guns and cyclists...whats the legalities?

[the4thshake]

Where in the ORS does it state that cyclists have the right of way if there is no bike path?:huh:

I see where they have the right of way on a bike lane and sidewalk but not the road.

 

[fd15k]

Where in the ORS does it state that cyclists have the right of way if there is no bike path?:huh:

I see where they have the right of way on a bike lane and sidewalk but not the road.

ORS wouldn't have that, vehicle code might. Too lazy to read into it myself, try this :

811.065 Unsafe passing of person op-
erating bicycle; penalty. (1) A driver of a
motor vehicle commits the offense of unsafe
passing of a person operating a bicycle if the
driver violates any of the following require-
ments:
(a) The driver of a motor vehicle may
only pass a person operating a bicycle by
driving to the left of the bicycle at a safe
distance and returning to the lane of travel
once the motor vehicle is safely clear of the
overtaken bicycle. For the purposes of this
paragraph, a "safe distance" means a dis-
tance that is sufficient to prevent contact
with the person operating the bicycle if the
person were to fall into the driver's lane of
traffic. This paragraph does not apply to a
driver operating a motor vehicle:
(A) In a lane that is separate from and
adjacent to a designated bicycle lane;
(B) At a speed not greater than 35 miles
per hour; or
(C) When the driver is passing a person
operating a bicycle on the person's right side
and the person operating the bicycle is turn-
ing left.
(b) The driver of a motor vehicle may
drive to the left of the center of a roadway
to pass a person operating a bicycle proceed-
ing in the same direction only if the roadway
to the left of the center is unobstructed for
a sufficient distance to permit the driver to
pass the person operating the bicycle safely
and avoid interference with oncoming traffic.
This paragraph does not authorize driving on
the left side of the center of a roadway when
prohibited under ORS 811.295, 811.300 or
811.310 to 811.325.
(c) The driver of a motor vehicle that
passes a person operating a bicycle shall re-
turn to an authorized lane of traffic as soon
as practicable.
(2) Passing a person operating a bicycle
in a no passing zone in violation of ORS
811.420 constitutes prima facie evidence of
commission of the offense described in this
section, unsafe passing of a person operating
a bicycle, if the passing results in injury to
or the death of the person operating the bi-
cycle.
(3) The offense described in this section,
unsafe passing of a person operating a bicy-
cle, is a Class B traffic violation. [2007 c.794
§2

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/docs/vcb/vcb811.pdf

 

[the4thshake]

You copied and pasted ORS. It says nothing about having the right of way.

 

[fd15k]

You copied and pasted ORS. It says nothing about having the right of way.

That is Oregon Vehicle Code, not Oregon Revised Statutes. Also I only took my best shot with least amount of effort. Right of way might be covered in another place in that chapter, or maybe in a different chapter, or might be absent altogether Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.

 

[mattg521]

Where in the ORS does it state that cyclists have the right of way if there is no bike path?:huh:

I see where they have the right of way on a bike lane and sidewalk but not the road.

I think what he meant was cyclists are "allowed use of the lane" if no path/bike lane exists or if some hazard in the path /bike lane is deemed to exist on the part of the cyclist. In that case the cyclist is granted equal right to the whole lane. Does not say cyclists have any more right of way than any other road user.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I think what he meant was cyclists are "allowed use of the lane" if no path/bike lane exists or if some hazard in the path /bike lane is deemed to exist on the part of the cyclist. In that case the cyclist is granted equal right to the whole lane. Does not say cyclists have any more right of way than any other road user.

it is in the DMV handbook;
OK. looks like it is only about who to YIELD to...and in the ORS Bike-Ped_Statutes; it seems to repeat that a cyclist must cling to the furthest right of a roadway or as close to the edge of the roadway if there are no sidewalk nor bike path designated for a cyclist..this is very dangerous especially in towns where bikes are prohibited from sidewalks, AND there is no bike path designated, AND there is on street parking (MANY streets, if not all in Monmouth, and most streets in Albany do not have a sidewalk; nor a bike path.... but the main highways do have both..)

says cyclists are prohibited from freeways, that is obvious. now the question is on two lane highways with a gravel shoulder and like 1 ft or less of space between the travel lane and the gravel part....or a ditch... too often I have witnessed; AND been involved with situations where people are just plain jerks and nearly run me off the road; the ORS state this is a prosecutable offense.

