Support BikePortland

Another collision at Broadway/Wheeler: Time to act?

Posted by on June 13th, 2012 at 4:17 pm

Looking west on Broadway with a van turning
right on Wheeler.
(Photo © J. Maus/BikePortland)

Yet another person has been injured due a collision on North Broadway where it crosses Flint and Wheeler (map). This has been a known problem spot for years and just last week there was a collision that ended up with a man in the hospital and a shattered rear window.

Today I got an email from Betsy Reese, owner of the Paramount Apartments that are situated on the peninsula between Flint and Wheeler north of Broadway. She typed hastily from her phone (hence the typos):

“There was just another car/bike accident out front. Biker taken bx ambulence. Driver said she didnt know where he came from.”

In a follow-up with Reese I learned that the responding officer said the two people were headed west on Broadway (toward the river) and the collision happened when the person operating the car turned right (north) onto Wheeler. The person on the bike hit the rear passenger door and was taken to the hospital with what appear to be non-serious injuries. The person in the cars says their turn signal was on, the person bicycling disputes that claim.

Whatever happened, it’s blatantly clear that this intersection is tricky and prone to collisions. To review, the entry to Wheeler and Flint are spaced just yards from each other. Traffic on Broadway is often moving relatively fast (cars have lots of room and it’s downhill), and traffic coming from Flint does not always comply with the stop sign before entering onto Broadway. In a car, you can be traveling west on Broadway and not see anyone else to your right (because they’re still on Flint), but in a matter of seconds, that person can be right next to your car as you try to turn onto Wheeler. In many of these collisions, the person on the bike isn’t even coming from Flint, they are traveling down Broadway.

Here’s a map showing the non-standard configuration where these three streets come together:

Reese has watched and worried over this intersection for a very long time. She’s frustrated that collisions keep happening and she’s worried for everyone’s safety, including her 80-plus tenants (many of whom ride bicycles).

We have got to figure out something soon to improve this situation.

Maybe prohibiting right turns onto Wheeler — and making it a one-way only southbound — is the best solution. This step would not be without precedent.

Due to the potential for collisions, back in 2007 the Portland Water Bureau (whose headquarters can be accessed via Wheeler), took the admirable step of prohibiting all official vehicles from using Wheeler. Also in 2007, Mayor Sam Adams declared the right turn onto Greeley from N. Interstate to be “inherently dangerous” and eventually made the decision to prohibit them forever.

If reducing existing access to Wheeler is not possible, there are surely other measures that might help. How about a signal on Broadway at Wheeler and an accompanying no right turn on red sign?

What are we waiting for? Has not enough blood been spilled? Has there not been enough media coverage to get PBOT’s attention? Are we going to get bogged down into finger-pointing and arguing about who’s at fault instead of seeing this as an urgent public safety issue?

Back in 2007, we were told fixes would have to wait until the Eastside Streetcar project came through. More recently, we’ve been told that a fix would be a part of the N/NE Quadrant planning process. It’s time for action, not just more promises.

Please support BikePortland.

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

  • oskarbannks June 13, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    oh boy.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • peejay June 13, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    How about a Wheeler Pedalpalooza ride? It will consist of every rider corking that right turn for a few hours.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • shirtsoff June 13, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    It seems odd that the turn signal even factored into the discussion with the police. Whether or not a turn signal was used does not alleviate the driver of their responsibility to yield to cyclists/electric mobility devices/skaters and other vulnerable users operating within the bike line.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • El Biciclero June 13, 2012 at 5:12 pm

      This is a common myth believed by many drivers: “my turn signal gives me right-of-way.”

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • peejay June 13, 2012 at 4:36 pm

    Also, absolutely irrelevant if the driver had a signal on or not. Use of a signal does not give him/her the right of way.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • KJ June 13, 2012 at 5:33 pm

      I think people have no clue that the bike lane is an actual lane of traffic, that crossing it when turning is akin making a right hand turn from the left hand auto lane right across the right hand auto lane…which would never be a legal maneuver if it was an auto lane and not a bike lane….

