A woman has died while bicycling on SE 82nd at Flavel -UPDATED

Posted by on July 30th, 2016 at 10:08 am

Intersection of 82nd and Flavel.

UPDATE, 9:45 am on August 1st: Police have identified the woman as 25-year-old Lydia Anne Johnson. See end of post for details on how the crash happened.

A woman died this morning as the result of a traffic collision in southeast Portland.

According to the Portland Police Bureau, it happened around 8:00 am this morning at the intersection of SE 82nd and Flavel.

Here’s a snip from the official police statement:

Officers and medical personnel arrived and located the adult female bicycle rider who was critically injured. Life-saving efforts were not successful and she died at the scene.

The adult male driver in a box truck remained at the scene and has been cooperating with investigators.

The Traffic Division’s Major Crash Team is responding to conduct an investigation.

Advertisement

The location is just a few blocks north of the Springwater Corridor path. Here’s an aerial view of the intersection:

When the City of Portland launched their Vision Zero initiative in August 2015, they chose a location on 82nd (at Division) just just 2.5 miles north of where this fatality occurred.

According to the Portland Bureau of Transportation Vision Zero crash map, between 2005 and 2014 there have been two fatalities (one biking, one walking) and eight serious injuries (six people in cars, two people on foot) on this section of 82nd (between SE Lambert and SE Ogden).

While specific details haven’t been released, the location of this crash is sure to re-ignite the frustration of Portlanders who want to tame these big and fast arterials. Vivian Satterfield, deputy director of the nonprofit OPAL Environmental Justice Oregon just posted her feelings to her personal Twitter account:

This is the third fatal crash involving a bicycle rider in Portland this year.

If you have information about this collision or about this intersection in general, please share in the comments or get in touch with us directly at (503) 706-8804.

Stay tuned as more details are released.

UPDATE from PPB:

The woman killed on Saturday morning was identified as 25-year-old Lydia Ann Johnson. She died of injuries suffered in the crash.

The driver, 36-year-old Joel Silva, cooperated with investigators and did not show any signs of impairment.

Investigators determined that Silva and Johnson were traveling eastbound on Flavel Street when Silva turned right to southbound on 82nd Avenue and struck Johnson on her bicycle.

As is standard procedure, the case will be presented to the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office for a review and consideration of any possible criminal charges, once the investigation is complete. Any possible traffic citations would be issued upon completion of the criminal review of the case.

Anyone with information about this incident should contact Officer David Enz at 503-823-2208, david.enz@portlandoregon.gov.

— Jonathan Maus, (503) 706-8804 – jonathan@bikeportland.org

Our work is supported by subscribers. Please become one today.

Please support BikePortland.

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

219 Comments
  • Avatar
    Mike Sanders July 30, 2016 at 11:52 am

    Tri-Met buses were routed off 82 Av. near the accident area for awhile this morning after the accident took place. They’re back on that section of 82nd.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Crash July 30, 2016 at 3:39 pm

      Crash, not accident.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        pepe July 31, 2016 at 12:28 pm

        The definition of Accident :

        “an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.”

        I don’t see why this wouldn’t be an accident. Was it intentional or expected ? No.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          alankessler July 31, 2016 at 7:04 pm

          Yes, it was expected.

          When a facility is designed the way ODOT designed 82nd, one can count on people dying. Did those specific two people expect to crash? Almost certainly not. Will someone else die there again if nothing is changed? Almost certainly so.

          http://crashnotaccident.com/

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            pepe August 1, 2016 at 10:13 am

            And that is exactly why this city can’t have a rational conversation about bikes, because the biking community is filled with cultish ideologies and extreme positions, such as arguing that anytime an _accident_ happens it was actually intentional.

            I would argue that riding your bicycle a few feet away from fast moving vehicles that weigh over a ton is an intentional death wish. So bike accidents are really suicides and not accidents.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Oliver August 1, 2016 at 10:20 am

              This is exactly why this city can’t have a rational conversation about car crashes, because the driving community is filled with cultish ideologies and extreme positions, such as arguing that anytime an _accident_ happens it was actually intentional.

              Nothing about the word crash implies intent.

              I would argue that driving your one ton automobile a few feet away from fast moving big rigs that weigh over 40 tons is an intentional death wish.

              So car accidents crashes are really suicides and not accidents.

              ***This portion of your comment has been deleted because it was insulting, unproductive, or just plain mean. Please be more considerate next time. Thanks. — Jonathan. ***

              Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Dan A August 1, 2016 at 10:28 am

              Bikes came first.

              And…you’re living wrong if you think riding a bike is a death wish.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              alankessler August 1, 2016 at 10:38 am

              If you read what I wrote, you’ll find that I did not write “intentional,” rather I used the word “expected.” Your definition of “accident” had a conjunction between the two terms. My argument is that both elements of the conjunction are not met by the circumstances of the crash.

              You can call me “cultish” and “extreme,” but if your goal is to have a “rational” conversation, as you say it is, then you should respond to the argument I made.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              GlowBoy August 1, 2016 at 10:43 am

              “suicide”

              WTF? You think all the people on bikes killed by cars wanted to die? I go way the hell out of my way to reduce my risk of conflicts and collisions with cars. But due to the nature of our transportation system, many times I have found myself on scary-ass roads with cars whizzing by too close.

              I can assure you that at none of these times did I want to die.

              Riding a bike is not suicidal (nor, most of the time is it as dangerous as driving), but it is more dangerous than it should be.

              If you’re calling cycling suicidal because by your perception death is imminent, by extension you must be homicidal because deaths of cyclists “in your way” is imminent.

              Since you seem to intent on killing, please hand in your driver’s license immediately. Ride the bus, walk or ride a bike. But please do not ever drive a car.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Chris I August 1, 2016 at 11:01 am

              And yet, you choose to come to the BikePortland blog for some reason? Do you even ride a bike, bro?

              Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              paikiala August 1, 2016 at 12:10 pm

              Children have accidents, not adults. Accidents happen when the outcomes of actions are unknown. Adults do no have the excuse of saying they did not know the results of their choices could result in serious injury or death.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 12:48 pm

                It does not follow that because you know a bad outcome is possible that therefore the actuality was not accidental and unintentional. Otherwise every bad event that has predictable chain of causality (which is almost everything) can be attributed to deliberate choices of the participants.

                We are not all-seeing, all-knowing, perfectly predicting beings.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Adam H.
                Adam H. August 1, 2016 at 12:55 pm

                Someone deliberately chose to make the bike lane disappear in favor of a turn lane for cars. I’d say the outcomes of that decision are quite predictable.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Chris I August 1, 2016 at 1:01 pm

                Exactly. I’ve driven drunk 1000 times and been fine. I didn’t mean to hit that pedestrian. It was an accident.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 1:17 pm

                Yes, exactly. Your being drunk certainly increased the probability of a negative outcome (which is why we’ve rightfully classified that as a criminal action), but you certainly did not deliberately or intentionally kill a pedestrian. You can do things to increase the likelihood of a negative outcome, and still have that outcome be accidental. Hence “accidental pregnancy.”

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                paikiala August 1, 2016 at 3:42 pm

                ‘Accident’, ‘Accidental’ implies ‘unavoidable’. Most crash events are avoidable. ‘Crash’ and ‘Collision’ are neutral. Intent is a separate issue.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 3:48 pm

                It does not at all imply “unavoidable”. It implies “unintended”.

                Would “accidental crash” be acceptable?

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Chris I August 1, 2016 at 9:53 pm

                “It was just a tragic accident. There is nothing we could have done to avoid it.”

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 10:04 pm

                Unintended, not unavoidable.

                “It was just a tragic accident. I didn’t mean to hurt anyone!”

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                El Biciclero August 15, 2016 at 1:41 pm

                Chiming in late, but this is what I tell my kids, who are both under six:

                There are “accidents” that happen when you are being careful, and there are “accidents” that happen when you are messing around doing things you know you shouldn’t be doing.

                Even though there may not be intent (in the moment) to cause a crash, there are often things that are (or aren’t) being done that should (or shouldn’t) be. Anyone with a license to drive a motor vehicle should know everything that needs to be done and not done while driving in order to keep everyone safe.

                My main objection to the word “accident” is not that it implies “unintentional”, but that it usually further implies “despite all efforts to the contrary”, when all efforts weren’t necessarily made. Lacking a distinction between “accidents while being careful” and “accidents while being careless”, I think the more scientific “collision”, or slightly more emotional “crash”, is the best-suited term to use. Again, we don’t hear about “train accidents” or “plane accidents”, they are “wrecks” or “crashes”, or “mid-air collisions”, or “derailments”—even though they were most likely unintentional. We don’t hear them referred to in trivial “fender-bender” terms like, “had a little wing-ding on the taxi-way”, or “oops, I guess we just had a loose caboose! Heh, heh”. Is it because incidents involving these other vehicles are taken so seriously that the incidence of crashes involving them is so low? Might we apply some of the licensing rigor we use for pilots and train operators to potential car drivers? Might we conduct thorough investigations into serious crashes that involve injury or death and hold those at fault (even with lack of intent) to a higher standard?

