A woman died today while bicycling in southeast Portland.
The collision with an auto user happened around 3:00 pm at SE 112th and Mount Scott Boulevard. This location is near the entrance of Lincoln Memorial Park, a popular area for riding.
The police have not yet released details of the collision.
This is the fourth fatal bicycle collision and the 27th traffic fatality in Portland so far this year.
This is the second person to die while bicycling this week. On Saturday a Lydia Johnson was killed at SE Flavel and 82nd.
UPDATE: Here’s the latest from the police:
The bicycle rider killed on Friday afternoon has been identified as 49-year-old Karla Kalene DeBaillie of Happy Valley, Oregon.
The other driver involved in the crash was identified as 64-year-old Mary Elizabeth Dieter of Washougal, Washington. Dieter was driving a blue 1997 Dodge Ram pick-up truck. Dieter cooperated with investigators and did not display any signs of impairment or distracted driving.
Based on witness statements and evidence collected at the scene, investigators believe that DeBaillie was riding at a speed of 30-35 miles per hour down Mount Scott Boulevard (northbound) and turned left (westbound) at the interchange at 112th Avenue.
Dieter was driving eastbound on Mount Scott Boulevard and was moving to turn left onto 112th Avenue as westbound traffic stopped to allow her to turn. As Dieter crossed over the westbound lane of Mount Scott Boulevard, DeBaillie crashed into the passenger side of the pick-up truck.
The investigation is continuing and once complete it will be given to the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office for review.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
The lady motorist probably had the same lame excuse. “I didn’t see her until it was too late.” Broken basic rule: Driving too fast for the conditions. Not watching where she was going to find Pokemon, Texting or? Absolutely no excuse.
This is a horrible tragedy. But “lady motorist” is unnecessarily gendered language.
what’s next? Get rid of His and Her?
pot calling kettle black?
http://bikeportland.org/2016/08/05/fatal-bicycle-collision-at-se-112th-and-mt-scott-188979#comment-6690107
I don’t see the connection you are trying to make. the comments are unrelated. My second comment was gender-neutral.
No, the motorist was a lady. Gender is a real thing, there is nothing unnecessary about it.
You’re right. I took “lady” out of that sentence so it reads, “The motorist…” and it no longer makes any sense.
https://debuk.wordpress.com/2015/05/16/call-me-woman/
Confidential to 9watts: What the hell are we doing on our computers on a day like this?!?
🙂
recuperating from wearing ourselves out working outside the last few days?
It’s still a bit too sunny for my tastes. 🙂
Do you not usually post to bikeportland typing on your phone with one hand while steadying your bike with the other?
Totally irresponsible… How do you hold your beer?
Upright posture of biketown bikes is conducive to holding a beverage. Is there a beer and biketown ride yet? Or a morning (iced) tea/coffee and biketown ride? If not, there should be.
On a related note, my way to judge if a bike facility qualifies as 8-80/accessible for kids/inexperienced cyclists, whatever you want to call it – is it a comfortable place for me to bike while sipping iced tea/coffee and (on a separate ride) while my dog runs next to my bike? Few places pass.
Neither Waterfront Park nor the Springwater would pass that test, unless you are out very early.
Until you know ALL the details perhaps you should keep your expert assumptions to yourself.
Channel 2 and channel 12 both said the driver was female. Sorry I did not give quotes and the reporter’s names.
Are those also your sources for already knowing it was the driver’s fault, and that she was driving too fast for the conditions, and not watching where she was going?
The motorist left hooked the cyclist. The cyclist was in plain sight of the driver of the Pickup. There was no sunlight in the eyes of the driver of the pickup. The cyclist was the incoming traffic. The cyclist was not a bigger truck so the driver proceeded to travel across the center line to intersect the cyclist making a left hand turn with the right of way.
Therefore the motorist was driving too fast for the conditions, did not yield right of way. Because the cyclist was a hinderance to the motorist’s travel the motorized vehicle driver committed vehicular assault on the cyclist by pressing on the gas instead of the brake before crossing in front of the cyclist.
Need I say More?
Yes, please say more. You describe a very deliberate decision making process. Do you really think the driver saw the cyclist, and decided killing her was preferable to a minor delay? If you are right, it suggests the driver was truly a psychopath, as well as a stupid one, since the crash caused the driver to be delayed for a very significant amount of time.
Tom–first, you’re defending your assumption you made yesterday that the driver was at fault with information that wasn’t available at the time you made it. I wasn’t saying the driver WASN’T at fault, I was saying there wasn’t yet information that the driver WAS at fault, was driving too fast, and was not paying attention.
Second, you STILL may not be right. According to Jonathan’s update, witnesses said there were cars stopped westbound while the driver turned. If that’s true, the cyclist could have been hidden from the driver behind those cars. So there is no certainty at all, as you claim, that “the cyclist was in plain sight of the driver”. There’s also no certainty that all your “therefores” (driving too fast, committing vehicular assault, etc.) are true, either.
From the witness reports, it sounds as though a possibility is that the driver waited to turn, cars approaching her westbound yielded to her (which may have been a key cause of the crash), and she saw they were yielding so proceeded to turn, not ever having a view of the cyclist passing those cars on the right until the cyclist hit the side of her car.
I’m not saying that’s what happened, I’m just saying the info in the update leaves open the possibility that your claims are not true.
q, thank you for being sane and reasonable.
I agree, q, your observation are probably correct, given the circumstances of this poorly designed rural intersection. I’m surprised that most of the posts I’ve seen here are by cyclists who have clearly never ridden this route before. I have, both on Mt. Scott and on 112th. Both on the Google Maps air photo and on the ground, Mt. Scott (which turns into Flavel further down the hill) is the main roadway, but SE 112th is also a collector like Mt.Scott. The cyclist was doing 30-35 downhill, so it is doubtful she could have stopped in time, even if she had noticed all the cars beside her had stopped (and given her speed and the intensity of going down such a steep slope on a narrow road, she might not have; I doubt if I would.) 112th is even steeper and more dangerous. There are no signals at this intersection, just some stop signs, and no signs at all on Mt. Scott. The cyclist probably felt she had the right-of-way as she was flying down the hill (there was nothing to tell her to stop, no signage anyway, except the “courtesy” of other drivers allowing a driver to turn.)
Jonathan, I would strongly urge you to include an air photo of this intersection for this story as you did for 82nd & Flavel.
The collision occurred in the midst of a 90 degree turn so the idea that Karla was traveling at 30-35 mph is simply not credible:
http://katu.com/news/local/pedestrian-struck-killed-on-mt-scott-boulevard
It’s human nature for the motorist witnesses, who stopped to let the pickup driver cross, to blame the speeding cyclist “other” rather than acknowledge their own dangerous (but fairly common) driving behavior. Moreover, the fact that the police felt the need to include this information in their police report is pathetic. If someone driving was killed and was traveling under the speed limit would the police have felt the need to comment on their speed?
soren–I don’t see that there was a 90-degree turn involved. My understanding is the cyclist was coming down a curving downhill street, so easily could have been going at least quite fast, if not necessarily 30-35.
>>> If someone driving was killed and was traveling under the speed limit would the police have felt the need to comment on their speed? <<<
I would sure hope so. The speed of all participants in a collision is certainly relevant.
