Urban Tribe - Ride with your kids in front.

Armored truck repeatedly parks in Greeley Ave bike lane, poses safety hazard

Posted by on September 30th, 2011 at 3:05 pm

This truck has made a habit of blocking
the bike lane on N Greeley.
(Photos © Brett McLane)

A large armored truck has been making a habit of parking in the bike lane on the southbound side of N. Greeley Avenue and a citizen activist has taken it upon himself to make it stop.

On September 2nd, North Portland resident Brett McLane notified the City of Portland’s Traffic Safety and Livability hotline that he had witnessed an Oregon Armored company truck parked in the Greeley bike lane on several occasions.

Greeley in this section is downhill. McLane feels the truck poses a safety hazard because it “creates a potentially deadly situation” as people on bikes are forced to merge into the adjacent lane where the posted speed limit is 45 mph. In addition, McLane notes that the truck is in clear violation of Oregon law.

ORS 811.550 states that it’s prohibited to stop or park a vehicle on a bike lane unless the vehicle is stopped to “momentarily” pick-up/drop-off a passenger or load/unload property.

McLane, in his emails to PBOT, adds that there’s a parking lot nearby:

“Most notably, there is ample off street parking in the Adidas lots on the east and west sides of the street (the very same business the armored car is visiting). However it is clear from the driver’s actions that having to walk an additional 20 steps is a more important issue than the safety of the numerous cyclists and drivers that use this street at 7:30am during their morning commute.”

McLane got a response from PBOT 20 days later. On September 22nd, a PBOT employee replied to McLane to inform him that his complaint had been forwarded to the Parking Enforcement Division on September 6th.

After continuing to see the truck parked in the bike lane, McLane emailed PBOT again, stating, “If the city is unwilling to take action on this I will pursue other legal action on my own and will note the city’s inaction in enforcing this ongoing violation.”

McLane is yet to hear back.

I’ve asked PBOT for comment and will update this story when I hear something.

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. Thank you — Jonathan

  • Joe Adamski September 30, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    not meaning to defend, but probably explain. An armored car is by nature big, heavy and a bearcat to park. I can understand why the driver prefers to park on Greeley. Also, since armored cars are occassionally the target of crime, being ‘caged in’ a parking lot is a strategic mistake.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

    • jim October 1, 2011 at 8:16 am

      The trucks with the water jugs are a lot more awkword, I dont see them park in the bike lane.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • sorebore October 1, 2011 at 10:10 am

      One aspect no one has mentioned is that the vehicle is also occupying about 1/3 of the traffic lane. I understand your concern for the driver/delivery person’s safety, because I myself have had numerous thoughts about bumping off an armoured truck! But perhaps the best motive as some one else points out here is ti approach Adidas about it.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Mike October 3, 2011 at 12:20 am

      Seriously? I could understand it if armored cars were being robbed but that just doens’t happen here. And the way they have them staffed it’s almost impossible to rob one. Crews of three, two in back and a driver, the driver doesn’t have access to the back and only one guard goes out to make pick ups or deliveries leaving one armed guard still in the back. And the body and windows are bullet resistant so the most you could reasonably hope for is to grab what the outside guard has…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • estherc July 24, 2014 at 9:26 am

      so we’re supposed to die for his convenience?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • chad September 30, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    I’ve similarly reported to the city that large semi-trucks use the bike lane on the corner of Caruthers and Water (in front of McCoy Millwork) as a loading/parking zone on a regular basis. I’ve called the SAFE hotline numerous times and I still have not seen any enforcement. The city seems very slow to do anything about large, commercial vehicles using bike lanes as loading zones. If, say, a large group of cyclists (critical mass, ahem) was blocking a major street, I’m sure they’d be right on that.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • noah September 30, 2011 at 3:41 pm

      But isn’t the loading actually legal?

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • are September 30, 2011 at 8:21 pm

        811.550 forbids “stopping, standing, or parking” in a bunch of places, including (23) a bike lane.

        811.560(3) provides an exception for
        “vehicles stopped, standing or parked momentarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading property or passengers.”

        this would probably fall in that category.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Richard September 30, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    The occupants are (1) driving an enormous, heavy, gas-guzzling vehicle, and (2) carrying firearms. In other words, they are “real Americans” and are exempt from all traffic laws. 😉

    Recommended Thumb up 15

    • oliver October 3, 2011 at 9:12 am

      ie. protecting our freedom

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Adam Troxel September 30, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    I too have called that hotline complaining about delivery trucks parking in the bike lanes. At no time have I received any response or action from this group. Not sure what else we can do.