                For pepe, I don’t think that anyone immediately jumps to the conclusion that a driver involved in a crash with a bicyclist was being intentionally homicidal, but there is a pretty immediate assumption in such cases that one party or the other (or both) was not being careful. There is a further assumption that those who choose to swing a multi-ton hammer around in public have a higher standard of care to live up to.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              wsbob August 1, 2016 at 4:11 pm

              Glad to have update info on the collision posted to this story….thanks maus. So, apparently, the collision was some sort of a right hook occurrence, very near or at the intersection. No surprise there: intersections may be one of, if not the most complicated, of traffic activity situations. To get through them safely without causing or being a victim of a collision, all road users have to either be on high alert, or very lucky.

              “…I would argue that riding your bicycle a few feet away from fast moving vehicles that weigh over a ton is an intentional death wish. So bike accidents are really suicides and not accidents. …” pepe

              Yours is not an uncommon viewpoint expressed, regarding use of bikes for travel on the road. I’d have to say though, it to me seems to be one, not one well thought out, or rational. Speaking for myself, I’ve put a lot of miles on the bike, riding very near to motor vehicles, and never once did it for the purpose of committing suicide. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anyone with intentions of suicide, riding a bike in traffic for the express purpose of ending their life.

              I wish it weren’t so, but after many years and miles of riding, and a fair bit of reading about traffic and infrastructure, I feel like there isn’t likely to be any easy, realistic solutions for eliminating the potential for the type of collision the right hook collision is. I want to say to everyone, ‘be more careful in your use of the road.’…but then it seems always, the fingers start pointing to their owners favored fall guy, and not a lot of people seem to want to speak up in words committing themselves to developing higher levels of safe use of the road, personally.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 9:23 pm

                I think pepe was trying to discredit the notion that since the outcomes of almost all sets of choices are theoretically foreseeable, that by choosing to ride your bike on the street, you are making the conscious choice to get killed… i.e. suicide.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                aurorablue August 14, 2016 at 5:13 pm

                I am very careful crossing intersections. I have been in my power chair and been almost hit by drivers making turns. They have some type of blindness regarding power chair and bicycle users. They simply haven’t trained themselves to be aware of anything other than cars and less so pedestrians.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Dan A July 31, 2016 at 7:41 pm

          90% of crashes are due to ‘human error’, which is almost always intentional behavior: inattentiveness, aggressive driving, drunk driving, negligence, speeding, failure to signal, failure to yield, failure to put down your phone, etc. Automatically calling a crash an ‘accident’ gives the operators way too much credit.

          Tree fall in the road directly in front of you? That’s an accident.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Hello, Kitty
            Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 12:08 am

            I don’t categorize failings of human cognition, which many of the things you cite are, as “intentional”. People have limitations; we are not the perfect robots you suggest we are. Accidents happen.

            Besides… if you plant trees next to the road, sooner or later one’s going to fall in the road and kill someone. That’s also a failure of design, no?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Dan A August 1, 2016 at 7:40 am

              There is nothing logical here to respond to.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 9:05 am

                You describe things as intentional that are clearly not.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Dan A August 1, 2016 at 10:11 am

                Which of these are not a result of intentional choices?

                inattentiveness, aggressive driving, drunk driving, negligence, speeding, failure to signal, failure to yield, failure to put down your phone

                My son frequently chooses to place his cup near the edge of the table instead of above his plate. When he reaches for something on the table, his elbow comes back and he predictably knocks his milk on the floor. He knows better, so we don’t consider this an accident anymore.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Spiffy August 1, 2016 at 7:42 am

              people have limitations and are frequently driving beyond them… those aren’t accidents…

              a tree falling in the road is no accident if it’s not properly maintained…

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Dan A August 1, 2016 at 10:13 am

                Okay, a meteorite falls from the sky.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 12:40 pm

                A man falling off a ladder is not an accident; A child being injured in a baseball game is not an accident; a person cutting themselves with a razor is not an accident; All are predictable outcomes of partaking in a particular activity, so are therefore intentional?

                You’ve stretched the definition of “intentional” well beyond its breaking point.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Spiffy August 1, 2016 at 12:55 pm

                I never mentioned the word “intentional”…

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                SD August 1, 2016 at 1:03 pm

                The outcome is not intentional, but the negligence is.

                Accident includes both negligent and non-negligent conditions. It is also a less precise term than crash or collision and it suggests an unavoidable result. The reason it is important to use more accurate language is that we have normalized driver negligence and accept injury and fatalities in exchange for convenience or because we don’t want to make changes.

                Crashes should be called crashes so that we count them as crashes and make changes to prevent them.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 1:14 pm

                Spiffy — you might not have mentioned intentional, but the word was used in a parent post that set the context in which we were both responding.

                In this case, you’ve stretched the limits of “not an accident” beyond its limits. Of course they are accidents under any reasonable definition of the word. I also prefer to say “crash” (it sounds more exciting, to be frank), but most car crashes, and other sorts of injuries, are accidents.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Spiffy August 1, 2016 at 3:31 pm

                SD is exactly right…

                Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Michael Hale August 1, 2016 at 10:35 am

        Nations Traffic Safety Boad recognends Using “CRASH” not accident. The term crash has also been adopted by most bicycle organizations and bicycle law offices. Accept this term and stop bickering among yourselves and address the issues of driver education, distracted drivers and need for lower speed limits in cities.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    rick July 30, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    Sickening. So sad.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Teddy July 30, 2016 at 12:58 pm

    I am sorry to hear about this and may she rest in peace.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Chris Balduc July 30, 2016 at 1:19 pm

    I live in FO PO just off Foster at 71st and the traffic is so bad at that corner that I have to avoid it altogether. Cagers have no consideration for any other user group. The situation is intolerable. When the city finally goes ahead and reduces the lanes on Foster from 4 to 2, the area might actually become a livable space. Right now Foster and 82nd is a traffic nightmare and bicycle hell.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      nport July 30, 2016 at 2:22 pm

      Oh, and what about all the bikers that zoom through stop signs and don’t respect pedestrian crossing signs? The bike mafia needs to realize that you all not immune to being law-breakers either

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) July 30, 2016 at 2:47 pm

        Hi nport,

        Thanks for the comment. I know you are new to this site, so I want to let you know that the tone of your comment and the “bike mafia” name-calling is not appreciated here. If you’d like to continue to have your voice heard, you’ll have to write with a more considerate tone.

        I know this is an emotional topic. It’s emotional for all of us – on boths sides of the windshield.

        I hope you understand. Thank you for listening.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          lyle w. July 30, 2016 at 9:59 pm

          Like he has any interest in having an intelligent dialog. He got his hit in while we’re already down, he gets to feel like a big man now, wax on wax off until the next cyclist is hit and killed by a motorist.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          naess August 1, 2016 at 10:17 am

          while you’re tone policing, just wanted to point out that “cager” is just as offensive as “bike mafia”.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Cory P July 30, 2016 at 3:39 pm

        I always stop for people walking when I am riding a bicycle or skateboard. But some don’t understand how important it is to yield to people walking.
        I would however suggest that the risk is not equal to that of cars. I can’t think of a single instance in Oregon when a cyclist killed a pedestrian. I know it has happened elsewhere but it is so extremely rare that I would not dwell on it.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Bike Mafia July 30, 2016 at 3:40 pm

        The Bike Mafia would like a word with you. We have an offer you can’t refuse.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Ron July 30, 2016 at 11:00 pm

        Could you please try to assess the situation objectively instead of vomiting with outrage? A cyclist being through a stop sign is far less dangerous than a motorist driving a 2500 car. Do you have ANY sympathy for the person who lost their life?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Buzz August 1, 2016 at 11:39 am

        Apparently she was right-hooked by a motorist that either did not see her or failed to yield, or both; I’m afraid it’s got nothing to do with your spurious comment or allegations.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) July 30, 2016 at 2:50 pm

      Hi Chris,

      I feel your anger and frustration and I share much of it. But please don’t use labels like “cagers” to describe other road users. I’m sure you wouldn’t want people to call you something similar just because you ride a bike.

      Hate and labeling others doesn’t help anything. It only makes our roads more dangerous and adds to the problems. I don’t know all the solutions but I do know that one of them is that people need to treat each other better… And we might as well start that here in these comments.