“soren–I don’t see that there was a 90-degree turn involved. My understanding is the cyclist was coming down a curving downhill street, so easily could have been going at least quite fast, if not necessarily 30-35.”
this was a previously 90° turn that has been rounded to facilitate faster speeds on the road… it’s an advised 20 mph coming down that outer lane (but not up the sharper inner lane for some reason and there’s a 35 mph sign in the middle of that turn)…
if there was stopped traffic and the cyclist was coming down in the shoulder I don’t know if they could have been going that fast due to lack of room to lean over into the lane without hitting cars…
they could have easily been going 25 mph though… no matter as they were under the 35 mph speed limit…
It’s a 90 degree turn alright, but looks to be approx 200′ radius at the centerline, so not difficult to take the outside lane at 30-35 mph
Soren, I’m guessing you haven’t been to this intersection before?
I must admit, I’ve never gone down this road on my bike before, only gone up (I’m afraid of being further down the hill and someone not seeing me from one of the side roads), but I would also be surprised at the cyclist going that fast at this point of the road. I’ve never looked that hard at the shoulder on the other side of the road, but while going up the shoulder squeezes down a bit (it’s not very wide for the majority of that road as it is). I’m not saying it didn’t happen, it just would surprise me that she’d be going that fast around cars at this spot, unless she was keeping pace with a car in the lane and that car suddenly stopped to allow the truck to turn and she wasn’t able to brake quickly enough.
Soren, thank you for providing the tv link – it was very helpful. Judging from PBOT stats that 20 mph crashes are rarely fatal, and that this one was, and that the mountainbike/hybrid fork was bent in and the front wheel tacoed with the tire peeled off, I’d say the impact was at least 25-30 mph, if not higher.
with all due respect, David, two moving objects hitting each other is a completely different scenario from a motor vehicle hitting a pedestrian.
I’d like to see your two-dimensional partially-inelastic collision math before I accept your speed estimate. (Both objects were moving in space.)
Judging from the (minimal) impact on the blue SUV, the SUV was hit on the side by the bike, near the rear wheel of the SUV. Given that the SUV was making a roughly 75 degree turn from a full stop, it was probably moving at less than 10 mph. The impact was deflected rather than head-on, from the SUV driver’s point of view. It was however head-on for the bike, or nearly so.
I went to the site and looked at the entire scene after the police left. The skid marks were still there from the bike. The reason the other cars were stopped on the westbound stretch when the pickup went straight (turned left) in front of the cyclist is because they stopped to let the cyclist through the intersection since she had the right of way. The Pickup disregarded the oncoming traffic and drove in front of the cyclist.
Lame excuse! “OH my I didn’t see her”
No, that’s not what the article said.
Your assessment makes no sense.
Speculation– you don’t know that the cyclist was in plain site of the driver. Unless you happened to be at that location both before and during the incident.
Considering the angle, I think it’s extremely unlikely the driver saw the cyclist at all. Any stopped vehicles in the oncoming lane would have blocked her from sight.
Very possible, even from a raised vehicle like a pickup. This corner slopes fairly steep, so even small vehicles coming from the south (east) could obscure visibility.
The stopped traffic was oncoming to where the truck was going toward, not on the curve. They were stopped for the cyclist to go by.
I think you misread the story.
Tom–the story says, “westbound traffic stopped to allow her to turn”, not “stopped for the cyclist to go by”. The only place westbound traffic would need to stop to allow the driver to turn would be if the westbound traffic were on the curve.
I hope you understand that, by feeling the need to include “lady” in your description, you are reinforcing the idea that “motorist”, or “cyclist” for that matter, is default male unless otherwise specified.
If it sounds totally ridiculous to say “that gentleman motorist”, then “that lady motorist” is just as poor a choice of words.
I wish more people would say “gentleman motorist”… Our discourse needs more class.
I wish more of the males who drive would behave like gentlemen when behind the wheel instead of doing their best imitation of Disney’s Mr. Wheeler (Goofy, of course).
This is heart-breaking. I hope our city officials are paying attention. SE Portland, past the 50s, and especially past 82nd, desperately needs improved biking infrastructure.
There are wide roads out there with little-used side-street parking that could cheaply and quickly be converted to life-saving buffered bike lanes.
Compared to what?
I live around 39th and I see the majority of “infrastructure” when I ride east.
I don’t argue that E Portland needs more and better cycling infrastructure. However, I don’t think a buffered bike lane would have prevented this death. That intersection could use a roundabout.
It is standard practice to list gender and age of involved people when reporting. However, such information was not provided in any of the news reports I’ve seen yet, and it is not in this post.
Until some facts are out, it is best not to assume what happened. The location of the tragedy indicated in the media is such that while it is possible the driver is responsible, it is also possible that the driver was neither inattentive nor committed any error.
It used to be standard practice to describe the individuals involved. Now we are politically correct enough to not indicate race. Now the pressure is to not include gender because of discrimination of gender identity. Tomorrow the pressure will be not to include age due to ageism. The concern is the future story will be to the effect “someone hurt someone else at an undisclosed location. End of story.”
Saying prayers for the cyclist, her friends, and family, and all involved.
Too many lives being taken on the streets.
True K’Tesh.
Is this the tipping point? Is this when our elected officials finally take Vision Zero seriously? We are about to find out.
Only if the victim was related to one of the officials.
Short answer? No.
Much like the homeless problem, unless it directly impacts them there isn’t much urgency.
Haven’t ridden here personally, but from Google, it looks like a really poorly designed intersection. Steep terrain and bad intersecting angles. My guess is that the rider was descending, and the car pulled out in front, leaving no time to stop. This seems like an ideal location for a traffic circle.
Traffic circles are no panacea unless people know how to use them, and few around here seem to possess that ability. I was nearly killed in a flat, open one yesterday evening on Brookwood in Hillsboro. I was already in the circle and a zoned out driver (in a convertible with unrestricted visibility!) flew into it without yielding, looking or even slowing down. If I hadn’t been tracking him as his approach speed was suspiciously high, and already given myself an out, I surely would have been another tragic story here. I yelled Hey! at him and he was completely startled and totally oblivious. I frequently see the same lack of understanding to yield on entering at other traffic circles in Wa Co. People just seem to be too stupid, or at least too self-important to share them correctly.
Traffic circles are proven to improve safety. Slip turns should not exist in an urban environment.
BS.
I don’t care what statistics your’e quoting. If they “improve safety” it’s only because they force vulnerable users to actively avoid being hit by incoming traffic.
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/benefits.htm
Signalized intersections allow for high-speed side impact crashes, which are very deadly. Traffic circles slow down all incoming traffic, so if crashes do occur, they happen at lower speeds. It’s logical, and the data supports this. Your personal experience might be different, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I encourage you to try and find statistics that show that traffic circles are more dangerous (ie: injury and death) than signalized intersections.
I think there is a confusion of terms here. A traffic circle (as on Clinton or on NE 24th) is a small 10-12 ft round thing that replaces stop signs at low volume intersections. A roundabout replaces signals at 1-2 lane intersections with moderate urban traffic, and are usually about 25-50 feet in diameter, with traffic slowing down to about 25 mph, such as at Glisan & 39th/Chevas, common throughout Europe and parts of the US. A rotary is much larger, with traffic moving at 40-65 mph, with diameters of over 200 feet (and sometimes as large as a quarter mile or 1,320 ft), replacing or as part of an interchange. Boston, for example, has a few rotaries. They are very common in UK & France, but rare in Germany for example.
