home

Police investigation: Driver claims innocence in I-205 bike path incident

Posted by Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) on May 23rd, 2007 at 11:57 am

I just heard from the Commander of the Traffic Division regarding their investigation into I-205 bridge bike path incident I reported on last week.

To refresh your memory...Cyclist Dustin Kent claimed that a full-sized pickup truck entered onto the bike path as he pedaled home after work on the I-205 bridge over the Columbia River. Kent said a truck drove up behind him, turned out its lights, and proceeded to drive over his bicycle, forcing Kent to hop a railing to avoid being hit. The truck then continued on, without stopping to see what happened.

Now the Traffic Division has completed their investigation of the incident. According to Commander Mark Kruger, the motorist claims to have, "made a wrong turn somewhere":

"He encountered the bicyclist, had a conversation with him and asked him to move out of the way so he could pass. The bicyclist confirms this. When passing, the motorist apparently struck the bicycle tire but states he was not aware of this."

Kruger says so far Kent has not decided how he will proceed and adds,

"We doubt this can be charged as a hit and run as there is no real proof that the motorist would have known he struck the bike tire based on the evidence that we have. If the bicyclist wants to press charges we will submit the case to the DA to determine if they believe sufficient evidence exists to prosecute."

As for how the truck was able to get on the bike path in the first place?

"Regarding how the motorist actually came to be on the bike lane we cannot say other than to guess."

When I talked with Kent last week, he said he intended to push the case. No word yet if that's still his plan after the findings of this investigation.

Email This Post Email This Post

Possibly related posts


Gravatars make better comments... Get yours here.
Please notify the publisher about offensive comments.
Comments
  • Qwendolyn May 23, 2007 at 12:03 pm

    Wait...whaaaa? So now it's legal for a truck to not only drive on the bike path, but to drive over any bicycles in the way?

    Sounds like the truck driver is lying through his teeth.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dropped May 23, 2007 at 12:11 pm

    Agreed. "Took a wrong turn somewhere." Please.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jeff May 23, 2007 at 12:29 pm

    unbelievable. i'll call again for dustin to post the address.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ryan Knapper May 23, 2007 at 12:56 pm

    Come on, haven't we all driven somewhere we weren't supposed to be and accidentally taken out a few bikes, wheelchairs, endangered nests, rare fossils, proof of Discordia and/or leprechauns?
    Remember, throw not a stone least ye can run when I come after you carrying your stone.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • MaTa May 23, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    Niiiice, another example of "it was just an accident" = no need to take responsibility for one's actions.

    Vehicles on bike paths should mean instant (high-dollar) ticket, if not worse* . .is that not obvious????

    *(like, how about a license suspension and some remedial driver classes if one is such a bad driver, one cannot differentiate between bike paths and the street?)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • joy May 23, 2007 at 1:07 pm

    this is appalling!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous May 23, 2007 at 1:14 pm

    You know that thing where you cough and say "b*ll s#%t" at the same time?

    Yeah, I call that.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • ME May 23, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    I want the whole freakin' story now. What was said between driver and cyclist; speed of the truck; where had driver been earlier in the evening...(or where he says he was); any passengers; rainy or clear weather; did cyclist have anything to drink???? etc. etc. Something is still missing. Judgement wasn't being used by someone-or maybe both- here.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SKiDmark May 23, 2007 at 2:07 pm

    I knew we could count on the PPD Traffic Division to get to the bottom of this.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dustin Kent May 23, 2007 at 2:17 pm

    The investigator did not quote me right... the only words to come out of the drivers mouth were "want a ride?" after i replied "no" the truck accelerated to pass me, but if you've ever been on the 205 bridge bike path you know its hard to even imagine a small car squeezing through there, try imagining a full-size truck, then try to imagine it attempting to pass you.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous May 23, 2007 at 2:19 pm

    Driver on bike path runs over bike and driver claims innocence. This is absolutely pathetic.

