(Photo by @long_ter on Twitter)
There has been another collision involving a bicycle rider in Portland. And this time it was at the same intersection where Alistair Corkett lost his leg just a few weeks ago.
We first heard about today’s collision via a text message at 11:25 am. Then someone posted a photo of the scene to Twitter. We have yet to confirm any details with the Portland Police Bureau, but KGW has just reported that, “Fire officials said the cyclist was taken to a nearby hospital with a broken leg.”
From the photo we can tell that the man who was riding his bicycle came to rest on 26th south of Powell. The Portland Police are reporting that the person who hit the bicycle rider was driving a Jeep Cherokee. That’s all we know at this point and we’ll update the story as we can.
This collision comes at a time when some in our community are feeling scared to hop on their bikes and others are getting angry and frustrated that our local leaders are not doing more to make biking as safe as possible.
A day ago I mentioned to our news editor Michael Andersen that if there was one more high-profile collision involving a bike rider we would hit a tipping point. That has now happened. It’s time for Mayor Charlie Hales and Transportation Commissioner Steve Novick to get engaged and reassure all Portlanders that they are working to make streets safer.
Back in October 2007, after a rash of collisions and two fatalities with weeks of each other in downtown Portland, former mayor Sam Adams called a press conference and held an emergency meeting of advocates and other leaders. I’d like to see Novick and Hales do something similar.
UPDATE 2:30 pm: Latest from PPB:
37-year-old Peter Anderson is being treated at a Portland hospital for non-life-threatening injuries.
Preliminary information indicates that the driver, 25-year-old Noah Gilbertson, was driving eastbound on Powell, approaching 26th Avenue. Anderson was stopped on 26th, northbound, and began to cross Powell when he was struck by Gilberton’s Jeep Cherokee.
UPDATE 3:50pm: PPB has ticketed the driver in this collision for Careless Driving w Injury to Vulnerable Roadway User.
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.
You gotta be kidding me…
‘At’ or ‘near’? Premature speculation seems like a theme here.
Can anyone find the view in streetview – shade/driveway next to power pole with angled guy wire?
found it.
On Powell, south side, east of 26th, looking south is the photo.
it’s actually on Powell, east of 26th, looking south…
https://goo.gl/maps/Xko1e
Let me know when the rally at ODOT is and I’ll be there. Saw a lot of nice signs at the BTA’s Alice Awards last night, I’d love to use some of those. The status quo is no longer acceptable.
“A bicyclist was hit by a vehicle…” Vehicles aren’t sentient, KGW!
…unless its a Google car.
If it was a google car it would not have hit the cyclist
“No more ghost bikes” ride today https://www.facebook.com/events/501635443323700/
I made the mistake of reading comments on KGW-TV’s Facebook feed. Just. Don’t.
I think that these comment sections that allow people to spew misinformation and anger and hatred towards bicycle riders are partly to blame for the increase in accidents. If people can safely voice and find support for the belief that bikes have no place on the road or deserve to get run over for being there, that contributes to a general mindset that it’s ok (and sometimes encouraged) to actively harass, intimidate, or injure cyclists.
I agree, and I think it is reprehensible for the Oregonian to encourage and profit from these tr*ll orgies. It is damaging to our community.
On a related note, KATU used to have some of the most horrible comments of any “news” site, but have recently turned off their comments section. I am now MORE inclined to click on their articles. Since the O wins when you click, despite the fact that you hate them, perhaps send your clicks elsewhere.
100 X This.
I’ve personally seen at school and in the workplace when following a bluff and bluster session one of the bright sparks in the group (younger and/or dumber than the rest) will actually take things spoken in bravado and put it to action in real life.
On more than one occasion I’ve been like “holy cow, I can’t believe you actually did that”
This is no different. I read one semi-coherent rant from a woman over on KGW that said lets “MAKE THEM PAY”.
I am collecting screenshots of hate-speech on local news website. Please send screenshots (including the associated advertisements) to me at jchris at gmail. Most helpful would actually be non-transportation related hate-speech (racism, sexism, etc) and especially from the distant past if you have the stomach for it.
I’m not sure what the endgame is but I’m sure it’ll be a step in the right direction.
I was just pondering your politician-outing efforts earlier today in relation to this (not this story, but the O in general). It’d be interesting to parse through comment boards and identify top offenders, highlighting particular gems from the vitriol they spew.
and what are you planning on doing with them?
Interesting! Curious to see what you do with these.
I have a screenshot from my GoPro of a driver today trying to left hook a pair of us (I don’t know the other cyclist); we evaded him but he flipped a bird at us as he went by.
Sadly I can’t quite make out his plate number in the video. Happy to provide stills or video if you have technology to make an effort. This is what those comment threads breed.
I kind of wonder if it is possible to sue the Oregonian, KGW, etc for negligence and proferring hate speak or whatever that is called. What you state is true, they do indeed encourage and exacerbate the situation in a big way. Something I find completely unacceptable and outright dangerous.
If you want to join the “No More Ghost Bikes” later than 4:30 its going to be tracked on GPS:
http://www.rideyrbike.com/ridelive/
Signs so people know what the ride is about:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/sspcajftkykr3vh/Signs.pdf
I would love to join this ride, but I’m not pulling a five year old on the trail-a-bike on those streets on a hot, Friday afternoon rush hour. I wish the best to all of you. Be safe. Be smart.
(The signs are via Will Vanlue’s link on the facebook page.)
This really sucks for the cyclist, but it doubles the pressure on Odot.
I cannot ****ing believe it.
Actually I can and while it pisses me off it sure doesn’t surprise me.
My son and I ride daily from Sellwood to Richmond. The zone from about Holgate to roughly Division is scary and bad, even the side streets. It’s like Powell is spilling over a mile in either direction.
Agreed. I live on 34th between Francis and Gladstone. The speed of traffic and the aggressiveness of drivers on those streets during rush hour is outrageous.
Are you fscking kidding me?! Who is holding ODOT responsible? Anything less than fully protected cycle tracks is complete negligence.
You, and others, should look up regression to the mean. A trend is five to ten years of data, not three weeks to a year.
