home

Man on a bike arrested following alleged road rage incident

Posted by on October 1st, 2010 at 8:15 am

Booking photo of Glen Glans.

Yesterday, the police arrested a man who was riding his bike and got into an altercation with the occupants of a motor vehicle in Northeast Portland.

According to the PPB, at about 9:30 a.m. Thursday morning, 34 year-old Glen Glans spit into the passenger window of a van near the intersection of NE 20th and Irving because he “believed the van drove too close to him as he rode his bike.” Glans was riding northbound on 20th and as the van turned left (westbound) onto Irving, the police say that Glans rode past and spit into the van. Then, both the driver and the passenger of the van got out and the three “were involved in an altercation.”

The passenger of the van alleges that Glans struck him with a bike lock and he suffered minor injuries. The police arrested Glans and charged him with Attempted Assault (a Class C Felony) and Harrassment (a misdemeanor).

But Glans told KGW News that the police report got it wrong and that he was just defending himself. Here’s a snip from KGW.com:

“He said he was headed to work when the van swerved at him, which upset him. When he and the van came to a stop at the intersection, he said the van was positioned in such a way that he couldn’t pass it. Glans said he asked the driver what he was doing, and he spit on the van — but he did not spit into the van. He said at that point the men got out, began attacking him, and he simply defended himself.

“These guys were trying to run me over,” Glans told KGW News. “I was trying to protect myself.”

Glans said he didn’t know what to do after the ordeal, so he just headed to work. He admits that he should have waited for police to arrive.

“I fled the scene, which I shouldn’t have done,” said Glans. “But I was freaked out and terrified.”

He’s concerned that he’s the victim of an anti-bike culture in Portland…”

I’m not sure what to make of all this. There are a lot of people with different types of vehicles trying to make their way around on our roads. Sometimes those people get upset with each other if they feel threatened and/or disrespected in some way. Sometimes people are just rude and they forget to exercise common decency and patience for their fellow humans. Glans is due in court Friday afternoon and I hope the judge can sort everything out fairly.

Email This Post Email This Post


Gravatars make better comments... Get yours here.
Please notify the publisher about offensive comments.
Comments
  • Joe October 1, 2010 at 8:28 am
  • Nick V October 1, 2010 at 8:32 am

    Seems to me that Glans is just a jerk. Spitting at someone is worse than the finger. You talk to them and THEN spit on them? His story is not very believable and, right, if he had nothing to hide than he should not have fled the scene. While there have been some ugly incidents, I would not say there is an “anti-bike culture” in Portland.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Diondatta March 27, 2011 at 3:50 am

      There are definitely smarter ways to handle an aggressive driver. Meeting their aggression with your own (even if the feeling is justified) most always turns out bad. I like to be prepared and know what the law actually says (not what I hear it says), because if you keep the law on your side and apply the “reasonable person” test to your actions, I think you would have a good case in court if things should escalate to that. Keep your cool and represent our community and ideology in a positive manner.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ruthie October 1, 2010 at 8:34 am

    so the 1 person to ever get arrested for a road rage incident is a cyclist. wtf.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • q`Tzal October 1, 2010 at 8:42 am

    Ruthie #3

    1st ever to arrested for road rage?
    Really?
    You’re going to need to back that up.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • middle of the road guy October 1, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Victim of the anti-bike culture in Portland?

    This is the same Portland that has the highest commute by bike percentage, hundreds of miles of bike paths, green bike boxes, and has won the Platinum award?

    That’s about as lame an excuse as the Woodburn bank bombers blaming it on Obama.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Diondatta March 27, 2011 at 3:45 am

      To be fair, there is a subculture of haters. Regardless of the topic, if it is positive, or “trendy”, or this or that, certain people just go against it for some reason….usually due to ignorance and fear. They are more than happy to cut their noses off to spite their faces. (i.e. the tea-bagger mentality)

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bike Commuter October 1, 2010 at 9:00 am

    I’d like to ask why the van driver and passenger got out of their Van.

    They have something called a “gas pedal” that helps those in a car escape angry bikers.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • trail abuser October 1, 2010 at 9:03 am

    “Lt. Kelli Sheffer said that all commuters should call the police for an investigation if they believe a road violation occurs or if a crime is committed.”

    well if she says so, there’s gonna be a lot of calls

    If Glans fled the scene and went off to work, how did they find him? Was he already known to police?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • OuterToob October 1, 2010 at 9:05 am

    “These guys were trying to run me over,”

    Seems like they would have actually run him over if that’s what they were actually ‘trying’ to do.

    And then both guys get out of the van, but don’t finish the job of ‘trying’ to assault Glans?

    I have to ask, how could 2 guys not come out ‘on top’ in a 2 against 1 fight? Could it be that Glans was the only one actually fighting?

    Seems like Glans was the one out to hurt people yesterday.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe October 1, 2010 at 9:06 am

    Don’t call ppl names unless you know them.
    some riders just kill me going off on eachother.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • middle of the road guy October 1, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Outer,

    also note that the the van was ahead of Glans…and THEN he spit on it.

    Also, if the van had moved over sufficiently to NOT allow Mr Gans to pass, how could he have managed to spit into the passenger window (or at the very least onto the passenger side?

    Several things in Mr. Gans comments simply do not add up.

    How do you run someone over when you are in front of them?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • middle of the road guy October 1, 2010 at 9:20 am

    oops. “Glans”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • abused by bikers... October 1, 2010 at 9:24 am

    I’ve been yelled at, cut-off, taunted and harassed by bikers in pdx. I share the road as I’m a biker too, but there are a few out there who seem to believe they must aggressively take their share. No, I don’t know how to solve this. No matter what – it seems there’s always a few who spoil it for the rest.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paolo October 1, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Believe it or not there is a large part of the car drivers in Portland that are not very happy about all these bikes and they feel they own the roads, plus they are ignorant about cars/bikes rules of the road. Examples: just biking along on rural road north of 26, grey pick up coming opposite lane swerves towards us for fun, stopped at the light downtown car goes by and the guy is yelling at me from the passenger seat, several times being cut off as car passes me and decide to go right without signaling, and the list goes on.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • aljee October 1, 2010 at 9:43 am

    “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

    cue the folks saying awful things about people they don’t know in altercations of which they were not present.

    i patron Glen’s place of work often. he always has a great attitude and i love talking bikes with him.

    of course i don’t know what really happened and won’t comment like i do, but has anyone had someone swerve very close to them – like they are trying to threaten you? it sucks, and takes everything you got to keep your cool (at least it does me). i agree that it is nothing short of waving a gun around (if it was indeed on purpose).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spiffy October 1, 2010 at 9:43 am

    was it a white mini van? like the one that pushed the guy off the road a few days ago?

    I had a white mini van making it hard for me to get through in a bike lane in Milwaukie yesterday… had to slow to a crawl and brace myself on it as I went by to avoid falling into blackberry bushes…

    and yes, people blocking bike lanes deserve for their cars to get spit on… they should be happy about it because it’s a lot cheaper than a ticket…

    it’s not nice but until there’s a cop on every corner people will continue to dish out justice themselves as they see fit…

    in less civilized countries you don’t cut people off because they will stop you and beat you up and the police will agree you deserved it…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe October 1, 2010 at 9:53 am

    Back in the day, Car with 2 guys
    over took me as I was on my way to work so I waved my hand as to say leave me alone, well.. they pulled over and it was me an 2 guys, one ran at me while the other ran around me, Dude took a swing and just tagged my jaw.. They sped off after that. no lic number and I was running late for work.

    Ohh the days, be safe all, things happen out there.
    Joe

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spencer October 1, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Last week I stopped my motor vehicle at a cross walk to let a woman and her toddler cross. Cars on both sides of the street stopped for them, too, as the law requires. But a bicyclist then approached the cross walk and did not bother to stop and nearly ran down the pedestrians. I guess that he felt he was too special.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Peter Smith October 1, 2010 at 10:01 am

    So let’s get this straight:

    1) Van buzzes cyclist

    2) Cyclist spits at/on/into van (allegedly)

    3) Van stops, multiple occupants get out of the van and go after cyclist, presumably to injure or kill him

    4) Van occupants, who are now outside of the van, proceed to get their asses whooped

    5) Cyclist arrested.

    How you gonna start a physical altercation, get your ass whooped, and then call the cops?

    Better tho — how you gonna be an officer and arrest a guy on a bike who was not in a van, and the people in the van were obviously not in the van at some point, presumably to defend themselves from ‘the mad spitter’ (allegedly) — i guess rolling up their windows was not an option? And calling the cops was not an option, because the van occupants thought they could beat the biker’s ass, but when he defended himself they got all scared and dialed 911.

    The van occupants, after terrorizing the biker once by buzzing him, decided they’d further display their cowardice by trying to tag-team an individual in an outside-the-boxvan altercation. Then, after getting their asses handed to them, they call the cops, hoping to convince the cops that the ‘dirty hippie biker is probably a criminal and probably belongs in jail anyways’ — and, to no one’s surprise, it works.

    Listen, once you leave the comfy confines of the van, all bets are off — you’ve now become the primary instigator and agitator in this affair. This case had best get thrown out of court, and the van occupants should be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon, and assault and battery against the cyclist once they got out of their van to try to injure/maim/kill the cyclist.

    Portland #1 for cycling? No.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chris October 1, 2010 at 10:01 am

    Remember, a lot of people posting comments jumped to conclusions with the “Bus runs bicyclist off the road (Hawthorne)” story. Then the bus video came out and showed a very different story.

    Maybe people should wait to see what other information comes to light before jumping to conclusions, calling people names, and casting judgment.

    Just saying…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Fred October 1, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Started cycling to work this summer and I have been surprised to find that the only road rage and lunacy I have witnessed so far has come from cyclists, not drivers. It seems that some are just arrogant and ride with a false sense of entitlement. And I hate to say it, but these usually appear to be experienced riders with flashy gear and nice bikes, or those of the more-hipster-than-thou variety.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Buster October 1, 2010 at 10:05 am

    @Spiffy >>people blocking bike lanes deserve for their cars to get spit on<<

    this is the kind of mentality that escalates a situation. just b/c someone aggravates you does not mean that you have to retaliate. if they are already anti-bike, do you think spitting at them will soften their attitude? or maybe they don't hate bikes, but they will after you get through with 'em. good job… an eye for an eye – biblical justice on bikes!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Vance Longwell October 1, 2010 at 10:08 am

    Wow, second degree assault. That carries prison time and a five-figure fine, not to mention probationary terms. That’s deep doo doo. Also, there’s so many holes in Glans’ (Seriously dude, two words: Legal alias.) story, that I have trouble believing anything he’s stating. Moreover, isn’t deliberately spitting on some one fourth degree assault in Oregon? Pretty sure, so dude’s already getting some breaks from our anti-, “double-bangning”, legislation.

    There’s no thing in the world though, stopping a DA from charging him with several other fairly serious crimes here, given of course Glans’ statements are NOT true. His solo testimony isn’t going to fair well either, against two others’.

    What happened to reports that the two men in the van were, “elderly”?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ely October 1, 2010 at 10:11 am

    doesn’t matter who’s right/wrong, spitting doesn’t help.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • EmGee October 1, 2010 at 10:12 am

    Were the guys in the van cited too?

    Since they had to physically get out of their vehicle to confront Glans, they were the ones who escalated the encounter to the level of physical violence. They were the ones that initiated the actual assault, no matter whether there was legitimate provocation. That should have been clear to the police. The driver should have also been cited for improperly parking his vehicle in the middle of a traffic lane.