      Thanks! Fun seeing you on the Thursday Night Ride! I got a fun pic of you waving at the camera at Ladd Circle. See you on the streets.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Shaun July 30, 2016 at 5:13 pm

        HI Jonathan, thanks for the comment. Chris has not changed much by labeling people. That is who he is. I’m truly saddened by the tragic news. Thank you for sharing.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Shaun July 30, 2016 at 5:11 pm

      Nothing is new with you labeling people. Even your own Deaf people. You once labeled one person who is a person of color. You live to label people. Stop it! Thank you!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      chris July 30, 2016 at 7:31 pm

      Strange, I’ve been crossing Foster at 71st on my bike almost every day for the past 11 years and have had no problems, I actually prefer it to crossing at the light at 72nd, less impatient left turners to deal with.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        David Hampsten July 31, 2016 at 5:35 pm

        This is at Flavel, south of Foster.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          chris August 1, 2016 at 5:15 pm

          David Hampsten, that was a reply to the comment up there by Chris Balduc about 72st & foster, it has gotten pushed down here by other peoples replies.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            chris August 1, 2016 at 5:15 pm

            71st, sorry

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Mark smith July 30, 2016 at 1:51 pm

    Odot knows.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Tom Hardy July 30, 2016 at 1:58 pm

      Yes ODOT knows about the situation and the administration whole heartedly agrees with current situation. In their opinion, let the cars and trucks go faster and do not use signals.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      David Hampsten August 1, 2016 at 8:49 pm

      Flavel not ODOT. 82nd ODOT. Flavel PBOT.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Mike Sanders July 30, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    Foster is now the main highway to Happy Valley, and the commuters treat it as though they owned it. They don’t like the stoplight at the Springwater trail at all.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Alex Reedin July 31, 2016 at 2:56 pm

      The City-programmed stop light timing caters to speeding traffic. You can expect very few red lights on Foster so people driving don’t expect nor pay attention to the ones that occur. Crossing at the 101st or 87th greenways, I’ve come to expect stale red light runners. It happens once every ten crossings or so but is still jarring and scary – I am almost always crossing with my kids on the bike.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 12:12 am

        I think with frequent red lights, you’d also have stale-light runners… perhaps even more of them as drivers get frustrated. You also get more pollution as vehicles accelerate and decelerate at every light. And finally, more red lights would reduce the vehicle capacity of the street, which would make it harder to argue for lane removal and road diets.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        paikiala August 1, 2016 at 12:17 pm

        Alex,

        any evidence to back up your claim? Most signals are timed for progression, which works pretty well for one direction of travel and when signals are far apart, but intersections on 82nd don’t fit that pattern. Anyone can usually see in around 5 PM near Division and Powell – the backed up traffic. And unless the signals are going to rest in red and only give green when someone approaches at the speed limit, I don’t see how the City can use signals to compel speed limit compliance. Of course, if two opposing drivers approach at the speed limit simultaneously, someone has to stop. the math gets complicated real fast.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      David Hampsten July 31, 2016 at 5:36 pm

      At Flavel, not Foster. Completely different street.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Alex Reedin July 31, 2016 at 7:33 pm

        Different street, same neighborhoods, same City neglect and car-prioritization.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      jeff August 1, 2016 at 11:29 am

      wait until Foster goes to 2 lanes in a few months. I hate that road – can’t wait.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Kristi Finney Dunn July 30, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    Today is the 5th anniversary of the death of 18 year old Michael Vu (killed on SE Mather) and also of when I last saw my son Dustin (killed on Division 8/12/11). I cannot express enough my sorrow and anger that these collisions and tragedies are still happening, more frequently even. My heart goes out to the family and friends of this latest victim.

    Our various advocacy groups and individuals must work together to bring about the necessary changes (legislation, infrastructure, education, enforcement, etc) to prevent further devastation and to improve the livability of our communities. I love (and am so grateful for) the ideas, actions, and persistence of the multiple bicycle and pedestrian safety advocacy groups; without them I feel there’d be no push at all for improved safety and community. I don’t understand where the activism for safety of people in cars is!? We need them, too. We need to all be in this together, for everyone.

    I’m frustrated and hurting today. RIP as yet unnamed but beloved woman no longer on a bike.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    pdxbikeworm July 30, 2016 at 4:23 pm

    I ride through this area quite frequently. How immensely sad! Riding east on Flavel, there is an area on the southeast corner of the intersection (in front of the Mexican restaurant – which, btw is quite good) where cars tend to encroach into the bike lane as they cross the intersection, possibly due to the left turn lane narrowing the road. There are also several dangerous potholes in the intersection itself which cars avoid, and which can force bicyclists into the main road – often unexpectantly. I have narrowly missed getting sideswiped several times by larger vehicles barreling through this intersection. My suggestion for safety improvements would be at a minimum to fix the potholes (something which, oddly, was not done during a recent repaving of 82nd Ave, which seemed to bypass the actual intersection).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    thebigdog July 30, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    ***This comment has been deleted. You are now on automatic moderation. Your comments will not be published unless you change your tone and treat others with respect. Thank you. – Jonathan ***

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Terry D-M July 30, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    Remove a row of Parking 52 nd then to 92 nd, and redesign the traffic light at 82 nd so westbound on Flavel goes first, then eastbound. That way 8 foot wide buffered bike facilities could be built on Se Flavel 52 nd to the I 205 path including a connection to the Springwater. That however, would take political leadership.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Terry D-M August 1, 2016 at 11:28 am

      Now that we know what happened, a Multi-Modal modernization like described would most likely have prevented this collision.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      SE Rider August 1, 2016 at 1:04 pm

      Terry, are you proposing to do this to remove the left turn lanes on Flavel at the intersection?
      I think your proposal (wider bike lane), while likely reducing a chance of someone being hit while riding along the street in the bike lane, may not have had a major effect in this specific incident.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Adam H.
    Adam H. July 30, 2016 at 11:18 pm

    Ugh, this sucks. When will ODOT take responsibility for their dangerous design? How much is a life worth to ODOT, that they spend money on new highways yet can’t seem to find the funds to fix existing roads? Does ODOT consider people’s lives to be less important than Fred Meyers having easy access to the highway? I’m so sick of having this conversation over and over again.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      fat spandex dude July 30, 2016 at 11:59 pm

      We’re past the point where CoP needs to have control of its own streets. It’s insane that ODOT has such a massive amount of power over how Portland’s traffic infrastructure, and it’s clear that they will never use that power to make Portland a better city for all of its residents.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      David Hampsten July 31, 2016 at 5:39 pm

      I’m sorry, Adam, but what does Fred Meyer have to do with this intersection? It’s over a mile away, at Foster. The crash was at Flavel.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Adam L July 31, 2016 at 9:32 pm

        He is referencing the “Sunrise Corridor” that just opened that ODOT spent $130 million on. It’s main purpose is making getting to Fred Meyer’s distribution center easier. They would rather spend money on those types of things than make Portland streets safer.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Tom Hardy July 31, 2016 at 6:21 pm

      Yes Adam. ODOT does consider access to and from retailers a higher priority than cyclists lives.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      jeff August 1, 2016 at 11:30 am

      you have no idea how this happened, but still somehow find a way to blame ODOT? brilliant stuff there.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Adam H.
        Adam H. August 1, 2016 at 12:44 pm

        As is the case in nearly every crash, it is extremely likely that road design played a factor here. Therefore, I think it’s worth assigning blame to the state agency responsible to maintaining this 82nd Avenue intersection.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Mossby Pomegranate July 30, 2016 at 11:30 pm

    zero vision isn’t working

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Sarah Broderick July 31, 2016 at 9:57 am

    This is so sad. I feel terrible for this woman and her friends and family. I used to work on Foster Road in Lents and Powellhurst-Gilbert. It doesn’t feel safe to be a pedestrian or a cyclist in that area. Sometimes it doesn’t even feel safe to be a driver on Foster Road.

    I recently started bike commuting again. Now that I have a toddler and a heavier load to carry, the purchase of a cargo bike with e-assist is really what got me back on two wheels. It hasn’t been easy, there are some drivers and some cyclists who just seem bent on making situations dangerous for others. But what really has me hesitating and second-guessing my choice are the threatening comments from (presumably) drivers. It honestly makes me want to get back in my car because it often feels safer (I know the statistics say otherwise) and I have no interest in risking my child’s life just because someone thinks less of people when they’re on a bicycle. I’m about to start a twice-weekly commute between North Portland and Troutdale and I am genuinely concerned about my safety and whether or not this is actually a good idea.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      David Hampsten July 31, 2016 at 5:41 pm

      The headline is Flavel. F.L.A.V.E.L. not Foster.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Sigma July 31, 2016 at 9:27 pm

        It’s almost as though people have pre-programmed responses to headlines and don’t actually read articles for content.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 12:16 am

        You know, I’ve wondered why a street that was spelled “Flavel” was pronounced “Foster”. I always thought it was some kind of British thing.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Gary B August 1, 2016 at 9:09 am

        Good point. Sarah’s comment about “the area” should be disregarded because Sarah worked 1.0 miles away from the intersection in question.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Adam H.
        Adam H. August 1, 2016 at 9:31 am

        Honestly, you can replace “Foster” in that post with many other roads in Portland to the same effect.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 1:31 pm

          “The headline is Flavel. F.L.A.V.E.L. not Burnside.” ?

          Sure, works for me!