Anything more than zero is an unacceptable trend.
Then you’ll want to move somewhere acceptable.
Don’t worry, ODOT is on it, remember? Just two more years and they’ll start studying how to add turn signals.
….and the results of that study will be given to an advisory committee who will in turn open a public comment period, after which an RFP process will open for design alternatives!
“others are getting angry and frustrated that our local leaders are not doing more to make biking as safe as possible.”
yep, that would be me.
When are the consequences (no citations were issued…) going to change? When will they start to hurt enough to shock people into paying ATTENTION when they are behind the wheel?
I just took the Share the Road Safety Course co-taught by a former judge, a police officer, and a trauma nurse at Emanual Hospital. Very interesting reminder of lots of things, but the one point all of them made over and over to the audience of us traffic miscreants was that driving is the most dangerous thing any of you do on a regular basis. Where is that wise sentiment when it comes to how people behind the wheel are treated when this sort of thing is so common?
I also learned that between the two Portland hospitals that have trauma centers they see 6,000 trauma patients every year, of which 75-80% are due to traffic collisions. That is 13 people a day, every day.
Why isn’t the Share the Road course a mandatory component if passing yr driving test in this country? Why do you have to wait until you’ve done something idiotic yo qualify to take it? Perhaps if everybody already took it, there wouldn’t be so much idiocy around on the roads.
Why isn’t it mandatory to re-take the written test every time you renew? And also, take this class, or watch a video of this class?
Having to re-take a written test on laws of the road is an easy fix for the Education component of making streets safer, but no one seems to want to even consider it.
“Why isn’t it mandatory to re-take the written test every time you renew? …Kristen T
Great question. What answers to it, come to your mind? Wish you would have included some of them in your comment. I can think of a couple:
Expense; maybe not too much addition to the DMV’s budget to enable it to administer and process the tests, but some. Would mandating a driving test for periodic renewal be something that should be done too? Figure additional budget increases. Or cut other department expenditures to stay within the budget.
Time; Driver’s license holders obviously would be obliged to invest their personal time in order to submit to an increase in the present, initial testing only requirement. Can they be persuaded that increased testing will be worth their, and the public’s time for the as of yet uncertain increase in safety of road use that such testing would hope to accomplish?
Got to try something though. At the least, discussing seriously and rationally, the pros and cons of tougher and more frequent written and on the road testing for people seeking permission to operate a motor vehicle on the road, would be a good idea.
And in conjunction with this discussion, similarly serious consideration of introducing mandatory instruction, testing and certification of people seeking to ride bikes in motor vehicle use environments, particularly high traffic urban and suburban environments of that type…may also be a good idea.
Or maybe we could use technology! Lots of programs for safety at work or harassment training etc. are done online at personal convenience with a test done online. Not free, but pretty cheap especially if you have a lot of people. Perhaps mandate that insurance companies increase the drivers insurance by $25 per month if they don’t watch a 30 minute video and take an online drivers test every 12 months. Then the test / video could be updated and changed every few months to cover different topics and focus on VRUs could be incorporated and covered over time.
The thing that sucks so much is the attitude presented constantly that “we can’t do that because ____ ” rather than what can we do differently. I don’t think we have to keep the DMV living in the 70s and really is there any service provider that is more stuck in 70s thinking than the DMV?
Periodic, online driver knowledge testing is a novel idea, worthy of consideration. It’s definitely possible to make knowledge required, more thorough and tougher for passing the test. I’m thinking of the situation in some European countries, like France that I read about a year or so ago. Test is said to have become so tough, some people give up and go to England to take and easier test for a driver’s license that apparently is accepted in France.
Oregon could do anything it wants with current quality of testing of road users, if the people really thought what was involved was worthwhile. Not that I’m particularly suggesting I’m an example of the typical DMV customer, but I feel the less time and money I have to spend there, the better. Major drag to jump through the hoops already in place for driver’s license renewal. People that are relatively good drivers, I think would have to be presented with very good reasons to increase the burden of renewing their driver’s license.
Can people hoping that tougher and more frequent testing would reduce the number of bad drivers on the road, be able to come up with good enough reasons for making testing tougher, to persuade the good drivers to support what would be involved in bringing about tougher testing?
It’s not a novel idea. I’ve been saying it on this site and others for about 5 or so years now. Repeatedly.
There testing machines are already at the DMVs. There’s no barrier there. You could also take the test online and take the results to the DMV when you renew. Or, and this is a nice one, you could do like they’re doing at the DEQ and enter the code from your renewal paperwork, take the test online, then go get your new license.
Seriously. With the technology in place already, it would be so easy to implement, and cheap too. My brother got a ticket and had to take an online traffic course with a 40-question test he had to pass in order to get out of the ticket. He took the class online, answered the questions, and the DMV sent him an email notice that his ticket was “paid” by him taking and passing the class. They already do this, it should be easy to add renewals to this system.
Kristen T at: http://bikeportland.org/2015/05/29/man-injured-bicycling-se-26th-powell-yes-intersection-143713#comment-6404070
“…There testing machines are already at the DMVs. There’s no barrier there. You could also take the test online and take the results to the DMV when you renew. Or, and this is a nice one, you could do like they’re doing at the DEQ and enter the code from your renewal paperwork, take the test online, then go get your new license. …” Kristen T
Not an Oregon DMV procedure for renewing people’s driver’s license, yet though, correct? So many of the same questions I posed earlier, and that pose a barrier to more frequent testing of people renewing there license, still stand. It’s their time and their money which they’ve somehow got to be persuaded is a good investment if they’re going to support any such measure. Technology, at home testing and so forth, could help, but the fundamental argument in favor has to be sufficiently strong to sway the public’s support.
I don’t know that I fully agree with you about the public’s support. The public will spend billions of dollars in the current transportation plan to fund R&D on autonomous cars and V2V and V2I infractrusture. Do they approve? Since 2010 we’ve spent tens of billions of dollars on Positive Train Control (PTC) infrastructure designed to prevent crashes like the Philly Amtrak derailment last month – which, ironically, is scheduled to have PTC completed on its segment in the next few months. Was the public asked for their approval of that? (We already know what the public thinks of bringing high-speed passenger rail to the state of California).
