JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Status
I don't stop nor slow down if a bike or pedestrian is not obeying the law, or if they are impeding my route of travel. I believe bicyclist and pedestrians should watch for vehicles more than they do, not saying that some or most don't, but there are those that don't watch for vehicles. Hopefully they know they will not win if the two collide.

If you hit anyone and it's established that you had the ability to stop, regardless of whether you had right-of-way, you will be held accountable for the crash. Having right-of-way is no justification for deliberately hitting someone... sheesh.

But how are you applying this sentiment to the conversation? Are you saying that if a bike is in the road, you will not follow the laws pertaining to safe negotiation? That's your prerogative... but, as you say, hopefully you know you will not win in court if the two collide.
 
The majority of bicyclists in Portland - S U C K - period.

They demand "bike rights" yet fail to pay for street use, disobey traffic laws and cause traffic congestion with either the inability to ride in a straight line or failure to get out of the way when riding uphill in a 45 mph zone at 5 mph with 40 cars lined up behind them.

There are plenty of bike only streets, yet there is always that "1" who decides that Powell is the best option for the morning commute on their fixie. :mad:

If they are going to ride ON THE STREET, they should pay taxes for the bike lanes, require registration and insurance, a written test, road test and licensing. Just like the people who drive cars on the street have to.
 
Okay, so let me see if I've got this right......That cyclist can come up behind me, in his own little bike lane when I have my right turn signal a flashing because I'm going to make a right turn...And at the same time the light turns green...You are telling me I'm supposed to be looking in my REAR VIEW mirror, that means I'm looking BEHIND me. And then I'm to go FORWARD while looking BEHIND me to make sure some dunder head isn't coming along side?!
I actually had this exact thing happen, though I set it up, I knew he was coming along behind me. It scared the crap out of him I guess because after I feigned turning into him and honked, he stopped pedaling and turned on me with some of the foulest language I've ever heard! Now what if it was the little old lady/man? Or one of many, many Portlanders that drive in a fog anyway? Those that have no idea how or why to use those mirrors?

If cyclists are going to be held to general vehicle standards, then they'd better get some education and enforcement out there. I'm sick of cyclists playing/getting it BOTH ways. They've got whole damned streets for them, with no stop signs, and speed bumps to make them less desirable to autos, and they still run on two lane residential, with street parking, roads during rush hour.

That 30 seconds isn't much for one person, true, but what about all the people behind you? And then when you miss the next light that will ad more time from more people. Of course that doesn't mean much in PDX due to 1 in 5 drivers being in their own world and having no clue as to how their pathetic driving affects the people around them.

And YES, the peddlers need to pony up some money!

If you cross into a bike lane, then yes- it's absolutely your responsibility to check for bicyclists.

We watch for blinkers. A smart rider who values his life and well-being will maintain a position to the REAR of a vehicle with his blinker on- I even back off, and make it clear to the driver that I'm not going to swoop in on his turn. Hopefully he won't see me and STOP, though.... so frustrating. If you are in front and there's plenty of room to cut across, please do! If you're parallel or behind me, then you need to wait for me to pass (I can't see your blinker anyway!).

Getting "right hooked" is the single most common try of car/bike collision on the road. Please watch for it! We try to watch out for you, in case you have a lapse (everyone does, sometimes), but if we can't see your blinker, we have no idea you're going to cut in front of us.
 
So while I don't have much experience dealing with oregon cycling laws (don't spend that much time there) I will say... back when I used to work at a shooting range up in the hills above LA, the only road that got me there was also part of the "tour de california" where all the wanna-be lance armstrongs would put on their spandex, and pedal up the hill at about 5mph, backing up traffic for miles.

At the same time, under california traffic code, it's generally required that if 4 or more vehicles are behind you going up a 2 lane mountain road, you are obliged to yield (pull over and let them pass).

I also ride my mountain bike a lot, and sharing the road is an important consideration. If I'm riding uphill slowly, at the first opportunity I'm going to GTFO of the way. The lugnuts rule is an important one to observe for safety... the lugnuts rule: the one who has the most lugnuts always wins when two vehicles try to occupy the same space. Some bicyclists should probably be made aware of this.

At the same time, as was discussed earlier, mountain bikers on forest trails pushing their way past pedestrian hikers. I find it rather annoying that bikers seem to want to throw their lugnuts around when it suits them, and then use regulation to limit those with more lugnuts when it doesn't.

Basically what it all boils down to, is I will do whatever I can to maintain a safe standard of driving for all vehicles. It seems way past time that the cyclists realize that they also have a part to play in maintaining safety for themselves as well as everyone else.
 
If they are going to carry guns, they should pay taxes, require registration and insurance, a written test, range test and licensing. Just like the people who drive cars on the street have to.

I changed this around some.... I see what looks like a familiar, similar sentiment that people who like regulation often make.

Why should bikes have to do all of that? What exactly is the PROBLEM that requires REGULATION? You don't like a few bad apple hipster asshats who ride around Portland... why make the rest of us, VAST MAJORITY safe/considerate bicyclists pay for the few school shooters? Er, I mean, hipsters on fixies?
 