Roundabouts definitely require extra focus for cyclists. I get really far inside, leaving a cushion of space between me and the incoming driver. Then I gauge if they see me based on their speed. Occasionally they just use peripheral vision because they’re just thinking about cars on the road and fly though, looking straight ahead. This technique saves me from getting killed 2 or 3 times a year (I probably go through about 5000+/yr)
Good roundabouts are designed with cycling in mind. Look up roundabout design in the Netherlands – the cycle track is maintained at the outside of the car area. In America, sometimes the bike lane directs cyclists into the sidewalk via a concrete ramp. This design is okay, but could be better.
They have ramps on all the roundabouts here connected by crosswalks across the vehicle lanes. I prefer just taking the lane.
Those designs are horrific.
Honesty, would you want to travel around a roundabout (in this country) by making 90 degree crosses with traffic? No signals, no signage… just trust that someone isn’t going to run you over?
Those designs only work because motorists defer to cyclists. It’s the behavior of the people, not the infrastructure that is working.
At low speeds, a single lane roundabout is fine to ride in; they suck for pedestrians, though, generally requiring a long walk to traverse.
I don’t know what you consider low speeds, or a roundabout for that matter.
I do know that I used to live in a neighborhood with multiple single lane roundabouts and it was, without question, the most dangerous part of my daily commute. It was actually a little easier on a bike because I could just stay left and not worry about getting hit by the cars who didn’t yield.
I always used to joke that I was going to go buy an old beater and just circle it so I could hit everyone who entered on top of me.
Roundabouts exist to increase throughput. I’ve never heard anyone describe them as safety devices before this thread.
A roundabout on a 25MPH street would meet my criteria. Take the lane; no one should pass in a roundabout, so there should be no problem.
We’re talking about different things then.
I couldn’t care less about people passing. Obviously nobody’s going to pass me. It’s the people entering that are going to run you over.
If people don’t yield, I agree that is a problem.
Roundabouts improve safety by reducing the amount of conflict points over a signallized intersection. Of course, if they are only designed for cars, then they only improve safety for drivers. It is possible, however, to design roundabouts to accommodate cycling.
Given the roadway geometry and steep slope at this site, I would not recommend a roundabout, but instead a series of small triangular one-way diverters at each of the three main intersections, and a much larger triangle in the center, forcing all users to make immediate right turns when they get to the intersection, but allowing for left-turns at the second intersection they get to. I’ve seen this intersection type far more often than roundabouts throughout Europe, including in countries where roundabouts are popular, usually at less-busy intersections in rural or suburban areas.
Here’s one in The Dalles where they could have done that, but instead the bicyclist is forced to merge with traffic (with no warning signs or sharrows). I take the lane here (usually at speed) and have found drivers to be mostly courteous (probably cuz I’m not slowing them down; may be different for a slower rider as you often point out) and familiar with the process, but to your point, definitely a design focused on the car.
https://goo.gl/maps/YyBotcS6GbU2
Yep, that was pretty much the exact maneuver I had to make to escape my close-call, moving to the inside to increase the buffer (after I had already taken the middle of the lane upon entering at the previous “in” to the circle). Most traffic circles have a raised, but still paved center. After taking the lane, I’m always prepared to hop the curb into that “shelter” if need be. But those are CX skills I realize not everyone has. The designs need to be safer for everyone, and the written and practical driving tests need to address proper usage better.
Sunnyvale, CA has removed a few slip lanes already due to pedestrian incidents. California is full of them – more than I’ve seen anywhere else in the US or world. It’s my humble theory that generations of drivers accustomed to slip lanes and right-turn-on-red laws have resulted in increased pedestrian fatalities, but again, JMHO.
It boggles my mind to see a lane with the design goal of letting a car carry speed through it, intersected by a (usually faded) crosswalk, protected (at best) by a yellow yield sign, and used by drivers who must keep their attention focused to their left in order to merge with upcoming traffic. Yeah, that’ll work…
This is completely anecdotal but I noticed when going to the Clatsop county fairgrounds for the Halloween cross crusade race a few years back, that everyone who had bikes on their cars negotiated the roundabout easily and efficiently.
But two cars who did not had obvious problems understanding it.
Roundabouts generally work best when the volumes from each approach are fairly similar. That doesn’t appear to be the case here. Also, traffic circles are difficult to place on sloping terrain, which is a problem in this location. Problems include sight distance and drainage.
Others have already pointed out that pedestrian accessibility is difficult at roundabouts. At least one study that I’ve seen indicates motorists entering the roundabout are pretty good about yielding to pedestrians, but motorists exiting roundabouts fail to yield most of the time.
Roundabouts are not a clear choice for this location.
This is literally down the same road from the 82nd Ave & Flavel intersection. Flavel becomes Mt. Scott Blvd as it turns underneath I-205 just past 92nd Ave. What happened today is just 30 additional blocks down the same road where Johnson was killed one week ago. It is one of the few available routes for cyclists to Happy Valley et al from middle Southeast Portland.
“Up the road”, actually, up the hill.
I’m flabbergasted, and yet at this point so not surprised. I was nearly right hooked by a driver in a car with “Share the Road” plates going SB on SW Terwilleger Weds afternoon (3:30 pm). There was road construction and car traffic was stop and go and the driver did NOT look over their shoulder to see if the [bike] lane was clear before turning (from nearly a dead stop due to slow car traffic). I only managed to avoid it because a) I wasn’t riding as fast as normal down the hill because of the construction and b) I just happened to see the turn signal on the rear view mirror that was flipped on a second before they started to turn. The ONLY thing that could have prevented this interaction was the driver doing what they were supposed to do — LOOK before turning — not assume that there was no one there because there was no one there 5 minutes ago.
I love riding my bike. I love riding Terwilleger. I’m not going to stop doing either. But damn I wish I could ride as fast as I want there without being hyper villigant Every SIngle Time.
I love all you bike riders out there on the road!
I avoid SW Terwilliger north-bound. I even carry by bike on the trails from Barbur to Terwilliger to eventually travel south-bound. Removal of dozens of car parking spots are needed on Terwilliger to make protected bike lanes in certain places.
It’s never wise to have your safety predicated entirely on drivers doing what they should since all humans mess up at least occasionally.
Basic drivers ed teaches that you should never trust a blinker (or lack there of) even if they can be helpful. That principle does not change when you switch from a car to a bike.
Rather than assume that a driver will look behind, the better assumption is that they will hook you at every intersection. You’ll be wrong more than 99.9% of the time, but when you’re right, it can be the difference between a total nonissue and something very serious.
And yes, you must be hypervigilant every single time. That’s why riding in the sticks is way more fun than urban areas.*
* You only get to worry less about cars. Animals are dangerous (even chipmunks can represent a serious threat on high speed descents) plus road conditions and equipment failure is always a possibility. The faster you go, the faster you’re trusting that things won’t change.
Thanks for mansplaining Kyle.
Thanks for the sexism!
insert comment with word for aggressively female here ___________ .
Please leave that on Tumblr.
Since a bunch of other people liked your admonishment, could someone tell me how I could have replied better?
I stand by my premise that assuming drivers will do the right thing is very dangerous. No one has a greater interest in your safety than you do, so why would you expect a driver to take measures for your safety that you aren’t willing to take yourself?
I am unclear how dismissing someone’s ideas with a sexist term encourages understanding in any way.
Your reply was fine and helpful. Carrie just had a chance to use a newer snarky internet chat room put down and jumped at the chance. How clever….
Kyle,
I should not have posted what I did. I made an assumption and I do apologize for that.