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • KJ June 13, 2012 at 5:34 pm

        (I use the term auto lane to distinguish, I realized that I should have used traffic lane =/ )

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Allan June 13, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    Bad design = crashes. In my opinion, the long term solution is to re-route bikes behind the Paramount building. I don’t think closing Wheeler or making it 1-way is a solution

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jim June 13, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    I ride through this area very frequently. Since the turn is fairly off camber & slopes downhill towards the river, I often simply take the entire right hand lane at this point. The internal combustion vehicles are slower than a cyclist here, so there is no impeding other traffic. Such a move also sets up the cyclist to make the shift in bike lane location closer to the river.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • BURR June 13, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    The city should install a traffic diverter at intersection of Wheeler and Broadway, preventing motorists from either entering or exiting Wheeler at this location.

    Wheeler could continue to be accessed from Broadway by using either of the next two streets to the west, N. Ross or N. Benton, or from N. Interstate/Denver via either N. Dixon or N. Tillamook.

    The close proximity of Flint and Wheeler is what makes this location so problematic, and requiring motorists to proceed further west to access Wheeler would go a long way towards mitigating the hazards at this location.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are June 13, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    not much info is available, of course, but certainly nothing that says this cyclist entered from flint at all, much less rolled the stop. while it is true that some cyclists do roll that stop, one would have to be very foolish to do so while there was a motor vehicle approaching at close range in the right travel lane on broadway, whether or not you thought they might turn right onto wheeler. anyway, absent facts clearly indicating this is what occurred here, i do not think it is productive to mention here that some cyclists sometimes roll that stop.

    as for the suggestion in an earlier comment that cyclists be routed behind the apartment building, again i cannot see how this would make any sense for cyclists already on broadway heading west. and for a cyclist entering from flint, this would be considerably out of direction, as wheeler is angled back to the southeast. i doubt the parking lot is a dedicated right of way, so we could be talking about eminent domain, etc.

    allan, could you state specifically why you think blocking access to wheeler would not be practical?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • BURR June 13, 2012 at 5:09 pm

      you’re correct, this sounds more like a classic right hook of a cyclist traveling west in the bike lane on Broadway by a motorist also travelling west on B’way turning right on Wheeler without yielding to the cyclist first.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Sunny June 13, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    What about taking the sidewalk before entering the bike lane on broadway?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Kristen June 13, 2012 at 5:36 pm

      I think you’d still run the risk of getting run over– only now, since you’re on the sidewalk instead of the road, the driver may truly not see you– or expect you to wait on the sidewalk until it’s safe to cross.

      I definitely expected the driver to say “he came out of nowhere!” (a physical impossibility, unless someone’s perfected transporters) or “I didn’t see him!”. Which just means that the driver is admitting that they weren’t looking for anything but their turn.

      “But I always turn here, everyone knows that”

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Adam June 13, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    Wheeler is a “nowhere street”. Look at a map. Anybody needing to access anything on Wheeler can do so easily from Interstate. There is no need to have a turning off Broadway. I agree with other posters here. It’s time to get a diverter in at Broadway/Wheeler.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Nathan June 13, 2012 at 5:36 pm

    I’m blaming skateboards.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • CaptainKarma June 14, 2012 at 4:04 pm

      …don’t forget tri-met, I’m there was a bus in this mess somewhere 😉

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Lascurettes June 13, 2012 at 5:39 pm

    Whether the car had a right turn blinker on or not, THEY MUST yield to the other lane of traffic, namely the bike lane. That is the law. Black and white. Have fun in court.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • dwainedibbly June 13, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    Driver perhaps turned on the turn signal after the front of the car was far enough forward that the bicyclist couldn’t see it. Technically the blinker was on, and maybe even far enough before the turn to make it a legal use of the turn signal, but it doesn’t help the poor person on the bike.