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          David Hampsten August 1, 2016 at 8:52 pm

          Flanders. NEd Flanders. Shaken, not stirred.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Tom Hardy July 31, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Zero vision is working. Vision zero is not.
    36 hours and not a whisper of any details. Looks like a big cover up to me.
    No witnesses. No press coverage except the PPB announcement at 8:36 AM on Saturday to all the stations. Everyone was at the homeless camp on Springwater a half dozen blocks away.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 12:20 am

      Maybe the driver was Elvis, or an alien or something. Has anyone spotted Agents J and K in Portland?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Ted Buehler August 1, 2016 at 12:30 am

    Sorry to hear this sad news.

    It is my understanding that Matt Garrett, ODOT’s director, would like to hear from constituents about using Oregon’s roads.

    This might be a good subject to contact him about.

    https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Pages/contact_us.aspx

    No email here, but a phone number and snail mail, both of which should be an easy way to contact him. Or, does anyone have his direct email?

    Ted Buehler

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Josh L. August 1, 2016 at 6:54 am

    Jonathan, what is the best way to get more information on this crash? My friend has been missing for two days, no one has heard from her, and she lives very close to the site of the incident. She rides her bike to work nearly every day in the morning. We’re concerned this might be her, but without a physical description it’s impossible to say. We know for a fact she left her wallet with her ID in it at home, which might explain why no name has been released from PPD. Any help or information would be hugely appreciated.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) August 1, 2016 at 6:59 am

      Hi Josh,

      I don’t know any more than you at this time. I’ve asked the PPB for more information and they have not released it. I expect an update today. Thank you for sharing this information.

      I also sent you an email with a PPB contact email. Good luck.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Tom Hardy August 1, 2016 at 8:12 am

      Josh L. Is there any way to help you get your friend’s ID etc to the police? Possibly contact them someway beside a number that might take a week or so for a response?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Equal Power August 1, 2016 at 6:57 am

    Hi Jonathan,

    Do you think you could show the same scrutiny of name calling, with the post just two up from the post you’ve commented on? (Post from Chris Balduc)

    If being called the Bike Mafia is worthy of your reminder of rules and conditions, I would assume “cagers” and the assumption to lump all car drivers into having “no consideration for another user group” would be worthy of a reminder – except that it’s a consistent poster. It’s unfortunate that you appear to show a bias towards response from one crowd, but not another.

    While this news is absolutely tragic, before basing assumptions about design, shouldn’t this comment thread first be awaiting the cause of this crash vs jumping to conclusions?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) August 1, 2016 at 7:20 am

      i did reply to chris’s comment… it just didn’t appear right under his for some reason. Thanks for sharing your feelings.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Equal Power August 1, 2016 at 7:45 am

        Missed it! Thanks for being consistent.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) August 1, 2016 at 9:56 am

    Update from PPB with names and details of how it happened:

    The woman killed on Saturday morning was identified as 25-year-old Lydia Ann Johnson. She died of injuries suffered in the crash.

    The driver, 36-year-old Joel Silva, cooperated with investigators and did not show any signs of impairment.

    Investigators determined that Silva and Johnson were traveling eastbound on Flavel Street when Silva turned right to southbound on 82nd Avenue and struck Johnson on her bicycle.

    As is standard procedure, the case will be presented to the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office for a review and consideration of any possible criminal charges, once the investigation is complete. Any possible traffic citations would be issued upon completion of the criminal review of the case.

    Anyone with information about this incident should contact Officer David Enz at 503-823-2208, david.enz@portlandoregon.gov.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Spiffy August 1, 2016 at 10:21 am

      so this happened in the only section of Flavel at the intersection with no bike lane… although I see in Google Street View that there are lines and markings to paint an 8″ wide line for the bike lane it looks like that may not have happened yet…

      if the light was green then the driver should have seen the cyclist on their approach… if the light was red with the bike approaching and the driver had a turn signal on then there shouldn’t have been a bike there…

      so still not enough info to really know where fault is going to be assigned…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Dan A August 1, 2016 at 11:34 am

        Under what scenario is a driver not at fault for turning into a cyclist who had the right of way?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          paikiala August 1, 2016 at 12:24 pm

          The DA looks for criminality, not fault. Fault is a civil litigation issue.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Pat Lowell August 1, 2016 at 12:44 pm

          I think Spiffy meant that if there’s no bike lane and the cyclist is “taking the lane,” they should be behind the truck and not passing it on the right.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Spiffy August 1, 2016 at 12:57 pm

          “Under what scenario is a driver not at fault for turning into a cyclist who had the right of way?”

          none that I can think of… I didn’t assume the cyclist had the right of way… why do you? I gave two examples where each vehicle could be found to have the right-of-way…

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Dan A August 1, 2016 at 2:07 pm

            Sorry, I can’t seem to locate the examples. How would a cyclist, traveling straight on this road to the right of the driver, not have the right of way? I’m assuming she wasn’t running a red light.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Spiffy August 1, 2016 at 3:30 pm

              if the car had signaled a right turn and is in motion then I don’t think it would be legal for the cyclist to pass them on the right unless the cyclist was directly beside the car and had no way to know they were turning…

              only pass a car on the right if they’re not actively turning, or you have your own lane…

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Dan A August 2, 2016 at 7:37 am

                That’s good advice, obviously, but if the light was green she still had the legal right of way. I assumed you were talking about fault in the legal sense in your first comment (“still not enough info to really know where fault is going to be assigned”). I honestly don’t know under what scenario she would legally be found at fault for being right hooked.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                aurorablue August 14, 2016 at 5:44 pm

                In this instance it was a “Box Truck”. This makes a big difference.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Dan G August 1, 2016 at 3:38 pm

        As of this morning, Flavel now has a complete bike lane to 82nd. It must have been done this morning, unless it simply failed to register to me when I rode through twice yesterday.
        https://goo.gl/photos/JQk9iZDyFYDwe7BF9

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Kat August 1, 2016 at 10:00 am

    So sad. I hope for the best for that poor young ladies family. 🙁

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Dan A August 1, 2016 at 10:11 am

    Which of these are not a result of intentional choices?

    inattentiveness, aggressive driving, drunk driving, negligence, speeding, failure to signal, failure to yield, failure to put down your phone

    My son frequently chooses to place his cup near the edge of the table instead of above his plate. When he reaches for something on the table, his elbow comes back and he predictably knocks his milk on the floor. He knows better, so we don’t consider this an accident anymore.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Dan A August 1, 2016 at 10:12 am

      Sorry, this should have nested up near the top.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 12:33 pm

      Inattentiveness, and negligence; some of the others are a result of these. Drunk driving is a borderline case — it’s sometimes a decision that you make when you are not able to make a decision, though, in many cases you could consider it like your milk example.

      Do you really think someone says “you know, today I’m going to try not paying attention” ?

      I’m not defending bad driving, just saying the causes aren’t all intentional choices made by drivers.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Dan A August 1, 2016 at 2:09 pm

        Would you excuse firearm negligence or inattentiveness in the same way? People are people, they can’t be expected to look where they are shooting?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 2:36 pm

          Of course guns are different; they have an entirely different mode of use, and a completely different culture built around them.

          I don’t excuse bad driving; I just don’t pretend users are all-knowing robots whose minds never wander and are able to process multiple streams of input simultaneously. Our driving culture is not one that stresses safety above all else. The data shows things have improved dramatically, but we still have a lot of room for improvement.

          If you want to stop human error in driving, you need to get the humans out from behind the wheel. People will never drive flawlessly, they will always make mistakes, and will always show bad judgement, just as in every other human endeavor.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Dan A August 1, 2016 at 2:53 pm

            We don’t hold drivers to the same level of scrutiny as gun owners because we don’t want to.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Hello, Kitty
              Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 2:59 pm

              I think that’s a bit simplistic, but on some level, I agree. That may have something to do with the fact that guns are designed to kill, and cars are designed to convey.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Dan A August 1, 2016 at 5:52 pm

                And yet, cars are just as effective at killing. Maybe more so.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 5:58 pm

                That’s probably why most hit-men drive cars, right?

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Dan A August 2, 2016 at 7:40 am

                If they did, we would never know. Mafia hits would be written off as accidents.

                Also: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/14/europe/nice-france-truck/

                Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    esther2 August 1, 2016 at 10:19 am

    Sounds like a right hook. I hope the driver is charged. But it will result in an $82 fine for “improper right turn” or something.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Spiffy August 1, 2016 at 10:26 am

      certainly a right-hook, but we don’t know who was at fault yet…

      the driver for failing to yield, or the cyclist for passing on the right when not safe?

      more details are needed…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Dan A August 1, 2016 at 12:50 pm

        While it’s not safe to pass on the right in such a scenario (or even to travel in a bike lane approaching an intersection, some might say), the cyclist isn’t at fault for exercising her right of way. She did not cause the collision.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          John Lascurettes August 1, 2016 at 2:28 pm

          All the following supposes both vehicles were in motion: If the rider was behind the truck and the truck had a turn signal on, the cyclist has right-of-way only if there was a bike lane there. If there is no bike lane, then the truck driver had asserted his intentions with a signal (and provided he did it for 100 feet before the turn), then the cyclist could likely be at fault. In a legal sense, drivers only have to compulsorily yield to the “next lane” (namely the bike lane) if it’s marked; otherwise, it’s a shared lane and passing on the right of a right-turning vehicle would be illegal — though pragmatism would say the driver should have checked the lane and sidewalk before turning in order to be safe for everyone (especially after presumably passing the cyclist).

