home

A look at enforcement policies in dramatic Stark St. collision

Posted by on August 15th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

On July 31st, a high-speed collision between a car and a bike on Stark Street in outer southeast Portland struck a nerve with readers and the incident left many with questions about how the law was applied.

The collision itself was horrific. The man driving the car, 23 year-old Lance Waddy, was going an estimated 40 mph (consistent with speed limit) when he struck Steve Volz from behind, launching throwing him 138 feet in the air.

According to the Police, Waddy was momentarily distracted when he reached down to grab something off the floor of his car. He was cited at the scene for reckless driving, driving without insurance, and driving with a suspended license. His car, which was totaled from the impact — was then towed and impounded.

Miraculously, Volz was out of the hospital less than a week later. He suffered 12 broken ribs, a broken collarbone, and a broken shoulder.

The graphic result of the collision, combined with those serious charges (reckless driving is a Class A Misdemeanor traffic crime), left some wondering why Mr. Waddy was not taken to jail for his actions.

Commenter “Susan” wrote:

“It’s hard to understand how someone can injure someone else so much and the cops know that he has no insurance and a suspended license and they let him go!”

Commenter “Andy” wrote:

“Why was the guy driving the car released at the scene? Isn’t driving without a license/insurance a jailable offense?… What kind of message is being sent to the drivers/cyclists of Portland?”

According to Officer Robert Pickett, Reckless Driving is considered a “traffic crime”, that comes with penalties that could potentially include fines and jail time. He adds that the vast majority of offenses for which officers stop road users are “traffic violations, for which penalties include fines and possibly license suspension, but not arrest and jail.”

In this case, the driver was arrested at the scene because the officer decided that there was probable cause to arrest him for the crime. Pickett also explained that “arrest” doesn’t necessarily always mean the person is put in handcuffs and taken to jail.

If an officer can identify the suspect and he feels comfortable they will be able to track them down if necessary, they have the option to just issue a citation and then require that person to show up at court at a later date.

In this case, with Mr. Waddy being cooperative as well as being a staff member of the Portland Police Activities League (a non-profit that helps youth connect with law enforcement), the officer at the scene decided that his identity was not in question and that he would likely show up for arraignment (and could be quickly found if he didn’t). Therefore, the decision was made to not take him to jail to take a photo, and get ID verification via fingerprints (if Waddy was taken into jail, he would likely have been released in 4-6 hours).

There are many crimes that, while technically someone can be arrested and jailed for, much of what happens to them is up to the responding officer’s discretion. Reckless Driving is one of those crimes where officers can make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

An issue that likely weighed into the officer’s decision in this case was jail overcrowding. I spoke to Traffic Division Lieutenant Bryan Parman about this case at recent event.

“If we booked everyone for Reckless Driving,” said Lt. Parman, “It would reach a point where we couldn’t bring anyone in.”

He made it clear that, if it were to him and other officers, they would be able to lock up everyone who committed a crime. But, the reality of the system is that they try and reserve precious jail space for those suspects whom the officers cannot identify and who are most serious offenders.

———

I hope this information helps answer some of the questions and concerns surrounding this collision.

What this situation brings to light, is that how laws are enforced and how alleged offenders are treated, sometimes has as much to do with policy and the realities of the system, as the actual crime committed.

If there are other things you’d like to know, please ask in the comments and I’ll try and get the answer for you (or maybe a fellow commenter will help).

Email This Post Email This Post


Gravatars make better comments... Get yours here.
Please notify the publisher about offensive comments.
Comments
  • KTesh August 15, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    Too bad the driver wasn\’t the one in the Hospital for a week… Or a Box for eternity… This stinks worse than a week old dead fish..

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Editor) August 15, 2008 at 12:26 pm

    Hey K\’Tesh,

    here\’s a question for you:

    you ride on roads full of cars every day… do you think your comment will make them tend to act more or less respectful and civil toward you when they see you on the road?

    just curious.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • PoPo August 15, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    Officers who have been around a lot longer than I have told met that years ago, offenses that are currently only violations, such as Driving While Suspended and Driving Uninsured, used to be crimes. There were also plenty of jail resources with the Sheriff\’s office, so officers could actually arrest and take people to jail for DWS.

    But the legislature decriminalized those offenses, and resources are tighter with the jail, so now we can only issue tickets and tow cars for suspended drivers and driving uninsured.

