Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bicycle Infrastructure and Safety: Death in PDX
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Jay Beattie
May 19, 2012, 11:04:19 AM5/19/12
to
Not withstanding bike lanes and green boxes, it is still possible to
get squashed by a truck in downtown Portland.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/05/bicyclists_death_throws_spotli.html
Now they are talking about putting in complicated warning lights.
Oddly enough, we got these green boxes and lanes exactly because a
girl got squashed by a turning truck in another part of down town.
None of this stuff is a guaranty that you are going to be seen by a
giant, slow moving truck with mirrors mounted six feet off the
ground. I am absolutely not placing blame, but with the speed
differences in the two vehicles (nimble bike versus lumbering semi on
narrow downtown street with short blocks between lights), I always
wonder how these truck squash incidents occur.
-- Jay Beattie.
get squashed by a truck in downtown Portland.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/05/bicyclists_death_throws_spotli.html
Now they are talking about putting in complicated warning lights.
Oddly enough, we got these green boxes and lanes exactly because a
girl got squashed by a turning truck in another part of down town.
None of this stuff is a guaranty that you are going to be seen by a
giant, slow moving truck with mirrors mounted six feet off the
ground. I am absolutely not placing blame, but with the speed
differences in the two vehicles (nimble bike versus lumbering semi on
narrow downtown street with short blocks between lights), I always
wonder how these truck squash incidents occur.
-- Jay Beattie.
datakoll
May 19, 2012, 11:29:12 AM5/19/12
to
yeah. The inside truck move is danegrous, tobe avoided...in a van...Europa/Mini...bicycle ? points for the trucker-no pints for the cyclist.
The Ford van's mirrors are concave. Concave collect max light. Wanna see a AAA sunset ? use the mirrors.
And a hemispherical mirror set into the concave...at your eye level soas yawlm doahn need to make 2 eye motions to see what...and practice or warmup before going thru LA. The concaves brin gpassing vehicles close to the van body when the passers are in 'reality' several feet further away. Is jumpy
A solution I use is a TV camera from Audiovox. Itsa backup camera....the market was flooded at Sonic Electronix and Crutchfield. The backup without radar is a super camera moubatble on the passengers side pointing front for Baja's narrow MEX 1 or backward or down for mountain driving caws
THE SWITCHBACK INSIDE IS UNSEEABLE Impossible and treacherous.
NEVER PASS A TRUCK CLOSE IN. The deal with a van even is pull ahead so the truck sees you or stay behind.
That's truck courteasy. Truck goes first. Always. Global Warming.
The Ford van's mirrors are concave. Concave collect max light. Wanna see a AAA sunset ? use the mirrors.
And a hemispherical mirror set into the concave...at your eye level soas yawlm doahn need to make 2 eye motions to see what...and practice or warmup before going thru LA. The concaves brin gpassing vehicles close to the van body when the passers are in 'reality' several feet further away. Is jumpy
A solution I use is a TV camera from Audiovox. Itsa backup camera....the market was flooded at Sonic Electronix and Crutchfield. The backup without radar is a super camera moubatble on the passengers side pointing front for Baja's narrow MEX 1 or backward or down for mountain driving caws
THE SWITCHBACK INSIDE IS UNSEEABLE Impossible and treacherous.
NEVER PASS A TRUCK CLOSE IN. The deal with a van even is pull ahead so the truck sees you or stay behind.
That's truck courteasy. Truck goes first. Always. Global Warming.
Dan O
May 19, 2012, 11:34:02 AM5/19/12
to
On May 19, 8:04 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> Not withstanding bike lanes and green boxes, it is still possible to
> get squashed by a truck in downtown Portland.http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/05/bicyclists_death...
> Not withstanding bike lanes and green boxes, it is still possible to
> Now they are talking about putting in complicated warning lights.
>
> Oddly enough, we got these green boxes and lanes exactly because a
> girl got squashed by a turning truck in another part of down town.
> None of this stuff is a guaranty that you are going to be seen by a
> giant, slow moving truck with mirrors mounted six feet off the
> ground. I am absolutely not placing blame, but with the speed
> differences in the two vehicles (nimble bike versus lumbering semi on
> narrow downtown street with short blocks between lights), I always
> wonder how these truck squash incidents occur.
>
I haven't reviewed this incident (saw it on the morning news the next
>
> Oddly enough, we got these green boxes and lanes exactly because a
> girl got squashed by a turning truck in another part of down town.
