A bicycle rider was killed last year in the central Oregon city of Bend when he was involved in a collision with a FedEx truck operator. The collision was a right-hook that took place in an intersection.
The reason I’m sharing this story here and now is because of a Deschutes County Circuit Court ruling that was made in the case yesterday. Here’s the story from the Bend Bulletin (emphasis mine):
A Deschutes County Circuit Court judge on Tuesday ruled a cyclist hit and killed in an intersection by a FedEx truck did not have the protection of a bike lane.
FedEx driver Trenton Derek Sage was found not guilty of the violation of failing to yield to a rider in a bicycle lane. Last November, Sage hit and killed Bend man Jonathan Chase Adams, 31… The case had implications beyond the lives of Sage and Adams. Prosecutor Andrew Steiner said many people today do not treat bike lanes like vehicle lanes, though they are.
“This is cultural,” he said. “Many people just don’t think of them as lanes.”
Steiner attempted to make the case that bike lanes continue through intersections, citing Oregon Department of Transportation guidelines for road construction and recent court cases and legislation in Oregon.
But Tuesday afternoon, Adler announced he did not agree. He said he saw “no authority” to support the contention that bike lanes continue through intersections in Oregon.
If this sounds familiar it’s because we had a similar case in Portland in 2009. In that instance, Multnomah County Court Judge Mark Zusman ruled that a woman who admitted to making a sudden right turn in her car that resulted in a collision with a bicycle rider in an intersection could not be found guilty for “failure to yield… in a bike lane” because — in Judge Zusman’s opinion — there is technically no “bike lane” in the intersection since there are no painted lines.
We spoke to legal and law enforcement experts about that case and they all agreed that Zusman’s decision was unfortunate and/or just plain wrong. At the time I said repeatedly that the law needs to be clarified so as to avoid decisions like this from happening ever again. Well, here we are.
Advertisement
‘Bicycle lane’ means that part of the highway, adjacent to the roadway, designated by official signs or markings…
– ORS 801.155
Let’s be clear: Even though the legal definition of a bicycle lane (ORS 801.155) doesn’t specifically address intersections, the legal protection of a bicycle lane absolutely does continue through an intersection even if the markings do not. Standard vehicle lanes also don’t continue through intersections — does that mean intersections are a legal free-for-all? No. There are no lines in intersections simply because it would be confusing and impossible to follow them when they criss-cross each other.
But don’t take my word for it.
Former Portland Police Bureau Captain Bryan Parman told us in 2010 that, “We all know that lanes continue through an intersection, we just don’t lay down a bunch of criss-crossing lines because it would be confusing.” He also said, “It’s a poor ruling in an individual case but it doesn’t change the way we do business.”
Keep in mind that the Bend case is much different in one major respect: The bicycle rider was riding relatively fast and one witness said he was “bombing” downhill prior to the collision. In the Portland case, the auto user admitted fault and made a sudden right turn without looking. It’s unclear if the Deschutes County Judge took the bicycle rider’s behavior into account in his interpretation of the bike lane law.
The Portland case ultimately settled out of court with the auto user’s insurance company taking full responsibility.
It’s very frustrating to another Oregon judge make this determination about bike lanes. We had a feeling this could happen if the law was not clarified. In 2010, a former employee of The Street Trust said their legislative committee discussed the possibility of changing the law. “The question hinges on whether this is a one-time fluke,” the employee said, “or if this is something that will spread like a virus.” Given what just happened in Bend, it’s time for the law to be cleaned up.
The law should be changed to explicitly state that bicycle lanes continue through intersections — whether the lane markings do or not.
UPDATE, 12:06 pm: We’ve obtained some of the documents used in the Deschutes County Court trial. In a memo to the court, the driver’s Portland-based attorney, David McDonald, cites the 2009 Zusman decision as evidence that the bike lanes didn’t legally continue through the intersection. McDonald also states, “a bicycle lane is a traffic control device, and traffic controlled devices have to be clearly marked. The fact that the bicycle lane’s markings are not continuous through the intersection, and the point of impact was not with a designated bicycle lane, Mr. Sage [the truck operator] cannot be adjudge liable for a violation of ORS 811.050.”
UPDATE: Here’s a May 2018 memo written by Deputy DA Andrew Steiner that explains why he believes bike lanes continue through intersections:
[pdf-embedder url=”https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Memo-Re-Adams-5-1-18.pdf” title=”Memo Re Adams 5-1-18″]
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.
BikePortland needs your support.
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.
What I don’t understand is the asymmetric implication of this. Why is it the person on a bike (the more vulnerable users) who apparently lose(s) her rights in the intersection?
Since as you said it would be silly for all intersections to be legal free for alls, what gives?
The result is asymmetrical because the underlying law is asymmetrical (in that it specifically protects several classes of users). If the law is invalid (as the judge found, incorrectly in my opinion), then the result will reflect that underlying asymmetry.
We haven’t heard much about the VRU law here …. in years.
It’s on the same dusty shelf as the basic speed rule.
