(Image: Google Street View)
A man reportedly received life-threatening head injuries while biking on Southwest Barnes Road Friday afternoon, just west of the Washington/Multnomah County line on the street that is known, in Multnomah County, as Burnside.
Washington County Sheriff’s Office said in a news release late Friday that David Garcia, age 43, of Cedar Mill, was pedaling westbound on Barnes, possibly in or near the right turn lane, when an SUV turned left in front of him onto Southwest Miller Road.
“The vehicle believed that he was turning,” sheriff’s spokesman Sgt. Bob Ray Ray said in an interview with KGW.
There are no bike lanes on Barnes. Eastbound cars turning left at this intersection seem to have an arrow signal, so it’s not clear from Ray’s initial description what would have led to the left-turn conflict.
Advertisement
KGW reported that a “multi-vehicle crash” happened “around 1:45 p.m. at the intersection of Barnes Road and Southwest Miller Road.” Here’s a tweet from the station’s news photographer:
A bicyclist & a car collide @ SW Miller & Barnes Rds. The cyclist is at the hospital. The driver on scene. @KGWNews pic.twitter.com/3sWU2EAHwO
— Steven Redlin (@StevenRedlin) May 22, 2015
In his video interview with KGW, Ray said “he was riding what we classify as a street-type bike, so they’re pretty fast bicyclists and this is a pretty steep hill. So witnesses told us that he did have considerable speed going.”
Update 5/23: Here’s the official release from the sheriff’s office:
Sheriff’s Deputies responded to a crash where a vehicle and a bicyclist collided. The bicyclist suffered life-threatening injuries.
On May 22, 2015, at 1:45 p.m., Washington County Sheriff’s Deputies were called to SW Miller Road at SW Barnes Road in the community of Cedar Mill concerning a traffic crash between a bicyclist and a sport utility vehicle.
Sheriff’s Deputies arrived and found David Garcia, 43, from Cedar Mill, unconscious in the roadway. He incurred life-threatening injuries. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue treated Mr. Garcia prior to transporting him to Emanuel Hospital.
Sheriff’s Deputies learned that a 1988 Ford Bronco had been driven by David Warren, 64, from Hillsboro, eastbound on SW Barnes Road. Deputies found that David Garcia was riding his bicycle westbound on SW Barnes Road. Witnesses told investigators that he was riding his bicycle at a high speed and continued straight while in the right turn lane at SW Miller Road. Mr. Warren turned his Bronco left onto SW Miller Road into the path of Mr. Garcia.
David Warren remained at the crash scene and cooperated with investigators, he was not injured.
The Washington County Crash Analysis Reconstruction Team responded to assist with diagrams and processing evidence. The intersection was closed for approximately three hours.
Investigators will complete their analysis of this crash in the coming weeks. No citations have been issued.
We’ll be continuing to follow this story as we learn more.
UPDATE 3:10 pm, 5/27: Police have cited the driver. Here’s the official statement:
Investigators determined that David Warren, the driver of the Bronco, committed violations that were contributing factors in the May 22, 2015 crash with David Garcia. Yesterday, Mr. Warren was issued citations for Dangerous Left Turn and Careless Driving. His court date is scheduled for June 17, 2015
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
I hope he recovers quickly
🙁
Anytime I read the words “bicyclist” and “Barnes Rd” together, I brace myself for the worst. Wishing the best for the cyclist.
Given the amount of time passed since reported time of the collision at 1:45, reporting of details available about the collision, seem very sparse.
The KGW story did at least have a photo of the collision scene; bike with bent front wheel, red helmet lying on the road just behind the bike’s seat post. No report on which direction the person riding the bike and person driving were traveling, or what area of the intersection they were located at prior to and at the time of the collision.
Barnes road and Miller, and their intersection, not so long ago; (say maybe 20 years ago…though that’s a lifetime for some people)…were simple two lane roads. Barnes has always been rather heavily used by people with motor vehicles due to it being a rather direct route between Portland and points west. Despite shoulders of the road never being good, I always found the road to be manageable for biking, to get to Skyline from down in the valley. Traffic volume was low on Miller; made it an easy, generally pleasant riding route to Cornell from Barnes.
Large increases in use of the road by people with motor vehicles, have dramatically changed the dynamics of riding on it. Seems the opposite of a desired objective, but widening and lane additions to the road to accommodate increased volumes of motor vehicle traffic, have made more complex and hazardous, the challenge of traveling these roads safely on a bike; that is, from what the roads were originally, as simple two lane roads.
“…There are no bike lanes on Barnes. Eastbound cars turning left at this intersection seem to have an arrow signal, …” bikeportland
It’s been about a year since I’ve driven or ridden this section of the road, but I remember eastbound traffic as having the left turn arrow onto Miller. Part of the road’s ‘upgrade’ from its former two lane configuration.
The arrow actually was an essential addition to accommodate motor vehicle traffic demands on the road. Traffic gradually changed from the frequently occurring natural breaks that would allow left turns, to a congestion level resulting in very long waits before a left turn could safely be made. Consequently, people waiting to turn became more inclined to seize opportunities to turn having less safety margin.
“…In his video interview with KGW, Ray said “he was riding what we classify as a street-type bike, so they’re pretty fast bicyclists and this is a pretty steep hill. So witnesses told us that he did have considerable speed going.” …” bikeportland
All due respect to Washington County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Sgt. Bob Ray, with respect to speeds traveled on this section of Barnes, all vehicles tend to travel rather fast. That speed, together with the volume of traffic, is one of the factors that makes use of this road and that intersection, challenging and intense. Westbound, it is downhill, allowing top bike speed to be more easily attained; even so, if the person biking was traveling faster than 30 mph, I’d be surprised.
Thoughts and prayers to this man. Hoping for quick recovery.
Barnes/Burnside, which is 7.5 miles long (from Cornell to the Willamette), is the sh!tt!est direct route for transportation cycling in the PDX metro area: steep grades, lack of shoulders, and SUVs being impatiently piloted by people not looking for cyclists.
How about the upper part of Scholls Ferry? Even freight trucks exceed the 35 mph limit often.
Skyline to Beaverton Hillsdale, going downhill is one of the few sections that I have enjoyed merging with all types of vehicles for many decades.I have only been yelled at once out of several hundreds of times. I always enjoyed the radar at the bottom, just before McMinemum’s. I don’t know if the Parr lumber driver was bragging or complaining when he yelled as I was stopped at the light (lane splitting) “You were going way over the limit in the upper part but slowed a bit on the lower”. 46 at Patton corner and 36 past the van on the lower part of the 30 zone. Hoping it was the radar van because the truck was pushing me.
Barnes/Burnside is a direct parallel to Hwy 26. I think the impatience level is higher.
Barnes is a typically terrible west side arterial. It’s what we are known for, unfortunately. Highways that should be streets.
Even the arterials that meet county standards are considered treacherous by most. What does this say about our standards?
Exactly right. Our newest arterial, Bethany, is designed according to WashCo specs, which is to say that it values car transportation and little else. The bike lanes are only 5 feet wide, the speed limit is too high, the lights for entry from the side streets are difficult to trigger when on a bike and turn to red much too quickly, and the corners at each intersection are all rounded off, encouraging drivers to go around these corners at a higher rate of speed, and increasing the crossing distance for pedestrians. Crossing guards have to literally run out into the middle of the road to get cars to stop for kids crossing, and even then the corners are round enough that cars can go AROUND them on the wrong side. This is what passes for modern design in WashCo.
Don’t get me started on signal detectors. I find the loop detector at Bronson & Bethany (east side) to be pretty reliable, while the camera at Oak Hills is hopeless. The left turn signal from SB Bethany onto Oak Hills is spotty, but at least it has a flashing yellow phase that I can use if it doesn’t turn green.
The second travel lane that was added in each direction just turned Bethany into a raceway (recall recent discussion of Powell and “platoon driving” vs. dangerous passing nonsense). I drive and ride on/near Bethany almost daily. I’ve seen comments from Oak Hills Elementary parents that claim 60-mph driving on this 35-mph road, which sounds a little excessive/hard to believe, but in my daily observation 50 mph is not uncommon. On the west side of Bethany, I tend to stick to the THPRD trails through the wetlands, and the neighborhood streets in the (former?) Spyglass neighborhood (Audrey, 161st, Lyndel, etc.) until I have to cross Bethany.
You must live near me. I cross that Oak Hills-Bethany intersection frequently with the kids on our bikes to get to Waterhouse Trail, and I can barely get them through the intersection at a full sprint before the light turns red again.
When you have a problem like this call the city or county or ODOT (whoever controls the signal). Talk to the traffic engineer or signal technician. Ask for a call back rather than leave a message. Tell them about the lack of clearance time for your crossing (and by all means mention kids if they are frequent travelers). Ask that the minimum green time for the local street be increased. If it’s not an especially busy main road, they can probably do it without much adverse impact.
If you are just crossing occasionally, you can press the pedestrian button to bring up the walk signal. (Yes, I know what a hassle it is to go to the ped button, but it’s a certainty of getting lots of clearance time.)
Some of the city traffic folks, like Peter Koonce, Portland’s signals manager are bicyclists and readers of Bikeportland, but some aren’t and just never thought about it as an issue. So, ask for help; explain your problem; check back with them.
Probably. Same thing happens at Bronson; I come down the little trail from Cornell to Bronson/156th and cross Bethany to continue West on Bronson. At least that loop detector is reliable, but alone on my commuter bike, in “drag race” mode, I can’t get across before the yellow.
My wife just spoke with a County Sheriff. He said they don’t ticket on Bethany unless the driver is going 50+. Seriously.
That’s nice to know. I know my heart skipped a beat yesterday as I was driving home on Bethany, saw the Sheriff’s deputy parked on Telshire, and noticed my speedometer was at 42, due to “going with the flow”.
But I’ve had cops tell me before that 15 over was pretty much the cut-off.
I saw the scene…it was very upsetting. I am so glad it wasn’t a fatality
I think we all wish to hear ALL of the details on how the collision occured. The reason for that is to figure out ways so it does not happen again. I have had a few close calls at this intersection. I don’t approach the intersection and many others in the same way as the times I have made close calls.
“The vehicle believed that he was turning,” Ray said in the interview.
Ah yes. Cars with beliefs.
That was exactly what I thought. Until I had a reason to think differently, I never noticed how often our very use of language distances us from responsibility.
Can you believe this language? The tweet also: “A bicyclist & a car collide”
Where is the agency?
Prophesying a religious cult for self-driving car AIs.
Sentient transportation forms unite…
I have this odd notion of some less respectable self driving cars “talking” to each other in hushed reverent tones of a mystical time in the ancient past when automobiles roamed free across vast stretches of asphalt clear of traffic at high speeds.
When traffic was sparse to non-existent and energy was cheap.
A “pre-historic” age when automotive creatures of all shapes and sizes cruised the countryside and city boulevards just for the fun of it.
A mythical “car paradise” that no self driving car in that coming future would ever believe could have possibly have existed.
“Our marvelous human creators must be remembering it wrong; who would destroy such a paradise?”
Whether the driver thought the cyclist was turning or not is really irrelevant. The car would have been headed where the cyclist was going so either way he needed to, and hold on to your hats because this is a novel concept, wait for the cyclist!
Worst part is this is yet another collision that will likely be written off by WashCo officials as just yet another “tragic accident”. If we want collisions like this to stop (Vision Zero anyone?) we have to start holding drivers accountable for their negligence.
Yeah, none of this makes sense. He saw the cyclist, and he drove into him. He did not have the right of way, whether he believed the cyclist was turning or not. No citation issued.
It’s more likely that the driver wasn’t looking and just went though their turn. Drivers just need to come up with a weak reason and they won’t be found at fault. “I wasn’t looking” doesn’t sound very good, so instead you get “there was a glare”, or even the “I didn’t see them” will be acceptable.
Don’t forget the “it could have happened to anyone” rationalization by everyone else as to why we can’t do anything to prevent these collisions.
Barnes is a freeway. sad.
but there are bike lanes and sidewalks on parts of SW Barnes Road.
“but there are bike lanes and sidewalks on parts of SW Barnes Road.” rick
It’s true, there are bike lanes and sidewalks on parts of Barnes Rd. Whether they’re present through this intersection, I’m not sure…but the over-riding fact is that bike lanes and sidewalks that are there, came about because of vast increases in number of motor vehicles used on the road.
In effect, the increase in number of motor vehicles used on the road, rendered the road less and less practical and safe for use by foot and by bike. Development surrounding the road, and points further west in Hillsboro, prompted the conversion of this road from a simple two lane country road, to a much wider, multi-lane complex, signalized highway. This type conversion, is in fact, the common approach in suburban areas, to accommodating travel needs of growing populations.
One of the unfortunate consequences resulting from this type road conversion, is its general reduction of positive character attributes of the simple road type it succeeds. There’s a major difference between the character of a 28′ roadway, and a 75′ roadway, and the effect it has on the area surrounding it, and the functionality of using the road by people that aren’t driving or riding in motor vehicles.
Barnes road, by its conversion, has become a big, wide, noisy, dirty asphalt wasteland, similar to others in the area, such as 185th adjoining Tanasbourne. These conversions create traffic environments of a negative and dangerous character that no sidewalk or bike lane really can satisfactorily counter. People by and large tend to be resigned to such road conversions, because…’that’s progress’.
I live just down the hill from that intersection but ride 3 miles out of my way to avoid that stretch of Barnes when I bike into downtown. Further down there is a wide shoulder/bike lane but up there it just goes from irrigation ditch shoulder to intersection to crazy wide shoulder to “Share the Road” no shoulder. Prayers go out to everyone involved tonight.
Another perfectly legal “accident”
David is a long time OBRA racer and very experienced bike rider. The report on KPTV this am said he was “in the right turn lane and went straight so the driver made a left turn in front of him” and the story put the full blame on David as it’s always the cyclist fault… Regardless I hope David pulls through and healing thoughts are with him.
From what I remember of road rules – but they sometimes change and I haven’t taken a driver’s test since 2009 – the person turning right (assuming on a green light) has the right of way. How is this driver not being cited? Is there a bike lane around the corner and the driver is explaining that they thought the cyclist would stay in the bike lane while they stayed in their lane?
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/108392/unprotected-left-turns-vs-oncoming-right-turn
According to the article, the driver had a green turn arrow.
Link?
It’s in this very article above:
.
So, one of the two was likely running a red if that’s the case. I don’t know who, but there should have been a control to separate the movement of the eastbound traffic turning left from the westbound traffic going straight or turning right.