I did take offense at the assumption that I was not riding defensively and assuming that the driver was going to turn right. I DID assume that, which is why I noticed the turn signal, the turning front wheels, and avoided a collision (I did not find the reply helpful, dwk). I did feel like I was being lectured at something I practice when I ride regularly and I took offense at that (which, at it’s heart, is the definition of mansplaining, but this isn’t the thread for that). I should have posted what I found annoying, and not labeled it. Again, I am truly sorry for the label.
Carrie.
No harm, no foul, and I appreciate you returning to say exactly what I did so I can keep it in mind for future.
So if a man has an opinion or comment, it’s ‘mansplaining’? Equality would suggest we all get to comment without judgment.
Thanks for womansnarking Carrie!
Yes, “cover your brake levers and know how to stop fast” should be somewhere in or before the first day of driver’s ed. We do give people lessons on how to ride a bike before we let them drive a car on the street, don’t we? If this was a left cross, I’m not sure how much time anyone would have had to stop or decide to steer left.
Sad. But I’m also angry knowing that for every deadly bike crash, there are dozens of near misses which are only survived with luck and/or vigilance by our “fearless” or “confident” riders. Portland needs to do more to tame its streets — the mayor asking everyone to “please slow down” every 3rd or 5th time someone is killed won’t get it done.
The reckless, impaired street-racer crashing into multiple cars on Barbur Blvd around 5pm last Wed. could have been yet another tragedy if ODOT didn’t go to such lengths to ensure that most people won’t bike on Barbur. The freeways are designed to move cars quickly and be forgiving of errors at high speeds, so they are closed to non-motorized traffic — every other street in the city isn’t. We need streets which physically constrain motorized traffic and are less forgiving of high speeds or operator error with many more inanimate obstacles.
There’s always enough money for a “road closed to thru traffic” barricade. I don’t think anybody needs to die to make driving cars more convenient, but that is the conversation which many assume we’re not even going to consider.
the freeways are only closed to bikes is the metro areas… people can still use them to walk… the freeway shoulders are always packed with families walking to rivers in Oregon City during the summer…
Get out of the bike lane and ride as fast as you want to.
You’ll never be right hooked by the car that’s behind you. Works for me at least. I have little use for a bike lane, or the people who advocate for them.
As a vulnerable road user, I think being hyper-vigilant is a good approach. One should not abdicate their safety to the decision making of others.
pretty much. I don’t trust a single damn person on my 11 mile commute. ever, regardless of what they’re traveling in.
My safety acronym is ‘APP’:
Always be
Assertive
Predictable
Paranoid
I have a safety acronym too! It is the tequila plant AGAVE: Always Get a Visual Estimate. Reminding me to keep looking around all the time, everywhere.
Vision Zero is in the final stages of decision-making in Portland. It is not yet implemented, pending fine-tuning by the Task Force and then approval by City Council. This should be soon… not soon enough, but it is coming along.
This is very sad. Thank you for being a leader and reaching out to other families !
I thank you once again for your amazing and passionate advocacy work. I vehemently believe the city council needs to show their resolve not just by passing a resolution but by committing significant additional funding to safety. Without funding, Vision Zero is just another aspirational Portland plan — like our faltering and failing Bike Plan.
Does not VZ have to go before its Executive Committee before it gets to City Council?
From the photo on KATU it looks like the bicyclist was coming downhill around a curve when a Dodge Ram turned left across her path. However, that left turn was actually straight ahead for the Ram, so there was less incentive to stop or slow down. It does seem like a dangerous intersection designed to keep traffic moving fast on Mt. Scott Blvd.
http://katu.com/news/local/pedestrian-struck-killed-on-mt-scott-boulevard
That appears likely. Hopefully the investigation will be able to determine exactly what happened.
One challenge of riding in this area is that there are many intersections with weird angles that make it harder to read intent and which encourage/facilitate very dangerous maneuvers.
This was my thought as well. This intersection design is terrible. Visibility is poor, and the roads come in at bad angles. Combine that with a steep hill and inattentive drivers, and you have a recipe for death.
The cheapest change would be to remove the curved section of Mt. Scott blvd, and have it terminate into SE 112th at an intersection. The safest solution would be a traffic circle, but that would require the use of some adjacent private land.
Note that the intersection just to the south of this one at SE Cemetery Rd is also very poor. Shame on the city/county for prioritizing vehicle speed over safety on this road.
Intersections like this should be improved whenever possible, but there are enough of them that we’ll all be long gone before they are.
One thing that doesn’t help is that even when motorists see cyclists, it somehow doesn’t register that they have to do anything because they think of cyclists like peds and bikes like toys. Even when it does, many don’t realize how fast some bikes move on flats, let alone on descents.
Many drivers are under the impression that, in order to make driving safer, they need the largest vehicle possible.
A great many.
I’ve lost track of the number of men who have told me they “bought their wife” a big SUV to keep her safe because she didn’t drive very well.
And SUVs have a higher death rate when compares to minivans and cars, because of the propensity to roll in crashes. They are more likely to be involved in crashes due to poor handling and visibility, and more likely to roll and injure occupants when they do crash.
We need to rebuild the road because it’s asking too much to ask motorists to look before making a left turn?
My position: Hit someone with your vehicle, go to jail.
We have known for a century that people can’t be trusted to do the right thing. The only thing that infuriates me more than incompetent and inattentive road users are the people that try to blame the behavior on the road.
Might as well just declare that people can’t drive to an acceptable standard, and shut the roadway down to motor vehicles. People aren’t robots, they make mistakes. Jailing people for driving errors is unjust.
No. Killing someone with your vehicle is unjust.
Some people simply cannot function without a deterrent. I realize you relish the opportunity to be the incompetent motorist apologist, so I’m not going to engage further.
All drivers are incompetent when held to a standard where an error leads to imprisonment. It’s just not a realistic standard. I was serious when I wrote better to just eliminate driving across the board.
We don’t have to go to a standard of perfect, but the standard of care has been continuously driven down by the media, law enforcement, the judiciary, and the legislature. We have been by the use of the word “accident” and a definition of “carelessness” that has become to mean “not intentional.” We need to raise the standard. The number one job of the driver should be to DRIVE. Other stuff, like communicating, eating, navigation, etc should be much lower on the list. Unfortunately, we have come to accept that as long as the driver spends at least 20 percent of his/her cognative ability on driving, it’s considered acceptable. I find that unacceptable; let’s raise the bar.
“All drivers are incompetent when held to a standard where an error leads to imprisonment.”
Come again?
What does the consequence have to do with determining competence? J_R is right; people need to (and can) hold themselves/be held to a higher standard than we’ve grown accustomed. Deterrence may or may not work as expected, but we know one thing and that is that what we have now most assuredly does not work for those of us not habitually in cars.
I believe that, for most people, it is impossible to perform a task that is at once boring and cognitively difficult without a lapse of attention/zoning out/distraction/etc. for any length of time. Holding people to an impossible standard is doomed to fail.
Our choices seem to be to make our roads more fault tolerant, accept a high level of mayhem, or end (human) driving altogether. My preference would be for that third option, but it’s not really a viable choice at the moment.
This mostly makes me concerned with your driving ability.
“Holding people to an impossible standard is doomed to fail.”
I agree with much of what you say there, Hello, Kitty, but let’s not forget that other countries have managed to improve on our statistics with techniques and strategies we here in Portland have professed to endorse. Vision Zero is not hand waving, and variations on it are conceivable. Airline pilots are often mentioned comparatively in this context. Training, higher standards, real consequences for lapses, not to mention better infrastructure all could go a long way; but we seem to have the most difficulty with societal re-prioritizing that would remind us that driving is a privilege not an automatically granted right.