    It should also be obvious that in a two against one fight with attackers, it is appropriate to use a bike lock, tire pump, or any other non-lethal weapon in self defense. Glans should use that defense in court.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • ecohuman October 1, 2010 at 10:21 am

    Commenters, why does it matter what mode of transport he was using? He wasn’t arrested and charged because of a bicycle; why justify (or condemn) what he did based on the vehicle he drove?

    In other words, change “Man on bike arrested” to “Man in car” arrested, and if your answer is different, you might want to consider carefully what your world view implies.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Vance Longwell October 1, 2010 at 10:22 am

    EmGee #21 – not a peep of it now, but the earliest reports I read on this, stated that the vehicle operator and passenger were elderly. Got to be SOME mitigation there. What of illegally stopping in the highway though? Inherent in even being able to exit their vehicle, right? You can’t just park on a highway, and exit your vehicle. Regardless of the outcome regarding who started it, watch as this little fact is completely ignored. In Denver CO, for instance, exiting a vehicle in that manner triggers their own so-called anti-road-rage law, and is in and of itself, a misdemeanor assault; and furthermore this triggers a Denver citizen’s right to self-defense. If somebody gets out of their car there, you have a license to unload on them.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Travis October 1, 2010 at 10:31 am

    False sense of entitlement? I wish someone would explain how cyclists, who RIDE BIG, are asking to be entitled to anything more than to be seen and respected on shared roadways (how many of you morning commuters are ever truly one bike in a sea of cars four lanes wide -some of us are). I’d wager most of the accidents (even near accidents) in Portland are at the fault of car drivers who don’t see cyclist. Even when cyclists out-rightly break the motor vehicle laws there is hardly a chance of collision (shooting red lights aside). **Spitting is foolish, but give Glen Glans a break. We all get frustrated and at times we act on it. He’ll pay for his mistakes. Glen’s militant approach is an example cyclist need not follow, but we shouldn’t cower in the bike lanes either.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Peter Smith October 1, 2010 at 10:35 am

    doesn’t matter who’s right/wrong, spitting doesn’t help.

    it really does matter who’s right/wrong, and trying to run someone off the road doesn’t help, nor does unintentionally running someone off the road, cut them off, driver recklessly around someone, etc.

    it was wrong for the van to buzz the cyclist and/or try to run him off the road. it was wrong for the cyclist to spit at/on/into the van. it was wrong for the van people to stop and get out and escalate the situation by attacking the cyclist. it was wrong for the cops to arrest the cyclist, and/or it was wrong for the cops to arrest only the cyclist.

    there’s no way this holds up in court if the biker can afford a half-decent lawyer.

    and, if the portland bike community is worth its salt, it’ll drop a phone call to their city councilpersons, the mayor, and the DA’s office to find out why bikers are always being arrested instead of drivers. in car vs. bike altercations, the motorists/drivers should always bear the heavier burden of proof — if they can’t prove their innocence, and it is clear in this case that they could not and can not, then if anyone goes to jail, it’s the motorist(s) who have to go. that’s just common sense. which is why the police did just the opposite.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Beth October 1, 2010 at 10:36 am

    I am a cyclist in the same area of PDX and am familiar with Glen. He seems like a nice guy–the same scenario has happened to me in the same area multiple times–minus the spitting. Basically the lloyd district can be rather bike-unfriendly…I’ve had cars continually try to squeeze me out of the bike lane…or slow down and verbally harass me–while I was following the rules.
    I hope the judge listened to Glen’s side for sure. He should not have spat…but the car shouldn’t have put his life at risk either. Which is worse? Fairly straightforward…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Did I miss it? Again? October 1, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Peter #18 -
    Why is #1 a fact and #2 an “allegedly”.

    How is it that you seem to know all the facts of this story? If you were there, why didn’t you help him beat up the suspected senior citizens?

    #28 – “why bikers are always being arrested instead of drivers”
    Care to back this up with proof?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Fred October 1, 2010 at 10:55 am

    @Travis: Yep, I see more cyclists with a false sense of entitlement than I do drivers. I see riders weave into traffic when they have their own bike lane; blow through red lights, bomb down sidewalks and up one way streets. I see riders pass other riders going very fast and close with no warning, and I have been insulted by other riders for politely using my bell. Sure, there are bad drivers, but in my experience here in PDX, I see one bad driver for every ten bad (or road raged) cyclists.

    I ride every day so I wish it weren’t so, but there it is…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Peter Smith October 1, 2010 at 10:56 am

    Why is #1 a fact and #2 an “allegedly”.

    you think cyclists get all bent out of shape for nothing? like, they’re just cruising along, headed to their destination — chilin — and then all of a sudden they just explode with anger for no reason at all? c’mon, now — let’s pull it together.

    Care to back this up with proof?

    no.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • craig October 1, 2010 at 11:05 am

    Having been actually struck in traffic by motor vehicles a couple of times while i was riding safely, and nearly hit numerous other times, I would attest that adrenaline skyrockets and the immediate response is some sort of lashing out, either verbally, gesturally, or otherwise.

    I would bet this bodily chemical response to the sudden subconscious awareness of imminent mortal peril is there for a vulnerable, exposed cyclist in a way that an armor-enclosed motorist doesn’t experience when versus a bike. People become temporarily insane when their actual life is physically threatened.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • craig October 1, 2010 at 11:10 am

    A cyclist can never be wrong for reacting instinctively when assaulted with a vehicle. Instinctive self-defense actions include aggressive gestures, shouts, and other animal displays of strength.

    If Glen had tried to to put his hands on the motorist to attack him, that would be going beyond, like shooting an intruder in the back as they flee your yard. But he didn’t, according to accounts. The motorists exited the safety of their vehicle to get into a physical altercation.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matthew Denton October 1, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Uhmm, if spitting on people who crowd the bike lane is the appropriate response, I’d run out of saliva long before I ever got anywhere. In any case, responding to stupid behavior (bad driving,) with antagonistic behavior, (spitting,) doesn’t accomplish anything ever.

    Not that I think much of the van occupants either, (getting out of your vehicle in this sort of situation is just plain a bad idea.) Most “incidents” (road rage, bar fights, police shootings, whatever,) like this are the result of both parties having anger/control issues: If you have one person that escalates the situation, and one that tries to deescalate it, the issue almost never makes the news. (Yes, police shootings: Some officers make the news all the time and some never do. Now, do you expect the average criminal to deescalate situations? That just leaves the officer to do it, and some aren’t very good at that.)

    Now, I’ve had things thrown at me, (by bored high school kids, not people on their way to work,) while I was minding my own business, I’m not saying that one party couldn’t be completely at fault, but still…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • geezer October 1, 2010 at 11:32 am

    Fred #20: same here — started commuting over the Hawthorne Bridge this summer, many of the riders there are ruder than any motorist I’ve ever encountered, in over 40 years of riding.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bruce October 1, 2010 at 11:47 am

    It is called civility, folks. And it is largely a missing component of modern life. Every day in the “news”: some whack job asst. dist. atty stalking a student body president or a tea party patriot threatening a reporter or spittin cyclists or silver subarus running amok. I know this is asking for a great deal. How about the cyclists try leading by example. Many of us are already attempting to do the right thing by riding. I often tell people that cycle commuting is a sort of meditation on either end of a work day. Take a deep breath, assume your place in the world and be the best you can be. Too much to ask?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spencer October 1, 2010 at 11:47 am

    It’s funny about the silence to my post about a bicyclist almost running down a toddler and his mother (I assume it was his mother) in a cross walk.

    Last summer I had an incident when I was a pedestrian with my wife. As we were walking on the way to a restaurant to celebrate her 59th birthday, we observed a bicyclist, a man in his twenties, I would say, barrel through an intersection, not stop for a stop sign and nearly get struck by a car.
    Several people on the sidewalks yelled at him to be more careful.

    I shook my fist at him and he got off his bike and confronted me, claiming that I was trying to strike him which would have been pretty hard to do since I was about twenty feet from him.

    He waved a bike lock in my face and demanded that I apologize to him and continued to block my way down the sidewalk, getting right into my face. Fortunately for him, my wife got between us and pushed him away and told him to grow up and leave us alone.

    It seems to me that he was embarrassed by his stupid behavior in almost getting hit by a car and then compouned it by trying to take it out on me for expressing my disdain for his foolishness.

    That is my example of a bicyclist and road rage against a pedestrian. Will any of the posters here defend his actions?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chris October 1, 2010 at 11:48 am

    Although I can’t comment on this story since everything is “alleged” at this point. I would say that the “anti-bike” people are nothing but bullies. Exactly like the ones you remember from grade school. They do these things to get a reaction from you, so when you flip them the bird or spit on them, you are playing right into what they want.

    When jerk cuts me off, honks, or whatever, I just smile and wave. Seeing the bullies disappointed faces when they realize that I don’t give a crap makes it worth it every time.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • matt picio October 1, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    abused by bikers… (#12) – Unfortunately, that’s the case – there are jerks of all mode shares. Some people feel entitled to the road, some don’t want to share, and some are very vocal with their discontent.

    Peter Smith (#18) – I’m sure we don’t have nearly all the facts here, but regardless, that’s a pretty funny account of the possibilities.

    ecohuman (#25) – Agreed 100%. Let’s all remember that not only do none of us have the facts of this case, none of us are likely to. At this point, the discussion is more to the point of what *should* someone do in this situation rather than what *was* done – and there’s an easy answer to that question. don’t physically assault people or property. If it’s not ok for a driver to assault a cyclist or their bike, it’s not ok for a cyclist to assault a driver or their car. Anything else is a double-standard.

    Fred (#31) – Respectfully, I think either you’re not looking around enough, or you’re expecting to see it in cyclists, and selectively biasing your perceptions. Please consider: cyclists make up, at best, 10% of the traffic in Portland. How often do you see a car cut off another car? Take a parking space in front of someone else? Fail to use a turn signal because the guy in the other lane will speed up? Or the guy in the other lane *does* speed up because of someone’s turn signal? I’ve seen all of these behaviors frequently, and they all are people who feel entitled to “their” stretch of the road. I think there’s a greater percentage of cyclists disobeying stop signs and signals than motorists, but the sense of entitlement seems to be quite prevalent on both sides – and since there are so many more drivers, my experience has been to see it more often by motorists – towards each other more often than towards cyclists.

    Peter Smith (#32) – That still doesn’t explain how one item is a “fact” and the other an “allegation”. If you’re looking for your arguments to be taken seriously, I’d recommend reading up a bit on logic, argument, and debate. (I don’t intend that to be patronizing – your posts tend to have what are generally regarded as common logical fallacies, and this will help you tighten up your arguments) If you don’t care about logical arguments please be advised that most of the people who actually read the comments are not going to take you seriously. If this does not bother you, then just ignore all of this.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • adam October 1, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    yes, Spencer – all of the anecdotes you share further illustrate that people who ride bicycles are superior and perfect beings. You should kneel and avert your gaze as we ride by.

    feel better now?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • craig October 1, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    I just spoke to Glen. He was arrested as the aggressor only because he left the scene…this AFTER the driver first nearly ran him down, then DID actually run him down (struck him with his vehicle, knocking him to the pavement) after Glen spit on their vehicle and yelled at them, then they got out and attacked him. They tried and failed to overpower him–he succeeded in defending himself–and they then tried to cover their asses by preemptively calling police to say that HE attacked THEM.

    I hope this gets the legal scrutiny that it deserves, because this kind of situation (up to but not including the attack) happens daily and could in every case easily lead to violence if a driver feels confident enough to leave the safety of his car to mount an aggressive challenge.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • El Biciclero October 1, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    eco–

    “In other words, change ‘Man on bike arrested’ to ‘Man in car’ arrested, and if your answer is different, you might want to consider carefully what your world view implies.”