Then again, many Portland area intersections with a green arrow often also have a amber flashing state that is “yield to oncoming traffic” – I’m not familiar with the area so I haven’t a clue what the situation there is.
My point is that if we assume neither was running a red, the cyclist still had the right of way over the left-turning vehicle regardless of whether he was heading straight or turning right. Another possibility is that one of them gunned it on a yellow, though.
If neither was running a red, then, yes, the cyclist had right of way. If the truck driver had a green arrow, then he had right of way. If the truck driver had a flashing yellow arrow, the cyclist had right of way, and finally if it was simply a turn lane for the truck with a green light (no arrow), then the cyclist had right of way. But as the google maps link embedded in the story above shows, there is indeed an arrowed signal for the lane with a green, yellow, and red light on the signal. There is no sign for “yield on flashing arrow” sign there, so I assume it is one that has a full, green/yellow/red cycle. Somebody probably ran a red here. I don’t know who.
For those commenting about the lack of bike lane there I’ll explain how that stretch works by bike. I live about 1.5 mi. from there and have ridden it more times than I can count because it’s one of the only ways to get over the hill without tons of excessive altitude gain/loss or taking Cornell up and over which is an even worse choice.
Most likely the cyclist was coming from Barnes & Burnside. Barnes is one of the only routes over the hill that will let you climb in a modicum of low traffic (save the few blocks in question) and rational grade while still being able to get where you want to go if your destination is near the top of the hills and north of 26.
The descent from there goes very fast. You have an intermittent wide shoulder to ride on though the section from Barnes past QFC leading into a short (maybe 2 block) stretch without shoulder where an experienced cyclist like David can easily ride traffic speed (I believe the limit is 40, but traffic is often slower due to the lights) after which there is a bike lane the rest of the way down the hill.
The car that was turning left was in a left turn lane and I’m guessing made the turn on a flashing yellow. David probably was just over the line for the right turn lane because frankly it’s safer to ride there in case you’ve got a cowboy forcing his way past you, plus the other side of the intersection you’ve got a stretch past the shopping center with more big shoulder. Since it’s not a marked bike lane there you make due as best you can while trying to ride defensively.
Thanks for the explanation, it adds a lot of clarity. The more collision stories I hear, the more I believe in my own biking style — average 15 mph, slower through intersections or congested areas, brake going downhill. Max 20 mph in any situation. Stick to bike roads or bike lanes on roads < 35mph average traffic. The only truly risky part of my commute is on the Hawthorne bridge, being taken out by all of the silent speeding cyclists. Well, also, the off-chance of a drunk driver swerving into me…or being knifed by a crazy in downtown or on trimet
My commute from the west side is very squirrelly in an attempt to avoid the arterials, but they are not completely avoidable if you are going any serious distance. I have to ride on Saltzman, Cornell, and Barnes, but I get off of them as quick as I can. You have to use Barnes if you want to get to the Sunset Transit Center. And currently you have to use arterials to cross Hwy 26 in any place other than the Rock Creek Trail or the Sunset Transit Center overpass.
http://www.flashalert.net/news.html?id=11 …
Description of accident by Sheriff’s Office:
“On May 22, 2015, at 1:45 p.m., Washington County Sheriff’s Deputies were called to SW Miller Road at SW Barnes Road in the community of Cedar Mill concerning a traffic crash between a bicyclist and a sport utility vehicle.
Sheriff’s Deputies arrived and found David Garcia, 43, from Cedar Mill, unconscious in the roadway. He incurred life-threatening injuries. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue treated Mr. Garcia prior to transporting him to Emanuel Hospital.
Sheriff’s Deputies learned that a 1988 Ford Bronco had been driven by David Warren, 64, from Hillsboro, eastbound on SW Barnes Road. Deputies found that David Garcia was riding his bicycle westbound on SW Barnes Road. Witnesses told investigators that he was riding his bicycle at a high speed and continued straight while in the right turn lane at SW Miller Road. Mr. Warren turned his Bronco left onto SW Miller Road into the path of Mr. Garcia. “
Just like the pickup that took out Abbot last week. Obvious premeditated assault.
These are the two questions I would be asking:
1. Did the cyclist signal a right turn? If not why did the motorist assume the cyclist was turning, if there was a wide shoulder next to the right turn only lane?
2. Did the motorist signal their left turn? If not, the cyclist was not warned in advance of the threat.
Regardless, if the motorist had a flashing yellow turn signal, they were required to yield to ALL oncoming vehicles BEFORE making their turn.
Perhaps the cyclist made a mistake by not being in the through lane, but that doesn’t mean the motorist wouldn’t have left-hooked them anyway…
But once again, we’ve got an unscathed motorist and a cyclist possibly on life support who can’t explain their version of the incident.
If you are driving a car, and another car is coming towards you with their turn signal on, it’s still a good idea to WAIT and make sure the other car actually SLOWS DOWN and commits to their turn before you safely determine that they are actually turning. You don’t just drive your car across their path. Drivers frequently leave their turn signals on unintentionally, or they intend to make their turn in a different place.
The more I think about the driver’s excuse, the more I think it’s just pure post-crash B.S., and pro-car bias by the WashCo Sheriff’s Office.
“Why did you run down that man coming towards you?”
“I thought he was turning.”
“Oh, okay, so it was an accident then.”
I got that same sense, that the “I thought he was turning” excuse sounded like something put forth after the fact to explain a lapse in judgment. Sadly, if the cyclist is “determined” to have been in the right turn lane while going straight through the intersection, and there was no bike lane, a citation could be waiting for Mr. Garcia when he (hopefully) wakes up. No need to get his version of events; witness statements and the driver’s story will be enough “investigation”.
If the motorist did indeed have a left turn arrow (meaning he did have ROW), he might have assumed the cyclist was going to turn because if he was still barreling toward the intersection, he would have had a red light with regards to going straight. It would have been a reasonable assumption from the driver if so. “If” I said. Just repeating what the story said at the top though.
Exactly. If driver had green arrow then cyclist ran a red light.
Or did the driver have a flashing amber (i.e., yield to oncoming traffic) arrow? I’m not familiar with the intersection but we sure have a lot of those in the area.
“…The car that was turning left was in a left turn lane and I’m guessing made the turn on a flashing yellow. …” HJ
Late last night after I’d read some of the stories and posted comments here, I got to wondering whether the east bound left turn signal light with a green arrow is in fact also equipped with the flashing yellow. This type signal is somewhat controversial, with benefits but also a compromise in safety compared to that offered by the red light holding traffic until the green arrow allows it to proceed.
The flashing yellow allows a road user to proceed but places the burden of legal responsibility for being certain the way is sufficiently clear of oncoming traffic, onto the person deciding to proceed through the flashing yellow. People proceeding through intersections with green lights, have little way of knowing whether a vehicle from the opposite direction and waiting in a signaled left turn lane, is waiting on a red light or a flashing yellow.
Instead of speculating on the internet, why don’t you go out to that intersection and check what kind of signal is actually present and report back to us?
Why don’t you go out there and check the signal? Or why don’t some of bikeportland’s readers that seem to regularly ride or drive through the intersection, check and confirm the status of the light rather than expect someone else to make a special trip to do that?
“People proceeding through intersections with green lights, have little way of knowing whether a vehicle from the opposite direction and waiting in a signaled left turn lane, is waiting on a red light or a flashing yellow.”
If you are proceeding through an intersection on a green light, it’s irrelevant whether the opposing left turn lane has a red arrow or a flashing yellow arrow, you have the ROW either way.
If the driver thought that the bicyclist was intending to turn right, he still should have waited until the bicyclist had completed his turn.
It’s unfortunate that no one has physically confirmed whether or not there is a flashing yellow arrow for that left turn lane. In any case, the obligation is for the left-turning vehicle to yield to both through and right-turning traffic unless they have a green turn arrow.
I also noticed that there didn’t appear to be a headlight on the bicycle. I don’t operate any vehicle, four or two wheels, without a headlight on 24/7 to maximize my visibility. However, the motorist’s quote that he did see the bicyclist but expected him to turn right is pretty damning.
“…If you are proceeding through an intersection on a green light, it’s irrelevant whether the opposing left turn lane has a red arrow or a flashing yellow arrow, you have the ROW either way. …” Paul
Paul…I think I made clear in my earlier comment, that whether or not the intersection is equipped with flashing yellow/green arrow signals is relevant to degree of safe passage through the intersection. The red light/green arrow left turn signal gives through traveling road users a greater degree of safety in traveling through intersections on a green light.
The red light/green arrow holds back people wanting to make left turns, until traffic from the opposite direction gets a red light; at that point in the signal cycle, the people waiting to turn left, get the left turn green arrow. I believe this approach to traffic regulation is safer for road users than is the flashing yellow light/green arrow signal.
Even with a bike lane, I can’t name one stretch in this area which would be ridable at 30mph. Overgrown shoulders are good for 12mph on a good day. Has anyone seen a mention of bike lane design speed in our bike plan?
Eric, I ride that stretch at 30+ on a regular basis without problem. For anyone with any kind of decent handling skills (and as a cat 2 road racer David would certainly have them) those speeds are a non-issue. You’ll regularly go much faster in races. I’ve had sprints at PIR that topped out over 40mph on the flat and I ride a much slower category than David.
The rideable speed has a lot to do with a person’s skill level and equipment. The speed I can ride comfortably and safely in a bike lane (especially downhill) as an experienced road and track racer with good equipment is going to be a lot faster than what your average person could do even in a wide open space without getting the death wobble going.
Trying to dictate a bike lane design speed given the drastic differences of these variables would be impractical at best.
imo, riding a bike at or near the speed limit on this stretch does not take much skill at all and this is fine. what’s not fine is people who drive playing “chicken” with vulnerable people cycling.
From what I can see on google maps, there is no bike lane. I’m sure the traffic lane is rideable at 30mph. But I’ve yet to see a 5ft bike lane which would be safe at that speed once it is littered with branches and car parts.
I’ve descended this same stretch from the intersection of Barnes and Burnside down past the Hospital and beyond. 35 mph isn’t too difficult at all, but I was held up by all the cars crawling along at much less than that.
? Current news (KPTV) just reported that witnesses are saying the bike rider turned in front of the SUV at a high rate of speed.
Anyone else hearing anything else?
But their web site says something different. (http://www.kptv.com/story/29141453/bicyclist-hit-and-seriously-injured-in-portland?autostart=true)
That is what I just heard. I couldn’t believe my ears.
No, David was going down hill on Barns at the Miller intersection. The story is he was on the right “in the right turning lane” and the driver coming up hill turned left in front of him and David hit his car. As Dan and Buzz mentioned, regardless of what the driver of the car thought, David had the right of way. If he was going straight or turning right the car should have waited. I ride a lot, not a CAT 2 racer but I’ve still got a lot of miles on a road bike. I also drive a car, the driver probably had no clue that a bike can go 30, 40 or 50MPH and either did not really see him or did not consider it a problem to turn in front of him. I don’t think that means he should not get a citation or some form of punishment. It certainly was not David’s fault. Are there things David could have done differently to help prevent the issue? Maybe, I was not there so I can not say but even with the Car Biased reporting it is clear the Car driver was at Fault. He should have waited. I hope David is OK, last word is critical condition but that was 12 hours ago.
I hope David pulls thru with a full recovery.
Sounds A LOT like the Corkett accident recently.
After the Corkett accident everyone had an opinion on who to blame. As in that accident no one knows who is at fault yet because we don’t have all the facts, but many people continue to cast blame anyway.
It’s an emotional subject, but we should wait for the facts to emerge before deciding who should be fined, jailed, punished, blamed, etc.
There have been NUMEROUS past cases where the driver has been to blame, and has received little to no punishment. Hence the frustration. We don’t know for certain what happened in this exact situation, but we can surmise based on our own experience. I have had cars turn right in front of me at Barnes & Valeria while I was going 30mph in the bike lane and obviously proceeding straight through. They do it because they don’t think you are going fast enough and they don’t see you as a threat. Based on the design of this intersection, I would have proceeded through the right turn lane too. There is no bike lane, there is little shoulder on the right, and you are basically on the ‘shoulder’ of the main lane there. WashCo might consider whether a blinking yellow is appropriate for east side travel at that intersection, but based on discussions I’ve had with them in the past I doubt they will do anything at all to change it. If it meets guidelines, it is good. That is policy.
Every time I hear one of these ‘driver hits cyclists, makes lame excuse, police agree with lame excuse’ stories, I feel less safe on my bike. It feels like it’s just a matter of time before I get tagged while holding the right of way, and my family gets to hear about how I did something wrong.
You can’t ruin a man’s life because he was involved in a crash with a cyclist unless you know for certain that he was negligent or did it on purpose, etc. Accidents happen – I would not ruin his life for an honest mistake – especially if the cyclist contributed fault in ANY way.
It will be interesting to see if the truck driver tells his side of the story. Did he see the cyclist?
The guy driving the truck didn’t have the right of way. If he had turned in front of a school bus and maimed a bunch of kids, you can be sure that “I didn’t see it coming” wouldn’t prevent a citation. It’s the double standard that a number of us are pissed about – we’ve seen it time and time again. My neighbor was killed by a girl who was texting and drove completely into a wide shoulder and mowed him down, left the scene, was followed and confronted by the driver behind her at the coffee shop she was headed to, and received no charges – not even a suspended license. (We know this from another neighbor who’s a detective working alongside the investigators – DA turned down prosecution, primarily because the guy had no survivors to push the issue).
Who’s life was ruined in this situation?
There’s this unstated belief that ‘he had it coming’ that just disgusts me. People are tiptoeing around it in this thread, but that’s what they are implying.
That’s why camera.
About a month ago I had an elderly lady in a Buick pass me and then turn right in front of me. I had to brake HARD and lean into a turn into the parking lot with her. I was doing 37 MPH in a 40 MPH zone. I’d seen her in my drop-bar mirror and was just about to take the lane as there was an intersection coming, but I didn’t see a signal and at the rate she was going assumed she was heading straight. She was basically just trying to beat me to the Presbyterian Church. She apologized profusely to me, and as best I could to avoid profanity explained just how close she came to having to apologize to God instead.
Sometimes I think people underestimate how fast a cyclist can travel, other times I think they know full well…
Very best wishes for David’s full recovery. 🙁
Been there done that Pete. Same thing happened to me at Burlington Fred Meyer. A pickup and I took the turn into the drive way with the pickup giving me 6 inches to the curb. I tailed him to where he parked. 2 sumo wrestlers from the Pacific islands got out. Apparently they were intimidated by me as I was so irate. A Portland policeman that had followed us to the spot and pulled me off them. No citation issued but I filed a complaint to the console of the nation they were from via the diplomatic plates. They were sent home 2 days later.
