The laws in the Oregon Vehicle Code governing overtaking and passing other vehicles must be confusing because many people -- drivers and cyclists alike -- appear to lack a basic understanding of the law. A Marion County public official recently expressed the view that he did not want to see bicyclists on some local roads because, "You get pretty close to them with your vehicle." This county official apparently was unaware of the alternative of slowing his vehicle down and following the cyclists until he could safely pass.
His apparent confusion is shared by an astonishing number of people. It is not unusual to hear a comment from a driver expressing concern for cyclist safety after the driver had "squeezed their vehicle between a cyclist and oncoming traffic." Every cyclist can recount numerous situations in which a motor vehicle passed them at an uncomfortably close distance. Clearly, some of these situations involve out-of-control drivers who are trying to intimidate and harass cyclists. However, many of the situations involve well-meaning, generally conscientious drivers who apparently have a blind spot with respect to their responsibilities when operating a motor vehicle around bicyclists.
ORS 811.410 governs the responsibility of a driver who is overtaking and passing another vehicle. The law requires the overtaking driver to leave a safe distance between their vehicle and the vehicle they are overtaking. The statute also specifies that the overtaking driver must not return to the right side of the road until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle. Most experts agree that three feet is the minimum safe distance for motor vehicles passing bicyclists and several states have established three feet as the minimum distance for passing bicyclists.
While Oregon does not have a statutorily defined safe distance that covers all situations, ORS 811.065 does define "safe distance" as it applies if the motor vehicle is traveling faster than 35 mph on a road that does not have a bike lane. In these situations, the motorist is required to leave space between their vehicle and the bicyclist that is sufficient to avoid contact with the bicyclist if the bicyclist were to fall into the driver's lane of travel. That "fall over" distance is likely four to five feet. There are no qualifiers in the law indicating that motorists only need to operate their vehicles safely when convenient.
Perhaps all drivers should be required to take a test along the following lines:
1. You round a corner and see a farm tractor ahead traveling in your lane. What should you do?
a. Maintain your speed and crash into the back of the tractor.
b. Maintain your speed and swerve over into the oncoming lane of traffic.
c. Lay on your horn so that the operator of the tractor will drive it into the ditch.
d. Slow down and follow the tractor until you can safely pass.
2. You round a corner and see a car stopped with it's left turn signal flashing. What should you do?
a. Maintain your speed and crash into the back of the car.
b. Maintain your speed and try to pass the car on the left before the oncoming vehicle on which the turning car is waiting gets there.
c. Maintain your speed and pass the turning car on the right by driving into the ditch.
d. Slow down or stop as necessary to allow the left turning car to clear your lane of travel.
3. You round a corner and see a pedestrian crossing the road in an unmarked crosswalk. What should you do?
a. Maintain your speed and crash into the pedestrian.
b. Maintain your speed and swerve in front of the pedestrian.
c. Maintain your speed and hope there is room for you to pass behind the pedestrian.
d. Slow down and yield to the pedestrian.
4. You round a corner and see a bicyclist traveling in the same travel lane and direction as you are driving. What should you do?
a. Maintain your speed and crash into the bicyclist.
b. Maintain your speed and pass the bicyclist without crossing the center line.
c. Lay on your horn so the bicyclist will ride off the road and out of your way.
d. Slow down and follow the bicyclist until you can safely pass.
Obviously, the answer to each of these questions is "d".
The burden for using public roads and streets safely and courteously does not rest solely with the overtaking driver. As the operators of slow moving vehicles, bicyclists also have statutory responsibilities to share the road by taking reasonable actions to avoid unduly inhibiting other traffic. I will address these responsibilities in a subsequent post.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Monday, December 5, 2011
Salem Draft Bike/Ped Plan II
The Salem Planning Commission is continuing discussion of the draft Bike and Walk Plan update. The commission will hold a work session on the draft plan on Tuesday, December 6 and another hearing on January 3. Comments on the draft plan will be accepted until 5:00 pm on January 3. Comments can be submitted by email or by completing the city's on-line form. An email link and a link to the survey are at the Bike/Ped Plan Project Site.
