jamie
While I agree with the general idea that the cyclist was correct in this case and that Ray Thomas makes a decent argument, I think his idea that 425 doesn't apply is wrong for 2 reasons. That said, I do like his logic that if it were to apply it would be chaos, but based on the Law it gives police way too much latitude to just do what they feel, vs what is the law.
Anyone have a reason why 430 would not trump Ray's idea of how to apply 425?
What about https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/814.430
specifically ... (2) (c)
When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or other conditions that make continued operation along the right curb or edge unsafe or to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side. Nothing in this paragraph excuses the operator of a bicycle from the requirements under ORS 811.425 (Failure of slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle) or from the penalties for failure to comply with those requirements.
also https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/814.400
states:
(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.
----- Original Message -----
From: Brooke Hoyer
To: rickcjohnson1@gmail.com ; pmalach@cyclingaction.com
Cc: OBRA list
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Fwd: Rock Creek Driver (oh, it gets better)
Just to refresh everyone's memory, here is the full debunking of OR 811.425 as it applies (or rather, doesn't apply) to cyclists.
http://www.stc-law.com/slowmoving.html
> Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:40:06 -0700
> From: RickCJohnson1@gmail.com
> To: pmalach@cyclingaction.com
> CC: obra@list.obra.org
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Fwd: Rock Creek Driver (oh, it gets better)
>
> Indeed he leaves out a couple key details.
> One, the section applies to "highways".
> Two, it applies when "an area sufficient for safe turnout" is available.
>
> Rick Johnson
> Bend, Oregon
>
> Every revolutionary idea seems to evoke three stages of reaction...
> One, it's completely impossible.
> Two, it's possible, but it's not worth doing.
> Three, I said it was a good idea all along.
>
> Arthur C. Clarke
>
>
> On 8/16/2011 4:29 PM, Pat Malach wrote:
> > Check out this little diddy in the "letters" section of the April Skyline Ridge Runner, from one Scott Wheeler of Rock Creek Road.
> >
> > "When traveling safely a bicycle must pull off the roadway when being overtaken by a vehicle in that same lane if it is traveling slower than the speed limit for that section of road (OR 811.425). A situation where the bicyclist does not pull off the roadway and yield the right of way causes an extremely dangerous situation for both the bicyclist and motorist alike. Voluntary compliance with OR 811.425 by the bicycling community would greatly reduce the chances of road rage, potential injury, and would make our roadways safer in general. --Scott Wheeler, Rock Creek Road
> >
> > I believe Ray Thomas has quite thoroughly debunked Wheeler's interpretation of Oregon State law.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org