    Diverter sounds like a good idea.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • wsbob June 13, 2012 at 6:41 pm

      You may be on to a critical factor possibly having contributed to this collision. Question I’d want answered is where car and bike were in relation to each other and to the intersection or intersections they were approaching. Someone on a bike abreast of a motor vehicle that’s in a potential right turn position, approaching or at an intersection, is a very vulnerable position for the person on the bike.

      Abreast of the car, turn signals are more difficult for the person on the bike to see them, and in this position…it’s harder for the person in the car to see the person on the bike next to the car. Going through intersections…I think well back or ahead, say a car length from the motor vehicle, is safest for the person on a bike.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • DoubleB June 13, 2012 at 11:08 pm

        Based on the article, the cyclist hit the rear passenger door. I have to imagine the cyclist would have been behind the vehicle.

        I’m more curious about speed.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • John Lascurettes June 13, 2012 at 11:39 pm

          Doesn’t matter if the cyclist is behind the car. If the car cannot complete the turn in a safe manner (e.g., in enough time to completely clear the bike lane without impeding the cyclist) he MUST YIELD to the lane. This is the law. It’s black and white. There is no ambiguity in it.

          Failure to yield to rider on bicycle lane

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • wsbob June 14, 2012 at 5:37 pm

            John Lascurettes
            Doesn’t matter if the cyclist is behind the car. If the car cannot complete the turn in a safe manner (e.g., in enough time to completely clear the bike lane without impeding the cyclist) he MUST YIELD to the lane. This is the law. It’s black and white. There is no ambiguity in it.
            Failure to yield to rider on bicycle lane
            Recommended 2

            Irrespective of the letter of law…which you’re correct about, from a defensive road use perspective, where the person on the bike is, relative to the car and the intersection…does matter…because it has very much to do with the chances that a person driving a motor vehicle as both approach an intersection, will see the person on the bike.

            True….the person driving the car is legally bound to yield to traffic in the bike lane, but the reality is, as many people reading some of these bikeportland stories about collisions in the last few weeks have possibly come to realize…if they weren’t aware of it before…is that due to motor vehicle blind spots, car mirror weaknesses, and the relatively small visual image someone on a bike represents…there are certain traffic situations where people on bikes can fairly easily escape the field of vision of someone operating a motor vehicle.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • John Lascurettes June 14, 2012 at 6:56 pm

              Not saying bikes shouldn’t take due care. I do every day at that intersection. Just seems like some people were looking for fault with the bike if he was “behind” the car when its blinker was on.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • wsbob June 14, 2012 at 11:31 pm

                “…when its blinker was on.” John Lascurettes

                Whether or not the blinker was on is one of the big, unanswered questions. If Nickrick on the bike was behind the SUV, as DoubleB suggests, and the blinker was on, one could consider that, being an experienced rider…think he said in his comment, 15 years…Nickrick might not have been likely to make a lane change, but, in the bike lane, would have paced the SUV until it made its turn, then proceeded on in the bike lane. Or maybe it happened differently.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

        • El Biciclero June 15, 2012 at 11:46 am

          Any time a cyclist is right-hooked, they “must have been behind” the vehicle that hooked them. The only question is for how long, and it’s an irrelevant question given the law governing the situation.

          I assume your curiosity about speed relates to the cyclist’s speed. Are you curious to know whether the cyclist was exceeding 30mph? I think 30 is the posted speed on Broadway.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • wsbob June 18, 2012 at 11:16 am

            “Any time a cyclist is right-hooked, they “must have been behind” the vehicle that hooked them. The only question is for how long, and it’s an irrelevant question given the law governing the situation. …” El Biciclero

            Questions about speed or location of people riding bikes in the bike lane relative to people operating motor vehicles in the adjacent main travel lanes, relative to intersections…are not irrelevant.

            The law cannot make certain that someone riding a bike in the bike lane will be seen by someone driving a motor vehicle in the main travel lane.

            Regardless of ‘right of way’ and the legal obligation of people operating motor vehicles to yield to people riding bikes in the bike lane, defensive biking and considerations associated with it have to be applied if people riding bikes in traffic intend to avoid injury and death by collision with motor vehicles.