    This city definitely qualifies city as a 'platinum' bike city.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Caps May 23, 2007 at 2:23 pm

    LAME!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • tonyt May 23, 2007 at 2:23 pm

    Dustin,

    You should hire yourself a lawyer.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jeff May 23, 2007 at 2:25 pm

    That's ridiculous. No one could/would a) accidentally get into the bike path and b) not know they were in a bike path. It's hard enough to get into that lane on purpose!

    I agree that we seem to be missing some information... Is the driver being charged with operating a motor vehicle in an area not open to cars? And are they willing to reimburse the victim?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Laura May 23, 2007 at 2:59 pm

    Call Channel 12 and have them publicly humiliate the guy like they did the carpool-lane hoppers on last night's 10-oclock news...

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • zilfondel May 23, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    ...that what they call it these days?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • zilfondel May 23, 2007 at 3:10 pm

    A couple of years ago I saw an old woman drive her car down two flights of stairs in the PSU urban center plaza. You should have seen her expression! Wide with fear, she kept stomping on the gas and honking the horn at college students who were sitting on the steps eating lunch...

    obviously her car was completely destroyed; 1 of the wheels fell off, her bumper was gone and the front end smashed up. People were just standing around like 'wtf lady?!'

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • ben May 23, 2007 at 3:29 pm

    holy crap i wish i could have seen that! ^

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • chelsea May 23, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    you have got to be kidding! if what the driver says is true, he is either completely incompetent as a driver or was heavily intoxicated at the time. maybe both? either way, he deserves to pay for what he did.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous May 23, 2007 at 4:11 pm

    If there isn't enough evidence for a criminal charge, the driver should at least be cited for operating a motorized vehicle on a bike/ped path, and Dustin should be able to sue him in small claims court for the cost of the bicycle, though if the driver is as reasonable as seems to think he is, he should just cover the cost out of court.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Christopher Cotrell May 23, 2007 at 4:11 pm

    If there isn't enough evidence for a criminal charge, the driver should at least be cited for operating a motorized vehicle on a bike/ped path, and Dustin should be able to sue him in small claims court for the cost of the bicycle, though if the driver is as reasonable as seems to think he is, he should just cover the cost out of court.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • ME May 23, 2007 at 4:16 pm

    Dustin, if this were it, where is your version out of the ppd? Can't they see/hear that two different versions need to be addressed?...and not necessarily in the media.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John May 23, 2007 at 4:49 pm

    What gets me is that this path is over 2.5 miles long, almost three from public roadway to public roadway. And as confined as it is, I'm sure it would take anyone who wasn't really trying to destroy their pickup a solid 15 minutes at the very least to get to one (and only one) specific destination where a single police officer could have been sitting and waiting to pick the guy up. He couldn't have made it any easier. Why didn't they respond? Exactly what does it take to pull an officer off of freeway referee duty?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SKiDmark May 23, 2007 at 5:02 pm

    I guess you should have stayed on your bike and risked death being crushed by a truck. Then there would be at least a 50/50 chance of the Police doing something.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matt Picio May 23, 2007 at 5:09 pm

    “made a wrong turn somewhere”

    Onto the I-205 bike path. Riiiiiiight.

    So, he admitted to being ON the bike lane, apparently. Let's catalog the offenses here: (a couple of these depend on whether the I-205 path on the bridge is classified as a sidewalk or a bike lane)

    ORS 811.050 (or .055) Failure to yield to bicyclist

    ORS 811.060 (2)(a) Vehicular assault of bicyclist (I'd say riding in the bike lane BETWEEN halves of the freeway is "reckless")

    ORS 811.135 or .140 Careless (or Reckless) Driving

    ORS 811.430 Driving on highway divider

    ORS 811.435 Operation of motor vehicle on bicycle trail

    It seems to me like the police should have no problem at least writing tickets here, regardless of whether the offense was criminal in nature.

