Urban Tribe - Ride with your kids in front.

The Monday Roundup: Hit and run by bike, bike golfing & more

Posted by on April 14th, 2014 at 9:12 am

Bikes at Earth Day

Bikes on the Springwater path.
(Photo by J.Maus/BikePortland)

— This week’s Monday Roundup is sponsored by ABUS Security, makers of locks that can “thwart even the cleverest of thieves.”

Here are the bike links from around the world that caught our eyes this week:

Biker hits and runs: “BAM! He hit me and just kept going,” said a woman who says her arm was broken by a man on a bicycle who hit her on the Springwater Corridor and then (illegally) left the scene last month.

Bike golfing: Vail Golf Club is adding a third mode for golfers: they can walk; they can take an electric cart; or they can now bike their clubs to the tee.

Drone injury: A flying drone that was filming a bike race whacked a triathlete in the head and sent her to the hospital.

Less congestion: Auto traffic in Seattle has been consistently falling since 2003. Go ahead, read that sentence again. (The population has grown 11 percent and transit use is up 40 percent.)

Clean mobility: You might have heard IPCC’s new warnings that climate change is already wreaking havoc, but you might have missed its praise for bike infrastructure as part of the solution.

Driving distractions: Some seem to think it might not be a good idea to let you operate iPhone apps from your car dashboard.

Bike adventuring: “Bikepacking has become a world wide epidemic,” declares the new-ish Bikepackers Magazine.

The end of Share the Road: Bike Delaware explains why it convinced the state to drop the confusing slogan “Share the Road.”

Historic vehicle: The bike of barrier-breaking African-American racer Major Taylor could be yours for $20,000.

Uber saddles up: Wired says Upscale taxi app Uber is creating a dispatch platform for bike messengers as part of a plan to create a delivery logistics service that could compete with Amazon’s.

Data source: There’s a beautiful and comprehensive set of transportation trends being charted at google.com/publicdata.

The good fight?Whatever happened to the War on the Car?” a Toronto writer says. “I miss it.”

Biking with disabilities: Chicago-based Ding Ding Let’s Ride has a nice series of blog posts about adaptive bikes, vehicles customized for people with disabilities.

Malfunctioning traffic systems: The State of Washington now lets motorcycles, but not bicycles, ignore red lights that fail to detect them.

Road diets work: The new data site FiveThirtyEight uses 12 streets in Minneapolis and New York to show that road diets don’t cause traffic jams on roads that are well below capacity.

Missouri victory: In Missouri, a state legislator briefly held up a bipartisan sales tax hike deal in order to block the state’s first bill that would let the state spend transportation money on bike paths. He backed down.

Danish bike spike: Even Copenhagers are confused about why a new study found a 35 percent jump last year in the length of the average bike trip.

Bike talk: If you are a cute boy with a beard from Portland, these successful and attractive women from Vancouver and SF want to talk about you (among other awesome things).

Post-grief activism: Aaron Naparstek is sort of over ghost bikes, the Streetsblog founder tells The Bicycle Story’s in Part 2 of a first-rate Q&A.

Stop sign stings: Happy spring! Time for the police in Urbana, Ill., to start ticketing students who run stop signs on bikes.

Profitable bike sharing: The New Balance Hubway system in Boston is operating in the black and planning to expand, thanks in part to a deep cut to the fees Alta Bicycle Share collects for each docking.

And finally: it took 18 bikers and a 50-foot-long custom trailer to haul a 1/2 ton grand piano (with pianists, performing an original work to cheer everyone along) up the longest continuous ascent in England. It’s your video of the week:

If you come across a noteworthy bicycle story, send it in via email, Tweet @bikeportland, or whatever else and we’ll consider adding it to next Monday’s roundup.

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.

  • davemess April 14, 2014 at 9:46 am

    Sloppy reporting from KATU on the Springwater hit and run story (not surprising). If the collision happened where they shot the video, that is clearly in Gresham and not in Portland. Also, while I don’t doubt she was hit, and this is a bad situation (cyclist clearly should have slowed down and not hit her), but I’m curious how it is her right arm/wrist injured? Was she walking/running on the left side of the path?