            It’s sending the wrong message to tell people that right of way in the bike lane relieves people riding in the bike lane of having to question whether their speed and position relative to other motor vehicles and intersections is appropriate for sustaining their safety in traffic.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • El Biciclero June 18, 2012 at 1:25 pm

              As I’ve mentioned before, there is a difference between legal obligation to do something and self-preservation. We cannot tell cyclists they have a legal obligation to yield to all right-turning cars–that sends the wrong message about the legitimacy of bicycle travel and suggests that bikes and their riders are inherently lower-class road users who must bow before the almighty car or rightly feel the pain.

              It is a subtly different kind of message we send when we advise riders to to avoid death and injury by being on the lookout for oblivious drivers who don’t know the law or won’t pay attention or follow the law.

              If we conflate these two messages, failing to distinguish between legal obligation and survival tactics, it leads to drivers believing things such as “having my turn signal on means cyclists have to yield to me”. It also leads to increased victim-blaming because people tell themselves that not only was the cyclist “stupid” not to yield to, e.g., a right-turning car, they were also “wrong” legally speaking. It tends to absolve drivers of any blame they might be assigned for breaking the law. Sort of what we get now in reference to helmets: cyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet? Well, then, they deserved to get run over regardless of whatever bone-headed, illegal thing the driver that hit them might have been doing. As if not going above and beyond the law to follow what some consider to be a safety best-practice somehow “caused” an otherwise safely and legally operating cyclist to get run over.

              It is a subtle, but important distinction.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • El Biciclero June 18, 2012 at 1:38 pm

                …by which I mean to say that the question of cyclist speed is “irrelevant” if the cyclist was traveling under 30 and we are trying to assign legal blame in such an incident …

                We can’t start coming up with new “rules” that suggest all cyclists should slow to [arbitrary slow speed] at every intersection where a right hook might happen.

                Left that part out.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • wsbob June 18, 2012 at 2:18 pm

                Again…as in one of your other references in the last few days to people that drive, I think you’re underestimating most people’s general regard for the safety of road user’s besides themselves, regardless of their mode of travel.

                And also, being excessively quick and consistent to conclude that people driving motor vehicles will generally jump to any rationale in order to blame someone traveling by bike for rights of way not granted or injury and death people by bike receive in bike-car encounters.

                This bit and what follows it in your comment:

                “…If we conflate these two messages, failing to distinguish between legal obligation and survival tactics, …” El Biciclero

                I don’t see any constructive purpose in conflating the two; if it seems as though I’ve done so, that certainly hasn’t been my intent. They’re two separate but essential entities detailing procedures all road users must know to responsibly and safely make their way over streets and roads. That among people making their way over the streets and roads there are so many with an insufficient level of knowledge and experience having to do with traveling in traffic, is a major, ongoing problem.

                If someone in a vehicle in the main travel lane has their turn signal on approaching an intersection, persons some distance back of the vehicle…say a car length or two…in the bike lane on a bike, on a strictly legal basis may not be required to reduce their speed or pace the vehicle rather than close distance with it….but from a courtesy consideration as well as a survival tactic, if they notice the turn signal…they’d be well advised to allow the vehicle to complete its turn before proceeding past it.

                Speed of the person on the bike in the bike lane is particularly not irrelevant if it represents a significant differential closing speed with a vehicle, turn signal activated in the main lane. Reason being that higher closing speed diminishes the opportunity the person driving the motor vehicle has to detect the approaching presence of the person on the bike in the bike lane.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • El Biciclero June 18, 2012 at 4:09 pm

                I was using hyperbole to accentuate the difference between telling cyclists they must always yield to cars, vs. they would be well-advised to watch out for errant drivers. I wasn’t trying to portray all drivers as ignoramuses–much as you weren’t intending to conflate messages of legal responsibility with those of self-preservation.