In business we’ve seen technology improve efficiency while saving money in many cases. Similar proven technologies can be used to accomplish the same goals with DMVs, and quite frankly, I suspect the details are over the majority of the public’s understanding.
When California’s public university system consolidated their admissions processes and administration several years ago, there was huge public outcry that jobs would be lost. The net result of the consolidations saved both the state and ultimately students a significant amount of money. I personally believe similar results could be accomplished by consolidating DMVs and ultimately traffic laws on a nationwide level, if not for the inherent self-protecting nature of government entities that would prevent it.
My thoughts exactly. Both the content and delivery could easily be brought into this millennium with relatively little expense.
http://bikeportland.org/2015/05/22/man-bike-seriously-injured-sw-barnes-road-collision-143491#comment-6400389
On a similar note, my wife is a medical professional in an emergency room and has to keep training extensively to stay certified and keep her skills up to date. Probably 80% of her training and testing is computer-based that she does from home, so other than driving exams, I don’t see why the content can’t be delivered and at least some testing done online. If you can’t pass the online stuff, it’s a good indicator you should be tested in person…
Last year a woman drove into the DMV in Los Gatos, CA, and ruptured a gas line causing an emergency evacuation. It was during her third driver’s exam after failing her first two. I wonder, did she pass on her fourth or fifth try? Is there even a statue of limitations for driver’s exams?
“…I don’t see why the content can’t be delivered and at least some testing done online. If you can’t pass the online stuff, it’s a good indicator you should be tested in person…” Pete
What’s the objective? Reducing the incidence of bad driving? Or bad the number of bad drivers on the road, in general? Does an at home online written test really stand much chance of making someone that drives badly, drive better? I think these are questions many people presented with this or similar ideas, and facing the prospect of more hoops to jump if it’s made law, to get their license renewed, are going to expect answers to.
“What’s the objective?” wsbob
I would gladly answer your concerned public’s questions with the pop quiz I once posed to an elderly woman walking across the street who told me: “You be a good bicyclist and stay to the right – I see so many bicyclists who ride outside of the bike lane!” My reply was “Quick: tell me four situations where you may see a bicyclist legally riding outside of a marked bike lane.” Needless to say, she couldn’t answer with one. (All I did was say hi to her, by the way, which evoked a response she seemed quite ready to spring on a bicyclist for a while).
The objective is education, which I think could go a long way for both drivers and bicyclists. How many new riders reading here are looking to this blog for answers? Why is there now an “Ask Bike Portland” column? Because there are no clear rules! If you think it’s hard enough for bicyclists to answer questions about legal biking, how would you expect the general public to understand that a bicyclist who’s “in their way” is actually riding that way for a logical reason and doesn’t really have a suicide wish? Couple that with situations where legal biking and safe biking are not always the same thing, and I think you have a compelling argument for implementing mechanisms to ensure the public meet at least a minimum standard of competency for sharing roadways.
Just yesterday I rode my bike down a (sharrowed, mind you) roadway for barely a mile to pick up my damned car from the shop (again). I was honked at twice and told to “get to the right!” once. The lanes are 10′ with an 18″ gutter pan and there’s no way cars can pass me with 3′ clearance (the law here), yet I’m holding 25+ MPH in light traffic on a 35 MPH two-lane roadway where some people are pissed that they can’t do 45 without me inconveniencing them for a few seconds while they pass legally and safely.
Why was I ‘harassed’? Primarily because these people truly believed I was breaking the law! Can we stop bad drivers from driving badly by testing them more often? Maybe not. Can we stop bad drivers from injuring people by preventing them from obtaining legal drivers licenses by raising the bar to do so? Yes, I believe we can reduce that number, though maybe not eliminate it. And I don’t care if the public is inconvenienced in the process, myself included.
Pete at: http://bikeportland.org/2015/05/29/man-injured-bicycling-se-26th-powell-yes-intersection-143713#comment-6405986
Drivers license tests, written and road, could possibly be improved with more info on what are the laws for using the road with bikes; so people driving have a better idea what consideration they’re obliged to extend to people riding, and vice-versa.
This does of course, run directly up against the problem that people using the road with bikes, are under no obligation whatsoever to take instruction, testing and be certified in bike specific knowledge and procedures for safe use of a bike on the road amongst motor vehicles. The argument that ‘most people that bike have driver’s licenses.’, I don’t think will cut it, in favor of efforts to prevail with the other idea; that people biking amongst motor vehicles shouldn’t have to be instructed, tested, certified, etc, to ride a bike on the road.
Especially in areas where vehicle use of the road is heavy, to reduce rates of close calls and collisions, a higher level than exists now, of high quality road use skills should be in effect. As things typically stand in most road situations, the quality of road user action is kind of a ‘catch as can’. For the most part, it’s good, but there’s some really bad road users in the mix, people driving, and people riding. Weeding them out from the greater majority, is the big challenge.
So I guess I’d say: Sure…Include more bike specific road use knowledge on the driver’s license test: On condition that serious consideration be given to obliging people above the age of…let’s somewhat arbitrarily say 14, intending to ride bikes amongst motor vehicles, be instructed in and tested, by written and road tests for that purpose.
As I wrote in an earlier comment, as for bad driver’s in general, it seems worthwhile to consider obliging anyone having received a moving violation, to go through the written and road test…in person at the office. That in itself, for many people, would be a major deterrent against slipshod road use. Would wind up costing more in DMV staff time, but possibly could be effective and worth it. Same should apply to people riding bikes badly amongst motor vehicles.
wsbob: http://bikeportland.org/2015/05/29/man-injured-bicycling-se-26th-powell-yes-intersection-143713#comment-6406141
All good ideas. I think diversion programs can be used effectively as delivery mechanisms for education in the case of both driving and cycling infractions. As I’ve mentioned in the past, our PD uses them sometimes to target kids under 16 biking without helmets with ‘citations’ that ultimately get the kids’ parents to take them to a class where they can get a free helmet at the same time. Small scale example, but it seems to work well, and everyone involved usually ends up having fun doing it. No reason DMV programs couldn’t coordinate with LEO to deliver education through ticket diversion, they just don’t seem to on a large scale, probably due to organizational disconnect.
