Alan Pruder

Send Klipper over to talk to the guy.
Just a thought.

On Aug 19, 2011, at 1:19 PM, "eric939@redshift.com" wrote:

>
> Question: Has anybody tried a simple evasive maneuver such as a quick
> U-turn to get behind him?
>
> == Eric
>
>
>> Looking at the 'plain english' oregon driver's manual
>> http://www.odot.state.or.us/forms/dmv/37.pdf
>> it states:
>> "The same rules for passing other vehicles apply to bicycles. Be aware
>> that
>> you must follow the rules of the road in no passing zones as noted on Page
>> 44. If you can not pass safely, you must slow down and remain behind the
>> bicycle until it is safe to pass."
>>
>> So it appears as though DOT interpretation is that a vehicle can't cross a
>> double line to pass a cyclist. But obviously that is beside the point.
>> The next paragraph states "don't honk at cyclists." Also that
>> tailgating
>> is against the law... I would think that harassing and threatening with
>> your
>> vehicle is pretty much illegal as well.
>>
>> It is also does *not* state that bicycles are slow moving vehicles and
>> that
>> a "Bicyclists must ride in the direction of traffic and as near to the
>> right
>> side of the road or street as is practical. "
>> So it does not say that bicyclist need to pull of the road to let others
>> pass. (it does have special section for slow moving vehicles, they have
>> to
>> display that little triangle sign. )
>>
>> It does have a section on: "*Slow Drivers. *When you drive slower than
>> the
>> normal speed of traffic, you must use the right lane or drive as closely
>> as
>> possible to the right curb or edge of the road, unless you are getting
>> ready
>> to make a left turn. Watch for congestion behind you if you drive slower
>> than the designated speed. Pull off the road at the first area safe to
>> turn
>> out and let the traffic behind you pass. The overtaking driver must obey
>> the
>> speed law."
>> But it obviously is not refering to operators of bicycles
>>
>> Maybe the guy is DUI? That's mabye a first question i would ask him if
>> confronted. And maybe take him up on calling 911 to report a probable
>> drunk
>> driver..
>>
>> In my opinion his behavior is what I would call anti-freedom (freedom of
>> movement is about as basic as it gets), and anti-humanity (being able to
>> transport yourself by your own human power is,imo, a basic human right).
>>
>> Well, Karma will get him. He is pretty lucky so far. I know if my wife
>> happened to ride out there and get harassed/run of the road/ etc, I
>> couldn't
>> help but be quite upset... and obviously i am not alone in that boat. How
>> people react to being or having loved ones, harrassed and/or put in
>> possible
>> life-threatening situations is unpredictable and imo the guy is playing
>> with
>> fire.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

eric939@redshift.com

Question: Has anybody tried a simple evasive maneuver such as a quick
U-turn to get behind him?

== Eric

> Looking at the 'plain english' oregon driver's manual
> http://www.odot.state.or.us/forms/dmv/37.pdf
> it states:
> "The same rules for passing other vehicles apply to bicycles. Be aware
> that
> you must follow the rules of the road in no passing zones as noted on Page
> 44. If you can not pass safely, you must slow down and remain behind the
> bicycle until it is safe to pass."
>
> So it appears as though DOT interpretation is that a vehicle can't cross a
> double line to pass a cyclist. But obviously that is beside the point.
> The next paragraph states "don't honk at cyclists." Also that
> tailgating
> is against the law... I would think that harassing and threatening with
> your
> vehicle is pretty much illegal as well.
>
> It is also does *not* state that bicycles are slow moving vehicles and
> that
> a "Bicyclists must ride in the direction of traffic and as near to the
> right
> side of the road or street as is practical. "
> So it does not say that bicyclist need to pull of the road to let others
> pass. (it does have special section for slow moving vehicles, they have
> to
> display that little triangle sign. )
>
> It does have a section on: "*Slow Drivers. *When you drive slower than
> the
> normal speed of traffic, you must use the right lane or drive as closely
> as
> possible to the right curb or edge of the road, unless you are getting
> ready
> to make a left turn. Watch for congestion behind you if you drive slower
> than the designated speed. Pull off the road at the first area safe to
> turn
> out and let the traffic behind you pass. The overtaking driver must obey
> the
> speed law."
> But it obviously is not refering to operators of bicycles
>
> Maybe the guy is DUI? That's mabye a first question i would ask him if
> confronted. And maybe take him up on calling 911 to report a probable
> drunk
> driver..
>
> In my opinion his behavior is what I would call anti-freedom (freedom of
> movement is about as basic as it gets), and anti-humanity (being able to
> transport yourself by your own human power is,imo, a basic human right).
>
> Well, Karma will get him. He is pretty lucky so far. I know if my wife
> happened to ride out there and get harassed/run of the road/ etc, I
> couldn't
> help but be quite upset... and obviously i am not alone in that boat. How
> people react to being or having loved ones, harrassed and/or put in
> possible
> life-threatening situations is unpredictable and imo the guy is playing
> with
> fire.
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>

Brandon

If a law enforcement officer is being threatened by a vehicle do they not have a reason to respond with deadly force? The reason why I bring this point up is if a driver (of a car, truck or motorcycle) uses their larger vehicle as a means to a harm a cyclist, smaller vehicle, or pedestrian, then it should be at a minimum attempted vehicular homicide! He better be careful because if he does this action to the wrong person the reaction could result in the brandish of a firearm, which IMO is an appropriate and legal response. (I am by no means a lawyer) I cannot believe this shmucks rage could not be hushed with a simple action or approach by a LEO.