I must have missed it. Would love to know more.
Driver charged under VRU law (see update at end of article)
Thanks!
I think they are trying not to open up a can of worms regarding traffic laws. Intersections are where many people are killed in auto accidents every day-with turns being a major factor. In your car, you must watch for cars (and pedestrians) on a left turn, which is where many people are killed, but to also scan for bicycles moving onto then across the road at a wide range of speeds could add alot to that. Then right turn vehicles, who now just need to check a small area around their intended path for pedestrians will be required to effectively look behind them to avoid hitting a fast approaching bicycle…which complicates things quite a bit as well- at the biker’s peril, followed by the peril of any cross traffic approaching in adjacent lanes which they then forgot about trying to avoid the bike…. Just the simple addition of red light cameras, which change no rules cause quite an increase in accidents in many areas. Driving needs to be as simple as possible for everyone’s sake.
I can easily see a bike lane right-of-way law leading to many more bicycle deaths…and legal trouble/felonies/prison time for alot of decent people who just got overwhelmed with the demands once in their life and had an accident.
Imagine if all right lanes were for going straight, and only the middle lanes were for right turns. Thats very similar to one of the aspects of this….So Idk…this article must be leaving something out I guess.
Anyway so what’s at stake here? This article talks like people just dont want to have to stop at intersections, like its some big issue…they ought to clarify, because its frankly insulting to imply that people who commute on bikes are so “first world problems” and petulant….like we are too hopelessly spoiled to wait at the intersection…. Now I’m not from Portland, so can someone fill me in on what the article left out?? Are there places where you just can’t cross and this is the only way to fix that in places? Are there no crossing signals? If not, can’t they just put those in?
Is it something about how the roads are laid out in Oregon?
?
Just to give a little local context from Bend. In his argument for the defense, the attorney emphasized that the cyclist did not take ‘due care’. This intersection is a bit tricky: first of all, the bike rider was very unlikely ‘bombing’ because it is a flat road, with just a slight drop as you approach the intersection. He was going straight. The truck was turning right into a relatively narrow, and more than 90 degree turn, so was likely going less than 5 mph. So, there could have been as much as a 15-20 mph speed difference.
If the rider is going straight, what would ‘due care’ have looked like? Did he break the speed limit? Did he pass the Fed Ex truck driver on the right? Did the Fed Ex truck driver pass him earlier?
I’ve seen a trial memo that says the truck driver signaled and was going very slowly at start of his turn and there was no bicycle rider present.. Then by the time he initiated the turn, the bicycle rider was there and it was too late. This is a common narrative and courts have consistently sided with truck driver in situations like this. The trial memo also says the bicycle user was guilty of not yielding right of way to the truck operator.
That’s a good point. I think there should be an enhanced expectation on a driver who has passed a cyclist in the past few seconds.
yes Steve. I tried to mention that in the post. I hope you all can separate out the elements of this case. I’m really only interested in/focused on the issue of the bike lanes and their legal standing in intersections. I don’t mean to sound callous, but I don’t have the capacity to delve deeply into this crash in terms of who was doing what and whether or not all the rulings have been fair. (FWIW the case is similar to others we’ve had in Portland where a large truck operator is found not guilty because the courts feel like they did everything they reasonably could to avoid the collision and that the bicycle user should have operated with more “due care” – i’m thinking specifically of Tracey Sparling, Brett Jarolimek, and Kathryn Rickson off top of my head).
FedEx…again…
Don’t forget bikesalot: https://bikeportland.org/2014/11/20/collision-involving-fedex-truck-kills-person-bike-nw-portland-113735
A big problem with judges deciding what an appropriate level of due care is for people driving trucks and people on bikes is that those judges usually have about zero knowledge or experience operating either vehicle. I happen to have driven trucks many hundreds of thousands of miles, and a fair amount in urban settings. I’ve also ridden my bicycles over a million kilometers in all environments. These judges who side with deadly truck drivers are simply wrong, in my opinion. A truck driver who knows what s/he is doing would not have committed this fatal right hook. I would bet anything that the driver never checked his mirrors prior to or during his turn.
We’re normalizing deadly bad habits, and that will impact us more than most of us know. For example, why would a trucking firm institute a functional driver safety program if there will be no consequences for unsafe driving? This decision may well cause thousands of truck drivers on the road to not be trained or incentivized to be safe operators.
Unless their insurance has to pay out.
That sounds like it might have been a bait-and-hook situation. The turn is more than 90 degrees so the truck driver tries to set up the turn by moving left. The bicyclist sees the truck moving left and thinks, “He sees me and is giving me room,” only discover too late that he has not been seen and the truck is pulling across his path leaving him nowhere to go.
I haven’t seen the video. Maybe that’s what happened, maybe not.
That’s exactly what happened to me in better naito a couple of years back, except it was a van towing a trailer that wasn’t signalling their turn. Or looking. Or really paying any attention at all. I survived by the grace of my 8″ disc brakes.
