I glazed & wadded ALL DAY long… and just finished loading the soda kiln… with about 15 minutes until Margie’s Ice Cream closes for the night. The timing seemed oddly perfect. Like I somehow just HAD TO go and “celebrate” finishing up the kiln. Karma, right? Just gearing up for a long soda firing!
Go ahead and ride that e-thang!
(Photos: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
Last summer we threw a bit of cold water on the very hot trend of electric-assisted bicycles when we reported on the little-known fact that e-bikes were prohibited on paths and trails managed by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD).
At the time, OPRD acknowledged that they never intended to exclude e-bike riders from popular paths like the Historic Columbia River Highway and Banks-Vernonia Trail. The situation, they felt, was a matter of the law not keeping up with the times. Oregon’s vehicle code recognizes e-bikes as bicycles; but OPRD facilities are managed with Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) which didn’t mention e-bikes at all. This meant they fell into the category of “motor vehicles” and were managed as such.
In response to public pressure to address the issue, OPRD began the process to amend their rules last September. Today we confirmed with agency staff that the State Parks Commission has approved a rule change that explicitly allows electric-assisted bicycles on all paths and trails eight-feet and wider unless otherwise posted.
The approval means that OAR 736-010-0015 now includes a statutory definition for “electric assisted bicycle” that is a carbon copy of Oregon Revised Statute 801.258.
More significant changes and amendments have been made to OAR 736-010-0026, the rule that governs the use of bicycles and other “similar devices” on OPRD facilities. The title of the rule has been changed from, “Non-Motorized Vehicles, Cycles or Similar Devices,” to “Operator-Propelled Vehicles, Cycles or Similar Devices.”
And the major addition is subsection (3):
A person may operate an electric assisted bicycle on roads and trails eight feet or wider unless otherwise posted to restrict or permit such activity.
The rule was written in a way that allows individual park managers to allow e-bikes on narrower trails if and when appropriate.
Advertisement
OPRD also proposed to amend the rules to that e-bikes could be used on the ocean shore in all places where standard, non-motorized bicycles are currently allowed. The commission did not approve that proposal and instead chose to allow e-bikes only on sections of the coast where people are currently allowed to drive cars and trucks.
Beach e-biking is limited to areas where it’s legal to drive cars.
201 commenters were generally opposed to a rule change. Of those75 specifically were opposed to increasing use of electric bicycles on the beach.
56 commenters identified as equestrians concerned about increased user conflict with additional bicycles on trails.
There were 127 comments in support of adding electric bicycles to trails and/or the ocean shore. Commenters often described how electric bicycle allow them to continue to enjoy riding bicycles after an injury or illness.
In general, those opposed to the rule change expressed concern over safety, user conflict and lack of enforcement. Those in support generally feel electric bicycles should be seen as any other bicycle and would like to see OPRD regulate behavior, not the type of bicycle a person chooses to ride.
Themes of the comments:
• Numerous equestrian riders expressed concern over safety on our trails. They described fear over the encounters with bicycles currently and did not want to see additional users on already
crowded trails. Specifically, the often cited fears of a quiet e-bike coming up behind them at a fast rate of speed and spooking their horse.• Many Oregonians were concerned with the peace and tranquility of the beach being disrupted by fast moving electric bicycles on the beach. They were concerned about the safety for kids and dogs if bicycles were riding fast. There were also a number of people concerned about the habitat impacts on the beach if more bicycles were riding faster and further. A number of people said they were comfortable with electric bicycles on motorized sections of the beach, but did not want
to see that expanded to all sections of the beach.• Many of the commenters in support of electric bicycles describe themselves as part of the baby boomer generation. They describe how as they have aged the move to an electric bicycle as allowed them to keep active. Some describe how the electric bicycle gives them the opportunity to keep up with younger family members or see new areas of the state.
• Commenters expressed concern over lack of enforcement. Commenters expressed concern over whether OPRD had the staffing to enforce types of equipment covered under the definition or limits on speed and other safety requirements included in the rules.
• We received many comments from the Hood River area where electric bicycle riders would like to ride along the Historic Columbia River Highway State Trail and enjoy the scenery.
• There were a number of comments expressing concern over whether a move toward acceptance of electric bicycles was a slippery slope toward allowing additional electric or gas powered devices on trails or the beach.
The rule is currently in effect and new signage is expected to start showing up in State Parks and other facilities by October.
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.
BikePortland needs your support.
The post State Parks Commission approves new rule allowing e-bikes on paths and trails appeared first on BikePortland.org.
Bike traffic on North Williams… coming soon to NE Cleveland.
(Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
The Portland Bureau of Transportation just announced a repaving project that will require bicycle users to detour off North Williams Avenue for two weeks beginning this Tuesday.
PBOT plans to grind down and then repave Williams as part of regularly scheduled maintenance on a one-mile stretch between Beech and Killingsworth. The project will require lane closures from September 4th through September 18th from 7:00 am to 4:00 pm and possibly on weekends. They also say bicycle users will have to detour around the work zone onto an adjacent street.
Here’s more from PBOT:
Streets with ground down surfaces are open for travel. Lane closures are only in effect during project hours. Access will be maintained for businesses and residents during the project. For the safety of people biking on this popular bike route, bicyclists will be detoured onto NE Cleveland between N Beech and N Killingsworth.
Advertisement
Cleveland is one block east of Williams. It’s not clear why PBOT suggests bicycle users detour while allowing auto users to continue on Williams. We’ve asked for clarification on that as well as whether or not bicycle riders and other vulnerable road users could share lanes on Williams with other road users. Also worth noting is that one block to the east of Cleveland is NE Rodney, which is the designated neighborhood greenway route.
Williams Avenue is the sixth busiest street for bicycle users in the city. PBOT counted 3,835 bicycle trips per day at Williams and Going in 2017.
We’ll update this story when we hear more from PBOT.
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.
BikePortland needs your support.
The post Paving project will lead to cycling detour for N Williams Ave appeared first on BikePortland.org.
When completed, the new SW Capitol Highway will have 27-feet of space for walking and rolling and 24-feet of space for driving.
(Concept drawing of intersection looking southbound.)
The Bureau of Transportation has issued a major update to the plans for a project that will add a protected lane for vulnerable road users on a one-mile section of SW Capitol Highway between Multnomah Village and Barbur Blvd.
A big change since the project was first announced two years ago is that the new 60% plans have removed the “green street” planter strips from the corridor. According to a statement from PBOT earlier this month, this decision, “allows for more separation between people walking and biking on the east (downhill) side of the roadway, and reduced grading impacts on the west side.”
Latest cross-section concept.
The current cross-section calls for a 12-foot wide multi-use path in the southbound (uphill) direction split between a four-foot lane for walking, a five-foot travel lane and a three furnishing zone. In the northbound direction there will be an 18-foot wide, grade-separated path split between a six-foot wide sidewalk, a three-foot planting zone, a six-foot lane for vehicles, and a three-foot furnishing zone. The center of the cross-section will feature two, 12-foot wide travel lanes.
Advertisement
Existing conditions are… no so good.
(Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
These new plans also give us our first detailed look at how the street will look from a cycling perspective. Northbound, the lane will be constructed out of a black material to help differentiate it from the adjacent sidewalk. At each intersection, PBOT will install green-colored crossbike markings. In the southbound lanes the path will have markings on the concrete to keep people aware of where they should walk and roll. Cycling speeds will be much slower southbound due to it being uphill.
While this progress is welcome news, the project continues to move slowly (two years of planning and we’re still just at 60% design?!). This is the highest priority transportation project for southwest neighborhood advocates and they’ve been pushing for it since 1996.
Despite the design taking longer than anticipated (the city should get some slack here, given that streets in southwest have extraordinary stormwater management issues), PBOT says construction is still on track to begin next year and be done by 2020.
Learn more about this project at the official website.
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.
BikePortland needs your support.
The post Bikeway design firms up for long-awaited SW Capitol Highway project appeared first on BikePortland.org.
Looking for a new place to spread you cycling wings? We’ve got four great job opportunities that just went up this week.
Learn more about each one via the links below…
–> Warehouse Team Member – Universal Cycles
–> Director of Equity, Engagement and People – Community Cycling Center
–> Social & PR Coordinator – Castelli
–> Bicycle Mechanic/Sales – Santiam Bicycle Inc.
Advertisement
For a complete list of available jobs, click here.
Be the first to know about new job opportunities by signing up for our daily Job Listings email or by following @BikePortland on Twitter.
These are paid listings. And they work! If you’d like to post a job on the Portland region’s “Best Local Blog” two years running, you can purchase a listing online for just $75. Learn more at our Job Listings page.
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
Never miss an opportunity. Sign up for our Job Listings email.
BikePortland needs your support.
The post Jobs of the Week: Universal Cycles, Community Cycling Center, Castelli, Santiam Bicycle appeared first on BikePortland.org.
The crash scene on the I-5 on-ramp.
(Photos: Portland Police Bureau)
A notorious stretch of North Greeley Avenue where it crosses over an on-ramp to Interstate 5 is the subject of a lawsuit filed yesterday by a Portland law firm.
The blue Surly ridden by plaintiff Robert Smith.
Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost lists three defendants — the City of Portland, the State of Oregon and the driver, Brandon Swiger — and asks for $1.36 million on behalf of their client, Robert Smith.
Smith sustained life-altering injuries as a result of being hit by Swiger while bicycling on Greeley on December 21st, 2017. Smith’s medical expenses to treat a traumatic brain injury, multiple bone fractures, collapsed lungs, and injuries to internal organs have totaled over $359,229.
The complaint (below) filed yesterday in Multnomah County makes claims of negligence against Swiger for his careless driving and against the city and state for their failure to manage and maintain the roadway.
p-Complaint- Robert Smith-CONFORMEDAccording to the police report, Swiger was driving southbound on Greeley on his way home from work at about 1:45 pm in his Honda Crossover (a mid-sized SUV) prior to the crash. There are two driving lanes at this location; the left lane curves eastward toward Interstate Avenue and the right lane goes onto the I-5 ramp. According to witnesses and Swiger’s own statement to the responding police officer, Swiger had moved into the left lane prior to the merge to pass another driver and then moved back into the right lane just before making impact with Smith’s body.
“In addition to this location being a known safety hazard, there was plenty of notice to the responsible authority that it should be fixed or somebody was going to get hurt, so was pretty frustrating when it actually happened.”
— Ray Thomas, attorney for Robert Smith
The police report states that Swiger estimated his speed to be around 55-60 mph. The posted speed limit is 45 mph.
One witness who saw the collision told police that Swiger and another driver both passed her, “As if we were standing still.” Another witness said Swiger had been “tailgating” her prior to changing lanes. As a result of his behavior, Swiger was issued a citation for Careless Driving with Serious Injury to a Vulnerable Road User (ORS 811.135(3)).
Swiger’s careless driving was amplified by an intersection with well-known design flaws that have been flagged as a hot-spot for collisions and close-calls for years.
Greeley is a busy, four-lane “freeway” (a term for the road used by a Portland Bureau of Transportation staff person in a meeting last year) where people using bicycles are required to merge from a relatively narrow curbside lane across a lane where people often drive 50-60 mph. The crossing is not signalized or marked except for a small caution sign off to the side of the road. In February 2016, in a report on a separate serious injury collision at this same location, I wrote that this is a completely unacceptable design for a bikeway.
The design is so dangerous, PBOT wants to shift the bikeway to the other side of the road.
Advertisement
In February of 2017, 10 months before Smith was hit, PBOT announced plans to build a physically protected, bi-directional multi-use path on the east side of Greeley. However, that project was delayed in July 2017 due to a contracting technicality and the timeline for completion was pushed back to this past spring. In June of this year PBOT announced another delay and the project is now expected to be built in spring 2019.
The lawsuit says PBOT and ODOT (the agencies have overlapping jurisdiction of the roads at this location) are negligent for six reasons:
a. Designing the intersection so as to require a cyclist in the southeast bound bike lane to cross a freeway entrance ramp where traffic routinely travels at 55-60 miles per hour;
b. Establishing a bike lane on N. Greeley Avenue southeast bound, knowing that bike lane would cross the freeway on-ramp;
c. Failing to provide a means of traveling on the southeast bound bike lane on N. Greeley Avenue without crossing the freeway on-ramp;
d. Failing to provide a bike lane on the northeast side of N. Greeley Avenue to accommodate both northwest and southeast-bound bicycle traffic;
e. Failing to warn approaching traffic of the bike lane crossing; and
f. Failing to close the bike lane until a safe design could be implemented
Smith’s attorneys are asking for $358,229 to pay his medical expenses and $1 million in non-economic damages.
In an interview yesterday, attorney Ray Thomas, a rider himself and well-known cycling advocate, said, “In addition to this location being a known safety hazard, there was plenty of notice to the responsible authority that it should be fixed or somebody was going to get hurt, so it was pretty frustrating when it actually happened.”
To win in court, Thomas and his partner on the lawsuit, Cynthia Newton, are likely to face an attempt by attorneys for the city and state to dismiss the case at the outset. They’re likely to argue their clients can’t be held liable by way of discretionary immunity, as outlined in ORS 30.265(6)(c). That statute says a public body is immune from liability for, “Any claim based upon the performance of or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused.”
According to the Oregon Supreme Court (John v. City of Gresham, 2007) discretionary immunity applies to policy decisions, “that involve a balancing of competing policy considerations in determining the public interest.”
Put another way, government agencies make decisions about how to allocate funds and design and maintain their roads, and the law protects them from being sued for making bad decisions. But their are exceptions. Among the reasons a judge might conclude that immunity does not apply are: if a public body decides on a course of action then fails to follow it; if their actions were based merely on fact (like whether or not a design conforms to national standards) and not a conscious judgment of policy; if they fail to respond to changing conditions; or if they fail to follow an established maintenance program.
Recent cases where PBOT and ODOT have been sued for negligence did not go to trial and resulted in settlements. In February 2017 the State of Oregon and the City of Portland agreed to pay the family of Martin Greenough $23,000 for their role in his death that resulted from a drunk driver hitting him in a bike lane gap on North Lombard. And in March of 2017, Portland paid a settlement of $525,000 to a man who was seriously injured while biking on a dangerous section of North Interstate Ave.
Win or lose, Thomas believes lawsuits are an effective way to hold government agencies accountable.
“I think these design and maintenance cases are important,” he shared with me earlier this week. “And if things go as they should with this case, what will happen is that the next time the city decides to dither on something, they’ll say, ‘Remember what happened on Greeley? We put it off and a guy got nailed just like everybody said was going to happen, and we got sued. So maybe this time we should expedite the process. We have a safer design, let’s expedite the process.’
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.
BikePortland needs your support.
The post Lawsuit says City of Portland was negligent in Greeley Ave crash appeared first on BikePortland.org.
With ART IN THE GARDEN just a week away,
the collaborations are quickly coming together.
My fellow collaborator Cory McCrory has been assembling textured slabs for her part of our project. Looks like things are coming together nicely!
Another batch. Stamped. Trimmed. Drying…
and racing their way into this weekend’s kiln!
It’s the last day of August, and sadly it kind of feels like the last day of Summer?!
Camp is over and it’s a much cooler morning as we roll into the Labor Day Weekend.
Another beautiful ride before I head back into the studio to continue glazing, glazing, glazing!!!
Not that I’m proud of this, but those BBQ Rib Tip Nachos were pretty darn amazing
at Smoke Daddy in Wrigleyville… not-surprisingly... emphasis on WERE!!!
As the sunrise gets later & later, the start of my ride seems to be getting darker & darker. With good cloud potential, the majority of my morning ride is now in darkness & early dawn. Saving the colorful sunrise surprise for towards the very end of my ride! Talk about anticipation!