I think it’s about two things: delivery, and content. DMV tests right now are a joke – they list ‘rules of the road’ that you memorize to pass a test you make take once to maybe five times in your entire lifetime, depending on if you move a lot (see my other comments on a nationwide standard…). Very few tests that I’ve seen illustrate real-life driving examples, let alone biking or pedestrian situations. Several other certification tests I have to take on a regular basis do a much better job quizzing me on what I’m likely to come up against in practice. They force me to think.
Here: in 5 example tests you get one bicycling question: when can you drive in a bike lane*?
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/interactive/tdrive/exam
I just don’t think much of what’s asked here cuts it as a minimum standard of safety for any road users.
*Coincidentally, the answer to this particular question is different in your state than it is mine!
As far as delivery mechanisms to educate and test bicyclists go, until we achieve the police state where cyclists are required to be registered on a nationwide level, we’ve got 1) volunteer to take a bike safety class, 2) teach bike safety classes in public schools (like with driving), or 3) the aforementioned theoretical diversion programs. Any others I’m missing?
Requiring bike licensing on a state level goes against attracting ridership from other states, reduces ridership in general (which goes against improving safety by getting more cyclists on the road), and increases likelihood of ‘illegal’ ridership (intentionally or not), further burdening LEOs. Over time, cars maimed and killed huge numbers of people to get the government to mandate what we’ve got with automotive infrastructure and bureaucracy today; let’s just hope bicycling doesn’t get that way too.
Thanks for these ‘debates’ BTW, wsbob, I appreciate your views and insights, regardless of what degree we ever agree or not.
“When will they start to hurt enough to shock people into paying ATTENTION when they are behind the wheel?”
This. All the attention in recent years towards mobile phone use while driving distracts from the root issue: people just don’t pay attention anymore. Regardless of what they are or are not doing in their vehicle while behind the wheel, they’re checked out and not fully present, and this is one of the reasons why it’s getting dangerous out there.
30,000+ people a year die in road crashes in the US. 82 a day counting weekends and holidays. 115 a day not counting weekends.
If a small jet full of people dropped out of the sky each day, how long would it take for the electeds to shut the system down to fix the problem?
It’s only because the casualties are spread out over 50 states that people tend to ignore the death toll, until they can’t.
Fascinating thing is, it used to be worse. Look at traffic fatalities from 60 years ago. It’s amazing that any of our grandparents survived!
From Horse Power
to Horsepower by Eric Morris
“The horse pollution problem was not a new one. Julius Caesar banned horse-drawn carts from ancient Rome between dawn and dusk in an effort to curb gridlock, noise, accidents, and other unpleasant byproducts of the urban equine. But conditions in the nineteenth century pushed the problem to new heights.”
(section titled FILTH, FLIES, AND FATALITIES)
“Horses killed in other, more direct ways as well. As difficult as it may be to believe given their low speeds, horse-drawn vehicles were far deadlier than their modern counterparts. In New York in 1900, 200 persons were killed by horses and horse-drawn vehicles. This contrasts with 344 auto-related fatalities in New York in 2003; given the modern city’s greater population, this means the fatality rate per capita in the horse era was roughly 75 percent higher than today. Data from Chicago show that in 1916 there were 16.9 horse-related fatalities for each 10,000 horse-drawn vehicles; this is nearly seven times the city’s fatality rate per auto in 1997.”
“The reason is that horse-drawn vehicles have an engine with a mind of its own. […]”
I’d love it if the line break could be taken out of the link I posted when that comment is approved. 🙂
Imagine all of the money that insurance companies had to pay out over that time… now fast forward to cars with seatbelts, airbags, ABS, third brake lights, DRL, and Electronic Skid Protection. Yes, we’ve been ringside as the auto insurers and manufacturers have battled it out for several decades now.
Paikiala: “30,000+ people a year die in road crashes…”
It was not that many years ago that number was 43,000. We’re moving in the right direction overall, even if local short-term trends make it feel otherwise, or we wish it moved faster.
I’m all of it: angry, frustrated AND scared.
The Share the Road course is an *excellent* (I’ve taken it) remediation option when a motorist receives a citation. It is not, to my knowledge, open to the general public. So much more effective than a nominal fine.
It’s like Maximum Overdrive out there this week. WTH.
Maybe it’s time to go old testament style, eye for an eye, leg for a leg? The law certainly doesn’t protect us out there.
Hoping for a speedy recovery for the injured cyclist.
Note to self: Avoid this intersection when I am out riding this weekend. Make that every weekend.
I used to ride this route to work, but then got freaked out by too many near accidents, and switched over to cross Powell at 33rd instead. The problem is people rushing to turn left onto Powell, every time. Another problem, quite frankly, is that the students at Cleveland are completely clueless about crosswalks, and just kind of meander across SE 26th (from school to Burgerville and the parking lot, or back) wherever they want. It creates a lot of congestion and stress in the area, which then makes drivers feel even more stressed about making the turn.
Fair observation, I’m not here to shoot the messenger. But wouldn’t it be nice if kids could meander in the area around their own school without fear of injury or a driver hitting someone? Why have we set up a system where there’s heavy traffic and danger outside a school? That’s unacceptable.
Every school I can think of offhand is sitting directly on an arterial. It’s like they think we won’t be able to find it otherwise.
Think of any nasty arterial in Beaverton that you wouldn’t want to walk or ride on, and there’s a good chance we’ve plopped a school next to it.
Uh, not true at all.
Name one.
Cornell = Sunset, Cedar Mill
Barnes = Catlin Gabel
Laidlaw = Stoller
McDaniel = Bonny Slope
Saltzman/Thompson = Findley
185th = Westview, Rock Creek, McKinley
Walker = Barnes, Walker
Farmington = Beaverton, Mountain View, Jesuit, Edison
Yep, I’m currently teaching at my third one.
most of those schools are old and were built when the area was more remote… in 1929 when the school opened there was probably less traffic, and I think the streetcar went through there…
Sure, but there is a strategy at work to continue putting schools on arterials. It’s not a coincidence.
