Support BikePortland

Update on disappearing bike lane case: Judge, victim, lawyer respond

Posted by on January 7th, 2010 at 12:21 pm

No paint, no (legal) protection?
(Photo © J. Maus)

When bike lane striping disappears through an intersection, does the legal standing of a person operating a bicycle in that lane also vanish?

Last month, Multnomah County traffic court judge Michael Zusman ruled that it does and the decision has left many people confused and concerned. We checked in with Zusman, the woman who was hit (City of Portland employee Carmen Piekarski), and a bike law expert to get an update.

“In general, my authority as a judge is limited: I am bound to interpret the law the way it is written, not as I (or others) might wish it to be.”
— Michael Zusman, Mult. County Circuit Judge Pro Tem

Ms. Piekarski said her shoulder still doesn’t work quite right (saying “it still doesn’t move certain directions without pain and cracking”), but she has no plans for a civil lawsuit. Piekarski has talked with a lawyer about her case, but the conversation is focused on insurance law. About the decision to not bring a lawsuit against the driver of the Prius that hit her, Piekarski says, “I don’t want my energy wound up in this for years. I just want to get out of this what I’ve had to put into it.”

Piekarski has also written an email to her state representative in Salem, Ben Cannon (who happens to be a regular bike rider himself). “I sent him the link to your story and asked, ‘what can we do about this?'”

Story continues below

advertisement

With a civil suit off the table, some have wondered whether a change is needed to the Oregon state law to clarify the situation.

“We disagree [with the judge] in several respects…If traffic lanes all ceased to exist in intersections, legal chaos would ensue and every intersection without lines painted for every lane would turn into a legal free-for-all.”
— Ray Thomas, lawyer and bike law expert

Bike law expert Ray Thomas thinks the law is fine the way it is. He’s written an article about the case he hopes will clarify the situation titled, Bike Lane Right of Way Continues Even Without Painted Line Through Intersection (40kb PDF here).

In the article, Thomas writes that he disagrees with Zusman’s decision and acknowledges the “great consternation” it has caused, but reminds us that, “…the decision does not create binding legal precedent.”

But even so, Thomas wants people to know that according to official legal and road design references in Oregon, a person on a bike does not lose the right of way in a bicycle lane when the striping drops through an intersection.

Here’s Thomas’ thinking:

“Bicycle lane” is defined in ORS 801.155 as ‘that part of the highway, adjacent to the roadway, designated by official signs or markings for use by persons riding bicycles…’

The court ruling fails to recognize that the legal existence of a bicycle lane does not end just because the paint on the road stops at an intersection…

Bicycle lane designation by markings or signs creates a legal status for bicyclists that does not require the presence of paint on the pavement in the intersection because lanes (even motor vehicle lanes) continue even when the paint stops. It is the markings or designations visible before and after the intersection that create the legal presence of the bicycle lane…

If traffic lanes all ceased to exist in intersections, legal chaos would ensue and every intersection without lines painted for every lane would turn into a legal free-for-all.”

Thomas also consulted the Oregon Department of Transportation’s Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (which was updated in 2007):

“The rules for design and installation of bicycle lanes in the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan suggest that the painted stripe should usually stop at the crosswalk and resume on the other side of the intersection. Interruption of the paint stripe does not interrupt the bicycle lane…”

Based on these findings, Thomas feels that no legislative fix is necessary “because the law is clear.”

Judge Michael Zusman disagrees. In an email response to our request for a phone interview, he wrote that his authority as a judge is limited and that he’s “bound to interpret the law the way it is written, not as I (or others) might wish it to be.” Going further, he wrote, “If the “spirit of the law” is at odds with the plain language of a statute, it is within the exclusive province of the Legislature to fix the problem.”

As for Piekarski, she’s just hoping she can recoup some of her expenses from the insurance company of the woman who turned into her. She’s also counting her blessings that the collision didn’t end up a lot worse. “Ultimately, I’m an extremely lucky person.”