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • JL April 14, 2014 at 10:00 am

      I was wondering the same thing, until I remembered my collision with a jogger on the trail. She could have still been hit on the left side of her body, but injured her wrist falling forward, and to the right.

      But I do not know, the jogger that I collided with that Jonathan posted about a while ago was the one that jumped up and just started jogging off without saying a word.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • davemess April 14, 2014 at 12:17 pm

        Her description though claims she was hit on that arm by the cyclist.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Chris I April 14, 2014 at 10:11 am

      Very sloppy reporting, as it did happen in Gresham. As she showed in the re-creation, and as I heard from a coworker, she definitely made a quick move left into the oncoming lane.

      Clearly, the cyclist should have stopped, but I’m not sure I buy her story that she “would feel differently” if they had. I imagine that encounter would have been really ugly, and probably ended up in small claims court.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • davemess April 14, 2014 at 12:18 pm

        Still no excuse to hit and run.

        Recommended Thumb up 9

        • davemess April 14, 2014 at 12:18 pm

          Granted it’s probably going to be a lose/lose situation for the cyclist.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • Paul Atkinson April 14, 2014 at 1:36 pm

            In general once you hit someone, you’re already losing (unless you’re driving a car).

            Recommended Thumb up 5

            • davemess April 14, 2014 at 6:00 pm

              True, I guess I was implying that even if the pedestrian was 100% at fault I think most people would still blame the cyclist.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • meh April 15, 2014 at 5:49 am

                The same way everyone here blames the car even if the cyclist is 100% at fault. It’s about the vulnerable user. Guess what when you ride a bike pedestrians are the vulnerable user.

                Regardless of who is at fault leaving the scene is wrong.

                Recommended Thumb up 4

              • davemess April 15, 2014 at 7:15 am

                And that people almost everywhere else blame the cyclist and not the car. Just depends on the demographic you’re polling.

                I just wish we had a society with a little more neutrality, because people in all modes of transportation make bad decisions and cause crashes.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Dan April 15, 2014 at 7:33 am

                They should put forth the effort to track this guy down and prosecute proportionately. Right after they find the guy who hit Mike Cooley.


                Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Buzz Aldrin April 14, 2014 at 3:44 pm

      I always walk on the left side of the Springwater or any other MUP, so I’m facing the oncoming cyclists; I highly dislike walking on the right side because most cyclists pass quietly, unannounced and too closely.

      Passing pedestrians unannounced and too closely, by the way, is illegal, and can often be startling.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Sho April 14, 2014 at 7:33 pm

        Thats a real pain for other pedestrians and cyclists as you are essentially creating a roadblock to oncoming traffic when there is someone walking or biking on the appropriate side. This could actual cause you to be in violation of ORS 801.440 on a MUP or maybe ORS 814.040 depending on what you are doing at that moment (in which could possibly translate to this case as well). Also the law you are referring to I believe is ORS 814.410 in which pertains to sidewalks and are defined as areas intended for pedestrian use by the state of Oregon (a MUP allows specified vehicles aka bicycles along and other designated modes of transportation such as horses in areas).

        Recommended Thumb up 5

        • dan April 15, 2014 at 9:02 am

          Meh, it’s essentially the equivalent of taking the full lane on a bike, which motorists tend to dislike. Walking against bike traffic improves my safety, and I’ll continue to do it even if some bicyclists would prefer I didn’t.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

    • ROZA April 21, 2014 at 5:02 pm

      If you watch the video, the woman states (and demonstrates) that she turned with her arm out as the cyclist was passing.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan April 14, 2014 at 9:59 am

    Gah! Why do I always look at the comments in the KATU/KGW/Oregoonian stories?! Too much ignorance for a Monday morning.

    Recommended Thumb up 11

    • q`Tzal April 14, 2014 at 12:11 pm

      I suspect it is only 14.3% of the week’s ignorance.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

    • davemess April 14, 2014 at 12:19 pm

      I like how it got to gun control pretty quickly!

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Chris I April 14, 2014 at 12:36 pm

        In your average Oregonian/KATU commentator’s ideal world, cyclists would all be licensed and pay the same registration taxes as a 5000lb pickup, and guns would be completely unregulated and tax-free. That’ll make us all safe!