811.130 doesn't apply to bicycles, though.

Looks like 811.425 does, but I'm not really sure how it could be applied. ? Still working on that.

Edit- re-reading 811.425... this isn't going to apply to bikes because there are already statutes that take precedence. If you can move over, you're required to, on a bike, unless it's not safe to do so. There's nothing in the ORS that requires a bike to stop and get off the road so people can pass.

Oh, man.... you're not reading them, are you? I'll go ahead and show where all of the rules apply:

814.400¹
Application of vehicle laws to bicycles

(1)Every person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any other vehicle concerning operating on highways, vehicle equipment and abandoned vehicles, except:

(a)Those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

(b)When otherwise specifically provided under the vehicle code.

(2)Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section:

(a)A bicycle is a vehicle for purposes of the vehicle code; and

(b)When the term vehicle is used the term shall be deemed to be applicable to bicycles.

(3)The provisions of the vehicle code relating to the operation of bicycles do not relieve a bicyclist or motorist from the duty to exercise due care. [1983 c.338 §697; 1985 c.16 §335]
 
Oh, man.... you're not reading them, are you? I'll go ahead and show where all of the rules apply:

814.400¹
Application of vehicle laws to bicycles

(1)Every person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any other vehicle concerning operating on highways, vehicle equipment and abandoned vehicles, except:

(a)Those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

(b)When otherwise specifically provided under the vehicle code.

(2)Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section:

(a)A bicycle is a vehicle for purposes of the vehicle code; and

(b)When the term vehicle is used the term shall be deemed to be applicable to bicycles.

(3)The provisions of the vehicle code relating to the operation of bicycles do not relieve a bicyclist or motorist from the duty to exercise due care. [1983 c.338 §697; 1985 c.16 §335]

Read 811.130. Bicycles are "vehicles," under 814.400. They are not motor vehicles. 811.130 specifically calls out motor vehicles.
 
And as I said, .425 sort of applies, as it calls out vehicles (regardless of motor), but how could you actually apply that to bikes? There's already a statute that requires bikes to stay as far right as practicable, barring safety concerns (and specifically states that if there's not enough room for both car and bike in the lane, the bike takes the WHOLE lane).

Do you want a copy of my Bike Code? It's really comprehensive... you'd find it useful
 
And looking through it- I actually have 811.425 listed, as it's referenced by the more important 814.430, which is the main statute bicyclists need to know with regard to "taking the lane." If you follow 814.430, 811.425 is irrelevant for a bicyclist.
 
If you cross into a bike lane, then yes- it's absolutely your responsibility to check for bicyclists.

We watch for blinkers. A smart rider who values his life and well-being will maintain a position to the REAR of a vehicle with his blinker on- I even back off, and make it clear to the driver that I'm not going to swoop in on his turn. Hopefully he won't see me and STOP, though.... so frustrating. If you are in front and there's plenty of room to cut across, please do! If you're parallel or behind me, then you need to wait for me to pass (I can't see your blinker anyway!).

Getting "right hooked" is the single most common try of car/bike collision on the road. Please watch for it! We try to watch out for you, in case you have a lapse (everyone does, sometimes), but if we can't see your blinker, we have no idea you're going to cut in front of us.

When I was a kid and had to ride a bike to get around, common sense was a car would win no matter who's fault it was. I would do what ever it took to be out of the way! If there was no bike lane I would ride on the sidewalk, if on a lonely 2 lane road and a car coming up behind me, I'd head to the other sides shoulder. I watched for blinkers and whatnot and if I got sketched out I would stop and let what ever potential danger pass/turn or whatever.

Now as stated earlier not as bad here as it is in Portland. But as an un protected person on a bike I didn't give cars a chance to hit me! I think people who assume that cars and trucks that "share" the road will always go around them and "obey" the rules are foolish. Maybe I don't trust people enough?
 
Read 811.130. Bicycles are "vehicles," under 814.400. They are not motor vehicles. 811.130 specifically calls out motor vehicles.

You can't be that simple.

A motor is a machine that converts other forms of energy (human energy) into mechanical energy and so imparts motion.

Besides, the court is clear and so are the Oregon statutes:

814.400¹
Application of vehicle laws to bicycles

(1)Every person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any other vehicle concerning operating on highways, vehicle equipment and abandoned vehicles, except:

(a)Those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

(b)When otherwise specifically provided under the vehicle code.

(2)Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section:

(a)A bicycle is a vehicle for purposes of the vehicle code; and

(b)When the term vehicle is used the term shall be deemed to be applicable to bicycles.

(3)The provisions of the vehicle code relating to the operation of bicycles do not relieve a bicyclist or motorist from the duty to exercise due care. [1983 c.338 §697; 1985 c.16 §335]

You can't get around it. Ride your bike like you own the road, get caught and you'll get a ticket. They need to plate bikes and license the drivers so to get rid of the crazy riders out there. Otherwise they will continue to make a bad name of the good riders like yourself :)
 
I don't know a single cyclist that isn't a LOT more concerned for his own safety than the drivers around him. We all hear tale of these crazy hipster asshats that rip around downtown.... well, I don't know any of those guys.

