Check Oregon state law for a VUL

Summary: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/hwy/bikeped/Pages/laws_regs.aspx

Full details: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/STATUTES%20PERTAINING%20TO%20PEDESTRIANS%20AND%20BICYCLES%202008.pdf (search for “vulnerable”)

-----------------

HB 3314---Careless Driving Penalties

HB 3314 enhances the penalties associated with careless driving when the person convicted of this offense also contributed to the serious physical injury or death of a “vulnerable user of the public way.”

Under the bill, a “vulnerable user” includes a pedestrian, a highway worker, a person riding an animal, the operator or user of a farm tractor, a skateboard, roller skates, in-line skates, a scooter, or a bicycle.  HB 3314 requires a court to sentence a person convicted of this offense to complete a traffic safety course, perform 100 to 200 hours of community service, pay a fine of up to $12,500, and suspension of driving privileges for one year. Payment of the fine and suspension of driving privileges may be waived by the court upon completion of the traffic safety course and community service.

This bill resulted in the creation of ORS 801.608 and modifications to ORS 811.135.  ORS 801.608 defines a “vulnerable user” and ORS 811.135 describes additional penalties for careless driving when vulnerable users are affected. 

-Christiaan

From: Emmett Pepper [mailto:epepper@vt.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 1:47 PM
To: Steve Fowler
Cc: Frank Gmeindl; Kasey Russell; Don Spencer; Gary Zuckett; Rahul Gupta; Strawn, Dennis A; Patrick Donovan; Abildso, Christiaan; bikeboard@bikemorgantown.com Board; Craig Slaughter; Greg Garrett; John Francis
Subject: Re: WVCC Legislative Committee Meeting

The Vulnerable User concept seems very attractive to me due to how common sense it is and how  it touches on a lot of different constituencies. Do we have draft language for a statute? Would it make sense to use this one from Austin as a starting point for discussion, or is there another one we like better?

http://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Public_Works/Vulnerable_Road_Users.pdf

You'll notice this sample incorporates 3 feet as part of an overall scheme, but it could also be easily adapted to include a lane change, when possible. It does not, so far as I can tell, have anything that requires cyclists to treat pedestrians with special care, though, which for some reason I was thinking it would do. It includes horses and buggies (along with motorcycles, etc.), so we could probably get the support of the powerful Amish lobby! This makes me wonder if ATVs should be included in the definition of "vulnerable user."

-Emmett

P.S. Thanks for being so welcoming and open to the new guy's suggestions and input. As a (nearly) daily bike commuter, I'm looking forward to being as involved as possible with this group.

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Steve Fowler <SMF@pffwv.com> wrote:

I would propose the following;

1.  Do we focus on the passage of the “three foot rule” or attempt to clean up all the problem statutes?

2. Current law for passing a bike requires an audible signal, and then passing and returning to the lane of travel only when “safe”.  Almost no one follows this law when passing a bicycle.  An easy to understand “three foot rule” would be much better.

Problem statutes/

a/ 17C-11-5(a)  “as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable”

       Fix – Colorado law “far enough to the right as judged safe by the bicyclist to facilitate the movement of overtaking vehicles”

b/  17C-11-5(c) Have to use a bike path

       Fix – repeal

c/ 17C-11-7(b) have to use a bell

       Fix – repeal.

From: Emmett Pepper [mailto:epepper@vt.edu]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 9:42 AM
To: Frank Gmeindl
Cc: Kasey Russell; Don Spencer; Gary Zuckett; Rahul Gupta; Strawn, Dennis A; Patrick Donovan; Christiaan Abildso; bikeboard@bikemorgantown.com Board; Steve Fowler; Craig Slaughter; Greg Garrett; John Francis
Subject: Re: WVCC Legislative Committee Meeting

Is there an agenda for this conference call/meeting?

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Frank Gmeindl <fgmeindl@gmail.com> wrote:

Kasey,

I would like to encourage WVCC to forget about a 3-foot passing rule and instead concentrate on repealing 17C-11-5 (a) which requires cyclists to ride as far to the right as practicable.

3-foot laws are not enforced and may not be enforceable.  3-feet is not enough when a 55 mph tractor trailer  passes a 10 mph cyclist.  (See attached Rutgers 3-foot final report.)

Riding far to the right leads to

* Motorists passing bicyclists too closely;

* Motorists intruding into the adjacent lane when there is on-coming traffic;

* Right-turning vehicles crashing into cyclists at intersections and driveways;

* On-coming left-turning vehicles crashing into cyclists;

* Overtaking vehicles crashing into left-turning cyclists;

* Cyclists crashing because of objects, debris; pedestrians; animals and surface hazards that are more prevalent at the right edge of the roadway.   

(See attached talking point paper.)

Bicyclists that control the lane are almost always passed by the overtaking motorist making a full lane change, giving between 6 to 8 feet of passing clearance.  If you have ridden this way, you know it is true.  Why ask/plead/beg for 3 feet when predominant behavior secures more than twice that much passing margin and better passing behavior (lane changes instead of straddle and in-lane passes)?  

Three foot passing laws are a bad reaction to the consequences of riding too far right.  If you want passing space, solve the problem by eliminating the FTR law instead of applying a patch or "fix" such as a three foot passing law that doesn't address or solve the root cause of close passing.

We should also continue to pursue repeal of 17C-11-5 (c) which requires cyclists to use a side-path when available and not the roadway.

Frank D. Gmeindl
LCI #1703
491 Wilson Avenue
Morgantown, WV 26501
304-376-0446
Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles

On Nov 14, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Kasey Russell wrote:

Thanks everyone for your responses. We will meet at Steve Fowler's office at 901 Quarrier Street, Charleston on Monday, Nov. 18th at 10 am.

Steve, looks like there will only be a few in person but we will need a conference phone as a few will call in.

For those calling in please use our usual number: 641-715-3620; code is 877115#.

Kasey

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Kasey Russell <russell.kasey@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello WVCC Members -- We would like to have a Legislative Committee meeting on Monday, Nov. 18th at 10:00 a.m. Would you all be able to attend either in person or via conference call? We will be meeting in Steve Fowler's office in downtown Charleston and will have access to a conference phone.

Please let me know. I would expect our meeting to last 1 12/ hours.

Thanks, kasey