        Recommended Thumb up 7

    • dan April 14, 2014 at 1:19 pm

      Hello there other Dan. You have to understand that those KATU / O-live commenters hate freedom, and want to limit or take away our ability to go anywhere we want, anywhere we want, under our own power. They want everyone to keep paying “taxes” to the big oil corporations to get around because they like being controlled and want everyone else to be controlled too.

      Recommended Thumb up 8

  • TOM April 14, 2014 at 10:03 am

    1. KATU is ….KATU. ’nuff said.
    2. comments after their story are revealing
    3. many, many, many walkers/joggers use the wrong side
    4. often when I call “on your left” ,,they move left
    5. YES, there are a lot of jerks on bikes.

    Recommended Thumb up 10

    • MaxD April 14, 2014 at 3:00 pm

      Is there a “wrong side” on a MUP or sidewalk?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • q`Tzal April 14, 2014 at 4:03 pm

        If there is a “right side” for bicycle users on a MUP then it logically follows that there is a correct behavior and position for all other users legally allowed to use a MUP … even regular old walkers and joggers.

        It can’t be a shared use path if some party decides not to share even if the act of not sharing is something as ignoring everyone elses’ right to use the path safely.
        This includes cycling through pedestrian traffic fast enough that they can’t react to in a safe manner and width marching slowly strolling blocking the path so no one else can use it without forceably moving you out of the way.

        Recommended Thumb up 6

        • MaxD April 14, 2014 at 5:05 pm

          thanks for the reply. I believe there is an unwritten rule based on driving that encourages most people to walk/jog/cycle on the right side. Ethically and efficiently, this is a sensible way to share a path. However, this path is also considered a linear park, and is intended to accommodate little kids (with no understanding of driving) and people that want to have a relaxing stroll and not be in a traffic mindset. This is a park in a city that is partially intended for bikes, so other park users should expect and accommodate cyclists. On the other hand, cyclists frequently fail to exercise even the most basic courtesy on the Springwater and other trails. Ultimately, the person on a bike who hit and ran was behaving terribly.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • q`Tzal April 15, 2014 at 6:18 pm

            And you aren’t going to get me disagreeing that in this particular incident the person riding the bicycle would be at fault.

            The problem as you innocently put it is the Park designation. Often a legal classification of “park” is the only way to get a funding for what was sold to the public as a safe place to ride your bicycle so you won’t be in the way of motorists.
            These Multi Use Parks are usually 100% paved sometimes even having road striping painted on them.

            MUPs are presented as bicycle highways, painted and paved like little highways, used by people on bicycles like highways and pointed to angrily by road ragin cagers as the place bicycles are supposed to be instead of in the road.
            Only in the funding battle are these MUPs called parks.

            These are the substandard facilities we are dealt and these use conflicts are baked in to the infrastructure design.

            Short of pulling a Tom McCall and reclassifying all paved sections of Oregon parks as ODOT administered non-motor vehicle roads we are stuck with a system seemingly designed to generate these conflicts.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Spiffy April 14, 2014 at 4:16 pm

        the area she was hit in has a center line… the correct side in the US would be the right side, but there’s no specific laws about it on a MUP…

        Recommended Thumb up 1

    • dan April 14, 2014 at 4:03 pm

      As a cyclist and walker, I know that MANY cyclists pass too close and/or without warning. (If I could swat a fly away and accidentally hit you, you’re biking too close!) So, when I’m on MUPs, I often walk the “wrong” way. It’s much nicer to see who / what’s coming.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Pete April 14, 2014 at 6:51 pm

        I’ve seen signs at trail heads advising to do that. If I’m not mistaken, the Mosier Twin Tunnels trail in Hood River is one of them.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Dan April 15, 2014 at 7:38 am

        Please don’t do that. All MUP traffic should be on the right side, except when passing.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • dan April 15, 2014 at 9:07 am

          If cyclists didn’t buzz pedestrians, then I would stick to the right side. As it is, I’ll continue walking so I can see oncoming traffic. This incidentally also gives me the opportunity to have my dog heel so he doesn’t get in front of your bike – sounds like a win-win to me.

          Frankly, I’m surprised that anyone would have a problem with this. Is it uncomfortable to pass within 6 inches if I’m facing you, but you’re comfortable doing it if I’m facing away?

          Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Dave April 14, 2014 at 10:28 am

    Drones are the first thing that have ever made want to be a gun owner.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • q`Tzal April 14, 2014 at 12:08 pm

      Remember you’ll need a plasma rifle when the HK’s come.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • CaptainKarma April 14, 2014 at 1:20 pm

      I’m thinking there is a way to convert an old microwave oven into a device to fry the electricals in any drone that comes over my territory.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • q`Tzal April 14, 2014 at 3:37 pm

        I’m thinking of a home use device the size of a large microwave but much lower power.
        The power would be high enough to fry RFID devices embedded in non-electronic consumer products (food packages, clothing, housewares) and the device would be large enough to fix everyday items.

        Can’t decide from day to day if I want to don my tin foil hat or jack straight in to Google’s borg collective; the device above at least allows some measure of privacy once these tracking devices are in literally everything.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Spiffy April 14, 2014 at 4:17 pm

      well that was random…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Oliver April 14, 2014 at 10:31 am

    More than once I’ve heard “share the road” shouted at me from a motor vehicle, which taken in context could only be interpreted as “stay out of my way”

    Recommended Thumb up 20

    • Pete April 14, 2014 at 6:32 pm

      It’ll be great to see those signs go away! They do absolutely nothing to advance safety for bicyclists today.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • matheas michaels April 14, 2014 at 11:04 am

    Those cyclists look like they’re not even breaking sweats. Moving my piano from SE to NE without 17 other people, now that’s impressive.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • are April 14, 2014 at 12:04 pm

    next up in missouri, a bill to ban recreational cycling on state funded roads

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Chris I April 14, 2014 at 12:38 pm

      That should help with their obesity epidemic.

      That bill sounds a lot like Oregon’s mandatory sidepath law.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Pete April 14, 2014 at 6:50 pm


      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • are April 14, 2014 at 12:10 pm

    naparstek limits his ghost bike critique to new york city, acknowledging they “still really have their place” elsewhere. even so, i disagree with his rationale, i.e., the image makes older folks who have never ridden afraid to try. certainly that rationale would apply equally to places other than NYC.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tim April 14, 2014 at 1:11 pm

    Has anyone else had the displeasure of driving one of the new vehicals.

    Instead of turning a nob for heat and radio controls, you have buttons and touch screens for everything from telephone and navigation to radio and heating. I don’t know about you, but I can turn a nob without looking at it, but a touch screen I need to look at.

    Modern cars are built for distraction. Driving has become such a chore, cars come with all kinds of things to distract you from driving. Funny, I never seem to need a distraction when I am riding. The spring blosoms and mountain veiws were plenty of distration yesterday.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • GlowBoy April 14, 2014 at 8:28 pm

      I haven’t driven a vehicle with a touchscreen, but I don’t think they should be legal at all in vehicles. The very nature of a touchscreen – no tactile feedback, so you must be watching as you guide your finger in towards each virtual “button” – requires you to take your focus off the road several times longer than if you’re guiding your finger towards a physical button you can feel.

      It was bad enough when vehicles started getting designed with fewer physical buttons and more menus that you have to navigate on screen. A couple years ago I rented a new Ford Focus with the Sync system that was supremely awful to navigate – even simple things like adjusting the dashboard backlighting required navigating several menus deep. Really, really dangerous IMO. But until recently, these systems still required you to press physical buttons to work the menus. Now some newer cars have you manage the same awful menu systems with a touchscreen. It’s really, really bad, and the automakers are partly to blame here for their apple-copycat ideas.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

  • Zimmerman April 14, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    Sad to say I’m not surprised at the victim blaming here as it pertains to the Springwater hit & run article.

    Let’s break it down to simplest terms: if you hit a person while riding a bicycle or ANY vehicle and fail to stop, you are lowlife scum.

    It doesn’t matter if it was reported as happening in Portland but was actually in Gresham, or if the person walking was on the “wrong” side of the pavement. Hit & run should cause outrage regardless of the vehicle involved.