    It is Police Bureau policy that anytime a driver is cited for Driving While Suspended, Driving Uninsured, Speed Racing, or cited/arrested for Reckless Driving, DUII or any felony traffic crime, we will tow their car.

    Here\’s a link to the policy and procedures:

    http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=32482

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • PoPo August 15, 2008 at 12:40 pm

    sorry, when you click on the policy and procedures link, you will have to scroll down to section \”630.60 Vehicle Disposition\” to get to the bit about towing.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Geoff August 15, 2008 at 12:47 pm

    So, the next question is, how do we get people with suspended licenses to stop driving? Can we automatically impound their car? Or, at least have a boot installed on the wheel?

    Obviously, there isn\’t much of a penalty for it, because we hear about it quite often.

    Can we start a petition for the next available ballot cycle to to get harsher penalties for driving without the proper license?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Aka August 15, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    I am glad the victim\’s injuries aren\’t serious. I like to think it was an accident and all drivers should be more careful when picking things up from the floor. This could have happened to a lot of driver, too bad it happened to someone without a license/insurance.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Nick August 15, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    Properly licensed and insured drivers drive distracted ALL the time, and using the strong arm of the law to make life more miserable for people without their papers in order seems like a short-sighted way to try and help cyclists. Pushing for a stronger police state is bad for everyone. I hate to sound cliche but… power corrupts.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • michael August 15, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    Appreciate the article, but it kind of seems to only add fuel to the (proverbial, obviously) fire.

    I mean, “If we booked everyone for Reckless Driving,” said Lt. Parman, “It would reach a point where we couldn’t bring anyone in.”

    OK — so then the implication (stated also) is that discretion needs to be applied relative to the individual circumstances. And the relevant circumstances here seem to be that, in addition to the RD charge, there is also the Driving w/o Lic charge, as well as the fact that the victim was LAUNCHED 138 FEET THROUGH THE AIR…

    I\’d have to think that jailing any and all license-less offenders who launch a non-driver 138 feet through the air isn\’t likely to cause an inmate overflow.

    Ridiculous.

    Count me among those who won\’t be joining my branch of the Police Activities Leagues anytime soon.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Geoff August 15, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    Nick – I can\’t disagree with you. The police already have too much power, but I can\’t see our society reducing the number of laws that are already in place. In fact, they are regularly increasing them and most often it\’s not in a direction that most of society wants. We can\’t stop them from creating new laws and creating more criminals, but we can direct them to create laws that actually benefit society.

    As far as I\’m concerned people who choose to drive without a license or insurance (especially when they cause an injury or death) don\’t deserve to ever drive again!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ron August 15, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    Back home where I\’m from (Saskatchewan, Canada), it is virtually unheard of to have drivers without insurance because your vehicle license plate fees include the price of insurance. Without insurance, you don\’t have a license plate (or the renewable sticker). Without that, you don\’t drive. Period. It doesn\’t matter whose vehicle you drive. It is insured through the owner. It is a bit more complex than that. But, it is very easy for police, even neighbors who see a car on the street to identify a vehicle without insurance coverage. Why do we insist on this goofy, easily cheated system here? Oh, I know why; insurance companies have a lot lobbying of power in State legislatures and in Washington.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • PoPo August 15, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    Does Saskatchewan need any cops? :)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • KTesh August 15, 2008 at 1:49 pm

    Jonathan,

    perhaps not, but when a bicyclist is doing nothing wrong gets hurt by someone who doesn\’t belong on the road. It seems like too often the driver gets away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

    When I was hurt, I am the one who is having to foot all the bills until the legal system works its way out as to how much, and when I\’ll be compensated for my losses. Thank God I have insurance, but even then it took MONTHS before they figured out that they are going to have to pay until I receive my settlement, in the mean time, my finances have taken a HUGE pounding, and it\’s going to be a long time before I get compensated.

    I know life isn\’t fair, but it still doesn\’t seem fair to me that the motorist in this case didn\’t have to deal with the embarrasment of being cuffed, and carted away, and spending a night or three in a room with striped sunlight.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • JV August 15, 2008 at 2:37 pm

    Jonathan,
    Great article. Thanks for the follow up and the clear explanations. This is why I read your blog; you are doing some of the most respectable journalism in town.
    Thanks, PoPo, for your comments.
    Cheers,
    JV

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Refunk August 15, 2008 at 2:50 pm

    Okay, let me see if I understand this.