The new elementary school will likely be built on Kaiser (per the plans, “Site A is adjacent to Kaiser Road. Kaiser Road is not currently improved to County Arterial standards. Development adjacent to it will be required to contribute to improving it to Arterial standards.”)
The new middle school will be on 118th, between Barnes & Cornell. It’s currently 30mph — no idea if that will change, but hopefully that road stays small.
The new high school will sit at Scholls Ferry & 175th (https://goo.gl/maps/zKDGC).
let’s make it an all day everyday school zone. 20 mph, only
I’m not sure which “it” you mean, but it’s meaningless without ongoing enforcement. And depending on the road, the impact to traffic flow and congestion might be severe (which is just another way of saying there shouldn’t be a school on that road).
I do the same. Ironic how 33rd without any bike lanes/paint/etc. feels safer than 26th which is marked for bikes. The city is directing people to use the less-safe street.
Yep. 33rd feels not just safer to me, but MUCH safer. Which is absurd when you think about the better safety measures that are technically in place on 26th. But 33rd is missing one key thing that 26th has a ton of: drivers racing to turn left ahead of the green light.
Sure would be good if Hales & Novick came out and said they are committed to improving the safety on our streets.
C’mon, dudes! Get with it! How many of your citizens need to be injured traversing the city until you take significant action?
Hales and Novick are too bust figuring out how to get another fee out of you.
And not just SAY they’re committed to safety on our streets, but actually do something to increase the safety of the streets.
It’s really really easy to SAY you’re all for something, but actions speak louder than words.
They won’t. They’ll use the drive by on Alberta as political cover to completely ignore the negligence of drivers in our city, a problem that causes far more deaths than gang violence.
Our leaders live in west hills bedroom communities; their conception of biking is for leisure. They won’t be wasting time on bikes when the can rally somd more money for militarized police because there were a few shootings this year.
Also, Jonathan & Michael: really looking forward to another Ride Along story on this site soon. Cheers.
Why not create a choking point for a couple blocks E and W on Powell, decreasing the limit until passing this intersection a block away minimum? 15-20 MPH, just for a few blocks near the intersection and school. By a school AND a frequently cycled crossing. Just makes sense.
20 MPH school zone PBOT can do, but for a location like this it would either apply only from 7A-5P, or ‘when children (<18 yrs old) are present'.
It would be difficult to defend this posting in court as anything more than a speed trap, particularly with enhanced and protected crosswalks near the school, along with the consideration that PBOT does not usually post school zones next to high schools.
15 mph requires a narrow (<=18') road in a residential district.
Other than the posted 35 mph requires ODOT approval.
If it’s not intended to produce revenue, is it a speed trap? Maybe enforce this zone with flashing lights, speed read-outs, stationary cop car, and/or issue only warning citations? Still, it needs a full-time solution including non-school hours.
Issue tickets for reckless endangerment for driving over 20 regardless of the posted limit..
Isn’t justified by the safety record of the intersection? I don’t see action taken in response to multiple injuries forming it into a speed trap.
I’m tempted to just block a dangerous intersection with my car. It could “conveniently” break down, and it wouldn’t be a crime. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
If the vehicle somehow catches on fire in the right place road repair crews would be required to make the road safe to drive on.
I meant “most inconvenient place”; it would be very unfortunate for that intersection to be shut down for repairs while it was graded and repaved.
Verrry unfortunate.
I got a barely running old Volvo that could join your car.
http://bikeportland.org/2008/06/30/cars-create-temporarily-carfree-last-thursday-8079
Remember people: you need an ambulance ride for your vehicular assault to be taken seriously. You’re in shock and can’t feel the injury.
Go. To. The. Hospital.
More people moving to Portland means more cars driving around means greater risk for cycling. I’m still out there riding, but am getting my brakes tuned up this weekend. All these recent events makes me a bit cautious.
It also means more people biking, walking and taking transit. Statistically, when more people bike, the crash rate (crashes per 100k population) goes down. Having more people biking makes people driving more cognizant of the likelihood of encountering a person biking.
It also means more people driving around Portland THAT DON’T KNOW OREGON’S LAWS.
If it give you any reassurance, Oregon makes you take the written test when you get a new license here.
Should require road test on a bike.
As someone who works in payroll and HR as a third-party payroll processor, I cannot tell you how many people are working, living, and driving in Oregon with driver’s license from other states. The stated reason is that they are waiting for their old license to expire before they get an Oregon one.
That tells me that these people haven’t taken the test, haven’t read the OR Driver’s Manual, and don’t know the laws of OREGON. So they apply Washington, California, Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, Nevada, New York, Montana, Idaho, etc etc etc laws to Oregon when some of the things you are allowed to do in those states are expressly forbidden by OR laws.
Exactly. Plus, I don’t recall any bike-related questions on the Oregon test I took back in the `90’s, nor on the California test I took in 2009. The biggest legal difference I’ve seen is that ‘driving in a bike lane’ is the norm in California (legally to 100′ for a right turn, or left turn with left-bike-lane), whereas in Oregon you legally turn across a bike lane. I think many Caligonians have difficulty leaving that one behind.
all states need to create a set of standard rules so that laws don’t vary when you drive across some made-up rule-boundary…
What about cities and counties? Or for that matter, a LOT of laws change going across that made-up boundary going through Peace Arch State Park.
I firmly believe this, plus, consolidation and modernization of the DMV bureaucracies may even save taxpayers some money in the long run.
So before these accidents you weren’t cautious?
Accidents have always happened. Biking on shared roads is dangerous. If news of others getting hurt or killed while riding a bike changes your behavior then that is a good thing because that may mean you have not understood the risks of riding on shared roads.
My feeling is that the best way to lower the risk of injury is to ride more, not less. The more comfortable you are riding, the more familiar you are with the streets, and the movements of cars, the better you will be able to anticipate situations. But as is the case anywhere in life, accidents happen and tragedy can occur in a flash.