                I will continue to maintain that the speed of a cyclist–unless they were exceeding the posted speed limit–is irrelevant in the legal sense of assigning fault. We cannot admit the defense that the driver in a right hook incident didn’t have enough time to see a cyclist because the cyclist was going at or below the posted speed but was “closing too fast”. That kind of thinking leads to proposing separate speed limits for cars and bicycles, which would be just another artificial limitation on bicycle travel. I can see it now: “SPEED 30 (BIKES 15)”.

                I agree that many–even most–drivers have difficulty judging the speed of cyclists. I have drivers about every other day (in fact, this morning) that will use the oncoming lane to pass me when I am going 25 in a 25 zone (no bike lane)–apparently they can’t even judge my speed when their own speedometer will tell them exactly what it is… I consider this to be a flaw in driver training or competence, not some kind of wrongdoing on my part. I would like there to be some way that we as cyclists could follow safe practices without further enabling–or even fostering–such incompetence on the part of lousy drivers. In the mean time, I will just enjoy having obnoxiously loud squeaky brakes that I know drivers can hear when I have to apply them defensively.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Scott June 13, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    Give the governor ‘harumph’!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • q`Tzal June 13, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    Too bad PBOT isn’t allowed to experiment.
    I’d say to try low cost temporay ideas for about a month at a time, with video cameras documenting traffic flow dynamics both before and after starting a change.
    Test #1: block Wheeler at Broadway with concrete barriers.
    Test #2: block Flint at Broadway with concrete barriers.
    Test #3: block Wheeler AND Flint at Broadway with concrete barriers.

    Test cheap ideas in reality so real world data is collected while the public aclimates and possibly comes up with better ideas themselves.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ted Buehler June 13, 2012 at 7:07 pm

    From the Oregon Driver Manual

    Right Turns (p. 38-39)
    * Do not move into a bicycle lane in preparation for a right turn.
    * You must yield to bicycles in the bicycle lane or on a sidewalk before you turn across the lane or sidewalk.

    Ted Buehler

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Ted Buehler June 13, 2012 at 10:27 pm

      “The person in the cars says their turn signal was on, the person bicycling disputes that claim.”

      That’s real nice that the driver may have had the turn signal on, but a turn signal doesn’t mean a heck of a lot if someone else has the right of way.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe June 13, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    please yield

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • K'Tesh June 13, 2012 at 8:06 pm

    Seems the solution is simple… Erect barriers and eliminate the right hand turns. Anyone? Anyone?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • q`Tzal June 14, 2012 at 7:54 am

      Said that too.
      Looking at street views from a phone and what I remember of the few times i drove that stretch it occurs to me that lowering the speed limit on Broadway from N Vancouver west to the bridge.

      I feel that there is too much positive reward for drivers to rush from the fresh green light at Vancouver towards the bridge to get through the traffic light at N Benton Ave. Autos come out as an unthinking stampede dumped in to a less than optimal road configuration with urgency pressing from behind. High crash rates result from this configuration everywhere.

      There will never be enough enforcement.
      There are many who are willfully impervious to knowledge and education.
      Traffic will flow like water, unimpeded and uncontrollable, until “erosion control” measures are put in place.

      () Shorten the westbound Vancouver green cycle to reduce the amount of traffic stress for drivers so they are less inclined to act rashly.
      () Adjust the N Benton Ave light cycle so that it NEVER aligns with rushing traffiv released at Vancouver. Gradually drivers would learn there is no point in rushing thus reducing speeds.
      () Add an extra traffic light, or anything really, that definitively slows traffic thus changing the flow paradigm.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Shoof June 13, 2012 at 8:10 pm

    I make that right-hand turn from Flint onto Broadway nearly every day, it’s pretty much a cluster. It’s like the grand finale for the gauntlet that is southbound Flint in the morning (don’t get me started on all the drop-off minivans carelessly lurching from lane to curb and back again without bothering to look for cyclists or even use a signal).