    Here’s the difference: “Man in car” = “protected by metal cage”

    “Man on bike” = “Not protected by metal cage”

    Sure, spitting is rude and a bad idea, just like spitting at a gangster with a gun would be. But here is an angle to think about: “both the driver and the passenger of the van got out…”. Glen could not “get out of his vehicle” because on a bike you’re always out. If Glen had been a “man in car”, he could have rolled up his windows and locked the door to afford himself some protection. As it was, his only protection was to put forth some kind of hand-to-hand defense. So no, he wasn’t arrested as a direct result of simply being on a bike, but being on a bike put him in a position of having to use other means of protection than he would have had available in a car.

    And Fred, what is a “false sense of entitlement”? Who’s got the “real” entitlement to the road?

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • craig October 1, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    Spencer, this is not about the virtue or villainy of a given mode of transport, it’s about the risks to vulnerable road users and the high degree of caution required of everyone using the road.

    Motorists need to remember every minute that they’re driving that they can too easily kill another road user who’s not encased in a metal cage, and riders of bikes need to remember that they have the same power to harm pedestrians.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bjorn October 1, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    @7 I take it that Lt. Kelli Sheffer has never actually tried to report a road rage incident to the Portland Police. They will not talk to you unless someone is badly injured. I had a guy pass me, pull in quick and then slam on his brakes coming to a complete stop in the middle of the road resulting in me hitting him. I was not hurt and my bike was not damaged because I was almost able to stop in time, but then he started to drive off. I slammed my hand down on his trunk and yelled for him to stop at which point he got out of his car and started chasing me around it. I called 911 and he got back in his car and took off. I had the license plate and a very good description because he got out of his car so I had seen him well. 911 said they were sending someone, I waited an hour before I got cold and left. I tried 3 more times over the next week to file a report but they would not take it. PPB is not interested in preventing road rage.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • middle of the road guy October 1, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    @18

    1) Van buzzes cyclist (ALLEGEDLY)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • craig October 1, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    **Anybody** will have a strong bodily, and perhaps behavioral, response when their physical safety is sorely threatened. That’s animal instinct.

    Not just **anybody** will agree with their buddy (conspiracy) to leave a place of safety (the van) together to outnumber someone who is not a threat and commit aggression against him. That’s criminal intent AND action.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Alan October 1, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    Being nearly hit by a van vs spitting on the van?

    Spitting is an insult, an aggressive response and poor behavior, but unless the saliva is laced with something toxic, it’s not potentially deadly.

    Being buzzed by a vehicle is definitely potentially deadly. As a cyclist, this has happened to me, and it’s very scary. Drivers of motor vehicles should not be allowed to do this with impunity, but usually they just drive away and there’s nothing you can do about it. Here’s a case where they didn’t drive away, and yet they are being let off scott free??

    Second, the people in the van stopped and got out and approached the cyclist and what do we make of that? I’m sure they weren’t just asking him for the time of day. You have to assume they stopped to fight, thinking they had the advantage. 2 against 1. Once again you have an intentional act of aggression on their part, with the first being the buzzing.

    I do NOT understand why the van occupants are not being charged here.

    At the very least, based on the story, all three involved should be charged and the incident investigated in a balanced way.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • middle of the road guy October 1, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    Let’s see….

    Maybe the elderly drivers did not in fact TRY to swerve near Mr Glans, but may have inadvertently come a little close. He may have believed it was intentional, however.

    To the driver, nothing wrong occured and they had no intent to scare anyone. Suddenly, there is a guy in hysterics spitting at you. Of course the elderly drivers may feel threatened by that. I mean, WTF is this guy spitting at us for?

    People are making the assumption that IF the car came close it MUST have been intentional.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel October 1, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    “I often tell people that cycle commuting is a sort of meditation on either end of a work day.”

    You are certainly entitled to “meditate” but I am far more interested in vigorous heart-pounding exercise with the occasional dose of adrenaline.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • middle of the road guy October 1, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    @42

    And he must be telling the truth, right? Only cagers lie.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • cyclist October 1, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    If it bleeds it leads, take 2?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Blue October 1, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    Once upon a time, when a car passed me on a college town street (Ann Arbor), the passenger leaned out his window and roared “Aaargh” at the top of his lungs right into my ear. Startled, I narrowly missed running my bike into the curb. Well, two blocks later, I caught up with the car at a stop sign. In preparation, I worked up a full gob of spit and as i pulled alongside, I let the passenger have it full blast into his face. Well, you can imagine how mad he got. The car proceeded to pursue, so i rode on the sidewalk through the sidewalk cafe customers, while the car slowly kept pace, with the passenger screaming at me. I turned onto a side street, they followed. Now I was cornered. The three of them got out and stood there screaming at me. I dismounted and stood there saying nothing to avoid further escalation. They wisely chose to get back in the car, perhaps because I had a very heavy, 6 ft, bike chain draped around my neck, which I would have used to defend myself. Maybe I shouldn’t have spit, but I’m sure they never pulled a stunt like that again. We bikers MUST defend ourselves by any means possible. We’re up against many morons using their vehicles as deadly weapons of assault on cyclists. They know by now that they’ll likely never be charged, and this case is likely to further reinforce motorists’ belief that they can get away with injury, murder, and hit-and-runs. So, cyclists’ only recourse is to defend ourselves, which we shall and we must. Best wishes to Glen Glans and I hope the charges are dropped. Seems a simple case of self-defense, but then again, the law sides with motorists 9 times out of 10.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • craig October 1, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    @51

    He could be lying, yes, about some facts.

    Whatever else may be true or false, Glen could not be lying about the TWO vehicle occupants leaving their vehicle together, to physically confront him. That fact in itself, of them acting as a duo, not only implies conspiracy (no matter how brief or minimal), it **requires** conspiracy. This is the primary fact of this incident.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Bruce Lee October 1, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    Craig @#42:
    Sounds to me that Glen did the right thing. He defended himself from assault, and then left the scene to save himself.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Travis October 1, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    @Fred: I really should’ve dismissed your remarks afer: “And I hate to say it, but these usually appear to be experienced riders with flashy gear and nice bikes, or those of the more-hipster-than-thou variety.”

    Cycling goes beyond commuting and, too, the “beyond” sometimes (or often?) gets intertwined with the commuting.

    As much as I believe in non-car based transportation and recognize the possibilities of bike commuting becoming more mainstream… The reality is bikes are still toys (first and foremost?).

    Pleaded pants commuters getting upset with “flashy” hipsters is akin to a surfer getting frustrated with a couple of wally boogie borders not waiting in the line-up. It’s know, perspective, and respect.

    Bikes are still more akin to skateboards than cars. Bikes are your softball mitt, your kayak, your golf clubs, your nascar, your paintbrush… and too, bikes are your transportation to work. Bikes aren’t just your minivan.

    Again, shooting red lights is dangerous and spitting is disgusting. We’re way off topic though.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • pfarthing6 October 1, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    You know, I’ve seen cyclists overreact, and even seen them spit, into the vehicle I might add. I’d bet that he really did spit inside the vehicle and, post-incident, is thinking better of it now.

    That doesn’t excuse two guys attempting to hurt him. Spitting isn’t exactly a violent assault. Good for Glenn too for standing up and defending himself against two assailants.

    Yeah, sure, he could have just waved and been a pacifist about it all, and things would have just gone on by. He would have gotten over it, mostly, until the next time, and the next, and the next, and…

    And here’s my point, being all nicey-nicey, that’s an “individual” preference. If that’s you, then good for you. For all we know, he’s done exactly that a hundred times and this was kind of it for him. I can totally relate personally.

    So, he shouldn’t be judged simply because he got angry, stood up for himself, and I would assume was probably egged on quite a bit from the drivers before spitting. I mean, how often does one feel compelled to spit at anyone?

    Basically he decided he wasn’t going to take their crap and would deal with the consequences. No, nothing wrong with that at all.

    And for those with a problem with his actions, why isn’t there equal burden on the drivers to wave and be nicey-nicey? If they did that, if they were like, “Sorry man, my bad.” does anyone believe that there would have been any altercation at all? I sure hope not.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • spare_wheel October 1, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    Its amazing that anyone would attempt to deny that there is an anti-bike culture in PDX. Even a few minutes reading the comments on the boregonian should disabuse one of this notion. Cyclists are the new DFH wedge issue. And IMO the animosity has been steadily increasing since I moved to PDX many years ago.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • spare_wheel October 1, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    @51
    pot calling kettle black. and surely you can you concoct additional scenarios where the fault is entirely with the cyclist.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • El Biciclero October 1, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    Spencer–
    “I shook my fist at him and he got off his bike and confronted me…Will any of the posters here defend his actions?”

    No, as threatening physical violence in that situation would be totally out of line.

    But as long as we are bringing up unrelated incidents, here is something interesting: after this recent story there are several comments along the lines of how it’s no surprise that someone in a car would try to run a cyclist off the road after the cyclist flipped the bird at the driver. There is a significant undertone that the cyclist “had it coming” for expressing his disdain at the motorist’s use of a car horn. So, if a violent response to a cyclist expressing disdain with a gesture is normal and expected, why would we not apply the same principle in your case and say that you asked for a confrontation by shaking your fist at someone on a bike? If we want to use the standard of caution that says “don’t express your disapproval of another person’s actions because you might get violently confronted”, then we should apply it in all situations.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Fred October 1, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    The Oregonian description of this incident describes Glen as actually hitting the passenger. “Glans, who was wearing what was described as a red Santa hat, reportedly struck the van’s passenger in the head with his bike lock.”

    Well ho ho ho! It goes on to say, in unbiased terms (yes, thats sarcasm):
    “Glans has a 15-year history of stumbling against road rules, including infractions for skateboarding in a prohibited area in Multnomah County in 1995 and rollerblading downtown in 1997. He also was convicted in 2005 under ORS 811346 in 2005 for misusing the left turn lane and two years later under ORS 815280 for violation of bicycle equipment requirements.”

    Now I know that convicting people in the press is a rich, time honored tradition but it seems to me that he can’t be too gentle a rider/rollerblader/skater to be getting so much attention from the police.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • El Biciclero October 1, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    Bruce-
    “…assume your place in the world…”

    I’m sure you weren’t intending anything by this comment, but this statement is interesting because the assumptions made by different folks on where a cyclist’s “place in the world” is causes a lot of the roadway confrontation that we see. Many feel like a cyclist’s “place” is on the sidewalk. Some feel like it is on “bike trails”. I assume it is in whatever position gives me greatest visibility and allows me to navigate where I need to go. Still others assume that a bike’s place is in the gutter, “out of the way”.

    I’m also sure you meant “place” in a much larger context than just geography, but varied assumptions about place have a big impact on how folks get along.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rixtir October 1, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    Talk about trying somebody in the press with incomplete details!

    The O informs us that Glans was convicted of skating violations in 95 and 97; it doesn’t inform us of what those violations were, nor doe sit inform us that skaters were given the right to use the roads in 2000:

    http://stc-law.com/same_legal_status.html

    Misuse of the left turn lane? Details, please. Let’s not forget that other cyclists in this town have been charged with violations for making a left turn from the — gasp!– left turn lane.

    And bicycle equipment violations? Really? I mean I get that fixed gear riders tend not to want brakes on their bikes, but can anybody draw a connection between that and an alleged assault several years later?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Travis October 1, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    @Fred

    Glens actions don’t give you the solid argument that all “flashy” riders are jerks.

