Fatal crash in Washington County
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on June 9th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
66 year-old Timothy O’Donnell was killed on Friday while on a group ride with the Portland Velo bike club. He was struck by a motorist from behind as he attempted to make a left-hand turn. The crash took place in Cornelius, about half-way between Hillsboro and Forest Grove. Here’s the press release from the Washington County Sheriff’s Office:
On June 9th, 2007 at 12:14pm Deputies with the Washington County Sheriff’s Office responded to a crash on NW Cornelius-Schefflin Road near NW Long Road (map). A group of five bicyclists were riding south on Cornelius-Schefflin Road and were preparing to turn east on NW Long Road.
As the second cyclist in the line signaled for the turn a vehicle also traveling south on Cornelius-Schefflin began to pass the group of bicycles. The vehicle, a 2008 Dodge Avenger, struck the signaling bicyclist while it was still in it’s lane of traffic.
The bicyclist, 66 year-old Timothy O’Donnell of Aloha, died at the scene. The driver of the vehicle, 26- year- old Jennifer Knight of Hayden Idaho, was cited for Driving While Suspended, Careless Driving, and Passing in a No Passing Zone.
Timothy was a member of local cycling club Portland Velo and was riding with four others (none were hurt) when the crash occurred.
Carlo Delumpa, president of Portland Velo, came upon the scene shortly after it happened (read his full comment):
“I, like many members of our club who knew Tim, are going through both grief and anger and it helps to see so many people in the community step forward with positive actions. …As a club, we are focusing now on supporting the O’Donnell family as well as the Velo members who were with Tim and who are going through some very hard re-hashing of yesterday’s events.”
Since the motorist was cited with Careless Driving, this is the type of case where the the BTA’s proposed “Vulnerable Roadway Users” bill (which is currently just one Senate vote from becoming law) could be used to enforce a stiffer consequence in lieu of jail time or the more serious offenses of vehicular manslaughter or homicide.
Stay tuned for more developments.
Local media coverage:
- Oregonian: Aloha bicyclist dies after being struck by car
- KATU-TV (with video): Bicyclist struck by car, killed near Cornelius
- Portland Tribune: Aloha bicyclist dies in crash, Car driver cited in accident
- KPTV: Bicyclist Killed In Cornelius Collision
Email This Post
Possibly related posts
June 9th, 2007 21:50
She broke three laws (all at the same time) that resulted in someones death. And all she'll get is a slap on the wrist. In a sad way, reading this stuff here each day makes me hate Portland. It's not Portlands fault really, but it seems like drivers can be as wreckless as they want to be and pay a very small price for their actions - while cyclists pay with their lives.
June 9th, 2007 21:54
driving while suspended, careless driving, passing in a no passing zone...and not vehicular homicide?!?!
June 9th, 2007 22:18
Was this one of the Portland Velo riders? I wasn't on the ride, but I ride with them somewhat regularly and their route was through this intersection.
My lord! :(
June 9th, 2007 22:27
I know this doesn't apply here, but I would like to see our DMV driver's test ask a series of questions about how to deal with cyclists in traffic. We need to raise the driver's awareness of their responsibilities for everyone, not just the other vehicles. Maybe this concept could be then farmed out to other states, become national.
June 9th, 2007 22:59
Something needs to change. Vehicular homicide is appropriate at the least --in my very non-professional opinion. Just a terrible tragedy committed by a careless individual that will not pay appropriately for her actions. There is no justice for cyclists killed by careless people in automobiles. My condolences to this victim's family.
June 9th, 2007 23:03
Jesus Christ! If this isn't strong evidence of why we need a law to protect vulnerable roadway users I don't know what is. This is truly, truly tragic. I feel like I should wear a black armband on the naked bike ride.
June 9th, 2007 23:17
Tim is a member of Portland Velo.
June 9th, 2007 23:24
RIP. May God give strength to the survivors of the victim. I work out in Hillsboro and will try to leave flowers at the scene.
June 9th, 2007 23:31
I would like to point out that the Sheriff's Department may still be filing charges against her in addition to citing her at the scene. In a way the fact that she was cited at the scene is a step in the right direction. How many times has this sort of thing happened and no tickets were issued?
June 9th, 2007 23:52
I took the opportunity to write my legislators immediately when I saw the news. What an awful crime. My thoughts to the family and friends of Mr. O'Donnell and especially to the riders with him who watched him die.
June 10th, 2007 04:27
what a shame, 66 years old and out of nowhere a careless irresponsible 26 year old takes his amazing life away. I for one will not be satisfied unless the reckless driver sees major jail time. If she gets a friken fine it'll just send a message out that a cyclists life is only worth $750
RIP Tim
June 10th, 2007 07:45
Here's an edited email which I sent to Sheriff Rob Gordon of Washington County, in which I criticize his deputies for not arresting Knight on the spot for vehicular homicide. I also suggest that maybe the Washington County Commissioners should take greater control of his department. I cc'd my commissioner, Desari Strader; the County Commission Chair, Tom Brian; and Dick Schouten, another Comissioner who is also a bicyclist.
Dear Sheriff Gordon:
(The link on your main web page at http://www.co.washington.or.us/cgi/sheriff/lec.pl has a bad email address for you. I am re-sending this email using the address I see at http://www.co.washington.or.us/sheriff/admin/complain.htm I suggest you have someone fix the main web page.)
I read in the bikeportland.org blog, at http://bikeportland.org/2007/06/09/fatal-crash-in-washington-county/ and in the Oregonian at http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/06/aloha_bicyclist_dies_after_bei.html that Jennifer Knight was merely cited after she murdered bicyclist Timothy M. O'Donnell, who was signaling for a left turn.
Why was Knight not arrested for vehicular homicide and immediately thrown in jail? Is it just because she killed a bicyclist, and not a "real" road user? Need I remind you that O'Donnell had every right to use the road that day? And with a suspended license, Knight did not?
To say the least, I am extermely disappointed in the inactions of your department. Perhaps it is time that the Washington County Board of Commissioners took greater control of your department.
....
----end of email----
--pdxcommuter
June 10th, 2007 07:54
Here are the email address for Sheriff Gordon:
rob_gordon@co.washington.or.us
And here are email address for the Washington County Commissioners:
tom_brian@co.washington.or.us
dick_schouten@co.washington.or.us
Desari Strader, Andy Duyck, and Roy Rogers all list cao@co.washington.or.us as their email address.
If you are in Washington County, you can figure out which Commissioner represents you by looking at the map at
http://www.co.washington.or.us/deptmts/cao/bd_comm/map/s_commap.htm
June 10th, 2007 07:57
Dammit...not again.
My condolences to the family of the rider.
I fear this fate every time I ride.
Godspeed Timothy
June 10th, 2007 09:01
I was out riding with Portland Velo yesterday in a different group. I was not aware anything like this happened until I read the paper this morning. What a tragedy.
June 10th, 2007 09:14
This is terrible news and my condolences go out to friends and family. More likely than the Sheriff's Office making a decision as to whether more serious charges are appropriate, the Sheriff's Office will forward the matter to the District Attorney's Office for consideration of what criminal charges are appropriate. It is not uncommon for the Sheriff's Office to do so. The DA's Office ultimately decides which charges are formally filed in court and brought to a grand jury for their consideration of whether there exists sufficient evidence to support felony charges. That may take a few days or longer. For me, now is a time to express to his family and friends (and the biking community) our sadness. While we also need to monitor closely how the matter is handled, we need to be careful to respond appropriately to ensure justice.
June 10th, 2007 09:19
Poor Jennifer...
Every motorist should always have their list o' excuses handy in the vehicle.
Dog distracted me
Kid distracted me
Cell Phone
Sun in eyes
Bee flew threw window
I never saw him
That Jennifer was cited at the scene by a law enforcement officer is simply shocking.
June 10th, 2007 10:02
This is what I sent to the sheriff Gordon and cc'd the WA County Comm's
Dear Sheriff Gordon,
I am incredibly saddened by the senseless death of the cyclist, Timothy O'Donnell. I am incredibly angry that Jennifer Knight was not arrested under manslaughter charges at the scene and taken to jail. I find the decision of your officers very frustrating. Why wasn't she arrested for manslaughter? She killed a cyclist while driving with a suspended license and passing in a no passing zone. She had no right to be on the road and yet she receives a slap on the wrist after killing another human being. I can't comprehend the decision of your officers.