I assume HK is terrified of flying.
I totally support the goals behind VZ, and even though I know they will never be achieved, I think working towards them is critical to making our streets safer. Better driver training will certainly help, but that is a long game, as it will take decades for drivers we start training better today to replace the majority of lesser trained drivers on the road. And, as you know, I believe technology will make these issues moot sooner than that can happen.
Things like better intersection design, lower urban speed limits, more strictly graduated licenses, and better transportation options can start helping today.
I’d rather be alive, than dying but knowing the person who hit me would be going to jail.
Sounds like that logic might apply to cyclists also. There are a lot of people who blame infrastructure here for their behaviors.
Stiff penalties for crashes would only have a marginal effect on road safety, because it would only eliminate the crashes from repeat offenders. The issue with auto safety in the US is one of perceived risk. Even though it is the mostly likely cause of injury and death for most adults, no one thinks of it that way, because people commonly drive for thousands of hours before being involved in a minor fender bender. Even if your average driver knows they will go to jail if they kill someone, they won’t change their habits, because they can’t imagine that happening to them.
People drive 70+ on 2-lane roads every day in this state, and think nothing of it, because they feel safe. They don’t realize that this is the most dangerous activity they participate in. If they won’t slow down for their own safety, you expect them to slow down because they might go to jail if they get in a crash, a crash that they don’t think will ever happen?
That’s why we need real penalties for infractions, not just crashes. If we had actual (hopefully automated) traffic law enforcement that raised the odds of being cited, then we could change driving behavior. Even small penalties with high probabilities of being assessed should reap substantial rewards, if the work of game theory is to be believed (and ime, it is).
Agreed. Consistent enforcement of infractions would do a lot to improve safety. We have the technology, we just need the legal authority and will to implement them.
There are many intersections, and roads and streets in general, with weird, poor visibility angles and fast traffic in many places, not just in the Mt Scott area, but throughout much of Washington, Multnomah and Clackamas counties.
…actually, almost anywhere people may need or want to ride a bike, with the possible exception of some of Downtown Portland’s and the city’s close-in neighborhoods where gradually, the city is experimenting with and introducing infrastructure specifically designed to counter mistakes and errors by road users resulting in hazardous traffic situations particularly for vulnerable road users.
And there’s plenty of people, way too many, inattentively riding their bikes in traffic where motor vehicles are in use. Efforts to cast blame for collisions and close calls involving people on bikes and people driving motor vehicles, predominantly on old, unsophisticated street infrastructure and the driving characteristics of people operating motor vehicles, really does very little to help reduce potential for collisions in the here and now.
Given the immense number of reports of close calls, and periodic collisions, I have to question whether people that either are biking, or are considering biking for both recreation and practical travel, are personally doing all that they can to equip themselves with the knowledge and skill in riding a bike in traffic, that could help them reduce the likelihood of their being involved in collisions and close calls.
For folks using this or any tragedy to further an agenda or narrative. Maybe don’t.
My agenda is that I want to see fewer people dying on our roads.
Specifically completely unrelated ones. Sorry you felt it was directed at you.
The 82nd Avenue of Death Ride and Protest will stop at the location of this second tragedy to protest another unnecessary death on our roads.
The ride starts at 5 pm at Woodstock Park and will stop at SE 82nd and Flavel at 6 pm.
Woodstock Park
SE 47th Street, Portland, Oregon 97206
https://www.facebook.com/events/1430777176948183/
Hey folks,
I’ve been gone all weekend and wasn’t able to update the post until now. Here’s the latest about this collision:
Lets fix that.
The cyclist was continuing along the road, there really is no “left turn” for her before the crash site, and especially not at the crash site. That is the through street.
But the cyclist passed a line of stopped cars on the right in one of the worst intersections in the area? Time to pull the curve out. It can be a circle or you can put a traffic light in the middle of it.
Based on the design of that roadway, the cyclist most definitely did not “turn left”. It’s almost like the officer is trying to make it look like the cyclist is at fault here. The cyclist is not at fault, legally. That falls on the driver who chose to turn left, and on the driver that gave up their right of way to let someone execute a dangerous left turn.
Going that direction, you can either go straight (onto 112th) or “turn left” (to stay on Mt. Scott). Both of them have the right of way (i.e. no stop sign) so I think “turn left” is fair, as there are two options from the initial lane.
Looking at a ‘Bike There’ map (older, very good quality with all the street names on it.), it appears the streets in question are in the area of Lincoln Memorial Park and Willamette National Cemetery.
Knowing that SE 112th and Mount Scott is a ‘T’ intersection, rather than a standard ‘+’ intersection may help to understand the collision description provided by the police. West of and up to 112th, Mt Scott Blvd runs east-west. I’m not exactly sure just looking at the map with its street names, but at the intersection with 112th, and then going south on this street’s north-south alignment, it appears that Mt Scott Blvd supersedes 112th.
In other words, Mt Scott Blvd is the east-west through street, which in the quirky way of a lot of one-time country roads, does not exactly stay with the 90 degree angles of east-west, north-south grids. South of the intersection, Mt Scott Blvd ascends the hill, I expect (I’ve ridden these roads I think, but it’s been a long time…so I don’t recall the character of the roads there, very well.).
To get a sense of how what happened at this intersection, occurred, it took me a few readings of the police description of the collision, which suspected directions of parties involved.
Witness impressions aren’t exact. I say that, with some question in mind as to how close to the mark their estimation was, of the mph speed of the person riding the bike. Of course, some people riding can go faster, but my feeling riding a racing style road bike with 23mm tires, is that 30-35 mph on a bike, is very fast, especially where there’s traffic and turns to prepare for. Knowing this firsthand, I’m saying I think there’s definitely a possibility the witnesses may have overestimated the mph speed. Then again, once the investigation continues, and hopefully discovers for info about the collision and the people involved, ultimately coming to understand as much as reasonably possible about what things contributed the collision’s occurrence…maybe not.
My own thought to myself as I’m out riding, is riding on the road where motor vehicles are in use, is very serious business…as serious in many respects as is operating a motor vehicle, and arguably more risky to my own health and survival. Do and think what you feel is best for yourselves, but be safe out there folks.
My thought when I’m out driving is that it is a vastly, incalculably more serious activity than when I’m riding my bicycle. On a bike I’m the primary target for any reasonable risk I might take, but in a car I’m a deadly danger to innocent people all around me if my vigilance lapses for even a moment. To equate that with taking a reasonable personal risk is to abdicate entirely my responsibility as the operator of a 2-ton vehicle.
So she was descending at 30-35 in the bike lane? I would definitely advise taking the lane in this instance. Don’t be shy people, your life may depend on it.
Indeed. Is that a bike lane or a shoulder? It’s about a 10% grade? Where did they get this 30+mph and is it at impact or before braking? Why did westbound traffic stop?
What role did the 19 bus have in the intersection design?
There are no bike lanes on any of these roads. a foot or two of shoulder in some spots. It’s very easy to get up to 30+ mph on that section going downhill.
It’s a VERY wonky intersection. I always take it with a lot of caution and slow down a good bit.
Based on the description, the cyclist was overtaking stopped traffic from the right side?