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

67 Comments
  • Avatar
    wsbob January 7, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    “…Bicycle lane designation by markings or signs creates a legal status for bicyclists that does not require the presence of paint on the pavement in the intersection because lanes (even motor vehicle lanes) continue even when the paint stops. It is the markings or designations visible before and after the intersection that create the legal presence of the bicycle lane…” …” Ray Thomas

    Thomas also consulted the Oregon Department of Transportation’s Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (which was updated in 2007):

    “The rules for design and installation of bicycle lanes in the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan suggest that the painted stripe should usually stop at the crosswalk and resume on the other side of the intersection. Interruption of the paint stripe does not interrupt the bicycle lane…” ODOT/Oregon Bike and Pedstrian Plan

    Good work Thomas. Question: In the bikeportland interview with Judge Zusman, was he presented, by the interviewer, with the excerpt from the ODOT/Oregon Bike and Pedstrian Plan, before he made his comments published above?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jackattak January 7, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    Wow. How am I not surprised by Zusman’s response (or lack thereof…a true one, anyway).

    It’s cool, “judge” Zusman. I still haven’t eaten at Kenny & Zuke’s since the original article and have personally deflected five of my friends from eating there just last week.

    Nothing like voting with your wallet!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Paul Souders January 7, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    Judge Michael Zusman disagrees. In an email response to our request for a phone interview, he wrote that his authority as a judge is limited and that he’s “bound to interpret the law the way it is written, not as I (or others) might wish it to be.” Going further, he wrote, “If the “spirit of the law” is at odds with the plain language of a statute, it is within the exclusive province of the Legislature to fix the problem.”

    There’s also a (potentially easier?) non-legislative fix: paint bike lanes through every intersection. Personally I kinda love that idea, because it’s so stupid. We could call them “Zusman Stripes” or something. Y’know, to underline the stupidity.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Joe Metal Cowboy Kurmaskie January 7, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    Zusman stripes! Classic.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jonathan Maus (Editor-in-Chief) January 7, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    wsbob,

    I contacted Zusman and asked for a time when we could talk about this case on the phone.

    He then replied via email with a general statement prefaced by this:

    ” It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the facts or decision in this or any other specific case. I am providing below a brief general statement which you may use in connection with your reporting on this matter. I’m sorry if it does not answer all your questions.”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    BURR January 7, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    Zusman is an idiot and should not be on the bench

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Steve Brown January 7, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    Zusman makes no sense at all. Does he also deny the existence of radio waves because he cannot see or feel them. Try telling a Portland Policeman that you changed lanes in an intersection driving your car because the lines do not exist. I always thought one of the roles of a judge was to preside over justice. Maybe that is another invisible concept.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Donna January 7, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    So Judge Zusman would also rule that anyone driving a car who makes a left hand turn from a right lane is not breaking any law? After all, there are no lane markings whatsoever in any intersection.

    No one has to follow any rules or laws in the intersection because lanes don’t continue through them. Fun for everyone!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    t.a. barnhart January 7, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    when i got hit by a car, it was in the middle of the intersection (going south on SE 7th, thru Morrison). fortunately the cop cited the driver for making a dangerous left turn: nothing to do with bike lanes or stripes. clearly a lot of education needs to happen, both for cops to cite a driver properly, and for judges to understand “the letter of the law” is not always what the law actually says. strict adherence to the letter is not a fundamental of American jurisprudence, otherwise we could use computers instead of judges… hmmmm…..

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    are January 7, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    i honestly do not understand why people have a difficult time seeing that judge zusman’s ruling was technically correct. we are talking about whether to fine someone for breaking a law. the law has to be clear. the law is not clear. yes, the motorist did something stupid, and yes, she broke two other laws — failing to signal and failing to keep a proper lookout — but she was not charged with these. who fell down here was the prosecutor.

    obviously the statute has to be changed (that is, assuming you want to maintain separate sidepaths to the right of right turning traffic), because in its current form it can be (and in its literal sense, should be) read the way judge zusman read it. language in some ODoT plan does not cut it.

    evidently what the facilities people want is a statute that says a motorist should yield to a cyclist on her right, period. it should not be difficult to write that in a way that a traffic judge will always read the same way you do.

    i will continue to take the lane.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Avatar
    Oh Word? January 7, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    Zusman Stripes- classic! Next time a guerilla crosswalk is painted it shall be called a Zusman Crosswalk!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Big Kahuna January 7, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    Perhaps some of these questions can be directed at Zusman himself (in a civil manner, of course). I’m sure it won’t accomplish much for this ruling, but perhaps the good judge will become a little more enlightened.

