Discussion:
Stop and stay stopped or face big fine come 1-1-04
(too old to reply)
David Zeit
2003-10-24 06:44:35 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes

http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=69431




News Thursday, October 23, 2003

E-mail this story Print this story Submit a letter to the editor

Stepping into trouble on Salem’s streets


LORI CAIN / Statesman Journal

Vehicles pass through the intersection of Chemeketa and High streets NE
as pedestrians walk across the street.

Pedestrians increasingly are being hit by vehicles.

JODY LAWRENCE-TURNER
Statesman Journal
October 19, 2003

Salem resident Beth Gregg learned the hard way about the importance of
yielding to pedestrians.

She hit a neighbor in a downtown crosswalk who also happens to be the
city’s police chief.

Gregg received a citation for $273, but perhaps more importantly, she
learned a lifelong lesson — slow down.

Walt Myers, Salem police chief, was understanding about the incident.

“What happened to me and that lady driver could happen to anybody,” he
said. “But as we get more and more crowded on the roadways, and our
schedules get busier and busier, it’s easy to forget the importance of a
human life, and in the twinkling of an eye one can be lost.”

Pedestrian-versus-vehicle incidents have increased since 1999 despite
educational efforts and police stings at crosswalks.

In 2002, four pedestrians were killed on Salem streets and police issued
176 citations citywide to drivers for failure to yield to pedestrians.

That is up from 41 citations in 2001.

Police Lt. Dan Cary attributed the increase in citations to more bike
patrols in the downtown area.

Scott Kofoid of the Salem Police Department said that increased traffic
congestion is the leading cause of pedestrian-vehicle accidents.

Of the 226 crashes reported this year through Sept. 30, 52 involved
pedestrians. One pedestrian was killed.

The most common traffic offense committed in the downtown area probably
is people running red lights, Cary said, but that also puts pedestrians
at risk.

Salem police said the top 10 intersections for crashes in the city are
in some of the most congested areas of town, many of them near malls.

“People are paying attention to the light,” Kofoid said, “not the people
in the crosswalk.”

No. 7 on the list — Commercial and Marion streets NE — is downtown near
Salem Center Mall and Rite Aid.

Myers was crossing at the northeast corner of Trade and High streets SE
after the “walk” sign lit up.

Another car narrowly missed him before Gregg hit him. He suffered only
bumps and bruises and still was recovering last week.

Aside from congestion, distractions in vehicles are another factor that
police think causes the accidents.

“There are too many distractions in vehicles, like cell phones and
radios,” Kofoid said. “They have everything but a kitchen sink in cars
these days.”

Downtown employee Bob Shike said he has been more careful crossing the
street since a co-worker was hit.

“People won’t even stop for you even when you are halfway through the
crosswalk,” said Shike, who has worked downtown for 18 years. “I stepped
off a curb once and a car zoomed right in front of me.”

Tiffany Myers, a downtown employee for three years, said she keeps an
eye on the Cherriots buses because they can’t always see people crossing
the street.

“But I’m pretty aggressive,” she said. “I stare right at the drivers
when they are trying to turn while I am crossing the street.”

The fine for failing to yield to pedestrians increased from $175 to to
$237 on Sept. 1.

If a driver hits a pedestrian, the fine is $273. If the violation
happens in a school zone when the warning lights are on, the fine goes
up to $349, a fixed amount that can’t be reduced.

The number of pedestrian-versus-vehicle fatal accidents in Portland
during recent years also had state lawmakers taking a closer look at the
situation during the past Legislative session.

On Jan. 1, a new law known as “stop and stay stopped,” goes into effect.
If a driver crosses the white line of a crosswalk before the pedestrian
is out of it and on the opposite curb, it is considered an offense.

David House, a spokesman for the state Driver and Motor Vehicle
Services, said Oregon’s pedestrians are luckier than those in other
states.

“A lot of states don’t give the pedestrian the right-of-way like we do
in Oregon,” House said.

People taking the state driver’s license test need to know the law about
yielding to pedestrians, but there isn’t a question about it on every
exam. The questions that test takers answer are selected randomly.

Salem’s police chief said he thinks that the law is only part of what it
takes to keep pedestrians safe.

“It seems to me that one of the most of important things we can do as
human beings in our community, to increase our sense of community, is to
show great curtesy and respect to each other,” Myers said. “That means
by being very careful in the way we drive.”



Jody Lawrence-Turner can be reached at (503) 399-6721.

Subscribe now!




Yielding to pedestrians

According to the Oregon Driver’s Manual, drivers must yield to
pedestrians when:

A pedestrian is crossing with a green light or “walk” signal or when the
pedestrian has not cleared the crosswalk. You must yield to pedestrians
as soon as they step off the curb.

In a marked or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection with no
traffic-control devices when the pedestrian is on your half of the road
or so close to your half of the road that he or she is in a position of
danger.

Crossing a sidewalk, such as when entering or leaving an alley, driveway
or private road.

Making a left or right turn at any intersection, as soon as pedestrians
step off the curb.

At a school crossing where there is a traffic patrol. Stop and yield if
a traffic patrol member signals you to do so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"On Jan. 1, a new law known as “stop and stay stopped,” goes into
effect. If a driver crosses the white line of a crosswalk before the
pedestrian is out of it and on the opposite curb, it is considered an
offense."

SO............if you are headed east and want to turn right and a
pedestrian on the north side steps off the curb we will have to wait for
them to cross 2 lanes plus a center turn lane and 2 more traffic lanes
before we can turn right. OR........if we want to turn right and a
pedestrian steps off the curb in front of us we must wait until they
have crossed all 5 lanes and stepped on the curb before we can turn
right. Can you say............revenue enhancement?

Sure, we all want pedestrians to be safe. Even drivers become
pedestrians once we park. But isn't this going too far?
news
2003-10-24 07:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Streets are for cars. Pedestrians are the ones in the way. If a bug is
flying into my windshield and I hit it, is it my fault?