BM

On Aug 19, 2011, at 10:36 AM, john wrote:

> Looking at the 'plain english' oregon driver's manual
> http://www.odot.state.or.us/forms/dmv/37.pdf
> it states:
> "The same rules for passing other vehicles apply to bicycles. Be aware that you must follow the rules of the road in no passing zones as noted on Page 44. If you can not pass safely, you must slow down and remain behind the bicycle until it is safe to pass."
>
> So it appears as though DOT interpretation is that a vehicle can't cross a double line to pass a cyclist. But obviously that is beside the point. The next paragraph states "don't honk at cyclists." Also that tailgating is against the law... I would think that harassing and threatening with your vehicle is pretty much illegal as well.
>
> It is also does not state that bicycles are slow moving vehicles and that a "Bicyclists must ride in the direction of traffic and as near to the right side of the road or street as is practical. "
> So it does not say that bicyclist need to pull of the road to let others pass. (it does have special section for slow moving vehicles, they have to display that little triangle sign. )
>
> It does have a section on: "Slow Drivers. When you drive slower than the normal speed of traffic, you must use the right lane or drive as closely as possible to the right curb or edge of the road, unless you are getting ready to make a left turn. Watch for congestion behind you if you drive slower than the designated speed. Pull off the road at the first area safe to turn out and let the traffic behind you pass. The overtaking driver must obey the speed law."
> But it obviously is not refering to operators of bicycles
>
> Maybe the guy is DUI? That's mabye a first question i would ask him if confronted. And maybe take him up on calling 911 to report a probable drunk driver..
>
> In my opinion his behavior is what I would call anti-freedom (freedom of movement is about as basic as it gets), and anti-humanity (being able to transport yourself by your own human power is,imo, a basic human right).
>
> Well, Karma will get him. He is pretty lucky so far. I know if my wife happened to ride out there and get harassed/run of the road/ etc, I couldn't help but be quite upset... and obviously i am not alone in that boat. How people react to being or having loved ones, harrassed and/or put in possible life-threatening situations is unpredictable and imo the guy is playing with fire.
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

john

Looking at the 'plain english' oregon driver's manual
http://www.odot.state.or.us/forms/dmv/37.pdf
it states:
"The same rules for passing other vehicles apply to bicycles. Be aware that
you must follow the rules of the road in no passing zones as noted on Page
44. If you can not pass safely, you must slow down and remain behind the
bicycle until it is safe to pass."

So it appears as though DOT interpretation is that a vehicle can't cross a
double line to pass a cyclist. But obviously that is beside the point.
The next paragraph states "don't honk at cyclists." Also that tailgating
is against the law... I would think that harassing and threatening with your
vehicle is pretty much illegal as well.

It is also does *not* state that bicycles are slow moving vehicles and that
a "Bicyclists must ride in the direction of traffic and as near to the right
side of the road or street as is practical. "
So it does not say that bicyclist need to pull of the road to let others
pass. (it does have special section for slow moving vehicles, they have to
display that little triangle sign. )

It does have a section on: "*Slow Drivers. *When you drive slower than the
normal speed of traffic, you must use the right lane or drive as closely as
possible to the right curb or edge of the road, unless you are getting ready
to make a left turn. Watch for congestion behind you if you drive slower
than the designated speed. Pull off the road at the first area safe to turn
out and let the traffic behind you pass. The overtaking driver must obey the
speed law."
But it obviously is not refering to operators of bicycles

Maybe the guy is DUI? That's mabye a first question i would ask him if
confronted. And maybe take him up on calling 911 to report a probable drunk
driver..

In my opinion his behavior is what I would call anti-freedom (freedom of
movement is about as basic as it gets), and anti-humanity (being able to
transport yourself by your own human power is,imo, a basic human right).

Well, Karma will get him. He is pretty lucky so far. I know if my wife
happened to ride out there and get harassed/run of the road/ etc, I couldn't
help but be quite upset... and obviously i am not alone in that boat. How
people react to being or having loved ones, harrassed and/or put in possible
life-threatening situations is unpredictable and imo the guy is playing with
fire.

Kevin

So sorry to hear about Mr Wheeler's filing of a bar complaint and subsequent appeal.  You have done so much for the biking community and I, among many, appreciate your work on our behalf.  Mr Wheeler's actions IMHO border on harassment.

Best of luck to you Ray Thomas,

Kevin

 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What is happening in Kevin's corner of the bike world?
http://the-whir-of-spokes-in-air.blogspot.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

>________________________________
>From: Ray Thomas
>To: Ultrafreaks Website
>Cc: ""
>Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 1:49 PM
>Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Yet another Rock Creek Driver thought/question
>
>
>Scott Wheeler filed a bar complaint against me with the Oregon State Bar for my article interpreting  the law. His complaint was denied. He appealed. It is pending. If His behavior on the road is endangering riders our community needs to use lawful means to obtain law enforcement assistance before he hurts someone or gets pulled through his drivers door window by his ear. See "Dangerous Neighborhood Cranks and what to do About Them" and my articles about the infamous "red pickup guy" from Salem. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Aug 17, 2011, at 6:58 PM, "Ultrafreaks Website" wrote:
>
>
>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
>
>
>

Ray Thomas

Scott Wheeler filed a bar complaint against me with the Oregon State Bar for my article interpreting the law. His complaint was denied. He appealed. It is pending. If His behavior on the road is endangering riders our community needs to use lawful means to obtain law enforcement assistance before he hurts someone or gets pulled through his drivers door window by his ear. See "Dangerous Neighborhood Cranks and what to do About Them" and my articles about the infamous "red pickup guy" from Salem.

On Aug 17, 2011, at 6:58 PM, "Ultrafreaks Website" wrote:

> 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