    So, a guy walks down the street twirling a loaded pistol by the trigger guard. He no longer has a concealed weapons permit, and even so, public display would be severely frowned upon if he did, but he doesn\’t. In fact, it was revoked by the state because of the last time he did something stupid with his firearm.

    Anyway, he is briefly distracted and squeezes the trigger, causing the weapon to discharge. It shoots a bullet into someone\’s kneecap, shattering it.

    The responding officer finds the guy with the firearm cooperative (he has already cleared the pistol and laid it on the ground before police arrive) plus the cop discovers that the fellow is member in good standing of the Order of Benevolent & Fraternal Donutmongers. Since he knows where to find him on Thursday nights, he releases the man after citing him for careless display of a lethal weapon and enters a note in his report about the incident regarding an injury collateral to the violation involving the weapon. End of story, officer drives off, ex-pistol twirler walks off, and the ambulance drives off with crippled victim begging for pain meds.

    My daughters were hit simultaneously in a signalized crosswalk by a man driving an unlicensed, unregistered, uninsured car. They had a walk signal, he had a red, which he ran in a left turn. He never walked over to the downed girls or even inquired about their condition.

    Responding police (not PBB) released the driver — who drove off in the unregistered car — with no citation, let alone sobriety test (a habitual drunk). My girls were rushed to the ER and then ICU, where one spent a lot of time. The people who witnessed the collision (stopped at the I/S) who queued up to give statements to the responding officer were brushed off.

    The driver was an employee of the city traffic division.

    My own auto insurance covered my girls (since then, I rely on it to cover my ass while I ride bike). All the scumbag\’s real property was held in his wife\’s name. He dealt in under-the-table car sales and drove them around unlicensed. The insurance investigator disgustedly threw up his hands – he already knew the driver\’s name.

    I tracked him down. Knew where he lived, found his favorite bar. Sat across the barroom from him (he didn\’t know me from Adam). The only reason that to this day he doesn\’t require a motorized wheelchair to get around is because of the strength of my wife\’s heart prevailing over my own basic instinct.

    The girls are grown up and fine.

    Law should treat motor vehicles with the same level of responsibility as it holds the bearers/owners of other lethal weapons. An accident is when a bolt falls out yer tie-rod and is followed by a loss of vehicle control. A collision with a cyclist while picking up something off the floor of a car is an act of irresponsible violence like twirling a loaded pistol with a hair-trigger.

    Suspended license? Not in compliance with insurance as required by law? Use a car, go to jail. Injure someone? Use a car, go to prison. Kill someone with yer car? Prison will be nothing compared to the sorrow you impose on yer victim\’s family.

    puff, puff…

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Donald August 15, 2008 at 2:51 pm

    At PoPo: I know you were only kidding, but agency to agency trades across national borders are fairly common, as I\’m sure you know. And I feel they are an important part of building professional and empathetic police forces world-wide.

    And, heck, you got the Mounted part down, right?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ron August 15, 2008 at 2:56 pm

    PoPo
    \”Does Saskatchewan need any cops? :)\”

    They\’re called the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and they have the coolest uniforms around! ;-))

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bahueh August 15, 2008 at 3:02 pm

    seriously, as soon as the rider gets out of the hospital, he should find a NICE and MEAN civil suit attorney to ruin that guy financially…I would.

    sad, but its the ONLY WAY people will learn from their individual choices when the law is not on your side…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • a.O August 15, 2008 at 3:33 pm

    It\’s a lovely thought bahueh, and certainly warranted, but a 23-year old guy with no insurance and a totaled car – what\’s he got? Not enough to pay your medical bills and buy you a new bike, I\’m guessing.

    The civil remedy is important, to the extent its available, but what we all really need is for this guy to not be behind the wheel again so that the next person he does this to isn\’t in the same position of being injured or dead and suing a judgment-proof defendant.

    As you can plainly see, the criminal law and criminal enforcement policies are nowhere near providing society with the relief they were designed to. Sadly, this is just another example of the abuse of police discretion.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jim L. August 15, 2008 at 3:44 pm

    I don\’t see this as an \”abuse of police discretion\”. The police have charged him? I take it we don\’t want the police punishing him, correct? Don\’t we leave that up to courts after a trial? Did we like it when the police \”punished\” the good Rev. Phil? How about letting the system work. He will probably be punished, particularly if he doesn\’t show up for arraignment (or has that happened yet?).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • a.O August 15, 2008 at 3:44 pm

    Sorry for the double-post, but I just want to make my point clear here:

    Because (a) both the criminal laws and the PPB\’s enforcement policies are inadequate to keep Waddy from getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle again, and (b) Waddy is unlikely to have the resources to compensate Volz for his injuries and other damages, the legal system, as it currently exists, offers no adequate remedy for the wrong done in this case. That needs to change.

    And until that changes, you will not see bicycling realize its full potential as a legitimate mode of transportation.

    This outcome is typical, and it is the roadblock in the way of the next step, of the necessary step toward a sustainable transportation system.

    This is also the problem the politicians, the Multnomah County DA, and the Portland Police Bureau do not want to address or even discuss.

    I\’m afraid solving this is going to require more focused grassroots advocacy. And make no mistake, we\’re getting tired of the status quo.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Evan August 15, 2008 at 3:50 pm

    Devil\’s advocate here. Did the perp try to leave the scene or was he cooperative? If he played hit-and-run, or was abusive when arrested, I might think worse thoughts. If he stayed at the scene and did not resist, then he probably is not a flight risk. Doesn\’t mean what he did isn\’t wrong.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • PoPo August 15, 2008 at 4:51 pm

    The perp was cooperative.

    Absolutely, a.O., if the public believes that what happened to the defendant in this incident is inadequate, the public by all means should help the powers that be hear that. That is the essence of how laws are passed and altered, and policies changed.

    Regarding preventing Mr. Waddy from getting behind the wheel again, his car was towed at the scene. And indeed, there is no enforcement policy by which all suspended drivers are shadowed by law enforcement 24/7 to be sure they don\’t get into a car and drive. That would be a truly impossible task for the Bureau. I completely understand the frustration of suspended drivers driving anyway, but the practicalities of physically preventing that, under the current system of licensing, registration etc, are overwhelming. Though if we want to start something up, by all means we should start lobbying.

    Regarding \”abuse of police discretion,\” it felt like the article was pointing out that it is all quite complicated, with capabilities and resources of different agencies coming into play. Just to play devil\’s advocate, I think one could also potentially argue that it would be unwise to use all of the county jail resources on A Misdemeanors and not have any left over for A Felonies. Maybe part of the answer is to increase the level of criminality for Reckless Driving.

    I will also assure you, repeating what is mentioned in the article and making a sweeping generalization about all officers–something that I always complain about other people doing–that if it was truly up to the officer at the scene, and he or she didn\’t have the pressure of limited resources, every last person who is arrested would go to jail, regardless of the crime.

    It is extremely frustrating to arrest someone for a crime and then give them a citation and let them go.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • matt picio August 15, 2008 at 5:27 pm

    Refunk (#14) had the perfect analogy. No disrespect to the police, I know they operate under difficult restrictions much of the time, and after spending time on a citizen\’s advisory committee for the Clackamas County Sheriff\’s office, I understand about the difficulties involved with the jail system. Something, though, needs to change – and that something is going to require lobbying of the legislature, a change to the laws, and taxes or bonds to pay for it. All of which require a lot of focused and committed work by one or more someones who haven\’t even stepped forward yet to start it.

    This is a major effort that awaits people with the time, effort, and will to change it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • organic brian August 15, 2008 at 5:50 pm

    For interesting contrast: once, I caused a couple scratches to a truck parked in the bike lane in front of The Benson. I was trying to squeeze between the legally parked cars and this illegally parked truck. Later, a half-dozen officers surrounded me, my beloved bag was cut off me rather than just lifted over my head, and I was taken into jail where I spent most of the evening. On the way, I was made to sit in a water puddle in the back seat of a patrol car, and though I had been completely cooperative an officer got in my face when I suggested that maybe it wasn\’t necessary for them to ask me for every piece of info three times. I missed the Monsters of Bike Rawk show! And actually, I had done nothing technically against the law except possibly not stopping to inform the owner of the truck (nowhere to be seen anyway) of the damage resulting from their illegal parking.

    Contrast with the handling of motorists who DESTROY cyclists while driving inattentively and illegally.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matthew Denton August 15, 2008 at 6:03 pm

    The car was towed, (and in this case was totaled anyways, so it would have had to have been,) but can the police sell it, or is it just sitting down at the impound lot with people that parked in no parking area waiting to be picked up? I mean, I know they can do that, (in some states at least,) for prostitution and drug crimes, but it seems like taking the cars away from people with no licenses, and then requiring that anyone who sells a car check the buyer\’s license, (and hold the seller responsible for collisions when they fail to do that,) would go a long ways to keeping cars out of the hands of people that shouldn\’t have them anyways… Sure, that wouldn\’t prevent people from stealing cars, but that would be pretty much the only way to get one after that.

    Also, judges should be a lot less lenient when they suspend licenses. If 15% of this city can get around on a bicycle&public transit, the drunks/people that don\’t have insurance/etc can too.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Donna August 15, 2008 at 9:39 pm

    People I talk to who come from other states are shocked at how easy it is to drive in Oregon without a license and/or no insurance. It\’s not like it\’s particularly difficult in those other states, either. As a nation, we\’re very lenient about this sort of thing.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • BURR August 15, 2008 at 11:08 pm

    the next time we hear about this Waddy guy, it will be under similar circumstances, yet again…

    :-(

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • BURR August 15, 2008 at 11:10 pm

    anyone can buy a new or used car, no one checks your license before they complete the sale.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • PoPo August 15, 2008 at 11:43 pm

    It was impounded. In order to get it out the legal owner of the car must pay a minimum of a $400 fee and have a licensed driver there to drive the car away. If the driver was charged with Driving Uninsured, as this person was, the owner must also show proof of insurance to get the car back.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Duncan August 16, 2008 at 5:23 am

    i am not saying that a person should be arrested for driving without insurance, but launching somebody a 140 feet with or without insurance seems a bit more arrest-worthy to me.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Mulvey August 16, 2008 at 9:21 am

    I\’m a little puzzled by some of the responses here. The cop booked and released the guy. That\’s what he\’s supposed to do, right?

    I think there should absolutely be stronger enforcement of laws where drivers are endangering bikers. So far, this case is being enforced. Peoples\’ ire should now move to the district attorney. If he/she fails to prosecute, then there\’s a valid issue.

    As for this defendant, he gets his day in court. He doesn\’t get banished to Devil\’s Island and he doesn\’t get stoned to death in the town square.

    John

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Refunk August 16, 2008 at 12:01 pm

    Yes, Mr. Mulvey (#31),

    This guy (Waddy) gets his day in court — that\’s as it should be. Too many others just skate.

    I recognize & respect the rule of law as separating us from societies where theologians or AK-47s (well, AKMS…) tell us how it\’s gonna be. PoPo and Matt P are right: a movement to change legislation (and funding) is gonna have to happen before these events (irresponsible operation of autos leading to injury) are treated with the severity they deserve.

    Following a conviction in court, however, Devil\’s Island or public stoning doesn\’t sound half bad. The penalty has got to hurt to be a deterrence. I can carry a pretty big load of rocks in one of my bike trailers over to Pioneer Courthouse Square, but I prefer that the driver\’s licensing process simply be improved to become more difficult, scary, and expensive, combined with strict, mandatory, severe penalties.

    The percentage of injuries to bicyclists that are intentionally inflicted by motor vehicle operators is dang tiny. They\’re not really \”out to get us.\” Cars, however, are like 4000 lb. sharks, and they only have to be on the same street a cyclist is using to be a threat. Sharks aren\’t thinking about ethics or right-of-way or fine arts, etc., they\’re eating machines and the most natural thing in the world is for them to kill. Automobiles have their uses, but require high standards of alertness to operate …lest they just naturally kill.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • solid gold August 16, 2008 at 1:50 pm

    wow, it\’s funny how the PPD ALWAYS has room in jail for peaceful protesters, but NEVER has room in jail for dangerous drivers!?!

    walk down the street with a sign = go directly to jail.

    kill someone in with a car = get a ticket, maybe.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • matt picio August 16, 2008 at 7:32 pm

    solid gold (#33) – Jail, or holding? 2 different locations. Jail is perpetually overcrowded, and frequently the county sheriff\’s office has to make decisions as to who to hold and who to keep. Jail is run by the county. Holding is where the police keep people before they can be transferred to the jail, and is not set up for long-term stays. Holding is run by the arresting agency in most cases (and I presume PoPo will correct me if PPB does not run their holding area), and the agency and presumably the DA determine whether someone is moved from holding to the jail.

    I would be very surprised if peaceful protesters actually go to JAIL rather than holding. Generally, to go to jail, you need to be a threat to others, or drunk and banned from Hooper.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • KWw August 16, 2008 at 9:47 pm

    Here\’s my POV:

    The cops have a framework to work within, and that is the state code, vehicle and otherwise.

    The currents codes leave much up to the discretion of the officer on site, that includes when someone is killed.

    This is especially tragic as when someone is killed, the police are loath to assign a vehicular homicide charge, and instead go with a lessor charge such as \’lane violation\’, and leave it to the civil courts to settle it out.

    This is ashame as it is a slap in the face to not only the diseased, but their family, the bicycling/pedestrian community.

    This situation, even though it did not end in a fatality, is a similar situation.

    The police are hamstrung by the codes in effect and by their range of discretion.

    There is only one way to improve the situation and that is through legislation.

    Pass a law that says if you put someone in the hospital because they are incapacitated or otherwise unresponsive at the scene, spend 24 hours in the drink.

    In addition to that you are going to the hospital yourself under arrest to undergo a full battery of drug and alcohol testing.

    If you kill someone in an \’accident\’, and are at fault, then it is AN INSTANT FELONY CHARGE, in addition to the above.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe Rowe August 18, 2008 at 1:26 pm

    I just wanted to say thanks to the cops who post stuff here. I\’m learning a lot about how hard it is to be a cop. I like the system in Canada where insurance comes with the vehicle license plates and sticker.
    The biggest question remains: Why is the burden on a cyclist ( or anyone ) who is injured when a car driver is at fault.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • KTesh August 19, 2008 at 8:35 am

    Joe Rowe wrote:
    The biggest question remains: Why is the burden on a cyclist (or anyone) who is injured when a car driver is at fault.

    That is a very good question Joe, coming from somone who falls squarely in that catagory.

    Perhaps a portion of licensing and registration of cars should include PIP to cover people like myself who don\’t own a car and are hurt by motorists in this state who are uninsured/underinsured to state requirements.

    I\’m sure that the motorists would bitch and moan about the increased fees, right up until they realize that if they don\’t they\’ll get to pay in increased medical expenses when hospitals pass those losses off on them anyway.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • brettoo August 19, 2008 at 11:12 pm

    Regarding limited resources: I share the desire to have adequate jail space. Mult. Co. has had some serious leadership and oversight issues in the past few years, including a jail that there\’s no funds to open. But there\’s a new crew of commissioners who are trying to fix things. The core problem is too many people who complain about the lack of public services, and then listen to the first Republican or AM radio talk show host who tells them to vote against the taxes required to pay for those services, like adequate jail space. No free lunch.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • 007 August 20, 2008 at 8:49 am

    The cyclist\’s injuries ARE serious because he will no doubt suffer from chronic pain, and who knows what else, the rest of his life. That\’s been my experience with \”not serious\” injuries such as flying into a concrete lamp post (courtesy of !@#$ pickup driver) and damaging but not breaking one\’s collarbone.
    These bike crashes have longterm effects, unfortunately. Maybe they won\’t be felt until later in life, but they will be felt.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Lisa August 21, 2008 at 3:25 pm

    The original article says the cyclist \”was thrown an estimated 138 feet.\” That\’s certainly amazingly awful, but not quite the same as \”launching him 138 feet in the air,\” which implies a quite startling skyward trajectory.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • El Biciclero August 22, 2008 at 3:22 pm

    Not to be a butt-head, but through the air doesn\’t have quite the same connotation as in the air, assuming Lisa is [mis-]quoting #8.

    But then does distance \”thrown\” include only airborne distance, or does it also include rolling/sliding-along-the-ground distance?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • [...] que não percebe que conduzir é uma tarefa que requer o máximo de atenção e, por exemplo, não pára para apanhar coisas do chão ou tem mesmo que mandar aquele SMS e oops, mata uma [...]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • TS September 7, 2008 at 11:07 pm

    Thanks Jonathan… it\’s good to get some perspective from the \”other side\” as it were.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Sami October 17, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    I feel so bad for Mr. Volz
    We really need him back in Journalism:(
    I hope he feels better
    Get well soon
    :D

    Recommended Thumb up 0

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

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


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