[Grovenet] Biking in Forest Grove

[David Morelli]

On Oct 9, 2006, at 1:26 PM, Dale Wiley wrote:

> No where did I say it is the bicyclists fault. I said and if you  
> read it, that their CHOICE to ride in that lane at that point was a  
> contributing factor. If they had been in the provided bike lane on  
> the other side of the highway, then the first factor would have not  
> been present.
>
> I used to ride a lot on the roads. I have not for a number of  
> years. My choice because of the conditions.
>
> SITUATIONAL AWARNESS AND THE POTENTIAL FOR INJURY are incumbent on  
> every one of us. Choices...You vilifed the driver with inaccurate  
> statements.  Apparantenly you don't understand "multiple events on  
> both sides"
>
> And I love my little hole here and will stay here..thank you...:)

Dale,

Yes the bicycle rider did choose to ride a bicycle on that section of  
highway.  I have looked at an aerial view of Hwy 47 in the Dilley  
vicinity and the bike lanes come and go at the several Highway  
intersections with the various cross streets.  If a person was to try  
to stay in a wide bike lane they would be crossing the highway at  
every intersection and between every intersection.
The aerial view of Anderson Rd and Hwy 47 is available at
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=45.48713,-123.12548&z=19&t=S
Where was the actual accident?  If you drag the spot to the cross in  
the center and "link to this page" it will provide a view of the  
exact place.  Then we could all see the conditions that you describe.

In an earlier post you indicated that you were rear ended and your  
trailer totaled.  In that case you had chosen to drive a vehicle with  
a trailer at a speed that was slower than the vehicle overtaking  
you.  Guess what?  You were not wrong, the person who ran into your  
trailer was wrong.  It may have been your choice, but it was not a  
wrong choice.  You were the victim and the other person was at  
fault.  Same with the bicycle riders.

You have indicated that the specific stretch of road has a narrow  
shoulder because of other conditions.  Yes.  And the basic rule  
states that drivers are not to travel faster than conditions permit.   
If the road is narrow and there is a visible hazard, then the driver  
is required to reduce speed so as to mitigate the hazard.  Or if the  
driver is overtaking a slower vehicle, they shall reduce speed and  
pass when it is safe.  Does that mean that a car moving at 55+ mph on  
Hwy 47 is supposed to slow down when there are slow moving vehicles  
in the road ahead of them?  Like trailers?  Like police cars writing  
tickets?  Like parked fire trucks?  Like bicycles? Like children?  Yes!

So what if they don't?

      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]

181.085
       (9) “Recklessly,” when used with respect to a result or to a  
circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a  
person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and  
unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the  
circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that  
disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of  
care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.