Join the club. Got right hooked by an Audi with blacked out windows a few years ago on Cornell, they were in too much of a rush to get into the Shell station to care about waiting for the cyclist they just passed in rush hour traffic. Mercifully I just barely managed to turn with him (thank God for every crit I’ve ever raced), let loose a few profanities and continued on my way as I had to get to work.
After my father was killed in a right hook this winter at the same intersection I now wish that I had made a bigger deal out of the incident 🙁
My condolences. 🙁
The shell station is on the north side and the crash that killed your dad (Kirke Johnson?) was on the south side? Am I getting that right?
That is remarkable, crazy, and very sad! I am very sorry for your loss – I ride by the ghost bike there frequently. My thoughts go out to you and your family.
Unfortunately if it’s anything like the fatal collision in Cedar Mill in November it’ll take 4+ months for them to release the police report with any details.
If David could get to a point where he can give his side it would be worth the wait. You can’t ruin a man’s life because he was involved in a crash with a cyclist unless you know for certain that he was negligent or did it on purpose, etc. Accidents happen – I would not ruin his life for an honest mistake – especially if the cyclist contributed fault in ANY way. In this case it sounds like both may have contributed to it: the cyclist WAS in the wrong lane, WAS traveling at high speed, the truck MAY have made an illegal turn (not established yet), MAY not have seen the cyclist for who knows what reason, etc.
Let’s wait to not “ruin” the life of the uninjured motorist who will likely not receive a minor infraction but let’s ASSUME that the severely injured cyclist:
“WAS in the wrong lane, WAS traveling at high speed”
I’m curious, “Huffy”, do you comment on O-live and/or are you related to “Cervelo” in some way?
soren,
Don’t know Huffy, but don’t think Huffy assumed anything. Wrong lane and high speed were reported by witnesses.
If we have to “ruin” one man’s life in order to cause a thousand motorists to BEGIN PAYING ATTENTION when they drive and subsequently spare the lives of a few cyclists and pedestrians it will have been worth it.
The problem is there are virtually no consequences for not paying attention, so motorist simply don’t bother.
When I was learning to fly many years ago, my instructor impressed upon me that the first job was “control the plane.” Other stuff, like communicating with air traffic control, checking the weather, or even making certain of my location, worrying about on-time arrivals, etc. were MUCH less important.
I don’t think there is a similar emphasis on driving one’s car. Too much multi-tasking takes place and everyone is of the opinion that’s OK. Until we decide on some real penalties, that won’t change.
Note that the left-turning vehicle is required to cede right-of-way to both straight-proceeding and right-turning oncoming vehicles, so it doesn’t really matter which lane he was in. His right-of-way was violated in both scenarios.
Does sound similar in some ways to the 26th and Powell collision. Does 26th have a flashing yellow/green turn light signal? Often typically prompt attribution of fault by the public, reading about collisions in the news, draws from a variety things, but obviously not police investigation reports that can take lots of time to conduct and prepare.
Fault depends some on the character of people involved in the collisions. There’s a bit more known to the public about the person driving in the 26th and Powell collision (has some bad marks on the driving record.); less so about the person driving in the Barnes-Miller intersection collision.
Personally, I’ve enjoyed the convenience the flashing yellow/green turn light signals offer road users. And, I think these signals can help some to reduce congestion on heavily used streets. Gradually though, my awareness of the potential peril the flashing yellow light represents to through travel road users has increased.
Collisions like this one (if in fact the the intersection does have such a signal.), intensify that awareness. These signals aren’t equipped to convey to through travel road users that persons waiting in their motor vehicle from the opposite direction and in left turn lanes, may have a flashing yellow signal allowing them to proceed across lanes of travel.
Based on information available in news reports so far, it seems the person driving in the collision at Barnes-Miller, made an error in judgment; not DUI, not reckless, maybe careless. Still likely to be found at fault, when all investigations are completed and in, I’d guess. It’s an intersection with complex potential for disaster. Could be, the county transportation dept made a serious oversight if it did not anticipate and decide responsibly about the eventuality of this kind of collision through the use of a flashing yellow/green turn light signal at this intersection; again: if in fact there is one of these signals at that intersection.
Powell and 26th does NOT have flashing yellow arrows. On Powell, the signal has green arrows allowing what’s referred to as a “protected” left-turn. The signal for 26th is simply a “green ball.” You may proceed straight, or make a left turn after yielding to on-coming traffic.
“…The signal for 26th is simply a “green ball.” You may proceed straight, or make a left turn after yielding to on-coming traffic.” J_R
J_R …thanks for the info about signals at 26th and Powell. A simple green ball for traffic regulation sounds like signal technology from an era preceding the red light/green arrow/ flashing yellow arrow signals.
Information from traffic engineers managing the signals at Barnes/Miller may be the best way to find out the status of signals at that intersection; not simply as to what type signals are there, but also as to the duration of each phase of the signal cycle.
ODOT has safety funding already programmed to add protected left arrows to 26th in both directions at Powell, but unfortunately the funding is not available for a couple more years. Too late to prevent the recent crash, but should prevent future ones once the project is complete.
How about,
“Sheriff’s Deputies learned that a 2010 Surly Cross Check had been ridden westbound on Barnes Road by David Garcia, 43, of Cedar Mill. Witnesses told investigators that it looked like the bike was going a little bit under the speed limit on Barnes Road, which is 35 mph. David Warren, 64, from Hillsboro was attempting to make a left turn from Barnes Road onto SW Miller Road, apparently against the left turn signal. It appeared that the SUV misjudged the speed of Mr. Garcia and failed to yield to oncoming traffic as it completed the left turn.”
The media blamed Alistair when a truck driven by a man with many recless citations took off his leg while in the bike lane. The media are not even aware of their bias. It’s like when racists don’t know they are racist, cops don’t know they are abusers, and journalists spread stereotypes about homeless. – And everyone just goes on as if life is normal. Blame the messengers….
Elaborate on what do you mean by this: “……….apparently against the left turn signal.” Are you guessing the truck did not have a left turn signal?
SUV’s don’t judge. People do.
Cross Check – niiiiiiiiice bike.
Witnesses said he was driving at high speed. I’d believe it – that is downhill so he could be hauling a$$.
Top of your comment, you quoted El Bic. It would help if you’d include his name at the end of the quote so it would be a little easier for people reading to be certain who it is you’re quoting. Like this:
“…Witnesses said he was driving at high speed. I’d believe it – that is downhill so he could be hauling a$$.” Huffy
You say “driving”, but since you next mention “downhill”, it seems you’re most likely referring to the person riding westbound and downhill, rather than the person driving eastbound.
If, based on witnesses’ description you care to make a guess on how fast in mph speed the person riding was traveling, I’d be interested in reading what your thoughts are on that.
“Top of your comment, you quoted El Bic. It would help if you’d include his name at the end of the quote so it would be a little easier for people reading to be certain who it is you’re quoting.”
they were replying to El Bic so they don’t need to give their name to the quote… the forum properly indents…
Unless the cyclist was running a red, the driver did not obey the left turn signal: he either turned on a red, or failed to yield to oncoming traffic, as a flashing yellow left arrow would indicate.
SW Barnes by Miller is not as steep as West Burnside by the tunnel.
Barnes and Burnside need overhauls.
Fine, if your imaginative idea of a contrasting version to the police report excerpt is what the witnesses reported, and what the police were able to quickly surmise for their their initial report …which they apparently didn’t.
Disclaimer for those accusing me of essentially making stuff up: I am exactly making stuff up. I don’t know what kind of bike Mr. Garcia was riding, or whether there is a flashing yellow left turn arrow, or whether Mr. Garcia was in or near the right-only lane, or how fast anyone was going.
I was merely attempting to offer what I think is a highly plausible alternative to the standard “driver was minding his own business, innocently making a left turn, when BAM! Out of nowhere came this bicyclist at a high rate of speed, in the middle of traffic/not in bike lane/barreling through intersection/not wearing hi-viz/no helment—what could the poor driver do?” narrative.
Most witnesses who don’t ride a bike regularly tend to think anything over 10 mph is a “high rate of speed”, don’t understand the nuances and pressures of trying to balance “staying out of the way” with “staying safe”, and don’t notice anything the driver of any motor vehicle might have been doing because driving is so normal it might as well be shrubbery. What they will notice is the crazy, “racer type” bicyclist with a “death wish” riding “too fast” on a “road meant for cars” “in the middle of traffic”, etc. ad nauseum. And that is the witness account, along with the driver’s story, that ends up constituting the entirety of the police report.
If the Motorist had a lefty turn arrow (Left amber blinking) Garcia had a green. The area that Garcia was riding in going straight was the left edge of the right turn lane as usually the motor traffic hugged the right side of their lane. If the left turn blinker was going and the motorist turned left He would not have if there had been a truck or car at the intersection. When he saw the bike he premeditated an assault then turned.
Another plausible scenario:
Cyclists west-bound light turns yellow and a large vehicle (SUV, F350 pickup, etc) slows to stop for the yellow in the straight-ahead lane. Cyclist sees green turn to yellow, decides “I can beat it” and illegally passes slowing vehicle in right-turn-only lane. Cyclist is hidden from turning Bronco until he is past slowing large vehicle but Bronco is already in the turn. Smack! Cyclist can’t stop and unsuccessfully tries to demolish Bronco with his Cross Check.
Except there was no mention of any other vehicle in this wreck…
I suppose it’s easier to make up stuff here instead of, say, owning up about those missing studies over on the *other* thread where you were insinuating fault upon the gravely injured ( http://bikeportland.org/2015/05/13/bta-statement-26th-powell-collision-questions-odot-priorities-143164#comment-6388033 ).
But it doesn’t exactly help repair your credibility or your humanity. You’re quickly documenting quite a ghoulish pattern of behavior for yourself.
Bill,
Good point – I meant to ask, what was the color of the cyclists jersey in this case?
.
I’ve asked folks to document accidents where cars hit cyclists who were wearing fluorescent orange or yellow, but to date, no one has offered any cases. Probably not too many, but not too surprising since most are wearing asphalt and concrete colored tops; again – not surprising that they get hit either. Funny how that works.
.
Of course in this case, as in the Corkett case, I think it was the cyclist who hit the motor vehicle, not the other way around.
.
Opus,
No other vehicles were mentioned probably because they were not involved in the collision. Doubt these were the only 2 vehicles at the scene.
.
WD,
Speed is a contributing cause to many accidents – the type of vehicle is irrelevant – except in some vehicles your chances of a serious injury are higher. Speed is mentioned in a huge number of car accidents that do not involve bicycles.
.
To all,
Bottom line is accidents happen – do what you can to be seen. That means lights night and day, reflective clothing at night, for daytime fluorescent yellow and orange clothing – fluorescent light green is OK too. If they can see you, your odds of getting hit are greatly reduced. Of course, your biggest safety tool is that stuff between your ears – use it – don’t get on here and belly ache about evil car drivers if you can’t take some responsibility for yourself.
.
Intersections are very dangerous for all users – lots happening – people under deadlines due to lights changing, etc – best to approach them assuming the worst. It’s sad when it’s a cyclist that gets hit and we take it personally, but just think of the tens (probably hundreds) of thousands of car drivers killed from these left turns, not to mention peds.
“I’ve asked folks to document accidents where cars hit cyclists who were wearing fluorescent orange or yellow, but to date, no one has offered any cases. Probably not too many, but not too surprising since most are wearing asphalt and concrete colored tops; again – not surprising that they get hit either.”
Apparently you failed to read replies to your inquiry on the other thread from myself, Bill Waters, El Biciclero and Alan 1.0 These comments
“ Funny how that works.”
Yeah, funny how if you ignore or don’t pay attention to anything contrary to your own uninformed opinion…
I ride, a lot. I know I that on may roads and intersections I have to be 100% alert. I have learned from experience how to avoid most close calls, by not setting them up. But what I can tell you, from years of experience, using lighting, often wearing bright colors, is that when I have a close call or more often a “near” close call – avoided because I was positioned to be able to maneuver, or I was looking for it – most often what I see is the side or back of the drivers head as he/she is looking the other way, not paying attention. With thousands of miles biking, and a lot of city riding in Portland and NYC and Seattle the vast majority of my close calls have been when the driver was clearly not looking, never even looked my way.
So far no one has produced a study that contradicts what I have experienced. High vis is of at best, very marginal help.
damn – unclosed italics bracket…
I did read the comments on the other article as you suggested, and some may have come up with a few examples. I suspect the cops and the EMTs could cite thousands who were wearing asphalt, black, and concrete colored clothing. The study you cited is of no interest to me – it tried to study whether a passing motor vehicle will give a brightly colored cyclist more room than a cyclist not brightly colored. I have seen that study and similar ones before – I don’t care how much room they give me AS LONG AS THEY DON’T HIT ME. If they can see me, most will avoid hitting me – THAT is my goal – not ensuring that they are some specific distance from me.
wsbob made the only sensible comments on that article.
It is common sense that if they can see you, your chances are better, but do what you want.
Oh yes, somebody needs to speak up for the voiceless and the vulnerable…the DRIVERS. Wait, remind us again the penalty for failing to yield here? Nothing?
I suspect if the driver is found guilty of failure to yield he will be cited for it and his insurance would have to pay medical bills etc. If the cyclist is guilty of failure to yield, his fine will probably be his own pain and suffering.
the cyclist still pays with pain, even if he gets money too. that’s a kind of sad thing if you think about it.
“It’s sad when it’s a cyclist that gets hit and we take it personally, but just think of the tens (probably hundreds) of thousands of car drivers killed from these left turns, not to mention peds.”
It’s even sadder when a cyclist gets hit and every detail of their conduct, bike “trim” and apparel comes into question. Does that happen for drivers or peds?
“Well, it’s no wonder the other driver got their car smashed; they were traveling at a high rate of speed, and their car was black. When are drivers going to learn that garish colors are best? And the driver wouldn’t have suffered nearly the injuries if they would have bothered to buy a vehicle with side airbags.”
“Huh. I wonder what the pedestrian was wearing? Were they carrying lights? Did they take the first step off the curb while the little light man was still white, or had it started to flash orange or count down? I’ll bet she stepped on the white line of the crosswalk—dude, that’s practically jumping onto the car. I’ll bet she was wearing ear buds, too.”
El Biciclero,
Yes, when a car driver is involved in an accident, the police will examine every detail of their behavior: were they intoxicated, were they talking or texting, were they speeding, were they wearing the eye glasses required by their drivers license, did they have drugs in their pocket, was there a gun under the seat, were they wearing a seat belt, were their tires bald, did they fail to clear the frost off the windshield, and on and on and on and on, etc, etc, etc.