As a bicycle commuter, recreational cyclist, father, husband and voting member in this community, I am deeply concerned by the lack of serious charges for Jennifer Knight. My heart goes out to the friends and family of Timothy O'Donnell. I can't imagine how they must feel right now. But I can imagine that they feel much worse knowing that your police department takes their father's, friend's, husband's, neighbor's and/or coworker's death so lightly.
June 10th, 2007 11:12
I'm just curious....what about man slaughter.... didn't see that listed anywhere?
The biggest "global" problem with this type of EXTREMELY UNFORTUNATE event - Realistically, what would have made a difference..........other than somehow instilling in people a minimal inherent level of mindfulness
June 10th, 2007 11:14
The "Vulnerable Users Bill" HB3314-A is in the state Senate. There's a link on this page to the BTA Blog with updated info:
http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2007/06/06/latest-on-vulnerable-users-bill-hb3314-a/
According to the blog, a final vote was imminent. According to the legislative web site, a work session is scheduled for tomorrow: Monday, June 11.
The bill adds penalties and education for drivers who harm bicyclists, pedestrians or other vulnerable users of our roads.
The BTA has asked people to contact their state Senators urging passage. Our Senator, Ryan Deckert, told me he supports the bill.
June 10th, 2007 11:22
My heartfelt condolences to Timothy O'Donnell's family & friends.
In addition to all else that is troubling about this story is what's missing. License suspensions are frequently a result of substance abuse. I see no mention of Jennifer having been tested for DUI. Such testing would seem logical to me in light of the damage done.
Also troubling is the fact that she's an out-of-state driver and was sent on her way with nothing more than a few pieces of paper. If the District Attorney does decide to file criminal charges, the state is now faced with an extradition proceeding. With a suspended licence I suspect there's also no insurance. What's to prevent her from simply disappearing? I hope the police at least had the presence of mind to impound the car.
June 10th, 2007 11:43
I am extremely saddened by the death of a fellow cyclist in our community. My heart goes out to the family and friends of Timothy.
June 10th, 2007 11:53
Cyclists traveling down the side of a 45-50 mile an hour country road. They decide to make a left hand turn causing them to potentially cross into traffic coming from behind them. Obviously this person didn't look behind before turning or he would have seen the truck coming and decided against endangering his life.
I agree that if the driver was driving with a suspended licence then she should face what's coming to her, but please don't just focus on what she did wrong. If you care about living then be aware! Look behind you when making a left turn!
June 10th, 2007 11:56
Here's a letter I just sent Rob Gordon:
Dear Sheriff Gordon,
It upset me to hear about the death of Timothy O'Donnell yesterday, but I was appalled to find out that Jennifer Knight was allowed to leave the scene without being arrested on criminal charges. If it wasn't bad enough that she attempted to pass a cyclist (soon to be deemed a "vulnerable roadway user" by the State Senate) in a no-passing zone causing his death, she was also driving illegally with a suspended license. Come on Rob, even Paris Hilton is in jail for that now, and she didn't kill anyone. Because Jennifer was allowed to leave the scene and go on her merry little way, she could be out driving right now for all we know. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that the kind of person who would drive on a suspended license once would do it again in a heartbeat, but I just did. Also, in case you don't have the definitions handy, OR 163.005 states (and the bold is mine): (1) A person commits criminal homicide if, without justification or excuse, the person intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence causes the death of another human being. I don't think you can argue that she did not recklessly cause the death of another human being, so then what? Well, OR 163.118 states that: (1) Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter in the first degree when: (a) It is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Seems pretty clear-cut to me Rob. And, as violation of OR 163.118 (Manslaughter in the first degree) is a Class A felony, I can't comprehend how she was allowed to leave the scene. Even if you don't agree with the "extreme indifference to the value of human life" (which I do, because obviously her need to get where she was going, illegally, and fast, took precedent over Timothy's life), you can drop it to manslaughter in the second degree and it's still a Class B felony. But whatever, you cant change the past, and she wasn't arrested. In light of that though, I not only think it would be fair of you to push the DA to file manslaughter charges, but I also think you personally owe it to Timothy's family and friends. A careless woman just destroyed this man's life, and you are one of the few people with enough clout in the situation to see that justice is done.
June 10th, 2007 11:57
I believe that citing her on the spot was a poor decision. It is my understanding that if she quickly pleads guilty to the "infractions" before criminal charges are filed, she would avoid any criminal culpability. The DA needs to dismiss the cites pending a grand jury review of the case.
June 10th, 2007 11:59
I've just written to my state Senator, Kate Brown, to ask her to support the Vulnerable Roadway Users Bill.
If you live in NE, SE, or Milwaukie, she's your senator as well. Her email address is
sen.katebrown at state.or.us
If you're in another district, you can go to votesmart.org to find out who your state senator is and how to contact them.
June 10th, 2007 12:34
Hi all-
Thank you so much for your support of Tim and his family, and of our community of cyclists as well. This occured during one of our group rides, on a very frequented route and road, and to a very experienced cyclist. I, like many members of our club who knew Tim, are going through both grief and anger and it helps to see so many people in the community step forward with positive actions.
I was at the scene shortly after the accident happened with a couple of Portland Velo leadership team members. It was not a sight I want to ever see again, but it was especially bad for the four riders with Tim, and who saw the entire incident happen. As a club, we are focusing now on supporting the O'Donnell family as well as the Velo members who were with Tim and who are going through some very hard re-hashing of yesterday's events.
I do hope that once the official police reports are available, that we as a cycling community will have addtional good fodder to get the law regarding vehicular homocide enacted. We are one of 4 states who do not have one currently and we are by far the most active cycling community in the US (at least that's what I like to believe).
We will share more details regarding services for Tim, a place people can send cards and thoughts to the family and things Portland Velo will be doing to celebrate one of our friends. Those details will be available at our website - http://www.portlandvelo.net.
Thank you again for all your support and wishes for the O'Donnell family. Please feel contact me at carlo@portlandvelo.net if you have any questions, comments or concerns.
Cheers-
Carlo Delumpa
Portland Velo
June 10th, 2007 14:23
I've only ridden on Cornelius-Schefflin Road a handful of times, always to get from Roy Rd. to Wren Rd (about 200-300 meters), but from that experience alone I know that it is a terrible road to ride on. There's little to no shoulder and the traffic -- which is abundant -- absolutely flies. I've been pretty damned frightful each time I've done it. I think it's time to find an alternate route for my Forest Grove loop.
June 10th, 2007 20:27
"Cyclists traveling down the side of a 45-50 mile an hour country road. They decide to make a left hand turn causing them to potentially cross into traffic coming from behind them. Obviously this person didn't look behind before turning or he would have seen the truck coming and decided against endangering his life."
She was straddling the yellow line trying to get past them, while they were signaling left. She saw them. Just couldn't wait the 5 seconds for everyone to be safe. Roadway users in the front have the right of way.
June 10th, 2007 21:56
Josh (#23)
All I can say is "wow"
You read the same article I did, the one that said that the driver was cited for:
"Passing in a NO PASSING LANE"
"CARELESS DRIVING"
"Driving while suspended"
and you came to the conclusion that the victim who "was hit in his lane" must have turned in front of the vehicle without looking? Are you serious? And you post this in a forum that will be looked upon by his friends and loved ones? Did we read the same article? Either I need to get my eyes checked or you have an agenda. Since I have 20/20 I wonder which is the case....
June 11th, 2007 06:58
[...] bikeportland.org story of Tim O’Donnell’s death, with lots of reaction in the following comments [...]
June 11th, 2007 07:01
The agenda is to try to get people to become more aware and safe. You should always look behind you when potentially crossing into a motor vehicle's way. If he would have looked then he probably would have seen the truck coming on too fast and trying to pass, and he would probably be alive to tell the story.