If she “took the lane”, then she would have had to suddenly stop in back of all the other stopped cars, who were waiting for an oncoming car driven by Dieter to turn left. Clearly, she didn’t (or wasn’t able to?), and proceeded on the right of all the stopped cars, at 30-35 mph, apparently without braking. This is probably one of those cases where the other cars were engaged in a courteous act towards another user that was ultimately dangerous for traffic further behind. Technically, there was only one lane in each direction, but the shoulder widens near the intersection, and Mt. Scott has a marked bike lane west of 112th.
Yes, it’s quite possible this crash wouldn’t have happened if the downhill drivers hadn’t yielded out of courtesy. They and the cyclist would have simply traveled past the turning driver, who then would turn when all was clear. The timing is ironic, since this was a big issue discussed in the recent article about PBOT’s new “crossbike” crossings, which are designed to create ambiguity, and encourage drivers to yield when they don’t have to.
Does anyone else find the estimated speed to be a bit suspect? I doubt most causal observers are good at estimating the speed of a cyclist (think of how often people are accused of “speeding” on their bikes on flat ground).
This rider was a middle aged person on a bike with straight bars. I’m not saying she couldn’t have been going 35, but I often top out around 35 on wide open descents out in the foothills on my road bike… maybe I’m just slow, but I think this is making excuses.
Agreed. I didn’t comment on this because I am not familiar with the area at all. I don’t think I own a bike on which I could achieve those claimed speeds.
It’s pretty easy to get 35 at that location. A very nice long decent.
On a non-road frame? Look at the bike in this photo: http://koin.com/2016/08/05/pedestrian-hit-and-killed-by-car-on-mt-scott-blvd/
I don’t mean to do too much Monday morning quarterbacking, but this bike appears to be in some of the lowest gears (on the small front chainring), has a kickstand, and straight bars.
Obviously she wasn’t going “slow” or she’d probably be alive today, but I often think the speed of cyclists is overestimated and used to excuse other behavior.
Never mind that 25-35 feels pretty “slow” in a car. When people hear about a cyclist going that “fast” they think they are Evel Knievel.
Related quote in that story:
“I know the bike riders, when I see them, are going awfully fast,” Worthington said. “because they’re going downhill and they’re keeping up with traffic at 40 mph.”
So 40mph car traffic is normal, but if you’re on a bike it’s “awfully fast”.
Especially when traveling down hill, a car going 40mph would be able to stop in a shorter distance. A cyclist is limited by the physics of weight distribution (ie: you can’t use your front brakes to full effect because you will go over the bars).
It should be obvious from this video that this intersection is terribly designed. And at least one crash per month? Clearly this needs to be completely rebuilt.
you can use the front brake to the point of a skid without going over the bars
And the easiest way to find that point is to gently squeeze the brakes until you are flying through the air… then back off a little.
Aside from the braking issue, I find it ironic that a 6000lb F350 going 40 through a neighborhood is normal, but a 20lb bike going 40 is ‘awfully fast’. What do they call it, Stockholm Syndrome?
Heavier bikes go downhill faster.
I agree that most people have issues estimating speed when they’re stopped, but it’s very plausible that a cyclist was going 30-35mph at this site.
People’s perception of the speed of a vehicle is skewed by the length of the vehicle, with longer vehicles appearing to be going slower than they actually are and shorter vehicles, like cyclists, appearing to be going faster. Add in the fact that any speed over a walking speed is interpretted as very fast for a cyclist by motorists, and it’s no surprise that they come up with some wildly high estimate.
Locally, we had a cop deal with a salmon ninja one evening and his report referred to the rider as “riding very fast”. He was on a beater bike on an absolutely flat roadway with a 20 mph speed limit that there is no way he reached. Meanwhile, the same cop won’t cite motorists for going 30 mph on that street.
Yeah. She would have been alongside or passing a line of cars coming down the hill (unless they were speeding), then applied no brakes when they all stopped?
As for the speed, theoretically a 10% downhill grade with no headwind would allow even 110lb of bike+rider to coast at 35mph with straight bars, no tuck, lycra, or skinny tires (not tested or measured, assumptions for air and rolling resistance coefficients.) 30 is way too exciting for the shoulder and I’ve never gotten above 25 without at least laying fingers on the brake lever to be sure it was there!
What’s the minimum stopping distance for a bike from 35mph on dry pavement? (50fps -> 75ft?) Was there gravel and debris scattered on the shoulder? Is it a bike lane if there is an 8in stripe at the other side of this intersection?
Would the stopped vehicles have been able to block both the drivers view of the rider and the rider’s view of the truck?
If I killed someone while driving my car I would easily perceive that they were going 30 mph at least to convince myself that there was nothing that I could have done differently.
Unless they were standing still. In that case, I would fixate on how difficult it was to see them because they were camouflaged by their stealth motionlessness.
I’ve always believed that rationalization was one of the skills we humans developed to put us at the top of the food chain, probably at the cost of a better-honed intuition. I think your comment nails it!
As the facts of this tragedy emerge it becomes harder for me to find obvious fault and simple remedies.
Assuming I reconstructed the situation accurately, the cyclist was moving at 30 to 35 mph around a left sweeping curve with a posted speed limit of 20 mph. Additionally, the cyclist passed a car that was stopped to allow an oncoming car to turn in front of it. Again, assuming I’ve reconstructed the situation accurately, two factors stand out.
One, while the stopped car had no legal obligation to yield to the left turning car, it likely did so out of courtesy. And it’s this type of courtesy that can leave the impression that it is safe for an oncoming car to proceed when it is not. The ‘no, you go ahead’ gesture disrupts predictability on the road and can lead to disastrous results. That said, had the car been stopped for a pedestrian, and assuming that the crossing to the island between 112th and Mt Scott is technically a crosswalk, then it would have been illegal for the cyclist to pass the stopped car.
Two, passing a car that is stopped, or moving at a much slower rate, is an inherently dangerous maneuver, and can be illegal. In situations like this, extreme caution is warranted, though often discounted or ignored.
These factors – the unpredictability of road users, and the misjudgment of risk – are both understandable human factors that are difficult to design against with infrastructure and laws. I hope we all can take lessons away from this tragedy and apply them to our behavior on the road immediately.
There is an advisory speed of 20. The posted speed is 35, I believe.
and oddly that advisory speed is only on the downhill outer lane and switches to 35 mph halfway through the turn… the inner sharper lane should have a slower advisory speed… but I think at this point they’re just trying to calm motor vehicles racing down the hill so the residents don’t end up with cars in their yards…
Aside from becoming aware of how cycling can be more safe, I hope one of these lessons is that systematically demonizing drivers, especially before the facts are in, is unproductive.
These tragedies have taught me to systemically demonize unsafe driving. The comments on bike portland; however, have taught me to categorically ignore “experienced” cyclists who use a tragedy as an opportunity to expound on their favorite anecdotal safety techniques.
I’m unclear how demonization contributes anything to safety.
But I agree, there are a lot of bogus practices people advocate that do not contribute to safety — or worse yet, undermine it.
Since you have the experience to identify these shills, how about calling out some of these practices people expound upon so we can all be safer?
just about anything anyone says about how one ought to ride a bike is mostly anecdote. it would not surprise me if many of the techniques that some “experienced” cyclists claim are important (e.g. taking the lane, lane control, signaling, holding a line, avoiding sidewalks, avoiding riding the wrong way etc) have little impact on risk.
my favorite example of this is the oft-repeated claim that following “the rules of the road” increases safety. well…idaho performed a natural experiment and found that many of “the rules of the road” had no measurable impact on safety.
