Oregonian: Truck driver has had 25 speeding convictions
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Editor-in-Chief) on October 24th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Today’s edition of the Oregonian has more coverage of the collision that claimed the life of Brett Jarolimek.
One of their stories, Truck driver has checkered record, reports that the driver of the garbage truck has had, “…a string of run-ins with police, including 25 convictions for speeding, driving without a license and other traffic violations.”
The story details says he had “an assortment of charges, including speeding, violation the basic [speed] rule and failure to obey a traffic signal”. According to Oregonian reporter Helen Jung, his troubles began in 1988 and his most recent conviction came in March of this year.
Lieutenant Mark Kruger is quoted in the story as saying, “That stuff is largely irrelevant to the investigation…We’re not the issuing authority of licenses. We only enforce the law.”
I’m not a legal expert, but I would imagine that this guy’s record would/should play a part in the District Attorney’s review of the Police’s investigation of the crash. (Can any lawyers chime in here?)
Here’s another part of the story that caught my attention:
“Richard Lowes, Bryan Lowes’ father, said Tuesday that his son was unavailable for comment because he was sleeping in preparation for an early-morning work shift.”
Does that mean he’s still driving?
*UPDATE: Here’s a comment that just came in from someone claiming to be a driver for AGG Enterprises:
“I want to put it out there right now. I work for AGG and can say that as of Monday Bryan was giving time off pending the outcomes of all the investigations. The Oregonian got it wrong. We all realize that people are upset and that is understandable. But since Monday many drivers have experienced middle fingers, and rocks being thrown at our trucks (from bicyclist). We are out there trying to make a living and feed our children. This is a tragedy and we all feel horrible but the violence is not the answer.”
Read the article on OregonLive.com.
Email This Post
Possibly related posts 
October 24th, 2007 01:28
i will call the company to ask them not to hire people with horrible driving records. 25 ton vehicles. unbelievable.
A G G Enterprises Inc
Phone: (503) 283-2015
5555 N Channel Ave Bldg 3, Portland, OR 97217-7655
October 24th, 2007 03:02
Civil litigation is likely where this information would play a larger role.
AGG has a responsibility to the public safety as well as the question to ODOT why he even still had his CDL.
October 24th, 2007 04:31
When it's not enough to suggest your pet piece of legislation, rather than enforcement and education, is the solution to a problem, and it's not enough to misconstrue "sometimes it's X's fault, sometime's it's Y's fault" as a cold hard 50-50 statistic, I guess the next step is to plainly state that a prior record isn't considered relevant to an investigation less than 48 hours old. Let's all have a big hand for Lt. Kruger, doing his usual bang-up job of shooting his mouth off to the media and taking sizeable chunks of his foot out in the process.
October 24th, 2007 06:56
25?!?!?! That's huge... and yet Mark Kruger will still find a way to "defend" this. And we're supposedly a better cycling city than Copenhagen? Right. This is sad, embarassing, ridiculous and pathetic. Justice is a basic human right not afforded to cyclists in Portland.
October 24th, 2007 07:27
[...] license, etc. irrelevant to the case and he may still be going to work! Read the condensed version here and the full article [...]
October 24th, 2007 07:49
Habitual offenders, such as this driver, often seem to be responsible for the type of tragic and completely unnecessary carnage witnessed recently.
In Eugene, two pedestrians were mowed down in a crosswalk last week. One was killed and the other seriously injured. The driver, who fled the scene, was later caught and was found to have had two prior DUI convictions and was driving with a suspended license (until 2009) at the time of the collision.
I would like to see an organization or media outlet compile a list of Oregonians with currently suspended licenses (available through the DMV or courts?) and determine whether or not these people are actually obeying their sentences. A documentary film could make a serious impact in bringing the ineffectiveness of current practices to light.
Unfortunately, in Brett's case this will be of no consequence. Something is seriously wrong when someone with a record like this AGG driver's is even considered for this type of employment.
October 24th, 2007 08:04
Self-righteous cagers leaving bikeportland.org in 3... 2... 1...
October 24th, 2007 08:07
One of the cardinal rules of law (typically in a criminal context) is that other prior bad acts are not to be used for the purpose of demonstrating whether someone committed a later act. Otherwise, every trial or proceeding would become a character trial, and public policy favors having the factual basis of each event established on its own merits.
There are some exceptions to this, but I think it is indeed the case here that these prior convictions will not factor in to the investigation.
However, this does raise a couple of very important points:
1. AGG hired and retained this guy despite having reason to know that he was such a bad driver that he should never have been employed commercially. They can and should be held liable for his negligent hiring (in addition to other theories of liability against AGG).
2. Every responsible citizen should be asking themselves this question: "How do people like this remain on the road?" Drivers like this have killed more Oregonians in Oregon this year than terrorists. If ever there was a role for government, it's to protect citizens from stuff like this. Please write your Legislator and demand a bill that permanently revokes licenses for people who habitually commit dangerous traffic offenses, and that makes it a felony to drive after having a license revoked.
October 24th, 2007 08:15
Suppose Killer Driver Bryan Lowes still is employed by AGG Enterprises and still driving a truck. [WTF !!!]
Is there any legal basis for the rest of us to conduct a citizen's arrest and physical detain Mr. Lowes on the spot if we ever see him attempting to drive a truck or other motorized vehicle, ever again? He is a lethal danger to all of society, and should be stopped before he kills again.
[Probably not much of a legal basis for a standing "Citizen's Arrest Warrant." I understand that the police and the justice system are supposed to protect us from people like this.]
October 24th, 2007 08:15
I echo a.O's point #2.
Why in the heck does this guy have a license AT ALL? That he still had a CDL, and is driving right NOW is utterly mind blowing.
October 24th, 2007 08:33
25 traffic violation convictions in 20 years? I can't even think of a comment to follow. Geeze! I wonder how many warnings and dismissals there were? How does he drive when there are no cops on the road?
I'm trying not to pass judgement on this poor soul but my God it looks bad.
And this guy drives a truck?