811.055 Failure to yield to bicyclist on sidewalk; penalty. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle commits the offense of failure
to yield the right of way to a bicyclist on a sidewalk if the driver does not yield the right of way to any bicyclist on a
sidewalk.
(2) The driver of a motor vehicle is not in violation of this section when a bicyclist is operating in violation of ORS
814.410. Nothing in this subsection relieves the driver of a motor vehicle from the duty to exercise due care.
(3) The offense described in this section, failure to yield the right of way to a bicyclist on a sidewalk, is a Class B
traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §702; 1985 c.16 §340; 1995 c.383 §44]
811.060 Vehicular assault of bicyclist or pedestrian; penalty. (1) For the purposes of this section, "recklessly" has the
meaning given that term in ORS 161.085.
(2) A person commits the offense of vehicular assault of a bicyclist or pedestrian if:
(a) The person recklessly operates a vehicle upon a highway in a manner that results in contact between the person's
vehicle and a bicycle operated by a person, a person operating a bicycle or a pedestrian; and
(b) The contact causes physical injury to the person operating a bicycle or the pedestrian.
(3) The offense described in this section, vehicular assault of a bicyclist or pedestrian, is a Class A misdemeanor. [2001
c.635 §5]
811.065 Unsafe passing of person operating bicycle; penalty. (1) A driver of a motor vehicle commits the offense of
unsafe passing of a person operating a bicycle if the driver violates any of the following requirements:
(a) The driver of a motor vehicle may only pass a person operating a bicycle by driving to the left of the bicycle at a
safe distance and returning to the lane of travel once the motor vehicle is safely clear of the overtaken bicycle. For the
purposes of this paragraph, a "safe distance" means a distance that is sufficient to prevent contact with the person operating
the bicycle if the person were to fall into the driver's lane of traffic. This paragraph does not apply to a driver operating a
motor vehicle:
(A) In a lane that is separate from and adjacent to a designated bicycle lane;
(B) At a speed not greater than 35 miles per hour; or
(C) When the driver is passing a person operating a bicycle on the person's right side and the person operating the
bicycle is turning left.
(b) The driver of a motor vehicle may drive to the left of the center of a roadway to pass a person operating a bicycle
proceeding in the same direction only if the roadway to the left of the center is unobstructed for a sufficient distance to
permit the driver to pass the person operating the bicycle safely and avoid interference with oncoming traffic. This
paragraph does not authorize driving on the left side of the center of a roadway when prohibited under ORS 811.295,
811.300 or 811.310 to 811.325.
(c) The driver of a motor vehicle that passes a person operating a bicycle shall return to an authorized lane of traffic as
soon as practicable.
(2) Passing a person operating a bicycle in a no passing zone in violation of ORS 811.420 constitutes prima facie
evidence of commission of the offense described in this section, unsafe passing of a person operating a bicycle, if the
passing results in injury to or the death of the person operating the bicycle.
(3) The offense described in this section, unsafe passing of a person operating a bicycle, is a Class B traffic violation.
[2007 c.794 §2]

 

[kengrubb]

On a related subject, when a bicyclist is in the commission of a crime (saaaaay failure to obey a traffic control device), is it legal to shoot them?

Immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm. Doesn't seem like drivers could claim that about cyclists, but the reverse seems an easy case to make.

 

[irierider]

I have a CCW and have to say wear a damn good holster or bad or what ever!
I usually drop the 1911 in favor of my PPK/S for cycling ( i ride road only, track bikes to be exact)

 

[mattg521]

it is in the DMV handbook;
OK. looks like it is only about who to YIELD to...and in the ORS Bike-Ped_Statutes; it seems to repeat that a cyclist must cling to the furthest right of a roadway or as close to the edge of the roadway if there are no sidewalk nor bike path designated for a cyclist..this is very dangerous especially in towns where bikes are prohibited from sidewalks, AND there is no bike path designated, AND there is on street parking (MANY streets, if not all in Monmouth, and most streets in Albany do not have a sidewalk; nor a bike path.... but the main highways do have both..)

says cyclists are prohibited from freeways, that is obvious. now the question is on two lane highways with a gravel shoulder and like 1 ft or less of space between the travel lane and the gravel part....or a ditch... too often I have witnessed; AND been involved with situations where people are just plain jerks and nearly run me off the road; the ORS state this is a prosecutable offense.

Legally you are 100% right. In the case of no bike lane/safe shoulder the cyclist has the right to occupy the lane. Then there is the old dead right/dead wrong argument. Don't get me wrong i'm on your side, but...once run over and killed you won't have much more to say than the guy on the wrong end of the gunfight, which ain't much. Still we all have a right to self defense.