    Digression aside, there seems to be a fair number of cars making the right from Flint and then making the immediate right onto Wheeler for whatever reason, which is a really dangerous maneuver. The driver is so focused on watching the traffic coming down the hill from the left, jumping quickly onto Broadway, and then making that immediate turn right – I’m guessing they’re too worried about doing all that and not getting rear-ended to look out for cyclists in the bike lane.

    As many have said, taking the lane is your safest bet after making that right onto Broadway – though is actually not an easy thing to do when a car is in that lane executing that move.

    Be safe out there folks!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • CaptainKarma June 14, 2012 at 4:25 pm

      What needs to happen here is for people on bikes to adopt the practices of those I’ve seen in the far east; their chinese clunk-a-bikes always had a tire driven loud bell, which they would start blasting as soon as soon as they got near an intersection or where it even looked like a combustion vehicle might pull out. They told me it gave them legal priority, though i don’t know if that was really true.

      How many have any bell at all in pdx? My Kona came with one standard, I thought that was a nice touch.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Asher Atkinson June 13, 2012 at 11:38 pm

    I turn right off of Flint and head down to the Broadway bridge every day. I have done this turn literally 1,000 times. A no right turn diverter at N Wheeler is obvious. I’d argue for no right dirverters all the way to N Larabee, giving cyclists heading over the bridge and motorists turning right a full three blocks to swap lanes.

    Dreams aside, the fact remains motorists have a right turn option here. In my experience, most cars dutifully wait with signal on as a steady stream of cyclists turn right at the stop sign, many rolling through, and enjoy their merry descent to the Broadway bridge.

    I fully understand cars right turning cars are required to yield to traffic in the bike lane, and whether the car is signaling their intent is largely irrelevant in the courts. I don’t know if the cyclist involved in the collision had turned off N Flint or was coming down Broadway, and I don’t know if the car had first overtaken the cyclist before turning right. What I do know is that cyclists overtake signaling cars here all the time. Beyond being incourteous, though perfectly legal, to overtake a signaling vehicle is foolish. Contrary to comments above, I take this discussion to be more about safety and solutions than legal rights, and one solution available to cyclists now is to just chill out in the bike lane and let the car in front of you turn right if that is what they are signaling to do.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Shoof June 14, 2012 at 6:59 am

      You say “[it’s] incourteous, though perfectly legal, to overtake a signaling vehicle is foolish” and “one solution available to cyclists now is to just chill out in the bike lane and let the car in front of you turn right if that is what they are signaling to do”.

      Interesting. Do you feel that it’s similarly discourteous for cars to overtake bikes in the bike lane approaching that intersection who are clearly all making that right from Flint. Do you feel that cars should similarly chill out and wait behind bikes in front of you in the bike lane to turn right?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spiffy June 14, 2012 at 12:06 am

    motor vehicles will continue to bully us until we stand up to them…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Patti June 14, 2012 at 7:14 am

    I turn from Flint onto Broadway every evening. The problem I have noticed is a car will pass me while I wait at the stop sign, no turn signal on. When they pass, I move into the bike lane, just as they start to turn right. As stated in the article, they come flying down Broadway at that point and, maybe, don’t realize their turn is coming up that fast???? Either way, I’ve learned to wait a bit longer to make sure they are continuing straight down Broadway.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Russ Roca June 14, 2012 at 8:33 am

    I’d volunteer to film the intersection for a morning if someone will do the narration to elucidate the problem. Maybe it is just a lack of visualization.


    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Andrew June 14, 2012 at 9:23 am

    I make that right turn from Flint onto Broadway everyday. It’s frustrating trying to time my turn with oncoming traffic and on top of that be aware when the drivers making a right on Wheeler don’t signal. There is definitely some work that needs to be done at this intersection. In the meantime I’d ask fellow commuters to be patient at that stop sign (and actually stop) as sliding past stopped cyclists is not good voodoo.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave June 14, 2012 at 9:35 am