    You aren’t helping anyone’s cause… just self affirming your own hatred.

    I give up. Give a good hard scowl to any person who passes you without a 401k, taught pants, and one gear on your way home. Varmints surly.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jim F. October 1, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    Anyone with a history of terrorizing people while on roller blades deserves to go to jail. Case closed.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • middle of the road guy October 1, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    @57

    Spare,

    I am only pointing out the bias on this site that assumes (with a few exceptions)drivers are never truthful, and that a cyclist always tells the truth. i think we both know it’s somewhere inbetween.

    Why should the cyclists word be taken over the driver’s? Is there some qualifying factor for this or just a bias?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Fred October 1, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    Whoa there Travis, there is no hatred here. My only complaint is with people who break the law (run lights, up one way streets, other examples I provided), and I observe that most of the folks I see doing these things appear to be experienced. In other words, there aren’t high school kids. Not saying all riders are jerks… I’m a rider! With a decent ride myself I might add!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • middle of the road guy October 1, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    @51

    Conspiracy? Please, this is not the JFK assassination – take the foil hat off.

    Sure, two people got out. As I mentioned in a previous post, it may be the driver’s perception that Mr Glans was the problem maker and that whatever reason a car came close to Mr Glans was unintentional from the driver’s viewpoint but intentional from that of Glans.

    If these two gentlemen were older, I would assume 2 people is more even odds to confront someone.

    Finally, if you were biking with several buddies and a single driver buzzed you. Would you approach him individually or as a group? Easy answer on that one, huh? No conspiracy….just a group of friends supporting each other.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • middle of the road guy October 1, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    regarding the O’s posting of Mr Glans’ infractions of the past:

    it is interseting to see how whenever a car is involved, suddenly all past driving history is relevant. But if it is a cyclist, the same standard if no longer true.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Did I miss it? Again? October 1, 2010 at 1:45 pm

    Craig #42 -

    So let me get this right-
    Glen was first nearly hit by the van, and then he was hit by the van and attacked by the driver and passenger. After this happened he just got back on his bike and rode to work, not bothering to call police.

    Who would get hit by a car, then attacked by the occupants and not call the police?

    This story is getting pretty ridiculous.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • craig October 1, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    @67

    Bikes, cars, or no vehicles at all. When two or more people go in to something together, it’s called conspiracy. That’s a legal term you may have heard, and not just a symptom of schizophrenia. And please don’t make fun of people with schizophrenia.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Did I miss it? Again? October 1, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    #68 –
    Newspapers do usually post the driver’s previous infractions assuming: they have any and they are the person at fault.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rixtir October 1, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    Regarding past history: When a driver with an extensive history of moving violations commits another moving violation and kills a cyclist while committing that moving violation, the past history of moving violations is relevant information for me in terms of assessing whether the driver is competent to drive, and it should be relevant information to the DMV. It is not, however, relevant in determining the driver’s guilt on the current moving violation. However, it may be relevant in a civil suit against the driver.

    There is no similar relevance in dredging up a past history of (dubious allegations of) vehicle code violations when somebody is charged with assault.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spencer October 1, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    Adam

    Even though I will 62 next month, if another jerk waves a bike lock in face again, I will consider it an attempted assault and take action to defend myself.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel October 1, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    @middle of the road,
    let just hope the judge can sort this mess out.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Did I miss it? Again? October 1, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    #70-
    If two people respond to a car crash or an older person falling down on a sidewalk; that would constitute a conspiracy?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • craig October 1, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    @74

    Two people independently electing to do the same thing at the same time is just coincidence. If the decision–or plan–to act is made together, then yes, it constitutes conspiracy. The question then is, conspiracy to do what?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • craig October 1, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    @69

    Striking a rider with a vehicle because he spit at you is a totally rational act and totally criminal in nature. So is deciding together to exit a vehicle and attach that rider.

    When one is nearly clobbered by a moving vehicle, irrational actions are a natural if not unavoidable response.

    It was foolish of Glen to leave the scene, unless he was still in peril–but then he was badly shaken up by all that had just happened. When you’ve been assaulted with a vehicle, and then attacked in person by a pair of men, let’s see how your decision making skills server you in the minutes that follow.

    Here’s how I heard it:

    1) driver buzzes/nearly hits rider

    2) at stop, rider spits on van and yells at driver

    3) leaving from stop, driver actually hits rider with van, knocking him to the ground

    4) driver stops van and he and passenger exit the van and attack the fallen rider

    5) rider defends self successfully then dosen’t stick around

    6) chicken-shit driver and passenger call police first and lie in order to preempt any other version of the story being acted upon

    7) rider is arrested based on driver’s lies combined with the fact he left the scene

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • trail abuser October 1, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    I’ve got a small gopro hero sports camera that can push-button record in an instant, and it’s strapped to my wrist. It’s waterproof up to 180′ so works well in rain. It’s cheaper than a defense attorney at 100 bux!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SPM_Bstr October 1, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    Here is a detail left out of Mr.Maus’ story above

    “Glans has a 15-year history of stumbling against road rules, including infractions for skateboarding in a prohibited area in Multnomah County in 1995 and rollerblading downtown in 1997. He also was convicted in 2005 under ORS 811346 in 2005 for misusing the left turn lane and two years later under ORS 815280 for violation of bicycle equipment requirements.”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SPM_Bstr October 1, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    Hit submit too early.

    I meant to add that the fact of his being bicyclist should only be incidental here, as someone else said above. The problem is Mr Glans has been in trouble before. This really shouldn’t be in a bicycle forum, rather in a general forum.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Did I miss it? Again? October 1, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    #75
    So you are suggesting the driver and passenger conversed, or worse, colluded before getting out? Do you think this happened before or after they hit him with the van?

    We should ask Peter. He would know.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • matthew vilhauer October 1, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    i’m with vance on this one. deep doo-doo, deep doo-doo man.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Peter Smith October 1, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    That still doesn’t explain how one item is a “fact” and the other an “allegation”.

    there are various takes on who did what to whom, who spit where, etc. — that, in my opinion, deserves an ‘allegedly’. it’s not that big of a deal. everyone relax. this is not a court of law, it’s a Court of Comments — that’s it. there does seem to be general agreement about the basics of what happens — the van buzzed the cyclist, and the cyclist spat in retaliation — that’s it. simple.

    there are, however, severe injustices going on here that you should not relax about — for instance, the biker was arrested and may still be in jail for all we know. the crooks are out roaming the streets, probably attempting to mow down more cyclists. let’s hope they’re not successful.

    I think Glen is the first to be charged under Portland PD’s new ordinance, ‘Get Hit & Run’. Smart.

    People are making the assumption that IF the car came close it MUST have been intentional.

    i don’t believe anybody here has made any such dastardly assumption. in fact, i’d argue that most times bikers, pedestrians, the police, the courts, and the public at large give drivers the benefit of the doubt, even when it’s clear there was intent on the driver’s part to injure/maim/kill. i’d prefer we switch to the ‘he did it on purpose’ explanation instead of defaulting to the ‘it was an accident’ explanation — it would certainly get drivers to pay closer attention to their driving, and make the world a safer and more pleasant place.

    And he must be telling the truth, right? Only cagers lie.

    this is true! the science says it is true! cagers suck!

    actually, in all seriousness, i bet there is some good evidence out there to suggest that criminal drivers are often/always duplicitous.

    Once upon a time, when a car passed me on a college town street (Ann Arbor), the passenger leaned out his window and roared “Aaargh” at the top of his lungs right into my ear. Startled, I narrowly missed running my bike into the curb. Well, two blocks later, I caught up with the car at a stop sign. In preparation, I worked up a full gob of spit and as i pulled alongside, I let the passenger have it full blast into his face.

    I’m assuming @Blue is a dude, and in that case, I am officially gay for the day. This is the best-est, most awesome-ist comment I’ve ever read here on BikePortland.org. ‘Full blast’? Are you *#*#*#*## kidding me? This made my day. Really.

    Listen, it’s rare when it does happen, but some times…..some times justice rains down like a might stream…of spit…full blast. If you engage in the art of terrorizing bikers for fun, your time will eventually come. @Blue for preznit!

    I shook my fist at him and he got off his bike and confronted me

    learn to mind your own business. all these old white guys running around downtowns, now — they destroyed our cities and towns, our economy, our country — and now they’re gonna tell us how to live our lives — sorry y’all, instead y’all should go hang your head in shame, beg our forgiveness, donate your significant wealth to charity, and start sticking up for the rights of the vulnerable for the first time in your lives.

    Who would get hit by a car, then attacked by the occupants and not call the police?

    why not? it’s theoretically possible that a cop might care that moment of that day, but not likely. the cops don’t care and won’t care anytime soon. and, as this experience shows, if you’re the cyclist in an altercation, one of a few things is going to happen to you, but most likely the biker will be:
    1) injured/maimed/killed, and/or
    2) go to jail.

    what’s the incentive for the biker to call the police?

    I want to know who the driver is, who the passenger was, and I want their entire criminal histories — both of them.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe October 1, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    #84 so true, cyclist is always at fault. driver just gets slapped on the wrist.

    This has to change!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Alan October 1, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    Forget the cyclist for a minute. He’s already under investigation and will likely receive some punishment for his provocative behavior. While I can understand why he was upset, I don’t condone his actions.

    But, what I don’t understand is why the motorists aren’t having to account for *their* actions.

    Don’t they also share some responsibility for their aggressive behavior. They were driving erratically (if unintentional) or maliciously (if intentional). Also, they got out of the van and approached an obviously very upset cyclist, which only served to aggravate the whole situation and was yet another step to the allocation that they *willingly* took.

    Don’t they share in the blame for this whole incident?

    This whole story lacks balance, both on the part of law enforcement and on the part of the press.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Alan October 1, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    p.s. substitute “carelessly” for “erratically” in my above post. There are laws against careless driving and reckless endangerment. In cases like this, they should be enforced. It doesn’t have to be intentional to be WRONG.

    The second part, though, of the motorists getting out of the van was clearly intentional. Also clearly WRONG.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • A.K. October 1, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    Wow, this is a really unfortunate incident in how it unfolded, and shows just how quickly a situation can spiral out of control.

    I was recently hit by a driver who wasn’t paying attention at 21st and NE Knott. They hit my back wheel, and I managed to stay upright and not fall over. They kept going, and despite my best “Mark Cavendish”, I was unable to catch them even though my Garmin recorded me going almost 30 MPH while trying to sprint them down. Once they realized I was chasing them they started to speed, and then made several turns into the neighborhood to evade me.

    I was unable to keep my speed up, and initially I was PISSED that I was unable to catch them. Boy I wanted to give them a piece of my mind. However, now that I look back I am almost glad I was never able to catch them. Who knows what I would have done, or what they would have done to me? I was uninjured and my bike was fine. However, if they had stopped and apologized to me after the initial incident, it would have been fine.

    Lesson learned for next time, I guess.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • El Biciclero October 1, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    “Even though I will [be] 62 next month, if another jerk waves a bike lock in [my] face again, I will consider it an attempted assault and take action to defend myself.”

    So what action should the next cyclist who is bumped by a moving motor vehicle take? Can we not apply standards in both directions? Methinks it sounds OK to go after a cyclist waving a U-Lock, because it might be a somewhat fair fight. But we frown upon and blame cyclists for similar altercations when they go up against a minivan that knocked them to the ground? Should getting run off the road by a driver not be considered an attempted–if not actual–assault?