The current draft plan proposes modest increases in the commuting mode share for bicycles and identifies an enormous number of needed bicycle facilities throughout the city. However, the plan lacks focus and there are no assurances that the projects identified will achieve even the modest commuting increases proposed. History suggests that funding for the vast majority of these projects will never materialize leaving cyclists with much the same fragmented system that we currently have.
The most concentrated bicycle traffic in Salem is found adjacent to the downtown area. Yet many riders are intimidated on the downtown streets and banned from riding on the sidewalks. Family friendly bikeways on which motorists and bicyclists could comfortably share the road would provide facilities that cyclists of all capabilities could use. A network of family friend streets downtown would set the city on a path to meeting one of the most requested needs--a system of connected facilities accessible to all cyclists.
Focusing early implementation efforts on downtown projects would demonstrate a commitment by the city to begin development of a transportation system that is truly multi-modal, would provide a base from which the city could build outward in becoming more bicycle friendly, and would help to ensure that the city will meet the bicycle commuting goals in the plan.
The city should focus its initial efforts at implementation of the bike/ped plan downtown by using current design standards to make the following streets family friendly bikeways:
The development of these streets as family friendly bikeways does not represent a radical departure from the draft plan as the streets are already identified in the draft as bike routes and would complement efforts to make the downtown area safer and more attractive for pedestrians. By their very nature, family friendly bikeways provide an environment in which motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds are controlled and in which walking is a comfortable and pleasant experience. These bikeways would connect with the transit system making it easier for workers in the city's employment hub to combine their use of the bus and their bikes when commuting.
Painting sharrows on Chemeketa St represented a modest step forward in providing for safe use of downtown streets by bicyclists, the city can and needs to do more. We need not look to Portland for examples of projects that improve the walkability and bikeability of our streets. With relatively minor measures, Fargo, North Dakota dramatically improved Broadway in its downtown area to make it safer, more attractive place for people. If Fargo can do it, Salem can do it.
There have been some concerns expresses about the total cost of the bicycle projects that are identified in the plan as needed. While the idea of interjecting fiscal rationality into the City of Salem's transportation planning efforts is commendable, the length of the list of needed bike/ped improvements should not be constrained by funding issues any more than the list of street projects in the existing TSP is so constrained. The draft plan identifies about $250 million in bicycle-related projects, the vast majority of which are Tier 3 projects -- lower priority projects to be implemented at some point in the future if funding is available. By comparison, the adopted street improvement plan includes almost $880 million in needed projects despite the fact that the reasonably foreseeable funding is sufficient to construct only about 1/3 of these projects. Additionally, the city has recently spent $400,000 studying and has allocated more than $3.5 million for right-of-way purchase for a bridge project that would cost upwards of $750 million with no idea as to where the money will come from. If the Planning Commission constrains the identification of needed street, bicycle, and pedestrian projects based on funding expectations, then it should do so comprehensively and apply those same constraints to the list of street projects in the TSP.
One policy in the draft plan seems particularly contrary to the overall objective of improving the safety of bicycling in the city. Policy 3.1 identifies increased education and enforcement as necessary, but in doing so, singles out bicyclists as the targets of the education and enforcement. There is no question that increased compliance is needed by bicyclists and that education and enforcement are important tools for gaining that compliance. However, according to the Salem Police Department, motor vehicle operators were at fault in the majority of serious crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists in the city during 2010. The language in the plan is bad enough, but city staff are proposing to exacerbate this "blame the victim" approach with additional language that further reinforces the fallacy that the key to improving safety is through bicyclists' compliance with traffic laws while ignoring the unsafe, illegal behavior of some motorists.
Finally, the term "accident" should be eliminated from the plan and replaced by "crash" or "collision." The term "accident" infers no responsibility by the individuals involved. Most transportation professionals have discontinued the use of "accident" in recognition that crashes can be prevented by skilled, perceptive, careful vehicle operators. The city's public works staff should join the ranks of those other transportation professionals.
The current draft plan proposes modest increases in the commuting mode share for bicycles and identifies an enormous number of needed bicycle facilities throughout the city. However, the plan lacks focus and there are no assurances that the projects identified will achieve even the modest commuting increases proposed. History suggests that funding for the vast majority of these projects will never materialize leaving cyclists with much the same fragmented system that we currently have.
