A crash between a someone operating a pick-up truck and three people riding bikes on a rural road in Washington County resulted in life-threatening injuries. The crash happened at about 9:00 pm on Wednesday night.
According to news reports, the collision took place on NW West Union Road about 1/2 mile east of the intersection with Jackson Quarry Road (map) just after 9:00 pm. A pick-up was heading westbound prior to the collision. Two of the people riding bikes, one man and one woman, are suffering life-threatening injuries.
This section of NW West Union is a very popular road for bicycling. I rode on it for our recent family bike-camping trip and have ridden it twice in the past two weeks (I do a loop that goes out on NW West Union and then turns right (north) on Jackson Quarry). I’ve commented in the past about how dangerous these rural Washington County roads are.
Near the intersection where this collision occurred, West Union takes a sharp bend and Jackson Quarry spurs to the northeast.
I’m still waiting to find out more details on this crash and will update this post when I learn more. If anyone knows the victims or saw the crash, please get in touch with me via email or telephone (503-706-8804). In the meantime, stay tuned to local network TV news for the latest on the 11:00 pm newscasts.
UPDATES: According to KGW news coverage, the bikes where going westbound and were hit from behind by the pickup. The reporter also said the speed limit on this stretch of road is 55 mph and that the riders did not have lights. A police officer in the KGW report said that the people were riding “in the road” but it’s important to remember that there’s no shoulder to bike in on this road. One of the bikes, a mountain bike with front suspension, was embedded into the front grill of the truck.
– Also, a lot is already being said about the riders not having lights. This was a rear-end crash. Keep in mind that the law does not require people on bikes to have a rear light, only a rear reflector visible from 600 feet. More on bike lighting requirements here.
– According to KGW, one of the riders has died. The names have also been released: Courtney Acosta-Grates, 30; Diego Reyes, 23, of Vancouver, and Melanie Diaz, 30.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Hope going out for speedy and thorough recoveries.
Did the police check the cell phone use of the driver? The Oregonian reports the car hit 3 bikes.
yikes! you’re seriously negligent when you take out multiple vehicles like that…
because riding bikes on an unlit road is not negligent.
It isn’t. And it is the driver of the motor vehicles responsibility to not outrun his headlights. It is obviously the motorists fault.
I always use a rear light at night, but it’s important to remember that only a standard rear reflector is required:
“C. The lighting equipment must have a red reflector or lighting device or material of such size or characteristics and so mounted as to be visible from all distances up to 600 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of headlights on a motor vehicle.”
This “…West Union Road near the intersection of Jackson Quarry Road…”, would be just down the road from the Helvetia Tavern, a very popular, great place for burgers beer. Swell view, beautiful countryside.
9pm is too late to be riding these roads without front and rear lights…good, nice and bright ones, and some reflective gear would be beneficial too…regardless of whether the law says you’re legal with just a reflector.
During the day, the roads out there are generally safe to ride, even without shoulders…but when the sun goes down, even with lights, they aren’t roads I’d really want to be riding. Population increase over the last 10-20 years has deteriorated the safety of these roads for other than motor vehicle travel.
If the speed limit is 55…general rule, I suppose, it certainly would be nice if the speed were lower. 40mph, maybe 35mph. Worth keeping in mind though, that this still is the countryside. That’s probably why 55 is allowed to stand. There isn’t housing developments, street lights and grid streets out here. It’s just fields. Dark out there. Beautiful for enjoying the moonlight. Long stretches of road that lends itself to high motor vehicle speed.
Previous comments to this story already have somebody jumping to conclusions and implying that the driver of the motor vehicle was “…seriously negligent. That’s premature, possibly not even a valid conclusion for this collision situation. It’s a beautiful place out in the country to ride a bike, but make allowances for the fact that it’s not city type riding conditions.
Actually, it is not premature. It is illegal to outrun your headlights in a motor vehicle. Driving too fast for conditions. If he hit a refrigerator in the road that fell off a truck earler, it would also have been the motorists fault. And the bikes had reflectors that were visible from 500ft. Look at the picture, the evidence is pretty strong at how fast the driver hit that mountain bike.
In my opinion, if a bike is considered a vehicle and cars are required to have rear lights, why aren’t bikes required to have the same? It makes no sense and I cringe whenever I someone comes into the shop I work at and they ask what the law is and just buy a front light….I always preface the law with my advice, which is to guy a good light set. Especially a good rear. Red lights are usually harder to see than a white light is anyway, so get a GOOD rear light, not just a cheap one….$25 isn’t that much to possibly prevent an accident like this one.
There is a very good reason. The reflected light from a car’s headlights is going to be brighter then most any battery powered tail light on a bike.
This is the same reason that street signs (on a dark road) are so effective at night.
When someone loses control of their vehicle and plows into a stop sign … do you blame the stop sign for not having a light?
Exactly.
Amber and yellow reflectors also are brighter than red reflectors, and reflectors on your pedals or cranks will be in motion, are highly visible, and clearly identify the reflecting source as a bicycle.
While reflectors don’t provide a lot of safety with respect to cross traffic at intersections, if installed correctly on a bicycle they are highly effective for both oncoming and overtaking traffic.
As a car free person and truck driver all in one, I have almost taken out a group of kids on a country road in the last week, and a couple on another country road. They had no lights and no reflectors. Speed limit 55, I was doing that and still only saw them at the very last second and had to swerve hard to not hit them. No shoulder, white line and then ditch. I hate driving on these road because I imagine having to ride on them all the time.
I really hope everyone comes out of this ok, but will put a some amount of blame on the riders in this case. You need lights or good reflectors on roads like this. I have two very powerful rear facing lights on at all times and still I know I am only so visible.
I wish the world were different then it is, but we must all take responsibility for what we do. If I were stranded with no lights at night on a country road, I’d turn off the music and have my mirror ready, and when I saw or heard a car coming, I’d get the heck off the road, they can barely see you, if at all.
Why no mention of whether they were wearing helmets or not? I thought helmets always prevented injury from cars.
This incident is unfortunate. My former boss always had a great saying in reference to lighting. “There’s a difference between being legal and being safe.”
I’d like to validate all the teachers of light safety and kindly ask them to quiet down now. There are no real details as of this morning. The photo shows the car in the shoulder. That’s about all the info we have.
+1
If my very expensive tail light was hit (on my bike) by a large American passenger truck at speeds in excess of 55MPH i’d be willing to bet the responding police would be unable to identify the remaining non-functional pieces as a light.
Heck, most automotive lights don’t survive a 20MPH collision.
Very good points, wsbob. Although that graphic picture above brings terrible images to my mind, I still find myself wanting to hear the driver’s side of the story before making a judgment for myself.
The reflector only requirement is a law that reinforces our freedom to make a decision that, while marginally safe at some times, is quite dangerous at other times.
There is insufficient data to make any conclusion as to fault at this point.
If we don’t go down the “nanny state” path of requiring certain levels of luminosity for cyclists perhaps we should lobby the FWA & USDOT for a new sign in the MUTCD to be places on rural drag strips/roads:
“WARNING: Popular route for unprepared cyclists
EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED!”
Sunset was 8:35, so “just after 9” would have been heavy dusk. That actually can be sometimes be the worst light condition possible – everything is a flat gray and it is not yet dark enough for colors or reflective items to jump out as well in a headlight as well as they do at night. And rear lights, if they had them, don’t stand out as well either.
More facts will help clarify if the basic speed rule was violated. Regardless of other contributing factors.
Bike light snobs. Well mounted, good reflectors can be highly effective.
That said, ~9:00 PM this time of year might be about the worst time to rely on reflectors only, as it’s not quite dark enough yet at that time for reflectors to contrast, or for motorists to be relying so much on what is illuminated by their headlights to see where they’re going or what they may be about to plow into, and I would agree that a good blinkie could have been the difference, but it’s speculation, and I hesitate to blame the bicyclists for being mown down (as I see strongly implicated above).
Laws are not a substitute for prudence and common sense.
Tell that to the cop that tickets you for not touching the ground with your foot when you fully stop your bike.
OW! OW! OW! DON’T TAZE ME! I’m not resisting arrest!
Rural Washington County has so many great roads to ride with very little traffic and mostly courteous drivers. However to access them you have to “run the gauntlet” on West Union.
This stretch of road is crying out for shoulders. The 4 miles between Helvetia Rd. and North Plains has no parallel roads to use as an alternative, and conflicts there are inevitable.
My thoughts are with those involved in this crash and hoping for a full recovery from all injuries.
if these were pedestrians then nobody would be questioning their lights… I realize these bikes may not have had rear reflectors, but it still sounds like that truck was driving faster than it could see… it happens a lot since people know the road, but they never think there could be something new in their way…
You don’t think that people would be questioning why they were walking in the travel lane on a 55mph road at night? There are legal rights, and there is common sense.
I wouldn’t question it in that spot, no shoulder… it’s road and then ditch… there’s not enough room to walk without having to use the road or fall into the ditch…
I’ve ridden that road and if the truck was actually going 55mph then it is also possible that the cyclists forgot their lights because they were strapping on their flux capacitors.
True…but most likely the local PD or reporter would say they were wearing dark clothes…etc.
I live in helvetia and would never ride or walk on this road in the evening.this accident happened on a very dangerous blind corner.lights or not it is not the place to ride at night safely
I ride those roads a lot and cars and pickups are a constant threat. At that time of day(/night), at that speed, I’m not in the least surprised that all three bikes were hit- there is zero shoulder and no place to go.
My thoughts go out to the victims -and the driver. (Assuming he/she is guiltless…)
Regardless of who is “at fault” in this specific incident, almost all the solutions above sound like how to compensate for cars being allowed to go the same speed with poor visibility as they are in full daylight. Improving your own visibility is wise, but there’s an opportunity here to encourage speed reduction as well. Most driver training discourages overdriving the range of your headlights, yet rarely are speed limits reduced at night to back that up.
+1
That’s why they have lights.
This is very sad news. I ride this loop 1-2 times a week. in fact i went on a ride there tuesday between 7pm and 8pm. It is a beautiful area to ride. Very few cars on the road, but the cars that do pass are moving fast, 55+ mph. With little to no shoulder in this area it can be dicey.
Last night, i heard the fire truck and ambulance heading out from downtown hillsboro. It’s very sad to hear they were heading to an emergency involving bicyclists.
Hoping for a speedy recovery to the 3 cyclist.
Have to agree with some of the previous comments about lights and the law..Regardless of the law, there is some responsibility that we all, as riders, share; to be seen. Bike lights, back and front, are a necessity-regardless of the law. Reflective tape on the bike and rider are, from my experience, easier to see than lights. If I am ever hit by a car, I never want to give the driver the excuse that they didn’t see me!
While reflectors are the legal minimum there are issues with them in that the require the light to reflect off them. If the collision was to the east of the intersection, then you are dealing with rolling hills. The vehicle lights might not have caught the reflectors until the vehicle was almost on top of the bike. What with them both the bikes and trucks changing height and attitude, bike going up hill, reflector pointing down, car going downhill lights pointing down.
To the west of the intersection there is a curve in the road, but basically level ground. If the bikes were around the corner, the reflectors would not catch the light until the truck hand also rounded the corner and again the truck would almost be on top of them.
So even though reflectors are legal they are the minimum requirement.
I hope everyone recovers from this one.
A couple weeks ago after Jonathan Maus posted about the roads out here I sent an email to the county expressing my concern with this very section of road. The response I received was actually pretty detailed and courteous.
There is a process available to submit minor improvement suggestions and another for major projects suggestions. Bike lanes on West Union falls in between those two options but the county seems to have their eye on such a project. I believe the project number to refer to is #220.
If you have a minute this might be an excellent time to express your concern about the safety of all road users on NW West Union. The speed differentials are way too high and the road is one of the few escape routes for cyclists looking to get away from traffic. This is the email for the capital improvement transportation office for Washington county:
lutproj@co.washington.or.us.
Who was it who originally said, “you might have the right of way, you don’t have a force field.” And that same reasoning would apply to rear lights. Nice bright white and red blinkies are the way to go.
I hope everyone recovers without serious consequences, let their be no head injuries please, as they are so devastating.
There is right and there is ‘dead right’. I’ve given up on being right and I’ll continue to avoid the ‘dead right’ side of the argument. thats why i wear bright colors and have multiple blinkies, and I avoid riding at dusk or into the sun/light like the plague. Its only a matter of time before we are all hood ornaments. we need to do our best to be visible. I wish a solid and quick recovery to these folks.
Jonathan said” I’ve commented in the past about how dangerous these rural Washington County roads are.”
Yes, you have, and I wish you would tone it down. You are only adding fuel to the fire for those people who say that we should not be allowed to ride out here.
These roads out here are NOT terribly dangerous, when everyone respects the rules of the road. Drivers have a responsibility to share the road, pay attention, and not pass too closely. Cyclists have a responsibility to SHARE (not hog) the road, pay attention, be aware of their surroundings, and be visible.
When everyone plays by these rules, the roads out here are no more dangerous than anywhere else.
I ride West Union several days a week; I live out here. I completely disagree that West Union needs either a shoulder OR a bike lane. There’s just NOT so much traffic on this road; at any time of day a motorist can safely pass by using the oncoming lane. Note I said “can”. Whether they “do” – or don’t – pass safely is the real issue.
The problem is not the road or the lack of a shoulder/bike lane. The problem is that motorists are in a hurry and are often discourteous to cyclists. And frankly, cyclists are often discourteous to motorists and don’t take adequate care to be safe and visible. That is not a West Union or rural Washington County issue. It’s a problem everywhere.
I disagree Susan.
You are a very experienced rider and therefore you have a certain perspective on these roads.
In my opinion, every non-freeway road needs to have adequate bike access. I wish we could rely on people being courteous and operating their vehicles in a safe manner, but with zero shoulder, zero traffic calming, and high speed limits, that type of behavior is even less likely.
Also, having no shoulder gives many people the false perception that the road is only for motor vehicles — which obviously isn’t the case.
I rode on West Union right where this crash happened while towing my 4 month old son, and 5 and 8 yr old daughter. We ride as far to the right as possible and still got yelled at by people saying absurd things like, “This road isn’t for family riding!” and “Idiots!”.
I do not think there’s a credible threat to bike traffic being prohibited on this road. There would be massive civil unrest and outcry if anyone even proposed that — which is a testament both to how important/popular this road is for bicycling and how ridiculous an idea that is.
Sorry if you think I should “tone it down.” I think the opposite. People need to speak up and have WashCo use the ample right-of-way that exists along these roads to make a wider shoulder. They could do it very inexpensively by laying pavement only rated for weight of people and bikes, not cars and trucks.
Thanks for your comment.
“…In my opinion, every non-freeway road needs to have adequate bike access. …” maus/bikeportland
That’s a very general summation. West Union and Jackson Quarry Rd generally have had…do have…adequate bike access for people to ride bikes on single file as necessary, during the day, and possibly at night if well illuminated. Adequate bike access for persons riding a bike, and towing a child in a bike trailer, implying a big wide shoulder, for “…every non-freeway road…”, is a nice idea, but considering these roads are part of many miles of roads out in the country, not the city…probably a long time coming.
“… People need to speak up and have WashCo use the ample right-of-way that exists along these roads to make a wider shoulder. They could do it very inexpensively by laying pavement only rated for weight of people and bikes, not cars and trucks. …” maus/bikeportland
If you’ve got some figures that indicating it would be inexpensive to add shoulders to West Union Rd between say….Schute Rd and Jackson Quarry, or…between Schute and North Plains ( the latter being the reported destination of the people on bikes according to the latest O report.), or West Union Rd and the Helvetia Tavern, post them. Total those distances up, and I think that turns out of be a fair amount of mileage, that would require a lot of materials and labor to add shoulders. If the shoulders aren’t rated for cars and trucks, I hope that doesn’t mean they’d be damaged by cars and trucks driving on them in emergency situations.
you say single file, but it’s legal to ride 2-abreast because you’re allowed to take the entire lane in this area… any time of day…
I’m sure you’d get a LOT of flak from motor vehicles, but no tickets from cops…
Absolutely these roads need shoulders. Why shouldn’t they have shoulders? I can think of three reasons why they should.
Even the freeways should have good bicycle access. And in Oregon, they do.
bike access is one thing. adding pavement everywhere is another. what we need is for motorists to slow the hell down.
“BASIC RULE”, as cyclists OR “PEOPLE on BIKES” are traffic, such accidents are ultimately the fault of the driver in the rear, regardless of lighting responsibilities. FAR MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE AT THE DMV for LISCENSURE TO ALLOW ADEQUATE SAFETY for all road users
Yes, it’s my understanding that if you rear-end someone, you are always responsible (at least for insurance purposes), because if you were driving according to the conditions you would have appropriate time to react and stop/avoid the collision.
You took your 4 month old and a 5 and 8 year old on a 55mph(often 60+) road with no shoulder or bike lane? Just because you can legally do something does not mean you should.
I know…I’m shocked he’d put his family in that kind of danger. Sorry, legal or not it’s just not worth it.
I rode out there yesterday…Saturday, looking for the exact location of the collision. Rode back and forth on West Union between Cornelius Pass Rd, across Jackson Quarry some distance. Reports never stated exactly, but my sense was that the location was somewhere east of Jackson Quarry. Still, I didn’t notice any debris on the road. No skid marks. There hasn’t been any bike memorial placed out there. Probably should be. Traveling that section of the road, it’s as if the collision never happened.
Time of day I was there, was 4pm. Lots of bright sunlight. As Lynn says below, traffic wasn’t heavy. There were three, four cars every minute or so, but they nearly all traveled very fast…45-50mph. Unless they absolutely have to (for example…cars from other direction.), the cars don’t slow down for people on bikes ahead of them.
Between C-pass and JQ, the road right of the white fog line varies erratically in width. Some short sections of the road seem to be about 3′ wide, but most of the road has maybe 4-5 inches to maybe a foot of ‘sort of’ shoulder. For anyone thinking of towing a child in trailer, it’s something to keep in mind.
I’m with Susan. Most of the roads out here just don’t have the volume of traffic that would make them dangerous to ride on.
“…The problem is that motorists are in a hurry and are often discourteous to cyclists. …” Susan Otcenas
I’m not riding West Union Rd regularly as you are, so I can’t judge first hand, but I’m assuming the number of motor vehicles traveling the road has increased significantly over the last 10 years or so, like it has up on Skyline Boulevard. Maybe you can help to confirm or dismiss that assumption.
People in a hurry are a big problem out in the countryside. Just this last Tuesday, I took a ride to the summit of Chehalem Mtn. Beautiful ride, not too many cars. On the long descent, 30mph-35mph for me on the bike, 3-4 motor vehicles on different occasions, passed me in rather abrupt, high speed maneuvers. They didn’t wait any brief 5-10-20 second period for me to notice their presence that would have allowed me pull to the far right side of the road…they just zipped on by me.
Just one of the passing maneuvers was a bit close for the oncoming car that approached the motor vehicle, but all of the passes seemed excessive to me. If they’d just given me a few seconds, I’d of been happy to move over and give them room, even pull to the side if I’m holding up a string of cars. On occasion as needed, I’ve done this on Humphrey Blvd (near Council Crest.).
I’ve lived in Washington County for 14 years and have ridden West Union regularly during most of that time. It is indeed a “gateway” road to much of the awesome riding out here. I ride it both weekends and weekdays, with the weekday rides typically after work, and sometimes in the dark, late at night.
Has traffic increased in the past 10 years? Yes, but not dramatically so, or at least that’s my impression. The City of North Plains has certainly grown, but there isn’t much development on West Union beyond that.
The busiest time of day on West Union is during the morning and evening “rush”, which probably comes as no surprise. Still though, there’s rarely so much traffic that a vehicle can’t move almost immediately into the oncoming lane. And, West Union is nearly flat ( a few small rollers) and quite straight, so the sight lines are generally very good.
Susan…hey thanks for the report back. I had an idea the traffic might have picked up more dramatically in the last 10 or so years, so it’s good to have the perspective of someone that’s riding the road regularly.
Given that most folks in Washington County didn’t know where West Union Road was 10 years ago because there was nothing out that far, I’d say the increase in traffic on WU is a factor of infinity.
I agree with most of what you are saying; however, I also agree with JM that “People need to speak up and have WashCo use the ample right-of-way that exists along these roads to make a wider shoulder.”
An impact like that would be sufficient enough to remove most lighting systems from a bike. Police siding with the driver in an auto/bike incident is not unique. Not much should be made of the light issue until the injured parties have had a chance to speak on what they had/had not equipped their bikes with.
And a bunch of people on bikeportland siding with the cyclist no matter what is not unique either.
You would not like to hear the side of the cyclist as well as the driver? Or are you just saying you trust police implicitly?
Bare minimum the mounting hard ware for a rear light would likely still be attached to the bike. If it was a clip-on light, that very well could be thrown, but it would still be “on the crash site”. I would bet if they did have rear lights, atleast 1 of the 3 would still be found easily if not still attached.
Just like the old real estate axiom, “Location, location, location!” this is all about, “Conditions, conditions, conditions!”.
ALL road users are responsible to operate safely and appropriately for the conditions.
From the photo, there seems to be ample reason to believe that some “Following to Close” as in the Joey Harrington situation was involved (bike in grill).
I don’t think you can jump to that conclusion by looking at the picture. Very loose use of the word “ample” here.
The bike is in one piece and still upright, does that happen at 55mph?
You could say that this indicates the driver was slowing before the impact.
There you have two different opinions based on a photo.
We don’t know the context of the photo. Is that the first bike hit or the last? Is the position of the truck on the road where they were driving or did they pull over after the accident? What do the skid marks indicate if they are present?
You can’t take one photo and make any statement about blame.
This “like or dislike” thing makes me think of a room full of people cheering or booing. It’s kind of weird. Dislike.
thanks for the feedback charley. I’ll keep this feature going for a few days and then make a decision to keep it or not.
I like it… gives me a good gauge of what the BP community thinks…
I love it and hate it. Jonathan, please consider a separate blog post for us to solely discuss this feature, so we don’t hijack or interrupt on-topic posts.
I’m not sure I like the app either, or think it’s such a great idea. Seems it could allow for a kind of simple minded participation rather than solid thinking, as you said “…room full of people cheering or booing. …”. For sporting events, that’s o.k., but when it’s serious issues being discussed, maybe not.
Also, it’s not unrealistic that people might play games with it, so ‘like or dislike’ numbers displayed could be manipulated and may not actually reflect a very honest, as Spiffy puts it, “…gauge of what the BP community thinks…”. Still, today, the results have been kind of fun to watch.
I would be interested to know what direction and side of the road this occured on. From the map this is a corner and it very well could be that the riders would not have been visible for a long distance. I am also a heavy proponent of very good rear lighting. To mention hitting 3 cyclists is very possible. When cycling together in the road, they may have been side by side or atleast very close to on another.
I believe in lights on bikes. I live in Virginia where it IS the law that bikes need lights between dusk and dawn. MY rule of thumb is: If cars need their lights, so do I. During high traffic hours I even run my helmet light in the day time because I noticed on someone else it increases visibility. Our city recently got a grant so they coudl hand out rear blinkie lights at the National Ride Your Bike to Work check-in. I took four of them and handed them out to my night time co-workers who ride bikes. I’m on the board of directors of a local non-profit that will help people who ride their bikes to/from work buy good lights and other safety equipment.
However, sometimes it does not matter how safe you’re trying to be, if a motorist is distracted – you’re toast. I ride with blinkie lights on my helmet and on my bike. One night I was riding home after dark, and a friend commented on how visible I was. I jokingly said, “I’m very devoted to the cause of not becoming road pizza.” The very next morning I got broadsided by an SUV that ran a stop sign. I am 6’1″ in my bare feet. Up on my pedals I’m even taller. I was wearing a neon pink pike helmet with a blinkie light on it. Yet, somehow this chick didn’t see me – right in front of her. Fortunately, neither I nor my bike were injured as bad as we could have been. My guardian angel must have been putting in overtime hours that day.
Word.
Non-professional drivers … Just. Aren’t. Looking.
I was 2 days in to a 5 week CDL course when t was demonstrated to me plainly: whilst driving at a consistant speed through a heavy merge interchange car after car would attept to merge THROUGH a 48 foot trailer.
Makes you long for robotic self driving cars.
Originally from farm country in N. Dak. You never out-drive your headlights. Ever. Especially on a corner or a hill or etc. You slow way down. Could be someone’s cow out, a horse or deer on the road. People, cows, horses, goats, sheep, deer, skunks, racoons will use the road. IMHO, people in cars shouldn’t think it’s OK to take a chance killing them.
Those bikes had reflectors for God’s sake. I see them in the picture.
Pesky unlighted cows.
I think lights should be standard issue on bikes. Shops should step up and not sell bikes without including them. If the consumer is so inclined, they can take them off.
Kind of like how a gun shop should not sell a gun without a trigger lock. IMO this is a moral responsibility of a gun shop – maybe bike retailers should adopt the same mentality.
Anything in life involves risk. Riding your bike with lights involves risk; riding without lights involves risk… I personally choose to lower my risk of unexpected death by using proper lighting on by bike at dusk/night. However, others prefer a more risky path and ride without adequate lighting, helmets, bright clothing, bells, repair kits, etc… Good or bad, Oregon law gives you this freedom, to choose your own path and assume the personal risk you’re comfortable taking while riding your bike. I’m okay with that! It’s the law and that’s what we, as a community, have come to an agreement upon…
Maybe we should reconsider our agreement in some way? I’m okay with that too! Until then, “Share the road.”
while these roads might deserve shoulders, I doubt that they could do it inexpensively in the manner you suggest, since once the shoulder is there, it will be used by cars and trucks and will need to meet design standards for vehicles, and not just cyclists.
“…Why shouldn’t they have shoulders?…” Charley
Shoulders would be nice. Where’s the money for the shoulders? It’s the countryside. Relatively few people live out there, so property taxes from that area aren’t going to amount to what they would from city property for city infrastructure improvements.
These two lane no shoulder roads have been acceptably functional, utilitarian country roads for decades. It’s new types of road users, such as increased numbers people living in the suburbs, driving in their motor vehicles and more people out on bikes for recreational purposes that have pushed the safety limits of the country roads. Are these new types of road users prepared to come up with the dough to equip roads like West Union Rd and Jackson Quarry with shoulders, and pay for the maintenance they require, to these roads safer for biking? If so, put a bond measure for that sort of thing on an upcoming ballot. Let people vote on it.
I know The photos and news clips show things at night, but the report states About 9:00pm. So I wonder if it was dark enough for reflectors or lights to be functional and if the headlights on the truck were on? This time of year 15 min. to one side or the other 9:00pm could be day or night.
And I hate to say it – when this gets to court the driver will get less of a punishment, be ordered to pay less, etc because the cyclists didn’t have lights. Even though he shouldn’t have been outrunning his lights. He was in the wrong. But, when there’s a bicycle involved many people want the bicycle to be at fault. People are going to be sympathetic to, “They didn’t have lights. I didn’t see them….”
again, the argument you are actually making here is for the need for a cultural shift, not for lighting per se. and by arguing for lighting (or helmets, or shoulders), you are sustaining the second class status of cyclists on roadways.
How is arguing for lights making cyclists a second class road user?
Asking that bikes have the same level of equipment to ensure visibility sounds like putting them on an even par with cars.
Shoulders/bike lanes, only make a cyclist a second class road user if the law requires them to only use roads with shoulders/bike lanes.
But the post you responded to didn’t mention shoulders only lights.
As for helmets, there’s no law right now requiring them on adults so that’s a moot point and again wasn’t even mentioned in the post you responded to.
you cannot put a bike “on an even par” with cars by dressing it up with lights. the kind of lighting we are talking about is intended specifically to protects a bicyclist from (wait for it) cars. therefore. when you insist that a cyclists “should have” had lights because a motorist outran his own headlights, you are putting responsibility exactly where it does not belong, on the weaker party. anyway, that’s may argument.
and actually, to take my argument to its logical conclusion, let me suggest that operators of dangerous machinery should be made second class users of public roadways. in other words, i am not looking for “par.”
Never mind that even automotive lighting is for the benefit of being visible to other road users first, and illuminating the driver’s view second.
and golly, you’re right, the particular post to which i nested my response did not mention shoulders (mentioned a hundred other places on this board) or helmets (the other thing you generally hear about when a cyclist is injured by a motorist, and which also has the effect of misplacing the blame — in other words, i was making an analogy).
looks like someone was distracted. check the skid marks on the road.
or driving past their lights or more likely here driving with only the ambient light as many OR drivers do
Most drivers who grew up and learned to drive here in Portland tend to drive with their headlights on day or night just to save the hassle, since lights are required for bicycles and motorists alike from dusk till dawn, when it’s raining or snowing, when it’s smoky, dusty or foggy, and in all safety corridors.
Makes the tourists harder to spot in the crowd because they’re less visible having their lights off during the day whether or not they’re required…
I’ve seen plenty of drivers without their lights in Beaverton. For some reason, being over the west hills makes it more prominent. Canyon road/ TV HWY is terrible for this.
the KGW report on the rider that died misquotes (I hope) Maus saying that a rear light visible to 600 feet is legally required…
Dang. that’s unfortunate. She must have misheard me. I’ve emailed their editors to change the website, but the TV report is over and done. Oh well. At least they used the part where I mentioned that it’s important for everyone – in car or on bike – to operate safely.
Most people don’t even know the laws that apply to their own vehicles, let alone a totally different kind of vehicle. Also, many folks live by a set of imaginary laws. If they think it, it must be [il]legal. This is likely the cause of any “mishearing”: interpreting through the filter of a preconceived misconception.
Gear geek alert:
I hemmed and hawed over whether to purchase my my L&M tail light (90 bucks). It’s a lot of dough but it has turned out to be a great purchase. Way, way brighter than anything else out there and because it charges on a USB (the battery is integrated) it’s always at full power. Except for the sunniest of rides it stays on. If you don’t mind the price and do a lot of low-light riding one of the models like it are really worthwhile. Sorry to make a product pitch but it has been great. Of course blinkie-type lights are good too.
the l&m 180 vis is rated at ~35 lumens which is approx the same as the new 1 watt pb turbo and boomer rear usb (37 and 30 lumens respectively). the translucent boomer is an awesome little light and can be had for <$20 if you get it in on sale. (i bought two boomers at biketiresdirect for $14 a piece.) t
hese new chip-based leds are uhmayzing and its just a matter of time before we have cheap 100 lumen rear blinkies.
Description provided on biketiresdirect for knog boomer USB says “…15 Lumens…”, not 30.
$14 for a boomer would be quite a markdown, because biketiresdirect lists them at $39.99. Planetbike’s tail lights don’t do USB.
Problem with all of these lights is that though some of them are bright, the display area continues to be very small. Brightness is good, but it seem to me that area of display would also help improve visibility of people down the road for people approaching approaching them from behind. Just buying more lights and mounting them near each other is one approach some people take as a means of increasing visibility by way of a greater display area.
Might not hurt though, for bike light designers and manufacturers to take a look at engineering single panel lights that would cover more square inches than most current light seem to, which is what? Ranging from about one to three inches?.
Just measured the back of an old seatpost bag I still use. It’s got a kind of square back panel measuring 6 by 4 inches. A 24 sq inch flat panel light could fit there nicely. Battery held inside the bag. A newer, smaller seatpost bag I use on a different bike measures four by four inches. A 16 sq inch light could fit on the back of it.
Logically, more LED’s to cover a larger area, would use more power. Maybe this is seen as an insurmountable obstacle to creating the kind of consumer lights I’m thinking of.
Reading these comments is driving me crazy
My roommate is in the hospital and her boyfriend just died!
Please be kind and remember we are talking about human lives here. They didn’t realize they were going to be out that late, they were going on an innocent bike ride through the country side.
I just lost a friend and have spent the day in the hospital by my best friend’s bed side and I had to ride my bike to the hospital.
All I can say is please be safe! everyone, every minute of the day!
I cannot ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ Noa’s comment. I just want to express condolences to her and to all those close to this sad event.
Big thumbs down to the “like/dislike” buttons.
Do we agree with you with a thumbs up or thumbs down?
Bear in mind also, that maus was hauling his kids in a bike trailer behind a bike, as part of a group of people on bikes, some of them also with bike trailers, potentially making passing maneuvers far more difficult for faster motor vehicle road users than it would be for motor vehicle road users to pass a single bike or two or three on the road.
Maus and his friends being the kind of considerate people I expect they would be, I suppose they probably split up the group at least somewhat to enable people in cars to pass more easily on these type of roads. Nevertheless, motor vehicles passing bikes hauling trailers is still going to be more difficult, and comparatively more dangerous to the people associated with the bike trailer rig.
It’s probably inevitable that greater difficulty in passing vehicles traveling the speed of bikes is going to make some motor vehicle road users accustomed to unobstructed high speed travel on country roads, agitated. Assuming that bike touring and general riding out on the county’s roads continues to expand, maybe that will help them overcome the agitation somewhat…relax and get used to the occurrence of more bikes on the road, and generate support for improved shoulders and so forth. Maybe it would cost less to just install slow vehicle/bike turn-outs periodically along certain commonly used country roads.
For now, people that ride bikes out on these country roads are well advised to better than legally equipped to ride them, especially at night.
Given the very tragic accident that occurred last night, which was very avoidable unless the driver was drunk or distracted, I think it is necessary to reexamine the laws concerning lights. Most, if not all European countries require front and rear lights, for a good reason. A reflector is not a suitable means to alert a driver. Any other vehicle on the road is required to have them, and since bikes are considered vehicles, they should have them as well.
As for shoulders or separate bike paths, I think they are a worthwhile investment for the city and surrounding counties. They will increase bike safety, and reduce the very apparent conflict that exists between cyclists and drivers. I just got back from a 6 week bike trip around N. Europe, and spent countless hours riding on separate bike lanes or bike tracks. For the most part it was very safe, and judging from the number of kids riding as well, I think many parents felt the same way. Of course, shoulders, tracks, separate bike paths cost money, but I think the benefits over the long run outweigh the cost. Also, compare to building highways and new roads, a bike lane is cheap. It is not going to happen overnight, but hopefully the bike community will continue to speak up and be heard.
I think the dead and injured would disagree with you on that one.
Washington County has money for it alright. They are notorious for tearing up perfectly good roads, only to have to chipseal, repave, and restripe them. Last year helvatia, Meek Road, and a few others got the treatment. This year they are planning on tearing up a perfectly good section of Evergreen, which has a bike lane, and is NOT a bottleneck (I drive/ride this road everyday) so they can work on their fixation of making every arterial 5 lanes and 55+ mph. I’ve lost track of how many road projects they’ve done on this road since I moved here. Meanwhile, NE 25th, off that same section of Evergreen, IS a bottleneck, has no bikelane, no shoulder to speak of, 45mph speed limit, and is the main road commuters use to get to the Intel campus. They ignore it.
“We’d be happy to work on your bike projects, but we spent all our money on other stuff so we could ask for more.”
Oh well, they added a shoulder on Cornellius Schefflin after Tim O’Donnel was killed on it. It’s sad but maybe after this event they will finally do something on West Union.
STR, yours is an interesting point. How valid it is in the actual doing of things, getting things done, I don’t know. I’ve just a very little experience following how infrastructure projects pan out. Once in hand, it can be hard not to waste money.
I remember bikeportland stories addressing the phenomena of redundant infrastructure work and efforts to get bureaus to co-ordinate better so as not to waste time and money. Hard to do effectively I suppose. The planning and engineering phases seem to be able drag out forever, wasting lots of money.
So if someone were able to manage the county’s budget so as to put a nice big shoulder on West Union and Jackson Quarry, I’d be all for it. No four lane main travel lane conversions though. It really would be beneficial it seems, if the speed limit were brought down some…45 mph tops, maybe 35, and with shoulders added, be able to encourage more people to use country side roads for recreational use that would be compatible with and complimentary to the area agribusiness.