Like it or not, and I know you don’t, High Viz makes you easier for vehicles to see. Yup, it’s not pretty – it isn’t meant to be pretty. And nope, it is not required by law but those folks who have gray matter between their ears and don’t want to get hit, and want to help car drivers see them WAY before they get close to them, will make themselves STAND OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB. But it’s a free country. To date, stupid isn’t illegal.
“…were they intoxicated, were they talking or texting, were they speeding, were they wearing the eye glasses required by their drivers license, did they have drugs in their pocket, was there a gun under the seat, were they wearing a seat belt, were their tires bald, did they fail to clear the frost off the windshield…”
But what color shirt was the driver wearing? Did they have the radio on? What color was the car? Were they using their daytime lights? Did the lights comply with legal parameters? Was the driver wearing a helmet? Was the car one of those unsafe rear-wheel-drive jobs? Did the car have a tail light out? Were the mirrors of the car hanging over any lines on the street? Did the driver signal the legal 100 feet prior to turning? Was the driver stopped even an inch over the crosswalk line? Did the driver have one of those “safe driving” gizmos from his insurance company? Was his cell phone on? Was he wearing shoes with laces? What kind of airbags did the car have? Was the car equipped with a rear-facing back-up camera? Did the car have a blind spot detection/warning system? Were the driver’s mirrors adjusted properly (that’s a tough one, since some think it’s safer to be able to see the side of one’s car in the side mirror, and others think it’s safer to move the mirror out a bit to eliminate some of the blind spot)? Was the car one of those “Muscle-type” cars? Because those go pretty fast. Had the car passed a recent DEQ inspection? How much material was left on the brake linings? Was the spare tire in the trunk properly inflated? Was the seat adjusted correctly? Did the car have power steering and brakes? Did it have ABS? Traction control?
Would a driver be blamed in a collision for failing to comply with these nit-picking details or extra-legal “requirements”?
Also, don’t be insulting. You know nothing about me or how or where I ride or what I wear or how many lights I use day or night. Your insinuation that anyone that doesn’t comply with your suggestions has no “gray matter” or is “stupid” reveals more of the flippant arrogance you display in most of your comments. Your misunderstanding of what people are debating here also reveals your simplistic view of the issues at hand.
May you never be hit by a car.
I’ve been hit (scraped, actually, I got lucky), and I wear the following:
— high vis and reflective vest
— 100% reflective jacket if not warm enough
— high vis and reflective leg-bands
— TWO super bright red blinkies on the back of my bike
— TWO super bright white lights, one blinky one steady, on the front
— My backpack has a high-vis and reflective cover, looks just like a construction worker vest (because it is one)
— blinking wrist band on the left wrist for signaling turns more effectively
I was in the center of the lane, in an effort not to get squashed by right-turners not looking– and this guy in a pickup truck squeezed by me anyway and turned into me.
So, to recap: I’m so lit-up and bright and reflective it probably hurts, I’m in the middle of the lane, and I still got hit.
Of course, this was in Tigard, so it probably doesn’t count in your eyes, not being in Portland and all, but still illustrates the point: It ain’t gonna matter what you look like or what you’re wearing or where you’re riding, some drivers are just oblivious, stupid, self-centered, impatient– pick the adjective, they all work.
No guarantees when riding a bike. Did the driver stop, or did they not even know they swiped you?
They would have a hard time telling the police officer “I didn’t see them” in your case.
Glad you got lucky and weren’t hurt. Buy a lottery ticket! 🙂
Kristen…keep using all that visibility gear. It helps a lot towards you being more readily seen on the road, by the vast majority of people driving that are responsible, at least somewhat attentive drivers.
Sure…of course the gear isn’t 100 percent guarantee against a loopy-doop person being completely oblivious to some of the vulnerable road users on the road. That reality would be a bad reason though, to advise others not to use the gear for at least some enhancement in safety it can offer when riding.
How about Kirke Johnson who was killed in Nov. while wearing neon yellow, riding a yellow bike, with a yellow helmet and lights going front and rear? Oh did I forget to mention the big reflective triangle on the back and the fact that he was riding in a bike lane? Or the fact that the driver of the semi admitted to having seen him but right hooked him and ran him over as he tried desperately to get out of the way anyways?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for being visible but expecting that to stop someone from mowing you down with a vehicle is delusional at best.
In this case it clearly doesn’t matter either as the driver admitted he saw David but decided to make his left turn into David’s path anyways.
“…When he saw the bike he premeditated an assault then turned.” Tom Hardy
It’s irresponsible to make such an assumption or hypothesis with no grounds to base it on. Offer some solid information or ideas about why the person driving may have done what you’re suggesting.
Reportedly, the person driving did not leave the scene of the collision…he co-operated with the police inquiry…was not reported to have been DUI. To the police, he made a statement as to his thoughts regarding the direction of travel of the person riding, which seems honest and truthful given that it potentially raises questions about the quality of his judgment relative to the safety of his driving.
Thanks for being a voice of reason and common sense in these debates. Your comments in the article on the Powell collision were excellent.
It is so disappointing to see such resistance to common sense safety measures that could prevent so many of the accidents between bikes and cars. Most car drivers do not want to hit a cyclist – it’s sad that so many cyclists will not take ANY responsibility for their own safety.
I’m having trouble reconciling “the cyclist was going way too fast” with “I thought he was turning right.” If he was going that fast then it doesn’t seem reasonable to me to assume he was about to navigate a 90 degree turn unless he looked like an extra from TRON.
“riding his bicycle at a high speed”? Why is it that every time someone riding a bicycling is injured their conduct comes in to questions, yet officers bend over backwards to make excuses for people barreling through red lights in cars, at the speed limit or over? Gross.
Intersections. Naaaaaaasty places. I strongly believe it is best for a ped to cross the street in the middle of the street, not at an intersection because of the congestion, and limited visibility from cars, in intersections.
Page 12 (file page 18): Over 76,000 people killed at/near intersections between 1997 and 2004. Read ’em and weep:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810682.PDF
In my state you get arrested for doing that, and I’ve nearly been killed for trying. Best to walk a block to the crosswalk lights and try to make eye contact with drivers (assuming you’re not blind, like my neighbor). They speed and simply don’t expect people except in crosswalks, and even then it’s a stretch.
Today I was in a bike lane next to a big pickup with a 5th wheel trailer and older man driving it. Our light turned green, but there was an elderly lady still in the crosswalk because the light timed out on her. So what did he do? Lean on the horn, of course!
Victim blaming.
Pete,
My experience is just the opposite. As a ped I have almost been hit several times by left turning cars at intersections (like the cyclist in this story). As a car driver I’ve almost hit peds more than once in intersections.
When I’m walking, I will always cross mid-street if I can but I only do it when it’s safe. It is never safe at an intersection. By law it should be safe but reality is otherwise.
Dan,
Don’t know how you can claim the NHTSA statistics are “victim blaming”, but go ahead if it makes you happy.
It’s an interesting theory. Could you please apply it to this incident? I’d like to better understand what the mother did wrong here:
http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/32806565-75/names-released-of-children-driver-involved-in-fatal-accident-in-springfield.html.csp
No details provided in the story as to exactly what happened. Sounds like the driver ran a red, but was he 1 second late or 5 seconds late? If less than 1 second late, then some blame has to go to the pedestrian, but most goes to the driver.
Running red lights is a good way to hit someone. It can happen very easily at any intersection – here’s how it works: Driver approaches intersection, light turns yellow and driver has to decide should I slam on the brakes or should I try to beat the yellow. Driver decides to beat it. The instant the light turns red car is 1/2 way thru intersection, inattentive ped (possibly with ear buds/music) gets walk signal and steps off curb into car’s path.
The story is a typical intersection problem – because LIGHTS DO NOT STOP CARS. Had she gone 1/2 block away from the intersection, waited until NO cars were close, then crossed, she would have been safer – but that’s illegal.
In this case, the driver claimed that he thought the light was green. He said that he did not see any of the 4 pedestrians until he hit them. He plowed into them without braking.
Curious that you would attempt to assign some of the blame to the mother. In your world, perhaps they should have stayed home.
Very little is known about the specific case in the article – it’s just a news story – no details.
Tonight when I go for a walk I will have to wait at an intersection crosswalk with a light. When I get a walk signal, if I look left and see a fast moving car coming thru on red obviously not going to stop, but I step in front of the car, does any of the blame for my death or injury belong to me? The car driver broke the law. I broke no law. If you can answer “no” to my question, then YOU WIN and I give up and I admit I’m an awful person as Chris said I was, in violation of BP rules by the way. You will have won the jackpot!
🙂
Lots is known about that case. Search “springfield man kills 3”.
You need to drive more carefully. I have never “almost hit a pedestrian” because I always pay full attention when operating a 4000lb chunk of metal and plastic at high speed.
You’re right. I do need to be more careful. These close calls did not occur at high speed, but even at 10 mph the ped can be killed.
Do as I say – not as I do. 🙁
We clearly live in very different places. Here in silicon valley, traffic along 35 MPH roads is typically accelerated to 40-45 MPH by the time it gets mid-block. Light timings in both directions means that when there are no cars coming in one direction, there are usually cars coming in the other. ALL intersections here are “protected left turn”, meaning you won’t be hit in a crosswalk by a car turning left, but it’s the driver turning right on red while looking to beat traffic coming from the left that you have to worry about most – not to mention crosswalks in the middle of slip lanes… still not sure whose bright idea that was.
You’re FAR more likely to be hit mid-block than in crosswalks here, not to mention you’d be breaking the law here, just like the cyclist would have been there by placing himself in the middle of the lane going straight. If you’re hit by a left-turning car here, it means you were crossing against your walk signal.
This accident is of the type in scenario #8 (The Left Cross) of this article. How many items can you identify that the cyclist could have employed to prevent this accident:
http://bicyclesafe.com/
I’d say 4 and 5 for sure. Don’t know if he utilized #2 or #3 in this case.
Victim blaming.
Yup – I’m joining the party. 🙂 He may not have been passing on the right, but I think it’s highly likely if, as reported by witnesses, he was in the right turn lane.
“…He may not have been passing on the right, but I think it’s highly likely if, as reported by witnesses, he was in the right turn lane. …” Cervelo
Look at the Google pic of the intersection, top of this story, westbound lanes across the intersection: It’s possible the person on the bike was in the right turn lane for the purpose of passing a road user in the main lane to his left, but I’m skeptical as to his having done that.
Westbound, there’s three lanes: a left turn lane, a through lane, and a right turn lane. Had there been a vehicle in the main lane traveling slower than he in the right turn lane, the view of the person driving and waiting on the other side of the intersection and in the left turn lane, to the person on the bike would have been either blocked by the vehicle, or also on a collision course with the left turning vehicle.
I’d guess that more likely, the person on the bike, Garcia, was in the traveling through in the right turn lane, to allow passage of faster traffic in the main lane to his left.
Also of note: no report that Garcia on his bike, signaled for a right turn lane; not a real good indicator of intention, given that unfortunately not signaling for turns is an all too common oversight on the part of many road users.
It’s important to keep in mind that as of yet, there’s been no word that a police investigative report of the collision has been completed and released to the public.
“no report that Garcia on his bike, signaled for a right turn lane; not a real good indicator of intention, given that unfortunately not signaling for turns is an all too common oversight on the part of many road users.”
Let’s pretend Garcia was going to turn right; would signaling that intention have kept him safe from this driver?
“…Let’s pretend Garcia was going to turn right; would signaling that intention have kept him safe from this driver?” bic
In theory, had Garcia, the guy riding the bike, signaled for a right turn, and made a right turn, rather than proceeding straight ahead, he wouldn’t have been on the collision path he was, with the person driving.
“In theory, had Garcia, the guy riding the bike, signaled for a right turn, and made a right turn, rather than proceeding straight ahead, he wouldn’t have been on the collision path he was, with the person driving.”
if the cyclist had been going straight when they were hit then the driver would have been turning into head-on traffic waiting on SW Miller…
but no, the driver hit the cyclist while the cyclist was still within the limits of the right-turn lane maneuver…
the supposed intended destination of the cyclist is irrelevant…
“…if the cyclist had been going straight when they were hit…” spif
Reportedly, Garcia, the person riding, appeared to be going straight ahead through the intersection, rather than making a right turn.
It may have been reported and I somehow didn’t read it, but the impression given is that Garcia on his bike, ran into the motor vehicle, not vice-versa, because the person driving made his turn across Garcia’s direction of travel; the bike’s front wheel crushed, tells that part of the story. If Garcia had turned right, in theory, the person driving would have had a clear road ahead of him; Garcia would likely have been to the far right of Miller Rd.
I challenge you to ride on Barnes in this area and take the travel lane. You will get creamed by a BMW SUV from behind before you ever get the chance to get nailed by a left-cross.
This incident is a classic example of poor infrastructure and impatient driving causing injury and/or death. The driver said he saw the cyclist, so your point about clothing color is insane. When you tell cyclists to “take responsibility for their own safety” you remove responsibility from the people who are doing the killing and maiming. If this were The Netherlands, I might see your point, but it is not. We live in America, where the car driver is never at fault, unless they are drinking or texting. Stop enabling careless driving by telling people to “take responsibility for our safety”.
People riding bikes on the road amongst motor vehicles, should be obliged by law to bear a reasonable level of responsibility for their own safety in using the road.
Given the fact that here in Oregon and generally in almost every other state in the United States: people biking are not required to be trained, tested and certified for riding a bike safely amongst motor vehicles…and are obliged to equip themselves and their bikes with only a bare minimum of visibility aiding gear (headlight and rear reflector rather than a tail light): they aren’t bearing a reasonable level of responsibility for their own safety in using the road.
Fortunately it seems that more and more people riding in traffic are voluntarily opting to use visibility gear beyond, sometimes way beyond the legal requirement. Some people that ride are doing very well at directional signaling in traffic, and in using various defensive biking in traffic procedures. This is good, but the result of lack of legal requirement to acquire and use all of these safety measures, puts many very poorly equipped vulnerable road users on the road in motor vehicle traffic.
Can’t make assumptions cuz I wasn’t there, but in California it would have been perfectly legal to ‘take the lane’, and may have been the best move depending on his speed. If I’m not mistaken, though, #4 is technically illegal in a FTR state like Oregon.