Ted
I live right by this intersection. When I heared sirens I walked out to see what was up.
Utter disbelief, as this is the 3rd car v bike here in a month and a half.
For what it’s worth, a cop told me the cyclist ran a red. I can’t confirm the accuracy of that account, but only that this is what I was told.
Regardless, this seriously stinks. I’m sick of all the ambulances halling people off the pavement in front of my house.
I really hope that isn’t the case here, because the schadenfreude will overwhelm the actual issues of safe streets….
if so then the cyclist can just say something like “the sun was in my eyes” and all the drivers will forgive them…
So I guess you don’t want to get distracted by the issue of cyclists accepting the risks associated with how and where they ride?
I am not one who thinks infrastructure is the key to reducing the risk associated with biking. Safety is not a binary thing (safe or not safe). Safety is relative and is a function of risk. There will always be risk associated with riding bikes on shared streets…so the question is how much risk is acceptable…and to whom?
Hm. Interesting given that follow-up statements from the police indicate the driver ran a red light. But the initial assumption was that the cyclist must have done something wrong, or he wouldn’t have gotten himself run over…?
We know now that the cyclist did NOT run a red. So much for police testimony. The Chief should advise his officers to keep their mouths shut while investigations are ongoing.
Yet more evidence proving we’re not a platinum bike city.
…and you say this because there are accidents between cars and bikes?if accidents were a criterion used for determining platinum status I don’t think many places would qualify.
Ted
From what I can make of the story, the victim was stopped on 36th just south of Powell, which means he was in a green shaded bike box–and he still got hit. And no citation? How can a driver hit a stationary person and not get a ticket?
Platinum status cycling city.
It’s long past time for ODOT and the city to take action. There is both a perception of a lack of safety AND actual incidents on the ground where people are being injured and killed. It’s time for Vision Zero, it’s time for the BTA to pressure ODOT, it’s time for Novick and Hales to take a leadership role. It’s time for the grass roots groups to get out and start leading rides, hoisting signs, and writing letters, and it’s time for KGW, KOIN, KATU, the Oregonian (I’m looking at you, Joseph Rose) and the Tribune to start asking the city and the state what they’re going to do about it. (I’m not holding my breath on the last one)
Portland is not in a leadership position when it comes to active transportation innovation – we’re being shown what to do by New York, Chicago, D.C. and Minneapolis. We were leaders once, and we did a great job of inspiring, and now it’s time for Portland to step back up and start leading by example. A big part of that is motivating ODOT to be a full partner in road safety, rather than road throughput.
You are right on Matt…and it’s a hard pill for Portland to swallow.
Perhaps this streak of crashes and death(s) will push the City leadership to double down and deeply invest in safe(r) streets in the eastside…kinda like what happened after Mayor Adams spoke in 2007. The Portland Bully Pulpit needs to be reactivated by whomever is THE leader of the City currently. Defacto or otherwise.
…or will 2015 be the summer without Bikes…a sad Pedal Palooza.
Latest police update: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=6220&ec=2&ch=twitter
How can there be no citation??? If the driver had hit another car he would have been cited for failure to yield at the very least.
As frustrating as ODOT’s mismanagement of Portland thouroughfares is, I truly believe that much more can be accomplished by forcing city officials and especially police to recognize the problem and commit to making the streets safer. They are the people who preside over the daily lawlessness of the commute and contribute to the anti-bike mindset through their deeply flawed bike sting BS. They share the cars-first mindset of the road ragers and that needs to change- we need to insist that it changes. My wife has almost been hit by a cop running a stop sign while speeding on a designated bike route with no lights or sirens.
“Investigators have not yet determined fault and the case remains an open investigation.”
You can get around these limit lower difficulties by lowering the design speed of the road. Some cities like SF are now marking some lanes to be intentionally narrow, down to 9 foot lanes I believe, and removing the center marking. This lowers speed naturally, and a follow-up speed study may then show the limit should be lowered.
“I confused the pedals with the brakes”
‘It could happen to anybody”
Like the elderly driver in Battle Ground said yesterday after she ran over two bicyclists. ;-(
Not saying that this isn’t a horribly dangerous intersection, but three of us on the scene are pretty sure the cyclist entered the intersection against the light. I have two cyclists in the family (one who rides to the nearby high school) so am concerned but this might not be the best example of what happens at this intersection.
Down below: police have issues a citation to the drive for running a red light. Perhaps, as is common Mr. Anderson was in the pedals and inching into motion in anticipation of the light – which generally is the safest way to deal with the cars gunning forward from the rear while trying to get propper lane position in the next block w/ bike lane, and known hazards of pick up zone at the school
Cindi, I am wondering why you thought the cyclist entered the intersection against the light? Did you witness it? What was your perspective? Was there something other than seeing the light which gave you that impression?
Not trying to blame you, just trying to understand the different perspectives of witnesses.
Here’s latest update from PPB:
Great that Sam convened a panel in wake of that bad summer a few years ago, but what did it get us? Bike boxes which are routinely ignored and an entire street of lawlessness (SW Stark).
I think paint and signs are productive only insofar as they are enforced through education and police action. Coming up with novel approaches (eg: bike box) does not work as they are not in widespread us. We live in a city with many suburbs, tourists and transplants.
Yep… I work above SW Stark and if I had to estimate based on frequent observation, I’d say the number of drivers who drive in the bike lane – either overlapping somewhat or entirely within – is greater than 60%.
Me too and I agree with your estimate. Unfortunately that 60% includes police.
UPDATE 3:50pm: PPB has ticketed the driver in this collision for Careless Driving w Injury to Vulnerable Roadway User.
And the rest of the PPB statement:
“Based on the investigation, officers determined that the bicycle rider, 37-year-old Peter Anderson, had the right of way and the green light.”
Thank you, PPB.
