It doesn't, as the law explicitly states that it applies to operators of "motor vehicles". Maybe electric bikes could get ticketed, though.

No other traffic laws apply to them, so why would this one?

Ooops, my mistake.

The law DOES apply to them:

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/814.400

"A bicycle is a vehicle for purposes of the vehicle code"

I'm an avid biker and I 100% agree that people on bikes should not be holding their phones to their ear. It's just plain dumb. Hands free though, that's OK in my book.

However, I have seen them stop in the bike lane to text. Of course that forced other bikers in the traffic lanes. Dare we question bikers behavior?

They should not be talking on handheld phones, and they should all have rear-view mirrors. The other day one of the spandex clad crowd wanted to pass someone in the bike lane and pulled right into the traffic lane, in front of a bus, without even looking over his shoulder. Fortunately, the bus driver had good reflexes.

Any bicycle operating in traffic has to obey all the laws that motor vehicles do, within reason. That includes no headphones, which I see way too often, and no cellphones.

Not too long ago, after dark on my own bike commute, I saw a man riding east in the westbound lanes of SE Stark near 122nd, no lights whatsoever, no helmet, yelling into his cellie, with no hands on the handlebars.

I tell you, there's never a cop around when you need'm

I suppose the "catch 'em if you can" rule also applies.
I am pretty sure I would feel bad if I hit and killed one of the spandex crowd...but then maybe not so much, depending on the circumstances.
Those folks need to review 'the rule of tonnage'.

Jack-

Are you going to post about every idiot automobile driver I see?

Should bicyclists obey the laws? Of course. But it's not like auto drivers are in any way immune to idiotic behavior while driving.

Contrary to Samuel John Klein's comments above, there is no law in Oregon against driving/riding with headphones.

Are you going to post about every idiot automobile driver I see?

No.

Bicycling is much more dangerous to the traveler than driving. Cyclists therefore deserve special scrutiny.

You do agree that they're special, don't you?

Here's why it shouldn't apply:

If I'm on a bike and I decide to be an "idiot biker" and answer my phone, and I swerve into your traffic lane and you kill me, I'm the dead one. You may have some psychic injury, but there probably wouldn't even be a dent in your car.

If I'm in a car and decide to be an "idiot driver" and answer my phone, and I swerve into your bike lane and kill you ...

There seems to be a basic difference. A car is a much more deadly instrument in the hands of an idiot than a bicycle is.

You may have some psychic injury

Yeah, that would be minor. Brush it off in a day or two.

Until the lawsuit started.

A car is a much more deadly instrument in the hands of an idiot than a bicycle is.

Not for the operator, by your own admission.

Gordon, you forget that if a car hits a bike, even if the cyclist is at fault, that car and the driver risk 'justice' by mob.

You do recall the avid cyclist (who was driving a car) who got in an altercation with a drunk cyclist...?

Whether or not the law applies to sacred cyclists is irrelevant if the law looks the other way.

Picture this: when much smaller and more maneuverable vehicles get replaced with 20T streetcars with pizza slicer wheels on fixed tracks, the fun will only be beginning. The operator will need an armed bodyguard.

Jack, I've personally watched two cyclists yakking into cell phones who ran full-tilt into the same telephone pole. Sadly in both cases (because they make responsible cyclists like me look bad), God didn't smack either one in the head and yell "The power of Darwin compels you!"

PJB, agreed that bikes are vehicles. Therefore, the worthless cellphone statute (which should prohibit ALL cellphone use by all VEHICLE operators) does not apply to bikes, because the cellphone statute specifically says that it applies to MOTOR vehicles. Since motor vehicles is specifically stated, then it excludes all non-motorized vehicles.

Then you have the specter of a car swerving to avoid an out-of-control cyclist...and hits____

Fill in the blanks.

Gordon, you're wrong that "there probably wouldn't even be a dent in your car" if a cyclist hit me. 30 years ago a drunken vagrant stumbled out into the front of my car on Front Ave, not even on a bike which would be even more extensive. I was going about 25 mph. I tried to avoid him but his stumbling back and forth eliminated that possibility. He caused over $4800 dollars in damage in those day's dollars, and much more in "psychic injury". I remember it vividly to this day.

I agree with both Gordon AND Jack. The consequences of the car/bicycle collision to the cyclist are often with severe prejudice, to the car and driver not so. So the car is the more dangerous instrumentality. That's just the physics of the situation. So because cycling in car traffic is inherently more dangerous to the cyclist, it deserves special scrutiny. But what does that mean? To me it is heightened awareness of the conflict and potential for severe injury, which means raising the consciousness of drivers AND cyclists. It took us a hundred years of accidents and countless deaths to develop both the Rules of the Road we have for cars, and the safety innovations that have made driving far safer. The introduction of thousands of commuting cyclists into the mix on a daily basis is a relatively new phenomenon in the U.S. Rather then less cycling infrastructure separating car traffic and bike traffic, we probably need more. And a greater and public enforcement effort by the Police targeted at both drivers and cyclists for infractions that tend to cause bike/car conflicts would be a good idea. I think cyclists have gotten a free ride in that respect for far too long. But I do worry- as a reasonably law abiding cyclist with helmet, rear view mirror, reflective jackets and front and back lights- that some of the dialogue on this and other sites tends to promote or encourage an "open season" mentality for drivers, as regards anyone on two wheels. That is frightening. (In fact FOX News at 10 just reported on a student seriously injured when he was hit by a black SUV while on his bike in a bike lane. The driver apparently did not stop.)

I'd love to see a significant percentage of commutes be done by bicycle. But a lot more needs to be done to find ways to keep the motorized and the unmotorized away from each other as much as possible. And in the places where they have to co-exist, both sides have to have rules of the road that they mutually respect. That's not happening now.

I think the percentage of hostile drivers is a lot lower than the percentage of arrogant scofflaw bikers. And so in cleaning up their respective acts, I think the bikers have more work to do. Maybe I'm wrong about that. The real shortcoming is in law enforcement, who want no part of traffic safety any more. That's been left to speed bumps and the corporate ripoff artists with their red light cameras. How sad.

none: There's no law against riding/driving with headphones?

Well, for gosh sakes ... there should be.

Seriously. I've seen a few cyclists with earbuds. WTF?

Arter cacouple of weeks on a bike in France, where bicycles and cars mingle more or less benignly, this whole thread hits me like a breath of foul air.