Two types of police response to O’Donnell tragedy
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on July 6th, 2007 at 7:31 am
The fatal crash that took the life of Timothy O’Donnell seems to have resulted in two different responses by law enforcement personnel. The Washington County Sheriff’s office shows a willingness to work with the community for tougher laws against motorists, while the North Plains Police opt for increased enforcement directed at bicyclists.
A story in the Forest Grove News-Times earlier this week reported that Sheriff Rob Gordon was “steamed” by O’Donnell’s death. The article said the police see “eye-to-eye” with cyclists and that they support a tougher, felony-based vehicular homicide law.
The story also mentioned that a sheriff’s spokesman joined Washington County transportation officials and the district attorney’s office in a meeting to discuss the incident two weeks ago.
The other response seems to be increased enforcement of stop signs in the area near where the O’Donnell tragedy took place. Cyclists have recently chimed in on a local email list with accounts of $335 tickets and lectures by police.
Here’s one of the emails:
Part of a group I was riding with yesterday was ticketed $335 apiece for rolling though the stop signs at the intersection of North Plains Rd and Glencoe. The officer indicated that the north plains PD has stepped up ticketing cyclists in the area since the rider was killed a few weeks ago.
And another (from the same group of riders, full message here):
“I was part of a three man group who also got $335 tickets…My point is not to argue the technicality of my “stop” or lack there of, but the reasonableness of the fine and strange view that this will help contribute to reducing the bicycle/car fatalities in Washington County…
We were told during our stop before getting tickets, that there had been a lot of bicycle/vehicle fatalities out in this area and a lot of bicyclist activists groups and bicyclists have been complaining that cars need to share the road…And, that if we want to be equal we are going to have to find a better way. Independently, these statements have validity. But how are they appropriate to our infraction? It was like this was a plain and simple message. Equal meant a new heightened attention to bicyclist traffic infractions and much steeper fines.
During the rest of our ride to the coast we discussed amongst ourselves the $1005 in fines we were levied with compared to the $1100 in fines levied against the driver who hit and killed the cyclist recently…It truly is a strange world sometimes….It turns out to have been an expensive lesson in traffic regulations, politics, and that the divide between many drivers and cyclists looks to be a tough bridge for either side to make anytime soon.”
Email This Post
Possibly related posts
July 6th, 2007 07:45
Victim blame.
July 6th, 2007 08:02
It is strictly a case of selective enforcement and is widespread among police departments. Last week I was hit by a car in West Linn making a right hand turn while I was in the bike lane. Police and Fire responded to witness calls, a crash report was written, yet not citation was issued. A week later the officers supervisor still has not provided an answer.
July 6th, 2007 08:32
I think that they are right - there needs to be tougher laws against motorists AND cyclists need to adhere to the traffic laws already in place. It has to be a coordinated effort.
I will say that $335 a piece sounds steep - are revenues low in WA county?
July 6th, 2007 08:58
The NP officer *moderated* (Note: name calling is not tolerated). They are and have always been very aggressive with ticketing EVERYONE they can. Sounds like the NP guys are just trying to justify what they have been doing all along.
The price of the ticket is most likely the highest fine for this type of offense (class B I think). They hold an informal court in a run down school gym and they - judge, cops, etc - seem to take great joy in taking people's money.
When riding through North Plains, obey all traffic rules. Put your foot down at all stop signs and signal all turns.
The rest of Washington County is nice. I ride through 4 cities on my way to work every day and the cops are always nice and sometimes even helpful.
July 6th, 2007 09:06
The stop sign enforcement in North Plains was going on long before Tim's death - as long as I have ridden in that area, there have been cops who stake out that sign and ticket cyclists that run it. The lecture re: fatalities may be new, but the enforcement is not.
July 6th, 2007 09:16
Doesn't the Sheriffs dept. have enough problems with drunk cowboys and depressed housewives to leave the cyclists alone? $335.00...geeze! No wonder all their high schools have water fountains.
July 6th, 2007 09:31
I won't ride or spend any money in North Plains because of this unnecessary and hyper-aggressive enforcement. I encourage everyone else to do the same. There are plenty of other places to ride...
July 6th, 2007 10:11
Sucks to get a ticket, but I think there would be a lot more respect for cyclists by other road users if other road users perceived cyclists as obeying the rules.
July 6th, 2007 10:11
I don't see any reason to boycott North Plains - coming to a full stop at that sign, which I do already, is sufficient to deny them that ticket revenue.
July 6th, 2007 10:12
And I should also mention.. There are about two stop signs in the entire town of North Plains (OK, I exaggerate...). It's not particularly onerous to expect cyclists to stop once or twice on their way through town.
After all once you get beyond North Plains you can ride for 50 miles and only need to stop once or twice.
July 6th, 2007 10:25
Ummm, yeah Peter has it exactly right. My sister lives in North Plains and I can assure you that writing tickets is not a new enforcement priority for them, nor is it biased against cyclists. Writing expensive tickets is, and always has been, NPPD's ONLY enforcement priority. So for those who think this is about blaming victims or whatever, just consider that this revenue is primarily how these cops stay employed. Really, they don't hate you, they're just looking out for #1. You're obviously miffed by the whole situation, a.O, but rather than boycott the town, why not just obey the stop signs (perish the thought!) and piss them off even more? North Plains is at the nexus of some of the best plains and hills riding in the region. Why deprive yourself of that?
July 6th, 2007 10:27
Plead innocent. Force them to work for your money. Opt for a change of venue so the judge working your case isn't being paid from your fine.
July 6th, 2007 10:42
Please. I'm not depriving myself of anything by not riding in North Plains. And you don't hear me complaining about getting a ticket.
This is not about stopping at a stop sign, so if you think it is you're missing the whole issue. Their approach to law enforcement is ineffective and counter-productive, designed not to promote safety but to extract a toll from people who don't visit regularly. As such, it constitutes an abdication of their responsibility and a misuse of their office. So I'm not going to go there and risk spending any money they may see. I want nothing to do with that two-bit town!
July 6th, 2007 10:47
Boycott cow tipping, henry weinhards, garlic festivals, and marrying cousins... That'll piss em' off.
July 6th, 2007 10:50
All this is reminding me of a lyric by 70's songwriter Dory Previn; something like "Officer, please, put me at ease, can you repeat what you just said. There ain't nothing that you can begin to do, nothin' till I can prove I'm dead."
July 6th, 2007 11:16
We need to get the law changed. Idaho style slow and go makes perfect sense to me. I don't advocate blasting through stop signs on a bike and with a properly written law that would still be legal. When on a bike slowing to a safe speed and stopping only when there is a reason (such as cross traffic or pedestrians) is perfectly safe.
July 6th, 2007 11:32
Who does the credit card company hate more--the person who never becomes a customer, or the one who pays his balance every month and never accrues interest? All the cops want is your money, it is about stopping at a stop sign, and also about not speeding on Highway 26 near the Glencoe exit. You think it's counter-productive that this is all their PD cares about? How could that be so if the whole point is to raise funds? Ineffective? They seem to do a hell of a job writing tickets. It's not about public safety and I don't give a damn that it isn't, nor do I give a damn that it's unfair, greedy, and officious of the cops to behave this way. I have to ride through those roads to visit my baby nephew, who, by the way, is NOT inbred, nor does he have a depressed mother. If that means I have to play the crooked cops' game then I do it. And I win every time, owing my unparalled win-loss ratio to none other than that it is pathetically easy to win.