> None of this stuff is a guaranty that you are going to be seen by a
> giant, slow moving truck with mirrors mounted six feet off the
> ground. I am absolutely not placing blame, but with the speed
> differences in the two vehicles (nimble bike versus lumbering semi on
> narrow downtown street with short blocks between lights), I always
> wonder how these truck squash incidents occur.
>
day), but ISTM it's a big, big world with all different kinds of
different people with all different focuses and priorities and
perceptions (witness discussion on rbt :-) For me, it always comes
back to situational awareness and what matters to me at every given
moment. I occasionally reflect on why I haven't bought the farm yet -
luck is definitely part of it.
Dan O
May 19, 2012, 12:46:38 PM5/19/12
to
changes (go where they're not) as suddenly as smaller vehicles -
they're more relatively fixed in time and space. I remember vividly
this (see ~midde paragraph about stuffing it to the inside of the big
truck):
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/c10437c0e646734a
... and:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/78934f48f043d1db
Flying into that hole, my situational awareness includes the laws of
physics ("assess the geometry and
motion"), which told me there was no way for that truck to fill that
hole in my universe. Of course, if I'd lost it making the turn, could
have been lights out for sure.
datakoll
May 20, 2012, 12:41:31 PM5/20/12
to
spoke with a camper from Portland here on the side of Mt Lassen who knew the of this "right hook.
ura sport rider ok those other people are commuters like the backfield in F1. There's a danger zone pecentage wise so the brain's supposed tom evaluate for survival, sport, commuting, recreation, as levels of exposure in the hole.
if the commuter, eith avarega abilities, like my keyboard, commutes as a sport rider then prob he's gonna crash and squash
ask State Farm'
deal is awareness. victim may not have been aware of the right hook thinking she was only normal traffic.
maybe HS should offer a supplemenatl class in bike safety ?
ura sport rider ok those other people are commuters like the backfield in F1. There's a danger zone pecentage wise so the brain's supposed tom evaluate for survival, sport, commuting, recreation, as levels of exposure in the hole.
if the commuter, eith avarega abilities, like my keyboard, commutes as a sport rider then prob he's gonna crash and squash
ask State Farm'
deal is awareness. victim may not have been aware of the right hook thinking she was only normal traffic.
maybe HS should offer a supplemenatl class in bike safety ?
roberth...@yahoo.com
May 20, 2012, 4:57:28 PM5/20/12
to
On May 19, 9:04 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> Not withstanding bike lanes and green boxes, it is still possible to
> get squashed by a truck in downtown Portland.http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/05/bicyclists_death...
> Not withstanding bike lanes and green boxes, it is still possible to
> Now they are talking about putting in complicated warning lights.
>
> Oddly enough, we got these green boxes and lanes exactly because a
> girl got squashed by a turning truck in another part of down town.
> None of this stuff is a guaranty that you are going to be seen by a
> giant, slow moving truck with mirrors mounted six feet off the
> ground. I am absolutely not placing blame, but with the speed
> differences in the two vehicles (nimble bike versus lumbering semi on
> narrow downtown street with short blocks between lights), I always
> wonder how these truck squash incidents occur.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
In this incident it seems the truck necessarily was turning right from
>
> Oddly enough, we got these green boxes and lanes exactly because a
> girl got squashed by a turning truck in another part of down town.
> None of this stuff is a guaranty that you are going to be seen by a
> giant, slow moving truck with mirrors mounted six feet off the
> ground. I am absolutely not placing blame, but with the speed
> differences in the two vehicles (nimble bike versus lumbering semi on
> narrow downtown street with short blocks between lights), I always
> wonder how these truck squash incidents occur.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
the left lane. That's pretty tricky for a cyclist who isn't versed in
these things. The truck is pointed to the left as it approaches and
goes into the intersection, in order to swing right, surprisingly
quickly. Looks like it's going straight through the intersection.
This didn't have anything to do with infrastructure as far as I can
tell, other than it was present. On an unlined street, the same thing
happens.
Wayne
May 22, 2012, 4:22:19 PM5/22/12
to
A cyclist should avoid trucks' blind spots like the plague. That said
it seems obvious to me that ANY vehicle turning from the wrong lane
and /or not looking before doing so to insure it is not going to crush
a vehicle or pedestrian lawfully on the road is at fault. Period.