    Why bother installing bike lanes if the city wont enforce the rules on them. I see cars driving in/out of them all the time when rounding corners etc.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

  • Jim September 30, 2011 at 3:27 pm

    Ok folks, let’s get real. While I don’t like delivery vans parked in the bike line there is a reason the armored car is.
    Fewer steps between the pickup and vehicle means more safety for the driver, who is at his most vulnerable walking. Just see the context and not get all PC. Sheesh.
    Maybe the driver can pull up onto the sidewalk as it looks plenty wide, though walkportland.org will see a huge spike in traffic if so.

    Recommended Thumb up 18

    • jim October 1, 2011 at 8:19 am

      The sidewalk is not designed for heavy vehicles, especially armored trucks. The slabs are too thin

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • jim October 1, 2011 at 8:21 am

      Are you sugesting its ok to block the sidewalk, but not the bikelane?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Ron October 3, 2011 at 7:57 am

      That’s the sort of logic that leads cagers to do things like drive their kids to school one kid per car, thus creating the very hazards they claim to be avoiding. He is more vulnerable walking if he insists on parking in active traffic lanes instead of a parking lot.
      Happy Trails,
      Ron Georg

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • BURR September 30, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    I very much dislike those armored trucks, they have some of the worst street-level diesel exhaust of any vehicle I ever cycle near, and they leave them idling when making a stop, as well.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Jim September 30, 2011 at 3:40 pm

      Awesome. They do that so a bunch of knuckleheads high on meth don’t go ninja are their patooties.
      Of course, dying so you don’t have to breath diesel fumes for a few seconds is a reasonable trade off.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Henry July 23, 2014 at 9:29 am

      Windows do not go down, therefore truck has to stay on in winter and summer days…makes sense huh..

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Tony Brown September 30, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    Just another story for people to complain about something. Wah. Are you going to call the city and complain when a fire engine is blocking your bike lane so they can scrape up the hipster that decided stop signs and speed limits dont apply to bicycles?

    Recommended Thumb up 16

    • noah September 30, 2011 at 3:43 pm

      Sounds like you’re the one who can’t contain his emotions.

      Recommended Thumb up 13

  • Rob September 30, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    Has anyone thought of calling the armored car company? Or talking to Adidas?

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Toby September 30, 2011 at 4:03 pm

      Last spring when my class schedule was such that I went by there during their pickup, yes I did call the armored company. They told me it was the only option for the driver. Absolutely not true. Plenty on space in parking lot, plenty of space up on the curb. He said “he’d look into it”. Which basically means that he won’t. I stopped and tried to talk with the driver. He just looked at me with the most apathetic of ignorant expressions while I spoke then when I finished, he looked back down at the latest copy of Jugs, or whatever “paperwork” he was doing. (sorry, reverse order; spoke with driver then called). The next time I saw the truck it was pulling out of the driveway so I gave a friendly wave and a thumbs up (instead of what was becoming the customary one finger salute). The next time after that it was up on the sidewalk, I repeated the friendly gestures. after that it was back to the some ol same ol.

      I no longer really care because of different hours, but it sucks to hear that nothing has changed. I did think seriously about bringing condoms filled with mayo to throw at the windshield, but thought the better of it (stupid reason and accountability!)

      Also a note, I’m not involved with the original story in anyway. I just read it and thought I’d add my experience to it.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Toby September 30, 2011 at 4:14 pm

        In full disclosure, I have a bias against Oregon Armored anyway because the A-hole driver that delivers to PCC Cascade ran into my bike while it was locked to a staple way up on the curb, then drove away like nothing happened. Fortunately a student saw it and called campus security so I was able to get a check cut for damages. Even that took two months or so. Bastards!

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • joe adamski September 30, 2011 at 7:09 pm

          I was remembering that when I read this initially. Bear in mind the armored car companies drivers are not hired, paid or trained to be drivers. They are very low paid workers, non-union, expected to be honest and exposed to risk for barely above minimum wage.
          UPS drivers drive in equally difficult situations, with bulky vehicles that have poor visibility. The big difference is UPS pays well and attracts more professinal drivers, and UPS invests in training as well as accoutrements such as back up cams and such to promote safety.
          Armored car companies hire warehousemen with guns. So there are limits. I really would not want to see a armored car in a tight parking lot, esp with pedestrians around.

          Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Brett M. September 30, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    While I realize the convenience/safety factor that is in play here, that’s a pretty poor excuse for breaking the law. If you look at the area you’ll note a large open-air parking lot just to the north of the stop (with two inlet/outlet access points) as well as a parking garage on the opposite side of the street. Additionally, there are often numerous security guards (third party hired by Adidas) around that exact area at peak traffic times.

    If we’re really convinced that the guard’s safety/risk of being ‘held up’ is an issue here, should we also allow any invidiual who’s, say, using an ATM to park in the bike lane so they don’t have to walk around from a bank’s parking lot?