:)
Post by David Zeit
x-no-archive: yes
http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=69431
News Thursday, October 23, 2003
E-mail this story Print this story Submit a letter to the editor
Stepping into trouble on Salem's streets
LORI CAIN / Statesman Journal
Vehicles pass through the intersection of Chemeketa and High streets NE
as pedestrians walk across the street.
Pedestrians increasingly are being hit by vehicles.
JODY LAWRENCE-TURNER
Statesman Journal
October 19, 2003
Salem resident Beth Gregg learned the hard way about the importance of
yielding to pedestrians.
She hit a neighbor in a downtown crosswalk who also happens to be the
city's police chief.
Gregg received a citation for $273, but perhaps more importantly, she
learned a lifelong lesson - slow down.
Walt Myers, Salem police chief, was understanding about the incident.
"What happened to me and that lady driver could happen to anybody," he
said. "But as we get more and more crowded on the roadways, and our
schedules get busier and busier, it's easy to forget the importance of a
human life, and in the twinkling of an eye one can be lost."
Pedestrian-versus-vehicle incidents have increased since 1999 despite
educational efforts and police stings at crosswalks.
In 2002, four pedestrians were killed on Salem streets and police issued
176 citations citywide to drivers for failure to yield to pedestrians.
That is up from 41 citations in 2001.
Police Lt. Dan Cary attributed the increase in citations to more bike
patrols in the downtown area.
Scott Kofoid of the Salem Police Department said that increased traffic
congestion is the leading cause of pedestrian-vehicle accidents.
Of the 226 crashes reported this year through Sept. 30, 52 involved
pedestrians. One pedestrian was killed.
The most common traffic offense committed in the downtown area probably
is people running red lights, Cary said, but that also puts pedestrians
at risk.
Salem police said the top 10 intersections for crashes in the city are
in some of the most congested areas of town, many of them near malls.
"People are paying attention to the light," Kofoid said, "not the people
in the crosswalk."
No. 7 on the list - Commercial and Marion streets NE - is downtown near
Salem Center Mall and Rite Aid.
Myers was crossing at the northeast corner of Trade and High streets SE
after the "walk" sign lit up.
Another car narrowly missed him before Gregg hit him. He suffered only
bumps and bruises and still was recovering last week.
Aside from congestion, distractions in vehicles are another factor that
police think causes the accidents.
"There are too many distractions in vehicles, like cell phones and
radios," Kofoid said. "They have everything but a kitchen sink in cars
these days."
Downtown employee Bob Shike said he has been more careful crossing the
street since a co-worker was hit.
"People won't even stop for you even when you are halfway through the
crosswalk," said Shike, who has worked downtown for 18 years. "I stepped
off a curb once and a car zoomed right in front of me."
Tiffany Myers, a downtown employee for three years, said she keeps an
eye on the Cherriots buses because they can't always see people crossing
the street.
"But I'm pretty aggressive," she said. "I stare right at the drivers
when they are trying to turn while I am crossing the street."
The fine for failing to yield to pedestrians increased from $175 to to
$237 on Sept. 1.
If a driver hits a pedestrian, the fine is $273. If the violation
happens in a school zone when the warning lights are on, the fine goes
up to $349, a fixed amount that can't be reduced.
The number of pedestrian-versus-vehicle fatal accidents in Portland
during recent years also had state lawmakers taking a closer look at the
situation during the past Legislative session.
On Jan. 1, a new law known as "stop and stay stopped," goes into effect.
If a driver crosses the white line of a crosswalk before the pedestrian
is out of it and on the opposite curb, it is considered an offense.
David House, a spokesman for the state Driver and Motor Vehicle
Services, said Oregon's pedestrians are luckier than those in other
states.
"A lot of states don't give the pedestrian the right-of-way like we do
in Oregon," House said.
People taking the state driver's license test need to know the law about
yielding to pedestrians, but there isn't a question about it on every
exam. The questions that test takers answer are selected randomly.
Salem's police chief said he thinks that the law is only part of what it
takes to keep pedestrians safe.
"It seems to me that one of the most of important things we can do as
human beings in our community, to increase our sense of community, is to
show great curtesy and respect to each other," Myers said. "That means
by being very careful in the way we drive."
Jody Lawrence-Turner can be reached at (503) 399-6721.
Subscribe now!
Yielding to pedestrians
According to the Oregon Driver's Manual, drivers must yield to
A pedestrian is crossing with a green light or "walk" signal or when the
pedestrian has not cleared the crosswalk. You must yield to pedestrians
as soon as they step off the curb.
In a marked or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection with no
traffic-control devices when the pedestrian is on your half of the road
or so close to your half of the road that he or she is in a position of
danger.
Crossing a sidewalk, such as when entering or leaving an alley, driveway
or private road.
Making a left or right turn at any intersection, as soon as pedestrians
step off the curb.
At a school crossing where there is a traffic patrol. Stop and yield if
a traffic patrol member signals you to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
Post by David Zeit
"On Jan. 1, a new law known as "stop and stay stopped," goes into
effect. If a driver crosses the white line of a crosswalk before the
pedestrian is out of it and on the opposite curb, it is considered an
offense."
SO............if you are headed east and want to turn right and a
pedestrian on the north side steps off the curb we will have to wait for
them to cross 2 lanes plus a center turn lane and 2 more traffic lanes
before we can turn right. OR........if we want to turn right and a
pedestrian steps off the curb in front of us we must wait until they
have crossed all 5 lanes and stepped on the curb before we can turn
right. Can you say............revenue enhancement?
Sure, we all want pedestrians to be safe. Even drivers become
pedestrians once we park. But isn't this going too far?
Paul Johnson
2003-10-24 23:43:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by news
Streets are for cars. Pedestrians are the ones in the way. If a bug is
flying into my windshield and I hit it, is it my fault?
Maybe in California. Look at state law, pedestrians have right of way.

Also, quote conversationally, it's easier to read and maintain
context. http://learn.to/quote/
--
.''`. Paul Johnson <***@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
news
2003-10-25 01:26:36 UTC
Permalink
Was it that hard to follow my post? It used to be considered a waste of
bandwidth to continually include a previous postings text. Also I hate
scrolling through pages to see one persons blurb at the end.

Yes the law states pedestrians have the right of way, but that doesn't mean
it's right. Since when is every law just?
In my neighborhood, and most I've seen around here, kids think the streets
are their own personal playgrounds and treat it as if they were in their
front yard and you the driver are in their way. There's no reason for that.
Streets are for cars mainly, that's why there are sidewalks and parks.
There are two parks one block away, but no kids prefer the street.

Cars are more predicatable in their movements, and it's far easier for a
pedestrian to see a car coming than for a driver to figure out which way or
when a pedestrian is going to get in the way.

If an adult walks in front of a car and is struck, the he should bear some
blame.

Rewrite the laws.