          If they were both sitting at the red light, waiting to go, and the driver turned right on red, then the driver is at fault for not checking all conditions before turning. If the light turned green, same thing (though it’s pragmatic for cyclists to move themselves somewhere before the light changes just to become more visible to the driver).

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    dwk August 1, 2016 at 10:26 am

    So it was a right hook “accident” by the driver.
    Why are right hooks considered to be just ‘accidents’ and drivers not charged with complete negligence for failure to look where they are going?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Dan A August 1, 2016 at 10:32 am

      Considering that the road is 30mph, he almost certainly passed her right before turning. If that’s the case, he should have had plenty of time to see her.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Kyle Banerjee August 1, 2016 at 11:03 am

        What little we have to go on does make it appear to be a classic right hook. But until there is more information, we can only speculate on what happened. The only thing we know for certain is that a young woman lost her life.

        Whatever happened, we conversations and actions that will help prevent future tragedies like this.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 12:52 pm

        Unless the truck had been stopped at a signal, and the bike approached from behind on the right, as is common practice. If the signal changed, the cyclist might have proceeded forward (at speed) as the truck started to turn.

        It would still be the driver’s fault, but the real culprit would be an intersection design that put through traffic to the right of turning traffic.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Dan A August 1, 2016 at 2:12 pm

          I was suggesting that he likely passed her on his way to the intersection, unless she had just turned onto Flavel 1 or 2 blocks beforehand. Passed her and totally forgot she was there.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            David Hampsten August 1, 2016 at 9:02 pm

            A question: Wouldn’t the driver slow down just before the turn? I mean, it’s a pretty sharp corner, difficult for any vehicle to make a sharp turn at high speed, let alone a truck, right? So wouldn’t be more likely that the bike was going faster than usual, maybe both vehicles trying to beat the light?

            I agree, it’s a nasty intersection, I’ve used it many times going to Grocery Outlet on 72nd during the 8 years I lived in East Portland, and some of the drivers are as bad as those here in Greensboro.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        KristenT August 1, 2016 at 2:39 pm

        Maybe he hadn’t all the way passed her– I’ve had cars come up on my left and pace alongside of me, maybe the guy driving the truck came up on her and turned.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Dan A August 1, 2016 at 3:00 pm

          To clarify, I’m suggesting that there’s probably a 90-95% chance that driver was behind the cyclist at some point, unless she was riding incredibly fast or had just turned onto Flavel. And if he was behind her at some point, he should have been able to see her even if he had no idea how to use his mirrors. Granted, it’s pointless supposition, but how many times have we all been passed by a driver who immediately forgot that we were there and tried to turn into us? It’s happened to me probably 20+ times just riding on NW 14th.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    surly rider August 1, 2016 at 10:49 am

    I’m an avid cyclist, and this is surely a tragedy. However, I do not get the “this was inevitable” stance? Flavel has a bike lanes on both sides with a 4 way traffic light for the 82nd crossing. Granted, Portland city planning does seem to have it’s faults, however, I fail to see how this warrants some railing on the city ( If you wanna talk about how the Springwater is a cesspool that smells like empty PBR cans and cigarettes that’s another topic ).

    Seeing all the comments saying they want government intervention in response to this action is short sided. In this instance, we had a bike lane, we had traffic lights, we have a series of rules of which motorist and cyclist should ‘obey’. The failure in this situation was a simple — horrible — mistake by one driver. There are thousands of car accidents and fender benders everyday that occur while driving, we as cyclists must understand and ride with the assumption, that even though we are within our rights on the road, a simple fender bender with a bike can turn fatal.

    I am in no way trying to pass off blame on any one party; just seems like a horrible accident. As such please just be careful out there, choose your routes carefully and always assume someone is texting or not paying attention behind the wheel. Accidents happen, and will continue to happen, despite government intervention. At the end of the day it really it comes down to how much you’re willing to assume the “rules of the road” will keep you OK, which they never will, because as long as we’ve had cars we have had car accidents.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Adam H.
      Adam H. August 1, 2016 at 11:15 am

      If a crash happens and there is a known lack of safety features, then it is not an “accident”. Imagine if someone got injured on the job, and the company purposefully lacked necessary safety features because they believed them to be too expensive. There would be massive lawsuits.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Tom Hardy August 1, 2016 at 12:25 pm

        Adam this is the attitude of ODOT. They feel immune to any lawsuits over their mismanagement. Except of course when another politician files the lawsuit (IE Amanda Fritz).

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          SE Rider August 1, 2016 at 12:40 pm

          This happened on Flavel, which is PBOT.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        paikiala August 1, 2016 at 12:34 pm

        Private companies are compelled by law, just like public entities, to provide safe facilities. Should a private company need to upgrade it’s work space, for workers it directs, it can raise funds to do so by adjusting the prices of the goods or services it provides.
        Governments do not have the same luxury – its funding sources are highly controlled (taxes are voted on; funding has strings attached)- and the users of the system it is charged with maintaining are not under its direct control (the city can’t fire unsafe drivers).
        Given such constraints, many governments are excused from compliance perfection under the discretionary immunity doctrine. Choices have to be made due to limited funding, and while you may disagree with the choices, the government entity is usually not held liable for the decision on where to spend those limited funds, but is held liable for willfully ignoring a known safety hazard.
        If you have $100 to spend, and $150 of defined need, how would you decide what to spend it on?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      B. Carfree August 1, 2016 at 12:08 pm

      There was a time when large concrete posts were placed between freeway exit ramps and the freeway travel lanes. After finding that some motorists died by striking those, an extensive number of expensive changes were made. A partial list includes not putting those posts there, shielding the existing ones with large tubs of water and massive redesigns of the passenger compartments of motor vehicles.

      Portland has had a significant number of cyclists killed where the bike lanes are of substandard width. Appropriate responses include widening the bike lanes to at least the state standard of six feet (preferably learning from elsewhere and going to seven foot minimums), lowering speed limits, doing traffic law enforcement in a meaningful way or any of a number of other things. Instead, we get mostly more of the same with similar deadly outcomes like clockwork.

      Yes, we’re unhappy about it and looking to spur action. Yes, that involves assessing what’s going wrong and assigning blame, although those are only the first steps. Since ODOT, PPB and PBOT refuse to accept responsibility, it’s a bit difficult to move on to the next steps. It may sound whiny, but that’s only because of bureaucratic resistance coupled with an insulting repetition of self-praise by those same bureaucrats.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Tom Hardy August 1, 2016 at 12:20 pm

        Now there is an idea B.Carfree. As a cyclist and a car driver. I think it would be an excellent idea to have steel reinforced concrete posts at ALL signalled intersections between the bike path and the traffic lane. It would definitely eliminate the right hook problem where a cyclist might be waiting for a light change and also overtaking motorists right hooking.
        What do you think Adam?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • John Liu
          John Liu August 2, 2016 at 2:39 am

          Steel posts at the end of bike lanes won’t prevent right hooks. Cars will still turn right and cut off/hit cyclists who are going straight.

          However, cyclists and cars will run into those steel posts. The cars will be damaged, the cyclists will be injured or worse.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Adam H.
        Adam H. August 1, 2016 at 12:33 pm

        Exactly. Nearly all of our problems can be solved by good design that places safety for all road users first and foremost. If our transportation agencies are unwilling to do this, the only option is to keep pointing out the flawed design and requesting better.

        When our agencies decide instead to focus on education, they are admitting there is a problem while taking none of the responsibility for their bad design. Blame the designers, not the users.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        paikiala August 1, 2016 at 12:43 pm

        PBOT’S standard bike lane width is 2 m = 6 ft, 6 in.
        Flavel was lowered to 30 mph in the last year.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          SE Rider August 1, 2016 at 1:12 pm

          Speed limit was lowered because of neighborhood association suggestion. Both Flavel and Duke have substandard bike lanes, though often they’re not a huge issue as street parking is intermittent on both roads.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          SE Rider August 1, 2016 at 1:15 pm

          Speed limit was lowered because of neighborhood association suggestion. Both Flavel and Duke have substandard width bike lanes, though often they’re not a huge issue as street parking is intermittent on both roads.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Eric Leifsdad August 1, 2016 at 12:08 pm

      Let’s get the details of what happened, including speeds and positions before we say whether some government intervention (ahem speed enforcement) was or wasn’t required.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Eric Leifsdad August 1, 2016 at 12:28 pm

        A concrete-filled 8in steel post at the point where the bike lane stripe meets the crosswalk stop bar would be a good place for a sign reminding right-turning drivers to yield to the bike lane and reminding everybody to yield to the crosswalk before making a right on red.