    How about try this–next time a jerk waves a 3 lb. bike lock in your face, try the tactics cyclists are advised to use when they are threatened by auto drivers with 2300 lb. missiles: smile, wave, and walk away. Why does that not sound acceptable?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • WOBG October 1, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    Spencer: If you’re getting bike locks waved in your face on a regular basis, you’re most likely breaking laws and endangering people. Is your eyeglass prescription recent?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Peter Smith October 1, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    He’s already under investigation and will likely receive some punishment for his provocative behavior.

    um, the cyclist was arrested — isn’t that punishment? speaking from experience, it’s no walk in the park, though I guess it depends upon the circumstances, like who you are, if you’re a cyclist, if the other party are drivers, etc.

    the cyclist also has to/had to be in court today to be arraigned, and is hopefully going to hire a lawyer ($$$), etc. more and more punishment. and this is just the beginning for the cyclist.

    the driver and passenger? chillin.

    i bet getting caught with a bike lock-enhanced haymaker might sting a bit…i suspect the drivers had no idea what a bike lock felt like, so thought, “oh — just a punk hippie cyclist — let’s get out and murder this dude.”

    and then it was all…”Ouch! Hey, man! That smarts, dude! What _is_ that thing?”

    “It’s a bike lock, you morons. You want some more of this?”

    “No thanks. We’ve kept it real long enough.”

    I’m tellin ya — it’d be worth it to record for just one week, all of our run-ins with illegal motorist/terrorist behavior — and report the crimes to the police. Just all of us commit to doing it for one week. Then we’ll document how many times we’re ignored and made fun of by the cops, and what our effective conviction rate is. If it’s above 1% after we complete all investigations/research/documentations/arrests (as if)/jury trials/hearings/etc., then I’ll buy the world a Coke.

    Actually, here’s a better idea — how about drivers just stop terrorizing us, whether intentional or otherwise? Sound good? Good.

    I was recently hit by a driver who wasn’t paying attention at 21st and NE Knott.

    they were probably paying attention — to other motor traffic. in other words, they probably just didn’t care about you. it’s actually worse than terrorism.

    with terrorism, you’re specifically targeting innocent civilians with the intent to injure/maim/kill in order to achieve some political objective. that’s the whole deal with driver ‘buzzing’ cyclists, screaming at them, throwing stuff at them, etc. — it’s just straight terrorism, nothing else.

    But what do you call it when drivers don’t even care enough about you to acknowledge your existence as a human being who deserves to be able to continue to live?

    To these types of drivers — which is a very significant percentage of them — walkers and bikers are just like ants on a sidewalk — you just step on them — you may or may not see them, and you may or may not go out of your way, even a little bit, to avoid crushing them, but they’re just ants, so you just walk where you want to walk — if some ants get crushed along the way, so be it.

    So, it’s hard to call this particular type of behavior ‘terrorism’, because many people don’t care enough about ants to terrorize them — ants just don’t matter enough — the lives of ants are just not important to many people.

    This is the exact dynamic that often plays out for drivers on the streets — and I see it now as a driver even more than when I was on my bike almost exclusively.

    What’s the word for that type of inhuman behavior if it’s not ‘terrorism’?

    Gross negligence? Gross disregard for human life?

    Like the lady in Maryland who just hit and killed a ‘deer’, and dragged the ‘deer’s’ bicycle, lodged under her SUV, five miles back to her home while the ‘deer’ lay dying in the road — what word or words could describe this type of behavior? The victim’s mother later asked the driver, “Could you at least stop, hold her, call 911, talk to her, say it’s gonna be all right?”.

    Apparently not. Listen, there was probably a big game on or something — the driver had to get home. We can’t all be lookin out for ants and deer and all sorts of things in the road.

    The lesson? walkers and bikers beware — often times drivers hate you and will try to kill you, but probably more often, they just don’t care about you, your family, your existence.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • trail abuser October 1, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    police love video evidence…hopefully it’s not yourself doing the bad stuff…as i’ve been preaching all along, simple instant on video cams strapped to wrists, bikes, or helmets deter bad behavior…or at least provide evidence to police or insurance companies…it seems altercations just bring up the same comments over and over…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Blue October 1, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    The UM president stated that when one of us is attacked we will all rise up to stop it (story at http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/1/906939/-Quick-response-from-UofMichigan-president). She was speaking about a university student. I would say the same should hold true for cyclists. When one of us is attacked, we will all rise up. The next time it could be you. Three hit-and-runs, and then Glen’s case, in 10 days. It’s time to stop these crimes against cyclists. This is no game when the results can be death or permanent injury with big med bills. Neither the laws nor the police are protecting us. It’s time to change this. We must demand platinum protection. We’re doing our part for oil security and climate change. How about an end to discriminatory law practices that turn a blind eye to deadly crimes of hate against cyclists?! I spit on this discrimination – FULL BLAST!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rixtir October 1, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    A “bike lock-enhanced haymaker” is assault with a deadly weapon, and that’s a Measure 11 offense:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_11_(1994)

    In addition to the legal problems you’re exposing yourself to, you’re also creating a legal opening for the other person to legally use a similar level of force against you. That’s a lose-lose situation for the guy who thinks it might be cool to try out a “bike lock-enhanced haymaker.”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • CaptainKarma October 1, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    The motorists aren’t charged *yet*….

    Last week I was assaulted on my bike at Waterfront park by a self-professed insane man. He wanted me to go away so he could enjoy his conversation with himself. I was ten feet away, adjusting my toe-strap. He charged at me as I attempted to leave, grabbing my rear rack and throwing me to the ground.

    Everyone asks a) why didn’t you defend yourself? and b) why didn’t you call the police?

    Dude was in a wheelchair! I could imagine the police report – *I* would have probbly been busted for harassing *him*.

    The less contact I have with the popo’s the better off I am in today’s world.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Tay October 1, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    FREE Glen. Bust da cagjaaaaas, dammit.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Alan October 1, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    The lesson? walkers and bikers beware — often times drivers hate you and will try to kill you, but probably more often, they just don’t care about you, your family, your existence.

    I wouldn’t go so far as to say “often times” above. It’s more like >99% in the other category of apathy. We just tend to remember the hateful drivers more deeply, and exaggerate their presence in our minds. But apathy can still kill. The most important law to remember has nothing to do with bike lanes, rights of way, etc. No, the law to remember is force = mass*acceleration, and they’re all over us when it comes to mass.

    At bottom it’s just vital to realize at all times that we’re lower on the roadway food chain, and just try our best to stay the f— out of the way of the top predators, the motorized vehicles, who can take us out in a heartbeat.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Alan October 1, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    A “bike lock-enhanced haymaker” is assault with a deadly weapon

    If you’re in the cyclist’s shoes, and two guys from some van who just narrowly missed HITTING YOU ON THE ROAD have now stopped the vehicle and are coming out and are heading your way, are you going to sit there and think “oh my gosh, I can’t defend myself because, gee, it might be a Measure 11 offense?”

    No, you’re going to defend yourself with whatever weapon you have available when outnumbered like this by what probably appeared to be crazed motorists who are COMING AFTER YOU.

    You don’t know whether they have weapons. You don’t know their intentions. All you know is that they are after you.

    This was self-defense. Period. And those motorists learned a big lesson.

    What I’d like to see though is for LE and the press to put all this on an equal playing surface and charge the motorists too.

    Fat chance.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Tay October 1, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    Glen, brace yourself for punishment by process.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • disastronaut October 1, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    http://www.mcso.us/PAID/BookingDetail.aspx?ID=65YHpN/y1au/1mNc9U/pTA==

    Anyone know how to read these? I know he was supposed to be arraigned today but it doesn’t show a case number or anything, perhaps charges were dropped?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Peter Smith October 1, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    A “bike lock-enhanced haymaker” is assault with a deadly weapon, and that’s a Measure 11 offense

    almost any level of self-defense is just that — self-defense. all you need is some reasonable ‘self-defense’ argument — in this case, it’s clear the driver and the passenger came after the cyclist.

    so, the cyclist will be cleared by the judge, but when will the driver and passenger be arrested? what’s taking so long for those arrests to happen? why the delay?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • pixie October 1, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    Disastronaut,

    Based on that page, it does indeed look like the charges were dropped.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • disastronaut October 1, 2010 at 5:51 pm

    Interesting.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • mike fish October 1, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    Spencer

    You should defend yourself if attacked.

    There are lots of bad road users.

    No one is obligated to respond to your posts. There are lots of people you can talk to in person though. Call up the BTA and express your concerns.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Tay October 1, 2010 at 6:02 pm

    #96,#98, check back next week.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Tay October 1, 2010 at 6:25 pm

    I couldn’t find the website to search court dockets. But, check out really nifty kewl BIG idea! Who knew?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Tay October 1, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    Oregon Courts Online Anyone got 10 clams? Lame.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mike October 1, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    So I guess it is ok to spit into an open window? Since there was a motor vehicle involved it certainly can’t be the cyclist’s fault. Give me a break!!! Some of you just need to grow a spine. If you get pissed off every time you got too close to a care, move to the country side.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tiffany October 1, 2010 at 8:35 pm

    @q`Tzal
    She’s right. I had a guy in a GMC try to run me down the first week I was cycling. I called the PPD and they did nothing and said they weren’t even going to investigate. First week, first bout of road rage. Though, to be honest the most road rage I’ve had directed at me is from pedestrians freaking out.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Peter Smith October 1, 2010 at 8:37 pm

    The ‘deer’ case I referenced even has Bob Mionske sounding like a radical hippie biker:

    http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20101001214750973

    He doesn’t use the buzzwords I do, but says pretty much the same thing — to some drivers, our lives are not worth more than those of ants.

    No charges. Not even an arrest, that I know of. Same all across America.

    Hopefully bikers begin stopping at Stop signs so these types of vehicular-homicides-and-assaults-without-charges can be prevented in the future.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rixtir October 1, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    Alan an d Peter, re a defense of “self-defense,” you’re preaching to yourself and your friends. You pull a “bike lock-enhanced haymaker” on somebody in real life, there’s a good chance you’ll be trying to convince a jury.

    And if a jury is hearing your case, they’re going to have to decide, after weighing all of the testimony, who did what, and then they’re going to have to decide if what was done was legal.

    Self-defense is legal, but not everything under the sun qualifies as “self-defense.” It is simply not true that almost anything that you do in response to a perceived threat is “self-defense,” and if a jury decides that according to the law, what you did wasn’t self-defense, you may end up with an assault conviction.

    So if you want to avoid an assault conviction– especially a Measure 11 assault conviction– you will stick to defending yourself within what the law allows. Sometimes that will include using a weapon, but it will be the law, and not you, that defines what constitutes self-defense, and the circumstances under which you can use a weapon in self-defense.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rixtir October 1, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    By the way, none of what I’m saying about self-defense is meant to imply anything about the incident involving Glans and the two minivan occupants.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mindful Cyclist October 1, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    Tiffany: Here is an example that involved a car: http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/07/driver_arrested_after_targetin.html

    Also, I used to work for an agency that did anger mgmt groups and many of them were there for road rage incidents. Those groups did not have much problem staying full.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Peter Smith October 1, 2010 at 9:21 pm

    @rixtir — are you a law school student or something? maybe a future overzealous prosecutor? are you with the Portland DA’s office?

    regardless, your comment adds nothing new to what you said the first time.

    we’re saying, essentially, “self-defense is self-defense” and you’re saying “no, self-defense is only self-defense up to a certain point” — which is approximately, if not exactly, what i said.

    i also said that ‘certain point’ was nearly impossible to cross, as evidenced by the granny who just unloaded on the kids who were throwing eggs at her house or something, and father who got on the school bus and yelled at those kids for them abusing/assaulting his handicapped daughter.