    I also encounter deliver trucks on N. Interstate (northbound) near N. Mississippi that block the bike lanes, but they do so legally (under ORS 811.560) because they are ACTIVELY loading/unloading into local businesses.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Jim September 30, 2011 at 4:10 pm

      Do you really think a bunch of “security” guys getting paid low wages are going to risk their lives for someone else’s money?
      C’mon, think about it.
      I don’t work for an armored car company, am not in law enforcement, ride a bike everywhere; the guys who drive armored cars have the most thankless job in the world. Not only are they in a very high risk job, they have to drive all day sucking their own fumes and get yelled at by bicyclists calling them low-level morons.
      Just because you ride a bike doesn’t mean you have to turn off your brain to how the world is.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • naess October 2, 2011 at 4:02 pm


        remember these are the same people that think a truck driver should

        a. get out of his truck and check the passenger side before turning right.

        b. oh, and just because someone may have slipped in there while you were heading back to the drivers side, perhaps you should get back out, again, and check one more time.

        c. oh wait, don’t turn yet, someone may have slipped in again, better check one more…

        d. oh look the lights changed already, guess you can’t make that right turn now.

        e. go baack to a.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • oliver October 3, 2011 at 9:16 am

          You forgot to add ” or expect drivers to use their turn signals or refrain from using cell phone”

          Recommended Thumb up 3

    • jacob September 30, 2011 at 4:19 pm

      Yeeeeeaaah, I don’t think you’re carrying $10,000 plus when you leave the ATM… just sayin’.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Jim September 30, 2011 at 4:38 pm

        Clever. It’s about the driver, not me.
        Like I said, go ahead and think.
        Just sayin.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Brett M. September 30, 2011 at 5:06 pm

          1. No, I’m not routintely carrying $10K in cash. I’m also not (routinely) carrying a loaded firearm. However, I think it’s worth pointing out that the ORS 811.550 and ORS 811.560 statutes do not seem to be written to be interpreted based on a ‘dollar value at risk basis’ but rather on a ‘how long will you be parking here’ basis.

          2. I’m not asking the driver/partner to park three blocks away and be exposed for an extended period of time. I’m merely noting that there is a parking lot only a few extra feet away. There is also a building entrance close to the parking lot and I would bet on the fact that it’s closer than the bike lane-to-entrance distance.
          Also, let’s think about this tactically. Would you rather park in a parking lot where you can observe all the comings and goings of (minimal) vehicle/pedestrian traffic, while being protected on one side by a building or would you rather park in a main road where traffic is coming and going in two directions and there is ample pedestrian/bike traffic? I’d hazard a guess and say that the parking lot that is protected from 180-degrees is safer from a ‘hold up’ risk perspective. That being said, it would further the argument that this is a convenience issue, not a safety one.

          3. I’m not calling anyone a low-level moron here.

          4. I do want to emphasize that I’m not just whining for the sake of whining. And yes, I know it looks that way. I’m more than happy to oblige delivery truck drivers when they are truly ACTIVELY loading/unloading and have no other safe or convenient parking options. Portland is a city and we can’t be tying up valuable real estate with big parking lots just to accomodate the occasional delivery truck. But when there are other options, they need to be exercised.

          5. Finally, I would note that a lot of people would be sining a different tune if there was no bike lane to park in and the armored vehicle was actively blocking vehicular traffic. It may not seem like a big deal since it’s “just a bike lane” that’s being blocked and, yes, there is room (albeit minimal) to go around, but if folks were sitting in their cars/trucks/whatever and got caught behind a delivery truck that blocked an entire lane of travel, they’d be whining as well.

          Recommended Thumb up 8

          • Jim September 30, 2011 at 5:13 pm

            Brett M., the comments section blows up when one tries to respond to someone else, so none of this is directed at you per se but I want to address just one thing:
            The drivers are taught to do the things they do; we’re just armchair quarterbacks. Their lives are at stake, not ours.

            Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Joe September 30, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    don’t mean to change the subject but stark ppl drive all the way to nato in the bike box.. wild, one dude with a CA plate was gunning me down.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • jeff September 30, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    McLane sounds tough…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spiffy September 30, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    McLane thinks that the truck is in clear violation of Oregon law… but then states the law that allows them to be there…

    moment: an indefinitely short period of time

    and yes, it’s perfectly legal to park in the bike lane to use the ATM because money is an object that you’re loading…

    we don’t like it, but it’s the law… so keep complaining to the city to get the law changed, but don’t expect them to ticket people that are legally parked in the bike lane…

    Recommended Thumb up 8

  • Indy September 30, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    This happens *daily* on my commute home with a Fedex truck @ SW Clay and SW 1st.

