# “What’s my ticket for? Riding in the street?”, and the officer responded “yes”.



## Scott B (Dec 1, 2004)

http://bikeportland.org/2008/11/16/riding-on-ainsworth-leads-to-tickets-for-psu-riders/

Check this out: Portland Police office decides that a group of cyclists on a bike route ought to be ticketed for riding far enough into the street to not get doored. Makes you know that the police are interested in public safety. 

In Portland? Not, and mad any way? Give them hell (phone numbers below):

Tom Potter, Mayor
Commissioner of Finance and Administration
City Hall @ 1221 SW 4th Avenue, Room 340, 97204
Phone: (503)823-4120
E-mail: [email protected]

Sam Adams
Commissioner of Public Utilities, Position Number 1
City Hall @ 1221 SW 4th Avenue, Room 220, 97204
Phone: (503)823-3008
E-mail: [email protected]

Nick Fish

Commissioner of Public Works, Position Number 2
City Hall @ 1221 SW 4th Ave, Room 240, 97204
(503) 823-3589
e-mail: [email protected]

Randy Leonard
Commissioner of Public Safety, Position Number 4
City Hall @ 1221 SW 4th Avenue, Room 210, 97204
Phone: (503)823-4682
E-mail: [email protected]

Dan Saltzman
Commissioner of Public Affairs, Position Number 3
City Hall @ 1221 SW 4th Avenue, Room 230, 97204
Phone: (503)823-4151
E-mail: [email protected]

Independent Police Review
1221 SW 4th Avenue, Room 320, 97204
Phone: 503-823-0146

Police Bureau
1111 SW 2nd Avenue, 97204
Phone: 503-823-4636
Non-Emergency Phone: 503-823-3333


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

#1 It never does any good to mess with police officers.

#2 If the cyclists had just kept their mouths shut and their hands on their bikes the incident would have been over and done with.

#3 Cops can be having a bad day too.

#4 They should have run the red light!

#5 Their tickets are sure to be tossed if they go to court.


----------



## GH-Mike (Jan 20, 2007)

*$242*

Whenever I read statemements similar to the OP I’m inclined to learn a bit more. So I went to look up the OR laws that apply and I’m reminded that we simply do not l know enough to make well informed comments. I’m guessing this falls under difference of opinion cop sees it one way riders another. IF you believe the story posted by the cyclist, you would think paragraph “c” below would apply. If not I think the penalty is $242 or an evening in the “share the road” program. Lets also be clear about BP.org it has an agenda not always in line with all members of the local cyling community. Also note, many members of Portland City Council have been good supporters of the PDX cycling community including mayor elect Adams. Might be good to remember if you decide to send them a note.


814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of improper use of lanes by abicycle if the person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to the right curb or edge ofthe roadway.
(2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances:
(a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle that is proceeding in the same direction.
(b) When preparing to execute a left turn.
(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 or from the penalties for failure to comply with those requirements.
(d) When operating within a city as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of a roadway that is designated to allow traffic to move in only one direction along the roadway. A bicycle that is operated under this paragraph is subject to the same requirements and exceptions when operating along the left curb or edge as are applicable when a bicycle is
operating along the right curb or edge of the roadway.
(e) When operating a bicycle along side not more than one other bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
(f) When operating on a bicycle lane or bicycle path.
(3) The offense described in this section, improper use of lanes by a bicycle, is a Class D traffic infraction.


----------



## Scott B (Dec 1, 2004)

*So true. Still...*



MB1 said:


> #1 It never does any good to mess with police officers.
> 
> #2 If the cyclists had just kept their mouths shut and their hands on their bikes the incident would have been over and done with.
> 
> ...


#1 Agreed, still officers need to be in control of themselves.

#2 It might have, but I'm not totally sure. I hope this spurs some education all around. Cyclists accept some traffic danger cops need to be aware of and bikers need to be aware of the fact that policing isn't easy.

#4 Not in this town. Cops have been giving out $254 for rolling stop signs.

#5 Agreed, it's just a waste all around. For the riders, the cops and the courts. It will get tossed unless they get unlucky with the judge.