Troy
Paul Johnson
2003-10-25 02:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by news
Was it that hard to follow my post? It used to be considered a waste of
bandwidth to continually include a previous postings text. Also I hate
scrolling through pages to see one persons blurb at the end.
Go learn to quote. TRIM your posts and intersperse your response.
You shouldn't have to scroll more than a screen to see a response. If
you top post, people still have to scroll past the end to make sure
nothing's new. You're allowed (and encouraged) to edit for context.
Post by news
Yes the law states pedestrians have the right of way, but that doesn't mean
it's right. Since when is every law just?
Actually, it does. Ever try to cross a busy street?
Post by news
In my neighborhood, and most I've seen around here, kids think the streets
are their own personal playgrounds and treat it as if they were in their
front yard and you the driver are in their way.
That's essentially the case. Licensed drivers are privledged to thier
use of the road. Pedestrians and cyclists have a right to it. If you
don't like it, surrender your license, you shouldn't be driving to
begin with. Neighborhoods aren't your personal freeway.

- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <***@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
s***@agora.rdrop.com
2003-10-25 21:37:23 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by news
In my neighborhood, and most I've seen around here, kids think the streets
are their own personal playgrounds and treat it as if they were in their
front yard and you the driver are in their way.
That's essentially the case. Licensed drivers are privledged to thier
use of the road. Pedestrians and cyclists have a right to it. If you
don't like it, surrender your license, you shouldn't be driving to
begin with. Neighborhoods aren't your personal freeway.
Gee Paul, I guess from the height of that high horse your riding, you didn't
notice he was complaining about kids playing in the street. I noticed you
didn't address this illegal activity. It's illegal for kids to play in the streets
or didn't you know that?

And what's this crap about driver being "privileged" to use the street,
and pedestrians and cyclists have a "right," not privilege to use it?



--

-TTFN

-Steven
Paul Johnson
2003-10-26 00:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@agora.rdrop.com
And what's this crap about driver being "privileged" to use the street,
and pedestrians and cyclists have a "right," not privilege to use it?
You forgot you had to get a revocable driver's license to drive, eh?

- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <***@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
Bill Shatzer
2003-10-26 06:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@agora.rdrop.com
Gee Paul, I guess from the height of that high horse your riding, you didn't
notice he was complaining about kids playing in the street. I noticed you
didn't address this illegal activity. It's illegal for kids to play in the streets
or didn't you know that?
Perhaps you'd like to cite the statute which makes "playing in the
streets" illegal?

SFAIK, there is no such statutory provision.
Post by s***@agora.rdrop.com
And what's this crap about driver being "privileged" to use the street,
and pedestrians and cyclists have a "right," not privilege to use it?
Neither pedestrians nor bicyclists need be licensed. They are not
required to maintain insurance. Their "right" to use the streets
cannot be revoked or even limited.

Motorists, OTOH, may not use the streets and roads unless both they
and their vehicles are properly licensed. They must maintain
appropriate insurance. And, motorists may have their priveleges to
use the streets and roads [as motorists] revoked under appropriate
circumstances.

Sounds pretty much like pedestrians have a "right" and motorists
have a "privelege".


Peace and justice,
Hank Oredson
2003-10-27 02:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by s***@agora.rdrop.com
Gee Paul, I guess from the height of that high horse your riding, you didn't
notice he was complaining about kids playing in the street. I noticed you
didn't address this illegal activity. It's illegal for kids to play in the streets
or didn't you know that?
Perhaps you'd like to cite the statute which makes "playing in the
streets" illegal?
It is variously called "blocking traffic", "impeding a public right of way"
and various other things, depending on jurisdiction. Perhaps I would
let you do your own homework and discover the other issues involved.
--
... Hank

Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net
W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net
Bill Shatzer
2003-10-27 05:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Oredson
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by s***@agora.rdrop.com
Gee Paul, I guess from the height of that high horse your riding, you didn't
notice he was complaining about kids playing in the street. I noticed you
didn't address this illegal activity. It's illegal for kids to play in the streets
or didn't you know that?
Perhaps you'd like to cite the statute which makes "playing in the
streets" illegal?
It is variously called "blocking traffic",
Nope, no such offense in this state.
Post by Hank Oredson
"impeding a public right of way"
Nope again. Keep trying though.
Post by Hank Oredson
and various other things, depending on jurisdiction.
Not in this jurisdiction. Now children playing in the street
-may- have an obligation to yield the right of way to vehicles
but playing in the street is not, per se, illegal.
Post by Hank Oredson
Perhaps I would
let you do your own homework and discover the other issues involved.
Perhaps that's jest another way of saying you've no freakin' idea
and are trying to cover with vague blusters? Not even a very good try.

The statute concerning pedestrians in the right-of-way are covered in ORS
chapter 814. It is available on line and I invite you to peruse it at yer
leisure - you might even learn something.

And, yes, children playing in the right-of-way ARE pedestrians - see
ORS 801.385. Unless, of course, they're riding tricycles.

Peace and justice,
Paul Johnson
2003-10-27 15:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by Hank Oredson
It is variously called "blocking traffic",
Nope, no such offense in this state.
Actually, there is. But it only applies if there's more than five
vehicles blocked.

- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <***@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
Bill Shatzer
2003-10-27 19:10:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by Hank Oredson
It is variously called "blocking traffic",
Nope, no such offense in this state.
Actually, there is. But it only applies if there's more than five
vehicles blocked.
A ORS citation would be nice - I'm unaware of any such provision.

There is an offense of "impeding traffic" (ORS 811.150) but it
applies only to folks operating motor vehicles, not to pedestrians.