    I’ve also wondered why the “paper shredder” vans that are all over downtown daily aren’t cited for noise ordinance violations. They are easily above 100 Decibels for minutes at a time.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • AC September 30, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    while we’re on this, are campus facilities folks allowed to blow sidewalk debris into the street?
    cuz that’s what Red Cross and Legacy Emanuel do along N. Vancouver; and we’re heading into fall when water and leaves do not make a great bike lane riding surface

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • captainkarma September 30, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    Sounds like a bike attorney clarification might help.

    As to the noise, I believe it takes a special noise control officer with db meters, etc, not a beat cop. I believe due to cutbacks, there’s maybe one (?) or two available, and they have a backlog of *months*, so good luck on that one. But we can finance endless bazillion dollar weapon systems, mega-lane bridges, corporate fatcat bail-outs. You know, priorities!

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Paul Cone September 30, 2011 at 4:52 pm

    They like to park in the bike lane on NE Broadway, too.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Rick Hamell September 30, 2011 at 5:29 pm

    I’d just like to see some enforcement on cars that use the bike lane as a right turn lane. To me that is more dangerous then this truck sitting here.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Liddell October 1, 2011 at 10:57 am

      ORS 811.440 states:

      811.440 When motor vehicles may operate on bicycle lane. […]
      (2) A person may operate a motor vehicle upon a bicycle lane when:
      (a) Making a turn;
      (b) Entering or leaving an alley, private road or driveway; or
      (c) Required in the course of official duty.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Cameron October 3, 2011 at 8:06 am

        Thats to cross (as in leaving an alley) not to drive in then take a right. This has been covered many times.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joseph E September 30, 2011 at 5:49 pm

    Cycletracks solve this problem. The roadway is over 50′ wide, and the street with is over 90′ at this location. That’s plenty of room for 3 travel lanes and 2 cycletracks with a curb in between.

    Let the armored truck park in the right-hand car lane, next to the curb, and cars can go around it, in the central left-turn lane. Problem solved.

    With a standard, painted bike lane, the temptation is to park right there at the curb. Move the curb over to the left! There is plenty of room.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • jim October 2, 2011 at 11:58 am

      Let the armored truck park in the right-hand car lane, next to the curb, and cars can go around it, in the central left-turn lane. Problem solved.
      There is no right hand lane, it is only one lane plus a bike lane

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dabby September 30, 2011 at 5:49 pm

    Many times I have been told by armored car drivers/passengers that the money is more important than me.
    They also constantly park where ever, even in crosswalks…

    I was able to, after having a rifle pointed at me as I rode up to an atm in Wyoming, have it changed so they no longer stood on the sidewalk there with guns out.
    I mean, it is something.

    On a side note, and as a good general rule, do not punch an armored car.
    I have done it, and it hurts.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Thom September 30, 2011 at 5:50 pm


    -Certainly, most of us love our lanes to be smooth and clear, but as with any road user, we should be paying attention while riding, and we must be prepared to slow down or adjust our riding to deal with the unexpected. The car blocking the lane does add a degree of danger to all vehicles passing by, but given the straightness and width of the road, I don’t believe it to be perilously so.

    It only “creates a potentially deadly situation” if one is oblivious to the fact that the car is blocking the bike lane ahead on a section of Greeley with long sight lines, and then continues to go on barreling into it without slowing down or signaling to take the lane. From my experience, most drivers will acknowledge that you need to move over and will slow down for you to do so if you give them enough warning.

    -I can’t be completely sure that the driver is in “clear violation of Oregon law” if the law makes an exception if “the vehicle is stopped to ‘momentarily’ pick-up/drop-off a passenger or load/unload property.” In your photos, the vehicle’s lights are on, which indicates that the vehicle is most likely still running. If that’s the case, I would guess that the driver is either loading or unloading some kind of property… like money. If indeed the driver isn’t loading or unloading anything and merely parked in the bike lane with his lights on, then it appears you would be correct.

    -I also cannot be completely certain that “it is clear from the driver’s actions that having to walk an additional 20 steps is a more important issue than the safety of the numerous cyclists and drivers…” without you having stated that you talked to the driver or the armored-car company. What sometimes seems absolutely clear to us, can be often less cut and dry if we learn the other side’s perspective. It may not be an issue of “20 steps” but perhaps something else. I’m sure that armored-car personnel have many protocols to follow with regard to their own safety and that of the materials they deal with, and I do know that some of the safes they visit run on timers that potentially give armored-cars a limited window for deliveries. In which case the 20 steps might be of some importance.