I'm just surprised no one got TASERed. The police TASERed the snot out of a dude who didn't have a front light a couple months back. It had been stolen off his bike that night. I mean I don't love bike ninja's but that seems a little extreme. Bad night for him. The Portland Police are strangely bad at conflict management, they love to escalate. 

I wish that police departments would all have their officers do some bike patrols to give them the perspective of a rider. First hand education, it might build some empathy and an ability to see actually dangerous behavior.


----------



## hoehnt (Nov 7, 2008)

wouldnt it be hard for a cop to catch someone on a bike?


----------



## bkranich (May 7, 2004)

hoehnt said:


> wouldnt it be hard for a cop to catch someone on a bike?


No, it's not. You pull them over just like any other motor vehicle. Of course, when I'm on my bike, I ride up next to them and tell them to stop.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*more power?*

Looks to me like that answer is to train more, develop about 500 watts of average power, and simply keep up with traffic. ;-)


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

MB1 said:


> #1 It never does any good to mess with police officers.
> 
> #2 If the cyclists had just kept their mouths shut and their hands on their bikes the incident would have been over and done with.


Yep. As I read it, there was probably a turning point somewhere around the point of the conversation between the officer asking 'does that (getting doored) really happen?' and 'it's my right to ride 3 feet from the cars'.

a) that's not a 'right' at all; as close as practicable is a judgement question.
b) talking to cops about what ones 'right's' are is always bad form. It's the equivalent of some random stranger walking into your place of business or study and berating you for not knowing what you are doing.
c) this conversation could have improved police understanding, rather than adding to the 'bike punk' mentality that we struggle too much with anyway.

The thing that sticks out most to me is here is the question of the 'gesture that he should have given more room.' Call me cynical, but I wonder exactly how many fingers were a part of that gesture. Regardless, gestures and hollering at already-passed cars is always a bad idea, whether with an officer or a ******* civilian. it's simply seen as rude by everyone in between. It never does us as individuals or as a community any good. Confronting someone about something they did always results in them insisting they are right and hardening their thoughts against the 'accuser.' It's simple human nature.

While the cyclists were 'right' with respect to the traffic laws, there's a small bit of me that wishes them to need to pay, for their own good. You can be perfectly right and absolutely dead, and this is a relatively low-harm way to learn the lesson.

Folks complain that the officers escalate too easily, and that's an easy view to take. But they absolutely need to retain control of every situation, so any challenging remark will be dealt with quickly. While it's easy to complain about, you only have to spend a few days in a city where it's not the case to begin to understand differently. 

Collect the facts, accept your ticket, and challenge it when appropriate. That's never roadside for a lot of reasons, but mostly pragmatic. Play it right, you may never even recieve the ticket, and/or the officer probably won't show for the court date. Argue on the road, you'll get a bunch of add-on charges that will make a tougher case in court, that he will show up for, and that you'll be far more likely to lose.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

danl1 said:


> b) talking to cops about what ones 'right's' are is always bad form. It's the equivalent of some random stranger walking into your place of business or study and berating you for not knowing what you are doing.


Your analogy is backwards, as if the cop is the victim here. He's not. 

Here's a shocker--cops aren't always right. When they go out of their way to hassle some cyclists they just buzzed with their car, you can pretty much assume that whatever offense they come up with is bogus and unwarranted. The courts will see this for what it is and toss the tickets.


----------



## Scott B (Dec 1, 2004)

*True that.*



mohair_chair said:


> Your analogy is backwards, as if the cop is the victim here. He's not.
> 
> Here's a shocker--cops aren't always right. When they go out of their way to hassle some cyclists they just buzzed with their car, you can pretty much assume that whatever offense they come up with is bogus and unwarranted. The courts will see this for what it is and toss the tickets.


Agreed, cops aren't always right. They are fallible and too often go off on power trips. It is a position that requires exceptional restraint and unfortunately often attracts people to the profession who lack just that kind of restraint. It's truly a bad situation. As a member of the public, police who go on power trips in traffic stops make me very skeptical of their abilities to deal with more potentially violent situations. I don't feel safer knowing that these people are walking about with guns, policing in a democratic society involves respect of the citizenry, equal application of the law and the minimum amount of force possible. This is rarely the case.


----------



## Scot_Gore (Jan 25, 2002)

I thought Oregon had a 3 foot law, but it's not that cut and dry.

811.065 Unsafe passing of person operating bicycle; penalty. (1) A driver of a motor vehicle commits the offense of unsafe passing of a person operating a bicycle if the driver violates any of the following requirements:

(a) The driver of a motor vehicle may only pass a person operating a bicycle by driving to the left of the bicycle at a safe distance and returning to the lane of travel once the motor vehicle is safely clear of the overtaken bicycle. For the purposes of this paragraph, *a “safe distance” means a distance that is sufficient to prevent contact with the person operating the bicycle if the person were to fall into the driver’s lane of traffic.* This paragraph does not apply to a driver operating a motor vehicle:

(A) In a lane that is separate from and adjacent to a designated bicycle lane;

*(B) At a speed not greater than 35 miles per hour; or*

(C) When the driver is passing a person operating a bicycle on the person’s right side and the person operating the bicycle is turning left.

(b) The driver of a motor vehicle may drive to the left of the center of a roadway to pass a person operating a bicycle proceeding in the same direction only if the roadway to the left of the center is unobstructed for a sufficient distance to permit the driver to pass the person operating the bicycle safely and avoid interference with oncoming traffic. This paragraph does not authorize driving on the left side of the center of a roadway when prohibited under ORS 811.295, 811.300 or 811.310 to 811.325.​
I am reading the above correctly, you are only requiried to give cyclist space when you are travelling above 35 mph?




Scot


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

Fixed said:


> Looks to me like that answer is to train more, develop about 500 watts of average power, and simply keep up with traffic. ;-)


A bonus would be that at those speeds when you get doored it will REALLY hurt!


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> Your analogy is backwards, as if the cop is the victim here. He's not.
> 
> Here's a shocker--cops aren't always right. When they go out of their way to hassle some cyclists they just buzzed with their car, you can pretty much assume that whatever offense they come up with is bogus and unwarranted. The courts will see this for what it is and toss the tickets.


Missed my point perfectly. I speak only of actions and consequences, not any false notions of right or wrong, victim or victor. 

For clarity:

1) Makes no sense to argue with someone with a gun and a lot of power. Or for that matter, anyone wrapped in a couple tons of high-speed steel.

2) Approaching any situation with the notion that anyone on either side is or should be a victim is an error of judgement that will have consequences. Whether the cop is right or wrong is irrelevant. Doing something that threatens his sense of control of the situation is counterproductive. 

3) Whether he's right or wrong will be settled in the courts. If we show poor judgement by arguing with the cop out on the road and in the process get additional 'bogus' charges added, some of them start to look a bit less bogus.


----------



## superjohnny (May 16, 2006)

I had a Metro (as in light-rail or MAX as it's known in PDX) cop do the same to me last week and it really pissed me off. Nice to know it's perfectly legal to buzz the tower if he's going less than 35. Because I mean really, a car can't hurt you if it's only going 35.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

Let's talk more about tasering some of these frizzy-haired smelly bikers. How does one get a license to do that?


----------



## TWB8s (Sep 18, 2003)

A woman was commuting this year here in Madison when she was doored. The officer who responded wrote her a ticket.

http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=23479

and a State Rep's letter of support

http://legistar.cityofmadison.com/attachments/f11b8e6e-35ea-4dac-8175-1e672377d2a4.pdf


----------



## Art853 (May 30, 2003)

This article, Legally Speaking: A Fatal Bias?, has four memorable cases about the Portland Police Department. They are four separate cases of cyclists that were struck by motor vehicles: two were fatalities, one resulted in several broken bones, and another in a concussion. No citations were issued to the drivers and one was issued to a cyclist. 

http://www.velonews.com/article/13637


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

Scot_Gore said:


> I am reading the above correctly, you are only requiried to give cyclist space when you are travelling above 35 mph?


I agree that's how it reads. Yipes.

But I gotta say, that's my practical reality anyway. OH law isn't so written, but that's the tradition, it seems. Honestly, I've been buzzed so much that cars doing it don't bother me, though truck mirrors give me the willies.

Ohio law makes a clear footnote to the 'as far right as practicable' rule for potholes, road imperfections or fixed or moving objects, and clearly for _taking the lane_ when it would be unsafe for the cyclist and an overtaking car to travel side by side in a narrow lane. See 4511.55 (c), about 3/4 of the way down this digest:

http://www.ohiobike.org/bicycle-law-digest.html

This bit is extraordinarily good language for bike law. I try to keep a copy with me in case of dispute. Always approached with law enforcement or motoring public as 'I'm sorry, I must have been confused. As I read this, I thought it meant..." It's diffused more than one situation where a finger and shouting wouldn't have done nearly so well.


----------



## Keeping up with Junior (Feb 27, 2003)

*Fool*

Just because the guy was riding a bike does not make him right. Cyclist can be stupid too.



GH-Mike said:


> Whenever I read statemements similar to the OP I’m inclined to learn a bit more...


Well I call BS on the blog poster. Take a look at the picture and evaluate the BS level. 

The rider is supposedly experienced enough to allow a full three feet of clearance so he does not get doored. Good logic and a valid reason. But the photo is not a busy urban downtown, it appears to be a quiet residential area so you ought to be able to avoid getting doored by watching for people walking from their houses to their cars, cars that just parked and are still occupied, looking into windows. 

Now look at the picture of the boulevard and the curbing on the left. If this *expert* biker is going to ride three feet into the lane then in reality he needs to be even farther out and taking the lane otherwise he ought to be ready for some close passes. Three feet into the lane leaves enough room to allow a car to pass but not enough room to give more than a foot or so of clearance, five feet into the lane makes it impossible for a car to pass. 

This rider was looking for a confrontation and wanted to prove his point, i.e. his right to the road. Well instead of gesturing/yelling at your ordinary citizen he got to try and prove his point with a cop. I would imagine the rider was not as polite as it comes out from the blog post he wrote about himself. 



MB1 said:


> #1 It never does any good to mess with police officers.
> 
> #2 If the cyclists had just kept their mouths shut and their hands on their bikes the incident would have been over and done with....


The rider was a dumbass, see #1 and #2. Whether you think the cop is right or wrong just listen politely and nod. If the cop does not know the law the middle of the street is not the place to educate him, instead follow up after the fact with his supervisor. If you want to argue in the street be aware that you will probably get a ticket and the officer will let the judge decide and if the officer feels threatened expect a bit more, right or wrong this is reality. Now this idiot will get to prove his point in court but if the judge understands the situation and applies some logic I am not sure it is a slamdunk for the cyclist.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

Well, I'm glad you know so much about a situation you weren't involved in whatsoever.

I wasn't there, but I can tell you this much: 

* NE Ainsworth is a designated bike route by the city. You are correct that it is a quiet, residential street, but it's still what this rider would describe as "a little sketchy."

* The weblog's author is not the cyclist in question, but a respected Portland cycling community member and advocate who maintains Bikeportland.org. Obviously, it has a heavy cycling bias -- it's about bikes! -- but, still, not the riders in question.

Crap, I have work to do.


----------



## Scott B (Dec 1, 2004)

*Portland Police Spokesman flies off the handle!*

http://bikeportland.org/2008/11/18/...sponds-to-ainsworth-incident/#comment-1030950

The PIO claims that "I am personally aware of several prior stories on this website where it was eventually determined that the facts of an event differed dramatically from the original description of the event." He of course fails to cite any specifics or support his assertions with facts. Good job Portland Police, you need a better spokesman.

This is all coming from a department that Tasered a cyclist not long ago after the cyclist refused to stop when a cop yelled at him too. The office did not identify himself or otherwise make it clear he was a police office in the line of duty. They simply knocked the rider off his bike and Tasered him repeatedly. Now there is a traffic stop. I wouldn't stop on a dark street for some random guy yelling to stop unless I knew it was an officer. So I'm just amazed this last incident didn't result in someone getting shot, beaten or tasered. Trust is earned and as far as I'm concerned they have lost it.


----------



## Keeping up with Junior (Feb 27, 2003)

*Same picture?*



Argentius said:


> Well, I'm glad you know so much about a situation you weren't involved in whatsoever.












So which parts did I get wrong from looking at the picture and reading the article?

That you really do not need to be three feet into the lane and can use other skills to avoid getting doored on the pictured street?

That you either need to move left and take the lane or ride farther to the right to avoid getting passed closely on the pictured street?

That if you make hand gestures at autos you better be prepared for some consequences from time to time. Could be verbal or physical - a ticket in this case.

That if you try to debate the law with an officer during a traffic stop you are likely to get a ticket and have to prove your point in court? In this case it appears to be open to interpretation whether the cyclist rode as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway and what a safe passing clearance is. The judge gets to listen to both sides of the story with regard to the facts, he gets to read and interpret the law as wrtitten and then he gets to make a decision.

That just because it was a cyclist that something happened to he may not be right and we got only one side of the story?


----------



## PdxMark (Feb 3, 2004)

Keeping up with Junior said:


> So which parts did I get wrong from looking at the picture and reading the article?
> 
> That you really do not need to be three feet into the lane and can use other skills to avoid getting doored on the pictured street?
> 
> That you either need to move left and take the lane or ride farther to the right to avoid getting passed closely on the pictured street?


There are alot of very narrow streets in Portland on which there's not enough room for cars to pass each other or cyclists where cars are parked. The common practice for drivers and cyclists is to pull to the right once the parked have been passed. 

The grass median together with the narrow lanes makes this particular street pretty unique in Portland and a bit ambiguous as to how to handle it. On the one hand, the cyclists could have taken the lane, but the speed on this street is higher than other streets in town where taking the lane is common. On the other hand, there's not really room to ride along parked cars and be passed by a car, as the cop did in this case. 

My sense is that the police officer pushed the bounds of convention, courtesy and safety in passing where and how he did. The cyclists unwisely tried to reach a rational resolution with him.


----------



## Lifelover (Jul 8, 2004)

Heck, "within a foot" may not even really be that close.

If I'm riding around a parked car, I would fully anticipate being passed very closely.

Considering cops are basically professional drivers, I would not consider what the cop did reckless at all.

The involved cyclists are most likely complete asshats


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*fwiw*

For what it's worth, I have printed out and carry with me the relevant portions of the state Vehicle Code and municipal ordinances. Never know when I might need to edumacate someone.


----------



## Scot_Gore (Jan 25, 2002)

Fixed said:


> Never know when I might need to edumacate someone.


But would you do it?

I've always thought if I was ever stopped in a circumstance where I thought I was within the law and the officer was dead wrong. That I would say as little as possible, take my citiation (which I may even have to ask for or it would be just a warning) and handle it in front of a judge (or referee perhaps). 

Scot


----------



## CTiRide (Feb 5, 2005)

Scot_Gore said:


> I am reading the above correctly, you are only requiried to give cyclist space when you are travelling above 35 mph?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think so. The provision says that the paragraph does not apply to a driver operating a motor vehicle at a speed not greater than 35 mph. So a safe distance must be given if the vehicle is being operated over 35 mph.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

Scot_Gore said:


> But would you do it?
> 
> I've always thought if I was ever stopped in a circumstance where I thought I was within the law and the officer was dead wrong. That I would say as little as possible, take my citiation (which I may even have to ask for or it would be just a warning) and handle it in front of a judge (or referee perhaps).
> 
> Scot


It depends on the situation. See my response to the 'over/under 35mph' part of this thread. I've done the education thing as I've described, but I consider that to be an unusual circumstance - the officer was obviously in a decent mood and conversational, not in 'gonna nail anyone I can' mode. If I hadn't pursued it, my guess is I'd have received a warning. 

I asked out of honest curiosity - entering the conversation assuming that he knew the law, and I was just confused about how it was interpreted in practice / this local jusridiction. Turned out that he wasn't aware of the change to our law (it was new at the time), and actually thanked me for making him aware of it. In contrast, I've had stops while driving where I was certain I was in the right, and could even prove it, but because of the officer's attitude I accepted the ticket.

Obviously, if the interaction had started with a gesture and shout from me after he had passed, the outcome would likely have been entirely different. I'll add that as an occasional ride leader, anyone acting like that to any car while on my ride - no matter how wrong the driver might have been - rides home alone.


----------



## Tommyr (Jun 7, 2008)

I would have taken the ticket and said to the cop "See you in court!". 

Then said nothing more.


----------