My rule is I never pass a vehicle on the right if their turn signal is on. Even if they stop dead for me; I merge and pass on the left. I know this confuses some drivers, but the number of times I’ve been certain and also absolutely wrong that a driver knew I was there is high enough that I just don’t do it anymore.
Modern cars have enormous blind-spots due to high door-lines and huge window pillars for safety (their safety, not mine).
This illustrates one of the fundamental problems of asking people to turn across going-straight lanes.
Why do we keep doing this???
We keep doing this because people keep asking for it. JM and many on this blog applauded the placement of a plastic gutter that confined cyclists to a right-hook trap just last week and lambasted the notion that it would be better to force motorists to merge half a block earlier.
I guess I’ll just have to start merging into the vehicle lane every time I go through an intersection now. Just to be safe.
This is exactly what you should do if there’s any ambiguity at all.
I agree that the ruling is not consistent with reality. However, treating the bike lane like another vehicle lane, to make a right hand turn a driver would need to “change lanes” to occupy the bicycle lane prior to the intersection in order to turn. Otherwise, it would be like making a right hand turn from a left hand lane in a two lanes going straight situation. Note that lane changes are not permitted within intersections. Is this what we want drivers to do?
Personally, and I just had this happen Tuesday, if a vehicle is making a right turn in front of me and I’m still behind the end of the vehicle then I immediately take the lane behind them and pass them on the left rather than risk getting right hooked. This sometimes confuses the driver as they wait for me to proceed ahead on the right but I’d rather not be in the turning danger zone. Drivers who never even acknowledge my presence don’t know the difference and it’s way better than slamming on the brakes and then having a “No, you go first” contest with the driver.
There have been several instances where the driver turning wasn’t far enough ahead for me to do this and I had to follow their turn right in order to avoid a collision.
Finally, in heavy traffic, passing a right turning vehicle on the left may not be possible due to the vehicle behind being too close so it’s very much up to situational awareness at that point.
Motor vehicles merging into the bike lane to make a turn is often called a “california turn” or something similar on this blog when in fact it’s the law in more states than not, including Washington, so Oregon is the west coast outlier for bike lane turn merging. Always always pass a turning vehicle on the left, even if you have a bike lane, even if you think they’re yielding to you.
I didn’t realize I had a bigger relative.
Only Oregon and Arizona do the “turn right from the left of the bike lane” thing, and Arizona’s law is somewhat ambiguous. We’re the outlier, and it’s not working well at all. Sure, it’s inconvenient to have motorists clog a bike lane two hundred feet before the intersection, but it sure beats a right hook.
What would Utrecht do?
Drink a Heineken.
More likely a Vedett or one of the 100+ Belgian brews. Even amongst the Dutch, many consider Heineken to be piss water. It almost has the same reputation as PBR or Nati Lite.
Seriously. They’ve been working on this very design for years now.
Was that the only offense the driver was charged with? That failure to yield charge is a Class B traffic violation.
Honestly, it seems like barking up the wrong tree. A right hook seems to be surefire “vehicular assault” (ORS 811.060), a Class A misdemeanor. The elements of that crime are recklessness, contact (ped/bicycle/motorcycle), and injury. Reckless means “a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur.” In a right hook the driver passed the bicycle rider and then turned in front, and thus is necessarily aware of and disregards a substantial risk by making the turn–ipso facto reckless.
I’m aware of the difficulty in such prosecutions due to a tilted “standard of care” for drivers. But that’s my point–rather than fixing the failure to yield law, how about we (prosecutors, the legislature) focus on fixing the real legal shortcoming. Save failure to yield for non-injuries.
UPDATE, 12:06 pm: We’ve obtained some of the documents used in the Deschutes County Court trial. In a memo to the court, the driver’s Portland-based attorney, David McDonald, cites the 2009 Zusman decision as evidence that the bike lanes didn’t legally continue through the intersection. McDonald also states, “a bicycle lane is a traffic control device, and traffic controlled devices have to be clearly marked. The fact that the bicycle lane’s markings are not continuous through the intersection, and the point of impact was not with a designated bicycle lane, Mr. Sage [the truck operator] cannot be adjudge liable for a violation of ORS 811.050.”
It sounds as if this would apply to auto lanes and center line striping as well, perhaps also to cars turning in those dual-turn left-turn lanes.
Isn’t it illegal to change lanes in an intersection? Doesn’t that necessitate lanes continuing – marked or unmarked – through intersections?
I’ve read that it’s not illegal to change lanes in an intersection.
Yes, why have a law prohibiting something that apparently isn’t possible to do?
Similarly, on a four-lane road, a driver in the right (curbside) lane should be able to turn left within an intersection, because the lane to his left disappears at the intersection. If he got plowed into by a car overtaking him in the inside lane as he was turning, it would be their fault.
Except that you have to “Approach the turn in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of the turning vehicle”.
Dang, looks like that blows that argument. Now there’s just 20 reasons instead of 21 why it’s a bad decision.