The Idaho Stop (which I assume is what you are referring to) is probably not the best example. I think the idea behind “following the rules” is that your actions are predictable. Stopping, or not, when no one else is at an intersection is not really relevant to that conversation.
I think that experienced riders have learned something about road safety over the years, and I’m not sure why you would think they haven’t.
Why is taking the lane, avoiding sidewalks, and not riding the wrong way bad advice?
I’ve seen a (slightly tongue in cheek) argument against being predictable- if you are unpredictable, drivers will see you and/or slow down/give you more space.
= Hans Monderman.
He was quite serious, too.
Being unpredictable is not as effective as being invisible. If they can’t see you, they can’t hit you.
The “rules of the road” were written for cars.
Probably best to disregard them, then.
Expect the family of the cyclist to sue the pickup driver and the car that stopped to let them turn.
35mph is about the top speed I will ever go on my road bike, and that is on open roads that I am familiar with. Passing slowing or stopped vehicles on the right at this speed is a very bad idea.
I agree with this assessment. If you are travelling the same speed as cars, it’s much safer to be in the middle of the lane. Even on an open road with no other traffic, once you get over 25 or so you really should get out of the bike lane to give yourself room to avoid obstacles.
I’ve raced road bikes for many years. There have been many times that I’ve come up on a car so fast that the only option was to pass on the shoulder. Yes, I was riding too fast for the conditions, but it happens frequently as bikes can descend far faster than cars. This loss of life just sucks.
my assumption when I read the update was that the cars weren’t stopped specifically to let somebody turn because those cars don’t have a clear view that somebody is even approaching… rather they were likely stopped due to traffic in front of them that wasn’t moving…
A simple remedy would be to lower speed limits and/or close intersections. There are many simple remedies which would be safer, but with less fast and free movement of heavy vehicles. Allowing 46mph traffic with no access control and no mode separation shouldn’t be the norm (where’s the sidewalk?)
The nearbyh Willamette National Cemetery does not allow “runners.”
I agree entirely but feel in practice it can be very difficult to put this into effect. For example, when I’ve ridden on side roads in the 70+ Aves past Tabor on a downslope, it is easy to reach 25mph on bicycle yet the operators of cars will nonetheless try zipping around. Even as they continuously brake for speed bumps and stop signs without ever easily getting ahead in a meaningful way. Anyways, I agree that once you’re in the 25+ mph rate of velocity, leaving the bike lane makes sense but car operators will nonetheless feel the “need” to slip by the “slower” vehicle (which is going the posted speed). :-/ I suppose how car operators react to taking the lane is its own issue that does not detract from the validity and purpose of your statement but is highly related to general safety and maneuverability.
Whoops. This was in reply to Dan A’s post which was just above this one originally from a different branch of the discussion.
http://bikeportland.org/2016/08/05/fatal-bicycle-collision-at-se-112th-and-mt-scott-188979#comment-6690086
If you’re in the middle of the lane when they pass, at least you still have the option of moving right. But if you’re in the bike lane at 30mph when someone is passing and you’ve got an obstacle in your path, you’re pretty much screwed.
It is true some cars do this. I’ve had cars attempt passes on blind curves when I was going 45 in a 35 (I realize my own admitted speed brings my judgment into question).
But it is still safer to take the lane for visibility (yours and everyone else’s) and to create more options if something goes wrong. There are places where I’ve broken 50mph, but I *never* pass vehicles on the right at speed.
Speaking of which, you should not go faster than you’re willing to crash because someday you will. Tires can go down, animals big and small can jump out into the road, you might lose control during a “death wobble” (harmonic vibration of the bars at high speed), you could kick a piece of gravel, you might round a curve to find your path blocked by someone or something, you might find suddenly find yourself on a slick surface deep into a curve, etc.
If you ride at high speed, you need to acknowledge the inherent risks and take responsibility for them. Expecting others to look out for you and get out of your way is dangerous for everyone. Drivers who do this are rightly considered irresponsible, even if they are on only two wheels.
“Drivers who do this are rightly considered irresponsible”
I wish that were true. We’ve seen numerous stories here over the years where drivers run over things in the middle of the road because they were going too fast and it’s just written off as an act-of-god accident.
It is true that many people accept that an “accident” is unavoidable so long as the driver was going anywhere near the speed limit.
I have personally witnessed many avoidable accidents over the years and ridden with people who hit things/animals that should have been avoided.
It is still bad driving. Good drivers are ready to respond when things go wrong. The same can be said of cyclists.
“you should not go faster than you’re willing to crash”
Interesting aphorism, but not applicable.
Similar to “if anything bad happens to you while you are moving it is your fault, because you could always be going slower.”
It has nothing to do with fault. Rather it has everything to do with the simple fact that if you take risks for a long enough period of time, the math eventually catches up with you.
Are you trying to suggest that the examples I brought out earlier in the thread are not real threats? I’ve have personally experienced *all* of them as well as others at speeds over 40mph. Amazingly, none of them except washing out on a curve have resulted in crashes (knock on wood).
There is no consolation in being “dead right,” so being safe requires riding for conditions as they are rather than conditions as the should be.
Just saying it sounds good but not applicable.
no matter the vehicle never go faster than you can react…
when driving I’m always timing myself for braking distance and often go under the speed limit around corners that are signed too fast…
Interesting. I usually go faster than the posted (yellow sign) advisory speeds because they’re way slower than the corner allows (and we’re not even talking about trying to be fast, just comfortable cruising). Are you driving a semi or a large box truck? For the most part, any passenger car from the last 30 years can go faster than the posted advisory speed, even in the rain. If you’re not driving a semi, the next time you’re tooling around and come up to one of those corners you’re uncomfortable with, try looking ahead through the turn and maintaining speed. Maybe think about a performance driving school, too. That might help you become more comfortable with your car and the posted speed limits.
Everything’s awesome until it isn’t.
is this for real, or just baiting?
yes, on a closed race track today’s cars handle fantastically…but for all the variables listed above (increased congestion, hidden driveways, “polite” drivers stopping unexpectedly, distracted driving) and then some, its not about how your car handles…its about accepting that posted
speeds probably need to come down
I am not certain but I think the yellow advisory speed is posted for icy roads and zero side thrust in a motor vehicle in the middle of the lane. I know I have gone off the road, on the inside, at below the advisory speed on curves on ice.
Not really.
If you actually want to know about posting of advisory speeds on Oregon roads, go to:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/Pages/nr16050501.aspx
New procedures from the Federal Highway Administration are found at:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1122/
Definitely agree that racing schools and track experience makes for better driving skills on road*, but a car’s capabilities and a driver’s responsibilities are two different things entirely. Posted speed limits are maximums based on road designs, urban density, sight lines, and area usages, not suggestions based on how fast your vehicle can handle its turns.
Or maybe I misread your point?
*As a graduate of Skip Barber’s classes with racing experience at PIR, Watkins Glen, and (my favorite) Lime Rock Park.
you missed the key part of my statement: corners that are signed too fast…
yes, the majority of advisory signs are below the comfortable limit and are easily exceeded…
but I was saying that I’m also judging the road separate from the signs and sometimes the corners speeds, advisory or not, are too fast…
It’s unclear… how is the cyclist moving Northbound on Mt. Scott, while the truck driver is moving Eastbound!?!?!
Mt Scott Blvd makes a 90 degree turn at the intersection with 112th Ave. It’s a funky intersection, left over from when that area was largely rural.
That slip lane needs to go away.
Disagreed.