        If we’re worried about somebody getting hurt by the post, we can paint it in high-viz and put a helmet on it.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          paikiala August 1, 2016 at 12:45 pm

          How does that stop an errant driver from running into it… at 35 mph on a green light?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Adam H.
            Adam H. August 1, 2016 at 12:46 pm

            They might actually have to pay attention for once.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Dan A August 1, 2016 at 12:58 pm

            That’s a good question. How DO we keep drivers from running into stuff? Somebody flattened the “Speed 25” sign on the side of the road leading to the Sunset Transit Center over the weekend, and it’s not even on the road.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Eric Leifsdad August 1, 2016 at 9:35 pm

            It doesn’t, but there are not supposed to be errant cars drifting into the bike lane on any color of light. That’s the whole point.

            Aren’t cars crash-tested at 35mph? What are we worried about, the people who would have been killed by a whole car getting injured by flying pieces of a car?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • John Liu
            John Liu August 2, 2016 at 2:40 am

            Or an errant cyclist from running into it at 20 mph?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    TJ August 1, 2016 at 11:02 am

    The bike lane drops prior to the 7-11 driveway or am I looking the wrong direction?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) August 1, 2016 at 11:08 am

    There’s a bike lane here where she was hit. I’m standing next to it now. It’s very narrow though. Terrible intersection.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      TJ August 1, 2016 at 11:26 am

      Is the bike lane a very recent addition? Not that google maps is always correct, but it seems the June 2016 capture is without a bike lane in front of 7-11. The paint in the news photos look fresh.

      Regardless, checking mirrors should always be habit.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        SE Rider August 1, 2016 at 12:38 pm

        The bike lane has been there for years, although the paint might have been worn down.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Spiffy August 1, 2016 at 1:06 pm

          the Google street view of 5 snapshots going back 9 years shows there hasn’t been a bike lane next to the 7-Eleven…

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            SE Rider August 1, 2016 at 1:27 pm

            Good point, looks like a disappearing lane at the intersection? Although that’s pretty odd considering there isn’t one in the other direction. I’ve always used it as a bike lane (since the markers are there everywhere else) and haven’t really looked down at the pavement I guess.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          paikiala August 1, 2016 at 3:34 pm

          the bike lane was completed in June.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      B. Carfree August 1, 2016 at 12:12 pm

      Portland seems to lead the nation in deaths in its bike lanes and in the number of super-narrow and door-zone bike lanes. Nah, there couldn’t be any causation here, could there?

      I suspect the substandard width of the bike lanes in PDX is a big part of the reason for the constant calls for segregated facilities. There is a world of difference between nice wide bike lanes and the sloped ledges one gets in PDX, but if all one sees are the latter, one would naturally think that bike lanes are less than useless.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Adam H.
        Adam H. August 1, 2016 at 12:36 pm

        Even the 6-foot bike lanes are terrible, because they are often either half door-zone or way too close to moving motor traffic. Take SE 52nd for example: the southbound bike lane forces riders up against fast-moving motor traffic, because the right half is all door zone. Meanwhile, drivers don’t have a single stop sign to slow them down…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          SE Rider August 1, 2016 at 1:08 pm

          Besides the lights at Division, Powell, Foster, Holgate, Steel, Woodstock, Duke, and Flavel.

          And yet hundreds and hundreds of people ride this route every single day.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        paikiala August 1, 2016 at 12:46 pm

        A citation for your claims would be great.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) August 1, 2016 at 11:31 am

    Yes. It looks pretty fresh. But it was certainly in place 2 days ago.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Kyle Banerjee August 1, 2016 at 12:01 pm

    I’m not following the connection between the presence/absence/inadequacy of a bike lane and this accident. If a driver passing a cyclist suddenly turns or a cyclist overtakes a turning vehicle from behind on the right, the cyclist will be hit regardless of any bike lanes.

    My personal experience is drivers seem less prone to hooking behavior at greenboxed intersections than elsewhere.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      TJ August 1, 2016 at 12:15 pm

      It is a taking the lane issue (without a lane) and a longstanding frequent driver of this intersection/turn not habitually check their mirrors. Basically: A defense.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Pat Lowell August 1, 2016 at 12:47 pm

      If there’s no bike lane, the cyclist should not be passing on the right. They should wait behind the turning vehicle as a car would.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Spiffy August 1, 2016 at 1:09 pm

        exactly! bikes can only pass on the right when it’s safe to do so (if there’s no bike lane)… passing a car on the right with it’s right turn-signal on is not safe…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Kyle Banerjee August 1, 2016 at 1:22 pm

        Whether or not there is a bike lane lane, neither cyclists nor motorists should pass from behind on the right of a vehicle that may turn. It’s an extremely dangerous practice that makes multiple assumptions about the driver that will often be untrue.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 1:25 pm

          Easy to say, harder to do when PBOT keeps putting bike lanes over to the right of the turn lane, inviting exactly this dangerous practice.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Kyle Banerjee August 1, 2016 at 1:44 pm

            This is definitely an issue. Portland motorists generally do a decent job of looking behind, and this behavior combined with presence of bike lanes encourages cyclists to pass on the right. It’s a very unfortunate practice, and I see it everywhere.

            Not sure if there even is a best way to address this is because you want motorists looking behind as well as space for the bikes. If I have any doubts about what they’re doing, I go into the travel lane so they know they can safely turn (presuming no other bikes are near) or I pass on the left if traffic is gummed up.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              B. Carfree August 1, 2016 at 7:54 pm

              One better way to address this at the intersection in question would be to remove the left turn lane, make the travel lane a left or straight lane and “appear” a right turn lane to the right of the bike lane. That would also allow the bike lane to not bend to the right (and out of existence in motorists’ minds) as it approaches the intersection. Motorists who desire to turn right would have to cross the bike lane to get to the right turn lane, which is admittedly a conflict, but not as severe as having them turn across a bike lane. People can usually handle lane changes.

              Of course, if there are very few right turn movements relative to left turns, this is going to impact motor vehicle traffic flow a bit. Is that too high a price for a life? Clearly it is in many people’s value systems.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Dan A August 2, 2016 at 7:51 am

                Personally, I’d like this intersection better with sharrows as it approaches the intersection rather than a bike lane. Take the lane and then return to the bike lane after crossing 82nd. Reduce the speed limit to make it practical.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                SE Rider August 2, 2016 at 12:41 pm

                Your proposal would result in a ton of drivers merging right into the bike lane to go around the waiting left turning traffic. That’s why left turn lanes are much more common that right turn lanes.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Teddy August 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    I dunno if Joe Silvia did not see Lydia Anne Johnson before making a right turn, I dunno if he “passed” her and turned without due diligence, I dunno if he failed to signal, and dunno if his decision to turn right at 82nd Ave. was a last minute decision.

    I am sure more details are to come.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    SE Rider August 1, 2016 at 12:37 pm

    Jonathan, you need to change the title of the article, as this didn’t happen bicycling on 82nd. Should read “cycling on SE Flavel at 82nd”.

    Tragedy, but in general this is not a terrible intersection for cyclists.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Adam H.
      Adam H. August 1, 2016 at 12:50 pm

      I just checked the intersection on street view, and it looks pretty f-ing scary to me. No way I’d be riding there.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        SE Rider August 1, 2016 at 1:05 pm

        Adam you’ve made it very clear that you are pretty terrified of ANY on street bike lane, so I’ll take your views with the typical grain of salt.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        TJ August 1, 2016 at 1:39 pm

        Note: The street view as of June 2016 is without bike lane. Seems in the past month or so bike lanes were added.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 1:56 pm

          To the right of the turn lane, I presume?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            paikiala August 1, 2016 at 3:35 pm

            there is no right turn lane.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Hello, Kitty
              Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 3:43 pm

              Ok, fair enough. On many of these intersections, the bicycle-only through lane is to the right of the lane from which people in cars are expected to turn right. Same thing, different name.

              To be fair, it looked like, as of yesterday, the area was not really striped for anything; the right-lane was just a wide-open expanse of asphalt.

              Can you point to a single intersection in Portland where a going-straight lane for autos is placed to the right of a lane from which people execute right-turns? Why is this design reserved for bikes?

              Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Spiffy August 1, 2016 at 2:04 pm

        it’s only scary to me because of the suburban feel of it… lots of asphalt gives a wide open fast look to the road, and people are commuting up to Mt Scott and further to Happy Valley so they’re trying to go as fast as they can get away with… further east at Flavel/92nd you can watch lots of people running the light for Flavel to get up the hill…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    MindfulCylist August 1, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    Thoughts go out to her friends and family! Not a good thing to hear about and this year is shaping out to be a repeat of 2007 🙁

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    jeff August 1, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    why not report on the ‘cyclist’ who was just killed on I-5 SB riding in the fast lane? I’m guessing because there is zero doubt it was the riders fault in that instance. The bias here can be interesting some days.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 1:39 pm

      http://www.kgw.com/news/local/car-hits-pedestrian-on-i-5-near-ridgefield/285331022

      I don’t think it’s fair to call BikePortland “biased” for not reporting this. Not every bike crash makes it here, and this happened a fair ways outside of Portland.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Spiffy August 1, 2016 at 3:15 pm

        misinformation in that article and plenty of dismissal of the driver’s duty on the road… such a shame they’ve already cleared the driver and found the cyclist guilty when it’s obviously not so cut and dry…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Eric Leifsdad August 3, 2016 at 9:52 am

          Preparing to make a left turn maybe? When did Oregon pass a “fast lane” law?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        John Lascurettes August 1, 2016 at 5:51 pm

        I’m pretty sure it was on a Monday Roundup.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          John Lascurettes August 1, 2016 at 5:52 pm

          Sorry, no. conflating that with he jogger on the freeway that got hit in the slow lane.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Lester Burnham August 1, 2016 at 2:08 pm

    Then PBOT should be held accountable for that woman’s death.

    Adam H.
    Someone deliberately chose to make the bike lane disappear in favor of a turn lane for cars. I’d say the outcomes of that decision are quite predictable.
    Recommended 1

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    devograd August 1, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    This is so sad. My heart goes out to Lydia’s friends and family.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    John Lascurettes August 1, 2016 at 2:29 pm

    All the following supposes both vehicles were in motion: If the rider was behind the truck and the truck had a turn signal on, the cyclist has right-of-way only if there was a bike lane there. If there is no bike lane, then the truck driver had asserted his intentions with a signal (and provided he did it for 100 feet before the turn), then the cyclist could likely be at fault. In a legal sense, drivers only have to compulsorily yield to the “next lane” (namely the bike lane) if it’s marked; otherwise, it’s a shared lane and passing on the right of a right-turning vehicle would be illegal — though pragmatism would say the driver should have checked the lane and sidewalk before turning in order to be safe for everyone (especially after presumably passing the cyclist).

    If they were both sitting at the red light, waiting to go, and the driver turned right on red, then the driver is at fault for not checking all conditions before turning. If the light turned green, same thing (though it’s pragmatic for cyclists to move themselves somewhere before the light changes just to become more visible to the driver).

    This whole thing is awful no matter who was at fault and it sounds like the infrastructure is a contributing factor.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      esther2 August 1, 2016 at 7:07 pm

      The presence of a bike lane has been verified. Jonathan just posted standing in the lane

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Tall Steve August 1, 2016 at 2:31 pm

    I frequently ride through 82nd and Duke — an intersection just north of Flavel that was recently modified and is now even worse it was, or Flavel still is. There are bike lanes on Duke west of 82nd, but not east. When traveling eastward, I’ve acquired the habit of leaving the bike lane when I approach that intersection. I know paint doesn’t really make us safe, but I do wish there was a Bike Box there.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      SE Rider August 1, 2016 at 4:18 pm

      I’m curious what you think is now worse?
      The sidewalk is now wider, and there are now turn signals to prevent left turning cars from hitting on coming traffic.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Doug August 1, 2016 at 2:46 pm

    I express condolences for the victim and all their kin and the cycling community. I don’t want to blame the rider, or anybody but I’m a man, I want to fix stuff and wait for the city to fix the intersection seems like a fools errand when we should all think about our safety NOW…our damned lives depend on it.

    I can see how there’s bad road design here, I think it’s were I got side swiped waiting to make a left turn there, dog tired after a 200k rando ride

    Was this a right hook accident?

    I’ve been involved in near miss right hooks dozens of times and I’m just plain paranoid about them now. Isn’t it the most common cycling accident? Didn’t I read that in Forrester’s book VEHICULAR CYCLING? It’s up there among them of not the leader.

    Come to think of it I went over my handle bars once because I was riding along side at a tee intersection, far right, and got right hooked and collided with a Toyota sedan’s trunk. Who failed to signal… tee intersection I assumed he was turning left. Ouch. My fault too; dammit.

    I probably should have taken the whole lane at the intersection. The other driver was very apologetic, but I’ll take some blame too. Nobody’s looking to their right to make a right turn, even if they did just pass a bicycle.

    If it would have been a box truck right hooking me I wouldn’t be writing this now I guess.

    I limped home but I probably spent 30 seconds on the deck before I came to. I figured I better get my act together or I’m going for a very expensive ride in an ambulance. There was a line of cars waiting for the light (and me to come to), and everyone got out of their cars and watched to see if I’d get up with their jaws agape and their eyes as wide as saucers. Must have been a spectacular over the handlebar event, too bad I was on the receiving end.

    Now sometimes I just get a feeling some fool will turn right without signaling (they slow down) and I say “you bastard” when they do.

    What should we be doing to protect ourselves at bad intersections like this?

    Arguing the symantics of what the exact term for accident, crash, casualty, seems so unproductive and trival as to be disrectful to any meaningful discourse.

    I don’t feel like I have a death wish to ride with cars and trucks on the road. Push come to shove I prefer roads to trails like the Stillwater or Burke Gillman. At least the road has rules. I don’t consider pedestrians and bikes a good mix AT ALL.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    KristenT August 1, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    Maybe he hadn’t all the way passed her– I’ve had cars come up on my left and pace alongside of me, maybe the guy driving the truck came up on her and turned without passing her. She wouldn’t have know he was going to turn, because she wouldn’t have been able to see his turn signals.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      John Lascurettes August 1, 2016 at 5:53 pm

      Have had that happen many, many times on NW Broadway over the years.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • John Liu
      John Liu August 1, 2016 at 10:53 pm

      Here’s what you do, if you are a cyclist who wants to ride for decades and decades without getting right hooked.

      You never enter an intersection with a car or truck on your left or immediately ahead of you on your left. Doesn’t matter if you’re in a bike lane or not. Doesn’t matter if that bike lane is buffered or even behind a curb or jersey barrier, because that buffer, curb or barrier will end at the intersection.

      If there is a car driving alongside you as you approach the intersection, you coast and slow down so that the car is well ahead of you as you enter the intersection.

      If there is a car ahead that is slowing as it approaches the intersection, you slow too, and let the car proceed into the intersection while you are safely behind it. Most likely, it is slowing in preparation for a turn.

      If you are approaching the intersection and a car behind you is moving so quickly that it is going to be pulling alongside or passing you at the intersection, then you either you brake or you sprint, with braking being the safer option. A helmet mirror helps here.

      This is a frustrating way to ride if you’re on a busy street thick with cars, because you’re constantly slowing down and losing your hard earned momentum. But it’s the safest way to ride.

      The sad fact is that while most Portland drivers do look for bikes, a few drivers still turn right without checking for bikes in the bike lane that they will be turning through. They may be from other cities and unfamiliar with bike lanes, they may be distracted by traffic or conversation or nose picking, they may be driving trucks with lousy mirrors, they may simply be terrible drivers. From outside the car, they look much like any other driver, and you don’t want to be guessing which kind of driver they are.

      Trucks are the worst. Not because truck drivers are generally worse than car drivers, but because trucks will knock you down and run you over, while a right hooking car will usually “just” knock you down. And visibility is worse for a truck driver. So if you don’t want to follow the above rules all the time, at least follow them when around trucks.

      (Cyclists aren’t the only ones who have to think this way. One thing you’ll learn in motorcycle training is that you never enter an intersection alongside a car.)

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Mike August 1, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    Really? Cagers don’t have any regard for anyone other than themselves? I understand the anger but come on man. Allowing bikes to pass cars on the right at intersections is a recipe for disaster. I think the design should take some of the blame. I don’t understand the design and think it should be abolished. I never, ever pass on the right for the very reason that a right hook could end my day.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Doug August 1, 2016 at 3:34 pm

      What’s a Cager? She a person first, regardless of what you might call her. I suppose that stupid name makes it easier to make her less of a person.

      Lydia Anne Johnson was her name Mike.

      Do not stand at my grave and weep.

      I am not there; I do not sleep.

      I am a thousand winds that blow.

      I am the diamond glints on snow.

      I am the sunlight on ripened grain.

      I am the gentle autumn rain.

      When you awaken in the morning’s hush

      I am the swift uplifting rush

      Of quiet birds in circled flight.

      I am the soft star that shines at night.

      Do not stand at my grave and cry;

      I am not there; I did not die.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 3:37 pm

        Poem by Mary Elizabeth Frye; credit where credit is due.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          wsbob August 1, 2016 at 4:32 pm

          And a nice, timely poem it is…thank you both.

          I think people that truly are seeking and are willing to commit themselves to higher standards of safe and enjoyable use of the road, whether traveling by bicycles and other human powered means of transport, or motor vehicles…will refrain from using depersonalizing names for other people.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Doug August 1, 2016 at 4:52 pm

          I wasn’t taking credit for the poem, it makes me cry every time I read it. l I think of my brother and mom and dad, I miss them so much and reading it helps me think they aren’t as gone as I know they are.