There is no "need" to blindly turn a truck where the driver can not
see. If the truck is unable to be driven on the road without doing so
then we should consider the possibility that the truck is not road
worthy in the city environment and smaller more expensive vehicles
should be used.
Do we really want trucks, cars, or bikes driven blindly?
Wayne
it seems obvious to me that ANY vehicle turning from the wrong lane
and /or not looking before doing so to insure it is not going to crush
a vehicle or pedestrian lawfully on the road is at fault. Period.
There is no "need" to blindly turn a truck where the driver can not
see. If the truck is unable to be driven on the road without doing so
then we should consider the possibility that the truck is not road
worthy in the city environment and smaller more expensive vehicles
should be used.
Do we really want trucks, cars, or bikes driven blindly?
Wayne
Duane
May 23, 2012, 8:36:41 AM5/23/12
to
accidents. In Montreal there are problems with snow ploughs and trucks
killing people when they fall under the truck. Due in part to the
cycling lobby, they are putting "fenders" on the side of them to prevent
this, installing different mirrors and starting an education program.
Same thing with buses. A cyclist was killed by a bus last year. It was
mostly the rider's fault for trying to pass a bus on the right but the
drivers went to classes to teach them to be alert to cyclists on the
road. Now the bus drivers are the ones that are stopping to wave us
through.
Unfortunately, some people would prefer to use this sort of news as
anti-infrastructure arguments. Posting subjects like this implying that
the cycling infrastructure was somehow at fault. I don't think that the
bike lane had anything to do with this.
Jay Beattie
May 23, 2012, 10:04:36 AM5/23/12
to
not a guaranty of safety, as it is sometimes sold here in Portland. In
fact, infrastructure engineering and bicycle laws in Portland may
invite right hook accidents. http://www.commuteorlando.com/ontheroad/animations/bikebox/
The truck cannot occupy the bike lane (unlike California, where the
truck would be required to merge in to the bike lane), and right of
way is not clear, i.e. the truck was there first and is signalling
and, in any other state, would have right of way -- yet it must yield
to on-coming bicycle traffic. Under Oregon law, the truck (or car) is
in a situation where it has to execute a right turn from the "second"
lane over -- like exiting a highway from the second lane, in constant
threat of a right hook accident.
I'm amazed Frank has not chimed in that the accident would have been
avoided if the cyclist had taken the lane and ignored the bike lane.
-- Jay Beattie.
Dan O
May 24, 2012, 12:20:25 AM5/24/12
to
irreverence may be disdained by more orderly citizens, but I see paint
for what it is.
> The truck cannot occupy the bike lane (unlike California, where the
> truck would be required to merge in to the bike lane), and right of
> way is not clear, i.e. the truck was there first and is signalling
> and, in any other state, would have right of way -- yet it must yield
> to on-coming bicycle traffic. Under Oregon law, the truck (or car) is
> in a situation where it has to execute a right turn from the "second"
> lane over -- like exiting a highway from the second lane, in constant
> threat of a right hook accident.
>
and trucks are apt to make turns, that drivers aren't necessarily
going to notice bicyclists, and may disregard them (or worse) when
they do.
You can estimate some probability of any vehicle making a turn at any
given intersection - especially if you know the area (that FedEx truck
is almost certainly going to turn down there toward the nearby
distribution center, the '86 Buick with the gray hair sticking just
above the dash is pretty apt to turn into Walgreens, *lots* of folks
be turning into McDonalds at lunch time, watch out for that truck
swinging *away*), and there are lots of clues that let give you some
idea how aware and cooperative and predictable any given driver is
going to be, but you have to assume that anybody *might* go anywhere
they possibly can.
Situational awareness includes *everything* that could possibly
happen. (Of course anything is possible, but on a continuum that
extends to infinite improbability :-) Understand the risk, and don't
commit yourself to a rock and hard place unless you accept it
yourself. Physics trumps.
The first rule of wildland firefighting is know your escape route.
Keep your options open.
> I'm amazed Frank has not chimed in that the accident would have been
> avoided if the cyclist had taken the lane and ignored the bike lane.