States with a clause like this in their “bicyclists must ride Far To the Right” laws enable #4 to occur as a best practice – even if they don’t teach drivers that it’s legal for cyclists to leave bike lanes: http://bikeportland.org/2015/05/06/lawyer-ray-thomas-really-doesnt-like-bill-make-rear-bike-lights-mandatory-142810#comment-6380317
“…States with a clause like this in their “bicyclists must ride Far To the Right” laws enable #4 to occur as a best practice – …” Pete
Pete, from Collision Type #4 on the bicyclesafe.com page; “…You’re riding the wrong way (against traffic, on the left-hand side of the street). …”, is not legal in Oregon.
Riding with traffic on the left side of the street, as in on a one way street, would be legal by ORS 811.420 .
You must mean 814.430. ORS 811.420 is about passing in a no-passing zone, and 814.420 prohibits riding down the left side of a one-way if there is a bike lane on the right side.
Didn’t look up the statute before posting, did get the number wrong, intended to cite 814.420, but it looks as though 814.430 as well, allows riding on the left side of one way roads.
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/814.420
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/814.430
814.420 allows use of the left lane only if “preparing for a left turn”. One may not just ride on the left if there is a bike lane on the right.
“…One may not just ride on the left if there is a bike lane on the right.” bic
As well as for preparing to make left turns from the left lane of a one way road, 814.420 allows riding outside of the bike lane, anytime it’s hazardous to ride in the bike lane.
True, the law does require people biking to have good reasons for biking outside the bike lane, but the range of possible reasons alluded to that can’t in a practical manner be spelled out in black in white, are extensive.
“allows riding outside of the bike lane, anytime it’s hazardous to ride in the bike lane.”
But not in the leftmost lane of a multi-lane one-way.
“allows riding outside of the bike lane, anytime it’s hazardous to ride in the bike lane.” wsbob
But not in the leftmost lane of a multi-lane one-way. bic
What’s your reasoning? I don’t think Oregon law prohibits people riding bikes from riding the any lane of a multi-lane one way road, if they’ve got good reason within the conditions provided by the law, to be there.
In Oregon, bike lanes really are, more than anything else, somewhat of a safe refuge for people riding bikes. People driving are basically not allowed to drive or park their vehicles in the bike lane. People riding bikes are allowed both the use of the bike lane, and the other lanes of the road.
“People riding bikes are allowed both the use of the bike lane, and the other lanes of the road.” wsbob
I doubt that Dallas Smith (or Officer Steve MacLennan) would wholeheartedly agree with you:
http://bikeportland.org/2013/10/25/video-of-bike-lane-citation-in-ashland-highlights-controversial-oregon-law-96089
“I don’t think Oregon law prohibits people riding bikes from riding the any lane of a multi-lane one way road, if they’ve got good reason within the conditions provided by the law, to be there.”
Exactly. If I feel like riding along in the left lane of a two-lane one-way, with a bike lane on the right, I must be “preparing for a left turn”, or there must be road construction or police action blocking the bike lane and the right full-size lane—or it’s illegal. I can’t just ride there because I like passenger doors better than driver doors. Or I don’t want to have to check, negotiate, and merge out around stopped buses. Or because the pavement is smoother in the left lane. Those conditions allow me to temporarily use the rightmost full-size lane, but not the left.
Wires crossed, sorry. Not collision type #4; collision type #1 mitigation #4:
”
4. Ride further left. You’re probably used to riding in the “A” line in the picture, very close to the curb, because you’re worried about being hit from behind. But take a look at the car. When that driver is looking down the road for traffic, he’s not looking in the bike lane or the area closest to the curb; he’s looking in the middle of the lane, for other cars. The farther left you are (such as in “B”), the more likely the driver will see you. There’s an added bonus here: if the motorist doesn’t see you and starts pulling out, you may be able to go even farther left, or may be able to speed up and get out of the way before impact, or easily roll onto their hood as they slam on their brakes. In short, it gives you some options. Because if you stay all the way to the right and they pull out, your only “option” may be to run right into the driver’s side door. Using this method has saved me on three occasions in which a motorist ran into me slowly as they hit their brakes and I wasn’t hurt, and in which I definitely would have slammed into the driver’s side door had I not moved left.
”
The “A” line in the picture describes riding in a typical 5′-wide, curb-hugging bike lane in Oregon, California, or just about anywhere USA. The “B” in the diagram would place you outside of a typical Oregon bike lane – illegally, given popular interpretation of Oregon’s ‘mandatory sidepath’ law.
In my experience, riding position “A” is fine almost everywhere mid-block, but “B” more often than not is the best positioning for intersections, hence that addition to California’s law. I still think Oregon voters need to write their representatives and ask them to add this clause to your law. If you’re a BTA member, get this on their radar screen! It’s a very fine point, but the first step in educating motorists that they’ll sometimes see bicyclists outside of bike lanes, is by actually letting them do so legally. The California wording adds a good deal of leeway in interpreting whether or not a cyclist is riding far enough to the right, because the law doesn’t specify whether the exception applies to an intersection, mall, or driveway. It basically enables moving left legally to avoid a right-hook collision. I frequently do this to allow right-turning drivers to pass me on my right (into slip lanes) as I’m proceeding straight, and it’s a dance that seems to work quite well (with the appropriate signals in play).
More information to help keep you safe when riding. Please take this opportunity to disagree, show your rebelliousness, your ignorance, and resistance to taking any degree of responsibility for your own safety.
.
http://www.bicyclelaw.com/p.cfm/bicycle-safety/how-to-avoid-car-on-bike-accidents
Victim blaming.
There are some touchy ones here, such as:
“…traffic laws are a common set of rules that tell everybody on the road what to expect from each other. When you ride in a manner that is predictable to others, your chances of being collided with are reduced.”
Traffic laws don’t tell everybody on the road what to expect from each other, driving schools do – for a little while at least, and then it’s all ASSumption from there. I have a huge beef with DMV manuals that present chapters on bicycling by emphasizing the “stay to the right” part, and plead with drivers to “keep your eyes open” for bicyclists and pedestrians. No, that doesn’t work. I’ve written many a letter to several states’ DMVs asking that they present actual situations where drivers will encounter bicyclists – especially outside of well-marked bike lanes – and describe the rationale for why they’re there. Then, test people for it. The last driver exam I took was in 2009 when I moved from OR to CA and there are no relevant questions on any of the test exams or the one I took. The question I got wrong asked how many days I had to report to the DMV if I sell my car. Excellent priorities! It was even more recent that they patted themselves on the back for actually adding a chapter in the drivers’ manual on bicyclists and pedestrians, like they’re suddenly a new thing here…
On the second sentence, I’ve battled many a city engineer here putting in new bike lanes (or re-striping old ones) in convincing them to actually let bicyclists ride in a manner that is predictable to drivers. When the brand new bike lanes undulate along road widths and do everything they can to ‘protect’ bicyclists by keeping them as far away from cars as possible, what they actually do is push bicyclists in and out of the peripheral views of drivers who have many opportunities to turn right at malls and intersections – and it often happens at those very junctions. Ride Fremont street eastbound in Sunnyvale – twice, once while staying in the bike lane and once while staying just to the right of drivers – then get back to me. (Don’t bother with Google maps; they repaved and restriped it just a few months ago – at least I got us a RTOL at Bobwhite out of my prolonged emails and meetings).
My latest ‘victory’ was just last week, when the bike lane at Homestead westbound at Hollenbeck in Sunnyvale was about to be striped at 5′ wide with a bike marker only a foot-and-a-half from the curb, and the through lane flared to allow the bike lane to keep a “consistent width.” I explained that the consistency that you want as a goal is not the bike lane width, but the spatial relationship of the bicyclist to the car/driver as they proceed straight. You want to keep bicyclists in peripheral view! By instead keeping the first travel lane at a consistent width and directing the bicyclist just to the right of the cars going straight, you let drivers see them and not right-hook them at the Starbucks across the intersection, while you also have the added bonus of letting right-turning drivers squeeze by on the right since the bike marker is no longer under their right front wheel. Coincidentally, this is how the lanes in the other direction are striped and they work quite well, so it was easy logic and a simple ‘win.’
So yeah, things always look better on paper…
It’s not a matter of agreeing whether some safety measures are a good idea. The problem comes when blame is placed on a law-abiding bicyclist—while excusing a law-breaking motorist—because the bicyclist didn’t do something far above and beyond the law to “stay safe”. We’ve also seen many times that no matter what a cyclist does, some motorists will not see them. The standard of safety for bicyclists seems to be perfection—if an injured cyclist was doing anything even the slightest bit contrary to safety advice, they are assigned blame and the motorist is relieved of responsibility, even if they broke the law to cause a crash. We seem to acknowledge that motor vehicles are clumsy and hard to operate on crowded streets, so we tend to cut motorists way too much slack and excuse inattentive or incompetent behavior rather than expect better. For a cyclist’s part, we expect perfection or they get what they “deserve”.
Really, the only way a cyclist can stay perfectly safe is to stay home. Maybe that’s the responsible thing to do?
El, It has been my experience riding the streets of Portland that once you are out of the immediate windshield of a motorist you do not exist. I have put more than one scrape and/or dent in the right rear quarter panel of cars and summersaulted over back windows and over tops of cars who were going through red lights or simply turning right 3 seconds after they passed me when I was riding at the automobile speed limit. Myself, IF IN DOUBT!! I take the traffic lane now.
The problem with “mandatory” bike lanes: stay in them and you either have to cower like a mouse in a shopping mall, or risk getting right-hooked constantly. Take the traffic lane, and you are sitting pretty…until a cop decides he’s bored and wants to ticket a cyclist. Still, a $110 fine is cheaper than a hospitalization or a funeral.
I’m not responsible if somebody breaks the law and runs into me…
Ask the injured cyclists if the problem is that people are placing blame. I suspect they would say a bigger problem is their current medical condition – I suspect the discussion on this page would seem of no importance whatsoever to them. I suspect if there were some safety measures that they could have used to prevent these accidents, they would recommend we all follow them in the future. But that’s just a hunch.
Ask any injured person what “The Problem” is, and I’m sure their current injury will be at the top of the list, whether they broke an arm sliding into second base, cracked their head because they weren’t wearing their ladder-climbing helmet and got knocked off a ladder by a careless passerby, or got run over while walking through a crosswalk. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say The Problem is compounded by adding insult to literal injury by implying or asserting that “well, it’s your own fault for taking or not taking action X, even though it was the actions of someone else that caused your current medical condition”.
I don’t think anybody is being a willful “rebel” by claiming they do or anyone else should ride around at night in the middle of the lane wearing black with no lights or reflectors. All the safety measures you and others mention are perfectly fine and may well increase the probability of drivers seeing you from 50% to 51%. What I, and perhaps others for whom I don’t claim to speak, object to is the fine-toothed nit-picking about what shade of orange or green the cyclist should have been wearing, or how he shouldn’t have felt as entitled as everyone else to go the speed limit, or whether he was a few inches over a lane line, or should have been using daytime lighting, or should have had a light on his helmet instead of his handlebars—or really, both (should they have been flashing or steady?????)—or must have done something wrong, because otherwise, he wouldn’t have gotten himself run over.
What are people going to say when some cyclist with flashing lights and bright orange apparel gets hit while crossing with the signal in a MUP crosswalk like I did? Oh! I know—I should have just waited until the driver made his right on red, even though he had stopped first, even if it meant missing my “turn” entirely and waiting another 3 minutes (I know, right? Are 3 minutes worth my life????). Or, I guess I should have waved my arms like a maniac and yelled like a mental case so maybe he would have seen or heard something. Or—oh, shoot, I know—I shouldn’t have ridden on a drizzly day, or should have had the good sense to approach the crosswalk entrance from a different angle, because then I might have been able to make unmistakable eye contact with the driver, or… what would the Safety Czar say?
Haven’t you heard of the new lower speed limits for bicycles?? Oh wait, that’s Davis’ next bill…
“continued straight while in the right turn lane”
this turn lane only allows buses to continue straight through…
would have been more dangerous, although possibly legal, to stay on the shoulder to the right of the turn lane…
all turn lanes should be “except bus” and “except bike” in the absence of a dedicated lane…
Suppose you are continuing through this intersection, with the intent of riding on the sidewalk over the Steel Bridge.
https://goo.gl/maps/OBWBw
Which part of the road would you consider safest to occupy?
Does not look safe for bikes from what I can see in the photo.
Never ridden that one personally, but if I could keep up good speed, I might stay in the straight ahead lane and try to keep up with the cars in front of me, keeping to the right side of the lane. Another option would be to use the crosswalk – that would probably be safest just based on the photo – but isn’t very exciting if you have to walk it across (not sure if it’s legal to ride slowly in the crosswalk or if you have to walk it). First danger to navigate if you use the sidewalk is cars turning right – you have to look them in the eye to make sure they are going to stop if you want to be safe – impatient drivers may not see you on the sidewalk – sad reality. Intersections are never safe.
It looks like the bike lane ends and the bike lane is to the right of a right-turn lane – that’s nasty. Usually they put the bike lane to the left of the right turn lane where I ride.
That’s a trick question. You’re supposed to dismount and walk over to the MAX stop and ride the train across, because riding a bike just isn’t safe.
Ha ha.
What’s really funny is that this ‘puzzle’ is part of my commute. Why do we have to solve puzzles like this to get home?
FWIW, I come to a stop on the left side of the right-turn only lane. When I proceed through the intersection, I am on the right of car traffic. I do this because it seems to be the safest path, it makes sense, and I’ve seen no evidence that it’s disruptive to the traffic around me. Of course, it’s not technically ‘legal’, but that doesn’t make it ‘wrong’.
it’s technically legal… you don’t have to use a bike lane that’s on the right side of a turn-only lane…
Spiffy’s right—the only time it is legal to leave a bike lane to go straight through an intersection is if that bike lane is striped to the right of a lane from which motor vehicle traffic MUST turn right.
Here’s another classic:
https://goo.gl/maps/vdsGm
Note that the bike lane that disappears as the right-lane appears, and then the bike lane reappears in the middle of the intersection.
Easy. That’s a one way so if I’m going straight I’d stay on right side of the right-most straight-ahead lane. If I’m going right at the light I’d get in right side of the right turn lane.
bad design… it looks like they intended to have an “except bike” sign there…
best to use the right-hand forward lane… and never touch those 2 mini bike lanes in the intersection or you’re asking to get pinched on the other side…
In the past couple of decades, I have seen variations of going over the steel bridge, especially before the sidewalk on the lower level. Doing the sidewalk on the upper level sends you down thru old town on Everett. Doing the road, cars honk unless you are passing them in gridlock. Again down Everett. I hate riding on sidewalks under any circumstances. Too Many joggers texting and wearing earphones. I dress bright enough that most drivers find me intimidating, especially when I scowel at them. When I wear pink, they take the other lane, even though there might not be one. BTW at 71, I still ride traffic speed.