Among many awful things about this is the Bend Bulletin including the following details about the person riding, and failing to mention that none are legal requirements for an adult riding in broad daylight: “He was not wearing a helmet or reflective clothing or a light.”
And note that the crash occurred at 11:20 am, so during daylight. To mention that the person did not have a bike helmet is enraging enough, but to state that he did not have a llight during daytime is just nuts.
BUT newer cars have daytime running lights that are always on… you know for visibility & general safety… idk maybe it’s time to start with bikes too??
Why stop there? Mandatory lights for all pedestrians too.
/s
What if they dashed the bike lane through the intersection. Would it still not count, or would it need to be a solid line? Don’t the Dutch use dashed bike lines through intersections?
From the wording of the court ruling it sounds as if the bike lane would have counted as existing in the intersection if the line were dashed across the intersection.
The reason we don’t dash every lane separator across intersections, as alluded to above, is it is makes for a confusing visual mess. Normally it’s done only at intersections with nonstandard geometry or multiple parallel turn lanes.
But I guess we need to put pressure on PBOT to dash every bike lane separator across ALL intersections, given this absolutely senseless ruling.
If a bike lane exists on both sides of the intersection, how does it not continue through the intersection? If I’m in a car crossing an intersection and swerve into the other car lane, bumping into another car, didn’t I make an unsafe lane change regardless of whether the lane was marked across the intersection?
That is what I mean about the asymmetry, the anti-VRU bias in this ruling, this interpretation. It doesn’t make sense to me.
It’s only biased because the underlying law is biased.
I’m curious how one might know that the judge is not biased against VRUs. Does he bicycle for transportation? Does he have a Share The Road license plate? Is he an “avid cyclist”?
I’m not asserting the judge wasn’t biased, only that the ruling appears lopsided because it invalidated a law that was itself lopsided.
” If I’m in a car crossing an intersection and swerve into the other car lane, bumping into another car, didn’t I make an unsafe lane change regardless of whether the lane was marked across the intersection?”
Failure to Maintain Lane (811.370) requires they be clearly marked. Failure to Signal (811.375) requires that there be a lane. So they would have to charge you with a generic law like careless driving. But then that might be hard to prove when there’s no traffic control devices (lanes) for you to violate.
All of you who champion protected bike lanes here, I’m curious for you to explain to us how intersections, and specifically this legal matter, would be handled in that situation?
Separated and signaled. Driver would have ran a right on red, or failure to yield if they were both green. This is also legally solvable with strict liability for drivers.
This ruling effectively turns multi-lane intersections into a free-for-all. The potential issues from this would apply to all lanes. For example, what would prevent someone from changing lanes without signaling in the middle of an intersection? Someone could even go straight from a left-turn lane, under this logic. Once they enter the intersection, their turn lane no longer exists.
I don’t think it is that broadly problematic. Cars – the mode apparently rightfully present in these intersections – don’t suffer under the ambiguity revealed here. Isn’t it pretty much confined to the fact that bikes are found to the right of motor vehicles that might turn right?
The ruling that would I suspect have made more sense was to recognize the special danger someone on a bike in this situation faces, and to modestly restrict right turning movement by said motor vehicles because of the disproportionate risks faced by those in the bike lane. Clarifying who has the right of way in these situations (it used to be the person going straight had the right of way) would be a useful complement.
It used to be that the person going straight was to the left of the turner. The problem arises when we create “special” rules that make this no longer so. When one of those special rules falls down, the legal structures built on them suffer as well.
Why not enormous signs at every intersection that say “motorists yield to bicyclists” or something of the sort?
Seems the retina can’t actually take them in.
“Car crushings, video at 11”
We already had laws that could have dealt with this. Instead, someone decided to create a new one and lowered the standard of protection.
Bike advocates sell riders out every time they advocate for a bike lane. Increasing overall ridership at the expense of us all. If they cared about cyclists, they never would have put them to the right of potentially right-turning cars going into an intersection.
That stretch of 12th / Sandy is a fucking nightmare of trucks parked in the bike lane, aggressive driving, freight companies blocking multiple traffic lanes (and associated frustrated auto users). Really bummed that the repaving & restriping of Sandy west of 12th seems to have very little, if any, separation in most places for the bike lane, and forces bikes to swerve around traffic and parking rather than making the auto lane veer & slow traffic accordingly.
Also very bummed that 11th & 12th have been taken off the project list for Central City In Motion, which presumably would have helped with some of the conflicts on 12th.
If bike lanes don’t exist in an intersection, then going through the intersection at the same time as a car would be lane sharing, which is illegal. So in many cases using a bike lane through an intersection would be illegal, not just unprotected. The only legal way would be for the 2nd vehicle to merge behind the first.
Who would be “sharing” the lane? It seems if a car approaches a cyclist from behind, they would be guilty of starting the lane sharing arrangement. Maybe they have the duty to merge over to where cyclists are. The possibilities are endless!
“Given what just happened in Bend, it’s time for the law to be cleaned up.”
I couldn’t agree more. What do we do?