>
Duane
May 24, 2012, 8:41:06 AM5/24/12
to
On 05/23/2012 10:04 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
<snip>
> I'm not against infrastructure. My point is that infrastructure is
> not a guaranty of safety, as it is sometimes sold here in Portland. In
> fact, infrastructure engineering and bicycle laws in Portland may
> invite right hook accidents. http://www.commuteorlando.com/ontheroad/animations/bikebox/
No, I know you're not and I agree. It's just that in this case, I don't
see how the lane had anything to do with it. If you are in the road in
the right lane and the truck swings out left to try to turn it could be
the same thing.
> The truck cannot occupy the bike lane (unlike California, where the
> truck would be required to merge in to the bike lane), and right of
> way is not clear, i.e. the truck was there first and is signalling
> and, in any other state, would have right of way -- yet it must yield
> to on-coming bicycle traffic. Under Oregon law, the truck (or car) is
> in a situation where it has to execute a right turn from the "second"
> lane over -- like exiting a highway from the second lane, in constant
> threat of a right hook accident.
If we ride and cars are to the left, even if we have the right of way we
need to pay attention to the cars. Drivers are sometime oblivious.
Right hooks are something that you have to deal with, especially in
areas where riders are forced to keep to the extreme right.
> I'm amazed Frank has not chimed in that the accident would have been
> avoided if the cyclist had taken the lane and ignored the bike lane.
He must have been indisposed. I'm sure his appearance is imminent. In
PDX, are you legally allowed to ride in the middle of the lane?
<snip>
> I'm not against infrastructure. My point is that infrastructure is
> not a guaranty of safety, as it is sometimes sold here in Portland. In
> fact, infrastructure engineering and bicycle laws in Portland may
> invite right hook accidents. http://www.commuteorlando.com/ontheroad/animations/bikebox/
see how the lane had anything to do with it. If you are in the road in
the right lane and the truck swings out left to try to turn it could be
the same thing.
> The truck cannot occupy the bike lane (unlike California, where the
> truck would be required to merge in to the bike lane), and right of
> way is not clear, i.e. the truck was there first and is signalling
> and, in any other state, would have right of way -- yet it must yield
> to on-coming bicycle traffic. Under Oregon law, the truck (or car) is
> in a situation where it has to execute a right turn from the "second"
> lane over -- like exiting a highway from the second lane, in constant
> threat of a right hook accident.
need to pay attention to the cars. Drivers are sometime oblivious.
Right hooks are something that you have to deal with, especially in
areas where riders are forced to keep to the extreme right.
> I'm amazed Frank has not chimed in that the accident would have been
> avoided if the cyclist had taken the lane and ignored the bike lane.
PDX, are you legally allowed to ride in the middle of the lane?
Dan O
May 24, 2012, 11:27:49 AM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 5:41 am, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
> On 05/23/2012 10:04 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I'm not against infrastructure. My point is that infrastructure is
> > not a guaranty of safety, as it is sometimes sold here in Portland. In
> > fact, infrastructure engineering and bicycle laws in Portland may
> > invite right hook accidents.http://www.commuteorlando.com/ontheroad/animations/bikebox/
> On 05/23/2012 10:04 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I'm not against infrastructure. My point is that infrastructure is
> > not a guaranty of safety, as it is sometimes sold here in Portland. In
> > fact, infrastructure engineering and bicycle laws in Portland may
>
> No, I know you're not and I agree. It's just that in this case, I don't
> see how the lane had anything to do with it. If you are in the road in
> the right lane and the truck swings out left to try to turn it could be
> the same thing.
>
> > The truck cannot occupy the bike lane (unlike California, where the
> > truck would be required to merge in to the bike lane), and right of
> > way is not clear, i.e. the truck was there first and is signalling
> > and, in any other state, would have right of way -- yet it must yield
> > to on-coming bicycle traffic. Under Oregon law, the truck (or car) is
> > in a situation where it has to execute a right turn from the "second"
> > lane over -- like exiting a highway from the second lane, in constant
> > threat of a right hook accident.
>
> If we ride and cars are to the left, even if we have the right of way we
> need to pay attention to the cars. Drivers are sometime oblivious.
> Right hooks are something that you have to deal with, especially in
> areas where riders are forced to keep to the extreme right.
>
> > I'm amazed Frank has not chimed in that the accident would have been
> > avoided if the cyclist had taken the lane and ignored the bike lane.
>
> He must have been indisposed. I'm sure his appearance is imminent. In
> PDX, are you legally allowed to ride in the middle of the lane?
You are if that's as far right as practicable.