    Phone 503 988-5474
    Fax 503 988-3425
    Email michael.c.zusman@ojd.state.or.us

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    N.I.K. January 7, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    Zusman’s differentiating between the written language of the law and the so-called “spirit of the law” is a hair’s-width from admitting, “Yes, the written language of the law is muddled and requires interpretation” – *not* because the law as written doesn’t yield any particular interpretation (as might be wanted by a given bias), but instead because there’s an inherent lack of clarity that suggests that law might be meant to work in some way that isn’t clear, period. Saying that it’s not his place to interpret the law, then, is no more than double-talk. He *did* interpret the law here, and because he had to; he’s just trying to cover the bases because it’s turning out to be an unpopular decision.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Rich, Your Neighbor January 7, 2010 at 3:12 pm
  • Avatar
    rixtir January 7, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    Zusman is also bound to interpret the law correctly. He didn’t do that. He simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to this issue.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    hairjordan January 7, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    If there is no turn arrow painted in the middle of an intersection, does the driver lose their right to turn?

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Avatar
    Jackattak January 7, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    Rich # 14 –

    Done and done!!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    rixtir January 7, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    ARE, #10,

    Zusman’s ruling is actually technically wrong on the law; his careless legal analysis led to the wrong result. If the Legislature needs to clarify the law, it is only to prevent Zusman (and perhaps others) from continuing to misinterpret the law.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    John Lascurettes January 7, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    Dead on N.I.K. Thank you for putting it into the exact words that I could not figure out how to express:

    Zusman’s differentiating between the written language of the law and the so-called “spirit of the law” [and s]aying that it’s not his place to interpret the law, then, is no more than double-talk. He *did* interpret the law here, and because he had to; he’s just trying to cover the bases because it’s turning out to be an unpopular decision.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Avatar
    yarrrum January 7, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    I will SO start eating at K & Z as a response to the idiots who won’t eat there. I had never heard of it, but the food sounds so great.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    are January 7, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    rixtir 18, it is often the case that the legislature needs to clarify something that a judge might “misinterpret.” usually best to do it the first time around. however, in interpreting a penal statute the judge has to resolve ambiguities in favor of the defendant.

    we need to be careful what we ask for here, incidentally, as we may be digging ourselves deeper and deeper into the right edge of the roadway.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jackattak January 7, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    yarrum # 20

    Suit yourself, but Kornblatt’s is much, much better (NW 23rd).

    Believe me.

    Not quite sure why we’re idiots, though. Voting with your wallet has always been an effective means for showing your distaste.

    It’s also why I will no longer buy anything from Columbia Sportswear (for their efforts to can Mayor Adams).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    rixtir January 7, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    It doesn’t need to be “clarified” if the Judge does a proper BOLI analysis.

    Or he can do a half-“baked” job and get it all wrong.

    I say it’s HIS job to do the analysis right.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    N.I.K. January 7, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    we need to be careful what we ask for here, incidentally, as we may be digging ourselves deeper and deeper into the right edge of the roadway.

    Because of what, exactly – the vindictiveness of some conspiratorial anti-bike body in control of the legislature? Short of poo-flinging weekend rabble-rouser theatrics, the riskiest thing here would be to avoid addressing the issue entirely, encouraging similar rulings relative to the law in question as well as muddled phrasing on behalf of the legislature which permits similar selective interpretation.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Brad January 7, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    But the REAL issue here was that the police officer and prosecutor brought the wrong charge. This was covered in the article several weeks ago.

    But since Zusman failed to go all Judge Roy Bean and ordered the death penalty for attempted murder of a cyclist, the rebels without a clue that comprise the most vocal element of our little cadre of pedalistas are outraged. Not enough to write their legislators demanding better laws and not nearly enough to demand the PPB and MultCo. DA review their procedures. Nope, in true 21st Century style they are attempting to cripple the cash flows of a mediocre delicatessen via social networking applications!

    That’ll show THE MAN!!!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    RWL1776 January 7, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    Sounds like this Judge would be a perfect fit for the 9th ‘Circus’ Court of Appeals!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    are January 7, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    NIK 24, i agree the issue needs to be addressed, both by clarifying (simplifying) the statute to say simply yield to a bicyclist on your right, but also by repealing the far to right and mandatory sidepath laws. you don’t need conspiratorial anti-bike people in the legislature when you already have “pro-” bike people striping everything and then requiring you to ride within the stripes.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    RWL1776 January 7, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    Jackattak #2: Is this Judge really the owner of Kenny n’ Zukes? Please clarify, I’d hate to find out the wrong Mike Zusman is being villified. Just wondering…….