I would say that the forward through lane to the far left is the safest and is also legal… keeps you out of the way of right-turning vehicles…
Link to story just published to the Oregonian, about a collision downtown 5th and Morrison involving a truck and a pedestrian, the latter losing a leg. He’s suing for 35 mil.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/05/garbage-truck_driver_who_sever.html
I think there’s valid comparison between this collision, the Barnes-Miller collision and the 26th and Powell collision, in that all three collisions involved someone operating a motor vehicle, and someone riding a bike. In all three collisions, a vulnerable road user was involved. The person driving in the 5th and Morrison collision was issued citations, one for careless driving, not yet convicted.
“Portland police issued McChesney three citations alleging careless driving, failure to obey a traffic control device and operating a vehicle without driving privileges.” That’s about $1 million per ton of unlicensed truck. Sounds about right.
This 3 minute video is a small excerpt of a much longer video on safety that many industrial employers use for safety instruction. First minute or so is boring, but it gets a little better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVgKyADdIBQ
Charlie thought wearing his safety gear was inconvenient so he didn’t wear it. After his accident he decided that what was inconvenient was months of treatment for major burns.
For cyclists, safety gear includes, among other things, clothing to make you conspicuous to car drivers.
Wait! This one is better. Skips the boring part of the one above:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249FHwsmQPo
Where’s the safety video for car drivers?
safety gear for drivers means wearing a helmet, but you rarely see that…
required safety gear? the cyclist in this story had more than was required…
quit blaming the victim…
And finally coming down Barnes. A rider coming down the hill on the shoulder has their path interrupted by the right-turn lane here:
https://goo.gl/maps/pfXZ8
and here:
https://goo.gl/maps/7GxaO
and here:
https://goo.gl/maps/KnNF8
and here:
https://goo.gl/maps/Kih6w
That’s 4 times in less than 1/2 a mile that the route is interrupted for the sake of a dedicated turn lane. My guess is that it’s common practice for riders to position themselves just to the right of the main travel lane, and continue through where it’s technically marked as a right turn lane. Otherwise they are positioning themselves to be right-hooked.
the 2nd one doesn’t really count since there’s no shoulder before that turn lane…
The driver’s quote is nothing more than a bail out maneuver for an unverifiable action on the driver’s part. The driver f’ed up, he knows it, but can use a comment like, “I believed he was turning” to mask his inabilities to operate a vehicle.
And it isn’t even a good excuse, because the right-turning vehicle would still have the right of way, and he still would have hit him by turning in front. IMO, this is just as bad as the “I didn’t see them” excuse. He’s essentially admitting fault with this statement.
Just for some context about what a fast cyclist can do on Barnes, the strava leader (Austin King) for the segment that passes through this intersection, called “Barnes Down from Burnside”, goes through the intersection at 34mph on 9/28/14. https://www.strava.com/activities/200830063/analysis
Speed limit is 35mph.
But was he wearing a helmet?
so “high speed” on a bicycle is the same as for a car, 1 mph below the limit, e.g. as fast as you should ever be going…
My dad and I drove past the scene just after it happened, before police and medical were there. First of all, a big ‘THANK YOU’ to the folks that were helping David, and the 2 guys directing traffic.
David was well into the intersection when hit and close to the travel lane. As for the how and why that will all come out. I do agree with others, the intersection is poorly designed for bicycle travel.
As my eyes start to gloss over this now tiring discourse of who is at fault (and why), I can only think about David Garcia and wonder of his current status. Does anyone have an update on his condition? I’d humble offer that we press “pause” on the angry exchange and think about the rider. Thanks.
Excellent point but does BP make money based on visits to the page or only on ad clicks, or neither of those? Gotta keep BP profitable.
Cervelo, your posts here lately have been rather inconsiderate, but this takes the cake.
http://bikeportland.org/support
Hope David is recovering well. Anyone who stops by, please tell him for us that he has a community’s hopes and prayers behind him.
I dropped by Emmanuel today and inquired. No public word on his condition.
Update: A Hillsboro man on Tuesday was cited for making a dangerous left turn and careless driving after he caused a collision that seriously injured a Cedar Mill bicyclist on Friday.
David Warren, 64, was driving his Ford Bronco eastbound on Barnes Road when he turned left onto Southwest Miller Road, into the path of David Garcia, 43, who was bicycling westbound on Barnes at a high speed.
Glad to see that the driver was at least cited for what most of us suspected was true.
Still don’t understand why “high speed” would need to be part of the police report, unless David Garcia was going more than 10 or 15 miles over the speed limit, since that would fall within the normal law enforcement cushion.
Yeah, and if I was driving through this intersection (at any speed) and this collision occurred, it probably wouldn’t even make the news.
“Update: A Hillsboro man on Tuesday was cited for making a dangerous left turn and careless driving after he caused a collision that seriously injured a Cedar Mill bicyclist on Friday. …” Anon
Could you say where you got this “Update”? Last night after reading your comment, I looked through the latest Oregonian stories and saw no mention of any such citations issued to the person driving in the Barnes-Miller intersection collision.
http://portlandtribune.com/bvt/15-news/261658-134003-driver-cited-after-seriously-injuring-cyclist
Folks:
I made it a point to ride home from work via Barnes so I could look closely at the intersection of Miller and Barnes and watch the traffic signal.
I am a reverse commuter (Live in SE Portland and work at Intel in Hillsboro). My morning commute takes me up burnside hill to skyline, over the hill to join with Cornell and then Cornell to SE 26th in Hillsboro (Intel Jones Farm, next to Hillsboro Airport). My afternoon commute is Evergreen to Cornell then to Barnes. I then have a choice. I can go under the freeway at that small street close to the hospital (I forgot the name) and join the 26 bike path. Or I can stay on Barnes and go up over by the TV towers and then Skyline to Fairview. Today, that was the route I took.
The light cycle that I observed twice (I was eastbound on Barnes, which I think was the direction that the driver was taking.
When I approached (and stopped on the grass to watch); here is what I noticed.
1. Light was red and arrow was red
2. Light went green but arrow stayed red for about 10 seconds
3. Arrow went flashing yellow for about 20 seconds.
4. Arrow went green for about 10 seconds.
5. Arrow and light turned red.
6. Repeat of the above cycle.
By the way, I am a habitual commuter (about 40 miles for the round
trip) but I am by no means a racer or speed cycling. I will brake on the hills and run at an average of 10 to 15 miles per hour which allows me to quickly stop if anything goes wrong.
At very busy intersections, especially on Friday afternoons, I will get off the bike and behave like a pedestrian.
At the freeway offramp onto Barnes Eest bound (close to the hospital), I will get off the bike; get on the island; and wait for an appropriate clearing of the traffig on the offramp and then cross the offramp on foot. That offramp to Barnes is very dangerous as the offramp has its own lane an if i am bicycling eastbound on Barnes, I will be in the inner lane and the offramp has the outer lane.
I hope this helps.
Mark Allyn
Props to you, sir. You must have nerves of steel!
I think it is safe to assume that the truck driver had a flashing orange turn light at the time. This would require him to yield to the oncoming traffic, whether they are turning right or going straight.
Mark…you da man…thanks for the effort, and the info on the eastbound left turn signal.
Hopefully some day we will not need to have these discussions about cars hitting people and bikes – the self driving car should help. Maybe, maybe not:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-26/self-driving-car-ploughs-journalists
that’s not a self-driving car… it’s a normal Volvo, and apparently the driver thought that the “pedestrian detection” was a standard option…
This really is the crux of the problem with every single statement you’ve made here.
EVERYTHING you’ve said is based on your personal ASSUMPTION that EVERY situation is fatally dangerous for a person riding a bicycle.
YOUR conclusion seems to be that no matter the laws of the road or the laws of physics it is the responsibility of a bicycle rider to give up riding legally on public streets.
WE ALL have paid for our public roads and ALL have a RIGHT TO USE THEM WITHOUT BEING INJURED OR KILLED.
NOT JUST cars and trucks but EVERYONE!
Your position of “safety through extreme passivity and terror” is the same as giving up and hiding in an underground concrete bunker.
We all deserve better.
We’ve all paid for better.
We all are legally permitted better lives than cowering fealty at the crushing wheels of our automotive overlords.
If you wish to hide your life away go to it; none of us here will agree with you.
Good bye
Good riddance.
Ed
If you can’t tell from the photo of the intersection that it is a hazard for cyclists then you live in a different world than I do – I think it was posted by someone who also felt it was hazardous.
Every situation does have the potential to be unsafe for cyclists – I think that’s why cyclists have self-labeled themselves “vulnerable” road users. Or did I miss something. I’m not suggesting you cower in fear, just be aware that you are vulnerable and take appropriate measures IF you want to have a better chance of being safe. AND realize that accidents happen and many times the blame rests on both parties involved – it isn’t always the car driver who made all the errors or could have been more cautious. In most of the stories of accidents we don’t know all the facts, but most on this site immediately blame the car driver, call for jail time, big fines, etc – and that is unfair to that driver.
The problem is not with me, it’s with your attitude.
You guys certainly disagree, but frankly I don’t think either one of you is wrong. I certainly wouldn’t say that intersection is without its hazards, but I’d rate it quite safe – it’s wide, with unobstructed views, and clearly-marked lanes. Don’t know what the signal cycles are there but a short yellow might add to any hazard.
To answer Dan’s original question I’d signal and take the lane going straight, spotting for a traffic break in my mirror at first, then turning my head to look at the driver I’m moving in front of, and carry speed through the intersection. On the other side I’d signal and move to the right, and if I had to stop for the red I’d signal that. I don’t know if that wide shoulder on the right is considered (or marked as) a bike lane, but it’s the last place I’d be if proceeding straight, ORS be damned. I’d dismount and use the crosswalk on the walk signal long before considering proceeding straight while to the right of right-turning cars.
You two need to hug it out… 🙂
I have an attitude alright and it is appropriate and well deserved.
I’m a hypocrite that will say that lights, reflectors and fluorescent gear is pointless and yet I’m willing to spend greatly on overkill bike lighting partly because I know it can’t hurt but mostly because I want to be able to see the road at speed in the dark.
We both agree 100% on autonomous cars. Considering the lack luster safety record of human drivers in general I’d say self-driving cars have a low hurdle to clear.
My attitude comes from 3+ years of 60+hours/week of commercial truck driving and 5 years of the same in the military. I thought it was just random chance before but I’ve had it happen to me in a truck with 53′ trailer twice and I’ve watched it dozens of times.
“IT” would be car drivers in broad daylight, in slow to stopped traffic attempt to merge DIRECTLY THROUGH MY VEHICLE!
It’s BIG! It’s LOUD! It’s well lit and has an abundance of reflectors!
AND YET… Time and again people try to drive directly in to my truck cab and then get this apologetic look on their face like they didn’t see me.
DIDN’T SEE ME?!? IN A BIG AZZ COMMERCIAL TRUCK?!?
And this is where I’m a hypocrite: I’ve had it proven repeatedly that distracted drivers won’t even see something that can kill them, what chance do we have? And yet I still like my lights.
From a bike safety / get driver’s attention stand point we’d need to upgrade to pyrotechnics and flash bangs.
So everyone should feel frer to use any safety gear they like. It is empirically obvious the only thing that will make a difference is getting vehicle control AWAY from humans.
Agree, lighting can’t hurt – ditto bright colors – gain every advantage you can.
Agree, distracted drivers can kill anyone – even themselves.
It’s easy for car drivers to merge over and hit the vehicle next to them – people have poor peripheral vision, many times they forget to LOOK, they can’t hear a vehicle if their windows are up and music is playing, etc…..
I stay away from big trucks when I’m driving. In the rain they put up a wall of water that you can’t see thru, on dry pavement they rain sand and grit in their wake, and they have large zones of poor visibility. One of my peeves with trucks is they will pass doing 2 mph faster than you are, then pull over in front of you when their rear bumper is 10′ from my front bumper, spraying the car with sand/grit – it’s very unprofessional. Many car drivers aren’t much better.
People are idjits whether driving OR riding: cars, trucks, CMV, bicycles, motorcycles. It really doesn’t matter; the only real common denominator is that the action you weren’t expecting will happen eventually and its motivational germ will be the inattentiveness of the other road users.
Once I figured out that Hanlon’s Razor applies to driving too and infinitely more common than outright murderous intent it became easier to anticipate these things.
First of all: intersections are an obvious problem. The problem is not the intersection but the existence of an area where we know in advance that a driver’s visual attention will be split in many directions in the best of circumstances.
We shouldn’t focus on the intersection itself but the act of officially sanctioned divided attention. This is every road, driveway, merge, lane change and visual attraction everywhere. We should always assume that the person driving is going to do the most inattentive thing possible; it will either be true and you’ve anticipated it or false and nothing happened.
Turn signals mean NOTHING: over half the lane changes and full turns I see daily involve no turn signal. Less often but still statistically relevant is the number of drivers who just leave their turn signals on; some never turn, others are going to turn but they aren’t sure where – slowing down before each road or driveway only to gun it at the last second.
Expect… no… ASSUME that no one on the road knows you are there until you see them react to you presence. This applies to riding a bike, driving a little car and even 75′ of truck & trailer. People just don’t pay attention even when there are no electronic distractions.
Sorry to hear that YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
q ‘Tzal,
Sorry about that last outburst. 🙂
I agree with what wsbob said.
In the case of this particular accident, the driver was found to have broken the driving regulations and was cited. Fair enough – he and/or his insurance will probably have to pay.
Could the bike rider have helped to prevent the accident? Yes. He could have approached the intersection more slowly so he could stop if someone turned in front of him. Would I have done that? Probably not. Would I have done exactly what he did? Probably – I like riding fast down hills as much as anyone and some day I may pay the price.
Also, going straight while traveling in a right-turn lane is against the driving regulations and the cyclist could be cited for that; that doesn’t mean it was unreasonably unsafe, but I suspect there is a safer way to handle going thru the intersection – depends on traffic, traffic speed, etc.
The cautions involved in slowing so much as to stop are:
1) if you’re taking the lane, you no longer are riding at “the normal speed of traffic” (which is likely what David was doing, despite being described as “speeding” by bystanders). Technically, that’s illegal (but only if you’re on a bike ;).
2) risking being caught in the intersection on a short yellow. This is often why I’ll hammer through an intersection on a stale green – here, they are wide, and I can see what’s in front of me, but it’s the eager beavers to my right (and left) who are focused only on the light (if not their phone 😉 and ready to hit the gas hard. (I try not to be an Amber-Gambler, but sometimes instinct tells me it’s the best move – especially if I need to stay in-lane and there’s a car on my arse).