    -I am sure that this obstructed lane is an inconvenience for you, but we cyclists are not the only lawful users of the road. Furthermore, even if the car does turn out to be parked unlawfully, I would be careful in assuming that he cares less about our safety than he does about not having to talk a few more feet. The driver might be surprised to hear the hazard he is creating. Just as well, you might surprised about his own reasoning for his behavior, but you will never know for sure by interpreting his actions yourself.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Brett M. September 30, 2011 at 7:55 pm

      I see the logic in all of your statements. Both of us are making many assumptions in our arguments. Please keep in mind that many of your statements presuppose the protocols and concerns of armored car personnel. While, conversely, my argument presupposes an intentional ignorance or blatent disregard for the law.
      I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle of all this discussion and that an open discourse between Oregon Armored and myself would be useful.
      While I have no desire for an entirely punitive outcome (i.e. Oregon Armored being fined), I think the general discussion contained herein points toward the conclusion that, GENERALLY, companies would rather be dismissive of subjects like this than engage in an honest discussion.
      That being said, I will attempt to contact PBOT and Oregon Armored next week and have a conversation about this. If the company is willing to discuss, I’m willing to listen. However, if the company blows me off, I’ll go down the citizen initiated citation route and we can let a judge decide the definition of ‘momentarily’ and ‘actively loading/unloading.’

      My thanks to everyone who has posted their (constructive) comments on this topic.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Thom September 30, 2011 at 9:15 pm


        I agree.

        Sounds like the proper course of action.

        I appreciate being able to have a level-headed discourse!

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • DR October 1, 2011 at 10:30 am

      Couldn’t have said it better myself! According to the statue, as it has been posted here several times and it seems a large group here ignores the last part, it states “…unless the vehicle is stopped to “momentarily” pick-up/drop-off a passenger or load/unload property.”. That is what we do. We show up, drop off and pick up the customer’s property and are gone in a matter of a couple short minutes. Every stop we come to we use our 4-ways to warn other drivers/cyclists, pedestrians that we are stopped. I know it seems the parking lot would be “safer” for everyone including us, but if someone were to try to rob us, getting our big truck through a crowded parking lot poses more risk, compared to being on the street, and being able to just drive away. And those extra 5-10 seconds is all a cracked out, armed psycho with a gun or knife needs to take advantage of the situation. We by no means want or try to put anyone else at danger by parking there. We have looked at the situation many times and concluded it is the safest possible spot for us to be. As some have pointed out, there is a very large sidewalk next to Adidas. If the 40mph traffic coming up behind you worries you about your safety, one alternative (while we are there the entire 2-3 minutes) might be to hop the curb and ride the sidewalk for the 20 feet around the truck. Normally there isnt a lot of foot traffic around that time of day we are there anyway, so it should be a safe alternative for everyone involved.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joseph E September 30, 2011 at 5:56 pm

    Here are measurements, showing how 8 foot cycletracks with 3 foot curbs/buffers could feet on N Greely, in the existing 52 foot wide roadway:


    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • joel September 30, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    nearly 18 years on the road as a messenger has taught me that hands down, armored car drivers are the WORST on the road. they dont give a rats behind about ANYONE or anything because they drive a huge, heavy truck that will win any argument. oh, and theyre carrying money, and have guns, so theyre automatically more important that you. theyll threaten to run you down, whether you be bike, ped or car. heck, sometimes theyll even wave their guns around to show you what they think of you objecting to their advances. and theyll park wherever they damn well please.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Ted Buehler September 30, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    Nice work, Brett. I appreciate you taking the time to tackle this problem for the benefit of everyone who has to go in that route in the morning.

    All the rest of ya who ride down Greeley every morning might also do this. Just allow an extra minute on your commute, stop, take a photo with your cell phone, and email it to 823-SAFE on the spot. You can even pre-type in your message in the comfort of your own living room the night before.

    You can also call the trucking company’s regional office (be it FedUp, Oregon Armored, etc.) and ask them to park off the street. Oregon Armored’s phone Portland # is on their website at http://www.oregonarmored.com/offices.html

    Call them, be polite, write down carefully exactly the words they use when they tell you to get lost, and call back with more precise reasoning the next day. After a few rounds of this, write a nice letter to corporate offices explaining the problem with the responses you’ve gotten from the regional office, and you’ll probably find yourself a safe, legal clear bike lane to commute on.

    Ted Buehler

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Joe Adamski September 30, 2011 at 7:40 pm

      But wouldn’t you really rather have a completed North Portland Willamette Greenway Trail, completely off Greeley, away from agro traffic, from the Esplanade to the St Johns Bridge? It would be even better than a cyclotrack or sharrows or whatever on street improvement could be made.
      Then armored cars could park 4 abreast across Greeley and I really wouldn’t give a rip.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Ted Buehler October 1, 2011 at 4:22 pm

        Joe —
        Yes, of course I’d rather have a NoPo greenway.