The most concentrated bicycle traffic in Salem is found adjacent to the downtown area. Yet many riders are intimidated on the downtown streets and banned from riding on the sidewalks. Family friendly bikeways on which motorists and bicyclists could comfortably share the road would provide facilities that cyclists of all capabilities could use. A network of family friend streets downtown would set the city on a path to meeting one of the most requested needs--a system of connected facilities accessible to all cyclists.
Focusing early implementation efforts on downtown projects would demonstrate a commitment by the city to begin development of a transportation system that is truly multi-modal, would provide a base from which the city could build outward in becoming more bicycle friendly, and would help to ensure that the city will meet the bicycle commuting goals in the plan.
The city should focus its initial efforts at implementation of the bike/ped plan downtown by using current design standards to make the following streets family friendly bikeways:
- Church St from Mission St to Union St - this street is designated in the draft plan as a Tier 1 project for installation of bike lanes. Traffic volumes on Church St are low and it could be developed as a family friendly bikeway without materially affecting motor vehicle traffic. Church St would provide a critical north-south connection between Bush Park and Union St
- Union St from Front St to Summer St - this street is so designated in the draft plan
- Chemeketa St from Front St to 12th St - this street is identified in the draft plan as an existing bike facility, but additional improvements are needed to make it family friendly. This is the only one of these three projects not currently on the Tier 1 project list.
The development of these streets as family friendly bikeways does not represent a radical departure from the draft plan as the streets are already identified in the draft as bike routes and would complement efforts to make the downtown area safer and more attractive for pedestrians. By their very nature, family friendly bikeways provide an environment in which motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds are controlled and in which walking is a comfortable and pleasant experience. These bikeways would connect with the transit system making it easier for workers in the city's employment hub to combine their use of the bus and their bikes when commuting.
Painting sharrows on Chemeketa St represented a modest step forward in providing for safe use of downtown streets by bicyclists, the city can and needs to do more. We need not look to Portland for examples of projects that improve the walkability and bikeability of our streets. With relatively minor measures, Fargo, North Dakota dramatically improved Broadway in its downtown area to make it safer, more attractive place for people. If Fargo can do it, Salem can do it.
There have been some concerns expresses about the total cost of the bicycle projects that are identified in the plan as needed. While the idea of interjecting fiscal rationality into the City of Salem's transportation planning efforts is commendable, the length of the list of needed bike/ped improvements should not be constrained by funding issues any more than the list of street projects in the existing TSP is so constrained. The draft plan identifies about $250 million in bicycle-related projects, the vast majority of which are Tier 3 projects -- lower priority projects to be implemented at some point in the future if funding is available. By comparison, the adopted street improvement plan includes almost $880 million in needed projects despite the fact that the reasonably foreseeable funding is sufficient to construct only about 1/3 of these projects. Additionally, the city has recently spent $400,000 studying and has allocated more than $3.5 million for right-of-way purchase for a bridge project that would cost upwards of $750 million with no idea as to where the money will come from. If the Planning Commission constrains the identification of needed street, bicycle, and pedestrian projects based on funding expectations, then it should do so comprehensively and apply those same constraints to the list of street projects in the TSP.
One policy in the draft plan seems particularly contrary to the overall objective of improving the safety of bicycling in the city. Policy 3.1 identifies increased education and enforcement as necessary, but in doing so, singles out bicyclists as the targets of the education and enforcement. There is no question that increased compliance is needed by bicyclists and that education and enforcement are important tools for gaining that compliance. However, according to the Salem Police Department, motor vehicle operators were at fault in the majority of serious crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists in the city during 2010. The language in the plan is bad enough, but city staff are proposing to exacerbate this "blame the victim" approach with additional language that further reinforces the fallacy that the key to improving safety is through bicyclists' compliance with traffic laws while ignoring the unsafe, illegal behavior of some motorists.
Finally, the term "accident" should be eliminated from the plan and replaced by "crash" or "collision." The term "accident" infers no responsibility by the individuals involved. Most transportation professionals have discontinued the use of "accident" in recognition that crashes can be prevented by skilled, perceptive, careful vehicle operators. The city's public works staff should join the ranks of those other transportation professionals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)