> No, I know you're not and I agree. It's just that in this case, I don't
> see how the lane had anything to do with it. If you are in the road in
> the right lane and the truck swings out left to try to turn it could be
> the same thing.
>
> > The truck cannot occupy the bike lane (unlike California, where the
> > truck would be required to merge in to the bike lane), and right of
> > way is not clear, i.e. the truck was there first and is signalling
> > and, in any other state, would have right of way -- yet it must yield
> > to on-coming bicycle traffic. Under Oregon law, the truck (or car) is
> > in a situation where it has to execute a right turn from the "second"
> > lane over -- like exiting a highway from the second lane, in constant
> > threat of a right hook accident.
>
> If we ride and cars are to the left, even if we have the right of way we
> need to pay attention to the cars. Drivers are sometime oblivious.
> Right hooks are something that you have to deal with, especially in
> areas where riders are forced to keep to the extreme right.
>
> > I'm amazed Frank has not chimed in that the accident would have been
> > avoided if the cyclist had taken the lane and ignored the bike lane.
>
> He must have been indisposed. I'm sure his appearance is imminent. In
> PDX, are you legally allowed to ride in the middle of the lane?
This is about a year old, FWIW:
http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/26/bike-law-101-take-the-lane-legally-53505
Duane
May 24, 2012, 12:07:23 PM5/24/12
to
On 05/24/2012 11:27 AM, Dan O wrote:
<snip>
>> He must have been indisposed. I'm sure his appearance is imminent. In
>> PDX, are you legally allowed to ride in the middle of the lane?
>
> You are if that's as far right as practicable.
>
> This is about a year old, FWIW:
>
> http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/26/bike-law-101-take-the-lane-legally-53505
For us it's:
487. Every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme right-hand side
of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except when about to
make a left turn, when travel against the traffic is authorized or in
cases of necessity.
<snip>
>> He must have been indisposed. I'm sure his appearance is imminent. In
>> PDX, are you legally allowed to ride in the middle of the lane?
>
> You are if that's as far right as practicable.
>
> This is about a year old, FWIW:
>
> http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/26/bike-law-101-take-the-lane-legally-53505
487. Every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme right-hand side
of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except when about to
make a left turn, when travel against the traffic is authorized or in
cases of necessity.
Dan O
May 24, 2012, 1:24:53 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 9:07 am, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
> On 05/24/2012 11:27 AM, Dan O wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> He must have been indisposed. I'm sure his appearance is imminent. In
> >> PDX, are you legally allowed to ride in the middle of the lane?
>
> > You are if that's as far right as practicable.
>
> > This is about a year old, FWIW:
>
> >http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/26/bike-law-101-take-the-lane-legally...
> On 05/24/2012 11:27 AM, Dan O wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> He must have been indisposed. I'm sure his appearance is imminent. In
> >> PDX, are you legally allowed to ride in the middle of the lane?
>
> > You are if that's as far right as practicable.
>
> > This is about a year old, FWIW:
>
>
> For us it's:
> 487. Every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme right-hand side
> of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except when about to
> make a left turn, when travel against the traffic is authorized or in
> cases of necessity.
"Extreme" sounds a little extreme, but hopefully "necessity" is
> For us it's:
> 487. Every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme right-hand side
> of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except when about to
> make a left turn, when travel against the traffic is authorized or in
> cases of necessity.
interpreted "reasonably".
Duane
May 24, 2012, 2:11:16 PM5/24/12
to
the center of the lane because I'm controlling traffic and it's safer
for me."
I know that I don't have to ride in potholes or through rubbish and
glass etc. though we don't have much rubbish and glass on the roads in
Montreal. Potholes we're famous for but you find them mostly in the
lanes where there's truck traffic, not on the side or in bike lanes. I
know that I can also avoid door zones and pedestrians. Anything else, I
guess I'll find out when the tickets get issued.
Jay Beattie
May 24, 2012, 3:23:21 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 9:07 am, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
> On 05/24/2012 11:27 AM, Dan O wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> He must have been indisposed. I'm sure his appearance is imminent. In
> >> PDX, are you legally allowed to ride in the middle of the lane?
>
> > You are if that's as far right as practicable.
>
> > This is about a year old, FWIW:
>
> >http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/26/bike-law-101-take-the-lane-legally...
>
> <snip>
>
> >> He must have been indisposed. I'm sure his appearance is imminent. In
> >> PDX, are you legally allowed to ride in the middle of the lane?