Peace and justice
Hank Oredson
2003-10-27 16:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by Hank Oredson
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by s***@agora.rdrop.com
Gee Paul, I guess from the height of that high horse your riding, you didn't
notice he was complaining about kids playing in the street. I noticed you
didn't address this illegal activity. It's illegal for kids to play in
the
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by Hank Oredson
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by s***@agora.rdrop.com
streets
or didn't you know that?
Perhaps you'd like to cite the statute which makes "playing in the
streets" illegal?
It is variously called "blocking traffic",
Nope, no such offense in this state.
Post by Hank Oredson
"impeding a public right of way"
Nope again. Keep trying though.
You didn't read what I wrote.
But thanks for playing anyway.
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by Hank Oredson
and various other things, depending on jurisdiction.
Not in this jurisdiction. Now children playing in the street
-may- have an obligation to yield the right of way to vehicles
but playing in the street is not, per se, illegal.
Sure. Who cares? That's just legalistic nonesense babble.
The "children" in question were not playing, they were intentionally
blocking traffic and harassing drivers. Different issue. Try and stay on track.
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by Hank Oredson
Perhaps I would
let you do your own homework and discover the other issues involved.
Perhaps that's jest another way of saying you've no freakin' idea
and are trying to cover with vague blusters? Not even a very good try.
It's another way of saying that your bombastic legalistic babble
has little if anything to do with the issue. It's a diversion or if you
prefer digression or perhaps an obfuscation. Stay on topic.
Post by Bill Shatzer
The statute concerning pedestrians in the right-of-way are covered in ORS
chapter 814. It is available on line and I invite you to peruse it at yer
leisure - you might even learn something.
The issue was not about "pedestrians".
Oh well.
Post by Bill Shatzer
And, yes, children playing in the right-of-way ARE pedestrians - see
ORS 801.385. Unless, of course, they're riding tricycles.
Sure. Who cares?
Legalistic nonesense babble does not address the issue.
--
... Hank

Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net
W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net
sinistersteve
2003-10-27 13:37:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@agora.rdrop.com
And what's this crap about driver being "privileged" to use the street,
and pedestrians and cyclists have a "right," not privilege to use it?
Well hell, if they have a "right" to it, then they have an obligation to
start forking over money to maintain those roads. I think a bike-tax and a
walking-tax is in order here.
Paul Johnson
2003-10-27 15:55:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by sinistersteve
Well hell, if they have a "right" to it, then they have an obligation to
start forking over money to maintain those roads. I think a bike-tax and a
walking-tax is in order here.
Most pedestrians and cyclists don't weigh 3000 pounds and cut grooves
into the sidewalk with steel cleats in the winter.

- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <***@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
Bob Tiernan
2003-10-27 18:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by sinistersteve
Well hell, if they have a "right" to it, then they have
an obligation to start forking over money to maintain
those roads. I think a bike-tax and a walking-tax is in
order here.
Most pedestrians and cyclists don't weigh 3000 pounds
and cut grooves into the sidewalk with steel cleats in
the winter.
Bicycles are supposed to be using the bike lanes,
not the sidewalks.

Bob T
Bill Shatzer
2003-10-27 19:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Tiernan
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by sinistersteve
Well hell, if they have a "right" to it, then they have
an obligation to start forking over money to maintain
those roads. I think a bike-tax and a walking-tax is in
order here.
Most pedestrians and cyclists don't weigh 3000 pounds
and cut grooves into the sidewalk with steel cleats in
the winter.
Bicycles are supposed to be using the bike lanes,
not the sidewalks.
Only if bicycle lanes are present. Iffen they are, bicyclists
are to ride in the available lane. Iffen there is not a bicycle
lane, bicyclists may use the sidewalk - subject to a requirement
to yield to pedestrians.

Most streets and roads don't, of course, have bicycle lanes. In
those locations, use of the sidewalk by bicyclists is perfectly legal.

Peace and justice,
Darrell Fuhriman
2003-10-27 19:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
lane, bicyclists may use the sidewalk - subject to a requirement
to yield to pedestrians.
It's a bit more complicated than that. They, functionally, are
not allowed to behave in ways that one would not expect a
pedestrian to. i.e. crossing driveways at higher than pedestrian
speeds. That means you are extremely unlikely to be able to go
at any speed higher than pedestrian speeds anywhere in the city.

Of course, automobiles have an obligation to treat bicyclists
mostly like any other automobile when they aren't riding in a
bicycle lane. The primary exception being that they are allowed
to pass a bicyclist on the left, iff they can do so without
illegally crossing the center line.

Bicyclists are not afforded the same consideration re: passing on
the right, however.
Post by Bill Shatzer
those locations, use of the sidewalk by bicyclists is perfectly legal.
Except within downtown Portland, of course.

Darrell
Bill Shatzer
2003-10-27 22:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darrell Fuhriman
Post by Bill Shatzer
lane, bicyclists may use the sidewalk - subject to a requirement
to yield to pedestrians.
It's a bit more complicated than that. They, functionally, are
not allowed to behave in ways that one would not expect a
pedestrian to. i.e. crossing driveways at higher than pedestrian
speeds. That means you are extremely unlikely to be able to go
at any speed higher than pedestrian speeds anywhere in the city.
The "speed limit" for bicycles crossing driveways, etc., does not
apply "when motor vehicles are not present". (814.410(1)(d)(B)

As a practical matter, this doesn't place much of a restriction
on bicyclists except in situations where it would be prudent to
slow down in any event.

-snips-
Post by Darrell Fuhriman
Post by Bill Shatzer
those locations, use of the sidewalk by bicyclists is perfectly legal.
Except within downtown Portland, of course.
And excepting the South Park Blocks from that exception, of course.

Peace and justice,
Paul Johnson
2003-10-28 05:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darrell Fuhriman
Of course, automobiles have an obligation to treat bicyclists
mostly like any other automobile when they aren't riding in a
bicycle lane.
If bicycles are operating as a vehicle (as opposed to as a
pedestrian), motorists treat cyclists as any other vehicle on the
road, regardless of lane.
Post by Darrell Fuhriman
The primary exception being that they are allowed
to pass a bicyclist on the left, iff they can do so without
illegally crossing the center line.
Only when there is room enough in the same lane to do so safely.
Normally, this is not the case.

- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <***@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
Old Mossyfarts
2003-10-28 06:37:56 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:58:47 GMT, Darrell Fuhriman
Post by Darrell Fuhriman
Of course, automobiles have an obligation to treat bicyclists
mostly like any other automobile when they aren't riding in a
bicycle lane.
If bicycles are operating as a vehicle (as opposed to as a
pedestrian), motorists treat cyclists as any other vehicle on the
road, regardless of lane.
Post by Darrell Fuhriman
The primary exception being that they are allowed
to pass a bicyclist on the left, iff they can do so without
illegally crossing the center line.
Only when there is room enough in the same lane to do so safely.
Normally, this is not the case.
Safely? So someone wants to talk about safety who wants people to burn to
death and lose all their property merely because they live in California?

So where do you stand on safety, Paul, when it comes to people dying
agonizing deaths in their cars or having their entire adult lives burn to
the ground? Do you approve because they live in California? Is it okay
because you don't like the state they are from? Should people get run over
in your world because they are not Oregonians?