        But it’s not an either/or question, is it? Will the city only build a greenway if bicyclists refrain from complaining about vehicles blocking the bike lane on the existing route?
        Ted Buehler

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Stripes September 30, 2011 at 8:47 pm

    If they are breaking the law, I would call the police non-emergency line. If that fails, Receiver Towing. Get them towed away!!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Irving Washington September 30, 2011 at 9:13 pm

    I sense a clear double standard here.

    When the discussion is about cyclists running stop signs and stop lights, salmoning against traffic or riding without lights after dark, a lot of responders just couldn’t be bothered to follow the law because it’s inconvenient for them, or just not cool, or it doesn’t make sense at that time and place, or other people do it, or maybe their Mom said they shouldn’t and they still have issues.

    When the topic is about someone other than a cyclist breaking the law, even for what might conceivably be good reason, it’s “call the cops” or worse.

    If we can break the law, why can’t others? If I can follow the law at my discretion and break it when I want for whatever reason I want, whenever I want, how can I hold others to a higher standard?

    Recommended Thumb up 6

    • Toby October 1, 2011 at 2:11 pm

      In order for it to be a double standard the same people that are blowing stop signs and lights etc would be the ones complaining about a truck blocking the lane. While I can’t speak for anyone but me, I do wait at lights, go with the flow of traffic through downtown and stop at atop signs when others are around. I’m more likely to ride through them if I an clearly see nobody is around, but the key is that I try not to let my riding habits and law breaking negatively affect others. We all break laws. Yes, WE ALL BRAKE LAWS! We all chose to draw the line somewhere. You, me, and everyone reading this. I’m sure that masturbation is illegal in some states due to some archaic, fundamentalist inspired law but I’ll be damned if moving there would keep me from becoming a repeat offender! Again! Delivery trucks downtown don’t bother me. Emergency vehicles blocking the lane don’t bother me. Joggers in the bike lane bother me. Arrogant, elitist thugs with guns that think they are above the law bother me. See the difference? If it’s unavoidable, no worries. If there are clearly other options, then yeah, it bothers me.

      But that’s just one man’s opinion.

      The drivers also make more than the claimed slightly more than minimum wage. 25K-36K are the numbers I saw. Not on par with a urologist, but it’s still significantly more than the implied mall rent-a-cop. And as far as them being the

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Skid October 3, 2011 at 12:55 pm

      When people on bicycles break a traffic law the only person they endanger is themselves. When someone is a car or truck breaks a traffic law they endanger others and can kill cyclists. That’s the real “double standard”.

      Cars and trucks run stop signs and traffic lights all the time. I drive a car too and I think I see more idiocy when driving then I do when riding a bike.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Suburban September 30, 2011 at 9:42 pm

    It’s ok to go around junk people leave in the road. If, while cycling, see should vans, glass, dead mammals or cathode ray television monitors, just carefully look behind you , and then go around the thing.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • VS September 30, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    This older article out of Vancouver BC has a great case about Brinks armored vehicles and parking citations. It starts about half-way down the page. Basically, the judge ordered the fines to increase and warned Brinks to stop clogging the courts with citation appeals.

    “In 2005, Brinks got into hot water when it went to Vancouver traffic court on 99 separate tickets received by its armored vehicles.”


    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Mike September 30, 2011 at 11:45 pm

    Is anyone else amazed how an armored truck parked in the bike lane can create so much outrage.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • meh October 1, 2011 at 7:45 am

    Just some clarification on the job of working armored cars.

    1. The driver does not leave the vehicle. That is the courier’s job. They are the ones exposed to danger, transporting the cash.

    2. You don’t just walk in and get a job working armored cars. There is a full background check, including fingerprints.

    3. You don’t just get handed a firearm. You must pass a state sanctioned course on firearms handling and receive a permit to carry UNCONCEALED.

    4. These are real people, just like the bunch of you posting here. Doing a job putting food on the table. They represent a cross section of people, just like all of you here. I know that anyone who drives a motor vehicle is a moron on the road to all of you, but in the end anyone who rides a bike on the road is a moron to them. But then again as Irving pointed out above, the double standard is acceptable.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Brian October 1, 2011 at 9:06 am

      What has any of that actually got to do with this story?

      The STORY is that despite the fact there is a half-empty car park eight feet away from Adidas’ front door, the driver instead illegally impedes traffic by parking in a traffic lane.

      It’s interesting folks are so dismissive of it being a bike lane. If he or she was blocking an entire AUTO lane during rush hour, you guys would be the first to be screaming blue murder and cursing the truck for impeding YOUR commute.

