Judge: No Bike Lane? No Legal Protection.

Comments

1
Please tell me there is an appeal in the works? Is that judge a COMPLETE IDIOT?
2
We need to paint that lane like these guys from New York http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19oo7Ejq9WI. If the law won't protect cyclists, we should take it upon ourselves to extend the bike lines. Let's do it over Christmas, when nobody's looking.
3
I agree with the Judge. Where there is no bike lane, the bike must flow with the traffic.

Nothing worse than a bike passing you on the right thru a sharp s-turn with limited space.
4
@Haircut: Clearly. If the only way the bike lane is going to exist though the intersection is if it is painted there, then it needs to be painted there. Hopefully Abusive it right though...
5
@Jota: Auto lanes aren't painted through intersections, does that mean laws and protections don't apply to cars passing through them either?

It's a completely stupid and ignorant ruling. This Judge (Pro Tem, BTW... meaning: not a real judge) made a huge error.
6
Where there is no bike lane, then cutting forward between lanes is threading. No way should threading be protected. It is the epitome of the dangerous, unpredictable move no reasonable person would expect. That cyclist should have moved over, taken the lane and then taken her turn going through the intersection. That is what is safe and sane. That is what should be protected.
7
HA HA HA HA !!!!
FUCK YOU CYCLISTS !!!!
8
To all the folks who think the bike was overtaking the car, please realize that in moving traffic, a right hook is rarely possible without the car overtaking or cutting off the cyclist. Bicyclists, even the aggressive among us, simply don't travel quickly enough to catch up with and place ourselves in front of a turning car. A cyclist in your blindspot is not overtaking you, they are next to you, and you have to let them by, just like a car in your blindspot.
9
luckymike: apparently you've never heard of bikes that can go 25 miles per hour? They exist. Cars? They can actually travel under 25 miles per hour. This situation is common.

Bikers can't get a break. Without a lane for them they are annoyances because they take a car lane. With their own bike lane they still have to deal with bike lanes that unexpectedly end.

10
i'm sorry; this one is easy: the judge is legally wrong.

bikes are required to use the same roadway cars are, but they are also required to keep to the ride, but only so far as needed to be same. From the "Oregon Bicyclist Manual" put out by ODOT:

In Oregon, a bicycle is a vehicle by law. When riding your bike on a road, you have the same rights and duties as other road users. With a few exceptions, the rules of the road for drivers apply to you.

A bicycle is required to "...ride on the right, in the same direction as the traffic next to you. It’s the law." It then addes, in the very next sentence, "This way you will be seen by others. When drivers enter a road, change or cross lanes, they know where to look for possible conflicts. If you are riding with traffic, you are more visible and drivers will more likely yield to you."

"...more likely..."

when we ride our bikes on the right side of the traffic lane, we are obeying the law. when we are struck by a car when riding there, the law is supposed to protect us by punishing the driver who broke the law. the judge's failure to know and apply the law should be reported and not left to be a matter of sputtering outrage.
11
Solution for the bicyclist: swerve into the pedestrian crosswalk and use that to cross the intersection. That removes any ambiguity.
12
I generally loathe the bike nazis, but the judge was wrong on this one.
13
jota, you need to read the Oregon Drivers & Bicyclists manuals. bikes travel to the right; they are to keep a line that keeps them moving straight, not weaving in and out of parked cars. at SE 10th & Hawthorne, the legal place for the bike is in the right lane, in the right side of that lane. getting hit by a turning car is entirely the car's fault. it's actually pretty simple, unless the judge is uninformed on the specific law. this judge was.
14
This is a win for all Americans.
15
Bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes bikes... bikes....

The Mercury should talk more about bikes.

The sad truth is that cyclists must ALWAYS be responsible for their own safety by suspecting that every driver could be crazy/drunk/16 years old/85 years old/whatever. It may be unfair, but any cyclist who doesn't assume that a car might be turning right an prepare for it is a moron.

Self righteousness is not a cloak of invincibility. But you will be able to claim that you were "right" from the comfort of your full-body cast.
16
Passing on the right is illegal in a car-it's just plain stupid for a bicycle. Drivers aren't accustomed to being passed on the right by moving vehicles and bicyclists should be smart enough to know this and anticipate that the driver isn't going to see him and yield to the car in intersections, especially if the car has its turn signal on.

It should be illegal for bikes to pass cars on the right, just as it is for cars to do so. A bike should have to get into the traffic lane to cross an intersection rather than staying to the right and expecting cars to see him and stop so he can pass.
17
@Blabby: Honestly, I suspect that any car might do something stupid at any time whether I'm driving, biking, or walking.
18
@tk Damn right, me too. But I don't see other people doing that - makes me wonder if that's the real cause of the majority of these things.

Was waiting for a car to turn right on a red in the Pearl this weekend. The driver was craning her neck to the left, looking for a break in traffic...and a pedrestrian stepped right in front of her, because she had a "walk" light, and almost got hit. Sure, she had the right of way, but it was easy to see the driver was about to go and wasn't looking forward. She would have "been in the right" and still dead. And of course she's the one who pulled the attitude, and started yelling at the driver...
19
There has never been a greater injustice in the history of the world EVER!
20
@Reymont: Yeah, I always try to make sure to catch the driver's eye, as that happens way too often. Of course, that wouldn't have helped my friend who got hit a few weeks back when the car that had pulled too far into the intersection decided that backing into the crosswalk without looking was the best course of action...
21
I really enjoy the sense of entitlement that both sides of the argument feel. The feeling that cyclists and pedestrians shouldn't excercise their right of way and that drivers should be allowed to drive like fucking morons because their encased in 2000Kg of steel and plastic. Y'all can all go fuck yourselves.
22
Thank you Graham. I could not agree more. I wish everyone would try to remember that everyone on the street whether they are on a bike, on foot, or in a car are someone's neighbors, friends, sisters/brothers and loved ones. Can't we all just try to respect each other and look out for one another.
23
"I really enjoy the sense of entitlement that both sides of the argument feel. The feeling that cyclists and pedestrians shouldn't excercise their right of way and that drivers should be allowed to drive like fucking morons"

Actually, isn't that a description of the way that just one side of the argument feels?