“…the bicycle rider, 37-year-old Peter Anderson, had the right of way and the green light.” ” Alan 1.0
Had the right of way, essentially wasn’t his fault, and he came to be involved in a collision nevertheless. Which leads to the question of to what degree defensive biking procedures were in effect here. Not that it can by any means approach anything close to a 100 percent guarantee against being involved in a collision, though the importance in being well versed and skilled in the use of defensive biking procedures, may not be something that’s presently widely understood and used.
I’ve had enough. The City is doing too little and we are reaching a tipping point. Bike lanes don’t cut it when we are supposedly trying to achieve a 25% bike mode split.
They have until 2035 for the 25% mode split…
That is also the timeline for Vision Zero. Does anyone else have a problem with this?
Update #3 is all that has to be said.
Jeep driver ran red light.
We instruct young children to look both ways before crossing the street, do adult bicyclists have to be reminded of this basic survival skill?
Unfortunately we do. I’m a 42 year old avid bike commuter, which means that I’m old enough and experienced enough to know better. But for some reason I frequently put too much reliance on my ‘legal right-of-way’ even though there’s a part of my brain that says I’m a fool! Be safe out there everybody and watch out for yourself!
The cyclist had a green light. Are you saying that no cyclist should ever proceed to cross the street of a motorist is approaching the cross intersection, even if the motorist has a red light or stop sign? I understand defensive driving- but if I were to wait at every intersection until all the cross traffic had come to a complete stop, it would add significant delays to not only myself but others (particularly at a four way stop sign or for the vehicles behind me)
Unfortunately, but I think that’s what we’re all going to have to do form now on. The stakes for us are too high.
Jen,
Anyone, regardless of mode, who trusts the signal will stop conflicting vehicles, is making a false assumption.
Jen said it well, but the other aspect is to agree with you in principle but… Yes, I do as a motorist and as a cyclist try to look consistently at what is coming when the light turns green in case someone is running the light. I have often avoided a crash that way. I do 40 or 50 other little defensive cycling behaviors that have often allowed me to save a dangerous situation as a close call and just as often avoid even a close call because I was heads up. NO ONE, and absolutely NO ONE has ever argued on these comment thread that we should ride around blind to circumstances and relying on what should happen on the road to keep us safe. I am someone who will with good reason brag about my safety practices and skills, about how my experience and thoughtfulness regarding riding behavior, route selection, safety equipment make me a top notch rider. Yet, I know I can never be 100% perfect. I can maintain a very high level of focus, scan ahead, identify hazards, but then… I can get distracted. I can lose focus. But when I lose focus on a bike I am still riding according to the rules, just not screening for hazards as effectively, and I am not causing a threat to anyone.
SO my points: #1) No one can be perfect at seeing and avoiding every hazard all the time. So continuing to emphasize over and over again how Cyclists need to be responsible for their own safety, and victim blaming, is a law of diminishing returns proposition. I am a really experienced cyclist who has put a lot of effort into learning how to ride safely, and yet my vigilance can never be perfect. And Left Hooks and red light runners are two of the toughest scenarios to anticipate. #2) Cars and motorists are the hazard. They cause the damage. They are the killers. Motorists need to be much, much more cognizant of their responsibility to drive safely. If motorists made half the effort to drive safely as I put in to riding safely, we would be most of the way to Vision Zero. #3) As concerned as I am about safety is that the kind of urban landscape we should want? Can’t we hope for better? That is the main point of most people commenting here. Let’s change this paradigm. I should be able to ride my bike through my neighborhood to the store and the coffee shop without constant vigilance because a car can come shooting out of anywhere. Cars are more dangerous than guns! We don’t let people walk around carelessly handling guns and randomly shooting expecting the bystanders to stay out of the line of fire. We certainly could do that. I think some gun nuts might even advocate for such, not quite in that language. Having a drivers license and driving should be at least as demanding of responsible behavior and citizenship as concealed carry.
or a car could come through the wall of your house and run you over while you’re watching tv on the couch…
we can never take enough precautions…
I saw 3 news stories yesterday, 1 in PDX area, where cars drove into buildings, including a Porsche that drove through a concrete block wall at an airport – LAX I think.
Oh,, but I forgot, bicyclists need to be held every bit as accountable for every aspect of safety as motorists – because that’s just fair …. NOT.
Statistically, it happens more than 60x per day in the US.
One further point. I don’t know, I am speculating. Mr. Peterson may well have been thinking very carefully about his safety. He may have been focused on the hazards in and near the bike lane on the opposite side of Powell, either from experience of the hazards there in the past or because of cars in the bike lane, or pedestrians in the area. He may have been focused on getting a hot start out of the box to get into lane position ahead, and avoid holding up traffic behind and because of that focus did not observe the car that was not likely to stop for the light. Focus and thinking can only go so far. When the # of hazards is too high, one can’t track all of them. Thus the problem with too many intersections.
Hydraulic retractable bollards at the stop line would be much safer than cameras, though they are not self-funding.
It’s an amusing idea, but I don’t think it would actually be safer. If cars are driving fast to get through the light, the rising bollard can actually flip their vehicle into the air. And if there’s one thing more dangerous than large, heavy objects moving without direction on the ground, it’s large, heavy objects flying through the air without direction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Cw0QJU8ro
The environmental damage from the oil and coolant spills may also be less desirable than red light cameras. Some crash test videos show the vehicle reduced to flying parts, but that is still a significant reduction in kinetic energy. So, the question is whether cameras (and our courts) are an effective deterrent, or would it take more than that to get drivers’ attention?
“We instruct young children to look both ways before crossing the street, do adult bicyclists have to be reminded of this basic survival skill?”
if you’re suggesting that we just sit there at a green light until all cross-traffic has amassed a protective barrier at the crosswalks then that’s not going to work when there are other vehicles waiting behind you…
From the description, it sounds as if the driver ran the redlight going straight?
I drove through this intersection on Tuesday after picking up my daughter at Cleveland HS. I was westbound on Powell at 26th in the left turn lane waiting for a green arrow. The westbound through traffic had a green, which went to yellow, then red. A westbound car to my right accelerated upon seeing the yellow and proceeded to blow through the red signal. The driver clearly had time to stop on the yellow.