Maybe if you had moved to Canada earlier you would be gloating over how
people in the U.S. died horribly during 9-11? You certainly don't like
Americans. You're even posting from a Canadian domain. What prompted this
hatred for your own countrymen? Is a Californian banging your ex-girlfriend?
Did she start dating a lesbian and move to Los Angeles? Just what sort of
inadequacy on your part would prompt you to hate people so much that you
would want them to burn to death?

I'm sorry that you are such a stupid kid. I really am. You don't like people
with educations. You don't like Californians. You don't like Americans. Just
what kind of world do you want to inherit? One run by idiot kids like
yourself with no clue regarding the real world willing to let people die and
gloat about it openly because they live somewhere unacceptable or don't
think the way they do?

You should treat your brain like a jewel, not a speed bump. Please do
yourself a favor and pick your brain up, dust it off, and take it to
Cah-nah-dah with you.

You little fuckstick.
Paul Johnson
2003-10-28 05:43:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
Only if bicycle lanes are present. Iffen they are, bicyclists
are to ride in the available lane. Iffen there is not a bicycle
lane, bicyclists may use the sidewalk - subject to a requirement
to yield to pedestrians.
And bicycles are restricted to 5MPH on the sidewalks (walking speed).
Joggers would be moving faster than bicycles.
Post by Bill Shatzer
Most streets and roads don't, of course, have bicycle lanes. In
those locations, use of the sidewalk by bicyclists is perfectly legal.
Bicycles are prohibited entirely on downtown sidewalks, except police.

- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <***@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
Paul Johnson
2003-10-28 05:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Tiernan
Bicycles are supposed to be using the bike lanes,
not the sidewalks.
Well, whichever lane is appropriate for what they're doing. Most of
the time, this is the center of the rightmost lane, or paved shoulder
if there's no bicycle lane and a shoulder available. In downtown and
slow moving traffic, bicycles can use any lane as long as they keep up
with traffic. Bicycles must use the leftmost lane to turn left and
may not pass on the right unless they have a shoulder or open lane
there.

- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <***@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
Fishface
2003-10-24 19:36:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Zeit
http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=69431
Sheesh. I've been on both sides. Well, I guess they don't
want it to appear that they have done nothing.

In Rhode Island, when some children were run over by the
bus that dropped them off, in separate incidents within a short
time period, the solution was to hire someone to ride on the
bus whose job was to prevent this from ever happening again.
Every time the bus stops, this person gets out, looks in front
of the bus, walks to the rear and looks *in back* of the rear
tires. If you think being stuck behind a bus is bad here, give
that a try.

Yesterday, I was turning right on Scholls Ferry Rd. from
North Dakota. A hoarde of wise-ass middle school kids
thought it would be funny to take their time crossing the road.
When the light changed, they were still in the crosswalk, smirks
on their faces. I waited an entire light and was not able to turn.
Needless to say, I wasn't pleased.

The best solution to the problem of pedestrians being struck
may be a blinking yellow light instead of green when the walk
signal has been activated. That way, motorists would be
reminded to look. Now, to protect those bicyclists...
Paul Johnson
2003-10-24 23:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fishface
In Rhode Island, when some children were run over by the
bus that dropped them off, in separate incidents within a short
time period, the solution was to hire someone to ride on the
bus whose job was to prevent this from ever happening again.
Every time the bus stops, this person gets out, looks in front
of the bus, walks to the rear and looks *in back* of the rear
tires. If you think being stuck behind a bus is bad here, give
that a try.
In Oregon, school busses tend to be either cab-over-engine deals, if
not (thus having a hood), they have several mirrors on either side
allowing the driver to see what is normally a blind spot immediately
in front of the bus.

But why were those Rhode Island students not informed that if you
cannot see the driver, the driver cannot see you?
Post by Fishface
Yesterday, I was turning right on Scholls Ferry Rd. from
North Dakota. A hoarde of wise-ass middle school kids
thought it would be funny to take their time crossing the road.
When the light changed, they were still in the crosswalk, smirks
on their faces. I waited an entire light and was not able to turn.
Needless to say, I wasn't pleased.
That's what a horn is for.
Post by Fishface
The best solution to the problem of pedestrians being struck
may be a blinking yellow light instead of green when the walk
signal has been activated. That way, motorists would be
reminded to look.
In Canada, they use a flashing green light to warn motorists about
pedestrian hazards. I've long maintained that the US should adopt the
flashing green light.

- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <***@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
gatt
2003-10-25 00:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by Fishface
Yesterday, I was turning right on Scholls Ferry Rd. from
North Dakota. A hoarde of wise-ass middle school kids
thought it would be funny to take their time crossing the road.
When the light changed, they were still in the crosswalk, smirks
on their faces. I waited an entire light and was not able to turn.
Needless to say, I wasn't pleased.
I had a similar experience on Alberta last week. Homie decided to stand in
the middle of the lane and wait for the light to change except he was
looking at me to make sure I wasn't going to hit him, walked to far and
almost got clobbered by the guy coming from the other direction.

Folks in the office here today were ranting about shitty drivers in
Beaverton and I pointed out that out in Gresham, we don't have those kinds
of problems. People are polite, courteous, deferential and, for the most
part, sane. I think it has something to do with Harding...

...I mean, ever since Tonya got out and whacked that dumb bitch's car with a
baseball bat for driving stupid out in east Portland, and what with the
occasional spree of shootings, it's amazing how much respect and courtesy
people extend each other.
Post by Paul Johnson
In Canada, they use a flashing green light to warn motorists about
pedestrian hazards.
Near as I can tell from driving in Vancouver BC, Canadian drivers are better
than Oregonian drivers. Cars
and trucks turning and weaving everywhere, people rushing into traffic,
bikes flying past in the mix, hookers and drunks on the corner and pimps
saying "Eh?", stuff all busted up from hockey riots and not a single damned
car accident that I saw ever. I felt downright inadequate at times.