Someone should talk to Floyd Prozanski, cyclist, State Senator, and force behind 6′ Rule.
This just isn’t correct under the law. Bike lanes aren’t striped through intersections because the state of Oregon says not to. See the 2011 Bicycle & Pedestrian Design Guide page 6-1: https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Engineering/Documents_RoadwayEng/HDM_L-Bike-Ped-Guide.pdf
If you read the laws and definitions strictly, I wouldn’t be surprised if nobody is in a lane. Their tires are, but the driver, pedestrians, vehicles, etc. might technically be above the lane. But if so, that doesn’t mean judges should make rulings based on that.
Going one step further, if that were true, then the cyclist was above the lane when hit, so therefore not in the street but above it, so since the vehicle hit them it means the vehicle must have left the street, so the driver should be cited the same as if he’d hit someone on a sidewalk.
That’s crazy, but no crazier than the actual ruling. If laws are read strictly enough, and judges don’t use common sense, many would become meaningless.
And really, only the bottom couple of mms of the wheels at that. And think about it… part of the car (the top of the wheels) is actually traveling backwards in (above) the lane! Totally outrageous!!! Won’t someone please stop these monsters~~!!!!!
Not really… now we need to involve the FAA.
I can’t find any laws stating specifically that there are unmarked lanes through intersections.
So when is this activist judge up for reelection?
I wouldn’t get your hopes up. He ran unopposed in 2016 and got 99.31% of the votes.
They’re only activist judges if they’re on the left.
I want people to know that this is a great example of why I am always so concerned about the lack of clarity and respect in the ORS around many bike-related laws.
Because – as we see here – when a law lacks clarity, the weaker subject suffers and the powerful use it against them. That is, this Bend judge – like the Portland judge before him – has an inherent bias against the bicycle rider IMO and they interpret the law through that lens. If these judges were sympathetic to cycling and the bicycle users, they would not take such an irrational stance on this.
Anyone who is free of bias against bicycle riders would look at the law and the context and realize that of course the legal standing of a bicycle lane continues through the intersection. Give me a break.
How can they argue about the truck operator’s legal rights to a lane in the intersection when the truck operator’s lane isn’t marked either? By the judge’s rationale, the intersection is a law-free zone! It’s completely absurd and it’s just another example of how the system is biased against bicycle users. I hope Judge Adler takes time to learn more about this issue and will consider writing a memo about it or changing his tune next time around.
Let’s all take the lane before entering EVERY intersection.
Drivers will hate it. But we have no choice because we’ve been told by the court that there’s no bike lane in the intersection. Keep doing this until the law is changed.
The reality of the situation is that, inane as this ruling was, it won’t change the way things work one wit. Keep doing what you’re doing, you’ll be fine.
Until you get killed and then the driver doesn’t get punished because of biased judges.
I’ll be dead. I won’t care.
More to the point, I want prevention not punishment, and I don’t see this judge’s decision having any bearing on people’s behavior. If anything, it may change the way intersections are designed for the better.
But of course the decision is ridiculous and will be overturned at some point.
I really don’t think you need to claim anti-bicycle bias to explain this decision. There is a law about dealing with people in a type of lane, and the judge ruled that type of lane does not extend into the intersection because it didn’t meet a legal standard. A ridiculous decision, indeed, but based on a overly legalistic interpretation of the law, not a dislike of bicyclists.
Except that his ruling fits a PATTERN.
That makes all the difference. You can no longer claim that it was happenstance, or probability or interpretation.
What other relevant decisions has this judge made?
I don’t know the judges history but the ruling defies logic. Why have the lane at all? The city is leading cyclists into a severe hazard with NO warning that their lane, rights, and safety all end at the corner.
No, the pattern to which I’m referring isn’t limited to this judge’s rulings, but to the system.
I know you don’t believe the system is a thing, but I do.
I disagree with you on this. I believe his interpretation was clouded by a bias that does not see a bicycle lane — and therefore users of bicycle lanes — as being equal to people driving cars.
In my opinion, the judge’s entire premise — that the bike lane ends — is based on an inherent disrespect for bike lanes. That is the definition of bias.
The judge got this wrong. Plain and simple. Once he decided the bike lane was illegitimate, it allowed him to justify the rest of his decisions (which, if you believe in disappearing bike lanes, make perfect sense).
I would be more likely to agree with you if he had also found that an “unmarked” auto lane did continue through the intersection.
But since he didn’t opine on that, we’re both speculating about his thinking.
But you can explain the thinking without introducing bias (which doesn’t mean bias was absent).
YESSSS
The accusations of bias here are obviously an assumption. I can’t imagine a judge ruling the same way if someone had turned right from a left lane while in an intersection, and sideswiped another car in the process. You could use the same logic to say that there was no negligence in a case like that, and I just don’t see this judge (or any judge) ruling that way.
The judge didn’t rule there was no negligence. Only that the specific statute in question was not violated.
He made the ruling that no code was violated in order to reach the conclusion that there was no negligence. The same faulty logic could be used in the situation I described.
