Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
From: Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:56:19 -0800 (PST)
Local: Wed, Nov 14 2012 1:56 pm
Subject: Re: OT: What's wrong with this picture?
On Nov 14, 9:03 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> > First, Jay, congratulations on the Alice B. Toeclips award.
If you come to Portland, I'll let you touch it.
> Now about the case you're pointing to: "Permanent revocation of driving privileges of person convicted of felony while driving under influence of intoxicants or of multiple driving under influence of intoxicants offenses applies to person convicted of felony or offenses while operating bicycle under influence of intoxicants." Convicted of felony while riding a bike??? Seems a far cry from what we were talking about!
No, you must be looking at another State v. Potter. Here's a summary:
"Defendant participated in a Critical Mass bicycle ride. He was one of
Here is the bike lane on the Hawthorne Bridge.
> Let's review: I'm saying that it's reasonable and legal to enhance one's visibility by moving briefly to lane center when getting ready to pass through an intersection. There are cycling experts throughout the western world who strongly recommend this as a way of discouraging both right hooks and left crosses. I'm also saying that I doubt there have been 100 people in the U.S. ticketed for such a maneuver.
Let's review: no one is saying that momentarily taking the lane -- or
even taking the lane for some duration -- is not legal under appropriate circumstances. Like I said, the UVC and the Oregon statute contemplate situations where a cyclist can take the lane. You just can't promenade, pretending you're a really slow car. > What are you really saying? That a cyclist should not do that, and should stay to the far right, where they're less visible?http://vimeo.com/32887898
Never said any of that. You are making up arguments and scenarios
> Are you saying that a cyclist should be ticketed if he does choose to move to lane center for a few seconds, for his own safety? And BTW, do other posters _really_ want a cyclist ticketed for not being a gutter bunny? that don't even merit a response. > Mionske, on page 136 of his _Bicycling & the Law_ says (after mentioning being hidden at the right), "If you take the entire lane through the intersection, you may be more visible." He mentions the possibility of annoying drivers behind you by slowing them; but of course, there are many intersections where you slow nobody when doing that. And he says "From a legal perspective, taking the lane would be practicable in an intersection if that is what your safety requires." And of course, he says elsewhere that the cyclist has to be the judge of his safety.
Wow, Bob is one smart guy. I had to go to the Oregon Bicycle Manual
> I think several people here need to read the section of Mionske's book beginning on page 57, where he talks about how to interpret as far right as "practicable."
to get that sage advice. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/bike_manual.pdf At page 6, with pictures:
"a right hook occurs when a right-turning motorist crosses the path of
Like I said, you're making straw-man arguments. One more time with
§ 811.425¹
When you read all the statutes together, the work really well . . .
"When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions including,
> > Also, if I do need a quick answer, I call Ray Thomas or Mark Ginsberg
Frank, this is all covered in the f****** statutes -- who needs to
> > because I know them, and they're dialed in to local law. You go with
> > the people you know. Now, if I were in Ohio, I'd go to you . . . at
> > least to start.
> > I'm totally impressed with Bob's physical prowess and appreciate the
> > time he has devoted to the educating the public on the traffic laws
> > and the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists. I assume he does a
> > great job for his clients, and he writes a good column. But hey, the
> > Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court and the Chief Judge of the
> > Oregon Court of Appeals are guys I used to work with at my firm, so I
> > kind of trust myself in front of those courts more than I might trust
> > others. I think they trust me, too.
> Well, you might want to run this by them. I realize you're in an oddball state where riding in bike lanes is mandatory, so you may want to cover that in your question; i.e., make it clear that we're not talking about a bike lane intersection, & make it clear that I'm describing briefly moving to lane center, to defend against these common crash types by being conspicuous. (Obviously, if the lane were too narrow to safely share, I'd be at lane center anyway. I usually have been on most of Portland's narrow city streets.)
make a phone call? First, nobody ever said you couldn't briefly move to the center of the lane at an intersection to avoid a right hook. That is exactly what the green boxes are all about. Even our "oddball" bike lane statute addresses your made up concern. Did you read that? 814.420¹
Note Section (3)(e) -- the specific exception to avoid right hooks.
Again, I might call some guy in Ohio or Indiana or wherever to get a
--- Jay Beattie.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| ||||||||||||||