    Recommended Thumb up 20

    • Buzz Aldrin April 14, 2014 at 3:55 pm

      Did it say whether the walker/jogger was using headphones/earbuds or not? Because some of those people have the music cranked so loud no audible warning short of an air horn will get their attention…

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Spiffy April 14, 2014 at 4:31 pm

      I thought that ORS 811.705 applied only to drivers… seems that ORS 811.715 would be more appropriate to a cyclist hitting a pedestrian on a MUP…

      but either way you have to actually prove that the cyclist knew what happened in order to charge them for hit and run…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Sho April 14, 2014 at 7:39 pm

        811.705 would apply to cyclists too, as bicycles are vehicles.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • davemess April 14, 2014 at 6:04 pm

      Who’s blaming the victim? I would just like the facts told honestly and completely.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Sho April 14, 2014 at 7:43 pm

        Don’t expect that here

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • spare_wheel April 15, 2014 at 7:57 am

      this entire thread reeks of hypocrisy.

      and you gotta love the they deserve it because they wear miniskirts (headphones) victim blaming.

      if there is any chance you are going to hit a pedestrian you need to slow the $@#$ down. if you want to ride fast and take risks get the heck out of the bike lane/mup and join me in traffic.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • lyle w. April 15, 2014 at 9:57 am

        Without making a comment on this particular incident, my experience on the Springwater is that, no matter how slow you ride, there will still be slower people who weave uncontrollably and unexpectedly (on bikes and while walking/running), or who have their kids/dogs with them (who dart sideways and have no concept of where they are or the danger faced.

        The simple fact is, there really is nothing you can do to completely avoid accidents caused by someone else being oblivious and unaware of their surroundings.

        Obviously slowing down when you’re coming up on someone (or a group of people) is highly advisable… but short of getting off your bike and walking at their pace while asking them if you may pass… there’s always gonna be a risk.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Mike Healey April 14, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    matheas michaels
    Those cyclists look like they’re not even breaking sweats. Moving my piano from SE to NE without 17 other people, now that’s impressive.

    Recommended 0

    It was up Cragg Vale, Mytholmroyd, West Yorkshire, the longest (6 miles) gradient in England

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Joe April 14, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    on your left, wait headphones up

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • TOM April 14, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    While slowing to be able to pass walkers safely, I’ve been buzzed by “Lance Wannabes” who must see it as sport if they can get through a gap in the traffic ….they act as if they are on a timed run.

    Have yelled “Nice move A$$hole” more than once.

    All I can do tho, is to be responsible for my own actions.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • kevinvc April 14, 2014 at 8:02 pm

    I don’t think there’s much blaming the victim going on, but I do think there is hypocrisy by some folks urging against any judgement since we’ve only heard one side of the story, which runs counter to the reaction when a cyclist is the victim of a hit and run. There definitely is some merit to this, but the person on the bike is the one who has so far chosen not to step forward and counter a single one of her points. It was incumbent on him to stop or, if he left in a panic or fear, come forward now. There’s no way he hit her hard enough to cause that kind of damage without realizing there was a collision.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Psyfalcon April 15, 2014 at 10:54 am

    Why are people against walking on the left? Its the proper way to walk on a road, facing traffic. If people walking in each direction (east/west) are equal, you’re not going to have to pass any additional people. No change except now they can see us and wont make as many sudden moves to the center.

    Means I wont have to ding my bell every 30 seconds. Its hard to tell when people have heard it, and yelling on your left leaves a bunch to be desired too.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • davemess April 15, 2014 at 12:43 pm

      If it’s an isolated person than yes, what you say makes sense. If there are people all over the path on both sides, going both ways, then it makes the path a lot more dangerous for everyone.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan April 15, 2014 at 11:47 am

    MUPs in San Diego have an 8mph speed limit near pedestrians. That’s an option.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • El Biciclero April 22, 2014 at 11:37 am

    I know this is old now, but incidents like this one bolster my opinion that like almost all MUPs in existence, this path is not wide enough. Looking at the comparative width of the bicycles and the painted lanes in the photo above, there is not nearly enough room for cyclists and pedestrians to share this path safely. A MUP should be wide enough for two pedestrians to walk side-by-side, while allowing a cyclist to pass with at least 2′ of clearance. Using armchair eyeball phototelemetry, I’d say each lane should be at least one foot wider.

    Recommended Thumb up 0