>
> > You are if that's as far right as practicable.
>
> > This is about a year old, FWIW:
>
>
> For us it's:
> 487. Every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme right-hand side
> of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except when about to
> make a left turn, when travel against the traffic is authorized or in
> cases of necessity.
The obligation to ride far right in Oregon only applies when the rider
> For us it's:
> 487. Every person on a bicycle must ride on the extreme right-hand side
> of the roadway in the same direction as traffic, except when about to
> make a left turn, when travel against the traffic is authorized or in
> cases of necessity.
is traveling less than the speed of traffic. Where the accident
occurred (going down hill, in town on fairly busy street), it's
practically impossible not to travel the speed of traffic.
The "bad" statute is the one that requires bicyclists to be in bicycle
lanes, if they are present.
814.420: Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty.
(1) Except asprovided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a
person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if
the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not
a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is
adjacent to or near the roadway.
(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the
state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds,
after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is
suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.
(3) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if
the person is able to safely move out of the bicycle lane or path for
the purpose of:
(a) Overtaking and passing another bicycle, a vehicle or a pedestrian
that is in the bicycle lane or path and passage cannot safely be made
in the lane or path.
(b) Preparing to execute a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions.
(d) Preparing to execute a right turn where a right turn is
authorized.
(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.
(4) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle
lane or path, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §700; 1985 c.
16 §338; 2005 c.316 §3]
Rarely enforced, but still a stupid law. -- Jay Beattie.
Duane
May 24, 2012, 4:04:06 PM5/24/12
to
bike lanes with the same "unless they're too dangerous" proviso. At any
rate, the "extreme right" requirement would seem to mean in a bike lane
if it existed. Under normal conditions, I'd be in the lane anyway.
They're usually found on streets with fast moving traffic and I don't
remember seeing one that is on a street where parking is allowed. Why
not use it?
The rider to allow us to NOT use bike paths was explicitly written into
the law when some idiots tried to force cyclists on them.
Dan O
May 24, 2012, 6:11:51 PM5/24/12
to
to use them that restricts options. But I like the exception for
"avoiding debris", since *every* bike lane (IME) has more debris than
the adjacent (motor) lanes. I don't kid myself that a judge would buy
this, and have heard they come down pretty hard about this law when it
does reach the bench, but *logically* it seems pretty ironclad to me.
I also read of judgment that bike lanes are *presumed* to have been
found safe and suitable by the state or local authority - that the
public hearing means... um... well, I don't know (sounds good, though,
doesn't it).
Jay Beattie
May 24, 2012, 8:45:59 PM5/24/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's pretty much a non-issue for me except in a couple of places where
I elect to take the road and not some snaking bicycle by-pass. What
get's me are motorist being unfamiliar with the exceptions to the rule
-- like whenever I pull around a bike or move out to avoid a hazard,
cars go whizzing by honking, and sometimes people yell "get in the
bike lane," etc. I feel like yelling, "read the f****** vehicle
code." That's the deal with Portland, everyone thinks he's an expert
-- I used to get flipped off; now I get a lecture, which is usually
wrong.
-- Jay Beattie.
James
May 24, 2012, 9:00:21 PM5/24/12
to
from the city side of Ringwood to the other. I regularly ride through
there on a Saturday morning, and from the Melbourne city to Ringwood on
Whitehorse Rd there is rarely a problem. From Box Hill to Ringwood it
is a 3 lane road, with 70 - 80 km/h speed limits. As soon as you go
through Ringwood and out to Lilydale, the driver mentality changes
abruptly for the worst. We still have 3 lanes to play in, and the speed
limits are still 70-80 km/h, yet the number of asses (donkeys) that hang
out of their car/truck window yelling at us to ride single file is just
incredible. They toot their horns and pass angrily and aggressively,
shaking their fists and mouth off. There must be something in the air -
and it ain't love!
--
JS.
roberth...@yahoo.com
May 25, 2012, 9:30:26 PM5/25/12
to
On May 23, 8:04 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> I'm amazed Frank has not chimed in that the accident would have been
> avoided if the cyclist had taken the lane and ignored the bike lane.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
Taking the lane would make no difference, all other factors remaining
> I'm amazed Frank has not chimed in that the accident would have been
> avoided if the cyclist had taken the lane and ignored the bike lane.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
equal. The truck was turning from the left lane.
0 new messages