    I think all of Broadway needs to be re-designed to feel a little less broad for automobiles and a little more broad for bicycles. Seriously, it’s one of the most major bike routes in Portland, and the facility is awful, really. Put in a consistent, clear bike facility the whole length, and reduce motor vehicle speeds by making it less comfortable for them. I also agree about the diverter – I think keeping two-way traffic on wheeler (at least for bicycles) is probably important, but it would be nice to not allow fast-moving auto traffic coming down Broadway to just swing in there, more or less at speed. At the very least, a curb extension on the East side of Wheeler might help force people to slow down and pay attention, as it would make the turn trickier. At least the right turn onto Flint requires slowing down, as it’s a sharper turn. Perhaps a bike box on Flint at Broadway would also not be a bad idea.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • JRA June 14, 2012 at 9:36 am

    Bike lanes are a false sense of security and people assume the there safe while using them.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • peejay June 14, 2012 at 10:36 am

      Speak for yourself. I use bike lanes every day, and every day, I have to deal with cars entering them without yielding, so I’m quite aware of the dangers. Yet, I STILL feel safer in a bike lane than I do mixing it up with the cars and trucks, even though I do that as well. Bike lanes are inferior to grade-separated cycle tracks, but they are demonstrably better than nothing.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tourbiker June 14, 2012 at 9:48 am

    Frankly, I can’t believe the DMV hasn’t more test questions regarding bike & Pedestrian law, both written AND drive tests.
    The Handbook is pretty clear with Info.
    Thing is, most riders are pretty knowledgeable about what they should and shouldn’t be doing…it’s a survival thing.
    Just another reason to take the lane. Till they make it a no right turn.
    Took Brett getting run over by a Truck before they made Greeley & Interstate NRT.
    Wonder if there’s any Car on Car crash data for that intersection.
    hard to believe it’s only bikes that have problems there.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jerry June 14, 2012 at 11:51 am

    I am afraid the reality is that we will need more than pain and blood to see any changes. I was right hooked on Interstate/ Greeley a year before Bret Jarmolic was killed there. The police did not even write a report on it because my injuries (which required anabulance ride, an ER visit, and later surgery) were not “life threatening.” When I asked PoPo what that means, the said I did not die so it was not a life threatening injury, so no report was required.
    Only AFTER there was a death was there action. It makes sense. Who can remember the name of the person who prevented a diasaster? No one. But the guy who over-reacts to a disaster he could have prevented? He is a hero.
    What do you want to bet that Bike Portland has a more complete record of these accidents than the traffic division? Is there any way we can force the police to record ALL collisions?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Paul in the 'couve June 14, 2012 at 1:14 pm

      I am glads you are alive and hope you fully recovered. Sorry Bret had to die when the problem was known.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jered June 14, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    That has been part of my commute for a long time and on bike I get the heck out of the bike lane when I cross I-5, take the whole right lane so I’ve got options for escape and avoidance when needed. You’ve got the downhill to ride at the speed limit and given the curve the lanes are dicey for autos as well. I also take care to adjust my speed so that a car in front of me doing something unexpected can be safely avoided or passed well before the turn onto Flint – I I hate that entire stretch of road, so scary, no time for distraction until you hit the broadway bridge!

    Speedy recovery to the cyclist!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • peejay June 15, 2012 at 9:28 am

    So, I rode on the Grimm ride Wednesday night, which did a great job of touring some of the ghost bikes in town. It occurs to me that each intersection has to claim a life before a change is made to that intersection, instead of SYSTEM-WIDE changes. How much blood does the city want to extract from us before they will fix our broken roads?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Andyc June 15, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! “Time to act?” You aren’t serious, I hope. I think we should study it for a couple years, maybe send some more people to Europe or other human-friendly places, and maybe let some folks be killed on this route before we do anything. Maybe after all of that, we can get some more “solutions” that don’t work in place.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Peter Nierengarten June 18, 2012 at 8:24 am

    I biked down Broadway to work for almost 3 years and one day watched the cyclist in front of me nearly get right hooked at this location. Car and bike both stopped millimeters before the collision and everyone was ok.

    No doubt this is a very dangerous intersection that is in need of a creative PBOT solution!

    Recommended Thumb up 0