          I think I’d rather die doing something I love doing that have the doctors kill me in bits and pieces like they did my father. But that assumes I ever let a doctor ever get anywhere near me, fat chance, keep your leaches! I think I’m going to end up like a really old dog and they will say of me “he had a lot of good years.”

          Would have it been so bad to die of a massive heart attack? Doctors.. If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Keep doctors away from me.

          I read an editorial in a bicycle paper a while back whose premise was that cyclists are like an abused minority, like blacks during the civil rights era, and we get killed being cyclists. Doing what we enjoy, what we believe in and we get killed. We have a right to use the road, but you might get killed. Like minorities got killed asserting their rights to vote or use public accommodations. I don’t mean to minimize anyone’s suffering but I think the parallels are significant.

          I’m just glad it wasn’t you that got hit Kitty, you live right there… I still don’t know what a Cager is. Should I?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Hello, Kitty
            Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 4:57 pm

            I know you weren’t. I didn’t intend to suggest you were. It’s a good poem, and I wanted people to know who wrote it.

            A “cager” is a driver.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Tom Hardy August 1, 2016 at 3:22 pm

    Good points Doug! After being right hooked several times, that is why I take the travel lane if in doubt.
    First of all, If I am in the travel lane the vehicles behind me will see me for certain because I am visible. If they go around they are in the other lane or they wait. I travel fast enough that it is very doubtful they will have to wait as long at the next traffic light as they would if they followed me.
    Did I mention I drive a car also?
    I have been close to being hit by box trucks or semi trucks in the past. I have been right hooked by 3 pickups, 2 sedans, 2 minivans, and closely missed at speed several left hooks by both cars and minivans, once I went through the drivers window when a car made a left turn without a signal from being stopped at the the right hand curb. I have been rear ended by cars while I was to the right of the “Fog line” on the Milwaukie expressway. No injuries on any of these except for a cut knee and road rash on the back from going over a car. I outlived the driver that right hooked me there.
    Damages to motor vehicles, smashed hoods 3, smashed doors 2, terrified drivers 6.
    In the car. No collisions except with a 2 cars that went through a red light while the driver was on the phone.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Paul Z August 1, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    Assuming the aerial view is oriented NSEW like a map, and the truck was eastbound on Flavel turning onto 82nd southbound, I don’t see any bike lane line approaching the intersection from that direction.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • John Liu
      John Liu August 2, 2016 at 2:44 am

      The aerial view (Google Maps) was apparently photographed before the bike lane was striped.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    bikeninja August 1, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    There is a constructive thing we can work on with regard to right hook deaths. Nearly all of the cyclist deaths in Portland by right hook in Portland in recent years have been caused by turning trucks. At such an accident the closing speed between vehicle and victim is low so that most car to bike right hooks result in skinned knees, or worse injuries but rarely death. The death by trucks occur because the victim gets run over by the large tires. Also in longer nose trucks a normal side mirror leaves a blind spot. There are two solutions to this ( in addition to all the road safety remedies already discussed) that are frequently used in other countries. Solution 1 is to require front fender mirrors on all trucks operating within the City of Portland ( state of victim would be better). Sophisticated Trucing companies have already done this. The other and more extreme is to add dropped bumpers along the sides of the truck like is done in Japan. This way right hooks or lane changes result in the cyclist, scooter rider, or Oregon being bounced to the side with fewer injuries. Our cities are getting too crowded with transportation of all kinds to allow people to drive around in Mad Max type death machines ( lifted pickups also) that have no provision for motorcyclist vulnerable road user deaths.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty August 1, 2016 at 4:32 pm

      These would both be helpful ideas. I don’t know if the city can regulate safety features on trucks, but both would help prevent (or mitigate the damage from) right-hooks involving them.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    James August 1, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    When I first moved to Portland, I lived on SE 67th and would often use Flavel to run errands. My first time crossing 82nd at Flavel, having the bike lane disappear before that awful intersection, was when my fantasy of a bicycle-friendly Portland collided against the Portland of reality. I’ll never forget the impression it left on me.

    It’s very upsetting, but very unsurprising, to learn that a cyclist was killed there.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Betsy Reese August 2, 2016 at 12:12 am

    So very sorry for Lydia’s family and friends. Their grief is unimaginable. Our own two kids are 25 and 27. Unimaginable grief. While we will never know whose family and friends we may have helped spare this grief, let’s let our work to prevent these kinds of deaths be motivated by that thought.

    Fifteen years of watching countless right hooks out my doorstep at N. Broadway/Flint/Wheeler has given me alot to think about. I welcome feedback on my conclusions.

    Right hooks:

    1. Turn signals do not bestow or alter right-of-way. Straight-bound traffic has right-of-way.

    2. Oregon law positioning straight-bound traffic to the right of the lane from which a right-hand turn must be made is a set up. Let’s work to change this law. Allowing motor vehicles to safely and when there is an opening merge into the bike lane and move close to the curb for right turns eliminates a straight-bound lane to their right. Drivers will make more of an effort to be certain they can safely merge right than they do now to be certain they will not right-hook a cyclist.

    3. As a bicyclist, do not die maintaining your right-of-way. Be prepared to cede it and save your life, even if it means an injury-causing dive while the perpetrator drives off untouched. Live to to tell the tale, put your story and energy toward change.

    4. Oregon legalized the right of bicyclists to pass motor vehicles on the right in 2006. This is not dependent on striped bike lanes. http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/811.415

    5. As a cyclist, do not linger in vehicle blind spots. Move through them quickly. Keep moving at a pace faster or slower than the motor vehicle to your left so that you “reappear” quickly in their mirrors. This is especially important at intersections and driveways.

    6. As a driver, do not rely on your mirrors to make a right turn. Sit up tall from your seat, turn your head and upper torso, and look back. Do not just a glance out the side window, but look all the way around and out your side and then rear window. Look for bicyclists passing you on the right, whether there is a bicycle lane or not. This is standard drivers ed in Europe.

    7. If you have become stiff and inflexible to the point that you cannot turn your head and twist your torso in this fashion, take up yoga, practice twisting and stretching your neck and torso daily, and/or consider a shorter vehicle or one in which you are able to see fully and quickly into the space to your right and behind you. If age or infirmity still prevents you from being able to turn and twist adequately, embrace your retirement from piloting your personal motor vehicle.

    8. A bicyclist just entering your roadway to your right that you have not seen in passing is no excuse. Bicyclists traveling faster than expected is also no excuse. ALWAYS look all the way back and out your rear window when turning right. If you have to stop dead to do this, then stop dead. “They came out of nowhere!” never really happens. “Sorry Mate, I Didn’t See You” SMIDSY is a non-apology and a non-excuse. START SEEING BICYCLES.

    9. Collisions causing injury but not death, and near-misses without physical contact, need to be seen as just as much a call to action as a fatality. Why require a human sacrifice to recognize that we finally need to take action? Why wait for that next death? Why allow public entities to virtually require that statistic to trigger action?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty August 2, 2016 at 8:12 am

      Some cars, such as new model Hondas, have a rear facing camera that activates with the right turn signal that gives a great view of anyone approaching from behind on the right.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Eric Leifsdad August 2, 2016 at 11:22 am

      Agree, except for allowing autos to merge into the bike lane. I see that as mostly the same risks but with reduced priority for bike traffic. It seems to me that the right hook is most dangerous when a person is in front of the rear wheels, but not yet at the crosswalk/curb cut. If we were more particular (like a steel post) about keeping rear wheels out of the bike lane for the full length of the curb, you would at least have somewhere to turn to and the auto’s turn radii would be shorter, so turns would be slower.

      Always watch the front wheels, but look out for the back ones.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    BB August 2, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    If businesses that operate motor vehicles were held accountable in such a way that would ensure safe operation of those vehicles, we would see a lot less of these incidents. If a company owns a vehicle and that vehicle is involved in a fatal crash, the company should have all licenses that allow it to exist and do business revoked. A person kills a person with a company vehicle, the company gets closed down.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    soren August 2, 2016 at 5:29 pm

    82nd Avenue of Death – Protest and Ride

    Saturday, Aug 6 at 3pm.
    Woodstock City Park
    SE 47th Street, Portland, Oregon 97206

    Last Saturday a woman died while trying to cross SE 82nd at Flavel. Too many people have been killed or injured on this “Avenue of Death.” This Saturday, we will ride and walk in the street to protest ODOT and the City of Portland’s failure to make SE 82nd (and other high crash corridors) safe for people.

    The ride will begin at Woodstock City Park at 3pm and will stop at SE 82nd and Flavel at 4:00 pm so that people on foot can protest with us.

    https://www.facebook.com/events/1430777176948183/

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      soren August 3, 2016 at 8:41 am

      Ride start time changed to 5 pm.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Eric Leifsdad February 6, 2017 at 4:43 pm

    Did the investigation result in any citations or charges for the driver? I can’t find any updates about it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar