sure I hadn\’t. I don\’t care WHAT people are driving… these would WORK. Even a \”Dummer\” would bow down to these things. I\’d pay money to film the carnage if some boy-racer or soccer mom tried to take one of these at 20mph. But, precisely because they would work, and hence slow motorists, I doubt we\’ll see them any time soon. Too bad.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    rixtir July 15, 2008 at 10:42 pm

    Jasun, #50.

    There is no law that says we can\’t ride two abreast. That\’s just one of numerous errors from the driver in post 42 (Ian), who is apparently licensed to operate a motor vehicle despite his appalling lack of familiarity with the rules of the road.

    The law doesn\’t say we can ride two abreast, but it also doesn\’t say that we CAN\’T ride two abreast. Unless the legislature prohibits something, it\’s legal. Therefore, riding two abreast is legal, because it\’s not prohibited.

    There\’s further support for the legality of riding two abreast in ORS section 814.250, which specifies that motorcyclists can ride two abreast. Because cyclists are subject to the same laws as other vehicle operators (ORS 814.400), it stands to reason that cyclists, like their two-wheeled brethren on motorcycles, may ride two abreast.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Matt Picio July 15, 2008 at 11:48 pm

    rixtir (#73) – the law *does* in fact say we CAN ride two abreast – ORS814.430

    \”(2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances:

    (e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.\”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    rixtir July 16, 2008 at 12:08 am

    Thanks Matt.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Matt Picio July 16, 2008 at 12:14 am

    Klixi (#65) – No, technically a horn and a whistle are different, through they use the same physical principles.

    Legally, you\’d have to check with an attorney, but since ORS 815.225 and ORS 815.230 define both a horn *and* a whistle, and permit one but not the other, I have a feeling the courts might look at them as different devices.

    Interestingly, the 2 statutes prohibit bells on \”vehicles\”, not \”motor vehicles\”. 815.230 has an exemption for bikes but 815.225 does not. Technically, that should mean that it\’s legal to have a bell on your bike but not to use it. (a.O, Mark – care to weigh in on that one?)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Pete July 16, 2008 at 12:48 am

    Ian (#42): It is NOT necessarily illegal to ride side by side. I\’m tired of hearing this so frequently in the past week, as tired as I am of hearing (and the Oregonian writing) that cyclists MUST stay as far right as possible.

    There are spots I ride in Beaverton where it\’s not practical nor safe to stay to the right, and cars will try to pass me unsafely if I do (I know from experience). When I do \’take the lane\’ I do so at the same or similar speed to traffic, which maxes at about 20 MPH in these stop-and-go spots. When I first started riding in these spots I used to stay right and people would squeeze me and move right, then stop as traffic stops. One person jammed me pulling into a parking space! When I ride in this manner, which you or others may classify as \”illegal\” and \”arrogant\”, I am within my rights under ORS 814.430. I personally believe this one is the single most misunderstood law by motorists and many cyclists. Here it is:

    814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.

    (2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances:

    (a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle that is proceeding in the same direction.

    (b) When preparing to execute a left turn.

    (c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or other conditions that make continued operation along the right curb or edge unsafe or to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side. Nothing in this paragraph excuses the operator of a bicycle from the requirements under ORS 811.425 or from the penalties for failure to comply with those requirements.

    (d) When operating within a city as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of a roadway that is designated to allow traffic to move in only one direction along the roadway. A bicycle that is operated under this paragraph is subject to the same requirements and exceptions when operating along the left curb or edge as are applicable when a bicycle is operating along the right curb or edge of the roadway.

    (e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

    (f) When operating on a bicycle lane or bicycle path.

    (3) The offense described in this section, improper use of lanes by a bicycle, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §701; 1985 c.16 §339]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Pete July 16, 2008 at 1:04 am

    Matt (#76), I believe a bell qualifies for use as an \”audible warning\” required when overtaking a pedestrian on a sidewalk or MUP. 814.410 (b) – yeah, I had the page open already ;).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Graham July 16, 2008 at 3:14 am

    #63 Rick,

    You\’re saying that Forseti\’s approach of not getting angry with dangerous drivers, not yelling, not getting violent, not succumbing to road rage, but rather taking a law-based approach to dealing with them – you\’re saying that\’s \”lunatic fringe\”?

    And your threats of physical violence (\”Your condescending attitude is enough to get a bike stuffed in your face or free hood ride\”), those threats are what, the picture of sanity? Or at least, not \”lunatic fringe\”?

    I do not think that word means what you think it means.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    John Russell July 16, 2008 at 3:43 am

    Oh yes. I saw that headline (or a pixelated photo and large text taking up the entire top fold of the front page) today at a transit center. It made me want to scream.

    I thought of purchasing a paper, and then I realized: to whom is my 50¢ really going? Do I want to fund this madness? No thank you.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Matt Picio July 16, 2008 at 9:17 am

    Pete (#78) – It sure does, but that doesn\’t change the quirks in the law. For whatever reason, the legislature saw fit to provide a specific exemption for bikes in 815.230 but not in 815.225.

    I think many of us would agree that the Oregon Revised Statutes need editing.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Rick July 16, 2008 at 9:38 am

    Graham@ #79,

    I appreciate your post and calling me out. I agree completely with your first paragraph if you take away the ownership from Forseti. It really isn\’t that individual’s approach and taking the law into your own hands isn’t a law based approach-it is vigilantism. Second, I was trying to highlight (in hindsight rather poorly) the two stories and what was ultimately the end result of both situations which in my opinion (which DOES NOT matter here and I am only speaking for myself) is a combination of alcohol and general attitude/posture in the world.

    Take a closer look at #66, and tell me where the sanity is there?

    Education works. Change for individuals who ride bikes will come from collaborating with credible institutions (legal system, formal advocacy groups, respected media outlets, etc.) to ratify and codify laws and to improve protection on our roads. Galvanizing wide spread support for a vehicular homicide law in the 2009 session of the Oregon State Legislature is a perfect example. The sheer fact that a law like this does not exists is shameful. More support for Safe routes to schools is another. Making the damn DMV test more difficult with a few bike & pedestrian safety-related questions would be awesome. Once again, this does not matter to the readers here, but I have lost 2 family members and 1 close friend riding their bikes as they we adhering to “traffic laws” in the past 10 years. They are dead due to idiot drivers and my family received little comfort from a biased legal system and horrible reporting of their stories. Discussions such as this on add no value when certain individuals pontificate on how they have the solution, talk down to fellow bikeportland readers or advocate taking the law into their own hands. Bikeporland…to inform and inspire, right?

    Thanks again, Graham and I will revaluate my usage of “Lunatic Fringe.”

    Rick, “who sucks”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Keith Walker July 16, 2008 at 11:21 am

    Headline should read:

    DRUNK Driver goes after Cyclist

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Ian July 16, 2008 at 12:05 pm

    Give me a break… yeah lets take my good suggestions and pick them apart. I was just trting to make everyone more aware. It seems the ignorant and arrogant bikers use this forum too. So go out and ride down 99W two wide if you do this enough you\’ll realize why I made the suggestion.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Forseti July 16, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    @ #82: \”It really isn\’t that individual’s approach and taking the law into your own hands isn’t a law based approach-it is vigilantism.\”

    Rick if you don\’t like the citizen-initiated citation law, then you have a beef with the Oregon Legislature, who made it legal for citizens to initiate traffic citations, not me. And I suggest you consult a dictionary before using terms like \”vigilantism\” because by your definition any civil suit is such. And, of course, that\’s \”lunatic fringe\” talk.

    @ #84: Sorry Ian, no break. In case you haven\’t figured it out, we don\’t think your suggestions are \”good.\” And we\’re tired of ignorant people like you going off about the law when you simply don\’t know what you\’re talking about.

    You scored 20% on your own little quiz of bike-related traffic laws. But I bet you have a driver license, right? Scary!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Ian July 16, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    lol… I could pass any of your liscensing exams so no need for personal attacks. Actually the only thing I was wrong about was the 2 wide thing as the others were suggestions for bikers that care about their lives. 80% is passing last time I checked. Go ahead ride two wide but don\’t complain to me about some road raged person hitting or shooting you. Its not only about the law its about respect for other people. How much global warming gas do you think you create when you hold up traffic by riding 2 wide? Probably more than if you would of just drove… come on.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    bikes calm neighborhood traffic July 16, 2008 at 2:56 pm

    Ian,

    Great suggestions for riding on a freeway I suppose, but you might notice that all of these \”incidents\” occured on low traffic surface streets. None of these streets have bike lanes, they do have parallel parked cars and cyclists should stay out in the lane away from the door zone. If you want to drive your car fast do it on the freeway, but in a neighborhood slow down and if you can\’t pass a bike turn at the next intersection rather than trying to force your way by. 15 mph should be our speed limit on residential streets, in fact such a speed limit nearly passed in the legislature last year.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Ian July 16, 2008 at 3:04 pm

    I try to give my view on how everyone can be safer and the arrogant portion of the biking community comes to the races… sorry about messing up my ORS reference I stand by all 5 suggestions as things bikers can do to help make the roads safer… coming soon thing motorists can do to make the road safer (I\’ll leave the law out of it this time and stick with common sense)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Forseti July 16, 2008 at 4:01 pm

    Wow, Ian, you\’re just a joke. We\’re following the law – which you don\’t know or even care to know, and you\’re *still* threatening others on the road. You obviously refuse to share the road and you epitomize what\’s wrong with people\’s behavior on the road.

    And here are some suggestions for you:

    1. Go learn the law.
    2. Stay off the road until you learn it.
    3. Go post on a website where you have a shred of credibility left.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Ian July 16, 2008 at 4:13 pm

    Did I threaten someone? If I did I am sorry. There are more guns in this country than peaple and a lot of crazy people thats all. I am an incredibly defensive driver. Sorry I don\’t have time to read every ORS and also the digest that goes along with it. I like biking and bikers maybe you should re-read the comments. And yes I understand there are exceptions such as left turns. And if there is cars parked on the road the furthest to the right that would be safe would be just out of door range. I live in an area with a lot of county roads with narrow shoulders. I also hate hearing about bikers getting hit by cars, so don\’t paint me as ignorant. Forseti, please contribute constuctively.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Ian July 16, 2008 at 4:22 pm

    Suggestions for automobiles (I\’ll leave the law out of this one, sorry all of you that want to argue semantics):

    1.) If there is 2 lanes and you can safely switch lanes move to the lane farther away from the biker.
    2.) If it is not safe to pass a biker wait for your window.
    3.) Use your horn for what it is for (emergencies) not to let the other guy know how pissed off you are about having to slow down.
    4.) Do not lecture or yell at anyone. Ignorant people don\’t listen anyway.
    5.) When you look left then right to make a left turn look at the entire road.
    6.) Keep your cool. We\’ve all been late before it is not that big of a deal, or at least not as big of a deal as death.

    Anyway just a few suggestions please limit the attacks to my ideology.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Mike July 16, 2008 at 6:39 pm

    Ian,

    Don\’t worry about Forseti. He doesn\’t have a job or a life outside of posting on Bikeportland.org. He\’s knows a few bike related laws and can ride 25 mph on SE Lincoln. Let him spew. He has so little.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Rick July 16, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    @#85,

    The first 3/4 of your response to me was legit. I have no beef with citizen-initiated citation law. My beef was in the manner that you purportedly administer such citations and described in one of your earlier posts. Your personal acts on other bikeportland readers are just frankly childish. Why do this? I know you are fully aware that any reader that cares to take the time can read two things: 1) Action Pamphlet: Do-it Yourself Guide to Citizen Initiation of Violation Proceedings. Which I believe was put together by Ray Thomas and; 2) Bicycling & the Law: Your Rights as a Cyclist by Bob Mionske and know the same or more than you. They will be better off since they appear in their posts not to be as angry as you are with the world.

    Good night and ride safely.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    crazy July 16, 2008 at 7:48 pm

    Does anyone else find it interesting that the Oregonian\’s headline when a cyclist is the aggressor is \”Cyclist clubs driver with bike\”. But when the driver is the aggressor it\’s \”Driver goes after cyclist\”. It seems like that gripping and compelling headline crap is warranted only in the novel situation when a cyclist is the aggressor, but the more bland headline will suffice when the motorist is the aggressor. I think there is some implicit inequality about that, and it reveals a bias.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Graham July 16, 2008 at 7:50 pm

    Rick,

    At first I took the phrase, \”enough to get a bike stuffed in your face or free hood ride,\” to be directly threatening, as if you were proposing to do the bike stuffing, or give the hood ride. A reasonable interpretation I think, considering some of the haters who came out swinging after the O\’s coverage. However, based on your subsequent post, I think I\’ve got a better read on your meaning, which I take to be more like: Bad Things can happen if you don\’t watch it. Now, any invocation of violence in this charged atmosphere kinds sets off alarms for me, but it seems clear you\’re not running around making actual threats. Thanks for clarifying.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Chris July 17, 2008 at 6:26 am

    people drive so fast through my neighborhood all the time and nothing worked until i started screaming at them and threatening them with automobile damage. now those people drive slow at least around my house, i can\’t see they\’re behavior down the street. i wish things could be more peaceful and respectful, but ultimately i figure they were threatening the local children animals and cyclists with their behavior, fight fire with fire.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Donna July 17, 2008 at 7:49 am

    Several years ago I was living in a house on the outskirts of Eastmoreland where I had an interesting next door neighbor. He was an old-time Oregonian who cleaned the salmon & steelhead he caught in his driveway and had a yard full of homemade fish smoking devices and such. One of the kindest neighbors I have ever had…

    Anyway, he had a unique way of dealing with the problem of speeders and drag racers on our street. He\’d sit at the edge of his driveway in a lawn chair with his beer and 4 basketballs around his chair. His kids were playing in the front yard. As unsafe road users sped by, he would throw one of his basketballs at the side of the vehicle. He had excellent aim. Anytime someone had the gall to complain to the police, he\’d simply say he was playing ball with his kids and the motorist was simply going too fast to dodge a ball that got thrown the wrong way. The police never looked too hard into this. They knew people drove too fast on our street. Now, I am certainly not condoning the behavior in this story at all, but my remembering my old neighbor reminds me that there are worse responses to road users behaving badly than yelling and ranting.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Ian July 17, 2008 at 8:39 am

    CRAZY (POST #94)

    I think your trying a little to hard to get offended. How would you of phrased the headlines? Remember the Oregonian is a business and sometimes sensationalizing stories helps them sell more copies.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    toddistic July 17, 2008 at 11:33 am

    Donna @ 97

    Best story ever! I\’m gonna have to remember that one.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    KT July 17, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    Ian, maybe the poop-storm wouldn\’t have been so bad if you had prefaced your #42 comment with \”suggestions for cyclists\”.

    Your comment in #42 did sound like the usual drivel as seen from trolling car people who don\’t know that cyclists don\’t have to ride in the gutter, that you have to give 3 feet of space when passing, that you can ride your bike in the street….

    The only one of your suggestions that didn\’t sound like a troll comment was the one about signaling turns. But car people should learn how to do this as well, because a lot of drivers have, apparently, forgotten how to use turn signals.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Ian July 17, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    That is exactly whats wrong with bikers. Why wouldn\’t you ride on the far side of the road (I understand wanting to avoid car doors) you are the safest on the far side. It\’s about being considerate to everyone. I know you hate people that drive CO2 producing cars but maybe you should look at yourself before pointing fingers. Just think about the other side.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    rixtir July 17, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    Ian, the reasons for not riding on the far side may be as varied as the terrain; some of those reasons are spelled out in the vehicle code. For example, when preparing to make a left turn, cyclists will want to get into the left turn lane. Or if there\’s debris in the road, or a pothole, cyclists will want to ride farther left. Adn the biggest reason, if the lane is too narrow to safely share, cyclists will want to take the entire lane, in order to discourage drivers from attempting too close a pass.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Ian July 17, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    I understand your points that I have been trying to communicats that is not what I am trying to argue. Poor drivers are going to make the unsafe pass no matter where you are in the lane, all your doing is making it more unsafe. I agree with your pothole/obstruction arguement that wasn\’t my point in the first place. I think it is respectful to leave as much space for cars and trucks to pass for when they have the opportunity to pass. I also think that if you are holding up traffic for a prolonged period of time you should pull off of the road and let faster traffic pass (similar to slow moving wehicle pullouts on mountain passes). Not only that you will be helping to reduce global warming. This is more an issue of having respect for everyone no matter their chosen mode of transportation. I can\’t tell you how many times I\’ve seen bikers move to the center of a lane on purpose for no other reason than to slow traffic.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Richard July 17, 2008 at 7:43 pm

    Calling someone a \”gashole,\” is smug!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Toby July 19, 2008 at 2:38 pm

    >

    Absolutely not true. From experience, if a lane is wide enough for just a vehicle, say, N Ainsworth, west of Denver (?), if you hug the curb, cars will invariably try and squeeze between you and the yellow line. As if the \’dashed\’ yellow line was the edge of the earth. If you take the lane, easily 75% of the time, they will move entirely into the other lane. Or NE Ainsworth with the median. etc etc.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    rixtir July 20, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    Ian, 103, if poor drivers will make an unsafe pass no matter what, that\’s an argument for getting poor drivers off the road, rather than an argument for cyclists hugging the curb when the lane is too narrow to safely share.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    myspace spy July 22, 2008 at 12:55 am

    James Millican, the 21 y/o in Portlnad has two myspace pages, neither check in two years.

    http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=101925098

    and

    http://www.myspace.com/budlover4200

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar