Item 3: Discuss and Approve Non-Unanimous IGR Positions

Home Browse Search

Sponsored by: By Representative BAILEY, Senators ATKINSON, PROZANSKI; Representatives CANNON, DEMBROW, GALIZIO, SHIELDS, J SMITH (at the request of Bicycle Transportation Alliance) URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2600.dir/hb2690.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation E. Cushman D. Schulz EPD-ADM 2/26/2009 Pri 3 Yes YesV. C7 Oppose Comments: We oppose this bill. In addition to analysis by other reviewers of this bill, we believe that vehicles that are required to utilize the same spaces need to be operating by the same set of rules. This creates an environment where road users know what to expect from each other. My experience in traffic enforcement and investigating vehicle crashes has shown that it is often during those last critical moments when crashes occur. Requiring all vehicles to stop at stop signs and at red lights allows for the time needed by vehicle operators to adequately assess the intersection to determine whether it is safe to proceed. It allows for this time while the vehicle operator is stationary, which is when s/he is best able to make this safety assessment. The same arguments for allowing bicyclists to not stop at these locations could also be made for motorcycle operators and other vehicles. However, no one feels that would be a good practice. Stop signs and traffic lights are placed at intersections where there is significant conflict between road users coming from different directions. These conflicts do not go away just because someone is operating a bicycle. ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Eric Jones Eric Jones PW-ADM 2/27/2009 Pri 3 Yes YesV. C7 Oppose Comments: Agree with other reviewers. Sen. Prozanski is a sponsor, and we should recognize his good intent in signing on to this bill. ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Tom Larsen Tom Larsen PWM 2/23/2009 Pri 3 Yes YesV. C7 Oppose Comments: This bill removes the requirement for cyclists to stop at stop signs or flashing red signals if they slow to a safe speed prior to entering the intersection. This bill in flawed in many respects. For brevity sake, I will refer only to stop signs, but the analysis is equally true for the flashing red signal condition. The safe speed for cyclists to ignore stop signs is ambiguous and subject to opinion. I will defer to EPD, but feel it will be difficult to enforce. The bill creates two different levels of users on the same street under the same conditions; the automobile that must stop for the stop sign and the cyclist who need not stop, but can treat the stop sign as if it were a yield sign. The bill begs the question; if it is legal for cyclists at a stop sign to slow then proceed without stopping when it is safe to do so, why is it illegal for a car in similar circumstance, to slow and proceed without stopping when it is safe to do so? Common sense would say that a cyclist riding on a street in traffic should be subject to the same basic rules of the road as a motorist. To do otherwise creates less predictable, less safe conditions on our roadways. This bill offers all cyclists the right to not stop at stop signs, independent of age. While it true that many adult cyclists treat stop signs as if they were yield signs, to codify that cyclists do not need to stop at stop signs sends a dangerous message to younger cyclists, who lack the experience to judge the speed of cross traffic and other conditions at intersections. 4