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    RWL1776 January 7, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    from:
    http://wweek.com/editorial/3413/10333/

    So when chef Ken Gordon of Ken’s Place and local food blogger Nick Zukin (Extramsg.com) announced last spring they’d debut a full-service Jewish deli adjacent to Portland’s newly minted Ace Hotel, Kenny&Zuke’s Delicatessen became the most anticipated restaurant in years. It was downtown PDX’s first truly egalitarian new restaurant in decades when it opened last October, and it delivered better pastrami than we Portlanders have ever had to call our own.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jackattak January 7, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    27 & 28 – RWL1776

    Yes it was established in the original thread on this issue:

    http://bikeportland.org/2009/12/18/judge-woman-hit-in-unpainted-bike-lane-is-not-protected-by-law/

    There are links to all of that in the thread, notably #’s 50 and 138.

    He’s not owner. He’s the co-owner. He also does reviews for the place and is a real piece of work.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    N.I.K. January 7, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    are, agreed completely. The far right and mandatory side path laws are indeed problems, though I’d hold them up as examples of instances where selective enforcement and interpretation were written in as mechanisms for dealing with conflict and have largely failed to work as intended – in other words, real-live examples of the “spirit of the law” failing. This particular case is different in that the language of the law is needlessly complex and vague.

    But yeah. I like taking the lane quite often, too. 🙂

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    cold worker January 7, 2010 at 4:55 pm

    so is there anything in a jewish deli that doesn’t contain animal products? reading that wweek article everything was “the guts of this animal…” and “the fat of that animal…”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    rex January 7, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    How about this for a clarification to the law: If you are driving a car, and you hit a human being and you did not everything possible to avoid doing that, you screwed up on some level…

    It sounds radical, but it is the same standard we hold gun users too.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Avatar
    Oliver January 7, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    Does anyone have any personal experience of any other judge throwing out an arresting officer’s citation when no one was disputing it?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    are January 7, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    and if you are charged under 814.420 or 814.430, should the ambiguity be construed in your favor or against you?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Big Kahuna January 7, 2010 at 5:28 pm

    Perhaps we can organize a fundraiser to lobby the City of Portland (or whoever the AHJ is) to paint bike lanes through intersections so that cyclists will still technically be in the bike lane. Maybe the Honorable Judge can be the MC of the event. Anyone care to draft an RSVP to send over to his office?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    AdamG January 7, 2010 at 6:45 pm

    If invisible bike lanes exist in intersections, can the bike lane in the photo above be terminated so that a cyclist can move left and avoid the door zone ahead? Many painted bike lanes do extend through intersections, many do not, and many (like the one in the photo above) should end before the intersection to prevent cyclists from having to merge left while in an intersection when they should really be paying attention to whats going on in front of them. If I ever get a ticket for leaving an invisible bike lane, I’m going to be pretty unhappy.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Alan January 7, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    Steve Brown says in response #7 Try telling a Portland Policeman that you changed lanes in an intersection driving your car because the lines do not exist.

    Why would that be a problem? Can you cite which law says cars (or bikes) can’t change lanes in an intersection? I don’t think Oregon law forbids that. I still think Zusman’s decision is inane and Ray Thomas’ “Bike Lane Right of Way…” brief is the correct analysis of the law.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Joe Rowe January 7, 2010 at 8:50 pm

    Zusman stripes need to be painted on 5th and 6th downtown. Cars are always in bus and max lanes. Why? Because the intersection does not have stripes, the car drivers reason just like Zusman, that the bus lanes “don’t exist”.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Pat Franz January 7, 2010 at 9:48 pm

    I think Zusman’s reply sidesteps the issue. Yes, he’s obligated to interpret laws as written, and not write them. But the example he uses as the basis of his ruling is inappropriate, and he is ignoring several other clearly more applicable examples he could have used if he wanted.

    It’s not as if the law as written forced his hand. He picked an inappropriate bit of law when other bits would clearly be better.

    Question is, why?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    cold worker January 7, 2010 at 10:20 pm

    Alan @ 38. When i took driver’s ed. in high school, in washington, one of the rules of the road i learned was that you aren’t allowed to lane change going through an intersection. I don’t have or know the state legal codes for oregon or washington. so i guess maybe it isn’t a law, just a safety issue, but i have always assumed it’s a law. i don’t know…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Charles January 8, 2010 at 12:58 am

    If people are not having any luck contacting Zusman at work, perhaps try this email: mczlaw@pacifier.com (I found this on an internet search, so it’s out in the public domain already)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    wsbob January 8, 2010 at 1:33 am

    Correction, my comment #1: second paragraph in quotes…I assumed was from the ODOT/Oregon Bike and Pedstrian Plan. Looking at Thomas’s article later today, the language looks to be his instead.

    Following, is the excerpt from ODOT/Oregon Bike and Pedstrian Plan which Thomas refers to and includes in his article:

    “Intersections.
    Bike lanes should be striped to a marked crosswalk or a point where
    turning vehicles would normally cross them. Marking the bike lane with
    eight-inch wide dotted lines prior to the intersection indicates a potential
    conflict area to drivers and bicyclists, as some drivers pull over to the right
    to make a right turn. The bike lane should resume at the other side of the
    intersection. Bike lanes are not normally striped through intersections;
    however, it may be appropriate to do so where extra guidance is needed;
    in this case they may be marked with eight-inch wide dotted lines, to guide bicyclists to a long undefined area. (Emphasis added).
    (Chapter 1, page 17 of 2007 Draft; Page 146 of Plan)”

    Maus…saw your response in comment #5…so apparently, Judge Zusman declines to give an in person interview on any level with anyone from bikeportland about this subject. Says…”It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the facts or decision in this or any other specific case.” I wish he’d have explained why for some of us out here that maybe don’t something he apparently assumes we should.

    That’s too bad, because I would really like to know whether the judge read the excerpt from the ODOT/Oregon Bike and Pedstrian Plan in preparation for making his ruling. He obviously had done some research for his ruling because in his paper explaining it, he cited several statutes where lines on the roadway were relied on to help determine whether or violations occurred.

    In his paper, Zusman explains that resolving the question of whether a violation in this situation occurred was a matter of ‘statutory construction’. Preparing to make his decision on that means, since ODOT/Oregon Bike and Pedstrian Plan material isn’t a statute, he likely would have decided it “…does not assist the court in determining the depostitive issue in this case,namely, whether the bicyclist was riding her bicycle “upon a bike lane” when the crash occurred…”

    ‘statutory construction’. I’ll bet there’s more people than myself that may not understand what that means. I looked it up. Here you go if you want to read on it:

    Statutory Construction/Interpretation

    I’ve gotten way too long here, so I’ll just say that in that interpretation there is the following: STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION -LEGISLATIVE INTENT. I’m fairly certain what that refers to what the legislators had in mind when they passed the law. I wonder if Judge Zusman considered this in making his ruling.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    jim January 8, 2010 at 3:20 am

    Bike lanes do not carry through intersections for one reason, It is a dangerous place for them. have you ever noticed that sometimes the bikelane striping disapears in areas where it is not safe? Putting a bike lane in an intersection would only promote foolhardy actions that would ultimately result in more accidents.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Avatar
    Donna January 8, 2010 at 6:34 am

    Jim – traffic lanes that aren’t bike-specific disappear in certain places, too. See comment #39 for more info.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Marcus Griffith January 8, 2010 at 6:46 am

    Zusman has just made it clear why he is pro tem judge. Zusman ignores the letter of the law and the standing historical recognition that all lanes exists through an intersection, even if the paint stops for a few feet. Zusman also disregars a judge’s obligation to clarify legislator intent and avoid creating absurdities. Perhaps Zusman is just unable to grasp the concepts of his position or simply carrying out his own personal agenda.

    The law is clear that vehicle lanes, be it bike lanes or motor vehicle lanes exist through an intersection.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Steve Brown January 8, 2010 at 7:35 am

    Response to Alan, see P 38 in the Oregon Drivers Manual. Zusman’s opinion rests on the assumption of no stripes no bike lane. The only fact he got right is no stripes in the intersection. A licensed driver in the State of Oregon is obliged to maintain lane presence in an intersection, per page 38. Zusman need to go no further. If he holds a valid Oregon Drivers license he should know this. The Kenny & Zukes connection is interesting. But what I want to know is this any relation to the owner of Willamette Week? If so, why has the Judge not been listed as “Rogue of the Week”. Good sandwiches or not, this could be the story.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    jboyd January 8, 2010 at 8:01 am

    By this judges reasoning, drivers need only obey the speed limit as they pass a speed limit sign. This judge has *not* followed the plain language of the statute, but dissected it to suit his own personal agenda.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    dan January 8, 2010 at 9:23 am

    To those who are boycotting Kenny and Zuke’s as a result of this ruling: Zusman is an investor in the restaurant, but I don’t know how big his stake is, and I’ve never heard that he’s the majority owner.

    Ken and Nick themselves are good guys, and shouldn’t be penalized for one investor’s poor judgment, nor should the restaurant staff.

    And I didn’t know that Columbia supported the Sam Adams recall — off to their downtown store to buy a new snowboard outfit!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    anonymous January 8, 2010 at 9:47 am

    Once again I think a dangerous point is being missed, and so far I’ve only seen one post that even hints at it:

    If we are in danger of being relegated further to the right side of the road, then the real issue is a difference of opinion between bike riders who prefer riding there and those who prefer taking the lane.

    This, in turn, leads into the sticky morass of ongoing (and, imo, misguided) efforts to make cars and bikes share the same roads, which I still maintain cannot ever possibly be achieved safely and fully. Asking 10mph vehicles whose operators have virtually no protection to share the roads with 50mph vehicles whose operators are encased in a sheath of metal is patently unfair and tragically ridiculous.

    Bike riders need separate paths designed to get them to the places they want to go. Numerous studies indicate that MOST bike riders want separate facilities for bikes so they will feel safer when riding. (People willing and happy to take the lane are still in the minority!)

    It’s time to stop picking at little non-issues and tiptoeing politely and politically, and start tearing down the system that forces these imbalances.
    No bike licensure! No bike insurance! No aping the car culture!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jackattak January 8, 2010 at 10:03 am

    Dan # 49 –

    Apparently you don’t understand how boycotts work.

    That Zusman is an investor in K&Z’s is enough to send the message. I like K&Z’s as much as the next person. However, I feel strongly enough on this issue to “vote with my wallet” against them since they do business with this inept PRO TEM judge.

    If you don’t, that’s fine, but that doesn’t dismiss the fact that you seem to misunderstand how a boycott works (which has nothing to do with whether or not you actually participate with one, since that’s entirely your prerogative and I would never disdain someone for that, including you).

    As for your lack of knowledge in the Columbia Sportswear support of a recall of Mayor Adams…

    http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/10/effort_to_recall_portland_mayo_1.html

    Consider yourself informed.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Eve January 8, 2010 at 10:07 am

    I sent a letter to my senator, Jackie Dingfelder, yesterday. In the letter I mentioned that I believed the judge was wrong in his decision but asked if she would look into the situation.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    wsbob January 8, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    Thread seems to be getting off topic.

    Re; so called sidepath law…Where ORS 814.420 and ORS 814.430 can be read.

    Chapter 814 — Pedestrians; Passengers; Livestock; Motorized Wheelchairs; Vehicles With Fewer Than Four Wheels

    The wording of those two statutes reflects a strong interest in keeping people riding bikes either riding in bike lanes where they exist, or far to the right side of the roadway. Oregon legislature apparently approved the wording of these laws. It might be helpful if someone could provide some background as to why the legislature did and how how it was persuaded to do so.

    How common is it for police officers to pull up along side people riding and tell them to get on over to the bike path, or to the side of the road? Or give them citations for not doing so.
    I’ve heard of this happening, but judging from news reports and word of mouth reports, it doesn’t seem to be very common.

    Towards getting the laws passed with the wording they have, I can imagine legislators having been presented with stories of, for example, motor vehicle drivers having great difficulty passing groups of people riding bikes on the main lane of the roadway. In that situation, it can often take a long time for a group of people on bikes to get the ‘heads up’ and move to the side of the lane so MV’s can pass.

    It’s that kind of example that may have convinced the legislature to approve the laws as written.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    BURR January 8, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    Most states have FRAP laws (far right as practicable) per the Uniform Vehicle Code; but Oregon is one of only a small handful of states with mandatory sidepath and bike lane laws, not per the UBC.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Alan January 8, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Claims that the law prohibits changing lanes in intersections and–by extension of Zusman’s reasoning–that the lack of lane stripes in intersections means that such laws are meaningless, suffer from a lapse in logic. Such claims attempt to argue with Judge Zusman’s decision based on a faulty premise, and such an argument is bound to fail upon analysis because the premise is flawed. Unless someone can actually cite such a law, and so far no one has, I don’t think such laws exist in Oregon nor in Washington (not that WA is relevant to this case). Judge Zusman’s decision is wrong, as Ray Thomas explains in his brief, but it’s not wrong based on the false “no lane changes in intersections” myth. (BTW, Oregon Driver’s Manual says to not change lanes when turning, but doesn’t otherwise doesn’t mention changing lanes in an intersection.)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    carless in pdx January 8, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    I think everyone actually has it all wrong. Even Judge Zusman.

    The fact that lanes markings disappear into the intersection clearly indicates that cars and bikes are not allowed in any intersection, unless there are clearly marked lanes.

    You should probably walk your car or bike through the intersection, just to be safe.

    There is even legal precedence for this – pedestrians must walk through an intersection when there are no raised sidewalk through an intersection.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    matchu January 8, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    Alan #38

    It is illegal to change lanes in the State of Washington while within an intersection. Such a law insinuates that the lane (including turning lanes) continue through an intersection whether visibly marked within the intersection or not.

    The State of Oregon does not permit changing lanes unless it is safe to do so and has been signaled for at least 100 feet prior to the lane change. This would make it exceptionally difficult given the length of most intersections to initiate the turn signal and then execute the lane change after having the signal engaged for 100 feet (ORS 811.375). I have included the state definition of “highway” at the end of the post in case the wording of 811.375 elicits confusion with common usage of the term.

    ORS 811.375

    811.375 Unlawful or unsignaled change of lane; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of unlawful or unsignaled change of lanes if the person is operating a vehicle upon a highway and the person changes lanes by moving to the right or left upon the highway when:

    (a) The movement cannot be made with reasonable safety; or

    (b) The driver fails to give an appropriate signal continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before changing lanes.

    (2) Appropriate signals for use while changing lanes are as designated under ORS 811.395 and 811.400.

    (3) The offense described in this section, unlawful or unsignaled change of lane, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §631; 1995 c.383 §64]

    ORS 801.305

    801.305 “Highway.” (1) “Highway” means every public way, road, street, thoroughfare and place, including bridges, viaducts and other structures within the boundaries of this state, open, used or intended for use of the general public for vehicles or vehicular traffic as a matter of right.

    (2) For the purpose of enforcing traffic offenses contained in the Oregon Vehicle Code, except for ORS 810.230, “highway” includes premises open to the public that are owned by a homeowners association and whose boundaries are contained within a service district established on or before July 1, 2002, under ORS 451.410 to 451.610. [1983 c.338 §51; 2007 c.561 §1]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Alan January 8, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    matchu, thanks for quoting the Oregon law; that confirms my point. (Aside, it would help even more if you linked to the actual online source of the statutes.) You say that it’s illegal in Washington but I’ve looked high and low and have not found such a law, and I do not believe it is illegal there. Again, citation would be welcome. As far as your point about signaling ahead of a lane change, presuming that the road extends for 100 feet before the intersection, then that presents no obstacle to changing lanes in the intersection.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    RayO January 8, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    I wonder why no one has brought up the fact that CROSSWALKS exist at all intersections even when they are not marked with stripes.
    If you are driving (or cycling) you have to stop for pedestrians crossing at the corners, marked or not.
    Same idea, no?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Zufehten January 8, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    Doesn’t Oregon have a “due care” clause for motorists, saying that motor vehicle drivers must take due are not to injure other road users?

    And what about the principle that says turning traffic must yield to through traffic, unless official traffic control devices (such as a green arrow on a signal) say otherwise?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Michael M. January 9, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    RayO (#59) — Same idea, yes, but not the same law. Crosswalks are defined in the state code as existing at all intersections even when they are not marked. See ORS 801.220. Bike lanes are not so defined.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Eileen January 10, 2010 at 12:55 am

    Wow, one judge, one ruling,(and I have never heard of a judge granting interviews about a case – doesn’t seem appropriate) and without knowing him personally, you all are calling him stupid and ready to hang him out to dry. What did you expect him to do/say? Say he was wrong and reverse his decision? can he even do that over a minor infraction? I think his ruling is understandable with the knowledge he had at the time of his decision. The way you all jump down everyone’s throat the second they have a difference of opinion, you are just setting yourself up for adversarial relationships and defensive responses. Whining, complaining and berating will never get you the changes you want. How about recognizing the humanity of this judge, assuming that he meant well and did his best(perhaps even wishes he’d made a different choice but isn’t in a very good position to state that publicly), and moving on?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    wsbob January 10, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    “…you all are calling him stupid and ready to hang him out to dry. …” eileen

    Not true. Some people’s comments have expressed that they’d just as soon the judge take a long walk on a short dock.
    Quite a number of other people commenting to this particular bikeportland story and the couple preceding it have studiously avoided any negative references to the judge or his decision in this case.

    In addition to avoiding negative references to the judge, what they’ve done in comments posted here, is to attempt to carefully understand the judge’s ruling by way of his reasoning that a bike lane, clearly indicated by painted line, sign or other means ceases to exist if it isn’t accompanied at all times by painted line, sign or other means.

    Towards furthering this understanding I’m certain some of the people commenting have been cracking the books and searching out various other sources of info as a means of gaining insight into this issue and the judges ruling in the case.

    I seem to recollect published news stories in which judges have been interviewed and have shared their thoughts and feelings about issues associated with and affecting cases they’ve had to rule on. That’s what Judge Zusman could have done following his ruling in this case.

    It’s mostly understandable to me that the judge would feel it not appropriate for him to argue the specific points of his ruling in this case with the public or some representative of the media. He should be taking pains to avoid having any ruling of his be directly influenced by public opinion.

    Without threatening his judicial independence, it seems that the judge could have had a little more to say publicly than he has so far, that might have helped people better understand issues affecting the presence of motor vehicles and bikes present together on the roadway.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Vance Longwell January 12, 2010 at 5:31 am

    Yet if there were no stupid bike-lane in the first place…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    wsbob January 12, 2010 at 11:28 am

    …the driver, given her apparent awareness of what was going on around her on the street she was driving her car(*), would probably still have hit the person riding the bike nearby. This isn’t something that Judge Zusman seems to care about that.

    The driver of the car had ample opportunity, easily 100′ feet from the intersection, to take notice of and yield if necessary to the Ms. Piekarski riding her bike in the bike lane adjoining Hawthorne Blvd. It turned out that it was necessary, yet the driver of the car failed to yield, resulting in a collision with the Piekarski on her bike. Judge Zusman doesn’t seem to care about that either.

    * From the earlier bikportland article on this story: “According to court documents which we’ve obtained, during the resulting traffic court trial, Ms. Metz admitted that she “made a last-minute decision to turn on 10th and did not check her blind spot prior to making the turn.” “

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • […] to “motor vehicle.” If a judge was a stickler for “statutory construction” (as we know some are), they could rule that bicycles aren’t motor vehicles so the law does not […]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    ken gordon March 26, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    My name is Ken Gordon and I, along with Nick Zukin are majority owners of Kenny and Zuke’s. As a matter of fact, Michael Zusman is an investor – not a co-owner – and owns an extremely small amount of shares in the Deli. I happen to disagree with Mr. Zusman’s ruling in the above matter. Be that as it may, I think he honestly believed he was ruling correctly, according to how he read the law. I don’t think he has anything against cyclists, or there was anything malicious in his ruling.

    Just as a matter of record, I think boycotts are a viable form of protest. I, for one, won’t go into a McCormick and Schmick’s because owner Bill McCormick is a major player in the Oregon Restaurant Association, which is a Republican mouthpiece and a regressive force in economic policy in the state. I’ve also boycotted certain businesses because of the owner’s stance on reproductive rights.

    I think this is a bit different. While you all certainly have the right to your opinions, and the right to boycott who you wish to, I think that – bottom line – Mr. Zusman is a pretty good guy in most respects, and just may have made a bad decision. It happens. People make mistakes. Will he make one like it again? I don’t know. But I do know he’s aware of the opinions expressed on this blog and elsewhere, and these might have the best chance of getting through. The boycott? To be honest, the restaurant is pretty much standing room only on a daily basis, and it’s likely your boycott – while perhaps personally satisfying – won’t get the message through to Mr. Zusman. Again, up to you. But letters to him on blogs and at the courthouse might have a more positive effect. Just my 2 cents. I’m actually pretty impressed with the level of discourse here, for what it’s worth.

    Ken Gordon
    Kenny and Zuke’s

    P.S. Oh, and the guy who said the food was better at Kornblatt’s? You’re an idiot. 😉

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Avatar