I've personally never been hit by a car, though I've had a lot of close calls. Like everyone else I know, I'm very concerned about not tangling with 3,000lb hunks of steel, and I'm pretty vigilant about doing everything in my power to ensure it doesn't happen. I think pretty much everyone I know that rides regularly has been hit at least once. One of my best friends was hit TWICE just this winter alone. Both were unexpected right-hooks.

But what else can you do? Riding on the sidewalk is illegal in most places, and isn't safe anyway- cars are watching for slow moving people at driveways, curbs, and intersections- not bikes. A minor problem on a sidewalk that results in riding off a curb can turn into a major crash, possibly even falling into traffic. Driveway cutouts, street signs, mailboxes.... you gonna slalom these at 30MPH? Hell no. And, as all the statutes and ordinances against riding on sidewalks cite, it's just not safe for pedestrians. Bikes are "vehicles," as Martini has pointed out- they're supposed to ride in the road.

My oldest just turned 10 and got his first 10-speed... Redline Conquest 24 (junior cyclocross)... and graduated to real road riding. We don't have sidewalks in our neighborhood anyway, and sidewalk riding is expressly prohibited in Saint Helens. He holds a line in traffic.... either as far right as practicable, as per the ORS, or takes the lane until he can get over (if riding under the speed limit). It's intimidating, but it's the safest way to ride.

BMXs or Walmart mountain bikes going 8mph.... sure, do whatever you want. But that's not what we're talking about.
 
You can't be that simple.

A motor is a machine that converts other forms of energy (human energy) into mechanical energy and so imparts motion.

Besides, the court is clear and so are the Oregon statutes:
814.400¹
Application of vehicle laws to bicycles

(1)Every person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any other vehicle concerning operating on highways, vehicle equipment and abandoned vehicles, except:

(a)Those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

(b)When otherwise specifically provided under the vehicle code.

(2)Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section:

(a)A bicycle is a vehicle for purposes of the vehicle code; and

(b)When the term vehicle is used the term shall be deemed to be applicable to bicycles.

(3)The provisions of the vehicle code relating to the operation of bicycles do not relieve a bicyclist or motorist from the duty to exercise due care. [1983 c.338 §697; 1985 c.16 §335]

You can't get around it. Ride your bike like you own the road, get caught and you'll get a ticket. They need to plate bikes and license the drivers so to get rid of the crazy riders out there. Otherwise they will continue to make a bad name of the good riders like yourself :)

I'm sorry, buddy. I'm not uninitiated. This isn't new material to me. I literally wrote the book on it (that's a joke, but it's also true, strictly speaking). The ORS uses "vehicle" just about everywhere, but uses "motor vehicle" when calling out motor vehicles specifically. Look around the ORS- find me another statute that could be applied to bikes that uses "motor vehicle," not just "vehicle." You're not going to find it.

It's right there in Ben's Bike Code, and in the ODOT bicycle handbook. Ignore it if you want, but don't be deliberately insulting. I'm keeping an even tone with you, aren't I?
 
Last Edited:
The majority of bicyclists in Portland - S U C K - period.

They demand "bike rights" yet fail to pay for street use, disobey traffic laws and cause traffic congestion with either the inability to ride in a straight line or failure to get out of the way when riding uphill in a 45 mph zone at 5 mph with 40 cars lined up behind them.

There are plenty of bike only streets, yet there is always that "1" who decides that Powell is the best option for the morning commute on their fixie. :mad:

If they are going to ride ON THE STREET, they should pay taxes for the bike lanes, require registration and insurance, a written test, road test and licensing. Just like the people who drive cars on the street have to.

Thats why we call them SHELLHEADS.
 
If you hit anyone and it's established that you had the ability to stop, regardless of whether you had right-of-way, you will be held accountable for the crash. Having right-of-way is no justification for deliberately hitting someone... sheesh.

But how are you applying this sentiment to the conversation? Are you saying that if a bike is in the road, you will not follow the laws pertaining to safe negotiation? That's your prerogative... but, as you say, hopefully you know you will not win in court if the two collide.

That's why I have insurance. Never said I wouldn't follow any laws. And I will not deliberately hit a bicyclist. I am only saying I will not yield to them if they are not obeying the law. I think if a pedestrian or bicyclist gets hit by a vehicle it is a loss to them no matter what happens in court.
 
You're killing me....

If you wrote the book, you wrote it WRONG.



http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A115242.htm

Appellate decisions?? You've got a serious hardon for this, eh? Guess I'm going to have to start digging too. Where's the OSC decision?

Even if OR v. Potter stands, there's still the elements:

1)A person commits the offense of impeding traffic if the person drives a motor vehicle or a combination of motor vehicles in a manner that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

(2)A person is not in violation of the offense described under this section if the person is proceeding in a manner needed for safe operation.

A person following the guidelines set forth in the ODOT bike manual and following ORS 814.430 isn't going to be "impeding" traffic. How are you trying to apply this to normal bike riding?
 
Status

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top