Now I don’t know about you, but when I approach an intersection, I can’t necessarily tell if the oncoming left-turning driver has a flashing yellow or not. If I have a green I can only assume that they have a red arrow, unless the intersection doesn’t use arrows, or unless I see: a) a blinker, and b) they’ve crept into the intersection and their car’s positioning leads me to believe they may go. Even with a & b, I know I have the right of way, but in this circumstance I may be more inclined to take your advice about slowing – Spidey Sense has treated me well by that point (knock on wood).
Frankly I feel at my safest when riding my fastest; you’re mileage may vary.
Did your “Truth” come out of a mystical book?
No, it came out of the school of hard knocks. That school teaches common sense which isn’t very common these days.
“…EVERYTHING you’ve said is based on your personal ASSUMPTION that EVERY situation is fatally dangerous for a person riding a bicycle. …” q`Tzal in reference to point of view expressed by Cervelo
q`Tzal, I think you’re over-reacting to consideration expressed regarding danger associated with riding bikes in traffic situations where motor vehicles are in use. I suppose it can be said that many traffic situations today have a potential for danger, regardless of the mode of transportation used…although for vulnerable road users amongst motor vehicles, the danger is unequivocally higher.
People on foot or riding a bike have no way near the visibility level to other road users that most motor vehicles have. And bikes also don’t have the compliment of safety measures for people riding them that motor vehicles people drive and ride in have. About the only personal safety measures people riding bikes have against the danger of traveling in motor vehicle traffic situations, are defensive biking procedures, visibility gear and bike helmets.
Complex traffic situations with signal times split up with more cycles, similar to the one the guy on the bike got caught up in at the Barnes-Miller intersection, are increasing, not decreasing. In many traffic situations, riding a bike in traffic is becoming more dangerous rather than less dangerous. It definitely is essential for people riding bikes in them, to be aware of this and be accordingly prepared. Unfortunately, it seems many people riding, are not sufficiently prepared to ride safely in these increasingly complex traffic situations.
And also unfortunately, it seems that many unofficial, so called ‘bike advocates’, aggressively work at discouraging many efforts to have people riding bikes in traffic equip themselves with measures that would help them enhance their safety when riding amongst motor vehicles.
Making traffic situations a generally safer environment in which to ride a bike, requires looking at all aspects and elements of those situations: infrastructure, road use procedures, personal safety and visibility gear; and not simply seek to shift the entire responsibility for close calls and collisions onto ‘the guy or gal driving a motor vehicle’.
Fluorescent jackets are great and all that, but they are distraction from the real problems. I don’t know how anyone could think that drivers are taking enough responsibility for the deaths they are causing, by inattentiveness, negligence, and (sometimes) just plain malice.
If I wanted to divide cyclists up and keep them distracted from trying to make real change, I would keep bringing up foam hats, yellow jackets and blinkies, over & over again, along with discussing off-road vs on-road cycling. They seem to be great topics for distracting us.
“…If I wanted to divide cyclists up and keep them distracted from trying to make real change, …” Dan
Keeping ‘cyclists’ from trying to make real change, seems to be exactly what you and some of the self appointed, so called ‘bike activists effectively are doing by persisting in refusing to recognize and encourage personal safety measures each individual that bikes, could use to enhance their safety on the road amongst motor vehicles.
I’ve seen very few comments here that “refuse to recognize” the safety best practices that you espouse. What I’ve witnessed instead is an unpopularity in mandating them under charlatan root cause analyses.
“I’ve seen very few comments here that “refuse to recognize” the safety best practices…” Pete
Simply recognizing safety practices such as defensive in traffic biking procedure, and use of visibility gear falls way short of doing the good that needs to be done, do to such safety practices not being actively supported and encouraged by measures requiring them as a condition for biking in the kinds of heavy traffic conditions that are becoming increasingly common.
People deciding to ride a bike in traffic are not legally required to undergo any bike specific or motor vehicle specific procedural training and testing, whatsoever. This complete lack of required training for riding a bike in traffic, allows into complex traffic situations, people that are complete novices with regards to ways in which to maximize their safety on the bike, amongst motor vehicle traffic.
I teach a standardized course on riding bikes safely in traffic, and I had to undergo training and testing to get certified to do that. Unlike driving my car, I have to show annually that I’m keeping these skills up to date, or I lose my certification status.
With every state in the nation having DMV infrastructure in place, I think we could do a MUCH better job at 1) requiring drivers to pass tests more often, 2) educating AND TESTING drivers on real-life scenarios when encountering bicyclists (and not just that we’re required to be ‘out of the way’ by staying FTR), and 3) just educating the general public on bicycle-related rules and even best practices, as it’s been shown that the majority of bicyclists are actually also drivers. In terms of bicycle-specific education being mandatory, well, you have the public school system (as a delivery mechanism), and then you have the argument over bike licensing and registration infrastructure (and we all know how that goes).
But then we have our ad-nauseum debates over lighting, bright clothing, brain buckets, etc. – which could equally apply to pedestrians. Despite the fact that I tend to be helmeted, very well lit, and quite visible when I ride, I will continue to disagree with you on whether 600′ is practical, whether these proposals mask real root causes, or if the majority of the driving/voting public could even agree whether a track-standing bicyclist at a stop sign is breaking the law or not.
Otherwise, we agree wholeheartedly on great ideas. KTRSD!
“…I think we could do a MUCH better job at 1) requiring drivers to pass tests more often, 2) educating AND TESTING drivers on real-life scenarios when encountering bicyclists (and not just that we’re required to be ‘out of the way’ by staying FTR), and 3) just educating the general public on bicycle-related rules and even best practices, as it’s been shown that the majority of bicyclists are actually also drivers. …” Pete
Sure. Let’s do it…depending on how much will it cost, and how much time will it require from people’s lives when they have to go and be tested? I’m sure these are questions people will be asking themselves when presented with such proposals.
Though people that ride bikes, and people that walk are both vulnerable road users, relative to people in the motor vehicles they drive and ride in, I do not think people that bike and people that walk, are the same with respect to the type of road use common to each, and the equipment and skills that should be required of them to have some expectation of being able to use the road safely.
Bikes are vehicles, and people riding them commonly ride either adjacent to or in the same lanes with motor vehicles. People on foot are not vehicles, and they do not generally walk in the main lanes of traffic. They shouldn’t be required to wear helmets when near areas where motor vehicles are in use, because the likelihood that they will be in close proximity to motor vehicles in use, is far less than it is for people that bike. I don’t think most people would reasonably expect people on foot to wear a helmet for crossing a street, walking along the shoulder of the road, or waiting at a bus stop.
“continued straight while in the right turn lane”
that’s obviously untrue… if they had continued straight then they would have been past the point of conflict… they were obviously still within the bounds of somebody that would be turning right from the right turn lane…
the story could have said that the cyclist meant to continue straight, but that would have just been more opinion like their “high speed” statement…
On the news last night, friends of David Garcia said he was in critical condition, in a medically induced coma.
This is largely because smaller vehicles/peds are not perceived as a threat to motorists, not because they aren’t “visible”. They are perfectly visible most of the time; they just aren’t looked for. And also, even with all that visibility cars have, they still get hit, too—are they not doing enough?
And yet people in motor vehicles die all the time from crashes—does that mean they didn’t do enough to take responsibility for their own safety? Should they honk the horn while traveling through intersections, just in case? Should they slow down to well under the speed limit just to proceed straight through an intersection, because they should be anticipating that an SUV is going to turn into them? Should they be expected to buy a car in a garish, hi-viz color? Why do we assume drivers have adequately “taken responsibility for their own safety”, even though they still get injured and killed in and by cars? If a bicyclist gets injured or killed, why do we automatically assume they haven’t “taken responsibility for their own safety?
And yet people riding bikes who take all these measures still get hit and injured or killed by cars. Are those measures working? Is it just a matter of cyclists doing even more to “take responsibility for their own safety”?
This may be true, but it is a result of policies that stipulate motor vehicle throughput uber alles. If, e.g., some of those flashing yellow signals were removed and left as red/green only, intersections would be safer for everyone, but motorists would probably have to wait longer to turn sometimes. Is having to wait an extra 10 or 20 seconds worth the level of complexity and stress that makes the intersection more dangerous for everyone? Rather than expecting cyclists to adjust to yet more danger designed into the roadway, we should expect intersections and signal cycles to be designed for safety for everyone, rather than created as a roulette wheel of imagined time savings.
Not a single person commenting here (I imagine) would ever discourage anyone from taking whatever safety measures they thought would be necessary. All objections are to legally mandating such measures and to placing blame on victims for not taking excessive “safety measures”.
There usually isn’t any shifting of responsibility necessary. In this very case, the driver has now been cited for making a dangerous left turn and some form of careless driving. The responsibility is already there, with the driver, and perhaps with the authorities who signed off on all the flashing yellow left turn signals we have now.
Laws should be made to protect the weak from the strong not to allow the strong to injure the weak with impunity.
You talk about laws as if they were some supernatural power. Laws, no matter how well they’re written and enforced, can not prevent somebody on a bike from being injured when in a collision with a motor vehicle.
Some people seem to think that if the driving test is tougher, the citation amounts are higher, and the sentencing is longer, collisions rates will at least drop significantly, or ‘vision zero style’, disappear completely. Maybe…someday…most likely if at all, far into the future. There are more important, more accessible things that can be done to enhance the safety of people riding bikes…now.
“You talk about laws as if they were some supernatural power.”
It almost sounds like the way some people talk about fluorescent colors…
“…It almost sounds like the way some people talk about fluorescent colors…” bic
You’d like to think so, so you could use such a statement to dissuade people from considering that people riding bikes amongst motor vehicle traffic, should possibly be required by law to equip themselves with such visibility gear when riding.
“people riding bikes amongst motor vehicle traffic, should possibly be required by law to equip themselves with such visibility gear when riding.”
Do you hear what you’re saying? It sounds like this:
“Laws don’t protect people, so to force people to protect themselves, we need another law”.
I’ll tell you exactly who laws like you are alluding to will “protect”: motorists who will be absolved of liability after running over a bicyclist—even if that bicyclist was glowing like the Mother Ship—if their glow was generated by the wrong equipment.
…and will be useful in targeting minorities, and will reduce the number of riders.
A law requiring people that bike to equip their bikes with tail lights would effect the responsibility to vulnerable road users of people that drive, little more than the current requirement for headlights and reflector on bikes does. Tail lights would be a slight increase in required equipment for bikes than is currently required.
Police would have little more justification for citing people, minorities or otherwise, without tail lights, than they do now for people whose bikes aren’t equipped with headlights and reflectors.
Except when their batteries are low.
People that bike, are not perfectly visible most of the time. They’re relatively small comparison to motor vehicles, and far more vulnerable. People in motor vehicles aren’t dying all the time from crashes, and the far superior safety of their vehicle is part of the reason why.
This isn’t a 100 percent perfect world and likely never will be. Think about that when pitching the Vision Zero idea. As such, it is likely that despite safety measures by individual and society to prevent collisions, there may always be some collisions. This aspect of reality should not be used, as it seems so often to be by some people speaking out on bikeportland, to discourage people that bike from using defensive biking strategies, and using visibility and safety gear when riding.
Many people that bike simply are not assuming a reasonable share of responsibility for their own safety when riding a bike in traffic amongst motor vehicles. It really does not much help David Garcia, the guy riding a bike and involved in the collision, that the person driving received a couple citations for mistakes made while driving that contributed to the collision. Those citations are after the fact of Garcia having collided with the motor vehicle, sustaining serious injuries.
As a percentage mode share road user group, people biking have little clout, one reason for which is that the percentage of people biking is relatively small: ten, fifteen percent maybe. Another big reason I think, that they as a group have little clout, is that advocacy groups representing them do not take the initiative to sufficiently encourage people that bike to become better examples of responsible road users than they have been and continue to be today.
Let’s quit talking about “responsibility”. People on bikes that are obeying the laws that make sense are taking plenty of “responsibility”. If you want to talk about going above and beyond by using daytime lights, “hi-viz” colors, helmets, reflective clothing, etc., let’s call it “extra precautions”, or “safety measures”, since “responsibility” is so easily confused with “legal obligation”. In this case, the responsibility falls with the driver. The driver broke the law, resulting a collision. The driver admits he saw the bicyclist, so he was plenty visible. Was the bicyclist speeding? If so, then maybe we could claim he was being “irresponsible”, although no more so than 99% of drivers, so why should a bicyclist be singled out? Can you name a way in which Mr. Garcia could possibly be considered to be “not taking a reasonable share of responsibility for his own safety”, other than by not riding a bike in the first place? Are we going to say he was irresponsible because he should have dismounted and walked all the way down Barnes to avoid the right turn lanes? He would likely have had pedestrian signals at all those intersections—why not dismount and walk to take advantage of them? When we start going down the road of believing the cyclist “could have done more” to avoid getting themselves run over, we can only end up putting the cyclist behind the wheel of a car. But even when everyone drives cars—because they have to be responsible, after all—they still get hit and injured and killed, as I mentioned above. Where is the discussion about how drivers don’t do enough to take responsibility for their own safety? What more should drivers be doing to avoid getting themselves crashed into?
As I said to cervelo above, NO ONE here is going to discourage a bicycle rider from using whatever safety measures that bicycle rider thinks are prudent. If you think that’s what anyone is advocating, you’re just wrong. But as we’ve seen in stories posted here by the editor and by commenters, hi-viz, lights, reflectors, cowering—any number of precautions a cyclist wants to take are no guarantee of safety. Anyone can claim you have less of a chance of being hit if you use excessive visibility gear, but how much is enough? Folks using way more than you or I might ever use have still been hit by cars—were they not visible enough? If we are going to insist that cyclists have a responsibility to “be seen” until they can be seen and readily avoided by every driver then, again, we will end up putting every cyclist into a driver’s seat, because it’s the most “responsible” place to be. At what point do we finally admit that drivers just need to be more careful and pay more attention? When will we quit nit-picking every injured cyclist’s road position, lighting setup, reflective area, clothing colors, choice of drivetrain, “high rate of speed”, helmet usage, etc. and come to grips with the the fact that, yes, taking supra-legal safety measures may be a great idea, but it will not protect you any more than “following the law” as long as drivers don’t perceive the need to exert the amount of attention and patience necessary to safely blast their 4000-lb. missiles down the street.
“Let’s quit talking about “responsibility”. …” bic
You seem to want to take that ‘Do Nothing’ approach, so go ahead.