-c
Paul Johnson
2003-10-25 02:06:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by gatt
Post by Fishface
Yesterday, I was turning right on Scholls Ferry Rd. from
North Dakota. A hoarde of wise-ass middle school kids
thought it would be funny to take their time crossing the road.
When the light changed, they were still in the crosswalk, smirks
on their faces. I waited an entire light and was not able to turn.
Needless to say, I wasn't pleased.
No, Gatt, I did not write this. 8:o) http://learn.to/quote
Post by gatt
Folks in the office here today were ranting about shitty drivers in
Beaverton and I pointed out that out in Gresham, we don't have those kinds
of problems. People are polite, courteous, deferential and, for the most
part, sane. I think it has something to do with Harding...
I noticed that when I was bumming it a couple months ago in Wood
Village. With a few morons, the vast majority drives almost like
they're Canadian. A refreshing change.
Post by gatt
Near as I can tell from driving in Vancouver BC, Canadian drivers are better
than Oregonian drivers.
I think it has to do with the increased distance and an international
boundary between them and California.
Post by gatt
Cars and trucks turning and weaving everywhere, people rushing into
traffic, bikes flying past in the mix, hookers and drunks on the
corner and pimps saying "Eh?", stuff all busted up from hockey riots
and not a single damned car accident that I saw ever. I felt
downright inadequate at times.
Well, Canadians (Quebec excepted) understand three basic things that
some people just don't understand here:

1. Turn signals. If one comes on ahead of you, drop back and let
whoever's ahead in or out, not run down people trying to exit the
road or prevent people from merging.

2. Watch what's going on around you.

3. Obey the traffic law. They're there to get you there, faster.

- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <***@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
osote
2003-10-31 10:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by gatt
Post by Paul Johnson
Post by Fishface
Yesterday, I was turning right on Scholls Ferry Rd. from
North Dakota. A hoarde of wise-ass middle school kids
thought it would be funny to take their time crossing the road.
When the light changed, they were still in the crosswalk, smirks
on their faces. I waited an entire light and was not able to turn.
Needless to say, I wasn't pleased.
I had a similar experience on Alberta last week. Homie decided to stand in
the middle of the lane and wait for the light to change except he was
looking at me to make sure I wasn't going to hit him, walked to far and
almost got clobbered by the guy coming from the other direction.
Folks in the office here today were ranting about shitty drivers in
Beaverton and I pointed out that out in Gresham, we don't have those kinds
of problems. People are polite, courteous, deferential and, for the most
part, sane. I think it has something to do with Harding...
...I mean, ever since Tonya got out and whacked that dumb bitch's car with a
baseball bat for driving stupid out in east Portland, and what with the
occasional spree of shootings, it's amazing how much respect and courtesy
people extend each other.
Post by Paul Johnson
In Canada, they use a flashing green light to warn motorists about
pedestrian hazards.
Near as I can tell from driving in Vancouver BC, Canadian drivers are better
than Oregonian drivers. Cars
and trucks turning and weaving everywhere, people rushing into traffic,
bikes flying past in the mix, hookers and drunks on the corner and pimps
saying "Eh?", stuff all busted up from hockey riots and not a single damned
car accident that I saw ever. I felt downright inadequate at times.
-c
ha ha ha. exactly. Seeing you on here reminds me, Floater concert
Halloween night at 9pm at The Ohm... $10 each at ticketswest.com Did you
know Johnny Lang was here tonight? Dammit, dammit, dammit. I never find out
these things until afterward. And BB King is playing The Roseland November
23! I'm going to that one.

Check out floatermusic.com because they are doing a documentary and you
should definitely be in it. They are looking for fans with memorabilia in
their homes to be interviewed onsite. I can only imagine the stories you
have to tell in that special Gatt way, LOL.

OHM

31 NW 1st
Portland, OR 97209
PHONE: (503) 224-3147

osote
jbohren
2003-11-01 04:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by gatt
Folks in the office here today were ranting about shitty drivers in
Beaverton and I pointed out that out in Gresham, we don't have those kinds
of problems. People are polite, courteous, deferential and, for the most
part, sane. I think it has something to do with Harding...
...I mean, ever since Tonya got out and whacked that dumb bitch's car with a
baseball bat for driving stupid out in east Portland, and what with the
occasional spree of shootings, it's amazing how much respect and courtesy
people extend each other.
It doesn't matter where you live or drive in Oregon. The same crummy
drivers are everywhere.

The weirdest thing was driving from Cornelius to Hwy 26 the other day
and encountering a roundabout... How many accidents have happened
before and after construction at that intersection?
Don Homuth
2003-11-01 15:06:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by jbohren
It doesn't matter where you live or drive in Oregon. The same crummy
drivers are everywhere.
Everywhere, as in Places Other Than Oregon as well.
b***@despammed.com
2003-11-01 11:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Homuth
Post by jbohren
It doesn't matter where you live or drive in Oregon. The same crummy
drivers are everywhere.
Everywhere, as in Places Other Than Oregon as well.
Try driving in Bolivia sometime.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
Lobby Dosser
2003-11-01 20:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@despammed.com
Post by Don Homuth
Post by jbohren
It doesn't matter where you live or drive in Oregon. The same crummy
drivers are everywhere.
Everywhere, as in Places Other Than Oregon as well.
Try driving in Bolivia sometime.
Or New Jersey.
Paul Johnson
2003-11-02 08:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by jbohren
The weirdest thing was driving from Cornelius to Hwy 26 the other day
and encountering a roundabout... How many accidents have happened
before and after construction at that intersection?
I like roundabouts, but only if they're large enough to not require
more than a Yield sign. They're pretty good at eliminating idiots.
Beaverton's got a lot of roundabouts, but driving roundabouts in
Beaverton is kinda scary because Beaverton drivers try to turn left
going clockwise instead of the standard counterclockwise. Thankfully,
the Beaverton Police know about this and tend to be fairly good about
citing roundabout violations.

- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <***@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
Lobby Dosser
2003-11-02 17:51:31 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by jbohren
The weirdest thing was driving from Cornelius to Hwy 26 the other day
and encountering a roundabout... How many accidents have happened
before and after construction at that intersection?
I like roundabouts, but only if they're large enough to not require
more than a Yield sign. They're pretty good at eliminating idiots.
Beaverton's got a lot of roundabouts, but driving roundabouts in
Beaverton is kinda scary because Beaverton drivers try to turn left
going clockwise instead of the standard counterclockwise. Thankfully,
the Beaverton Police know about this and tend to be fairly good about
citing roundabout violations.
Roundabouts in Beaverton? Where?
- --
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/pLqWUzgNqloQMwcRAgOhAJ4+P+jYcaIDbYL1XIq8dsjyxuNkMACgjiAE
F7+Og73jZt4eenEcePszO90=
=zQ4C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bob Tiernan
2003-10-25 07:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Johnson
In Canada, they use a flashing green light to warn
motorists about pedestrian hazards. I've long
maintained that the US should adopt the flashing
green light.
Won't work. Too many ignore the ambers
and the reds. And green will always
mean Go.