      Even Stevens.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Fix On Your Bike October 1, 2011 at 9:49 am

    Joe Adamski
    not meaning to defend, but probably explain. An armored car is by nature big, heavy and a bearcat to park. I can understand why the driver prefers to park on Greeley. Also, since armored cars are occassionally the target of crime, being ‘caged in’ a parking lot is a strategic mistake.
    Recommended 4

    Park that piece some place else.. To hell with that armored truck, and the lazy driver too.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • 007 October 1, 2011 at 10:25 am

    they’re the stinkiest most polluting vehicles i’ve had the misfortune to have to breathe near.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • jane October 1, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    Perhaps it is Adidas that should take responsibility by striping a large, easy access/egress designated spot in their lot for the armored vehicle? It might take some loss of parking spots, but it would be best for all involved.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Harvey October 1, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    This is the most ridiculous article and discussion ever.
    As though we are better than everyone. Sometimes the toilet runs out of toilet paper. We all make do.

    Ride around the stupid truck and feel sorry for the poor guys inside whose entire job is risk and fear management.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Hugh Johnson October 2, 2011 at 8:01 am

    It’s a shame every event is taken personally as a slight against cyclists. I’m sure the armored car guys wake up every day thinking how they can make cyclists lives miserable. Does this inconvenience us? Yeah sure it does, but we ride very versatile vehicles that can pretty much go anywhere. Ride around it, move on, and enjoy the rest of your day.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • TheCowabungaDude October 2, 2011 at 8:26 am

    Right on Hugh. Vehicles pulling over, while an inconvenience, is not illegal and sometimes a factor of the commute. Are bike lanes really so holy that no motors may enter them for such honorable acts as deliveries?

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • jim October 2, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    They often park in front of business’s regardless if it is a parking spot or not. The meter maids should be tagging them. If they get too many tickets they may have their drivers use another approach

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jolly Dodger October 2, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    An on or off duty cyclist officer having to pass into the traffic lane might be able t have “an honest” discussion with the driver of the Armored truck, one pistol carrying roadway user to another…, but for the rest of us, ignoring it and hoping they go away quick is better than a bullet in the neck.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hugh Johnson October 2, 2011 at 4:54 pm

      You’re talking about armed confrontation?! Jonathan you deleted my post about environmental impact of off road bike racing but seriously man if you condone this kind of crap…wow.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan O October 2, 2011 at 5:57 pm

    I don’t think that’s “official” duty. I don’t think it’s legal for them to be there under Oregon law. I don’t know where the “momentarily” thing comes from (PDX municipal?), but can it override State law this way?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • are October 2, 2011 at 7:01 pm

      again, 811.560(3) provides an exception for
      “vehicles stopped, standing or parked momentarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading property or passengers.”

      probably “momentarily” simply means for as long as it would reasonably take to accomplish the loading or unloading. i honestly do not understand why it would be difficult to go around this truck.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Mike October 3, 2011 at 12:15 am

        There I think one would need a reasonable definition of “momentarily”. I’ve seen armored cars parked in the same spot for up to an hour at a time.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • are October 3, 2011 at 12:27 pm

          okay, thanks, that is the first mention of the actual time interval on this thread

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spokesy October 3, 2011 at 1:12 am

    I think it’s about time we start making friends with a bike friendly tow truck driver. . .

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Reality October 3, 2011 at 6:10 am

    You people have got to be kidding me. This is why Portland has gone to hell lately. Seriously? For the 5 to 10 minutes the armored car is there, the 3 bicyclists that go by can’t slow down, glance over their left shoulder, and figure out when its safe to go around the truck? What does that take? 3 seconds? 3 seconds of trouble to keep yourself safe and for the armored personnel to remains as safe as possible and keep doing their best to keep a gun fight from breaking out on the street.

    The reason armored cars stop in the street closest to the door of where they’re going is for EVERYONE’S SAFETY. This has been happening in every city in America since the invention of the armored car and it isn’t going to stop because of a couple of whiners on bikes.

    The less exposure they have to a public who is increasingly poor and opportunist the less likely it is that we have bullets flying around the neighborhood. That guard gets to go home to their wife and kids. And all the idiot bikers have to do is take 3 seconds out of their day to stay safe and go home to their wife and kids. Wow.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Hugh Johnson October 3, 2011 at 5:19 pm

      and isn’t it funny a left leaning demographic that is supposedly so “for the people” and the “working man” are the ones most critical of these poor guys just doing their job. Oh it is such an inconvenience! The horror of it all.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • oliver October 3, 2011 at 9:32 am

    A lot of commentary was devoted to these factors of the job: Risk, Pay, Reward-Wages, education level. We’re thinking about the workers, and while this is commendable, it doesnt’ address the problem, because they aren’t the decision makers.