He ruled that a specific driver did not violate a specific law, at least according to the summary. I agree the reasoning was absurd.
Exactly. Now that an intersection is basically deemed a single, unlaned space, the person driving in the inside lane who hits someone turning left from the right lane is doing exactly what the person on the bike did, just on the left instead of on the right.
“How can they argue about the truck operator’s legal rights to a lane in the intersection when the truck operator’s lane isn’t marked either?”
Did they argue about the truck’s right to a lane? I didn’t see that anywhere. What they did was state that there are no lanes, as defined by the definition of no markings.
“His speed carried him outside the protection of the bike lane,” Adler (the judge) said.
Bullshit. The fact that he had to get across the street carried him into the intersection.
So, here’s the question I have- who do we sue to make the law better before more people die this way?
The list of right hook deaths is deafening. I fear there will be one at the east end of the burnside bridge before the construction is complete.
You convince the legislature to act, or elect a new one.
Or his family sues the city for leading him into that hazard with warning that the bike lane ends. But I don’t think there’s any more justice for cyclists in civil court than in criminal. The judge and jury are drivers and don’t want to be held accountable for making the same mistake. I get it. I drive too and unless you ride a lot, you are the exception if you are always looking out for cyclists.
Good point. When presented with an interpretation that doesn’t make sense, instead of arguing against it, it can be helpful to accept it, but then point out all the craziness that would ensue if it’s true.
It’s like an old urban legend about a guy who smoked his collection of expensive cigars, then filed an insurance claim because they’d been destroyed in a series of small fires. So instead of saying that’s crazy, the insurance company agreed with him, then sued him for arson.
That’s funny : )
…also I think I meant to say “without warning” above, but you got the point.
I expect that the City of Bend will be settling a lawsuit for dangerous infrastructure design. Clearly the cyclist was lured into a dangerous situation with a forward lane to the right ending at an area where vehicles to the left are allowed to turn right into traffic proceeding forward.
Our legal system and laws are hopelessly biased against vulnerable road users. And when the courts illustrate this sad reality, the response of bike advocates/enthusiasts is to quixotically insist that the law is still on their side.
UPDATE: Here’s the May 2018 memo written by Deputy DA Andrew Steiner that explains why he believes bike lanes continue through intersections:
Could it be the drivers lawyer presented the judge with the previous mentioned “judges” ruling, but the DA and judge we to lazy to look up this memo or other relevant law, like the Portland judge was not a judge.
It’s open season on cyclists now. Right hooks are perfectly fine.
You’re right and I felt newly exposed on the ride home tonight. What’s to prevent a driver from cutting me off at the intersection when the courts say that’s where my LANE, my RIGHTS, and my SAFETY end?
This after almost getting hit riding to work this morning by a driver at a stop sign who couldn’t or wouldn’t see my flashing front light and bright yellow coat with the clear of way crossing in front of him as I turned left and he blindly looked ahead. I haven’t shouted “whoa!!!” that loud at a driver in a long time.
Then I read later in the day that my lane ends at every. single. corner.
It’s absolute bullshit.
You say that as if all those people looking for their chance to right hook a cyclists have finally got their shot.
Nothing has changed. The sky is still up.
I ride everyday in Bend, and generally drivers are either polite, or inattentive and clueless. I can easily imagine a few drivers seeing this ruling and knowingly proceeding into a potential right hook situation because they think it’s condoned by the law now.
Exactly! Because, as usual, it’s the cyclists fault for being there in the first place.
The are absolutely people looking for their legal chance to take out a cyclist.
Why would they need to look? You can already get away with it, if that’s really what you want.
Has this judge really unleashed an unholy army of drivers looking for their chance to run down a cyclist while fully complying with the law? That sounds like a pretty niche hobby.
I’ve had drivers intentionally threaten and try to intimidate me with their car because they feel justified legally, and were under the impression what I was doing was illegal. Examples: I took the lane prior to a roundabout. A guy behind me guns his Mercedes minivan and pulls up alongside me on my right, while I’m going about 20mph, and proceeds to tell me “I don’t think you should be here”. We exchanged words at the stop. 2. A woman passes me by about 10 inches even though she had plenty of room in the lane to take a wider berth. She glares at me in her review mirror at the stoplight. 50 yards later she wants in the lane I’m in and starts yelling at me to “get on the sidewalk’ (which is illegal downtown). 3. A woman buzzes me by about 12 inches as I exit a roundabout. She guns it through the school zone. At the red light, I give her the ‘wtf’ look with hand gesture, and she gestures a motion that I need to be over to the right.
In all of these incidents, the drivers felt validated legally to try and intimidate me with their car.
Has the president really unleashed an army of hate?
The answer to both of these questions may (not) surprise you.
Do you send these clips to the police? Just curious.