    ‘self-defense’ is pretty much ingrained in the American psyche — even those of us who never had a law class know that once those people got out of their van, the DA had no case.

    The US public just won’t stand for prosecutions of essentially decent people who were defending themselves or someone else. I don’t know what buzzwords they use in the legal industry to describe it, but it’s probably something like ‘substantial leeway’ in defending oneself, and the only reason laws might be written weaker, in terms of leeway, is to give prosecutors and judges more power to mete out justice as they see fit.

    Don’t get me wrong, we are very thankful to you for providing your stunning analysis, but we only deal in absolutes here in the bikeportland.org comments section, so we really are unable to comprehend what this ‘up to a certain point’ stuff is all about.

    maybe you should write a thesis paper or something for your MS Law? anything that keeps you from posting inane comments on here while insulting our intelligence with your ‘preaching to yourselves’ nonsense.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rixtir October 1, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    You ARE preaching to the choir, which is your prerogative. Just remember, in the jury box, nobody cares what the choir believes.

    And we haven’t even touched on ccw yet.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • PoPo October 1, 2010 at 11:03 pm

    I was one of the officers at this scene.
    And again, I was reminded how quickly communication can deteriorate and emotions escalate.

    Most of us are conscientious and respectful when we use our streets, regardless of mode. But we are rarely perfect.

    When it appears as if someone makes a move that is illegal, or that scares us, we are probably better served to assume that it was not intentional. This is not to excuse the behavior, but to remind us of our fallibility as human beings.

    If we want to communicate about it, a respectful approach is much less likely to be misinterpreted or escalated. And more likely to result in productive communication.

    We are all traffic.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • WOBG October 1, 2010 at 11:59 pm

    Peter Smith, stand the heck down. You’re looking mighty foolish in that rixtir has been here for years and you’re a johnny-come-lately. (Try a search.)

    I’m pretty sure rixtir even lives here in Portland—fancy that!

    I came from California, and I gotta say you’re making a pretty good Californian caricature of yourself by flapping your cybergums in ignorance of this Oregon community’s pre-you history. You could stand to comment less and lurk more.

    Now, @rixtir: Can you point to examples to flesh out what the “certain point” might be?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rixtir October 2, 2010 at 12:57 am

    Well, first, I don’t think that Peter needs to stand down just because I’ve been around for a while. He’s entitled to comment just as much as anybody else.

    And I’d like to be clear that I wasn’t passing judgment on Glans using a u-lock; I don’t know all of the facts of the case, so I can’t say whether or not he was acting in self-defense. And even if I did know all of the facts and have an opinion about whether it was self-defense, it’s still up to a jury, really, to decide.

    That said, self-defense is a legal defense to criminal charges involving fighting or assault. So basically, you’re not denying that you were involved in an altercation, you’re just saying that you were legally entitled to defend yourself under those circumstances. And whether your actions qualify as self-defense will depend upon the particular circumstances of the altercation you are involved in.

    So, for example, if you do something that could reasonably be expected to provoke a fight, and somebody is provoked and attacks you, you cannot fight back and then claim self-defense; instead, you will be considered a mutual combatant.

    Assuming that you haven’t done anything that would meet the legal standard for”provoking a fight,” and somebody confronts you, perhaps saying something that annoys or insults you (e.g., “you have to stop at the stop sign!” or “you’re a jerk!”), you do not have the right to retaliate physically; the fact that somebody says something annoying or insulting does not transform your assault into “self-defense.”

    But assume that the person approaches you in a menacing manner that a reasonable person would believe indicates that an attack is imminent. At that point, you may defend yourself. However, your defense has to be proportionate to the attack. If the person gives you a shove, or attempts to hit you, you can’t pull out an AK47 and unload. You can shove back, and you can knock him down, and you can hit him until he breaks off his attack.

    However, that assumes two opponents of roughly equal size and age.If your opponent presents a more serious threat because of some great disparity in strength (say a strong, muscular young man attacking a frail elderly woman), then the threat is greater, and the amount of force that is used in self-defense can be greater. So the frail, elderly woman might be justified in pulling a handgun when attacked by a strong young man.

    But if somebody of equal size and strength attacks, pulling out a u-lock runs the risk that your defense will not be seen as proportionate to the attack. If two or more assailants attack, using a weapon to level the playing field may qualify as self-defense. If the assailant indicates an intent to use lethal force, using lethal force to stop the attack qualifies as self-defense.

    The problem is in deciding what is “reasonable.” One (or more) persons wanting to verbally confront you do not justify “self-defense.” One (or more) persons presenting a credible and imminent threat of physical harm do justify self-defense, but then the question becomes “how much force” can you legally use. Also, the timing of the defense is critical. You can defend yourself while the attack is underway (but must end your defense as soon as the attack ends), but you cannot “defend yourself” later, after the threat of attack has passed. Self-defense only applies when an attack is imminent, or has already started, and it ceases to apply once an attack has broken off (although you can use the force necessary to restrain somebody until police arrive).

    The problem I see with comments about “u-lock justice” is that all too often, people pull out there u-locks and either threaten to swing, or start swinging, under circumstances that do not justify “self-defense.” For example, when they’ve been offended or insulted by somebody’s words, or when they’ve provoked somebody into attacking, or when self-defense is justified, but the use of a deadly weapon is not justified by the threat presented.

    Keep in mind that 12 people you do not know will listen to both sides of the story and then decide whether or not what you did qualifies as self-defense; if you keep your actions consistent with what those 12 people will agree with, you will probably be OK.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Peter Smith October 2, 2010 at 2:01 am

    Peter Smith, stand the heck down.

    I’m pretty sure our aspiring DA can defend themselves. I’m sure s/he knows that ‘dishing it out’ can result in ‘having to take it’. If you’re rude/obnoxious, then I believe you should either be:
    a) reprimanded (by someone/something), and/or
    b) treated in the same manner, so you can know what it feels like.

    The result, in theory, is that you won’t do it again, or at least will think twice before you do. It tends to lead to a more civil online experience, imo, and that’s a good thing.

    I usually go with b) — it’s just quicker and more efficient, but I’ve employed a) also.

    And, let’s face it, it just feels good to see people get what they deserve — justice is a very powerful idea.

    You’re looking mighty foolish in that rixtir has been here for years and you’re a johnny-come-lately. (Try a search.)

    So, if you’ve been reading/commenting here for a long time, then anyone else who challenges assertions by those relatively-long term readers/commenters looks ‘mighty foolish’?

    Huh – why didn’t I think of that? Makes perfect sense.

    As for who has been here longer, I don’t think this is significant, unless somehow it is significant, and I don’t believe it is in this case, but I am genuinely curious to know who actually has been here longer — can you do a search for us, please? Thanks. I mean, we might as well establish some facts, right? If you need help, let me know, but I’ll probably be able to give you a pretty close starting date for myself — give or take a month — I just gotta do a bit of research.

    I’m pretty sure rixtir even lives here in Portland—fancy that!

    I’ve made the statement before that I’d be happy to consider slowing/stopping commenting if either this blog’s publishers/writers and/or one or more Portland locals (or really, anyone) decides that I should, for whatever reason.

    I came from California, and I gotta say you’re making a pretty good Californian caricature of yourself by flapping your cybergums in ignorance of this Oregon community’s pre-you history.

    What’s a Californian caricature of oneself? And what’s a caricature of myself? What does this statement mean? Are you saying that Jonathan is ignorant? Or this site? Or all Californians? Genuinely curious what you’re saying here, so please try to be clear about what you mean.

    And what is the ‘pre-me’ history here? I honestly don’t know. Or, I must not know, since you believe that is the case. I know there are all sorts of archives, and I probably know more about the site and its history than most readers/commenters, whether Portland locals or not, but please do let me know what you believe I’m ignorant about. I’d really like to understand your animosity towards me. (Not.) Thanks.

    I’m also curious how this ‘pre-me’ history of this site has betrayed me as a Californian-by-way-of-South Carolina caricature of my New Jersey-self? Or…is that a South Carolina-by-way-of-DC caricature of my New Jersey self — in California? And what does it all mean?

    You could stand to comment less and lurk more.

    This is quite possibly true.

    Now, @rixtir: Can you point to examples to flesh out what the “certain point” might be?

    Really? I didn’t know anyone was taking @rixtir’s words seriously. Seriously. The person is obviously capable of…something, but is also obviously hung up on…something. I have no idea what that is — that person is going to have to be more forthcoming about why they didn’t want to give up on the ‘self-defense is only self-defense until a certain point’ stuff. If there’s a reason, valid/justifying or otherwise, let’s have at it — what is it? Nobody’s perfect, but to attack a self-defense argument with such gusto, with so little imagination, suggests to me that the commenter is either seriously misinformed, or has had some personal self-defense trauma which is coloring their pov (not that this would be inherently wrong).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Alan October 2, 2010 at 2:19 am

    I don’t really know, and I suspect no one else here does either. We weren’t there. But just given the evidence as has been presented, with a van nearly knocking someone off the road and then stopping and two guys getting out, pissed about being spit at, and approaching the cyclist in a hostile way?

    The cyclist wasn’t jumping off his bike and trying to pull these guys out of their van. No, it went the other way. These two guys were definitely approaching the one guy, and likely in a very aggressive fashion. He defended himself.

    And you’re saying being rushed by hostile strangers is not enough grounds to defend oneself? That some invisible line hasn’t quite been crossed? At what point is it crossed? After they’ve actually started beating the crap out of you? How many blows does it take before you’re allowed to defend yourself?

    Again, the cyclist did not know if they had weapons. How could he? And it was two against one. And how do you know it was a “haymaker” ? Maybe he just held this piece of metal up in front of him to defend himself, and they rushed him, and he was just fending them off, and the metal hit one of them. Or something of the sort. That’s usually how it happens. Real life isn’t the movies. This probably wasn’t rock-em sock-em robots, but probably more like a bit of a scrum.

    What I’m saying is that when you’re attacked by people you don’t know with what appears to be bad intentions, you’re going to do what you can to protect yourself, and if that means picking up any hard object close at hand and waving it in front of you to ward them off, that’s what you’re going to do. Realistically.

    I really wonder what people who think the motorists have no fault would have done if they were the cyclist in this situation. If you have some bias against cyclists, take yourself out that and let’s say you were on foot or in a car and some other car nearly creams you. Do you just turn the other cheek? That would be the noble thing to do, but we’re human. Then say you spit at the car who nearly creamed you, and they jump out, and you’re on foot, or in a car but for some reason can’t drive away, say they have you cornered, and they approach you in a hostile way. What are you going to do? Try to talk sense to them? What if that doesn’t work?

    My point is not to defend the cyclist, as I think he crossed the line by spitting, but to say that the motorists have fault too.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Peter Smith October 2, 2010 at 2:39 am

    I think I was the one who started the ‘haymaker’ comment — that’s how I imagined/hoped it went. Maybe the driver’s and passenger’s defense attorney wants to weigh in on what really happened, tho??

    I did some prelim research on my time here at bikeportland.org — i think i’ve been reading since about October 2007 — not sure when the comments started — knowing me, i suspect it wasn’t long before i was weighing in.

    i wrote this on or before may, 2008:

    Every town deserves a BikePortland.org.

    that’s my baseline of remembering when i started reading bikeportland.org.

    i still find the challenge nonsensical, but to each their own.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Alan October 2, 2010 at 3:40 am

    I don’t regularly post here so I have no standing at all :)

    I wonder if someone has done any serious scholarly research on the citation balance in bicycle vs motor vehicle encounters (either accidents or road rage). It’s my perception anyway that the police are heavily biased in favor of autos, but it would be interesting to find out I’d it’s actually true, and if it is true, then just how heavily tilted they are.