Bob t
Paul Johnson
2003-10-25 14:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Tiernan
Won't work. Too many ignore the ambers
and the reds. And green will always
mean Go.
Duh. Flashing green means Go and frequently replaces the pedestrian
signal as well (in which case it also means Walk for the peds). It
just warns motorists making a turn that there may be a pedestrian
crossing to the side. Flashing green lights turn solid green, then
yellow, then red when it's time for them to turn red.

- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <***@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
HankC
2003-10-25 07:00:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fishface
North Dakota. A hoarde of wise-ass middle school kids
thought it would be funny to take their time crossing the road.
When the light changed, they were still in the crosswalk, smirks
on their faces.
I've noticed this a *lot*, and not confined to any particular state or
region. Being a wise-ass, I guess, could be understandable but
standing in the middle of a street (I don't mean a crosswalk) with a
car bearing down on you reaches far into the realm of stupidity. My
only explanation of this is that this is the result of a generation
that hasn't been raised by their parents resulting in utter lack of
respect for everyone around them. This has pretty damn scary
ramifications for the future.
Paul Johnson
2003-10-25 14:23:03 UTC
Permalink
My only explanation of this is that this is the result of a
generation that hasn't been raised by their parents resulting in
utter lack of respect for everyone around them.
It doesn't help that the generation of which you speak has just as
little respect for their fellow man.

- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <***@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
Bob Tiernan
2003-10-25 07:30:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fishface
The best solution to the problem of pedestrians being struck
may be a blinking yellow light instead of green when the walk
signal has been activated. That way, motorists would be
reminded to look.
No, a better solution would be to paint
body silhouettes along the cross walks.
Post by Fishface
Now, to protect those bicyclists...
Body silhouettes with bycicle silhouettes.

The message is clear.


Bob Tiernan

Wherever there is a jackboot stepping on a human
face, there will be a well-heeled Western liberal
there to assure us that the face enjoys free health
care and a high degree of literacy.

--John Derbyshire
Paul Johnson
2003-10-25 14:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Tiernan
No, a better solution would be to paint
body silhouettes along the cross walks.
Body silhouettes with bycicle silhouettes.
The message is clear.
You're an asshole?

- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <***@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system
Lobby Dosser
2003-10-25 18:01:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Tiernan
Post by Fishface
The best solution to the problem of pedestrians being struck
may be a blinking yellow light instead of green when the walk
signal has been activated. That way, motorists would be
reminded to look.
No, a better solution would be to paint
body silhouettes along the cross walks.
But what do you do for the morons that insist on dragging their kids
across the street 30 feet from the damn crosswalk? I see this all the
time in Beavertoon.
Post by Bob Tiernan
Post by Fishface
Now, to protect those bicyclists...
Body silhouettes with bycicle silhouettes.
The message is clear.
Bob Tiernan
Wherever there is a jackboot stepping on a human
face, there will be a well-heeled Western liberal
there to assure us that the face enjoys free health
care and a high degree of literacy.
--John Derbyshire
osote
2003-10-25 06:25:21 UTC
Permalink
A very interesting article and topic. Thank you for posting this. It
reminds me to slow my butt down and knock off the "California Stops" where I
slow down and look both ways but keep rolling around the corner...

However, I too see this increase in fine as a source of revenue enhancement
and as very annoying to drivers who will have to wait an excessive amount of
time for pedestrians to hurry the hell up. This is also a way to encourage
people to walk instead of drive to lower the environmental burden of car
exhaust and the problem of traffic congestion and Oregon has historically
promoted the rights of pedestrians and cyclists but there is always conflict
with the mainstream, which are mostly drivers. Drivers tend to feel
superior to pedestrians and cyclists and are largely unaware of the impact
their vehicle's much larger size and power has on others on the road anyway.
Creating laws to address these issues is a delicate balance between the
rights and responsibilities of drivers versus those of others on the road
who are inherently more vulnerable as they are not behind the wheel, safely
inside a fast and powerful and heavy vehicle with the potential to harm and
kill others so unintentionally but yet so quickly.