One thing we do not discuss here is that these intersections with bike Lanes would need to be configured completely different. Even if there was a law saying that the bike lane goes through the intersection, right hooks are bound to happen with the current design. I think one solution that exists in Copenhagen or Amsterdam is to guide the bike lane not directly through the intersection, but curved outward. This way, the person driving is more likely to see the person biking when making a right turn. Of course, we will never implement such an expensive infrastructure design here consistently, so that makes bike lanes dangerous at the most dangerous spot, crossings.
The solution you mentioned is very common throughout the Netherlands, but is not very commonly used in Denmark. Many bicycle paths in Denmark end before the intersection, become a bike lane + right-turn lane for cars. In practice it works alright, because there are so many cyclists in cities like Copenhagen and most drivers are use to dealing with that. But I prefer the Dutch intersection treatment much more. The latter also allows cyclists to make right turns irregardless of the traffic lights whereas this is practically not possible anywhere in Copenhagen.
This will have to be appealed up to the state for review. Additionally, Portland *is* treating bike lanes at higher risk intersections with dashed green thermoplastic due to this issue of articulating where the bike lane “continues” through intersections. Change is coming but not soon enough!
“This will have to be appealed up to the state for review.”
A very bad idea. If it’s appealed it could become legally-binding precendent. For example the critical mass citation of Potter for “impeding traffic” became legally-binding precedent after appeal. Now anyone who bikes in OR and is “impeding traffic” is legally required to move their bike “off the main portion of the roadway” inorder to let faster traffic pass (yes, even on a Neighborhood Greenway).
https://www.tcnf.legal/oregon-bicycle-passing-laws/
Would you please point out the section in the referenced document that says bikes that are legally riding on the street have to get off to make way for cars that want to pass?
Found it. Right at the top. It’s not clear this applies to an unstriped greenway, but I’ll deal with that when I get a ticket.
From the article:
>>> The Potter case serves as a warning for riders that unreasonably failing to yield to traffic or overtaking vehicles may trigger a traffic citation. What the Potter case does not change is bicyclists’ right to take the lane when reasonable necessary for safety, even if it means slowing down overtaking vehicles. <<<
It appears that the way I ride, at least, does not leave me exposed to getting ticketed.
This has got to stop. This judge is either not competent, or clearly biased. We can’t have this kind of nonsense endangering our lives.
The big problem here as I see it is that we keep giving drivers that right hook people a free pass. Bike lane continuity issue aside whatever happened to the whole “it’s the turning party’s responsibility to make sure it’s safe before proceeding” thing? This has become a cultural epidemic with drivers, particularly of late. Twice now (in about rhe last 2 months) I’ve had hair-thin near misses with cars turning left in front of me at Cedar Mill Elementary, as I’m coming down the hill at roughly the 40mph speed limit. Scary to say the least.
Frankly I think we need to take a hard look at driver education. Licensing requirements need to be much stricter. Including testing every few years. Because clearly drivers don’t seem to understand the rules of the road any more.
Oregon could start looking at driver education by first having mandatory driver education. It does not.
Many (most?) states require driver training for license applications under 21. Oregon does not require this.
A very cursory look at Oregon law might lead one to believe driver education is mandatory. But the “requirement” can be waived by a completing a number of hours of “supervised driving” while accompanied by any licensed driver over the age of 21. Ridiculous.
I believe 50 hours of time behind the wheel are required with driver’s ed, 100 without, though that may only apply to people under 18.
Also, you can skip the practical exam if you’ve taken the class.
Kudos to you for calling out that A-hole. You’re fighting the good fight.
My citizenship persists in and through the intersection.
I don’t think anyone’s citizenship is in question here; just their right to live.
One would think.
I think the judge has opened the door to the intersection free-for-all.
We know that vehicle operators are supposed to use a left turn lane when making a left turn, correct? It’s specified in ORS 811.345 as follows:
2017 ORS 811.345¹ Failure to use special left turn lane
• penalty
(1) A person commits the offense of failure to use a special left turn lane if the person is operating a vehicle where a special lane for making left turns by drivers proceeding in opposite directions has been indicated by traffic control devices and the person turns the vehicle left from any other lane.
(2) The offense described in this section, failure to use special left turn lane, is a Class B traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §625; 1995 c.383 §61]
Since, according to the judge, there are no bike lanes in an intersection, there must not be any lanes in an intersection. Thus, a vehicle operator can’t be guilty of failing to make a left turn from anywhere once you are in the intersection.
This judge’s ruling is truly bizarre.
a vehicle operator can’t be guilty of failing to make a left turn from anywhere once you are in the intersection.
Except that might explain why Jolene Friedow could kill Mark Angeles in exactly this manner and face no punishment.
https://bikeportland.org/2015/11/09/why-jolene-friedow-only-got-a-traffic-ticket-in-the-collision-that-killed-mark-angeles-167881
the assumption that the motoring majority will apply the law equitably is naive. judges and juries will happily interpret the law in a discriminatory fashion that puts those scofflaw bikers in their place (dead or alive).
why were they riding there anyways?
no sane/normal/productive/decent/normal person would ride in the roadway!
Except that 811.340 requires you to be as far left as possible when approaching the turn.