Red light cameras for all intersections!
BRING BACK CRITICAL MASS!
“PPB has ticketed the driver in this collision for Careless Driving w Injury to Vulnerable Roadway User.”
I wonder what brought this on? This is something PPB has never taken seriously or done before.
I just saw on Facebook that 2 of my friends were hit by a car this week. Luckily, no major injuries. One sustained several broken bones and a broken bike, however.
Did anyone see this? http://www.kgw.com/story/news/2015/05/27/bicyclists-hurt-clark-co-crash/28047183/
And now this one… http://www.oregonlive.com/hillsboro/index.ssf/2015/05/hillsboro_cop_in_patrol_car_st.html#incart_m-rpt-1
Not blaming the victim, not excusing ODOT but as someone who traverses that intersection almost daily on a bike, for, and car:
Never ever proceed even if you have the green unless you look both ways. Cars and trucks and TriMet buses regularly run the reds (mostly by pushing the yellows).
Look both ways. Proceed. If you’re in the bike box, hold up the traffic behind you if you must.
Talk to anyone in that neighborhood and they’ll tell you the same thing.
If the driver ran a red, this certainly justifies my paranoid head-check at the seemingly safe intersection of Clinton and Cesar Chavez.
Bring on the robot cars. Too many people care more about their text messages and saving 30 seconds than they care about not hurting other people.
This morning I saw a driver yell at a couple of pedestrians who were jaywalking in front of him as he blew through a light. Then he parked half a block down the street! I was so tempted to confront him, but I knew that my temper would have gotten the best of me so I didn’t.
Can we all agree no matter your mode of transpiration our neighborhoods are just that and not highways! If your complaining about cycling then consider the alternative. Roads are only meant for cars and that means they should go as fast as they can even when its right in front of your home. Well I say that lacks empathy for the communities where the roads divide our lives.
I bike because I live in the city where at a good portion of time the reward greatly out weighs the risk. It would seem that the only people really at odds with cycling are ones who’s cultural opinions are divided by the liberals vs conservatives mind sets and its sad that our communities are being ruined by trite politics.
When I cycle I use the green ways almost 100% exclusively because they are what the community allocates for cyclist. As a driver I’m respectful if I happen to find my way on the roads that are green ways. I record my commutes every day to work and 10:1 I see drivers abuse our community over cyclist. Thats not to say cyclist are perfect. Cyclist break laws too, why cause they are also the same people who drive poorly. I cant say I’m happy with my own behavior, I’m becoming more and more angry with the people who I believe lack empathy for me and my family. This results in more confrontations and heightened aggressions.
Just the other day at 39th and Gladstone a green pickup truck drove pass a very large group of cyclist (40+) who had stopped to pay respect to the person who died there. The truck driver revved his engine and drove excessively fast and close past the people. It was easy to assume his aggressive behavior was because of his irritation with us being there. I get the driver was inconvenienced by the group of people in front of him yet at the same time he showed no empathy for a group of people who needed that space more than him if only for a moment. This is why there is a war on cars. This is why people are becoming more aggressive on their bikes this is why the contrast is more dividing. Without empathy there is no perspective. If you make assumptions about other people without perspective your doing so selfishly.
How about this instead as a community we hold our selfs accountable. Stop pointing the finger at each other and start pointing to your self. Start owning your actions and most of all show empathy for each other.
There are no drivers vs cyclists there are only people vs people. Stop destroying your community and start supporting it.
I think overuse of cars automatically destroys community, because it minimizes it. A few years ago, I heard the term “cocooning” used to describe how lots of people live these days: they go into the garage, get in the car, raise the garage door, then drive to their destination. Coming home is the reverse; they are only in their driveway long enough for the garage door to finish opening, then in they go and down comes the door again. Anyone who travels like this is hardly ever IN their community; the streets of their community are merely wires that connect them to other places. Ditto for the streets in anyone’s neighborhood they may pass through. Rather than places where people live and children play, neighborhood streets are just frustratingly slow freeways to use to go somewhere else.
Two quick things. This was posted to neighborhood list Saturday: “Word has it, but I haven’t seen it in person, there is work being done today on installing left-turn signals at Powell and 26. After yesterday’s bike-car incident I guess the state decided not to wait.” Another person verified it was installed but not operating. On being a witness, I spoke to the police yesterday after the citation was issued and it still seemed like things were vague. I was an eye witness to the collision but was facing west when it occcurred, not facing the traffic light. All I know is that I was close to crossing westbound when it happened. Apparently, I will be hearing from both sides lawyers – it is not cut and dried as it might seem. Everyone, please, please proceed into intersections cautiously, even if you have the light. This is bikes, cars and peds.
We are headed in the wrong direction. Lives mean less than getting somewhere faster? Lives mean less when someone is an easy target to vent your anger? Anyone taking a life or limb from someone damages their own soul. Thats a high price to pay. Oil will run out. It peaked in the early 70s. Alternate transportation is the future.
There’s a lot any road user can do to be defensive and mitigate the mistakes made by others. I still want to raise the general level of aptitude on the streets, particularly by drivers, and have people held accountable for their mistakes both before and when they have consequences.
Motor vehicles could be equipped with an inexpensive cell phone blanker that automatically activates whenever the vehicle is running and/or transmission is in drive mode. Note I use the word could before spewing emotional comments. We all know this would be a lot of help.
I’m not sure what mechanism would be used in an inexpensive cell phone “blanker”. An app on the phone that disables calling when the phone is bluetooth-paired with the car? An NFC patch that triggers call/text-blocking when the phone is placed on the proper location within the car?
I suspect you maybe meant something that actively jams the cell phone signal. And beyond the legal reasons, there are a variety of technical reasons why that wouldn’t work well. Not least among them, there is no single “cell-phone frequency” that could be targeted, and cars are not Faraday cages and so the interference will propagate outside the vehicle.
Not all vehicles are operated in single-passenger mode. Just because your bus driver shouldn’t be on their phone while driving doesn’t mean you don’t want to be on your phone while the bus-driver is driving. (Or replace “bus” with carpool, etc.)