I don't know what really happened. But what I do know is that he would have probably still been alive if he would have been more aware of the environment around him and not just assumed that he was safe.
I'm very sorry for his family but how can I make people start respecting potential killers.
June 11th, 2007 07:02
Have all of you who are Oregon residents contacted your legislator about HB3314A yet?
If not, why not?
June 11th, 2007 08:10
Josh - you made my point. You were NOT there and you don't know what happened other than what you read in brief articles. You are making suppositions about the safety procedures of the riders involved.
How about refraining from your "agenda" until you actually have a friggin' clue?
June 11th, 2007 08:10
Josh-
You are making assumptions that, while possible and plausible, are not by any means the whole story. The cyclists involved in the incident have ridden that road dozens of times, are extremely aware and cautious at that particular intersection, and had signalled - and looked back a number of times. I do not know what was going through Tim's mind at the time the accident happened, but I knew him to be a safe and mindful cyclist.
The fact is that there are a myriad of factors that contributed to the accident including the weather, the speed limit of that section of road (55 MPH), the driver's lapse of judgement in passing unsafely, the actual speed the driver was going. She was on them before they even heard her. We will have to wait for the complete police report and analysis before we know all the facts.
Your comment of "he would have been alive if..." is extremely insensitive and disrespectful to his family and to those cyclists who have to deal with the images of that day. You, nor anyone else, knows what Tim assumed or thought, what he saw or didn't see, what he heard or didn't hear. I ask only that you consider the other factors that contributed to this tragedy before you pass such a public and harsh judgement on one of our friends who, by the way, is not here to defend himself to you (not that he owes anyone that).
I do agree with you that tragedies like these are a wake-up call to the cycling community to go the extra mile in safety, awarenes and predicatbility while doing anything that involves being on a roadway. I have become known for my rants on safety and if aything good can come out of this, maybe more people will ride more carefully.
This is a time to come together, not point fingers. And as easy as it is to be angry at the driver, we need to wait for all the facts before coming to conclusions about her as well. What we should be angry about is our state law that neither protects us nor ensures the appropriate level of justice in these situations. It is time for all of us to do what we can to help get HB3314 passed.
We have to believe that safety on the road is a shared responsibility involving all participants including vehicles, bikes and pedestrians. In that regard I do agree with you.
Carlo
June 11th, 2007 08:13
Sorry Ken #30, Josh is right. To bike on that road is scary enough, and to understand the traffic patterns and speed should tell cyclists to be overly cautious. Anytime I want to cross traffic to turn, especially out in the rural areas, I double check...if not more, depending on the road layout. And signaling is another part of this unfortunate equation. I will wear my arm out, just holding it out to signal for longer periods of time. And doing so while looking back repeatedly. I'm sorry for all those who knew Tim, but we all need to remember to be overly cautious in these areas.
June 11th, 2007 09:00
Do I hear civil suit?
Please???!!!
Sue the girl and anyone who can be connected and give all the money to the BTA or something. Driving in western Oregon on a suspended Idaho license? Come on!
June 11th, 2007 09:10
I just received this link from a good friend of mine who is part of the above-named riding group. I was shocked and saddened to hear about the tragic death of the cyclist. My sentiments regarding the legal action that was taken is also similar to everyone elses. I do have a questions though, after the citations were issued...did they also allow the driver to take her car and go on her way?! Driving with a suspended license is no joke, although its amazing how many people do drive with suspended licenses. There is a reason for such suspensions so why is law enforcement so cavalier in their enforcement of the offense especially if something like this results from their lack of enforcement. And whatever happened to "protect and serve"?! In this case, its abundantly clear that said motto is just a punchline at the end of a cruel joke. My condolences go out to the mourning family and friends. This was truly a senseless tragedy.
June 11th, 2007 10:52
This case, like every senseless 'road' fatality is a tragedy. And it is a case in point of why the 'Vulnerable Users Bill' is a waste of time and money. It would not prevent this type of crime. It would not penalize the criminal in an appropriate way. This person needs jail time.
Drivers like this one, who kill are committing premeditated murder. I don't care if you hit a bicyclist, a pedestrian, or another vehicle. You should go to Jail. You should not go to traffic class, and pay a moderate fine, and 'lose' your license for a bit.
I don't care what you are driving and where you are driving it. That 50 mph excuse some folks are throwing out there is a croc. If it is not possible to slow down safely to deal with another legal road user, unexpected pedestrian, or the sudden appearance of wild-life the the speed limit on that road is not appropriate for the road use.
You MUST be in control of your vehicle. The only way to deter these crimes is with significant up front enforcement and follow-up up held by the courts.
Make people AFRAID to not follow the rules, or this country will continue to suffer 50000 road fatalities a year.
June 11th, 2007 11:44
Carlo you are completely right, in everything you say. I don't mean to be insensitive to the family or anyone personally greaving for this loss.
My only excuse is for you and everyone to look at every comment before mine and notice that this seems the flow for every time an accident happens. We blame the driver for 100% of the accident. I was brought up that every accident is preventable. Yes it's sad that he had to die, and this may not be the time for questions like these. Unfortunately when the time comes to discuss what we as individuals can do to ensure our own safety the blog post falls down the list, it's forgotten, and we don't get a good conversation going.
Yes the driver was probably 100% at fault. We've hashed that. But that does not mean that we should sit back, crucify the driver, and leave it at that.
June 11th, 2007 12:46
The sheriff (Rob Gordon) responded to my scathing email:
Rob Gordon
to Norine, me
More options 9:24 am (3 hours ago)
We generally respond to events and have little control over the headlines. I might suggest that if you want to do more than send a venting e-mail, you should contact your legislative contingent (assuming you are an Oregon resident) and ask them to put some teeth in the laws.
We enforce the law, we don't write them.
- Sheriff Rob Gordon
June 11th, 2007 13:36
Josh (#40),
Thank you for stating that you are not intending to be insensitive. In your defense, you may not be aware of the numerous discussions of your same point that most contributors here have read and/or been a part of. Nearly all of them "get" it and have already incorporated into their personal cycling habits. I'm sure others would be glad to discuss further with you about our personal responsibility in accident prevention. Please, just not right now. Thanks.
My condolences to family, friends, and community.
June 13th, 2007 15:37
~~To the Family of Tim O'Donnell~~
Hoping you get these wonderful support messages. My husband works at the same Company yours did and they are all grieving as you are for the tragic loss of your husband. It is always a sad thing to hear when someone you know passes away in such a tragic way.
I do not always believe in our justice system, But I do believe something good will come out of his passing.
Please accept our condolences on your loss and his buddies at Aero Air will truly miss him.
June 13th, 2007 18:22
Messaages need to be sent to the D.A. for this consideration. For instance I am sure the D.A. does not know she was involved in an accident 2 weeks ago in Idaho. This involved hurting her daughter with the seatbelt. Last winter she wrecked 2 cars in St. Helens. Last winter she drove off the road in Scappoose and flew for over 50 feet. She is an angry person and transposes her anger to her driving. She has a serious anger problem with all persons she confronts with.
The athorities need to investigate her history more thoroughly from everywhere she has driven and lived. When someone is killed a complete investigation is done. Why not here. She killed someone and went home and had dinner that night. This is just wrong.
June 13th, 2007 21:31
Thank you to all of you, except maybe Josh, for your kind thoughts and concerns. My uncle should not be dead. Tim was the most cautious and thoughtfull cyclist I know. I did not know about this website until yesterday when someone told me about it. I have been looking through the website and I was not sure if I wanted to look at the recent headlines section. I am really amazed by this response. I am a cyclist and like most of you I am sure, have had several close encouters on the road. The tragedy Saturday is just too much. I am so angry and do not know what to do. There are so many issues to consider. I want to write some sort of article that brings up all of the issues and incorporates views from all sides. I am a little bit out of it right now, but I am glad to have found this website and read through these comments.
Thank you.
June 14th, 2007 06:49
I have just sent the following e-mail to my senator, and to Senator Kruse of Douglas County. I urge others to do the same. Here is my e-mail:
Dear Senator Avakian and Senator Kruse
Iit has just come to my attention that there is a very important bill coming up in the Senate, the "Vulnerable Users Bill, HB 3314A." As a member of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, as a bicycle commuter who cycles to work 4 days a week, and as a bicyclist who has twice on commutes been hit by vehicles, I urge you to vote "Yes" on this bill.
Let me explain my support for this bill. Oregon traffic has become very bad, especially in Beaverton. Both of the times I was hit by a vehicle were on Fridays, and so I don't even try riding on Fridays anymore. Drivers are impatient, and this impatience is encouraged by TV ads and our general driving culture. By requiring drivers who seriously injure or kill cyclists or other vulnerable users of the roadway to pay $12,500, and have their license suspended for one year, or to complete 100 to 200 hours of community service and pass a special driver education course, there would be accountability built into the system. Currently, there is no accountability, even if a cyclist or pedestrian is killed by outrageous behavior. Right now, we in Washington County just lost a bicyclist to a driver who ran into him as he was making a legal left turn from one rural road to another, and the driver attempted to pass in a no-pass zone. If you are interested, here are two stories about the crash:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/06/aloha_bicyclist_dies_after_bei.html#comments
http://www.portlandvelo.net/
I am a Certified Safety Professional with 28 years in the field. When we work on controls in the workplace, we ensure that all the workers are given the responsibility to act in a safe and healthful manner, the authority to act, and accountability for their actions (both positive and negative). It should work the same on the roadway for all users of the road. Under HB 3314A, both drivers and cyclists would have accountability. There was a case in Corvallis where a cyclist hit and killed a pedestrian, and that person would come under this act too if it were to pass.
For over 18 years I was a resident of Roseburg, in Douglas County. The Douglas County area has some of the finest cycling areas in the State of Oregon, and my family took advantage of them. One evening, we were at a function for Mercy Medical Center, where my wife worked. An acquaintance began talking about how he would purposely try to "clip" cyclists who were using the roadway with his pickup truck. He did not like cyclists, and was showing them how he felt. We pointed out that our family was part of those people who cycled in Douglas County, but it made no difference to him. I was recently at a conference in Philadelphia, and met a researcher from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), who was also a bicyclist. She related another incident in a different state where her bicycling partner was run off the road by a pickup. This is happening across this nation, and this belligerent culture toward bicyclist must stop. The Vulnerable Users Bill is one way to at least have drivers take notice that there will be some accountability for their driving behavior, and bicyclists too.
The Tuesday, June 12th, 2007 Editorial Page of the Oregonian newspaper had an ironic headline for an editorial. "A twisted view of nature." "If pigeon hobbyists are convicted of killing raptors, tough sentences would deter similar crimes." The irony of this is that these hobbyists may get more punishment than a driver who kills a bicyclist, or a bicylist who kills a pedestrian.
I hope that you will take a serious look at the Vulnerable Users Bill, HB 3314A, and vote in favor of it.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
John C. Ratliff
Certified Safety Professional
June 14th, 2007 07:17
Teresa, my thoughts and prayers are with you and your family.
I too got an email back from Sheriff Gordon:
I sent a follow-up letter to Sheriff Gordon, with cc's to several County Comissioners. See previous postings in this thread for those email addresses. I also cc'd my state senator and representative. Find your senator and representative at http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/
I also sent a copy to Washington County District Attorney Robert Hermann. Mr. Hermann's web page does not give his email address. But, email to Robert_Hermann@co.washington.or.us has worked for me, previously.
----edited follow-up email appears below----
While I am not a lawyer, I can read the Oregon Statutes (ORS) at http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors. I think that the law allowed your deputy to charge Knight with manslaughter under ORS 163.118. I understand that other people may have already pointed this out to you. (See http://bikeportland.org/2007/06/09/fatal-crash-in-washington-county/#comment-414031 .)
Let me expand on what they said.
ORS 163.118 says:
O'Donnell died as a result of Knight's trying to pass over a double yellow line, so I think that the "extreme indifference" test has been met.
ORS 161.085(9) defines "recklessly":
Knight was driving with a suspended license. Your press release at http://www.co.washington.or.us/sheriff/media/ftl_bik4.htm says that Knight is "of Hayden Idaho." Presumeably, then, her license was suspended by the state of Idaho. That tells me that in the state of Idaho's opinion, Knight should not be driving.
Idaho must have suspended her license because Knight's driving represented a risk to the citizens of Idaho. If her driving was an unacceptable risk for Idahoans, then it was also an unacceptable risk for Oregonians. Knight consciously disregarded Idaho's opinion, and drove anyway. That meets the "disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur" test in ORS 161.085.
What about "the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe?" Idaho told Knight not to drive. Was it reasonable for Knight to have driven, anyway? Under what standard of care would the hypothetical reasonable person, having been told not to drive by the state that issued their driver's license, go ahead and drive anyway?
Perhaps if there were a life and death emergency, where there was no other option, then a reasonable person would drive with a suspended license. Was there such an emergency in this instance? You do not mention it in your press release, so I think I can assume that there was not.
So, no, Knight's actions do not meet the reasonable person standard.
Your deputy therefore could have charged Knight with criminally negligent homicide under ORS 163.118. While it is too late for that, it is not too late for District Attorney Hermann to do so.
....
June 14th, 2007 11:20
I would like to set the record a little straight, hopefully to settle questions about bicycle safety issues and how a kind person left us.
To Tim's family, I would like to say that he was the type of person that gave me something to laud in the human race; I am grateful that I knew him, even if only for a short ride. He was generally cautious and concerned about other riders and his own safety.
Carlo and the other Velo leaders and riders have been so helpful through this whole experience.
-----
Tim had looked over his shoulder. He was looking when he was hit. He had looked back several times before signaling and moving left into traffic. The oncoming car was silver and did not have headlights on. The day was grey and overcast. She was moving like a bat out of hell. The first time I knew she was there was the sickening crunch of car tearing into flesh and bicycle. I remember this too well. I was looking at his face and bike as the car hit him. It was my turn next to turn left.
-----
One last thing. We had a paramedic along on the ride and the EMTs were there in about one minute. All emergency people were more than helpful and if anything could have been done it would have. Martin only had time to push on Tim's chest a couple of times before the EMTs arrived.
To Drew and Andy, if you ever see this, thanks. Thanks so much.
June 14th, 2007 13:21
Antonio (posting of June 13): What is the source of your information about the horrendous background of the driver who killed Tim O'Donnell? If this is all true, then we need to let both the DA and The Oregonian know how to verify it. If true, The Oregonian wants to keep pursuing this travesty. This is some serious ammo to use in our pursuit of a vehicular homicide law so, Antonio, let us know where you got this info. Thanks. Doug (rainguy@comcast.net)
June 14th, 2007 16:08
Here is my letter to the Sheriff:
Dear Sheriff Gordon,
I've read some of your thoughtful responses to people inquiring about the procedures of your officers in the case involving the young woman who caused the death of Timothy O'Donnell. One thing that puzzles me, however, is why driving on a suspended Idaho license in Western Oregon, passing in a no passing zone, and causing the death of another on the road wouldn't constitute a prima facie case for manslaughter? Even in the absence of a specific "vehicular manslaughter" law, do your officers really lack the discretion to ever apply manslaughter charges to a motorist??
Thanks in advance for your time.
June 14th, 2007 17:08
Sheriff Gordon replied to my question about the discretion of officers to charge negligent motorists with manslaughter:
We do arrest for manslaughter on occasion. These cases usually involve
alcohol or drugs, thus raising the negligence bar to meet the
requirements. I'm not sure what comments you've read, but if you
haven't read the web site below, you might give it a look. It explains
the law pretty well and is not written by police or prosecutors.
http://www.stc-law.com/bicycle.html
- Sheriff Rob Gordon
June 15th, 2007 13:15
First, my condolences to Tim's family, friends and loved ones. But I hope we can all learn something from this so that his death is not in vain.
I would like to understand what the driver did that you all think was so terrible. I understand the result of her driving with a suspended license and crossing a double-yellow while passing cyclists resulted in a horrible tragedy, but is what she did really all that bad? What did she do?
My understanding is that this was a straight stretch of rural highway, great sight lines, probably 12' wide lanes, a fog line, and no paved shoulder. They were approaching a T intersection. What I'm particularly interested in is discussing what was likely to have been happening about 10 seconds prior to the crash.
Assuming the cyclists were traveling at 15 mph and the driver at 60 mph, that's 22 feet per second and 88 fps respectively. So, 10 seconds prior to the crash, the driver was about 880 feet from the point of impact, while the cyclists were still 220 feet back. Now 200-250 feet prior to a left turn is arguably the appropriate place for cyclists to start looking back, signaling and merging left, precisely so that others know what they're up to and can plan accordingly, but cyclists, even "experienced" cyclists, rarely actually do this. In our culture, cyclists are conditioned to stay right as long and as much as possible, and tend not to leave the right side until literally the last second or two before the left turn. So in all likelihood at 10 seconds/220 feet out, they were just riding along near or on the fog line, leaving no indication whatsoever that they were planning on turning left in about 200 feet.
But, at 10 seconds prior to impact, the driver was 660 (880-220) feet behind the cyclists, and closing quickly at the rate of about 66 feet per second. That was the time for her to decide what to do, and she basically had 3 choices:
A) slow down to 15 mph and wait until a legal passing zone
B) keep going and pass, closely, within the lane (with or without some slowing too).
C) keep going and pass, but adjust left crossing the double-yellow a bit so as not to pass too closely (with or without some slowing too).
Apparently, she chose Plan C. Is that so bad? Consider if the cyclists had not turned left (remembering that at this point they probably were not giving her any indication that that was their intention yet). She would have passed them while they continued riding along the fog line without incident. Would that crossing over the double yellow seemed so terrible? Would her suspended license have been relevant? Haven't we all had countless motorists, including cops, pass us exactly like this? Would a cop have cited her for reckless driving? Would anyone have even noticed or thought twice about such a move? Yes, while technically illegal, what she apparently did, cross a double yellow in order to pass some cyclists, is quite normal and certainly not unpredictable.
So what happened? What happened is that the cyclists apparently waited until the last second or two to start their turning process, glanced back, apparently did not notice her (one of the riders there has surmised that her silver car on a gray day was a factor, another possibility was they were just not paying attention), and Tim suddenly signaled left and moved out into her path long after she was committed to Plan C and before she had a chance to do anything to avoid hitting him midstream in her passing maneuver.
Was the driver really being all that careless? That's not so clear to me. Weren't the cyclists the ones who were definitely careless here? I mean, moving left into the path of a fast moving motor vehicle, whether such a move is preceded by a signal or not, would clearly be a violation of her right of way if they had been turning left into a driveway instead of a side road. The fact that she had a suspended license, that it was an intersection with a street rather than a driveway, and that the lane was so narrow she had to encroach over the double yellow to pass safely are really legal technicalities that easily could have not been applicable in a slightly different scenario. So I don't understand what she did that was all that wrong. But I do see that the cyclists seemed to have not looked behind very carefully prior to moving left.
June 15th, 2007 13:32
pdxcommuter wrote: "O'Donnell died as a result of Knight's trying to pass over a double yellow line, so I think that the 'extreme indifference' test has been met."
With all due respect, this would never hold up in front of any jury, and the D.A. knows it. Why? Because just about every potential juror has encroached into an oncoming lane over a double yellow in order to pass cyclists safely countless times in his life. In some states (Ohio), this action is explicitly legalized. In other states, it is generally understood to be acceptable, though technically against the letter of the law. It is hard to argue that something that is legal in one state constitutes "extreme indifference" in another.
The alternative to allowing motorists to encroach across a double yellow to pass cyclists, officially or unofficially, is motorists having to slow down from highway speeds to cyclist speeds whenever cyclists are on the highway in narrow lanes on 2 lane highways with double yellows. That would only exacerbate the animosity towards cyclists. Careful what you wish for...
The only lesson I see here is this: look back carefully and without drifting, before moving left or right, making sure it's safe and clear to make the move, before making the move. If you get hit, then you obviously didn't check carefully. There is no way to get around that.
June 15th, 2007 14:49
Antonio, I would also like the know where you obtained that information on the car driver's history.
June 15th, 2007 15:41
NoChain, unless you have some very specific information, there's aparrently a lot of assumption going on in your speed/distance gap reduction calculations. There's something that really bothers me about a car traveling 60 mph on a two-lane country road overtaking a line of cyclists traveling 15 mph, regadless of how clear the sightlines are. What about the "basic rule"? This just doesn't seem safe under any circumstances. 30-35 mph for the car seems closer to a safe and reasonable passing speed for such a situation.
There were witnesses to this incident. People probably saw how far in advance of the intersection Timothy O’Donnell was when he started signalling. If he was even only 100'from the intersection when he started signalling, she would have been wrong to attempt passing him. Still going 60 mph only 100' from the intersection? Well, was she, and if so, what is it about that do you not understand is wrong?
June 15th, 2007 16:09
NoChain (#52 and 53),
First, I want to let you know that I appreciate the care you took in preparing and presenting your questions and following notes.
Next I want to ask if you really want to listen to the answers to your questions about what the driver did that was really so bad? Do you really want to listen enough to actually understand what is so terrible about what she did?
Side note to Jonathan: Do you want this discussion to happen in the comments to this article or would it be better to move it to its own separate discussion stream? Feel free to do what you wish but I wanted to ask out of respect for the family.
Back to topic: NoChain is asking a question that needs to be answered in a thoughtful, methodical approach because I think there are a number of people that are really going to need this broken down in order to understand. I mean if no one were injured in this crash (definitely not an "accident"), this is just a close call and both groups think members of the other group are rude and inconsiderate but everyone is OK.
I won't presume to think that I can answer this question by myself but one facet of the answer relates to "margin for error" and our society's "accidental" car culture (to quote Elly). The driver chose option C that reduced her margin for error so low that when her choice turned out badly, she was unable to compensate and someone paid for it with his life. And our society is so immersed in our car culture that we can't even see how narrow our margins for error have become as we drive around "efficiently" from one place to another.
So, NoChain, I hope you really want to listen to the answers because they are there if you really want to understand.
Again, my condolences to the family.
June 15th, 2007 16:40
"Side note to Jonathan: Do you want this discussion to happen in the comments to this article or would it be better to move it to its own separate discussion stream? Feel free to do what you wish but I wanted to ask out of respect for the family."
Gene,
I appreciate your concern, and I respect the family too,... but for now I will let this discussion keep going. Thanks for keeping tabs.. let me know if you have any feedback.
June 15th, 2007 17:52
wsbob - I'm guessing about the 60 mph speed. I don't know what the speed limit is there. If unposted it's 55. If it's less, and she was driving slower, then the number can be adjusted accordingly, but I don't think it will make much difference. Regardless of her speed, she'd have to make the critical decision about what to do about 10 seconds out, and 10 seconds is still 220' at 15 mph, considerably more at 20 mph, for the cyclists, so I doubt they were signaling that early (though they should have been, in addition to paying attention to traffic beind them, and that's my point).
At 100' feet out that seems like a normal/natural place for cyclists to start thinking about turning/signaling. But that's only 4 seconds out. It's too late. Well, it's too late to claim the right of way simply by signaling if someone in the process of passing them was less than 4 seconds behind them, which she clearly was by that point (since she hit him before they reached the intersection, and, thus, in less than 4 seconds).
Note that this analysis applies largely independent of the speed at which she was traveling, and really only assuming a speed in the range of 35 mph or more.
Gene, I hear what you're saying but I think there needs to be some reasonable reality check on the part of cyclists here. The cars are there, and they are that fast and heavy. There is no getting around that. We need to ride accordingly, not continue to bang our heads against their hoods hoping against hope that they will change. WE have to change. We have to take more responsibility for our safety, and do more in understanding the complexities of traveling on a bicycle on roads with motor vehicles. The onus is on us, because it matters to us much more. And I don't think we're doing ourselves any good if we start demanding that motorists be prevented from crossing double yellows when they pass us.
Having said that, it's not that bad. But the current norms and habits of cyclists, even the "experienced" ones who don't do much that is blatantly wrong, is not good enough. For example, it's not accepted in the cycling community that everyone, without exception, needs to know how to comfortably give a good long back to effectively evaluate the situation behind by turning his or head without drifting from his line of travel. It's a crucial skill, can be learned with only a little practice, but very few cyclists can actually do it. And that's only one example.
Have a good and safe weekend, everybody.
June 15th, 2007 17:56
I also want to say if she was speeding excessively I would think that there would be evidence of that and she would have been cited for that accordingly. It will be interesting to see what the "reckless driving" charge is based on and whether it sticks.
June 15th, 2007 20:03
NoChain, I don't have the article before me, (I think it was in yesterday's Oregonian in Duin's column), but there was a comment from one of the riders behind Timothy O'Donnell that witnessed the crash. After hitting and catupulting Timothy high above the roof of the car so that it passed under him as he was momentarily suspended there, Jennifer Knight's car proceeded to drive into the ditch. Seems like excessive speed just might have been a factor here.
Also, this business of how many seconds one user of the road is behind another user of the road is fine for attempting to re-enact a crash incident, but it is not the factor used to determine when to start signaling for a turn. I don't have the Oregon Driver's Manual before me, but I seem to recall that it states that 100 ft from and intersection is a proper distance to start signalling for a turn. If Timothy O'Donnell did actually follow this regulation, he did what he should have been expected to do by other users of the road. Jennifer Knight, the driver of the killing car should have known this.
June 15th, 2007 23:47
The issue here is very simple. No inquiry about precise geometries or other mathematical details is really necessary in this case. It is simply this: Like MADD has done with drunk driving, we need to make the cost excruciatingly high for careless driving, particularly when it is done by someone who is not even in possession of a valid license, particularly when it results in the death of another human being.
MADD's campaign against drunk driving has had results: The good ol' boy attitude about drinking and driving is OVER, history, kaput. The same needs to happen to people who think they can get behind a wheel if they don't have a valid license. And if they DO get behind a wheel without a license, then they need to know there's going to be absolute HELL to pay if they get into an accident, and then MOST of them will be goddam careful. They'll be CREEPING along on the kinds of roads where Timothy O'Donnell was killed -- or they will avoid them altogether.
This is all so simple that I'm astonished anyone here really needs to debate it...
June 16th, 2007 03:27
[...] anger lit up the comments of a posting about the accident at bikeportland.org and an online story in the [...]
June 16th, 2007 09:20
Antonio, believe me, I wish it were that simple. But the analogy with MADD fails on one crucial point: the legal definition of drunk driving is scientifically determined. The definition of careless driving is much less clear. Which brings me back to the essence of my original question: what exactly did she do that constitutes careless driving?
Wsbob, perhaps excessive speed was a factor here. Never-the-less, and this is not meant to excuse any of the driver's irresponsible behavior, but prudent cyclists should be prepared for close passes at excessive speeds when riding near the fog line on narrow rural roads, and ride accordingly. That's one reason I don't ride the fog line, but at least a couple of feet left of it -- I don't want my position to invite close passes -- but that's just another aspect of the trickiness involved with riding safely on narrow rural roads I originally mentioned. When you're riding a few inches from the edge of the road, you're implying that you're okay with having that narrow of a space on the side, so it's not unreasonable for motorists typically ignorant of cycling to assume that you're okay with approximately the same minimal space on your left. And, so, they pass too closely.
This is the kind of stuff taught in basic traffic cycling courses, but most "experienced" cyclists think they have no need for such courses, that they already know everything they need to know. Then they ride the fog line on narrow rural roads, not understanding how that invites close passes, and don't realize that they drift as much as several feet from their line of travel when they signal and look back. That's the tragedy here, how preventable this was, despite the irresponsible behavior of the motorist over which we have no control.
June 16th, 2007 13:45
NoChain, I hear you on the issue of anticipating close calls on country roads. I remember reading about the cyclists riding the fog line. What I never did quite understand clearly, that is if it's ever been clearly stated, is where the cyclist, Timothy O'Connell was in relation to the roadway lanes width once he started to signal for the left turn.
Riding the fog line as a means of keeping the road open for faster, passing vehicles is fine as long as the slower vehicle is set upon a straight ahead course. When the slower vehicle begins to prepare to make a left turn, it's time to occupy the breadth of the lane just so vehicles behind will understand the vehicle's presence there, along with the appropriate signal, indicates that a manooeuvre is in the process of being initiated.
From the spotty details that have been disclosed so far, i.e., he was signalling 90' ahead of the next closest cyclist, and the car driver Jennifer Knight was straddling the double line in her attempt to pass the cyclists, leads me to think O'Connell was likely to have been occupying the breadth of the lane (somewhere near the center)as he prepared for his left turn. Witnesses will have to help establish where he was in the lane, and how far from the intersection he was when he started to signal for the left turn.
If Timothy O'Connell made some careless, last minute left turn prep from the fog line, that's one thing. There's witnesses who'll be able to establish whether or not this was the case. At this point, I'm far from being able to understand exactly why Jennifer Knight drove her car into cyclist Timothy O'Connell as he signaled for a left turn. Lets let investigators collect the facts and make as exact a determination of what happened as is possible.
Really though, a cyclist can do everything right; occupy the lane with a safe margin from approaching vehicles, signal far enough in advance, look back repeatedly, and still get fatally hit if for some reason the driver of a motor vehicle does not stop their vehicle.
June 16th, 2007 14:29
wsbob - This has been a fruitful conversation. I think we're almost on the same page. I certainly agree it's possible to be legitimately occupying a lane and getting hit straight from behind. I just think it's very unlikely, and that doesn't appear to be the case here, for the reasons I discussed earlier.
One more point though. Having the general right to occupy a lane, to move and turn left, etc., does not mean a cyclist necessarily has the right to claim that right in a particular situation simply because he signaled. This too seems to be often not fully appreciated by many cyclists. Yet we know that when driving on a multilane road, signaling alone does not establish right of way to change lanes. If someone else is occupying that lane, or is in the process of passing you in that lane, you don't have the right to cut into it just because you signaled; and if you do, and a crash results, it's your fault.
Similarly, whenever we (motor- or bi-) cyclists change lateral position within a lane, we need to make sure it's clear and safe before we move to the new position. Signaling does not give us the right to simply move, nor does it require anyone who is in the process of passing us to abort the pass (this gets legally muddy when the pass itself is technically illegal, but the underlying principles and rules arguably still apply for practical purposes if nothing else).
Remember, if the speeds were 60 and 15 mph (88 fps; 22 fps), and she was 1/2 second from passing him when he looked back, she was still 33 feet back (closing speed is 88-22 = 66 * 1/2 = 33) when he first signaled, turned his head and saw her, and could easily have inadvertently drifted left the couple of feet required to be in her path during the same 1/2 second she need to reach him.
And even if he had been signaling for a few seconds prior to looking back and drifting left, she was under no obligation (again, ignoring the illegal passing zone complication) to yield the right of way to him to move to a new lateral position that was in her path, and it's not unreasonable for her to expect him to not actually move until after she had passed. So the fact that he had been signaling I don't think matters much. Establishing right of way before moving laterally is always much more important than signaling. If this wasn't a no-passing zone, I suspect she wouldn't have been cited at all.
June 16th, 2007 15:51
Well, NoChain, I don't see how I could expand upon what I've already said without more details. As I said earlier, the responsibility to determine as closely as possible what happened will have to fall to the witnesses and the investigators.
June 17th, 2007 03:49
NoChain, regarding the issue you raised about the extreme indifference test versus prohibiting passing on a double yellow in general: OK, perhaps you are correct.
But, could Knight's driving while suspended also satisfy the extreme indifference test? (Note, again, I am not a lawyer.)
Re Antonio Gramsci's comment in #61: I'm on MADD's email list. They recently sent me an email saying that they wanted to go after drivers who drive drunk, get their licenses suspended, and continue to drive anyway.
Yes, I know that we do not know whether or not Knight's license was suspended for DUI. But tougher penalties for that might have prevented Lindsey Llaneza from killing 2 bicyclists and injuring another in Portland several years ago. See http://bikeportland.org/2006/01/06/lindsey-llaneza-trial-starts-monday/
Here's part of what the MADD email said:
The email goes on to ask for a donation. The email also has a link to a web page which will send an email to your legislators asking for ignition interlocks for those convicted of DUI: https://secure2.convio.net/madd/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=477
June 17th, 2007 10:02
Doug Rennie,
This info has come from a very extended neighbor that lived in St.Helens. You can find more info from the public records files marriage records in oregon. Relatives in North Plains, relatives in Post Falls Idaho, Shaw last name. That is all I know. The neighbor has moved with no known location. Good luck in your search. I hope the system will come to justice for this incident and all other incidents that may happen. God forbid they happen. But when people drive that should not be allowed on the road they need to be held accountable.
June 17th, 2007 12:46
NoChain,
If she is attempting to pass on a double yellow, she has no right-of-way, laterally or otherwise. It is illegal. The only time she could have passed across a solid yellow is if she were turning left (not according to reports) or if the lane was blocked (not simply slower traffic). While I'm sure everyone appreciates you attempting to saddle blame on the cyclist based on conjecture and fuzzy math and some might even agree that Tim and the group could have done more to be even more defensive, at some point you just have to be able to acknowledge that hitting a vehicle from behind is almost without exception the fault of the driver coming from the rear. As others have said, if you have not left time to adequately stop as you approach a vehicle from the rear, you are violating the basic rule (and yes, you can be ticketed for failing to follow the basic rule of driving to the conditions).
June 17th, 2007 20:51
Sheriff Gordon says that she was cited for "careless" rather than "reckless" driving.
I'm having more than a little difficulty accepting this.
"Careless" driving suggests to me a driving infraction that results from simple careless behavior, i.e. being distracted by blabbing on a cell phone, or looking down to grab a coffee cup, turning around briefly to chat with someone or check on a child in the back seat, in other words, taking your eyes off the road when you shouldn't, just not paying full attention to the act of driving. The result would be something like temporarily drifting into the oncoming lane, or going off the road onto the shoulder for a few seconds. Even if the consequences were more severe, they would still be the result of failure to focus fully on driving the car to the exclusion of other activities. Stupid and irresponsible, but nothing more.
What Jennifer Knight did was NOT an act of simple carelessness, rather it was a conscious, willful action. A decision, again a WILLFUL DECISION with plenty of time to think about what she was doing, to cross over a solid line in direct violation of a no-passing zone, and then attempt to "get around" a cyclist who had clearly signaled a left turn, and was in the process of making this turn. This stretch of road is a long, straight line so you clearly and easily see at least several hundred yards ahead. She obviously saw what was taking place in front of her, and still decided, yes DECIDED (no simple act of carelessness here, no "mistake") to break several laws and endanger the lives of 5 people, ultimately killing one. My God, if this NOT reckless driving, what is? Do you really have to be drunk or stoned to be cited for reckless driving? What she did is even worse because she was NOT drunk, and therefore fully aware of what she was doing.
But she is only guildy of "careless" driving. What crap.
June 17th, 2007 22:16
Doug-
You are right on here with what is defined as careless driving. What needs to happen is action on our part...pressing legislators to pass HB 3314 and then press even further with this momentum. As Sheriff Gordon has been quoted in the above comments, "...we don't make the laws, we enforce them..."
Now is the time for action folks...
I have a letter from Tim's wife that she has made available to send to our State Senators and press them to pass HB 3314.
For those who would like this letter, please email me at john@portlandvelo.net and I will reply with her letter ASAP.
Thanks to all in advance for their support in pressing the politicians (who work for us by the way) in making this happen.
Regards,
John
John Ohnstad
portlandvelo.net
June 18th, 2007 11:43
Jeremy,
I certainly agree "that hitting a vehicle from behind is almost without exception the fault of the driver coming from the rear". But that applies to when the slower vehicle up ahead is and has been in the driver's path, not to a vehicle that is suddenly and unexpectedly moved into the driver's path so quickly that the faster driver has no reasonable time to react.
As near as I can tell, the motorist was not approaching the cyclists from (directly) behind them, she was in the process of passing them along a separate/adjacent lateral line. When someone is being passed, he is obligated to not interfere with the passing. The "passee" is supposed to maintain speed (certainly not speed up) and lateral position during the pass. An impact due to sudden swerving or drifting by the passee into the path of the passer is not the fault of the passer.
The fact that the passing was technically illegal here muddies the situation somewhat, but the (in this case tragic) practical implication of the underlying principle for the passee to cooperate with the passer during a pass, and not interfere with the pass, still applies.
I've seen all too many "experienced" cyclists take their left hand off the bars to signal while turning around to look behind him, and swerve left in the process, to ignore the probable role of this very common error being a factor in this tragedy, particular considering the reports that he did drift into her path, and the apparent lack of any witnesses, including those riding behind him, denying that this is what happened.
June 18th, 2007 12:01
Doug has speculated as to what the driver did wrong that he feels should be considered "reckless":
Were they signaling early enough for her to have recognized their intent at the point where she needed to decided to slow down or pass? Even if they were, does that obligate her to yield to them? I always interpret a left signal prior to merging left as a request of faster traffic to yield to me, not as a declaration that they must yield. I always wait to see that they have slowed for me and are yielding to me before move left.
So perhaps it was technically illegal to cross over the solid yellow in order to pass, and certainly not particularly polite to decide not to yield (assuming she had sufficient advance notice), but is it really reckless for her to assume that the cyclists would not choose to move into her path?
June 18th, 2007 13:49
Two questions:
1) To quote from the original post:
"The vehicle, a 2008 Dodge Avenger, struck the signaling bicyclist while it was STILL IN IT'S LANE OF TRAFFIC." (Caps are mine for emphasis.)
Would this be relevant at all that she did not fully move into the other lane? While maybe not "reckless" (for the courts to decide), certainly careless and tragic that she did not provide a greater margin for error by moving fully into the other lane (though it was illegal at that point) or by waiting behind as she would for another motor vehicle.
2) Would the discussion be different if the other vehicle had been a car that had slowed to 15mph to turn?
In your defense, I assume that by now you agree with nearly all the points other have made and are just nitpicking about the definition of the term "reckless".
June 18th, 2007 14:19
Gene,
I think a better analogy than a car that had slowed to 15 mph to turn, is a motorcyclist that had slowed to 15 mph to turn. There is certainly no need to move entirely into the oncoming lane when passing a motorcyclist, particularly one who is biased to the right side of the lane. Note that a motorcyclists would probably establish ROW in the left part of the lane prior to slowing. The cyclists only had ROW in the right part of the lane when they were already moving only 15 mph. Signaling does not give a cyclist ROW in the left part of the lane. What gives him ROW there is the lack of anyone else having ROW there. And someone in the process of passing him has that ROW (so he doesn't), ignoring again the no pass zone complications.
The question of whether what the motorist did was reckless is my main question, and has been from my first post here. I don't think she did anything too out of the ordinary. The point is this is something that all cyclists can and should be prepared for, and ride accordingly.
June 18th, 2007 16:03
NoChain,
Glad that we have able to clarify your main question. To quote from your original post (#52), you stated:
"I would like to understand what the driver did that you all think was so terrible. I understand the result of her driving with a suspended license and crossing a double-yellow while passing cyclists resulted in a horrible tragedy, but is what she did really all that bad? What did she do?"
You used the term "terrible" and the phrase "really all that bad". You did not use the term "reckless" or even "out of the ordinary". Your original words were not very precise and gave a much different connotation and feel to your post than your most recent comment. Would you agree that her actions don't have to be "reckless" to be "terrible"? (Though it is truly a sorry legacy of our car culture that her actions could be classified as "terrible" but not "reckless".)
I agree with you that many of us need to increase our cycling skills and awareness, maybe even more than we know. The one skill you mention about riding in a straight line is critical as is learning about lane position. And, yes, we need to anticipate poor driving behavior. But let's keep pushing for car driver accountability too. We need it all.
June 18th, 2007 17:47
I'm hoping that an intensive investigation of this incident and fatal collision will be conducted, including a graphic re-enactment as clearly as possible indicating distances between cyclists, the car driver in relation to the road and intersection.
In the letter to the editor in the Oregonian, a statement from the guy riding behind the fatally injured cyclist, Timothy O'Donnell, said that O'Donnell was 90 yds ahead of him when the Jennifer Knight's car passed him. In other words, the cyclists were not riding in a close pack, but apart from each other to the extent that approximately 6 car lengths lay between the two cyclists. So even though Knight may is entitled to expect slower going cyclists to yeild to her faster speed in a passing manoeuver, I do not see that this is the case when cyclists, like any legitimate users of the road are distanced to the extent that multiple passing would pose an unreasonable danger to anybody.
I'm guessing that O'Donnell was within a 100' of the intersection when he started to signal and commence his turn manoeuver. Witnesses will have to confirm that. As far as I'm concerned though, based on my feeble recollection of what the Oregon Driver's Manual actually states, once any vehicle signals and commences a turn consistent with regulations, drivers are merely notified of request, but are absolutely obligated to yeild to the driver making the turn. More than a law, this is just common sense.
June 18th, 2007 22:13
Sorry, the following correction to the second to last sentence in my post:
".....drivers are not merely notified of a request,..."
June 18th, 2007 23:07
I'm afraid "cooperat[ing] with the passer" really is still a crappy way of assigning blame to the dead, NoChain. Here's why I really dislike your line of reasoning in the practical sense, since the legal sense is fairly well exhausted at this point:
I was riding along a road with no shoulder, elevated above onion fields yesterday. Normally quiet, little traffic. As it leaves the onion fields, the road goes through a series of small rollers, just big enough to hide a vehicle. As I'm riding up the first of the rollers, I see a red Chevy S-10-type truck oncoming and have a jacked-up maroon Dodge full-size roaring up behind me (probably speeding, definitely violating the basic rule of a narrow elevated road commonly used by slow-moving vehicles). The road is split by a double-yellow (yeah, that's not just technically a no passing zone, for the record).
Seeing we were all three going to meet at about the same time, I maintain my line about 4 feet from the fog line and begin to try to communicate with the driver to slow down with my left hand out moving it down and back (tough, I know, since there is no common, legally recognized signal for slow-the-f-down-jerkwad).
Dude continues to accelerate as all three of us crest the roller at the same time. The S-10 bails to his right, kicking up gravel. I bail to my right hopping into the ditch. Dude in the Dodge speeds up and continues on his merry way straddling the double-yellow.
Bottom line: A situation that could have caused a major crash never would have happened had jerkwad in the Dodge slowed down and waited the 300 yards it took to get to the stop sign and NOT attempted to pass illegally.
Quite frankly, O'Donnell's death discussed here probably saved me as I was thinking about it specifically and ready to bail when jerkwad met the S-10 and I at the same time. And to clarify, my newfound awareness does not absolve jerkwad of his responsibility to follow the dang traffic laws. Sometimes I really wish we were more like Europe and did not give licenses out just because you have a pulse and can guess a few multiple choice questions right.
June 19th, 2007 11:25
wsbob, you believe that "once any vehicle signals and commences a turn consistent with regulations, drivers are [not] merely notified of [the] request, but are absolutely obligated to yeild to the driver making the turn." You are not alone. Most cyclists seem to believe this too, not to mention many motorists.
But the fact is that the person turning (or changing lateral position) does not have right of way over the person going straight along an adjacent parallel line. You have right of way to continue going straight along your line, but you can only turn (or change lateral position) if it is clear and safe to do so without violating anyone else's right to continue going straight (unless they explicitly yield to you). Again, I'm ignoring the complications here due to this being a no-pass zone.
This basic rule - that turning traffic yields to through traffic - applies not only in every state, but every country in the world, so far as I know.
The idea that all one has to do to establish right-of-way to turn or change lateral position is clearly signal intent is very dangerous. I urge you to wipe that notion from your mind as quickly as possible. If broader understanding of this rule and its implications is what comes out of this tragedy, that would be a very good thing. R.I.P., Tim.
June 19th, 2007 11:38
Jeremy, I'm sorry you feel I'm trying to assign blame to Tim. I'm not. That may, however, be an unavoidable unintended consequence of the point I am trying to make: riding on roads with motor traffic can be very tricky, and, among other things, it's important to not change lateral position (more than a few inches) without first making sure it's clear and safe to do so. Whether or not that was a factor in this incident doesn't really matter. What matters is that as many cyclists as possible understand it to be true, and ride accordingly, so that we can reduce the incidence of tragedies that can be avoided with better understanding of this.
I've been in situations similar to the one that you describe, and applaud your efforts to recognize and try to manage it. The most important thing is to establish and maintain, with continual updates to the front, rear and sides, situational awareness. Without being aware of each situation as it unfolds, there is no way you can manage it.
The only thing I might have done differently is when, noticing that riding 4' out from the fog line and using the slow/stop left arm signal was not causing the Dodge driver to slow down, I (assuming there was still time enough) would probably have moved even further left, left of center, looked back and/or zigged and zagged. That usually gets their attention. Don't forget to smile, wave and nod afterwards!
June 19th, 2007 12:07
And that would be correct--drivers moving laterally must yield. To cite rule #4 of the Rules of the Road from "The Science and Politics of Bicycle Driving" found at humantransport.org/bicycledriving:
4. Yielding when moving laterally. Drivers who want to move laterally on the roadway must yield to traffic in their new line of travel. Yielding means looking behind, to the side, and in front and waiting until the movement can be made without violating the right of way of other highway users.
I'm sure this can be found from many sources but the rule is to yield. You are also correct to acknowledge that you are ignoring the complications arising from this being a no passing zone.
June 19th, 2007 16:41
Gene, note sure if you're disagreeing with me or not, but when a motorist has already moved laterally in order to initiate a pass, she is moving along one line, while the cyclists she is passing, or planning on passing, are moving along another parallel line. The obligation to yield prior to moving laterally in that case is on the cyclist up ahead that she will be passing - he must not move laterally into her path. He must yield. He does not have the right to move left and initiate his turn simply because he signaled properly first. He almost must yield to anyone already moving straight into the space he intends to occupy. Again, ignoring the complications arising from this being a no passing zone. This is critical for all cyclists to understand, respect, and ride accordingly. It could save your life.
June 19th, 2007 18:39
NoChain,
I think what you said about yeilding is wrong. Here is what you said above:
"wsbob, you believe that "once any vehicle signals and commences a turn consistent with regulations, drivers are [not] merely notified of [the] request, but are absolutely obligated to yeild to the driver making the turn." You are not alone. Most cyclists seem to believe this too, not to mention many motorists.
"But the fact is that the person turning (or changing lateral position) does not have right of way over the person going straight along an adjacent parallel line. You have right of way to continue going straight along your line, but you can only turn (or change lateral position) if it is clear and safe to do so without violating anyone else's right to continue going straight (unless they explicitly yield to you). Again, I'm ignoring the complications here due to this being a no-pass zone.
"This basic rule - that turning traffic yields to through traffic - applies not only in every state, but every country in the world, so far as I know.
"The idea that all one has to do to establish right-of-way to turn or change lateral position is clearly signal intent is very dangerous. I urge you to wipe that notion from your mind as quickly as possible. If broader understanding of this rule and its implications is what comes out of this tragedy, that would be a very good thing. R.I.P., Tim."
Here is what the Oregon Driver's Manual states on page 43:
"Yielding Right of Way
"There will be many times when you need to yield or slow down so another vehicle can proceed safely. Yielding simply means you must slow or, if necessary, stop your vehicle to allow another vehicle or a pedestrian to continue on their way safely.
"The right of way law does not give anyone the right of way; it only says who must yield. Stop signs, yield signs, and traffic signals control
traffic at busy intersections. They tell drivers who may go without stopping or who must stop and yield right of way to other drivers, bicyclists, or pedestrians.
"At an intersection where there are no signs or signals, you must look and yield the right of way to any ve