You are SO missing the point of the entire discussion here. I’m not saying “do nothing”—wear your safety gear! I’ll wear mine and use my lights and video camera at all hours! Dress up in orange and green stripes! DO DO DO whatever you want to DO that you think makes you safer! Do it! Watch out for yourself!
However: DO NOT make changes to the law that will absolve motorists of the already-minimal amount of responsibility they have to operate their [at least] 20-times-more-destructive vehicles in and around the general public. Do not give any more legal justification to the bias that already exists in favor of motorists involved in collisions with bicyclists. Don’t add to the level of perfection which bicyclists must achieve before a motorist will be issued a grudging citation for unsafe driving and law-breaking.
I’ve outlined before my wishes for what to DO: it involves removing vehicles from bad drivers in a stronger attempt to remove bad drivers from the road. I’m sure you remember.
“…DO NOT make changes to the law that will absolve motorists…” bic
Laws requiring bikes be equipped with basic safety equipment for riding in motor vehicle use traffic environments, does not “absolve” people that drive from their reasonably limited responsibility for the safety of vulnerable road users, riding bikes or otherwise.
Yes, you and various other people writing in comments to bikeportland about supposedly seeking to make use of the road safer for biking, frequently speak of somehow doing so by intensifying the requirements made of people in order for them to be allowed to drive…and of penalties when they make mistakes or behave irresponsibly while driving, that effects vulnerable road users. When it comes to some kind of actually functional, practical means of somehow accomplishing the end goal you seek, you offer nothing.
The first best step people that bike, as a transportation mode share group could be doing to improve their credibility and gain support from the majority road user group that drives, is to clean up their own act. At least somewhat more than exists presently, to the level of skill, knowledge and ability required of people seeking to drive motor vehicles on the road.
wsbob – To improve the credibility of your other comments on this subject, your first reply to El Biciclero’s post should have been:
“…taking supra-legal safety measures may be a great idea, but it will not protect you any more than “following the law” as long as drivers don’t perceive the need to exert the amount of attention and patience necessary to safely blast their 4000-lb. missiles down the street.” bic
Good point. It IS important for drivers of cars to exert the necessary amount of attention and patience to “safely” drive there cars on roads. How can society hold drivers of cars accountable?
Unless, of course, you DON’T think it’s important…
“…How can society hold drivers of cars accountable?…” pcuser28
People that drive, are accountable for their actions while driving.
I’m not exactly sure what question or questions you’re raising; perhaps you’re inquiring how society could somehow hold people that drive, more accountable or responsible than they currently are for their skill, ability, knowledge with respect to safely operating motor vehicles, especially as it effects people that are vulnerable road users?
I think almost everyone wants the roads to be safer for everyone to use, regardless of what their mode of travel is. They want to be able to drive safely, bike safely, walk safely, skateboard safely. How to best accomplish this is something I’m sure many people think about every day.
What realistic, practical ideas might you have that could accomplish this? Ideas and wishes are often far easier to come by than are practical plans for actually getting something done. Time and money factor into this. A lot of either required, seriously impacts how soon progress on the objective can be made.
My apology, wsbob, for my post being not very clear. I’ll try again.
You (wsbob) posted this reply to El Biciclero on May 28 at 9:39PM – “You seem to want to take that ‘Do Nothing’ approach, so go ahead.”
To improve your credibility, you (wsbob) SHOULD have posted this reply and asked this question – “Yes, it IS important for drivers of cars to exert the necessary amount of attention and patience to “safely” drive their cars on roads. How can society hold drivers of cars accountable?”
So I wasn’t asking the question. I’m saying that YOU should be asking that question.
Thanks for the clarification pcuser28
The answer to the question you’re advising, “How can society hold drivers of cars accountable?”…is that society does already have means in place to hold people that drive, accountable for not driving safely, but there are practical and economical limitations to the effectiveness possible by those means.
Unhappiness with the accountability to which people that drive are held for bad driving the do, seems to be quite common; but to what extent are people as individuals and members of society, willing to support additional means that may be required to increase this accountability?
It’s certainly possible to propose a range of additional means by way of expanded laws, penalties, enforcement and so on, to increase pressure on people that drive, to be more accountable for their actions when driving. Such proposals are only good if society is willing to support them. And that is the major dilemma that people seeking greater accountability, face in trying to get it from people that drive.
Put something down on paper: ideas that will require greater accountability for errors and bad actions on the part of people driving. Present it to your elected legislative representative or official. Or an advocacy group, local, regional or national, and get some sense from them as to what chance they think the idea you have in mind, may stand, of being supported by society.
So it’s a major challenge getting sufficient support from society for accountability from people that drive badly.
And the difficulty in getting that support from society is, I think compounded when people advocating for safer conditions for biking, decline to embrace measures that would help people that bike to be more skilled, better equipped and safer road users.
I used to live just west of where this story’s collision happened. Years ago, I was driving eastbound on Barnes, heading down into town. Starting about at Skyline, I was following 2 male cyclists on road bikes going down Barnes. They were riding at such a clip (downhill) that I didn’t have to pass them. I was just following them down the hill. When we got into town, I remained behind them in the right lane of W Burnside. They were still riding at the speed of traffic, so no need to pass. You know that gas station on the south side of Burnside there around 22-ish? A car driving in the LEFT LANE (heading eastbound just ahead of me and right next to the pair of cyclists) decided at the last minute that he needed gas and turned right into the gas station FROM THE LEFT LANE and BOWLED those 2 guys over. I immediately pulled over to see if either of them was seriously injured. Amazingly, both just appeared to have bad road rash. When the driver saw the cyclists get up (shakily), he announced that if they were OK then he was taking off. I ran over to his car, grabbed his arm and told he was going to have to wait until the cops showed up.
This incident left a mark on me and I thought afterward that there was no way I’d ever ride a bike in this city because there was literally nothing those two guys could have done to prevent or predict that car turning into them.
It took a long time to change my mind on this, but I’m now a daily cyclist. But I always still remember that accident and how it made me feel afterwards.
Did the driver wait? And did he get cited?
The driver did wait (because I wouldn’t let go of his arm until the police arrived.) I’m not sure if he was cited or not. I was on my way to a first date with someone and didn’t want to be late so I waited for the police to arrive and left after giving the police my contact information. No one ever called me about it though.
“The driver did wait (because I wouldn’t let go of his arm until the police arrived.) …” Kathy
Hey…props to you for keeping hold of the guy’s arm until the police arrived. They were able to take your statement about the incident, I hope…though to help determine if there were grounds for a citation, they’d of had the stories of the two guys on bikes that were steamrolled. Sounds like the action of the person driving, would have met criteria for a ‘Careless Driving’ citation.
Safety trivia:
Calculator to find stopping distance:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html
Looks like 34 feet at 30 mph on dry concrete. 3/4 second reaction time would add 33 feet, for total 67 feet.
This says modern cars can stop faster than bikes:
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/braking-distance-car-vs-bike.59761/
I would not have expected that, but bikes aren’t great because the rear wheel wants to go up due to high center of gravity, thus it has less braking power.
UPDATE 3:10 pm, 5/27: Police have cited the driver. Here’s the official statement:
Just curious if you plan to have bp.org cover the court date at all. Usually traffic court dates get moved though, so I don’t know how you’d be able to hit it reliably.
Need one for bikes.
Then use the horrible range of numbers to scare car drivers in to understanding just how difficult it can be to stop one at speed.
The variability introduced just by brake type and tire width is insane. Then we can start adding in the inherently unclean surface of a bike lane clogged with sand and debris reducing traction.
Oh yeah, heartburn city.
Interesting reading from Jan Heine: How to Brake on a Bicycle
I wish he detailed more actual distances, rather than just comparison of techniques; maybe that is in the full version in the subscription-only(?) Bicycle Quarterly.
Good ol’ Sheldon Brown (RIP) has a page for braking techniques too: http://sheldonbrown.com/brakturn.html
All Hail the Bike God Sheldon Brown!
Raise a glass of your favorite poison in honor of The Greater Sheldon!
I learned my bike braking lessons between the perfect brake adjustment that led to my feat of gymnastic luck/skill and the “you CAN NOT use front brakes” of stopping on black ice EVEN WITH carbide studded tires.
With the former I learned that with clean dry pavement and a proper brake setup stopping could be near instantaneous.
With the latter I learned (like Sheldon Brown alludes to on the article ref’d below) a locked rear wheel recovery is over 90% easier than a locked front wheel recovery. Also I learned exactly how automotive ABS brake modulation works through the Mechanical Engineering College of Hard Knocks(tm).
Black ice, or a frozen lake/pond, can be fun riding even without studded tires. Just remember that your legs and feet act as training wheels/balancing recovery and you’ll be an elated worn out 6 year old kid by the day!
I’ve learned that super-skinny tires at 130 psi aren’t such a great idea after all, and 25’s at 115 psi stop much quicker and actually roll faster. The scars on my right hip are a constant reminder that even on the sunniest Oregon morning, black ice still lurks in the frozen puddles under the shade of the trees.
Lastly, I’ll gladly take your advice and hoist a cold one in honor of Sheldon this evening! 🙂
From today’s Oregonian story on this collision ( Ray, is Sgt Bob Ray, a sheriff’s spokesman):
“…Ray said Warren had a flashing yellow turn signal at the time of the crash and Garcia had a green light. …” http://www.oregonlive.com/north-of-26/index.ssf/2015/05/driver_cited_in_crash_that_cri.html
The flashing yellow arrow occurring at the same time as the green light for opposite direction traffic, presents a greater potential for collision than does a simple red arrow-green arrow signal light. Is the congestion relief the yellow arrow provides, worth the increase in potential for collisions?
“Is the congestion relief the yellow arrow provides, worth the increase in potential for collisions?”
That is a very good question. With all the concern expressed about cyclists lacking the judgment to handle an Idaho stop or even the “Dead Red” law, I would question the judgment of drivers at left turn signals like this one.
Apparently, we can give motor vehicle operators the freedom to exercise their judgment when it will let them proceed sooner/faster, even though it has resulted in one amputated leg, one potential TBI, and one fatality just in the last few weeks. How many life-altering injuries or deaths have been caused by cyclists using their judgment to decide how fast to roll through STOP signs or when to proceed through a dead red?
“…I would question the judgment of drivers at left turn signals like this one.
Apparently, we can give motor vehicle operators the freedom to exercise their judgment when it will let them proceed sooner/faster, …” bic
Question as well, the judgment of people biking at these signals, because they’re entitled to use them just as all other vehicle road users are.
Again, who has been killed or injured by inappropriate use of such signals by bicyclists?
You’re the man that cites stats and studies…you tell us.
So what’s your great idea now? That people biking should not only be able to roll stop signs, but also have exclusive right to turn left on flashing yellow arrows regulating traffic in left turn lanes?
“You’re the man that cites stats and studies…you tell us.”
With no stats or studies needed, I will state with 99% confidence that zero motorists have been killed—or even injured—by a bicyclist exercising “bad judgment” when disregarding a traffic control device: STOP sign, red light, flashing yellow turn arrow, or otherwise.
“So what’s your great idea now? That people biking should not only be able to roll stop signs, but also have exclusive right to turn left on flashing yellow arrows regulating traffic in left turn lanes?”
Your seemingly willful misunderstanding becomes quickly frustrating, wsbob. I’m merely comparing the permissive nature of changing rules and signals if we believe it will speed up motor traffic. There is no hand-wringing nor furrowed-brow “concern” expressed about the carnage that will ensue if we leave passage through intersections up to a motorist’s judgment—even though it can and has resulted in several injuries and deaths over the years. Further, the vast majority of injuries and deaths caused by bad judgement on the part of motorists are to other people—the motorist is not risking their own skin in making the judgment call.
Now let someone suggest a permissive rule change that would allow mostly (or only) bicyclists to make the exact same kind of judgment call, and let the prophesies of doom commence. “Oh! But if one poor bicyclist uses bad judgment…! I just can’t fathom the horror!”. “The streets will be littered with dead, inexperienced bicyclists, the victims of their own bad judgment.”
Honestly, I think the flashing yellow signals are imagined to be unused by bicyclists, because people on bikes are “supposed to” use a two-stage pedestrian maneuver, or circle the block to make left turns. Same goes for the Dead Red law that was passed for motorcyclists (and bicyclists as a concession)—I don’t think lawmakers can readily conceive of a bicyclist using a left turn lane, because that would be SO DANGEROUS!
So, far from me suggesting anything such as giving cyclists exclusive right to use flashing left turn arrows, I’m only noting that it seems the main criteria for making any exceptions to traffic control conventions is that the exception must be applicable to motorists (or at least motorcyclists, as in the recent Dead Red law that passed), or we can’t allow it. The only rules we can make that apply specifically to bicyclists are those that add restrictions, not remove them.
It is a double standard.
As road users, people riding bikes are entitled to take advantage of yellow flashing left turn arrows offer, just as people driving are. The yellow lights can be good when traffic isn’t heavy.
These lights can present problems when distances between vehicles approaching is close, and the person seeking to turn considers making the turn on the yellow arrow with what may not be a sufficient margin to avoid a close call or collision. For the Barnes-Miller intersection, it may be possible to change the light signal settings so that the flashing yellow arrow isn’t active during high traffic hours of the day.
“As road users, people riding bikes are entitled to take advantage of yellow flashing left turn arrows offer, just as people driving are.”
Indeed. Flashing yellow signals require motorists—and yes, cyclists—to exercise their judgment when transiting an intersection. This means that motorists may use them, as I stated. My point was that as long as motorists are allowed to take advantage of some signal that requires “judgment” for safety, there is little to no opposition to making an adjustment to current traffic signals or rules. However, if a rule adjustment were to ONLY affect bicyclists, there is huge opposition mounted on the grounds of cyclists lacking “judgment”. The imagined lack of judgment is cited in predictions of mass carnage of bicyclists not knowing how to safely cross an intersection. This is my point:
We trust cyclists’ judgment only when motorists (whose judgment seems to be assumed inherently infallible) get the same leeway with some adjustment to signals or convention. However, if motorists are NOT allowed to take advantage of some expeditious traffic rule adjustment, then we suddenly don’t trust cyclists’ judgment. The double standard is NOT who gets to use signals, the double standard is the rationale for allowing or disallowing “shortcuts” around traffic rules or safety practices. Why do we allow practices that will speed up motor traffic at the expense of bicyclist safety, but not allow practices that might speed up or ease bicycle travel when the only real risk is to the cyclists themselves?
Michael, with this update that the driver has been cited, will you be pursing the prosecutor to find out whether ORS 811.135 is being applied in this case, the Vulnerable Road User law?