And by the way, not that there's much business in North Plains to boycott, but the only ones I've ever patronized are the mom and pop hardware store where my total has always been "how about a dollar?", and the family run Mexican restaurant that has come upon hard times recently because their two teenage sons, who were critical to keeping their business afloat, were recently killed in a car crash at the train crossing on Susbauer Road. Because those places are just screaming to be boycotted. North Plains is a struggling town, and although I don't approve of the police perpetuating their existence this way, I'm not about levy on them the ridiculous charge of failing to keep me safe in a town where nothing happens.
July 6th, 2007 11:32
I - D - A - H - O
Idaho, Idaho,
Go, Go, GO!
July 6th, 2007 11:39
Oops "...with a properly written law that would still be legal." I meant illegal. In other words "blowing" through a stop sign on a bike or failing to yield to pedestrians or cross traffic could still get you a ticket.
Once slow and go is passed I would like to see traffic fines multiplied by gross vehicle weight and income/wealth. This would make the fine proportional to the danger involved in the infraction and make the pain of a fine equal regardless of your economic status.
July 6th, 2007 11:39
So what is the issue here? The police seem entirely within their rights to enforce the stop laws. While the fine seems excessive, I'm not sure what the big deal is? They certainly did not entrap their victims with a clever and underhanded scheme.
This is the inevitable consequence of "Share the Road" and "We Are Traffic Too" advocacy. If we expect cars to adhere to the ORS then we too must adhere to it. Until the "Idaho Law" passes in Oregon we have to stop and the cops can ticket us for not doing so. Honestly, what else do the North Plains police have to do and how is this different than other small town constabularies nailing drivers blowing through their burgs twenty miles over the limit?
Don't like it? Change the law! (Hint: you don't have to rely on BTA to fight this battle for you - grassroots can get it done also.)
July 6th, 2007 12:14
Slow and go sounds like the only way to show support for cyclists. But being that it will take revenue out of the city and county coffers, it may be a battle that non-cyclists can't see getting behind...and that includes voting officials. Oy!
July 6th, 2007 13:19
phr3dly nails it in comment #8. Go back and read it again. Police and citizen drivers alike see cyclists do stupid things every single day they are on the road. Every day on my ride in to work -- every single day -- I see a cyclist break the law. And not just roll-throughs, but up out of the saddle, accelerating haul-throughs. It's irritating as hell, and everyone -- drivers, peds, off-duty cops, kids -- can see them doing it. No wonder police relish in giving pricey tickets. I'm a cyclist who's happy when I see a cyclist getting one. Based on what I see every day, they probably deserved it.
Obey the law until it changes. If you're not, you're just contributing to the lack of respect you're generating for all of us. Thanks for that!
July 6th, 2007 13:28
Watch this:
Police and citizen cyclists see drivers do stupid things every single day they are on the road. Every day on my ride into work -- every single day -- I see a driver break the law. And not just speeding, but running red lights and failing to stop at stop signs and coming too close to cyclists. It's irritating as hell, and everyone -- cyclists, peds, off-duty cops, kids -- can see them doing it. No wonder police relish in giving pricey tickets. I'm a cyclist who's happy when I see a driver getting one. Based on what I see every day, they probably deserved it.
Obey the law until it changes. If you're not, you're just contributing to the lack of respect you're generating for all of them. Thanks for that!
July 6th, 2007 14:01
Ah, good old North Plains traffic enforcement. $335 *is* totally unreasonable, but that's how they make their money. Anyone who has driven a CAR on HWY 26 knows that you don't speed through North Plains unless you want to help support municipal government.
My favorite example: policeman standing in the central divider (actually a 6 foot deep valley) in HWY 26 facing westbound traffic with a radar gun and with a full setting sun just above him. You couldn't see the officer until you were past him.
Does North Plains make money this way? You bet. I guess they have finally figured out that there's money to be made off of cyclists too.
I don't know if it is safer to ride elsewhere in Wash. County, but it is certainly cheaper.
July 6th, 2007 14:07
Let's see. A cyclist reports in that a group of cyclists received tickets, and contrasted the total fine amount with the fine a driver received for killing a cyclist. And everybody here is expressing outrage, not at the low fine for killing a cyclist, but at the nerve of the police for ticketing stop sign runners.
Nice set of priorities you people have.
July 6th, 2007 15:36
I wrote a briefly, but very polite emial to Scott Whitehead, chief of police in North Plains stating my concern over the targeting of cyclists, while thanking him for his community service, and my understanding that riders do need to obey all traffic laws...
this is his oh-so-intelligent response..
"Thanks for writing. As usual your email is consistent with all the others I
receive. Maybe next time you could put some thought into it and make a valid
point instead of all the blah blah blah crap.
Scott Whitehead
Chief of Police
North Plains Police Department
Office: (503) 647.2604
Fax: (503) 647.2031
I think it pretty much sums up the mentality at large..
July 6th, 2007 17:30
Damn, J, that's rough. Sure is hard to resist the urge to write something scathing to Chief Whitehead and see what kind of response that elicits...
July 6th, 2007 17:43
I live in Hillsboro and have been riding around Wash Co for 30+ years. I always find it tragic when someone looses their life on the road, weather on a bike or not. I also know that most of the time it is a lot easier for a light weight bike to stop or move compared to a large heavy vehicle, and yet we ride as though we should never have to deviate from our path or heaven forbid we have to unclip from the pedals. We have no problem expecting that a vehicle traveling 55mph or greater should slam on their brakes then hope for a safe passing moment to go around us, while at the same time we should be able to travel totally undisturbed and worry free in our own world. Why can’t we take the high road and start making positive moves. Pull over when it is safe and let cars go by, or just wave them by and acknowledge they are behind you, break up into smaller groups instead of trying to run in lines of 10 or more (this is not the TOUR), if we are riding side by side get into a straight line so we are not charged with obstructing traffic when a car is approaching. IT”S BASIC STUFF.
Maybe it’s the professions some of us are in.. A lot of the people I ride with are Doctors, Lawyers, Business Owners and company executives. Most of the time, when we want something we get it, and there are a lot of people in our offices that are more than willing to fulfill our every request without question, no matter how strange it might sound. It seems like we expect to carry that into other areas of our lives. Some recent studies have shown that Doctors, Lawyers and other high level executives make the worst pilots, drivers and boaters. They noted that when interviewed after accidents, the subjects all said they just expected what they wanted to be the outcome would happen, even when common sense and physics clearly dictated otherwise. Boaters expected others to know they were around and where they wanted to go and move. Pilots (the ones that survived) said they understood the principals of flight and gravity but just thought they should have been able to climb when flying with the wind at their tail, even though there air speed was less than the wind speed. And so on.
Myself like many of you I have seen a lot of poor drivers and of course and we all get very upset and ask where the stupid cops are.. Yet when someone on a bike makes the decision to run a stop sign or fail to signal or even share the road, because we feel like we own it. The standards are totally turned around and for some reason we feel like we should be exempted.
Let’s face it. We all sound like idiots when we do that.