    And with fights one can go all the way back to grade school playground logic. Usually both parties are at least somewhat at fault. Not always, but more often than not.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • cruiser October 2, 2010 at 7:05 am

    Glands frustration unfortunatly is a smear for all bicyclist.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Supercourse October 2, 2010 at 7:20 am

    And if anyone out there doesn’t believe Portland has a anti bike culture just listen to Lars Larson and that tripe a few days. Their out there…just lurking.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Red Five October 2, 2010 at 8:34 am

    Do you think the real anti-bike people are just angry they are too fat to ride?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • LoLwhut? October 2, 2010 at 9:23 am

    “He’s concerned that he’s the victim of an anti-bike culture in Portland…

    That was good for a belly laugh. Is he suffering some form of mental illness? Maybe he crashed without a helmet? I see no rational explanation for such a ridiculous statement.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jim October 2, 2010 at 9:44 am

    Is this one of the Hanson brothers from the movie Slapshot?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • WOBG October 2, 2010 at 11:54 am

    OK then, Peter Smith: Please stop commenting. You spew gallons of text yet contribute mere teaspoons to advance any discussion.

    Anyone second that?

    Jonathan, I feel for you: Narcissism as monumental as his dilutes your good work and can only undermine your livelihood over the long run. And that’s a losing scenario for all of us.

    And now, back to substantive discussion (I hope.) Sorry for the interruption.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Duncan October 2, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    WOBG
    Telling someone to shuttup in an open forum just makes you look stupid.

    My own opinion is that if this went to court and the defense attorney brought in the car that was used to run down the attacker and then show them the u lock, a reasonable person is going to assume that the self defense response was reasonable.

    Now I think spitting was way outta line, not to mention gross, but did that warrant getting run down and then attacked in a two on one situation? I dont think so.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • PoPo October 2, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    Rixtir, your comment #118 regarding legal uses of force for self-defense is very well written.

    Indeed, the reasoning for use of force is going to be different based on the particular circumstances of the situation, which are often complicated, subtle and changing.

    It often very difficult for outsiders to judge whether force was reasonable or legal without some background in criminal law and a complete understanding of all that happened leading up to and during the altercation, to include the subjective impressions of all parties involved as well as any evidence uncovered by an investigator. Such lengthy information is usually not included in a press release or a news article.

    But as you said, we have courts, judges and juries that take the time and effort to make such decisions.

    Anyone interested in seeing how such judgments are made should swing by the Multnomah County Court house and sit in on a trial. They are open to the public.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • William October 2, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    I have seen the “Keep Portland Weird” bumper-stickers; so I shouldn’t be surprised that in Portland spiting is a big time felony, but endangering a cyclist with a 3,000 lb metal Van is, well…, no big deal? Shouldn’t the police arrest the drivers too? Or better yet, the DA should drop the whole thing, save the taxpayers some money and let it go to civil court. (Digestive damage to the Van?)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe October 2, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    I had a white mini van incident of my own today on SE Holgate. A half full bottle of gatorade thrown at me, striking me on the chin. License plate 500cwj. I was riding on the sidewalk over the railroad tracks between 17th & 24th se holgate. Has been reported to non-emergency #.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • esther c October 2, 2010 at 6:35 pm

    spencer, your stories are irrelevent unless the cyclists you are talking about happen to be glen glans. what difference does it make if totally unrelated cyclists were rude or disobeyed traffic laws? That is why everyone is ignoring you.

    Same pretty much with other vehicles too.

    A car almost hit me, blah blah blah. Unless it was the van involved in the scenario above not very relevant to the story.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SkidMark October 2, 2010 at 7:35 pm

    So two people attack you and if you swing a U-lock in self-defense, you go to jail?

    It’s so obvious the Police are making an example of him for standing up to a car driver bullying him while he was riding a bike.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • middle of the road guy October 2, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    @75 Spare,

    I’m with you on that. I see one interesting facet here…..will there be a bias towards the elderly folks?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • middle of the road guy October 2, 2010 at 7:47 pm

    Skid, two elderly men got out of their car. That’s all we know. Maybe they just wanted to ask the guy what he was upset about.

    I personally have not heard of many septuagenarians running around looking for fights.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous October 2, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    Duncan, I’d agree with you—except in 119, Peter Smith offers to stop if two of us ask him to. You’ll need an eagle eye to find that part, but it’s there.

    So I’m just accepting his offer—and I hope you will, too.

    rixtir and PoPo: Thanks for sharing your expertise and advancing the discussion despite the slings and arrows.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • WOBG October 2, 2010 at 8:06 pm

    Duncan, I’d agree with you—except in 119, Peter Smith offers to stop if two of us ask him to. You’ll need an eagle eye to find that part, but it’s there.

    So I’m just accepting his offer—and I hope you will, too.

    rixtir and PoPo: Thanks for sharing your expertise and advancing the discussion despite the slings and arrows.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Marid October 2, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    Glen Glans. What an unfortunate name. If there was ever a name that should be changed, this is it. I’m sure your ancestors will forgive you.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Marid October 2, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    Glen Glans. What an unfortunate name. If there was ever a name that should be changed, this is it. I’m sure your ancestors will forgive you.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Perry Hunter October 2, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    On the whole – what an utterly crap thread. The trolls are out of control these days.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Peter Smith October 2, 2010 at 11:05 pm

    Wanted to add that my use of the word ‘allegedly’ — which has apparently greatly upset one or more people here — was modeled, in part, on Jim Rome’s use of the word. the wiki page describes it thusly:

    Sarcastic Humor – Rome’s takes frequently contain deadpan sarcasm, which some callers have complained about and/or misunderstood. For new listeners, interpreting when Rome is being sarcastic and when he’s serious is part of the show’s learning curve. Rome will use “allegedly” or “reportedly” in a sarcastic fashion when describing a story that is widely perceived to be true, but not journalistically or legally proven.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mike October 2, 2010 at 11:07 pm

    Enough with the cager B.S.!! Not everyone can afford the luxury of riding a bicycle to wherever we may go. Some of us pack up the kids, dog, bikes etc to go wherever it is safe to play. Sometimes the roads can be busy and, without malice, we may get too close as you ride in our blind spot. Take Care!!!!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan October 2, 2010 at 11:15 pm

    @ Mike 141…I think the problem is when the “blind spots” prevent drivers from seeing cyclists when overtaking them from the rear. When the “blind spot” covers the driver’s whole field of view from the front of the car, maybe you need to use a different term.

    And as far as not being able to afford “the luxury of riding a bicycle”, how much longer do you think we can afford the luxury of driving everywhere we go?

    Peter Smith, here’s a second born & raised Oregonian who would appreciate less posting and more lurking from you. Your comments on appropriate/safe riding technique on Portland streets you’ve never seen adds no value to the conversation.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mike October 2, 2010 at 11:22 pm

    Dan, If you are cruising along and see a car with their right blinker on, what do you do? I suppose you ignore it and power on through. Not a good idea.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mike October 2, 2010 at 11:37 pm

    Can we all assume this guy was wearing skinny pants and riding a fixie? Ah, come on, you all know you are thinking the same thing!!!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel October 3, 2010 at 12:07 am

    @141
    “i did not see the cyclist…they were in my blind spot” is like a cager get out of jail free card.

    i suggest that you turn your head the ef around and *look* into your blind spot. its your job to not injure or kill a vulnerable road user.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mike October 3, 2010 at 12:23 am

    Hey spare wheel, perhaps you can get off your skinny ass and get a job. Only the can you afford, and appreciate, the luxury of owning a car.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • WOBG October 3, 2010 at 12:29 am

    Peter Smith, there you have it: two of us, per your statement embedded deep within 119.

    Dan (currently 142, pending any moderation-queued comments): Thank you, thank you—though I’m only a seven-year Oregonian.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • WOBG October 3, 2010 at 12:50 am

    Mike, diplomacy ain’t spare_wheel’s long suit but he’s got a point: You gotta cover that blind spot by swiveling your head. It’s a duty that attends your choice to pilot a craft that has blind spots.

    But you’ve got a point about seeing a car with right blinker on. On my bike, I hang back out of the “kill zone”—but that often leads to a stalemate, with both of us waiting for each other and the next cager behind honking at us. Can’t win.

    –From a fellow part-time, blind-spotted cager

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Trek 3900 October 3, 2010 at 2:27 am

    I am glad the biker whipped their asses, but if you spit on someone or their car you might expect a violent response. It is a felony to spit on a policeman by the way (or to throw urine, feces, blood etc at them). May not be a felony to spit on a lowly citizen taxpayer.

    This whole thing is unfortunate but fact is if you get out on the street in a bike or a car SOMEONE is going to be offended by you, AND someone is going to offend you. There are too many vehicles on the roads, it is frustrating, people are pissed off, and sometimes incidents happen. Just be glad it was his first time – he’ll probably go to jail – if he’d been a drunk with 14 DUIs driving a car they would have let him go. But not this dude – he’s going to go to the slammer and make the streets safer for all of us as an example!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • steve October 3, 2010 at 7:18 am

    refering to Glen Glans picture above…he sure doesn’t look like he was assaulted…rather he looks like he’s off his meds or at least one dude with some serious social issues.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Alan October 3, 2010 at 7:47 am

    In a collision between two motor vehicles, where one changes course (eg changes lanes, turns, etc) and collides with another, how far does a “he was in my blindspot” defense get you?

    This isn’t to say that driving or riding in someone’s blindspot is a good idea, and in fact it’s living dangerously, like walking onto a crosswalk and just assuming oncoming or turning traffic is going to see you and stop.

    Regardless, we as drivers all have a responsibility to turn our head and look and make sure the coast is clear before making a move. Driving and NOT checking one’s blindspot is completely irresponsible and NOT a valid excuse.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SkidMark October 3, 2010 at 9:02 am

    I share a car with my wife so the whole idea that cyclists don’t own and drive cars is BS. I have a step-daughter that I have to taxi around, and groceries fit in the trunk better than in my backpack. I do however take the dog for a walk with my bicycle, so she can run, and be in better shape than she would sitting her ass in a car seat.

    I prefer to commute by bike, mostly because it is so infuriating to drive in Portland. Half of you aren’t paying attention when you make your unsignaled lane changes and even though you are in such a hurry to get to a red light you then sit there for 10 seconds after it turns green. At least on a bike i choose how much interaction I have with the average car driver, by using sharrowed sidestreets, bikes lanes, and bike paths.

    I don’t know where this “elderly” crap is coming from. If they were so old and decrepit then what are they doing getting out of their car to confront this cyclist? Also they had already swerved at him and hit him with their car so it was already self-defense before they decided to try to beat him up.

    As much as it sucks that it has to come to this I am glad he stood up to these car bullies and showed that not all of us are pussies. I love that they got spanked so hard that they had to call the cops. Big and mean behind the wheel but face to face they have to whine to the Police.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SkidMark October 3, 2010 at 9:08 am

    And to Allen I don’t think they let you fix your hair before your mug shot. And what, would you have big smile on your face when you get your mug shot taken, I think any of us would look a little pissed off. Especially, after getting the better of two attackers and seeing them walk away scot-free.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Racer X October 3, 2010 at 11:53 am

    To Mr. Middle of the Road Guy…

    …it is still a bike wilderness out on the streets in some areas…Portland still aint no A-dam.

    Unless you have drank the Portland koolaid and think all the streets are bikevana! ;-)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Peter Smith October 3, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    OK, @WoBG and @Dan,

    I considered your request and decline to accede to your wishes.

    But I do wish to see the quality of the comments here stepped back up, so I have a proposal:

    ***** PROPOSAL *****
    None of the three of us comments here on BikePortland.org for a period of at least one year starting today, or whenever you see this comment. You’re still free to read every day, post in the forums, post and comment on your own blog, on other folks’ blogs, etc.
    ********************

    If you accept my offer, then this my last comment here for one full calendar year. My next comment on this site will not be before October 03, 2011.

    And no ‘Anonymous’ commenting, @WOBG.

    Also, since this could be my last comment for a year, I need to add a note — my original use of ‘allegedly’ was, in fact, accurate, and my non-use to describe the van buzz was also, in fact, accurate. I suppose reasonable people could disagree about that, but these are the facts on the ground — or were the facts on the ground — as we knew them at the time. The van’s buzz was not in dispute — if a cyclist feels buzzed, then s/he was buzzed, almost by definition, and as i mentioned, bikers just don’t blow their lid for no reason — they blow their lid after they’ve almost been injured/maimed/killed. The cops and reporters apparently agree with me, so if you don’t like my use of the word ‘allegedly’, please take it up with them, or Webster’s.

    Now, about that self-imposed commenting ban — do we have a deal?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • WOBG October 3, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    Peter Smith, no deal. We actually ride Portland streets; you don’t.

    You’re under some delusion that from your San Jose vantage point you know better than us about our own fellow BikePortlanders and our own streets—to the extent that you harangue and alienate longtime constructive commenters as if *you* own the place and *they’re* interloping.

    You profess concern for the quality of comments, but you’re a one-man wrecking crew. You’re a troll.

    Please just get back on the meds if that’s what it takes—then simply lurk and learn here, and apply what you learn to your *own* region’s forums and streets.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • WOBG October 3, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    Or you know what, Peter Smith? Just carry on. I’ll follow BikePortland’s original posts—Jonathan’s work—by RSS feed only. I suggest the same for anyone else who’s had a belly full.

    Jonathan: Sorry—not sure how such consumption affects your business model.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • middle of the road guy October 3, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    @155 Racer…

    I said no such thing. You sure you got the right poster?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anthony October 3, 2010 at 7:57 pm

    –People blocking bike lanes deserve for their cars to be spit on.–Or I will cut off drivers and get in their way if I can, from the other story–Any body wonder why car drivers do not like bikers? Most bike riders are decent people but, then there are the few who wreck it for everyone.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • KWW October 4, 2010 at 10:19 am

    This will never fly, you can’t exit your vehicle and accost anyone. Self defense, Glans will get off.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Beefa October 4, 2010 at 11:08 am

    @ Anthony 161. Since I have been cut off and intentionally ran off the road by a driver, should anybody wonder why I hate all car drivers? That doesn’t make much sense does it? I totally disagree that the actions of a few “wreck it for everyone”. That is the most hollow argument I’ve ever heard. I find it entirely appropriate to defend oneself in this situation. I have done it before and I will do it again. Regardless what a jury says, it is my responsibility to protect myself. I will not curl up in a fetal position and wait for POPO to show up to save the day. Too bad Anthony, it looks like I’m going to defend myself and make you look bad in the process. Sucks for you.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel October 4, 2010 at 11:26 am

    @161
    the “breitbarting” of my quote is pathetic. i was referring to the small number of numbskulls who speed through bike boulevards on their morning commutes — not all motorists.

    @148
    i own a car. your gratitude for my cager subsidy is appreciated.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • BURR October 4, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    Peter Smith, stepping on another thread, you’d of thunk it?

    :rolleyes:

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tiffany October 4, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    @Beefa

    There are douches everywhere. Douchey drivers, douchey cyclists, douchey people. So it is a wonder that you hate all car drivers.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tiffany October 4, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    Also, who is Peter Smith? I am confused.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • El Biciclero October 4, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    “–People blocking bike lanes deserve for their cars to be spit on.–Or I will cut off drivers and get in their way if I can, from the other story–Any body wonder why car drivers do not like bikers? Most bike riders are decent people but, then there are the few who wreck it for everyone.”

    Anthony– maybe you should read some of the comments about cyclists that appear on other sites:

    “…it is getting to a point where Portland drivers need to outfit their cars ‘mad max’ style — so bikers bounce off instead of damaging auto body parts.”

    “It’s questionable whether a bicyclist is worth the expense of a .40 or .357 round.But! A large wrench or a tire thumper to get the rider’s full attention? Priceless!”

    “If it was me,I would of ran the biker off the road, little bastard”

    These comments are from the Oregonian’s site in response to a couple of recent stories relating to cyclists (the last two are in response to this same story over on their site). With comments like these, anybody wonder why cyclists might be wary and distrustful of drivers?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Pengo October 4, 2010 at 6:06 pm

    El Biciclero (168)

    While the sentiments expressed on the Oregonian site are vile, there are vile sentiments expressed on this site and in the comments sections of, well…every web forum ever. As someone who uses a bicycle for all of his transportation (and most of his recreation) needs, I don’t take those as reasons to be distrustful of drivers in general or as an indication that there is some sort of “anti-cycling culture” (perhaps run by the Bilderberg group!) in Portland. I take it as more of an indication that once you fire up the Internet Hate Machine, everybody’s free to be an anonymous idiot.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Alan October 4, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    Skidmark said: And to Allen I don’t think they let you fix your hair before your mug shot …”

    Since I’m the only Alan (or Allen) who has posted on this thread, I gotta figure you’re talking to me, and you have it wrong. I never said anything about the man’s mug shot.

    In fact, I agree with you on this point. No one should judge a person based on such a photo. Ridiculous.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Alan October 4, 2010 at 6:37 pm

    And for the record, my main point here continues to be:

    Why don’t they charge the motorists too? It takes two, or in this case, three, to tango. And, this is one of those cases where it escalated unnecessarily into a confrontation by both parties taking aggressive actions at seemingly every turn.

    Personally, as both a driver and a cyclist, I tend to side with the cyclist. A wrong (intentional or not) by the drivers was followed by a wrong (intentional) by the cyclist. But, importantly, the drivers were never physically threatened, while the cyclist was. That’s where it should have stopped.

    Instead the drivers escalated the situation by stopping their vehicle and getting out and approaching the cyclist in an aggressive way. In my opinion, that’s where this went haywire.

    And, to explain why the cops don’t bust drivers, and why there’s a definite anti-cyclist mentality out there, I think it comes down to this:

    1) cyclists tend to be both drivers and cyclists – we see both sides

    yet

    2) there’s a large class of drivers (including most cops) who never walk (ride) in the moccasins of cyclists

    Therein lies the rub …

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • cruiser October 4, 2010 at 8:50 pm

    Look people here’s the deal…
    According to the PPB, at about 9:30 a.m. Thursday morning, 34 year-old Glen Glans spit into the passenger window of a van near the intersection of NE 20th and Irving because he “believed the van drove too close to him as he rode his bike.” Glans was riding northbound on 20th and as the van turned left (westbound) onto Irving, the police say that Glans rode past and spit into the van. Then, both the driver and the passenger of the van got out and the three “were involved in an altercation.”

    Now I don’t know about the rest of you folks but if someone SPAT into my vehicle, on my bike, at me, or God forbid on me…I’d confront, kick ass, and see that they were hauled to jail.
    Apparently Glands THOUGHT this Van was too close and the nasty bastard spat into someone’s window. Everything else is simply what Gland’s had coming. Period.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel October 4, 2010 at 11:13 pm

    @pengo
    the car head doth protest too much. please link to a single post here where a bike portland commenter threatens to kill or maim a motorist. there is ABSOLUTELY no equivalent among cyclists. the pathological hate for cyclists is an exclusively “cajaaaaa” phenomenon.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Alan October 5, 2010 at 2:26 am

    Except that the van people, not Glans, got their butts kicked.

    And yeah, I wouldn’t be too happy if someone spit into my window. I also wouldn’t be too happy if someone tried to run me off the road.

    It’s weird how people keep trying to turn this case where obviously both parties are at fault into a good guy-bad guy situation.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Pete October 5, 2010 at 9:00 am

    Pengo (#169): Dead on, you nailed it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • El Biciclero October 5, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Pengo–
    “[O]nce you fire up the Internet Hate Machine, everybody’s free to be an anonymous idiot.”

    This is pretty much the point I was (perhaps clumsily) attempting to make to “Anthony”, and earlier, to “Spencer”: anyone on either side of a debate can usually point to examples of how the other side deserves any scorn/derision/punishment/assault/death they might get, because, well, just look how they are!

    What we should be looking at, as spare_wheel alludes to, is who has the actual destructive power to back up their anonymous idiocy, and whether anyone actually suffers harm because of it…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anthony October 5, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    Beefa #163 I didn’t say roll over and die I will defend myself too. Guaranteed somebody wanting to assault me will not get within ten feet of me.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kevin Wagoner October 6, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    I am not sure what to make of this story. It does seem to be a reminder to not lose your cool out there, escalating the situation (spitting) can result in these kinds of messes. Like Beth I ride in this area daily. I’ve never ridden with Glen so I don’t know what kind of a rider he is or attitude he carries when he rides. I have however talked to Glen on several occasions and have always thought he is very nice dude. So I hope things don’t turn out too bad for him. He has had a couple of killer bikes in the past!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • draketl October 12, 2010 at 9:30 am

    @cruiser: “According to the PPB” as reported by the Oregonian! There is way too much information missing from any of the reports on this incident! I can attest to the FACT that ” Glen Glans spit into the passenger window of a van” and “Glands THOUGHT this Van was too close” are just two of the fallacies printed/reported and, although I do not condone his knee jerk reaction of spitting at/on anyone/anything, IF you had the facts, your passionate may not be to “confront, kick ass, and see that they were hauled to jail,” rather to make a comment that would contribute to road safety in Portland!
    To anyone else who has offered some understanding of Glen’s unfortunate situation, whether in agreement or not, but without using the childish insults I’ve seen posted: First, I would like to thank you for your support or simply being rational about this matter and, secondly, I would invite you to help him out by writing to the Editor’s of your local newspapers; TV news programs, etc. Maybe contacting someone @ BikePortland to find out the most effective means of supporting him without inadvertently hindering his case would be appropriate or, as someone else put it, “if the portland bike community is worth its salt, it’ll drop a phone call to their city councilpersons, the mayor, and the DA’s office.” I make this request to you w/a sense of urgency!
    @Joe: It will be interesting to see if that license plate matches the one involved here! Thanks for posting that!
    Here’s hopin’ that everyone learns to share the roads in a respectful, careful manner!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • cruiser October 14, 2010 at 9:34 am

    I stand beside my comments previously made 10-4-10. cruiser

    October 4th, 2010
    Look people here’s the deal…
    According to the PPB, at about 9:30 a.m. Thursday morning, 34 year-old Glen Glans spit into the passenger window of a van near the intersection of NE 20th and Irving because he “believed the van drove too close to him as he rode his bike.” Glans was riding northbound on 20th and as the van turned left (westbound) onto Irving, the police say that Glans rode past and spit into the van. Then, both the driver and the passenger of the van got out and the three “were involved in an altercation.”

    Now I don’t know about the rest of you folks but if someone SPAT into my vehicle, on my bike, at me, or God forbid on me…I’d confront, kick ass, and see that they were hauled to jail.
    Apparently Glands THOUGHT this Van was too close and the nasty bastard spat into someone’s window. Everything else is simply what Gland’s had coming. Period.

    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.