Mistrial. Attorney not looking out for the best interests of their client.
Andrew Steiner, you’re fired.
You argued that “The cyclist did not appear to be exceeding the speed limit.”
But then you stated that “In this case, the cyclist arguably did not exercise due care when he approached the tractor-trailer quickly from behind as the tractor-trailer approached the intersection.”
This is illogical. You’re blaming your own client for not exercising due care by proceeding legally at the legal speed in a legal lane.
You should not be representing cyclists.
The Bend, OR Bicycle and Pedestrian System Plan (TSP) shows that the bicycle lanes all continue through that intersection. There is no gap on their map.
https://www.bendoregon.gov/services/mapping-services/map-library
I was thinking the same thing, but then we may be found to be in violation of ORS 814.420 by failing to use the bike lane without an explicit exception to do so. In which case, do we have any legal protections if we are involved in a collision when it’s determined that we are in violation of that statute? I think it appears to me that legally we are damned if we do, damned if we don’t. That does ignore the obvious fact that right hooks are significantly less likely to occur when cyclists do control the travel lane.
Luckily that statute provides 2 exceptions that would apply to allow you to legally leave the lane:
(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions.
(e) Continuing straight at an intersection where the bicycle lane or path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must turn right.
so, last night going NB on Naito, a fedex truck had decided to occupy the squinchy little bikelane provided to us alongside the McCormick Pier Condos by the city, so i felt obligated to move out into the lane to continue on my transit home.
a vehicle that had been driving a far distance behind me proceeded to wail on their horn in protest.
so, am i expected to stop prior to the blockage created by the truck, look behind me and wait for when the road is clear of any and all other traffic before i can proceed?
am i not allowed, in this instance, to “take the lane” for the sake of saving those motorists a precious few seconds of their rush to stop at the red light awaiting them at next intersection?
please, i really would prefer to follow proper traffic laws!
thanks so much for any help!
I’m curious to know what The Judge would think if I were hit in the WB bike lane on Cornell between Barnes and Murray which becomes completely de-striped annually due to drivers driving on the line. It literally disappears to the point that there are not even paint chips left and stays that way for a few months until it can get re-striped. Does the bike lane cease to exist then?
Since there are no markings the judge would find that you weren’t in a lane. That a lane once existed there in the past doesn’t matter.
Yes, that’s exactly the case. You aren’t the only one who reads articles. People with bad intentions and then they go to the bar in their f350’s and tell their friends ” hey Bob, you hear that truck driver got over for killing a bicylist?!, Turns out, biken lanes don’t exist in intersections”.
(Basic Bros slap eachothers back)
It’s exactly that ugly and that straight line.
This whole thing has me wondering–aren’t the “markings” that designate a bike lane bicycle symbols on the pavement, and not just the white stripes? If so, will someone right-hooking a bike between intersections be able to claim the bike lane didn’t exist because there were no “signs or markings” anywhere in sight?
Many bike lanes don’t have signs or pavement symbols closer than several hundred feet apart, so there are countless places where a vehicle could, say, turn right onto a street with a bike lane, driver several hundred feet, then turn right into a driveway, without ever seeing a sign or pavement symbol.
Where this issue has come up before is in articles about people parking in bike lanes, especially new ones. While the stripes alone should make it clear, people parking either are clueless, or else they park with the idea that if ticketed, they can claim there were no signs saying it was a bike lane, and/or that the lack of those meant it legally is not a bike lane. Certainly someone will eventually use that argument if facing charges for running someone over. It’s a less extreme argument than”bike lanes don’t exist in intersections”.
The white stripe is one of the markings. If the stripe is 4″ then it’s not a bike lane on the other side of the stripe. If it’s an 8″ stripe then there’s a bike lane on the other side.
Quiz every non-cycling driver you know and see how many of them know this. I’m putting my money on zero drivers knowing it.
I agree, pretty much nobody outside people reading here knows that. The newer lanes that have two parallel stripes might make things worse, in that people may think bike lanes have two stripes, so a single stripe must not mean a bike lane.
I still wonder, though, if the stripe alone is enough to count for legally designating a bike lane. Given the judge’s decision in the article, I wouldn’t be surprised by a judge saying “markings” means bike symbols, not just stripes, so it’s not a bike lane unless it has stripes PLUS either pavement graphics or signs.
This is why the new “green lanes” should be treated as a yield situation / proper lane. It, also, points out that cyclists need to be both assertive and cautious in their riding.
Assertiveness in taking the lane to show that they intend to keep going through the intersection, as well as cautious in realizing that in a car(truck)/bike, the car will win, that sometimes a cyclist has to abandon the cyclist’s intention, abort and protect oneself.
It brings up the faulty infrastructure offered. In such a situation, an out should be given to cyclists, where, usually, the infrastructure forces one to not be able to get off the road, endangering the cyclist just as much.
It is time for a serious revision in road design and regulations to better accommodate cyclists on the road and in the offering of alternates to the road. Present efforts have, generally, only increased the dangers to cyclists, while limiting access.