One guy I was riding with decided to blow through a stop sign, I decided to slow down as much as possible without coming out of the pedals, look both ways, signal, then go. We were stopped shortly after making the turn. The cop asked my friend why he did not stop my friend said he did then inserted that he was a lawyer and knew traffic law very well. The cop said he was sitting at a corner of the intersection and saw the difference between what my friend did and what I did. He said he does not stop someone just because their wheels don’t come to a complete stop but said he always looks at the entire situation. He added that when someone does not slow down or signal they almost always get cited, but said (as he looked at me) when I see someone slow, look both ways and signal, if I do stop them they are much more likely to get a warning. He also added that having an attitude and not being truthful, especially when it is something he just saw first hand, does not help.
He asked for our info, I gave him my license, my friend did not have his. “I don’t know if you have ever heard this before but when your ride, ALWAYS carry some kind of ID. Most of us don’t and if we ever were struck on our own, well, good luck with trying to reach someone.
He let us off with warnings because I made the effort to cooperate and work with him. At least that’s what he said. Others I talked to that day were not so lucky and had very similar stories, “Yeah I did not stop but so what, the cop was a jerk and he gave me a ticket” If we listen to ourselves we might realize we are a big part of the issue.
Granted, I might see things a little different because I also ride a motorcycle. We expect that no one sees us and assume we will be the ones taking evasive action when competing with cars and trucks. We know we won’t with that contest. Why is there any difference while on a bicycle?
“Change venues”, “make them work for their money”. What a bunch of crap. We all need to just accept that the officers are doing their job. When something goes wrong, I call 911 not my friends. When cops are not taking calls and saving all of us and our kids, they are working traffic. In a small town like NP and many other small towns, they don’t have a lot of calls (I know because I checked) so they make traffic stops. Because of those stops they find people with warrants, suspended drivers, intoxicated drivers, stolen vehicles, drugs, and so on. It’s what they do and what we all expect them to do.
Until we all pull our heads out and realize we are the ones that cause a lot of our own problems, and start taking personal responsibility for our actions, we will always want to point our finger and place blame on others. Thus giving up control and our ability to change. You can’t get stopped if you don’t break the law, and you better your chances for survival with other vehicles, when you realize that you can’t win a one on one or just expect they will all yield to you.
The fact that vehicles will kill bicyclists each year is our reality and each time it happens it is very tragic, laws will help punish drivers who are at fault but meanwhile, we can do a whole lot more than we our now to avoid becoming a statistic.
Ride safe – Think of others – Get along
July 6th, 2007 18:03
Hear hear, Brad M. Well said.
If we listen to ourselves we might realize we are a big part of the issue....Until we all pull our heads out and realize we are the ones that cause a lot of our own problems, and start taking personal responsibility for our actions, we will always want to point our finger and place blame on others. Thus giving up control and our ability to change.
July 6th, 2007 18:25
I really wish some of the attorneys that are on this forum would chime in a little. The bail amount is set by the City or the County not the Police and Sheriff Department. The bail amounts in North Plains are more or less middle of the road. If you really want to get upset over ticket amounts, check out City of Beaverton. That will really make your head spin.
As far as getting cited on 26, ever drive between Murray and 217? I do everyday and see Beaverton out there all the time. The difference is that North Plains does not even start to pull people over until they are going 15mph over the limit; I know that because I got stopped at 70 and that is what the cop told me. They have had that standard for many years, Beaverton starts to cite at 9mph and over. I know that from being with a friend who was stopped and some people I know who got hit on photo radar.
For a lot of this stuff, all you have to do is ask, its public record.
July 6th, 2007 18:42
The fact that vehicles will kill bicyclists each year is our reality and each time it happens it is very tragic, laws will help punish drivers who are at fault
Unless they don't, Brad. As a law-abiding cyclist who would normally be inclined to agree with you on the whole "cyclists don't get some special exemption from the current law until the law gets changed" business, I need to remind you that the woman responsible for Timothy O'Donnell faces nothing more than a fine when violating three laws *plus* killing another human being. Beyond all this, the North Plains PD has decided to be more thorough in ticketing cyclists as a reaction to a death which was not caused by a cyclist's law-breaking, but the carelessness of a motorist. Tell me: what part of that makes sense? Is the "solution" to a child being run down by a drunk driver to start citing the parents of kids who jaywalk? Or is it to have as consistent-as-is-realistically-possible enforcement of laws across the board?
Again, I don't buy into this "us vs. them" bullcrap, and I don't believe there's any right to treat a stop sign as a yield until we get the law changed. But this type of measure taken against one class of road users as a response to the death of someone caused by a different class of road users is nothing short of stupid and ridiculous. I agree that there's a big need for the self-centered perspectives some cyclists embrace while decrying motorists for to be gotten rid of, but I scarcely think the time to lecture folks on the subject is when nonsensical increased-enforcement measures are presented as a police bureau's manner of "taking care" of a problem.
July 6th, 2007 19:59
Having worked for a similar small town as a consultant, I know that traffic tickets are a very intentional source of revenue for these type of towns. The residents and small businesses want lower taxes, and yet they desire more round the clock police protection, which is hard to support with so few residents.
It's interesting to note that the residents and particularly the businesses of small town I worked for actually became fed up with the "speed trap" image of their city to tourists and friends and they're now considering closing their police department and contracting with the county (different than Wash. Co.). That said, this small town only had one stop traffic light in the whole city and speeding for cars was an issue.
Regardless, the point is that the terrible accident referenced by this hick cop is just some lame excuse to keep up their revenues.
July 6th, 2007 20:00
Not so well said, Brad. Aside from the spelling errors and misused homonyms, you are missing the point of our criticism of the North Plains police action. They are free to ticket cyclists all they want for stop sign violations, but they really shouldn't use the justification that it may save another O'Donnell-type death. And they really should be more concerned about focusing traffic enforcement to that which might increase safety, rather than increase their municipal budget. If post #26 is accurate, Chief Whitehead seems like a real winner. Would you defend his response? Does he sound like his primary concern is the safety of all? Or is he just a compensating little p___k?
July 6th, 2007 20:01
Sorry.. i should know better.. Replace "accident" with "tragedy" because it was far from an "oops, sorry" kinda accident.
July 6th, 2007 20:08
peejay, way to focus on spelling errors as a way of avoiding the introspection that Brad was calling for.
July 6th, 2007 20:26
rixtir:
Introspection is fine and good, but it is not the correct response following the death of a cyclist who did everything right by a driver who had a record of doing everything wrong, and who was subsequently insufficiently punished. Introspection comes a distant second to outrage.
July 6th, 2007 20:37
Until the last few posts, the only outrage I've seen expressed here has been self-centered outrage over cops ticketing stop sign runners. Not a WORD of outrage about the light penalty for a cyclist being killed. That lack of appropriate outrage is pretty outrageous itself.
July 6th, 2007 20:52
The outrage is directed at a police department that justifies its legal but not safety motivated enforcement practice by referring tot hat tragedy. I am not defending people who blow through stop signs, but I am sick and tired of people who imply that until every cyclist obeys every law, we should expect law abiding cyclists to get mowed down in broad daylight by motorists who then get off by paying a mere three times the fine for blowing that stop sign.