    One of my close relatives is an executive for a big regional trucking companies (not box vans, double and triple trailer rigs). And he said this to me about getting to Swan Island from I-5.

    “I give my guys 8 minutes to get down there and back onto the freeway.” Do you think that’s unreasonable?

    These guys are parking on the street because it allows them to make their schedule. And for us to concern ourselves with the safety (what, does adidas do it’s payroll in cash or something?) of the guys who stock the atm in the lunchroom is to shift the blame to the workers, and lets the owners of the company off the hook. And that is bs.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Greg October 3, 2011 at 11:13 am

    For all those who claim that an armored car cannot safely park in a parking lot — I would just like to note that the armored car that services the business where I work does park in the parking lot, even though they could stay on the street.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • cycler October 3, 2011 at 11:26 am

    I’m surprised that the Portland authorities are so slow to react to this kind of complaint. There’s a construction site on my route to work, and they were parking in the bike lane every day last week. I emailed the city of Cambridge and got an email back within 24 hours that they would step up enforcement.
    It’s less of a “dropping off/picking up” issue than the one described, and who knows if they’ll actually solve the problem, but at least they got right back to me.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • andy October 3, 2011 at 11:31 am

    We should expect city action on this VERY soon because a judge was one of the cyclists who had to ride around the armored vehicle.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Slammy October 3, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    Hello to all Oregon Armored drivers!!! i’m sorry that you live in fear of crackheads robbing you at any moment… if i was afraid of crackheads, i would park in a corporate parking lot instead of the middle of N. Greeley. That is my addition to this discussion. I’m also curious how you fount this posting, and if it’s a current topic of depate around the OA office today.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Ted Buehler October 3, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Allen — you might also send a nice email to the Adidas campus operations office.

    You could shoot a 20 second video with your phone to show them the perilous situation a bicyclist faces trying to pass a stopped truck, in the rain, with 45 mph traffic. Tell them you’ve politely asked the armored truck driver to park outside the travel lanes, but received a negative response…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Joe Rowe October 4, 2011 at 9:03 am

      I called Adidas (971) 234-2300 then pressed zero. I asked for the head of operations. They said I needed a name or extension, when I had to explain the problem I got transfered to security voice mail. I wonder if they will call me back?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bumblebee October 3, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    This is news? It seems to me that obstructing the bike lane has become a Portland pastime, and one that can be rationalized by citing the loading/unloading clause. What rankles me is that no one would dare obstruct a lane for automobile travel (even when there is more than one available)–but for some reason the only lane designated for bicycles is expendable.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Mike October 3, 2011 at 7:22 pm

    It seems that this site is just a place for cyclists to gather and complain about everyone that is against them. Grow a pair!!!!

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Joe Rowe October 4, 2011 at 9:00 am

      Typical distortion Mike. I know cars are not against me. There’s no evil intent. Let’s keep on topic. This is about safety. Not all cyclists have the skill to weave into 45mph traffic to avoid a delivery truck that parks there on a regular basis, despite warnings about safety. The adjective “momentarily” does not describe a regular and scheduled delivery truck. It’s a violation of law. Adidas security has been notified by me, and is now liable should there be a collision. It’s no longer able to be called an accident.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • are October 4, 2011 at 12:55 pm

      what an unpleasant expression

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • John Schmidt October 3, 2011 at 8:00 pm

    i ride this route everyday. yep i see the truck and simply go around. Really not even a second thought. If something is blocking the bike lane I move into the car lane don’t ever need to slow down. Good it is downhill and the road is nice and wide. Everyone is flexible, keeping it smooth and flowing. This is just such a silly non-issue.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Joe Rowe October 3, 2011 at 10:33 pm

      If you don’t like John’s comment, just click like on my rebuttal.

      Dear John, I’m glad you’ve got the skill to ride your bike around the blockage. You’ve also got the American skill of being unable to see the perspective of transportation activists who want the bike lane clear for riders of lower skill.

      I’ll call Addidas. (971) 234-2300 They need to be good neighbors and can request the truck use the pull out.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Indy October 5, 2011 at 3:13 pm

      It is indeed silly non-issue with this one example.


      It is a significantly larger issue when you extrapolate all the times this occurs all over the city. I see trucks like this on 5th and 6th *all the time.* That street has trains and buses that present safety hazards of their own to bikers AND cars going around armored trucks.

      It is a huge issue when a confrontation/accident leads to someone’s death/injury, which is almost certain to occur with trucks blocking bike lanes.

      If it isn’t that big a deal, then it isn’t that big a deal just to park in the lot or a legal space.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Meter man July 23, 2013 at 7:41 pm

    Drive a mile in the shoes of a courier or driver and then come back and complain.

    Recommended Thumb up 0