 

[CamoDeafie]

right; that is why I am all for having separate bike paths/trails/lanes on all the major highways connecting towns that are under 20 miles between towns... nice thing is that Monmouth's Pacific Highway/99W going to Rickreall does have its own bike/ped path 10 feet away from the road...but the other roads intersecting it does not have such a thing from either Monmouth or Rickreall to Dallas... or to Salem for that matter..

and yes. it seems that I should be OK with OC on a bicycle, or when I get my CHL, a good IWB holster... and I should be OK with long guns on a rack on handlebar unloaded, or in a locked case on the back when I finish the long frame design

 

[kengrubb]

Yes, if your tags are current, you can have up to 2 dead hookers in your trunk.

A live hooker in the trunk is a violation of the health code.

 

[balaperdida]

right; that is why I am all for having separate bike paths/trails/lanes on all the major highways connecting towns that are under 20 miles between towns... nice thing is that Monmouth's Pacific Highway/99W going to Rickreall does have its own bike/ped path 10 feet away from the road...but the other roads intersecting it does not have such a thing from either Monmouth or Rickreall to Dallas... or to Salem for that matter..

and yes. it seems that I should be OK with OC on a bicycle, or when I get my CHL, a good IWB holster... and I should be OK with long guns on a rack on handlebar unloaded, or in a locked case on the back when I finish the long frame design

Are you willing to have a bicycle tax to build/mark those lanes? Or, do you expect motorists to pay for everything?

 

[oknow]

This is so 2012 but it is a good question.

 

[jluck]

Are you willing to have a bicycle tax to build/mark those lanes? Or, do you expect motorists to pay for everything?

Persons within this thread may have already died of old age or at least realized automobiles are much better forms of transportation by now I'm sure. But holy congratulations on the thread archeology.

 

[The Heretic]

Get your Oregon CHL, with that OR166-173, city law doesn't pertain to you for open carrying a loaded gun However, you'll still get harassed and possibly cited by Portland PD.

Doesn't cover long guns

 

[The Heretic]

 

[CamoDeafie]

Are you willing to have a bicycle tax to build/mark those lanes? Or, do you expect motorists to pay for everything?

Yes. I expect such a scheme, that also include registering a bicycle (been done in Eugene), would help a bit... but here lies a problem, bicycles are considered toys for the most part, why register/pay taxes for your children's bicycles? SO they can use the roads? That might be OK in Portlandia but certainly not in the smaller towns... Oh, most of the small towns do not allow bicycles on sidewalks? oookay so they gotta share the road then..... oh, forget getting the kids a bicycle if they can't afford to register them as road use vehicles, and forget it if they gotta share the road with crazy drivers!
bam there's no bicycle tax/registration.

I have a car, have had it for a couple years now. But I still have a bicycle to use if needed.
I wonder...how did we get the marked lanes if cyclists didn't pay for them......oh yeah, taxes through other means..
pragmatically it is going to be next to impossible to implement a tax on bicycles if we don't do sales taxes on everything else. (I'm in favor of a national sales tax IF it meant removing the Federal Income Tax...but of course, that is never gonna happen with the current politicians)
It also is going to be very difficult to get the voters outside Portlandia to be willing to have cyclists pay a tax and register their vehicles, if it includes all forms of two-three-four wheeled pedal powered vehicles and doesn't care about ages. (register your kid's red trike!? hahahahhhaa there goes another vote AGAINST it)

EDIT: Last night, according to a FB local page; there was a fatality on Hoffman Road between 16th and 99W in Monmouth. Said fatality occurred with a 30 year old male cyclist being hit by a vehicle, and then run over by several more vehicles. This occurred on a part of the road that does NOT have a separate path, and only has a 2-ft wide "shoulder" for the cyclists. Hoffman road is only about a mile or so, 35-45mph speed limits on it. It is also next to farmland. It happened during dark, not during the day. No details are released on whether the cyclist had lights on, whether he had a helmet or not (don't see how it would have helped if he still got run over by a few more vehicles!? )

 

[Medic!]

Normal hunting stuff.

Red safety color car mandatory.
[Don't worry. This will not affect your hunt in any way. As bicyclists cant see anything in the car color spectrum. They don't even look!]

It is illegal to disguise the sex.
[Although this is nearly impossible to ascertain. And scientists are still looking to see if there really is any differences between male and female bicyclists?]

They ask you to PLEASE not display your trophy on your hood.
[But this is easier said than done! Since most bicyclists are hell bent on putting themselves there!]

Well then.
Good luck. And happy hunting!

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

if you have an oregon CHL you can open carry a loaded handgun no matter what the city ordanance is. ORS 166.173 section 2C. as for long guns IIRC you can carry open your long gun too as part of your 2A rights. certain cities may tell u that they cannot be loaded. best bet is to call a pro2A lawyer and see what he/she has to say about the legality of it.

 

[nammac]

How about open carry?

View attachment 151689

Nice anti-terrorism transportation!