814.410 Unsafe
operation of bicycle on sidewalk; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of unsafe operation
of a bicycle on a sidewalk if the person does any of the following:
(a) Operates the
bicycle so as to suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and move into
the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
(b) Operates a
bicycle upon a sidewalk and does not give an audible warning before overtaking
and passing a pedestrian and does not yield the right of way to all pedestrians
on the sidewalk.
(c) Operates a
bicycle on a sidewalk in a careless manner that endangers or would be likely to
endanger any person or property.
(d) Operates the
bicycle at a speed greater than an ordinary walk when approaching or entering a
crosswalk, approaching or crossing a driveway or crossing a curb cut or
pedestrian ramp and a motor vehicle is approaching the crosswalk, driveway,
curb cut or pedestrian ramp. This paragraph does not require reduced speeds for
bicycles at places on sidewalks or other pedestrian ways other than places
where the path for pedestrians or bicycle traffic approaches or crosses that
for motor vehicle traffic.
(e) Operates an
electric assisted bicycle on a sidewalk.
(2) Except as
otherwise specifically provided by law, a bicyclist on a sidewalk or in a
crosswalk has the same rights and duties as a pedestrian on a sidewalk or in a
crosswalk.
(3) The offense
described in this section, unsafe operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk, is a
Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §699; 1985 c.16 §337; 1997 c.400 §7;
2005 c.316 §2]
Notes of Decisions
State v. Boekelheide, 469 P.3d 863 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 12× “ORS 814.410 then spells out more specifically what a bicyclist must do to avoid a violation for “unsafe operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk.”
Fleming v. Motor Vehs. Div., 743 P.2d 764 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Petitioner requested an administrative hearing, in which she argued that the suspension was invalid because the police officer who administered the blood alcohol test did not physically “possess” a permit, as ORS 814.410(4) 1 and ORS 813.160 2 require.”
State v. Rowe, 150 P.3d 48 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“See generally ORS 814.410(2) (generally, a bicyclist on a sidewalk “has the same rights and duties as a pedestrian on a sidewalk”).”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 814.410(1): 1 case
State v. Boekelheide, 469 P.3d 863 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“ORS 814.410 then spells out more specifically what a bicyclist must do to avoid a violation for “unsafe operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 814.410(2): 2 cases
State v. Boekelheide, 469 P.3d 863 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“ORS 814.410 then spells out more specifically what a bicyclist must do to avoid a violation for “unsafe operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk.”
State v. Rowe, 150 P.3d 48 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“See generally ORS 814.410(2) (generally, a bicyclist on a sidewalk “has the same rights and duties as a pedestrian on a sidewalk”).”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 814.410(4): 1 case
Fleming v. Motor Vehs. Div., 743 P.2d 764 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“Petitioner requested an administrative hearing, in which she argued that the suspension was invalid because the police officer who administered the blood alcohol test did not physically “possess” a permit, as ORS 814.410(4) 1 and ORS 813.160 2 require.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.