osote
Post by David Zeit
x-no-archive: yes
http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=69431
News Thursday, October 23, 2003
E-mail this story Print this story Submit a letter to the editor
Stepping into trouble on Salem's streets
LORI CAIN / Statesman Journal
Vehicles pass through the intersection of Chemeketa and High streets NE
as pedestrians walk across the street.
Pedestrians increasingly are being hit by vehicles.
JODY LAWRENCE-TURNER
Statesman Journal
October 19, 2003
Salem resident Beth Gregg learned the hard way about the importance of
yielding to pedestrians.
She hit a neighbor in a downtown crosswalk who also happens to be the
city's police chief.
Gregg received a citation for $273, but perhaps more importantly, she
learned a lifelong lesson - slow down.
Walt Myers, Salem police chief, was understanding about the incident.
"What happened to me and that lady driver could happen to anybody," he
said. "But as we get more and more crowded on the roadways, and our
schedules get busier and busier, it's easy to forget the importance of a
human life, and in the twinkling of an eye one can be lost."
Pedestrian-versus-vehicle incidents have increased since 1999 despite
educational efforts and police stings at crosswalks.
In 2002, four pedestrians were killed on Salem streets and police issued
176 citations citywide to drivers for failure to yield to pedestrians.
That is up from 41 citations in 2001.
Police Lt. Dan Cary attributed the increase in citations to more bike
patrols in the downtown area.
Scott Kofoid of the Salem Police Department said that increased traffic
congestion is the leading cause of pedestrian-vehicle accidents.
Of the 226 crashes reported this year through Sept. 30, 52 involved
pedestrians. One pedestrian was killed.
The most common traffic offense committed in the downtown area probably
is people running red lights, Cary said, but that also puts pedestrians
at risk.
Salem police said the top 10 intersections for crashes in the city are
in some of the most congested areas of town, many of them near malls.
"People are paying attention to the light," Kofoid said, "not the people
in the crosswalk."
No. 7 on the list - Commercial and Marion streets NE - is downtown near
Salem Center Mall and Rite Aid.
Myers was crossing at the northeast corner of Trade and High streets SE
after the "walk" sign lit up.
Another car narrowly missed him before Gregg hit him. He suffered only
bumps and bruises and still was recovering last week.
Aside from congestion, distractions in vehicles are another factor that
police think causes the accidents.
"There are too many distractions in vehicles, like cell phones and
radios," Kofoid said. "They have everything but a kitchen sink in cars
these days."
Downtown employee Bob Shike said he has been more careful crossing the
street since a co-worker was hit.
"People won't even stop for you even when you are halfway through the
crosswalk," said Shike, who has worked downtown for 18 years. "I stepped
off a curb once and a car zoomed right in front of me."
Tiffany Myers, a downtown employee for three years, said she keeps an
eye on the Cherriots buses because they can't always see people crossing
the street.
"But I'm pretty aggressive," she said. "I stare right at the drivers
when they are trying to turn while I am crossing the street."
The fine for failing to yield to pedestrians increased from $175 to to
$237 on Sept. 1.
If a driver hits a pedestrian, the fine is $273. If the violation
happens in a school zone when the warning lights are on, the fine goes
up to $349, a fixed amount that can't be reduced.
The number of pedestrian-versus-vehicle fatal accidents in Portland
during recent years also had state lawmakers taking a closer look at the
situation during the past Legislative session.
On Jan. 1, a new law known as "stop and stay stopped," goes into effect.
If a driver crosses the white line of a crosswalk before the pedestrian
is out of it and on the opposite curb, it is considered an offense.
David House, a spokesman for the state Driver and Motor Vehicle
Services, said Oregon's pedestrians are luckier than those in other
states.
"A lot of states don't give the pedestrian the right-of-way like we do
in Oregon," House said.
People taking the state driver's license test need to know the law about
yielding to pedestrians, but there isn't a question about it on every
exam. The questions that test takers answer are selected randomly.
Salem's police chief said he thinks that the law is only part of what it
takes to keep pedestrians safe.
"It seems to me that one of the most of important things we can do as
human beings in our community, to increase our sense of community, is to
show great curtesy and respect to each other," Myers said. "That means
by being very careful in the way we drive."
Jody Lawrence-Turner can be reached at (503) 399-6721.
Subscribe now!
Yielding to pedestrians
According to the Oregon Driver's Manual, drivers must yield to
A pedestrian is crossing with a green light or "walk" signal or when the
pedestrian has not cleared the crosswalk. You must yield to pedestrians
as soon as they step off the curb.
In a marked or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection with no
traffic-control devices when the pedestrian is on your half of the road
or so close to your half of the road that he or she is in a position of
danger.
Crossing a sidewalk, such as when entering or leaving an alley, driveway
or private road.
Making a left or right turn at any intersection, as soon as pedestrians
step off the curb.
At a school crossing where there is a traffic patrol. Stop and yield if
a traffic patrol member signals you to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
Post by David Zeit
"On Jan. 1, a new law known as "stop and stay stopped," goes into
effect. If a driver crosses the white line of a crosswalk before the
pedestrian is out of it and on the opposite curb, it is considered an
offense."
SO............if you are headed east and want to turn right and a
pedestrian on the north side steps off the curb we will have to wait for
them to cross 2 lanes plus a center turn lane and 2 more traffic lanes
before we can turn right. OR........if we want to turn right and a
pedestrian steps off the curb in front of us we must wait until they
have crossed all 5 lanes and stepped on the curb before we can turn
right. Can you say............revenue enhancement?
Sure, we all want pedestrians to be safe. Even drivers become
pedestrians once we park. But isn't this going too far?
Lobby Dosser
2003-10-25 18:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by osote
A very interesting article and topic. Thank you for posting this. It
reminds me to slow my butt down and knock off the "California Stops"
where I slow down and look both ways but keep rolling around the
corner...
However, I too see this increase in fine as a source of revenue
enhancement and as very annoying to drivers who will have to wait an
Speaking of revenue enhancement. that was precisely the excuse used for the
recent doubling of traffic fines. I was pretty amazed that they'd come
right out and say it. Of course, they also paid lip service to traffic
safety.

snip
John Lienhart
2003-10-27 18:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by osote
A very interesting article and topic. Thank you for posting this. It
reminds me to slow my butt down and knock off the "California Stops" where I
slow down and look both ways but keep rolling around the corner...
However, I too see this increase in fine as a source of revenue enhancement
and as very annoying to drivers who will have to wait an excessive amount of
time for pedestrians to hurry the hell up. This is also a way to encourage
people to walk instead of drive to lower the environmental burden of car
exhaust and the problem of traffic congestion and Oregon has historically
promoted the rights of pedestrians and cyclists but there is always conflict
with the mainstream, which are mostly drivers. Drivers tend to feel
superior to pedestrians and cyclists and are largely unaware of the impact
their vehicle's much larger size and power has on others on the road anyway.
Creating laws to address these issues is a delicate balance between the
rights and responsibilities of drivers versus those of others on the road
who are inherently more vulnerable as they are not behind the wheel, safely
inside a fast and powerful and heavy vehicle with the potential to harm and
kill others so unintentionally but yet so quickly.
osote
I don't end up driving downtown a whole lot, especially during the day, but
I don't have to wait for pedestrians more often than once per week FTMP.
Not bad when you consider that I probably stop at 50 plus lights per week.
The number of times some jerk deliberately walk out into or stays in harm's
way is probably less than 10% of that time.

OTOH - There are few days that I drive that I don't see a driver doing
something squirrelly, putting himself and others in harm's way. This
morning it was a BMW making about 20 lane changes to get across the Glenn
Jackson Bridge. Last night it was somebody following another car on 205 by
less than 2 car lengths ..... or was it the three motorcyclists who burst
their speed up to 80 for 200 yards so that they could slam on their brakes
when they approached the cars going 55?
G***@noanswer.com
2003-10-25 13:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Zeit
http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=69431
News Thursday, October 23, 2003
Stepping into trouble on Salem’s streets
Salem resident Beth Gregg learned the hard way about the importance of
yielding to pedestrians.
She hit a neighbor in a downtown crosswalk who also happens to be the
city’s police chief.
Pedestrian-versus-vehicle incidents have increased since 1999 despite
educational efforts and police stings at crosswalks.
In Washington, they have a walkway for pedestrians which when you
hit the button, starts yellow flashing lights embedded in the street
to warn drivers to stop.

Have yet to see even a "Close call" at these places.
Loading...