Removing that lane would make a left turn from Mt Scott onto 112th substantially more dangerous because someone turning left (possibly even a cyclist) would have to wait for oncoming traffic while vehicles coming around a sharp curve approached from behind. Waiting vehicles would not see approaching ones in mirrors pointed straight back, and approaching vehicles would have more difficulty recognizing threats around the curve, especially in bad conditions.
To substantially improve that intersection, a different design would be necessary.
Removing the slip lane would create a simple, 4-way intersection. It would need to have stop signs, or would be signalized. No waiting for oncoming traffic to turn, just wait your turn. It would create a slight delay for people driving on Mt. Scott Blvd, which is why the city will never do it.
I wholeheartedly agree. Perhaps I have a bias because of the many decades I lived and rode in a rural area with a one-mile grid of roads, almost none of which had slip lanes, but there’s just no need to try to make every road into an expressway.
Bad traffic engineer. No coffee for him/her.
B,
The one from 1940?
Would be interested to know how they came up with 30-35 mph. We tend to overestimate the ability of police to determine “facts” that become fixed once they appear in a police report.
I am trying to figure out how dangerous this intersection is. Hard to blame the intersection for a car stopping innapropriately (if I read the report correctly.)
This highlights one of the black boxes of right sided bike lanes. Right turning cars must stop to yield the ROW to bikes passing on the right before the car turns, but they could also be stopping for other reasons. If I stopped every time a car stopped to allow me to pass before they make a turn, it would be confusing and frustrating for everyone. I typically wait for a car to be at a full stop for 1-2 secs before I assume they have seen me. The lack of a turn signal is not unusual enough to set off alarms.
This intersection is clearly dangerous. In fact, one of the last times I rode Mt. Scott, I had a hairy encounter with a car that was trying to figure out if they could pull out of 112th (they had a stop sign) before I arrived. I would have signaled left to make it obvious I was “turning left” (technically staying on Mt. Scott), but I needed both hands on the handlebars there because it is very steep, and I was likely pushing 40 mph. At those speeds, I think it’s mandatory to take the lane…passing stopped cars on the right at that speed (bike lane or not), is not being cautious.
Thanks. I haven’t ridden this road much. And I am a fan of taking the lane, but I also know that sometimes that is easier said than done. As far as passing on the right, a person on a bike could slow to 15 and still be killed by a moving vehicle.
You have to be very, very careful anytime you see a car pulled up to a road when you are moving at speed — even if you clearly have full right of way on a through road and they’re on a tiny driveway. Even if they’re at a red light and you have green (if they’re turning right).
Vehicles can and sometimes will pull right in front of you as if you don’t exist. Or it will appear they do see you, but pull out so slowly that drastic braking and/or evasive action is necessary. Some drivers don’t think, some don’t look, some don’t do either. They will be at fault, but you’ll be the one who suffers.
BTW, I have noticed that running daytime flashers in front seems to reduce the number of vehicles who pull in front of me or execute hooking maneuvers.
I wholeheartedly agree. Perhaps I have a bias because of the many decades I lived and rode in a rural area with a one-mile grid of roads, almost none of which had slip lanes, but there’s just no need to try to make every road into an expressway.
Bad traffic engineer. No coffee for him/her.
Oops, that was meant as a reply to Adam H who said the slip lane needs to go away.
Yielding one’s own right of way, and accepting that yielded right of way are common causes for collisions like this. If I were in charge, these would be criminal acts. There are no accidents.
Driving is not a passive activity; it is both a privilege and a responsibility to know and follow traffic laws. Cooperating with police after the fact does not vindicate.
I agree with Tom Hardy that all acts while driving are deliberate.
Are all acts while cycling also deliberate? How about while walking?
>Yielding one’s own right of way, and accepting that yielded right of way are common causes for collisions like this.
Kind of like this one.
http://bikeportland.org/2015/07/24/woman-sues-for-over-670000-after-collision-caused-serious-injuries-151177
disclaimer: I am not a lawyer…
legally, this will be the cyclist’s fault… they were riding on the shoulder, which is legally considered a sidewalk (and why we’re allowed to bike on it)…
as a sidewalk rider you are required to enter the crosswalk at a walking speed when there is a pending conflict with a motor vehicle…
per witness statements the rider did not slow down to a walking speed (~4 mph) before entering the unmarked crosswalk and thus did not leave enough time for the driver to react…
unfortunate, but that is my take from a legal standpoint…
moral take-away: when passing cars to the right of the white line you’re on an unmarked sidewalk so be sure to slow when there are cars turning across that shoulder…
Sincere question: Is this really an unmarked cross walk?
it’s an intersection so it has to be… it’s an extension of the unmarked sidewalk on the shoulder…
Thank goodness you are not a lawyer.
Let me put it another way. Suppose you’re riding on a rural highway with no bike lane and just a shoulder. It sounds like you’re suggesting that somebody riding 25mph on the shoulder of the highway would need to slow to walking speed every time the highway intersects with another road, in order to continue legally and with the right of way. But I don’t think you actually believe that.
not every time it intersects… you only have to slow if there’s going to be a conflict with a motor vehicle…
yes, it sounds ridiculous, but that’s how it reads in the ORS…
I don’t think I want to be riding on the shoulder/sidewalk any more…
Completely wrong, from a legal standpoint.
ok, but where am I failing to make the connection?
using ORS 801.480 shoulder and 801.485 sidewalk definitions combined with 801.220 crosswalk this looks like it’s clearly a case of a cyclist in a crosswalk… 814.410 states you have to enter that crosswalk at a walking pace if a motor vehicle is approaching…
what did I miss?
A shoulder is never a crosswalk. There are no sidewalks where this incident occurred, so how can there be a crosswalk? Similarly, the cyclist was proceeding with the right-of way. The road curves, so she was essentially going straight on the road.
When you are riding on the shoulder of a country road, do you slow down to a walking pace every time you pass a side road?
a shoulder is an assumed sidewalk… thus when you cross a street from shoulder to shoulder you’re in an assumed crosswalk… and that transition is when you have to slow to a walking speed…
I’ve never slowed down like that, but I’m now changing my riding style in light of this research…
Jonathan: I would recommend the terminology “motor vehicle operator” and not “auto user”.
In the future the term “auto user” may be better a description for a person inside a self driving car where they have final authority to cease operations or set the “avoidance” threshold for self preservation…and they are in a crash/ collision.
To all those who are saying that this may be the fault of drivers who had “courtesy stopped” in the road to let the truck driver turn — what if they had stopped for a pedestrian? It’s an intersection, therefore an unmarked crosswalk, so cars would be required to stop for peds. A cyclist flying down the hill at 30-35 mph could easily have taken out that ped in addition to themselves. I know that wasn’t the case here, just saying that we cyclists are just as responsible for those around us as drivers are. If cars are stopped in the middle of the road, best to slow down and figure out why.
I’m not sure anyone said it was their “fault” entirely. I know I did say it may never have happened if they hadn’t yielded. But once they did, it still wouldn’t have happened without the cyclist passing them.
But you’re exactly right with your point–if the cars had stopped for a pedestrian, it could have been a bike/pedestrian crash, with the biker doing the equivalent dangerous move of drivers who swoop around cars stopped for pedestrians at crossings. You really do have to figure out why they’re stopped before passing, as you said.
At this interchange, the most likely reason for a car to be stopped in this situation is that they are waiting for you to pass so that they can turn right or park.
Pedestrian crossing is a stretch of the imagination given that there is nothing on the west shoulder to go to or come from.