I am also sick of concern trolls who start by saying "I'm a cyclist, but we need to start getting out of the way of cars, or they have every right to run us down." (I'm speaking of Brad. Rixtir, you're not one of those, but frustrating nonetheless.)
July 6th, 2007 20:56
Let me quote from the original email Jonathan cited on the article:
"My point is not to argue the technicality of my “stop” or lack there of, but the reasonableness of the fine and strange view that this will help contribute to reducing the bicycle/car fatalities in Washington County"
That's what we're talking about. Back on topic.
July 6th, 2007 21:26
I dont see why we are complaining that cyclists are getting tickets for failing to stop. These comments should be asking why the woman that killed Timothy didnt get punished more aggressively. Its not about protecting other cyclists from getting tickets when they rightfully deserve them. Its about changing Oregon law to punish car drivers to an extent fitting of disregarding the safety of a more vulnerable road user. Til then, cyclists wont be safe. Griping about getting ticketed for not stopping at a stop sign isnt going to help our safety concern, it just looks like we are looking to break the law while asking drivers to be punished more heavily for doing the same.
July 7th, 2007 02:32
"Put your foot down at all stop signs and signal all turns."
Peter, I don't know where this myth started, but unless North Plains has a town ordinance that differs from Oregon law regarding legal stops, then a legal stop for a cycle is the same as for an auto. Wheels stop turning. That's it.
July 7th, 2007 07:27
Organic and Peter;
The myth of "put your foot down, as required by Oregon Law, to confirm that you have come to a complete stop” came from the same place that "bicycles are required to have a red battery-powered rear light by law and a reflector is not good enough". A select group of PPB's finest Motorcycle Traffic Control officers that used to be assigned to Critical Mass when it numbered more than 100 used to regularly cite riders for either not putting a foot down when coming to a stop or for not having battery-powered rear lights. After a sufficient # of contested citations where won in traffic court, costing the City of Portland, those citations have ALMOST stopped, with the same traffic control officers writing a reduced # of the same tickets ONLY when they think the "perp" is not someone that is going to go to court and fight a ticket for an ORS or Portland ordinance that does not exist. Thus, the myth continues and it causes bicycle riders to tell other riders to put their foot down. I suggest everyone that does not already own a copy of "Pedal Power" written by Lawyer Ray Thomas, printed by the City of Portland, buy one for $10. It is a comprehensive resource of all state and area-city bicycle-related ordinances and statutes.
Ray, the BTA and I think also Community Cycling Center, are available to provide short intensive classes on Oregon bicycle law to groups interested in learning their legal rights and responsibilities when riding a bicycle in Oregon. If you don't have reference to current law, and the understanding of relevant legal terms, how can you intelligently discuss and lobby for changing unjust, outdated or unsafe laws?
July 7th, 2007 07:49
I propose a Bike Blog Corollary to Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law) which posits:
As an online discussion about bicycles grows longer, the probability of a debate about brakes on fixies or stop sign issues approaches one.
Back on topic, please!
July 7th, 2007 12:28
peejay, I don't disagree with what you're saying in Post 38, and I'm sorry for frustrating you. I don't think it's productive if all we as a society are capable of is frustrating each other. If it's any consolation, I also find it frustrating to have a discussion about this situation, and have people turn it into a defense of stop-sign running and say that "Idaho-style" is the answer.
The problem outlined is that the NP police force is using a cyclist's death to justify an enforcement program that was in effect long before Timothy O'Donnell was killed, and will be in effect long after, and arguably is more about revenue-raising than it is about cycling safety (for those who disagree with NP law enforcement, the police can at least make a colorable legal argument that they are charged with ensuring the public safety, and that's what they're doing when they enforce the traffic laws.). In my view, calls for "Idaho-style" are at least as inappropriate, if not more, as the NP "response" in the context of discussing police responses to Timothy O'Donnell's death.
For what it's worth, I don't subscribe at all to a view that "until cyclists start obeying the law, they deserve to get mowed down." I do think that obeying the law is an integral part of coexisting with other people in a society, and that respecting other people and their rights, and extending other people courtesies, is a two-way street, and the first step down that road begins with each of us.
Back on topic, the police have limited ability to do anything for public safety, other than to enforce the laws. It's up to US to keep the flame burning for the next two years, to ensure that laws are enacted in 2009 to appropriately punish motorists who carelessly or recklessly kill.
July 7th, 2007 14:23
My son is a bicyclist and told me of this occurrence. I would hope you serious bikers would take the high road. It seems, to my husband and myself, that the NP office overreacted due to the recent death in his jurisdiction. Hopefully you all will realize that and be extra careful not to break the law and not to antagonize officers trying to do their jobs in sometimes very difficult positions. His tone may have made you all feel guilty. One rider makes the assertion he did "not exactly stop". Granted the area was clear of hazards but in future, maybe put a foot down, okay? We want you all safe and as a driver, I certainly don't ever want to hit any of you anymore than you want to be hit. Let it be a good lesson, please. It's a big man/woman to admit he was wrong. Iva M Mace
July 7th, 2007 20:37
It seems, to my husband and myself, that the NP office overreacted due to the recent death in his jurisdiction. Hopefully you all will realize that and be extra careful not to break the law and not to antagonize officers trying to do their jobs in sometimes very difficult positions.
What's your point, Iva? The cyclist killed didn't die by any wrong-doing of his own, and so apparently, by their reckoning, the appropriate solution is to increase enforcement of the law concerning traffic violations committed by cyclists. This isn't the NP doing their job, but rather publicly throwing an ineffective solution at a problem not related to the tragedy itself and claiming that it's the right thing for them to be doing in light of Timothy O'Donnell's death at the hands of a careless motorist driving with a suspended license. Stepping up and saying "We're going to be more thorough in stopping reckless drivers and actually enforcing the posted speed limits" might be just complete lip-service-style B.S., but at least it would be an appropriate response. Instead, they've opted to announce a much more convoluted and decidedly unreasoned approach which is downright offensive in its implications - which are, in case you can't read between the lines, that cyclists die because they violate they law, even when the instance cited couldn't be much more opposite.
Stopping cyclists for running stop signs? Fine, yes, that *should* be happening, because the law's the law and needs to be enforced. But don't pretend for one solid minute that anyone should sit back and take this ridiculous and insulting response -that is, skewing enforcement more heavily against the class of road user outright *killed* by no actions of his own in the publicized incident they're attempting to respond to- of the NP lightly. The furor does need to be coming from the right place, but don't you dare pretend for one moment that such is at all invalid, inappropriate, or uncalled for.
July 8th, 2007 07:09
I have been reading through the messages posted regarding bike enforcement in North Plains. It seems that several people have taken my comments out of context and turned it around to sound less caring. Our efforts to step up enforcement at stop signs has been focused towards everyone. I don't care if your operating a motor vehicle or a bicycle if you disobey a stop sign you will be cited. I tell this to each person I stop regardless of their mode of transportation. The point I'm trying to make to bike riders is that they are so much more vulnerable to injury and death because they are on a bike. I never justified my citations because of the death of Timothy O'Donnell. I justify my cites because if a motor vehicle and a bicycle disobey a stop sign at the same time there will most likely be a fatality. I will do everything possible to prevent that from happening. I will park at the intersection of Glencoe and West Union everyday and cite all motor vehicles and bikes if that's what it takes to preserve a life. I know people don't like it and they think its all revenue generated enforcement and that's not true. There is nothing worse than responding to a crash with injuries or death. You think it's tough on you as a bike community? It's tough on us when we have to make a death notification and then second guess if we could have prevented such a tragic event. If I didn't care about the safety of people in North Plains I would not spend as much time enforcing traffic laws as I do. As much as it seems that people want us to stop what were doing it's not going to happen. I will go home everyday knowing that I did everything possible to make my community a safe place to ride and drive, and if I have to write tickets to make that happen I will. North Plains is my responsibilty and I have a duty to protect everyone and keep them safe. I will not change what I do and if I ever do then it's time for me to move on.
July 8th, 2007 11:03
"As much as it seems that people want us to stop what were doing it's not going to happen. ... [I]f I have to write tickets [to make my community a safe place] I will. ... I will not change what I do and if I ever do then it's time for me to move on."
With all due respect, Scott, I think it may be time for you to move on. Your statements above indicate that you have obviously closed your mind and believe that the only possible way to promote safety in NP is to sit at an intersection and dole out $335 fines. That is an incredibly narrow-minded view of promoting safety and particularly ironic given your extremely unprofessional statement to J, above, that "Maybe next time you could put some thought into [your statement] and make a valid point instead of all the blah blah blah crap."
Scott, if you had stopped to actually think about this situation for even a moment, you'd understand that your method of promoting safety simply doesn't work. You give tickets, yet people keep not stopping. So you mindlessly give more tickets. If giving people tickets caused more people to stop, then you'd be giving fewer and fewer tickets unti eventually you gave none. How many years have you been giving tickets at this intersection, Scott?
I'm not telling you how to promote safety in NP -- figuring that out is your job. But you can't come before rational, thinking people and claim that giving tickets is all you need to do or even that it works. The facts show unequivocally that it does *not* work.
So, there are only two conclusions we can draw here: Either you've been sitting at this intersection giving tickets for years oblivious to the fact that nothing changes *or* you don't really care about promoting safety in NP and really have some other motivation for stopping people who are unaware that that the intersection is a speed trap and popping them with $335 fines. Which is it, Scott?
July 8th, 2007 11:13
The point I'm trying to make to bike riders is that they are so much more vulnerable to injury and death because they are on a bike.
It's not a point you have to make to cyclists, Chief Whitehead. We're all well aware of it every single time we head out on the road. Doubly so when any of us have an interaction with that minority of motorists who drive carelessly or even willfully act towards us in a threatening manner. And even more so when another cyclist's death comes across the news. The only point you need to be making to those cyclists who blow stop signs is that they violated the law by not stopping, that the law exists to avoid risk of injury or death, and that for the violation, they face a hefty fine...the same point that should be made with any road user in any traffic violation. Any cyclist running a stop sign is likely well-prepared to face a fine if caught or to have their guts spilled over the surface of the road. Yes, it's stupid, it's easily avoided, but they've made up their minds to forgo safety for convenience - just like motorists who do the same thing. It's not a "cycling issue", but just sheer human foolishness, and that comes down to the individual, not the mode of transport.
I never justified my citations because of the death of Timothy O'Donnell.
Then other officers in NP are giving the public the other impression of what's going on. Cases in point would be the officer who had the exchange with Lindsay Kandra in which he/she explained that an increase of citations against cyclists was in effect a result of having "stepped up ticketing cyclists since the rider was killed a few weeks ago", and the superfluous "treated as equals" stern lecture Tim Schaeur & Co. received from the ticketing officer, who could have just written the tickets and singled them out as individual law-breakers instead of griping at them about the cycling community as a whole. It's instances like these, containing actual real-live B.S. accusatory rhetoric, that are tarnishing our impressions of law enforcement in NP.
July 8th, 2007 14:17
Any cyclist running a stop sign is likely well-prepared to face a fine if caught
Sorry, there are way too many crybabies who post here every time they break the law and get caught for me to believe that.
July 8th, 2007 15:07
Post #48: Classic a.Zero, brutal and condesending, with a silly logic error in the final paragraph.
Thank you for deciding that Scott had nothing to offer this forum. I am sure that he is really thinking about your comments, and can't wait to post a rebuttal.
July 8th, 2007 15:27
Please provide some kind of data that show any long term improvement in compliance of a traffic control device based on excessive enforcement of the control, and while you're at it, please show how such enforcement actually reduces collisions, especially of the kind that had nothing to do with compliance of the said traffic device. Belief in the idea that one leads to the other is not enough.
Also, please provide evidence that the vulnerable cyclist is less aware of his/her vulnerability than the motorist is of the cyclist's vulnerability.
July 8th, 2007 15:37
Sorry, there are way too many crybabies who post here every time they break the law and get caught for me to believe that.
Sorry rixtir. Intended reading was "they know the consequences but choose to ignore them." The point is that it's the conscious choice of the individual to do something illegal and/or risky, whether that individual is on a bike or behind the wheel of a car, and if there's any lecturing to be had, it ought to be along the lines of "don't engage in this behavior if you don't want to get fined or killed" rather than trying to prove some point about their choice of transportation (which is probably only going to incite further ire from those who see fit to willfully break those laws in the first place).
July 8th, 2007 15:41
I agree N.I.K.
July 8th, 2007 16:59
Is Portland a town of whining crybaby rebel wannabees or what? To read half the posts on this site about law enforcement and you would think this is Selma, AL circa 1958. We bike riders are sooooooo abused and discriminated against, eh? I still remember that time I ran a stop sign and the popo turned their dogs and firehoses on me.
I can't help but chuckle as a group of professionals on $2500 carbon bikes and tattoed slackers on second-hand Magnas moan about their rights and how the cops are stamping out "bike culture" with jackbooted efficiency and expensive citations. It is quite the funny little joke. Keep it going as those of us who actually enjoy both riding and common sense love using your childish and rebellious indignation as conversation fodder on the road.
Fight the power!
July 8th, 2007 19:46
Post 55:
Look, this is a bike blog. I write passionate comments about serious political injustices in the blogs that deal with those subjects, and I write comments about bikes in bike blogs. And why isn't this a serious issue? We have had several deaths lately - the most recent one caused by a motorist who willfully refused to yield to a bicyclist who had the right of way - and the response from one police department is to throw the book at ...cyclists! So, yes, excuse me for wanting better law enforcement, please.
While we simultaneously work on a zero tolerance policy for law breaking among every single biker, we might also ask the driving population to not mow us down quite so often. Or, would you prefer we achieve 100% traffic law compliance for all cyclists in the world before we might trouble the car-heads for our little request about killing us less frequently?
July 8th, 2007 20:17
Riders should exercise more common sense and judgement. Drivers need to be more patient and cognizant of cyclists. No one disputes that but many of us who ride are sick of the rants against the police for enforcing the laws whether it be in North Plains, down by OMSI, Ladd's Circle, etc. Break the law, no matter how stupid you think it is, get a citation. It's a simple concept and doesn't rise to the level of conspiracy and human rights abuses so many here think it does.
If the North Plains police were nailing every driver for the old "California Rolling Stop" you would laud them for it. Catch a few cyclists for the same thing? Now they are the modern Gestapo. Has anyone here ever thought about a meaningful dialogue with local police rather than going off on a rant? Probably not. Rants are easy and fun whereas building constructive relationships are likely too difficult and cerebral.
I knew Tim O'Donnell and his senseless death sickens me. What sickens me more is that most here just want to bitch about the cops rather than turn them into a powerful ally on the road and in the halls of power. But I guess the need to maintain momentum or stay clipped on principle must outweigh the need to make friends that could actually make us safer? Rebels without a clue best describes the "bike culture". Most riders I know have no use for such culture.
July 8th, 2007 23:40
I'm not sure what to think about these two stings; the NP and the Ladd Circle citation incidents. I've never got a citation while riding a bicycle. (partly luck I suppose.) $335 is a lot of money.
I suppose you can slice and dice the issue a bunch of ways. Basically though, the law is the law. It's just a reality of the road that to stay in the clear, you've got to take advantage of all the reasonable precautions at your disposal; #1...follow the law as much as you can, but when taking what you believe are reasonable liberties with the law, look all directions for approaching cars and trucks. And keep an eye out for cops, both moving and lying in wait to cite you. And, know a little something about the territory you're entering.
Cops have authority to use discretion in deciding where a citation is warranted, but it's not reasonable to expect them to tailor the use of it to each individuals idea about what reasonable compliance with the law is. When you play loose and fast with the law, sometimes you're going to get lucky, and sometimes you aren't.
July 9th, 2007 00:43
Chief Scott Whitehead thanks for posting on this site.
Please send Jonathan c/o BikePortland the data of vehicle stops (warnings, tickets, and total daily volume) at the location in question (# of bicycles, cars, etc.) by day for a week.
This would go a long way to prove your point - so we can move forward on this topic.
Thanks.
July 9th, 2007 07:28
@ #55 & 57:
Wow, I didn't hear anybody mention "conspiracy" or "human rights abuses" -- great use of hyperbole. But Flava says "Don't believe the hype." And: "Get up, get-get-get down, stop sign enforcement is a joke in yo town!"
I'm all for working with people, but it's time we called BS on the idea that setting up a speed trap actually enhances safety on the street. And I'd love to hear your thoughts on how we can have a constructive dialogue with someone who says, "As much as it seems that people want us to stop what were doing it's not going to happen. ... I will not change what I do."
@ #59: What point will a week's worth of these data prove?
July 9th, 2007 08:36
Here is my attempt at constructive dialog.
Cyclists have the responsibility to ride in a steady, predictable manner on properly maintained bikes, in a way that best exemplifies the "share the road" ethos.
Motorists have the responsibility to drive in a safe, predictable manner, in properly maintained vehicles, with the awareness that their cars are massive and deadly should a collision occur.
Police have the responsibility - the job - to use their limited traffic enforcement resources to best promote the behaviors above and identify and remove from the road those who are unwilling to operate safely.
If we all agree to that, then the devil is in the details.
July 9th, 2007 09:42
a.O., in reference to most of your posts., but this one will represent:
Scott, if you had stopped to actually think about this situation for even a moment, you'd understand that your method of promoting safety simply doesn't work. You give tickets, yet people keep not stopping. So you mindlessly give more tickets. If giving people tickets caused more people to stop, then you'd be giving fewer and fewer tickets unti eventually you gave none. How many years have you been giving tickets at this intersection, Scott?
I'm not telling you how to promote safety in NP -- figuring that out is your job. But you can't come before rational, thinking people and claim that giving tickets is all you need to do or even that it works. The facts show unequivocally that it does *not* work.
I hear that speeding is against the law too. And I also hear that the police occasionally issue citations for speeding. And yet people continue to speed. Perhaps the police should just move on then, eh, because it's clearly not working?
I also hear some other things are against the law, and no matter how much the police try to enforce the law, people keep breaking the law. Perhaps they should just stop trying to enforce the law then, eh?
According to a.O. they should...
July 9th, 2007 10:14
@ #62:
We've had this conversation before, rixter. And I asked a question you never answered: Do you want your government to continue to expend public resources on policies that are not effective?
I didn't say they should stop enforcing the law. But I am saying that methods proven ineffective at achieving their stated goals should be stopped in favor of trying something that works, or that might work.
Do tickets stop people from speeding? Obviously not. So if we want to stop people from speeding, we need to try something else, right? I can't understand why that concept is apparently so difficult for people to grasp. Why would we want a policy that keeps the police doing something that doesn't help solve the problem?
Now, this conversation came out of the O'Donnell tragedy. Scott Whitehead claims that sitting at an intersection and giving tickets to people who do not come to a complete stop is going to help prevent that type of tragedy. I'm saying that it won't (I'm sure he was giving those tickets before, during, and after the tragedy) and that *real* action to promote safety requires something else, and something more, of our elected officials. I think it's time to demand something other than the status quo (or more of the status quo) given that our brothers and sisters are dying on the State's roads.
If you're even the least bit convinced by what I've said, then your next question will be, "So, what do we do?" The short answer is, "I don't know, but now the important conversation can start."
July 9th, 2007 10:32
The problem with your thesis, a.O., is that it can apply to enforcement of any law. Armed robbery? Well, enforcing the law obviously doesn't work. Child porn? same thing. Arson? Rape? Murder? People still break the law.
Of course we want effective law enforcement, but you can't just lay the blame for lawlessness at the feet of law enforcement. People have to stop placing themselves above the law, whether they're a speeding motorist, a cyclist running stops, or yes, even the Bush administration
July 9th, 2007 10:35
A.O.: I have some ideas about what else we can do as a matter of policy, but the political will is lacking.
One is to abolish the idea that everybody gets to drive. In most European countries, it's very hard to pass the driver's test. Some people take it many times and still never pass. And they don't get to drive! Imagine that. Only those skilled enough and with the right kind of temperament get to drive cars. No way would such a change be easy to enact in this country, since most people live in places where they have no alternative.
That also means getting people off the road once they've shown they shouldn't keep their license. One drunk driving conviction or two at-fault crashes should be enough in my book, but whatever the standard is, it should be a lot easier to be banned for life than it currently is. Same political hurdle to climb, though.
July 9th, 2007 10:40
No, I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying we *stop* enforcement; I'm saying we try something different. And I'm not blaming law enforcement officials for lawlessness. Obviously we're never going to have total compliance with the law and obviously people have to take responsibility for their own actions.
Think about murder. Are there policies we can set that will help prevent murder, aside from arresting murderers after the fact? Yes. Community policing practices is a good example. The same is true with situations like the O'Donnell tragedy.
Just don't come back now and claim they're not the same when you just attempted to equate them. They're not the same in many important ways, but they are in that respect.
July 9th, 2007 10:42
I don't disagree with you in principle, peejay, although I might disagree on the details. However, i just read that what law enforcement is finding is that with drunk driving, it's the same offenders, over and over and over again. They DO lose their licenses, and they keep on driving anyway. What is law enforcement supposed to do, other than continue to enforce the law? What is the legislature supposed to do? They take the licenses of the offenders away, but they keep driving ANYWAY. Kind of like the girl who killed Timothy O'Donnell.
July 9th, 2007 10:44
peejay, I think you're right. There are many ways we could change policy that would help prevent these tragedies. And the ones you've cited are good examples. Maybe if we show enough will, we can change the thinking of the body politic. I certainly won't give up.
I also think there are even things that people like Scott Whitehead could do. Maybe if he's so concerned about cyclists getting killed, he could ride along with them through NP one Saturday and see what motorists do that endangers cyclists, then he could enforce *those* laws. I know, wild idea.
July 9th, 2007 10:48
"[I] just read that what law enforcement is finding is that with drunk driving, it's the same offenders, over and over and over again. They DO lose their licenses, and they keep on driving anyway. What is law enforcement supposed to do, other than continue to enforce the law?"
Obviously, what's needed here, as peejay says, is a law that incarcerates them so they cannot drive. But without that law, there's little else law enforcement can do.
That's *not* the case with people killing cyclists, though. I'm not saying this tragedy could have been prevented if only the Sheriff's Dept had done X. I'm just saying that they could try something that might work, rather than something that we know doesn't.
July 9th, 2007 11:06
A.O., no, I know they're not the same. Murder obviously isn't in the same league as stop sign running, nor are the other offenses I gave as examples.
I don't disagree with you about the need for effective enforcement. I think sitting at a stop near OMSI once a month, or once a year isn't effective enforcement. I think it would be far more effective to enforce the law every day, especially in locations where that enforcement would provide some tangible safety benefits. I also think that there should be a zero tolerance policy for speeding. The speed limit is the ceiling, not the floor, and law enforcement could be and should be enforcing that limit.
If creative law enforcement can reduce noncompliance, I'm all for it.
I also think it's time for people to stop placing themselves above the law. The laws are an agreed-upon set of rules so we can all live together in relative harmony. The traffic laws are an agreed-upon set of rules so we can all travel in a safe, predictable manner. I have some reasonable assurance of what you're going to do when we meet on the road, and you have some reasonable assurance of what I'm going to do on the road. The traffic laws define both our responsibilities, and our rights. When somebody breaks the law, they're often violating somebody else's right, and even if they're not directly violating somebody else's rights, they're usually creating resentment.
July 9th, 2007 11:12
rixter, we're in complete agreement!
July 9th, 2007 12:11
First, I would like to thank the Chief for taking the time to read our discussion and take part.
Whether you agree or disagree with him, it is not often that we get that kind of attention.
Please be polite in our discourse.
"Break the law, no matter how stupid you think it is, get a citation."
This is part of the problem.
I don't believe that Police should write a citation for every violation.
I think that the laws should be there for punishment when an incident occurs, for example a fender bender or accident. Then write a citation if needed.
But in my opinion (and in the end that is all we are giving here is our opinions) I think that a BETTER choice than citing EVERY VIOLATION - would be to stop people and talk to them like humans, and work on educating.
I would make LIBERAL use of written warnings. That way if people are not willing to learn after a couple attempts you can start citing them. But at least give people a chance and treat them with respect. Of course if a person is being a jerk or something they deserve a citation.
That is something most traffic enforcement officers never do, treat people with respect.
So we learn to hate them. Right up there with IRS agents and dental drills.
I don't want any leeway. Just some human understanding and treatment on BOTH sides of the equation.
Bikes can improve, cars can improve, and Police can improve. I believe the point has been made that we have been issuing traffic citations for a long time, yet people still continue to break the traffic laws. So it clearly isn't working.
In fact, I have had several speeding tickets since I started driving in the late 80s. They all just made me dislike traffic cops, and actively try and hide from them. But you want to know what REALLY slowed me down? $3 a gallon gas. :) I get 30mpg at 60mph and 25mpg at 75.
OK, I am off topic now.
July 9th, 2007 12:14
It just depends upon how you word your statements I suppose. Do tickets stop people from speeding? Yes and no. Tickets definitely deter some people from speeding, perhaps many, but obviously, not all. Some people have a chronic disregard for responsibility and consideration for the safety of others, one example of which, is how they run their vehicles on public roads.
Identifying those people and encouraging them through various ways to decide to drive safer would be worthwhile efforts. Really though, just taking certain problem people off the road, maybe forever, may unfortunately be the safest thing for the public in general.
Earlier, I suggested people wake up to the reality of the law, and basically just watch themselves when they go through a town like North Plains. I think that still makes generally good sense, but doesn't necessarily justify what Chief Scott Whitehead may be doing as he issues citations to cyclists for failing to stop at intersections marked by stoplights and stop signs.
If Whitehead is really being out of line, maybe people should set up a little sting with vid cams and cyclists going through the intersections in a manner where the officers rightful use of discretion should allow them to pass without being issued a citation.
Whitehead ought to get smart about the negative impression created by citations issued opportunistically, primarily for the purpose of generating revenue. If he's really doing that, it's disingenuous to make statements saying the issuance of citations for non-stopping cyclists is born out of concern for everyone's safety. This could undermine the kind of credibility it would seem that a police officer would like people to associate with him.
On the other hand, maybe Whitehead is on the up and up. Could be, there really are a lot of cyclists that are just blowing off regard for the town's traffic controls. Especially in a little town like this, if this is really happening, who wouldn't get tired of it and concened about it?
Just as someone suggests Whitehead should ride with cyclists to see their perspective on the issue, maybe some of his critics might consider sitting in the car with him on a day when he waits around for cyclists and other vehicle operators to observe how they deal with stop signs and lights.
July 9th, 2007 12:30
VR,
In fact, I have had several speeding tickets since I started driving in the late 80s. They all just made me dislike traffic cops, and actively try and hide from them. But you want to know what REALLY slowed me down? $3 a gallon gas. :) I get 30mpg at 60mph and 25mpg at 75.
When I was in my twenties, my attitude was "The rules don't apply to me." Including the speeding laws. Oh, I *tried* to avoid speeding tickets, but I didn't try to avoid speeding. And I had the tickets to prove it. In fact, I had so many speeding tickets, the state of California sent me a letter ordering me to mail my driver's license in. The thing was, I had always paid my tickets, and had never attended a diversionary driver's program, so I chose that option for what was then my most recent ticket, got that ticket removed from my record, and kept my license. After that, the specter of losing my license, and the sheer exhaustion of paying fines, combined to convince me to start obeying the speed limits.
Fast forward to a few years ago. I'm in New York, driving my best friend around, and she complains that i drive like an old woman (i.e., I'm not driving fast enough.). I told her that i was through paying fines, and if she wanted to go faster, she could drive and get the tickets on her license.
Fast forward to now. She has a 22 month old baby, and she drives like an old woman. For me, it was fines and nearly losing my license that convinced me to obey the law. For her, it was motherly concern for her baby. For you, it was fuel economy...
July 9th, 2007 12:49
If the state were to pass an Idaho-like law where cyclists can roll through stop signs at a safe speed, while yielding to other traffic, would cities be able to pass regulations that would override the state law?
July 9th, 2007 13:12
Wow busy thread.
Follow the rules of the road. Cyclist need to lead on this issue. Not whine when they are caught BREAKING the law.
Law enforcement to focus on the people who do the killing. Take the high road, follow the rules, and be vocal about demanding law enforcement to crack down on dangerous behaviors.
Oh, and Chief Buthead should get his ass fired for that unprofessional email shown above.
July 9th, 2007 16:19
but those emails were "taken out of context"....??
even though they are apparently the only response that was given..
taking something out of context, chief, means taking bits and pieces out of a larger quotation....this was not the case.
July 9th, 2007 17:12
"taking something out of context, chief, means taking bits and pieces out of a larger quotation....this was not the case." jeremy
That's not what taking out of context is. Taking out of context is when comments originally made in reference to one situation are later used in reference to a different situation, possibly implying a different meaning.
It's hard to tell exactly what Chief Whitehead's gripe is in this respect since his explanation in responding to criticism for stepped up issuance of traffic citations is spread so wide and thin. If I've got this right, he seems to be upset that some people are suggesting he's claiming to be rationalizing the issuance of more citations as a safety response to the motorist caused fatality of cyclist Timothy O'Donnell outside of his district.
He could have made it so simple by just saying, "All violators of traffic regulations within the city limits of North Plains will be cited by the North Plains Police Department as staffing resources allow".
July 9th, 2007 17:43
Damn, J, that's rough. Sure is hard to resist the urge to write something scathing to Chief Whitehead and see what kind of response that elicits...
you're quite the apologist, N.I.K....I in fact wrote nothing scathing whatsoever..it was polite and calmly worded and sincere. His response was nothing but the opposite, and definitely unprofessional.
July 10th, 2007 10:50
"Apologist"?!? Goddamn, J, what's your problem? Why attack those on your side?
My remark was meant to be taken literally, not sarcastically: I genuinely meant, "It's very difficult for me, right now, to exercise complete restraint and NOT write a scathing letter to Chief Whitehead and see how he reacts to that, when he's been completely and thoroughly dismissive of someone who wrote a relatively kind and respectful letter to him." How the hell does that make me an "apologist"?
July 10th, 2007 11:07
We've got a serious problem, folks: one too many cyclists who are *so* incredibly paranoid that the world is just plain out to get them that they see fit to read anti-cycling sentiment into each and every statement they see, hear, or otherwise observe.
My recent posts about communicating clearly and making points on actual issues, rather than resorting to cheap name-calling and slanderous extrapolation on things that aren't even there, have gotten mixed reactions. Quite a lot of you seem to get it. Some don't. I believe this to be symptomatic of the aforementioned paranoia. So, allow me to spell it out for those of you who don't get it:
Nobody is asking you to kiss anybody's ass. No one is asking you to take your being insulted or dismissed by public officials lightly. What we ARE asking for is that you conduct yourselves with enough dignity and respect where you don't paint the whole lot of us as a bunch of pea-brained fanatics who, in the face of adversity, resort to the communicative equivalent of flinging feces and screaming your head off, instead of BESTING the opposition through CLEAR and WELL-REASONED explanations of *why they are in the wrong*, or why something has to change. In throwing tantrums, you do little more than give both the opposition and neutral or undecided parties every reason to dismiss whatever comes out of your mouth next - regardless if it's the most profoundly sensible thing to have ever been uttered in the course of human history, you *will* be dismissed and you *will* have hurt the cause you're fighting for. This applies to every manner of discussion and debate around, no matter what the subject.
So make a decision: either start contributing, or stop ruining the very serious efforts of others. If you don't want to do the hard work, fine. Other people can do it for you; they care enough about it themselves. But if you want that to happen, you're going to have to stop hindering their efforts by giving others the impression that they're as equally ill-mannered and thin-skinned as yourself.
July 10th, 2007 12:52
you're quite the apologist, N.I.K
J, your credibility is nose-diving fast with anybody who can read....
July 10th, 2007 14:28
VR, I would like to address some of your points. First, didn't Jennifer Knight get written warnings in the form of previous tickets? Do you really think that in her case, a "polite" cop would have made a difference in her later behavior? And to me, the "written" warnings are stop signs, yield signs, and speed limit signs. And don't forget the driver's manual. How much more do we need to coddle people?
I think it's odd that you have several speeding tickets. I have one moving violation (speeding) after 20 years of driving and was able to fight that one off in court. Personally, I would rather cops just be quiet and right the ticket, I don't like being lectured by them at all. If I get a ticket, it's because I deemed it an acceptable risk, not because I'm flat out stupid. I'm not a big fan of cops either but they are a necessity and the best way to avoid them is to keep at least the appearance of being in line.
And I've dealt with several IRS agents due to complex tax situations. I've never found them to be impolite at all.
July 17th, 2007 15:20
Keep in mind that there is a fundamental difference between the Sheriff and a Chief? O.K. class here it goes..... Sheriff elected and Chief not elected. It is important to remember that Sheriff Gordon talks a good round but his views are not representative of some of his deputies and more so not of all of the officers in Washington County that he neither supervises nor speaks for. All officers are committed to enforcing the law and it is when it is broken and an appropriate statute exists. This debate could be long but study the application of the law and accept the fact that when a bicyclist dies, yes they can at times be at fault. Not that Mr. O'Donnell was but neither did the driver's actions rise to the level of Recklessness.
July 17th, 2007 21:37
A simple question for all of you. I've biked for 40 years and have always understood a stop to be absence of motion, standing in the stirrups, bum off the seat, posture maintained for a second or more. I've never heard 'foot on the ground' as a full stop. Are Oregon laws regarding a 'stop' on a bike different then other states?
July 18th, 2007 15:04
It's not so much the law itself, Deb, as the interpretation. Where I grew up in Michigan, the local police interpretation was that it wasn't a complete stop unless you put one foot on the ground. Other cities in Michigan didn't feel that was necessary, yet there was only one law for the whole state. Go figure.
July 18th, 2007 15:22
There's a very old case, from 1897, where a cyclist was hit & killed by a train, and the court held the cyclist liable for not stopping and dismounting (it must have been a highwheeler, although they were passe by 1897.), or at least looking and listening, before proceeding.
That seems to be the source of the rule that you must put a foot on the ground. If you come to a full stop, look, listen, observe the situation, and then go, you're still within that opinion, even if you didn't put a foot down.
I think it's very doubtful that any police departments or courts know where that rule came from, so they may think that "foot down" is required.
July 21st, 2007 07:02
[...] Posted by Jonathan Maus on July 6th, 2007 at 7:31 am The fatal crash that took the life of Timothy O’Donnell seems to have resulted in two different responses by law enforcement personnel. via Bike Portland [...]
July 21st, 2007 19:28
Come on people, do your research!!! The Oregon Supreme Court has the responsibility of establishing the fines for traffic violations. Your legislature is who makes the law. The police only 'enforce' the law. Stop means Stop it doesnt matter who you are or what your vehicle is, the police just like catching you red handed. The officer gets nothing from writing you a ticket other than the same feeling you and I get at our jobs when we finish a task.
Oh, and who gets the money from your $335.00 ticket? THE STATE OF OREGON not North Plains. Look into it and you will be suprised to see where all the money goes. North Plains only gets a small portion of the ticket. Any of you use the State Parks? I do and I thank each and every one of you who got cited for helping to keep them clean for my continued use.
July 22nd, 2007 08:19
JDN, if the Oregon Supreme Court sets the fines, why is the same ticket (rolling through a stop sign) $242 in PDX and $335 in North Plains? Shouldn't this be the same amount statewide?