    Getting the DA to prosecute this one I think would be tough - the courts don't typically handle "weird" well.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • pdxrunner May 23, 2007 at 7:15 pm

    Platinum status baby!!!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • tb May 23, 2007 at 7:53 pm

    Paging Ray Thomas. Paging Ray Thomas. Are you following this case?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Disco D May 23, 2007 at 8:07 pm

    "Sorry officer, I didn't know I couldn't do that" - Dave Chappelle

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ken May 23, 2007 at 8:47 pm

    The fact he admits he was on the path, accident or not, warrents some kind of a penalty.

    I really don't like the way the PPB comes away from the investigation saying that Dustin confirmed that the person just said they took a wrong turn if that is not what happened. I don't understand how they can get two sides to a story and present them as being in agreement if one party is saying the stories aren't in agreement.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bill Larson May 23, 2007 at 8:58 pm

    If I was caught driving the wrong way on a one way street Id get ticketed. No question about it unless an officer was feeling extremely lenient that day. this is no different: driving where you shouldnt, even if you dont know you were supposed to be there. I have to ask why he didnt put the car in reverse when he realized he was on a bike lane (there shouldve been no question about it once he got a VERY short ways in). Furthermore, I cant imagine him NOT knowing he ran over a bike. Its not like the lane is wide enough that he just caught a small section of the wheel. He wouldve had to run over the bike completely which wouldve made a good amount of noise. Ive been in a car that has hit a squirrel darting across the road and it didnt sound like a small animal......

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dabby May 23, 2007 at 9:11 pm

    I have not read the comments down to this point at all, but I must say...

    From either approach, it is entirely impossible to have made a wrong turn somewhere onto the bridge portion of the I205 bike path..

    It would take some serious maneuvering to get through the approaches, which , I must admit, a person under the influence would have a problem doing, without damage to the truck involved...
    For example:

    From the Vancouver side, you would have to ploe over the big wooden posts blocking the path entrance in the neighborhood.....

    From the Portland side, you would have to navigate the pedestrian bike bridge, and the tight right hand turn on to the path, which you must slow down to turn even on a bike......

    It is impossible for this man to have accidentaly gotten his truck onto the I205 path over the bridge.........

    Kruger says this "“Regarding how the motorist actually came to be on the bike lane we cannot say other than to guess."

    This coming from a Baby pepper macer, who has cost our town millions of dollars in lawsuits for his "policework", and was recently promoted to a post, instead of being fired as he should have been years ago.

    If I was Dustin Kent, I would go over the head of Kruger, and get this investigated to the full extent of an actually "competent " officer who can be trusted........

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • PoPo May 23, 2007 at 9:39 pm

    Welcome to police work!

    Rarely have I ever heard two sides of the story match up. There are often straight misunderstandings, lots of embellishment, lots of crazy perceptions during high-stress situations, and tons and tons of lying. One of our jobs is to simply record the differing statements and forward them up the chain to the prosecutor. Ultimately it will be up to a jury to decide which they believe, if it makes it that far.

    The driver didn't have to say one word to the police, so it was very helpful that he admitted it was him driving the truck and that indeed he encountered the cyclist while driving on the bicycle lane.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • hallie May 23, 2007 at 9:51 pm

    i am so grateful for this site. it's so refreshing to be able to hear a truth that the mainstream media won't publish - such as the sentiment, 'the guy was actually behaving exactly like the homicidal jackass that the situation suggests' instead of, 'the participants agreed on what was said' which is HORSESHIT.

    going to journalism school is like getting a lobotomy. jee-ZUS.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Martha S. May 23, 2007 at 10:37 pm

    Oh for the love of christ. He was on the bike path, he ran over a F&#^ing bike, and nearly the person on it. I don't give a rats ass if he was on the path by accident or not, he IS NOT innocent.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jeff May 23, 2007 at 10:55 pm

    The Springwater at 45th and Johnson creek has excellent access for cars, anybody up for a joyride?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave May 24, 2007 at 7:15 am

    This is nonsense-you have to know that you are somewhere odd when (or if) your vehicle can make the tight turn under I-205. Why is the PDX police dept. pursuing car arsons when there are attempted homicides like this being treated so lightly?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • danodelion May 24, 2007 at 7:34 am

    At the very least the guy had to violate some law in the process. He should at least be charged with reckless driving. And the victim should have his day in civil court and collect damages. Some justice should be available, here.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matt Picio May 24, 2007 at 7:44 am

    Post #37: "At the very least the guy had to violate some law in the process."

    He did. See post #25.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • ME May 24, 2007 at 7:57 am

    I wonder what the ppd would do if the (today's big story) car arsonist(s) turned the fires attention on to parked bikes. Would the arson task force be assigned to these types of cases?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Todd May 24, 2007 at 8:04 am

    Would this not be a State Police jurisdictional issue, as this 'hit & run' occured on an interstate [bikepath] bridge?

    Or does it as a bikepath kick it down the jurisdicational chain?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • beth h May 24, 2007 at 8:46 am

    Only a few days ago a friend and I agreed that, in the absence of effective legislation and law enforcement, perhaps it's time to bring back public shaming as a behavior modifier.

    How long would it take someone to erect a stockade in the South Park Blocks?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Andy May 24, 2007 at 8:59 am

    Per post #25: it's a good list of traffic violations, but are there any other laws which this guy might have broken? Stalking? Menacing? Assault? Maybe the problem is that the cops are just treating this like a run-of-the-mill traffic violation when it might be something more malign.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous May 24, 2007 at 9:08 am

    "Only a few days ago a friend and I agreed that, in the absence of effective legislation and law enforcement, perhaps it’s time to bring back public shaming as a behavior modifier."

    I think the missing link here is people effectively using the tort system to enforce their own rights. Our legal system was deliberately set up so that individuals could do this in the absence of effective criminal enforcement and other types of government regulation. Unfortunately, the contemporary civil legal system is exceedingly complex, both substantively and procedurally. That means the average citizen must either wade into this morass herself or hire someone who (IMHO, rightfully) requires a substantial fee in return for her expertise.

    Nevertheless, a properly pleaded civil suit in this instance would both compensate the victim and effectively punish the perpetrator.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • sheldon May 24, 2007 at 9:13 am

    Don't take this the wrong, but I highly doubt the cops would issue any tickets and it doesn't have anything to do with a bias against bikes per se. Cops will only issue a ticket for a moving violation of they witness it. I know of several cases of auto on auto accidents where a driver clearly did something in violation of the law (ie running a light or turning left into an oncoming car) and there is evidence to support it, but the cops don't issue a ticket.

    I do recall cops issueing a citation for assualt\vandalism. I think there have been several posts on this site where people have mentioned that a cop would cite them as a cyclist for kicking someone's car. Dustin's destroyed back wheel fits the description in this case.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ken May 24, 2007 at 9:39 am

    Hey PoPo

    I understand that rarely do two sides of a situation, one being the perpetrator and one being the victem, ever match up. I also agree it was nice that the driver admitted that he was the one who was driving and that he was on the bike path.

    What I don't understand is how these two different stories get shot up the chain of command and the result is this quote:

    “He encountered the bicyclist, had a conversation with him and asked him to move out of the way so he could pass. The bicyclist confirms this."

    Which sounds like what the driver would say but in no way sounds like it represents the victem's side of the story. It also represents the story that would not require any more work on the part of the PPB.

    I'm actually a big PPB supporter, but stories that end like this don't sit well with me.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave May 24, 2007 at 10:41 am

    The police comment cannot possibly be interpreted as anything but anti-bicyclist bias by the Portland Police Bureau. This is sort of like saying "She said no, he did it anyway, but we won't call it rape."

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Steve May 24, 2007 at 11:15 am

    This is sooo sickening! This nonsense only seems to apply to bicycles. It as if in bicycle/car interactions, the driver must confess or actually kill the cyclist before any charges are pressed.

    I had this happen to me when I was a courier in Eugene. A driver followed me for a few blocks then started screaming/flipping me off, then intentionally ran me off the road. Striking the bike and injuring my knee.

    I had a radio phone and he was pulled over a few blocks away. He denied it and I was told in numerous interactions with the police that it was my word against his! As if criminals always confess to the crime. Unbelievable.

    If I was in a car and someone did that, they would have been arrested on the spot. I imagine that if Dustin drove instead of biked, the police would give him more respect.

    How is his crumpled bike not evidence of a hit and run?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous May 24, 2007 at 12:09 pm

    My question is, how does a car driver not know they are on the 205 bike path, when both directions of 205 traffic is whizzing by on both sides???

    I haven't been on the 205 bike path up through that area, but I've driven by it plenty.

    PoPo, we get it that there are always two sides to a story; I think it's just that this story has a blatant hole in it. :)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • tonyt May 24, 2007 at 12:43 pm

    PoPo

    "The driver didn’t have to say one word to the police, so it was very helpful that he admitted it was him driving the truck and that indeed he encountered the cyclist while driving on the bicycle lane."

    Oh yes, goodness gracious, thank you helpful driver. What the . . . ?

    If this was a burglar would this be your sentiment??

    Another brick in the wall between Portland cyclists and the cops.

    Can you not see the obvious prejudice in this report?? The drivers version given as a matter of record? The rider's version ("want a ride?") not mentiioned?

    A bike gets hit by a car running a red light, with witnesses, and you guys won't ticket the driver.

    I try to get a cop to my street to deal with cars doing 35 down a 25 mph neighborhood street, blowing stop signs at full speed and you all can only spare ONE cop for no more than 10 minutes (standard procedure I'm told), yet you can somehow spare 9 motorcycle cops for a stop sign sting on bikes.

    This thing happens and the driver is "helpful."

    Whatever.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan May 24, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    “The driver didn’t have to say one word to the police, so it was very helpful that he admitted it was him driving the truck and that indeed he encountered the cyclist while driving on the bicycle lane.”

    That sounds precisely like he intentionally incriminated himself. So where are the charges? Seems like even a mildly incompetent investigator could put together a case when there's a confession, a witness, and supporting physical evidence.

    Welcome to police work? All the work is done except for writing the tickets.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • David Dean May 24, 2007 at 1:10 pm

    According to the Mercury, Officer Kruger is "Portland's Most Rotten Cop":

    http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=31818&category=22101

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous May 24, 2007 at 1:40 pm

    I think this bears repeating (from the link to the Merc story given by David Dean, above):

    While not provoked by any direct question asked by the Mercury, it's understandable that the police bureau is sensitive about Kruger's off-the-job interests. In the course of background research for a lawsuit against Kruger, attorneys discovered a disturbing pattern of behavior, personal interests, and hobbies. One of Kruger's former friends came forward to say they used to drive around the city listening to recorded Adolf Hitler speeches and shouting racial epithets at people. He also confessed that Kruger had constructed a shrine for fallen Nazi soldiers at Rocky Butte. The attorneys have acquired video footage of Kruger wearing Nazi uniforms.

    Although his questionable interests may be tangential to Kruger's on-the-job performance, attorneys have used that information to attest to Kruger's mental state.

    [end]

    I'm guessing "Nazi sympathizer" doesn't translate to "bike friendly."

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Diane May 24, 2007 at 2:45 pm

    Zero to Godwin's Law in 52 posts...

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous May 24, 2007 at 3:00 pm

    Diane, my understanding of Godwin's Law leads me to conclude that your assertion is inaccurate. I was not comparing Kruger to a Nazi. Rather, I was describing him as one based on factual and testimonial evidence probative of his affiliation with Nazism.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Steve May 24, 2007 at 3:28 pm

    Hmmm, could this be the very same guy that pulled up one of the pieces of metal (between spans) on the bridge such that it would hurt a cyclist if they did not see it and hit it?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous May 24, 2007 at 4:21 pm

    Anonymous #52 and #54...

    Godwin's Law;
    As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

    You characterized Kruger as a "Nazi sympathizer" and then juxtaposed that phrase with "bike friendly". A comparison in my book.

    Comparison;
    A statement or estimate of similarities and differences.

    Also,

    :P~~

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • tonyt May 24, 2007 at 5:03 pm

    Again, I mention my pipe dream that Portland cops must use ALL major forms of transit (car, bike, walk, MAX, bus) in proportions that reflect the use of said transit by the general population.

    And if they ride, they have to do it without "POLICE" across their back.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Steve May 24, 2007 at 5:27 pm

    Not to divert this thread even further, though I feel it is important to point something else out.

    We are busy acknowledging the violent and out of control behaviour of the pathetic Mr. Kruger and his affiliations. I think it is important to point out that Jonathon routinely defends this "person" and maintains a dialogue with him.

    It would be swell to hear how he justifys this.

    Gotta love the photo of Kruger grinning while pepper spraying a defenseless woman.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus / BikePortland May 24, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    steve,

    I understand your concerns. I don't have time to address them fully right now, but I will soon. thanks.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tony May 24, 2007 at 8:01 pm

    So, if my neighbors come home and find me in their living room, all I need to say is "I don't remember how I got here". Of course, I'm also not aware of having their silverware...

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Steve May 25, 2007 at 2:42 pm

    Check this link out to see how cops respond to a similar incident when it involves cars not bikes. Notice how state troopers "rushed" to the scene and how they are searching for the other suspects.

    Platinum city my ass.

    http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_052507_news_road_rage_wilsonville.ca61349.html

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • pdxcommuter May 31, 2007 at 12:37 am

    League of American Bicyclists (LAB) gives, or doesn't give, Portland a Platinum rating. Is it time to write to them to say, "No, Portland doesn't deserve a Platinum rating?"

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Dawson May 31, 2007 at 1:01 am

    Jonathan,
    Have you attempted to contact this person for a comment? I'd like to hear a word from him, that has not been filtered through the ranks.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • PoPo May 31, 2007 at 2:23 am

    Hey I didn't realize there were follow-ups to my last post.

    When I said "helpful" I meant it seemed helpful to the criminal investigation in that he said some stuff that seems incriminating, not that the suspect was a nice guy.

    Yeah, definite holes in the story. I don't know where the stories really started or the path they took to the end.

    Do we know that there were no charges filed? Honestly I don't know. Or maybe there are some pending. Sometimes police do an investigation then turn it over to the district attorney's office to decide whether to actually charge the person or not. Particularly if there is an identified suspect they can always be found and arrested or cited later.

    And yes, we do have to give equal weight to conflicting accounts. Which is often maddening. That's why third-party witnesses are so valuable. Unfortunately in this case I bet there were no third-party witnesses to the actual exchange of words between bicyclist and driver since any potential witness was probably blowing by at 75 mph.

    And hey, I and some of my co-workers do a fair amount of riding without "police" on our backs. Just like any organization with a thousand people, some bike, some ride MAX or bus, some walk. We're just human.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan May 31, 2007 at 8:49 am

    Is there really anything the driver could have said to the rider, or any response the rider could have given in return, that could justify the driver's subsequent actions? The driver ran over the rider's bike. He should pay for the damage and be charged criminally for driving his truck on the bike path.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • tb May 31, 2007 at 8:22 pm

    response to #31 and others wondering how the driver may have exited the path in Vancouver.

    Halfway between the interstate ramp and the cul-de-sac is a gate. The gate consists of 2 extra-wide swinging doors that are wide enough to admit a fire truck. It is completely unlocked and admits directly to SR-14.

    What agency is responsible for securing that entry???

    Recommended Thumb up 0

- Daily bike news since 2005 -
BikePortland.org is a production of
PedalTown Media Inc.
321 SW 4th Ave, Ste. 401
Portland, OR 97204

Powered by WordPress. Theme by Clemens Orth.
Subscribe to RSS feed


Original images and content owned by Pedaltown Media, Inc. - Not to be used without permission.