October 24th, 2007 08:40
Yes, why *did* he still have his CDL?
As for Lt. Kruger - irrelevant, my ass. Using that logic, there's no reason whatsoever why police should watch closely a previously convicted felon who is pacing outside a convenience store on the sidewalk. I mean, just because he robbed a liquor store and was busted for 4 misdemeanor assaults outside convenience stores over the last 8 years - that fact is "largely irrelevant."
Um.... right.
October 24th, 2007 08:46
The guy's previous criminal history is complete irrelevant to whether or not he has committed a crime in this instance and it won't be used at trial or in determining whether or not he should be charged. Where his previous criminal record can be used is in sentencing, if he is charged and subsequently found guilty
October 24th, 2007 08:47
In response to #5
Well guess that depends on how many tickets and convictions Brett Jarolimek had.
Which I'm sure is irrelavent right?
I wonder if anyone even bothered to look-
...or test ~his~ blood for alcohol or drugs.
What would be your tune if he were impaired?
October 24th, 2007 08:47
This is horrible indeed, however what are the options? I'm not defending the driver's action in the least, however even though Portland is a remarkably easy city to get around in without a car, its still not good enough to have the majority of people feel like they can do without one.
I agree people who have repeatedly shown they shouldn't be driving, well...shouldn't be driving (especially heavy, dangerous trucks). Until the infrastructure and attitudes change to present viable options to the contrary then driving will continue to be seen as a right rather than the privilege it is.
October 24th, 2007 08:50
oh youve got to be freaking kidding me.
driver had a consistent record of traffic violations, and kruger deems this "largely irrelevant"? AND this guy is still driving a truck, with apparently no downtime for having been involved in a fatal crash? regardless of fault, its revolting that he isnt off the road on paid leave or something at least until resolution of this investigation, never mind how the hell someone with that consistent a record of violations still has a license at all...
“Richard Lowes, Bryan Lowes’ father, said Tuesday that his son was unavailable for comment because he was sleeping in preparation for an early-morning work shift.” that means hes out there somewhere this morning - be careful everyone.
October 24th, 2007 08:50
In response to #9
Suggesting thinly veiled lynch mobs and vigilantism doesn't really sound like a good idea.
October 24th, 2007 09:02
NO FLIPPING WAY.
I've had non-driving jobs that wouldn't hire you if you had so much as a blip on your driving record...what the F*** is this guy doing in a CDL REQUIRED VEHICLE?!
October 24th, 2007 09:02
"The guy's previous criminal history is complete irrelevant to whether or not he has committed a crime in this instance and it won't be used at trial..."
No, this is wrong on both counts.
First, the history of driving violations is legally relevant to the present circumstances because it does make it more likely, however slightly, that there was a violation here. But public policy considerations dictate otherwise, and that's why there is a rule of evidence specifically making such evidence inadmissible despite its relevance.
Second, there are exceptions to this rule and they mean that this evidence *may* in fact be presented at trial. One exception is for showing a habitual pattern of behavior. Whether it will get into evidence in court is uncertain.
October 24th, 2007 09:03
how is kruger still employed???
i'm guessing that his long history of anti-bike agenda is "largely irrelevant"
October 24th, 2007 09:11
Just want to second A.O.'s comments above. It's pretty important to not let the past color the present, and remember that people are innocent until proven guilty.
In that light, Kruger is spot on. The past offenses are indeed irrelevant to their investigation of the current incident. They are there to collect evidence and testimony so that a DA can decide if there's any guilt to be laid, and subsequently any guilt to be proven.
S
October 24th, 2007 09:17
What about racial profiling? What about ordinance, and statute designed to target specific groups? Think before you speak. I used to live on SE 122nd Ave., here in Portland. I went to high-school out there. I was pulled over, and cited, three times in a row, for a perfectly functioning license plate light. I took pictures to court. If you weren't from California, you'd know that this was an area of town that the city was trying to curtail, "cruising", by the young people in the area.
What about Hispanics? Do you think that Hispanics aren't pulled over and cited more frequently than whites, or other groups? Are you asserting that, when this is the case, that these people are not entitled to a fair chance at a job?
The police clearly use traffic stops as a means of harassing certain groups of people. A practice, I'm sure you would agree, is loathsome, and unjust. Using your logic, when the police practice this deplorable policy, it should be compounded by further sanctions? A man's non-compliance with a court order for child support can result in having his driver license suspended. Should this person be kept from making a living?
In this country, one is innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, all bets are off once the time has been served, so to speak. According to the DMV, this garbage truck driver was a licensable person. That is the system in place. That system deemed this person fit to drive, end of story.
It's bad enough that this guy's previous driving record is probably going to get him crucified in civil court. But it's way worse to bring up his driving record, in a criminal context, after the fact, and completely out of context. What about learning from your mistakes? Are you saying that anyone, who does anything, should pay for that regardless of the crime, and regardless whether they've already been punished?
October 24th, 2007 09:20
"No, this is wrong on both counts."
Not so. It's been a while since I've had crim and I'm not familiar with OR code, but you have to admit that it would be beyond highly unlikely for his previous driving record to go in at trial unless the defense opens that door; it would be incredibly prejudicial.
It's only relevant at sentencing.
October 24th, 2007 09:21
Has PPB ever done a truck driver sting? or do they just do that to keep cyclists from coasting through stop signs?
One crime in all this is the use of police resources for the latter when the former goes neglected.
Time is long passed for new blood at the Traffic Division.
October 24th, 2007 09:24
Vance, you can be punished in the civil system and the criminal system. They aren't mutually exclusive. Learn from his mistakes? You have to be kidding. He's had 25 chances to learn. I hope that he loses his house and everything he owns.
October 24th, 2007 09:27
littlewaywelt, we'll have to agree to disagree. The past citations meet the legal relevancy test. As I say, that's why there is a specific rule in the ORCP excluding such evidence. I do agree it's unlikely that such evidence would ultimately be introduced at trial because of its prejudicial value (even if it met one of the exceptions), but I also agree that it's not impossible.
Anyway, this is a side issue and I'm more interested in advocating for a law that will keep people like this off the road. I think we can all agree on that.
October 24th, 2007 09:45
wow..25 traffic violations!!..and those were the ones that were actually caught. One can only imagine how this guy drives day to day. Be careful out there!
October 24th, 2007 09:49
Unfortunately, to make the changes necessary (and in some small way to honor Brett by protecting others) litigation may be necessary. Is the company that hired Mr. Lowes partially responsible for Brett's death? I think evidence could show they were. If so, they should face a lawsuit with the goal being they change their hiring practices. This also sends a strong message to other companies who may have drivers with similar records to clean house or else. Additionally, does the City of Portland share responsibility if they knew the intersection was a dangerous one ? (that would depend on prior accidents there) If so, they should perhaps be sued as well, again with the goal that this type of intersection/signal/marking be changed to reduce the possibility of this type of tragedy happening again. It's an unfortunate reality of our times that business and government often need to be forced to change and that the best form of leverage is often a stiff financial penalty.
October 24th, 2007 09:49
Our system is far too lenient with people who demonstrate, over and over, that they do not deserve the right to operate a motor vehicle. We see it time and time again--a person whose license has been suspended 12 times kills a pedestrian, or a person with 8 DUI convictions kills a cyclist, or this latest absurdity. The basic problem, as I see it, is that the DMV and the state imposes weak penalties on people who are unlikely to care. A repeat drinker/driver doesn't care that you gave him a ticket, or suspended his license. What matters are *real* consequences. We need to start taking vehicles from people who are repeat offenders, and we need to bar them from driving as part of their job.
Until there are meaningful penalties for repeat offenders, these things are going to keep happening.
October 24th, 2007 09:51
I like the idea of a point system where marks go on people's records and then their licenses are pulled after a certain point. But in America it seems like people have such a sense of entitlement that if we were to pull licenses from miscreants then we would have more people driving without insurance.
I think a big step toward improving road safety would be to increase accountability. In this case a data logger would give us a more complete understanding of what actually happened, rather than relying on inherently flawed witness testimony. We need black boxes in autos.
Another big step toward accountability would be to install more traffic cameras. Rather than installing expensive traffic calming devices like roundabouts and speed bumps, we should be installing revenue generating speed cameras which are considerably more effective and don't cause problems for emergency vehicles.
October 24th, 2007 09:53
@29 Agreed, alongside pulling licenses, we need to start pulling vehicles.
October 24th, 2007 09:56
Kruger: "We only enforce the law."
Law: "Drivers must give the right of way to a cyclist in a bicycle lane."
October 24th, 2007 10:03
It was shocking to find out that the driver of the garbage truck was back at work today when clearly AGG hasn't had time to investigate this properly. It would suprise me greatly to find out that their insurance company knew they hired drivers with this kind of record. Irregardless of the outcome of this crash investigation, Mr. Lowes shouldn't have a CDL and a prudent company wouldn't employ him to drive.
October 24th, 2007 10:08
There are obviously deeper problems in place when a driver of a vehicle which requires a specialized license (which is percieved to also have controlled access and require passing of a test) still carries that license after what I believe most would consider to be an "unreasonable" number of traffic related convictions which would under normal circumstances render this individual incapable of consciously and safely operating a vehicle of any kind - much less one of this size and consequence.
My question is this: where is the break-down in the system that has allowed this man to continue to operate a vehicle? Lt. Kreuger is correct that it is not the police department's responsibility to oversee the distribution of driver's licenses, but how did such a blatent offender slip through the cracks?
October 24th, 2007 10:10
I can't believe you can still have a OR CDL with that many violations under your belt. Doesn't that put you in the category Habitual Traffic Offender? In California my license was suspended for getting 4 violations in 1 year. What is the law here?
October 24th, 2007 10:11
Isn't there a Share the Road class run by the City, trauma nurses, the BTA, Court Judges etc?
Why wasn't the truck driver offered this class by police? It seems somebody with 25 speeding violations could sure use it.
If the police aren't offering this class to folks like THIS, then lord only knows who they ARE offering it to.
October 24th, 2007 10:12
can i ask a question?
if you're in the process of being hired by AGG, do you just check boxes to state if you have a CDL or past infractions? if you say yes to cdl and no to past infractions, do they say fine... or is there a follow-up? did somebody actually plug this guys info into a database?
If AGG doesn't follow-up, does this mean nobody who hires drivers (of other commercial trucks like cement mixers) checks either? is it too expensive?
If they did check his past... and hired him, well, that would seem neglegent...
so what's the process here?
October 24th, 2007 10:13
Who's up for some good old civil disobedience? If thousands of cyclists stop paying their garbage bills until AGG and the other contracted garbage collectors in Portland purge drivers unders their employment with histories of serious traffic violations (DUI, driving while suspended, repeated speeding) it will force the city to take notice and address the issue.
October 24th, 2007 10:17
And Kruger doesn't see a problem.
I do, and it's wearing a police lieutenant's uniform.
October 24th, 2007 10:24
Interesting that one of his tickets was for failing to wear a seat belt. I've heard a number of stories where greater charges are reduced for whatever reason to failing to wear a seat belt. Maybe that was the ticket, but maybe it was something worse.
I'm with everyone else in being surprised he still has a CDL. My wife and I were discussing what consequences are appropriate right after this accident happened and we both felt that losing ones commercial license seems more than fair- in both of these accidents. If you can't see to avoid these collisions, you are not well equipped or trained to operate your vehicle and you absolutely deserve to lose your license and your job.
October 24th, 2007 10:35
Here it is -
http://www.legacyhealth.org/body.cfm?id=1928
This class should be offered to people who violate a whole long list of traffic laws, ***including*** -
!...failure to yield the right of way and/or defective equipment or non-use of safety equipment."
October 24th, 2007 10:45
just because the drivers father SAYS he is going to work does not mean that the company is gonig to let him drive. Get a grip!
October 24th, 2007 10:53
So...if you cause a death by violating a traffic law, WHY DO WE LET YOU CONTINUE TO DRIVE??? Many places in Europe have a "one strike you're out" when you cause serious injury or death.
I think the right thing to do to these people is to make them a target^H^H^H^H^H^Hpedestrian.
October 24th, 2007 11:09
toddistic #7
name-calling folks really doesn't help. I saw on KOIN news a poll that they did where three-quarters of the respondents said that they believed the cyclist was at fault in motorvehicle vs. bicycle accidents.
So let's say that this driver gets brought up on charges. And is tried by a jury of his peers. The way sentiment is running these days, there would be a unfair bias by the jury in favor of the driver.
We, cyclists and "cagers" have to change this, TOGETHER.
I have to drive defensively because my little car held together by chewing gum and popsicle sticks, is no match for the Hummers, 18 wheelers and such that aren't so much into sharing the road. I have been followed by an angry motorist down MLK and it scared me. And I was in a f*cking car. And he still coulda killed me.
Conversely, I tend to infantalize cyclists. I drive as though I expect them run stop signs, cut across multiple traffic lanes w/o signaling, alternate between identifying as a pedestrian and a vehicle, have no lights and wear black clothes at night. So I give them a wide berth, I'd rather surrender the lane or street than risk the possibility of harming someone. Seriously.
I have friends who rides bikes, not-so-much "cyclists" they're all pretty safety-conscious. And I still worry about how all this enmity will affect them, when some unbalanced yahoo decides to "go after" bikers. I've lived in cities where motorists have purposefully mowed down pedestrians (which I was exclusively for the first 30 years of my life).
Cyclists are either part of the larger community or not. I think we'll work better together.
October 24th, 2007 11:27
Actually, I don't know if a.O and others are in fact lawyers, and I am certainly not - but I just this last week I was party to a trial in which a prior criminal record - which was not vehicular related - was used to convict someone of a vehicular crime.
That person is now sitting in jail.
However, that person hit another person in a car - and those of us here know that hitting another car gets much more attention than hitting a bicycle.
In criminal cases in Oregon - prior record can be used to establish patterns of behavior, and any prior criminal record is cause for the judge and jury to officially consider the defendant a "non trustworthy" witness.
Again, I am not a lawyer. But I was *at the trial* and watched a non-vehicular prior record be used to convict a person of a vehicular crime.
So while it most assuredly does depend upon the case, prior record can be used - and at least in Oregon, is used.
Additionally, after the conviction the prior record is also used in sentencing - there is even official guidelines based on prior record.
October 24th, 2007 11:50
Granted, this driver had a poor driving record. I would not hire him for my trucks nor would my insurance company allow me to add the driver. But the cycling community hysteria continues... It is obvious the cyclists in this town feel they do not need to be responsible for their riding abilities or lack thereof around other vehicles. I as a truck driver make every effort possible to operate safely around other vehicles,pedestrians, and even bicycles. Maybe the cycling community could try riding safely and with responsibility also......
October 24th, 2007 11:53
According to a currently posted (URL, below) AGG Enterprises jobdango.com employment ad, Bryan Lowes' could have only been considered for employment there if his driving record was considered acceptable by the AGG HR department. I guess 25 convicted traffic offenses must have constituted an "acceptable driving record." If this company considers 25 convictions for speeding, driving without a license and other traffic violations part of an "acceptable driving record," I wonder what the hell the "acceptable driving" records of other AGG drivers look like.
the ad:
http://www.jobdango.com/jobseekers/apply.asp?ID=124432&Searchp=1&Page=
October 24th, 2007 12:09
as someone who used to be in the fact-checking business, i'd reckon that the fact checking was never done by agg due to money and turnaround time. probably asked if he was convicted as a felon, and given some keys after he checked "no".
October 24th, 2007 12:51
Diesel, I assure you this is not hysteria. As I was biking past the scene of the accident I was right hooked twice by negligent and impatient drivers. This isn't some abstract problem for us this is a frequent hazard. Every time a car passes us approaching an intersection, we are at risk. Calling for defensive riding is fine, but no amount of defensive riding is going to make up for the gross negligence commonly exhibited by drivers.
October 24th, 2007 12:53
"could have only been considered for employment there if his driving record was considered acceptable by the AGG HR department."
This actually isn't up to HR, it's up to AGG's insurance. A (responsible) company will not allow an employee with a poor record to drive because he will not be covered by the insurance. Now the question is how many of those violations were in the last 3 years? If there were few and they were not very severe then the insurance company might allow the employee to be on the company policy. Whether or not he *should* have a cdl is not something AGG nor their insurance can control, but since he does then it's a matter of whether or not the insurance deems him to be an acceptable risk, and this is based on the previous 3 years (generally) of his driving record.
October 24th, 2007 12:56
Big Diesel: You're perfectly willing to pigeonhole the cycling community as a bunch of lawless hooligans, and yet perfectly willing to differentiate between the behavior of individuals when it comes to who's behind the wheel of a large truck. What gives? Is this genuine willful antagonism , or do you just plain not understand the similarity?
October 24th, 2007 13:50
David House, a spokesman for the Oregon Driver and Motor Vehicle Services, said even if an applicant has more serious moving violations, such as driving under the influence or reckless endangerment, the person isn't automatically blocked from obtaining such a license.
Says it all.
October 24th, 2007 13:56
Re: 17 I wasn't suggesting lynch mobs, just trying to thing of legal ways in which ordinary citezens could do something to prevent this driver from ever killing anyone with a truck again.
After some reflection, how about these ideas?
1) If Killer Driver Bryan Lowes is allowed to keep his job and is still driving a garbage truck around town, perhaps we citizens could use our right to freedom of assembly to picket AGG Enterprises Inc. until the company sees the wisdom of firing this guy, or at least re-assigning him to a non-driving job.
20 We could also get a team of volunteers to follow Bryan Lowes around all day with a videocamera and record every move he makes (on the job, as a truck drive). If he breaks the law again (any law), we would then have video-taped evidence and eyewitness accounts, which we, as citizens, could use to file an official charge agaisnt him. If we did this, the police would be compelled by law to bring him into court to account for his actions.
October 24th, 2007 13:56
From reading the laughable responses here, it just proves that the majority of the cycling community is living in a fantasy world.... Time to wake up and ride in a responsible manner !!!
October 24th, 2007 13:58
Genuine willful antagonism, then, I suppose.
October 24th, 2007 14:00
From reading the laughable responses here, it just proves that the majority of the cycling community is living in a fantasy world.... Time to wake up and ride in a responsible manner !!!
Perhaps you missed that part where the cyclist was obeying the law, and was killed by a driver-- a driver with 25 traffic convictions on his driving record, no less!-- who was breaking the law.
October 24th, 2007 14:02
If Killer Driver Bryan Lowes is allowed to keep his job and is still driving a garbage truck around town, perhaps we citizens could use our right to freedom of assembly to picket AGG Enterprises Inc. until the company sees the wisdom of firing this guy, or at least re-assigning him to a non-driving job.
Screw that. AGG needs a civil suit wake-up call.
October 24th, 2007 14:31
So, the police get a free ride on the prior traffic tickets but let's hope the DA will factor this into their decision on how to proceed.
October 24th, 2007 15:28
Big Diesel, I'm glad you wouldn't hire the guy, but the point is that you shouldn't even have the OPTION of hiring someone with a record like his.
October 24th, 2007 15:57
I, for one, am going to boycott garbage companies and not produce any waste! Take that, Corporate America!
October 24th, 2007 16:17
If it’s any consolation. I am an Employee of AGG and can say for a fact that Bryan has not been behind the wheel of a truck since the accident. He is still employed with us but he has been givin time off pending the outcome of all the investigations.
October 24th, 2007 16:20
Part of the problem is the system our elected representatives and our engineering community has set up through code and practice...
...why should we as a community allow professional / commercial drivers to operate large and potentially dangerious vehicles on crowded urban public streets if they have multiple moving violations over a set time period...without entering into 'driver reeducation camps' or 'driver rehab'?
Currently OR law sets with bar rather low by allowing problem [commercial] drivers to receive up to 20 citations over 5 years before being identifed as a habitual offender.
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/docs/064-0220_2006.pdf
October 24th, 2007 16:22
Wow. 25? Wow.
October 24th, 2007 16:31
Also...posted earlier was a note about AGGs hiring and staffing practices that may account / foster driver fatige...through driver schedules of...10 or 12 hour days with 4 day weeks before overtime.
When the father was interviewed he mentioned his son was asleep and that he had a very early work shift the next day...which is very common for solid waste hauling...and he might have been at the end of his long shift when the collision occured. (Or he might have had a shifting time for shift from day to day or week and this might have effected his sleep, etc.)
Have any of the reporters checked into these issues? (I have not read about it yet.)
October 24th, 2007 16:40
Habitual Offender Program
DMV will revoke your driving privileges for five years if you are convicted of three or more of the following offenses within a five year period:
Any degree of murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, assault, recklessly endangering another person, menacing or criminal mischief resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle.
Driving while under the influence of intoxicants.
Driving while your driving privileges are suspended or revoked.
Reckless driving.
Failure to perform the duties of a driver after a collision.
Fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer.
DMV will also revoke your driving privileges for habitual offender if you are convicted of 20 or more traffic violations within five years. To view a list of types of traffic violations for 20 or more convictions, see OAR 735-064-0220.
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/driverid/suspreasons.shtml#habit
October 24th, 2007 16:57
Yes, Civil Disobedience/Boycott!
Don't wait for the government to fix this problem. And a civil lawsuit, just a convenient way for the company to buy it's way out of the problem and sweep it under the carpet.
Make AGG feel the pain now, and send a message to any local employer who hires drivers with bad records. Suspend your garbage service or don't pay the bill (particularly if AGG services you).
October 24th, 2007 17:00
I want to put it out there right now. I work for AGG and can say that as of Monday Bryan was giving time off pending the outcomes of all the investigations. The Oregonian got it wrong. We all realize that people are upset and that is understandable. But since Monday many drivers have experienced middle fingers, and rocks being thrown at our trucks (from bicyclist). We are out there trying to make a living and feed our children. This is a tragedy and we all feel horrible but the violence is not the answer.
October 24th, 2007 17:16
Driver01 (#66),
Thanks for sharing that information.
If you, or a representative of AGG would like to make a statement or share more of the story, please consider contacting me.
You can use my contact form or call me at 503-706-8804.
thanks.
October 24th, 2007 17:34
But since Monday many drivers have experienced middle fingers, and rocks being thrown at our trucks (from bicyclist). We are out there trying to make a living and feed our children. This is a tragedy and we all feel horrible but the violence is not the answer.
No, it's not.
People, throwing rocks and flipping off AGG drivers is no more just than it would be if some angry driver ran you off the road because he had a run-in with some other cyclist.
Please try not to take the low road here. It's not helping Brett, it's not helping other cyclists, and it's not helping cycling.
October 24th, 2007 17:37
Geez, folks, get a grip! The reason trucking firms are scraping the bottom of the barrel is because there aren't enough drivers to fill all trucking jobs.
This is a nationalwide problem, not a Portland or AGG problem.
Moral: Don't speed down hills passing trucks on the right with turn signals on.
October 24th, 2007 17:38
And a civil lawsuit, just a convenient way for the company to buy it's way out of the problem and sweep it under the carpet.
Wrong.
A civil lawsuit will have more effect on company policy than any other means. When AGG loses, its insurance rates will rise, and the insurance carrier will likely force changes in company hiring policies-- assuming that AGG isn't currently making immediate changes in company policy. Rest assured, the company lawyers are advising AGG as we speak to change company policy, in order to limit their damages at trial.
October 24th, 2007 17:40
Don't speed down hills
Buying into the anti-cyclist propaganda rather readily, aren't we Dr.?
October 24th, 2007 17:46
"The reason trucking firms are scraping the bottom of the barrel is because there aren't enough drivers to fill all trucking jobs."
So, if there aren't enough teachers, we should recruit pedophiles to work in elementary schools? What a pathetic attempt at justifying an unjustifiable hiring decision. You're the one who needs to get a grip.
October 24th, 2007 18:14
Everyone! Write your representatives! Write AGG!
Commenting on blogs is not good enough!!!
Get drivers with proven shit records off the roads!
* http://www.leg.state.or.us/writelegsltr/writeset.htm
* http://www.portlandonline.com/index.cfm?c=28533
October 24th, 2007 19:03
With 25 traffic violations, you would think that the fine folks at the police department would question the drivers credibility in his stating that he checked his mirrors and used his turn signal (well before beginning his turn so that cylists and/or other drivers would have appropriate time to react). Unbelievable.
October 24th, 2007 21:55
I've worked in the transportation industry for over 10 years and I find it hard to believe a company hiring drivers would have one with such an unsafe record. This story very hard for me to believe. Shame on AGG if this is true.
October 24th, 2007 21:56
When will bicyclists realize they are indeed mortal beings? I ALWAYS take caution at intersections... BE AWARE of your surroundings. This is a tragedy. Watch out for yourself on the road. Don't think you can take on a motor vehicle. YOU WILL LOSE!
October 24th, 2007 23:08
Clearly, the streets of PDX are turning into a frickin' mecca for terrorists. The Killer Trucker's probably a child molester too.
October 25th, 2007 01:28
I am familiar with AGG and their drivers as the company I work for uses their services (boycott in the works) and I am a truck driver myself.
AGG has been around for a long time and for the most part done what they do well, but I think it's important to point out a few problems that exist in AGG and sadly other "bottom of the barrel" driving outfits around town:
As a poster above stated, it's hard...very, very hard to find good drivers in Portland. That in itself creates a problem when it comes to having safe drivers on your payroll.
I beleive the problem is further compounded when there is a "screw the other people" culture that exists in places like AGG.
When you drive by AGG (which I do on a regular basis) you see in the parking lot many, many gas guzzling pickup trucks used for non-carpool commutes from places as far afield as Wilsonville and Oregon City. You see a place of business that just took down their "Bush Cheney '04" signs that hung on their office windows just this spring. You add this up with the fact that the type of driving they do (garbage/scrap metal collection) fosters an environment that encourages an added bit of aggressiveness and you've definately got a recipe for what happened on Monday.
Companies like AGG (and they are not alone) view us bicyclists much the same way that loggers view environmentalists in that we are a nusance that gets in the way of their business and therefore deserve to "get what's comin' to us" when incidents like Monday's happen.
I am sorry that I paint with a broad brush because I know there are employees of AGG that are not part of this culture and are as afraid out there as us bicyclists are right now.
All this being said I have to echo the comments of an previous poster: DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT flip off AGG drivers or throw rocks!!! The moral high ground is the place where this fight will be won.
October 25th, 2007 01:58
Headline:
We get what we pay for, less government, more pedestrian and cyclists deaths.
Brett's murder was no accident.
I have to say, I posted this in writing. Check the driver's record in all 50 states. It is now time to bring all witnesses to oath before a grand jury. Ooops suddenly the SUV driver admits some new details. Suddenly on oath the cops admit they failed to do a quick record check on the spot.
Half truth: Both truck and SUV passed Brett at the top of the hill.
Whole truth: Bret was near speed limit on a training ride, truck was at or above speed limit. Truck was only able to gain 3 seconds on Brett. Truck then slowed down and ran into Brett. The Oregonian reported "cyclist ran into the truck". Violations for reckless driving and vehicular manslaughter.
It used to be that the most deadly big motor vehicles in a city were driven by highly trained and monitored union workers with health care. It used to be the same for pilots and air traffic controllers. When Americans demand discounts on quality service they get their wish: Low quality and deadly service. Rent a cops in downtown breaking our constitutional rights to assemble.
The Garbage company is going to claim "We had no idea about his record" or "he lied about his record" But guess what, any good lawyer will sue them for all they have, and they all deserve to be fired and rehired by a better company or city angency that pays for heath care, driver training and driver screening. The customers will be happy to pay 30% more for garbage pickup from safe drivers. We have let a few lunatic drivers and republicans preach the false talk of Regan "Government is not the solution, Goverment is the problem"
From 1900-1970, Cities were told their trolley and rail transit systems needed to be run better. Fake companies setup by oil money privitized them and converted the cities to gas and tire driven vehicles.
It is all connected. Brett's murder was no accident. It could have been a Laidlaw school bus driver making a right turn and making $12.50 an hour, no benefits etc.
See the picture I took of a bus in the Cully neighborhood in 2006
http://jrowe.home.igc.org/2006laidlawschoolbuspdx.jpg
A picture is worth 1,000 words.
Shame on AGG, shame on us for letting companies buy up our goverment offices and privitize everything with the motive of fear of a few cents more for decent service.
RIP Brett, we will work harder in your name.
October 25th, 2007 03:55
But how about the racing bicycle dude that has his gear on and was tailgating me on SW Vista Ave right before Ainsworth School and when I stopped for the lady and the 2 young kids in the cross walk, he almost ran over them trying to get around me on the left!
Come on bicycle riders. Give me a break!
I ride a bike also but no need for being so rude!
October 25th, 2007 04:23
I love how you guys instantly label the truck driver as a nefarious murderer. Did any of you actually SEE what happened? No? And to claim outright that the cyclist's death was "no accident"...give me a freakin' break. I'm REALLY sure that the truck driver is such a bad, bad person that he would intentionally mow down someone on a bike. *eyeroll*
You guys need to get a grip. I see so many cyclists flying down that hill, it's a wonder nobody was hit there before.
October 25th, 2007 05:09
I drive by that intersection every day. It's a long downslope going to the Greeley turn-off. I would like to hear the driver's side of the story: if he looked and how long he looked. If the bike was coming down the hill at a much faster pace than it was passed at Interstate Kaiser, then it's entirely possible that it wasn't visible to the driver before he started to turn.
I'd like to hear his side of the story, and what was seen by others. Condemning him because of his past driving record is unfair. This was not an intentional act.
This whole act of making villains and martyrs only creates greater animosity between drivers and bike riders.
October 25th, 2007 08:05
"And to claim outright that the cyclist's death was "no accident"...give me a freakin' break."
If you hire someone with that many traffic violations, when they then go break another traffic law can you really claim that you didn't know it was going to happen?
Maybe you need to get a grip and do some hard thinking on just what it means to let someone like that on the road to operate a deadly weapon. Would you give someone a license to use a gun after they'd already fired the gun mistakenly several times?
Maybe it wasn't an intentional act, but what AGG and the State did by letting this guy drive was a *reckless* act, which is just as bad.
October 25th, 2007 08:23
yadda in #83
"I'd like to hear his side of the story, and what was seen by others."
I would as well. It would be interesting to compare his statements to those we hear from PPD. Is PPD questioning the validity of his statements or using them to blame Brett?
I'd also like to hear Bretts side of the story. Instead I hear Lt. Kruger, Dr Ross #70, Big Diesel, etc. accuse him of speeding and/or reckless behavior.
"Blame the deceased, they can't fight back" vs "assume the victim was wronged".
Where do you stand?
October 25th, 2007 09:27
Somewhere in the blogosphere there's a driveportland.org forum and they're talking about how cyclists are getting really good at the letter of the law, while their less than mindful compatriots run stop signs and breeze through 4-way intersections with aplomb.
As you head to work or school on your bikes, please keep in mind - In a metro area of 1m people, a garbage truck driver with a history of 25 speeding tickets and seatbelt citations (I don't know the full details of his driving history) pales in comparison to some of the other drivers of vehicles on the road today who may be drunk, drugged, tired or on their phones. Drivers who may or may not have their licenses, whose vehicles have worn brakepads, crappy windshield wipers, blown turn signal bulb, bald tires, whatever.
Also, there's that pothole in the bike lane that the city didn't mark with bright orange spray paint.
It is every person's responsibility (truck driver, car driver or cyclist) to be aware of the machine they are piloting that day and understand what its capabilities and limitations are. Similarly, it is wise to develop an understanding of what other vehicles' liabilities are. Laws are great, but we often have to go home and look them up in order to remember them. Common sense, intuition and remaining tuned in to your ever-changing situation is usually what saves your arse in the moment.
As cyclists, we need to assume that every vehicle has the capability of doing us some harm. As drivers, we need to regard cyclists as urban deer.
October 25th, 2007 11:36
A spot of research reveals that if the truck is less than 26,000 lbs, a CDL is not required. (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/driverid/cdlget.shtml)
Therefore, the driver of a garbage truck (I'm assuming said truck weighs far less than 26,000 lbs) doesn't need a CDL, just a regular driver's license.
Just a thought, for those (like me) who thought a specialized license was required to drive a garbage truck...
October 25th, 2007 11:39
Also: A reiteration:
Name-calling and other-transportation-bashing hurts the cyclists' point of view to the rest of the city more than it helps.
Be constructive. Bash away at what you call "cagers" on the forum if you must, although it's no more private than this blog is and effectively cancels out whatever good others are trying to do.
October 25th, 2007 11:44
I find it odd that many posting on here about the driver's record are so hard on him for it. The most serious violations are from a long time ago, and the way the Oregonian writer words it makes the last dozen violations seem like they were all recent, though really includes stuff from 1998. This is a lot of time to clean up one's driving habits, and though I don't know when they all were, the article seems to indicate that there is only one recent one, and that is for not wearing a seatbelt. If this guy had a record of motor vehicle and bicyclist incidents, then I would be very critical. If he is guilty of something or is not, I don't see his driving record as a problem.
I'm not going to blame either person involved for the incident, in no way do I know enough, but the reporting from the Oregonian does not seem to be very good, though I am not really surprised.
October 25th, 2007 22:43
aO sez: "You're the one who needs to get a grip."
Me: Huh? You just shot a messenger! Breathe!
ps: if you're gonna speed down hill anyway, pass on the LEFT where the blind spot is not so BLIND. This way you can stay alive and continue to vent here at bikeportland.org!
October 25th, 2007 22:48
"accuse him of speeding"
I'm using "speeding" in the sense that he decided to overtake a vehicle in the blindest of all blind spots and ended up leaving a good deal of tread marks to avoid running into it when it turned into the bike lane.
If there was ever a place to be CAUTIOUS, that was it.
October 25th, 2007 23:14
Dr. Ross #91
Please read and understand the law as it relates to bike lanes before you post. As you say in your post: the truck turned into the bike lane. Brett had the right of way. the truck entered his right of way. Would you expext him NOT to apply his brakes? Have you been to this intersection or even looked at the pictures? Have you ever overtaken a vehicle while maintaining your own lane of traffic? Who had the higher "legal" responsibility for caution?
Please, try and be more productive with your posts.
How do we improve safety for cyclist? How do we best educate drivers and cyclist their rights and responsibilities?
How do we get everyone to slow down and show more respect?
I'm all ears Dr. Ross
October 25th, 2007 23:35
"Have you ever overtaken a vehicle while maintaining your own lane of traffic?"
If I got in a wreck I'd have some explaining to do my boss. Passing on the right is a no-no. I'd have to have a pretty damn excuse for going into the vehicle's blind spot on the right.
As for trucker education, its not gonna happen. There are far too many truck drivers that shouldn't be on the road. The there are the new truckers entering the country via NAFTA agreements -- unfamiliar with sharing the road concepts. Even if we were to get the off the road, who are we going to replace them with? Nobody wants to drive trucks.
It is my opinion that we should have more separated bike routes through town (like clearwater, 205 route et al) -- but expensive.
In the meantime, we bike riders need to ride defensively. Sort of like how I dive my truck -- no tix, no accidents in 2 decades. (No bike accidents either).
October 26th, 2007 00:40
I've driven a small car roughly 500,000 miles in the past 23 years. You don't put that many miles and hours into an activity and not notice things that habitually occur. Some things that habitually occur to car drivers are listed here:
Trucks will almost always tailgate you as they come up behind you to pass.
As they pass they will almost always pull back in front of you long before it is safe or courteous to do so.
If you find yourself in a huge traffic jam due to an accident on the road, most of the time a truck will be seen tits-up in the middle of the road as you go past the accident scene.
Trucks rarely follow the speed limit that is usually 5 to 10 mph slower than for cars. This makes passing them unsafe, especially here in the pacific northwest where the roads are frequently wet. The trucks put up a spray that is hard to see through as you pass them. Their speed means you need longer to pass them and so you are driving blind for too long as you go through their wall of spray.
They are in general not courteous drivers. When I pass one I floor it and get by so I am not near them any longer than I need to be.
You hear comments like: "They are professionals." My guess is that a fair percentage are high school dropouts, possibly criminals, dopers, and gawd only knows what else.
Stay away from trucks. They're dangerous.
As one with A LOT of experience on the roads I can also warn you to beware of SUV and monster truck drivers. They are unsafe and will INTENTIONALLY harm you in may cases. The VAST MAJORITY are assholes. Sorry but 500,000 miles cannot be argued with.
October 26th, 2007 09:08
Dr. Ross,
a.O. usually resorts to name calling and insults in this forum.
I generally take what he says on par with that of a spoiled child who stamps his feet when they don't get everything they want.
October 26th, 2007 09:17
hat AGG and the State did by letting this guy drive
Everybody, let's not lose sight of who the liable partyies are here.
Yes, we all know the driver violated Bret''s right of way. That liability is obvious. But in our anger and grief, let's not let the other liable parties slink away from thgeir liability:
* AGG hired and employed a habitual offender.
* Oregon DMV may have failed in its duty to regulate a habitual offender.
* Oregon DMV issued a CDL to a habitual offender.
* ODOT failed in its duty to regulate AGG.
Eash of these parties at least as liable in Brett's untimely death as the driver is, and should be held liable when the time for justice comes. Let's not forget that.
October 30th, 2007 12:38
Education is key. We must educate the next generation of drivers how to share the road with bikes. This should become a part of drivers ed and test taking in the very new future.
I know bikers are going to hate me for this part however. Time for bikes to share the cost of road/road maintenance. Along with any changes needed to make biking safer. Why should autos pay the full price? Time for a license to be issued to bike riders much like car owners must have a license. And before I get the "should kids have licences?" This is an excuse. Anyone over 16 who uses thier bike as a communting device should be held accountable. Seems to me bike riders need to pay thier fair share in using roadways/paths and so forth.
October 30th, 2007 17:48
"Time for bikes to share the cost of road/road maintenance."Chenzo
Chenzo, why? Bikes help offset damage done to roads by heavy motor vehicles. Also, bikes extend motor vehicle capacity of streets and roads by virtue of bikes smaller size and flexible mobility.
October 30th, 2007 18:12
The notion that cyclists don't pay for road maintenance is mistaken.
generally, road maintenance is paid from the General Funds, which means every time you pay property tax (and if you rent, your monthly rent covers that), you're paying for a host of state services, including road maintenance.
Road maintenance costs are also covered from a State's General Fund by sales tax and income tax. While Oregon doesn't have a sales tax, it does have an income tax, so if you're working, you're paying for road maintenance.
In Oregon, Article IX, Section 3a of the Constitution mandates that gas taxes go towards road maintenance. However, if you ride and drive, you're also paying for road maintenance every time you put gas in your car.
Funding questions aside, wsbob is absolutely right-- bicycles don't damage roads, so even if we WEREN'T paying for road maintenance-- and we are-- there would be no use-based reason for us to pay for road maintenance.
The fact is, when it comes to road maintenance, cyclists are subsidizing the wear and tear motorists and commercial vehicles are putting on the roads.
January 6th, 2008 22:46
[...] Affiliate Sphere article is brought to you using rss feeds.Here you will find the best trucking resources for truckers.One of their stories, Truck driver has checkered record, reports that the driver of the garbage truck has had, “…a string of run-ins with police, including 25 convictions for speeding, driving without a license and […] [...]
January 7th, 2008 13:48
Wow, thanks doc for leaving your name, we'll all make sure we don't use your services. As for passing on the right, it's never a good idea, you will not get to exercise your legal right as "fellow motorist" if you want to stay safe. A bike will never win that battle, so it's a bitch! and yeah f*** that a***** that cut you off, but it's better to live another day! True cyclists need to take the higher ground and realize that car and truck drivers as a general rule will not acknowledge their legal right to be there, so get over it and save yourselves because as we see with some of these comments, drivers will not take responsibility. A "true" cyclist stops at stop signs, because a "real" man enjoys the challenge of getting back up to speed, we wear reflective clothing, blinking lights to be seen with, oh and by the way, helmets. If you don't wear a helmet, wear dark clothes, don't have lights at night, don't obey the laws and look out for yourselves then you're just a moron riding a bike and will soon become a statistic. It's rather funny in the motorcycle world, they look at a person without a helmet and they call it genetic cleansing. "Hey, you,...out of the gene pool"
March 30th, 2008 23:06
[...] Oregonian also reported today that the driver has 25 speeding convictions and has even lost his license once before. Lt. Kruger maintains that this has no bearing whatsoever [...]
November 26th, 2008 11:27
that is just crazy that one person has that many tickets, it makes me wonder how many bad drivers there are out there
April 14th, 2009 21:02
Most trucking companies in Massachusetts require their drivers to have a clean
driving record for 3 years prior to applying for work. Many companies also routinely run their driver's records. Some impose stiff penalties for even the most minor infractions. CDL laws are written from a "zero tolerance" perspective. For example, the Mass. RMV will not issue a CDL
hardship license. It looks like this zero tolerance approach didn't seem to help in the case mentioned above.