Michael Benno
Jeff and OBRA
Our club has in the past been very interested in the Adapt a road program. We just haven't followed through yet. I bet the interest is still there. I sent a message to the team to find out. I am definitively interested.
I bet the Rapha folks would be fairly interested as well, since they host a ton of 'unsanctioned' events on those very roads.
I'd really hope someone representing OBRA will come forward to help organize this, however, I would be happy to go in it with you to make something happen.
Mike
(sorta representing) Veloce Racing
________________________________
From: "jeff.mitchem@gmail.com"
To: Michael Benno
Cc: "obra@list.obra.org"
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Cars and bike sharing rock creek and skyline area
Great ideas Mike! Whether or not OBRA takes the lead, I'm in! I'll dig up info on Adopt a Road and signage through Wa County. It'd be cool if we could get signage labeling a popular training route as such (as is done for classic routes in Europe and elsewhere in the US).
K, what think you?
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 18, 2011, at 8:08 AM, Michael Benno wrote:
Greetings OBRAland
>
>
>What are some things we as a cycling community can do to help build a better relationship with the drivers and residents of these roads? I would be interested in participating in some dialog to help improve the situation. What are your ideas?
>
>
>I was thinking we as OBRA could lobby the BTA to help put up Share the road signs or possibly even "sharrows" on some of the more well traveled roads in the area. Maybe we could get OBRA to donate some $$$ and/or have its member volunteer labor for the initiative.
>
>
>Another idea would be to have OBRA adopt stretches of these roads and help keep them clean. The posted signs would help show the residents that we care too.
>
>
>Maybe we could get some sort of sign made that shows that it is okay to cross the double line to pass bikes and other slow moving traffic.
>
>
>I think all of these ideas would help raise the visibility of cyclists on the road.
>
>
>Any other ideas? Is there anyone from the OBRA board or from the BTA that would care to comment?
>
>
>Mike Benno
>Veloce Racing
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Ultrafreaks Website
>To: obra@list.obra.org
>Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 6:58 PM
>Subject: [OBRA Chat] Yet another Rock Creek Driver thought/question
>
>
>
>It seems like this driver’s whole position is based on the
fact that he cannot pass due to a double-yellow centerline. ORS vehicle code has
an escape clause for this, so seems to me (Captain Hindsight) that this guy is
not impeded at all, as long as there is an opening to pass using part of the
oncoming lane. He’s creating a false dilemma so he can be angry.
>
>-j
>
>
>The provisions of this section do not apply
under any of the following circumstances:
> When an obstruction or condition exists
making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the roadway provided
that a driver doing so shall yield the right of way to all vehicles traveling
in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the roadway within a
distance that would constitute an immediate hazard
>https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/811.420
>
>
>From:obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf Of Brady
Brady
>Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 1:18 PM
>To: jamie; obra@list.obra.org
>Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Fwd: Rock Creek Driver (oh, it gets better)
>
>Because,
>Subsection 2 (c), along with the rest of subsection 2, is
"Subject to the provisions of subsection (1)", and subsections 1 and
1(a), taken together state that every person riding a bicycle is exempt from
"those provisions which by their very nature can have no
application".
>Ray's argument is that bicycles are ridden, not driven, and thus
those piloting them are riders, not drivers. Hence any statute referring to a
vehicle being driven, excepts bicycles and their riders via 1(a).
>
>His argument is lent some credence by the fact that 2(a) and 2(b)
state, (aside from the exceptions per 1(a)), that bicycles are vehicles for
purposes of the vehicle code and where "vehicle" is used it is
applicable to bicycles--while conspicuously absent are subsections (c) and (d)
of 2, which could just as easily exist and analogously state—had the
authors of the law intended this--that, aside from the exceptions
referenced by 1(a), riders are drivers for the purposes of the code and
where "driver" is used it is applicable to riders.
>
>But that doesn't mean you won't get screwed in court :-)
>
>
>
>
>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]
>Brady
>
>From: jamie
>Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 12:12:48 -0700
>To: "obra@list.obra.org"
>Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Fwd: Rock Creek Driver (oh, it gets better)
>
>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
>_______________________________________________ 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
>