home

Woman arrested after hit-and-run injures two riders on Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway

Posted by on July 21st, 2014 at 3:39 pm

Intersection of Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway and 50th.

The Portland Police Bureau have arrested a woman who drove her car into two people that were bicycling on Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway Saturday night.

30-year-old Jasmine Zamora and 25-year-old Cameron Duff were riding home from a track race at at Alpenrose Dairy when the collision occurred. Zamora is active in the local track racing scene. She had won the Women’s Pursuit race at the Alpenrose Velodrome Challenge on Friday.

Zamora and Duff were traveling west east on Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway between 50th and 45th (we have conflicting reports on the exact intersection) when 32-year-old Lisa Lynn Vesely drove her car into them then drove away without stopping.


Zamora was riding behind Duff and suffered the worst injuries. She was taken to OHSU and treated for “non-life-threatening” injuries while Duff was treated at treated at the scene for cuts and scrapes. A friend of Zamora’s, who contacted us via email, reported that luckily she suffered no broken bones but “she’s still very rattled.”

According the riders’ friend, Zamora and Duff were operating their bicycles legally prior to the collision. “They were well inside an established bike lane, and had every right to be there.” The friend rolled up on the scene 10 minutes after it happened.

According to a PPB statement released a few minutes ago, Duff and a witness told police that Vesely drove back by the crash scene, then sped away again before police got there. Luckily, someone followed her home.

Here’s more from the statement:

“A witness later flagged down police and told officers that they followed the suspect vehicle to a residence in the 5700 block of Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway.

Officers responded to that location, seized the vehicle and, after additional investigation, arrested Vesely for the hit and run crash.”

Vesely was arrested shortly after 10:00 pm and booked in jail on charges of Assault in the Third Degree, Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII), Failure to Perform the Duties of a Driver, and two counts of Reckless Endangerment.

Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy has buffered bike lanes in this location. They were installed in December 2013 as part of PBOT’s High Crash Corridor program.

This case has been forwarded to the Multnomah County District Attorney’s office where remains under investigation.


Email This Post Email This Post


Gravatars make better comments... Get yours here.
Please notify the publisher about offensive comments.
Comments
  • Bjorn July 21, 2014 at 3:56 pm

    Once again the reason why people flee the scene of an accident is because they are drunk. The penalty for hit and run should be higher than the penalty for drinking and driving because it is very rare that someone flees the scene when they aren’t intoxicated.

    Recommended Thumb up 56

    • Bella Bici July 21, 2014 at 7:04 pm

      Well, this was just signed by the governor in Florida: Aaron Cohen Life Protection Act (Thanks to Pete for posting this in this week’s Monday Roundup.)

      The law was passed exactly for circumstances such as these. Sickening. When will Oregon enact these needed penalties?

      Recommended Thumb up 14

    • wsbob July 21, 2014 at 11:52 pm

      “Once again the reason why people flee the scene of an accident is because they are drunk. …” Bjorn

      Or scared, depressed or under stress, or who knows why. Probably friends, family, or the police having interviewed her, better than us reading about the incident here on bikeportland.

      At any rate, the act sounds to be hardly defensible, if at all. Apparently though drunk, according to this story, not drunk enough to just keep on driving instead of coming back for a pass by to get some idea of condition the people she collided with were in.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • estherc July 22, 2014 at 9:50 am

      Hit and run should be considered “refusal to take the mandatory blood or breathalyzer” as well.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Josh Lamborn July 23, 2014 at 6:47 am

      The penalty for for hit and run when someone is injured is higher than duii. It is a felony and punishable by up to five years in prison while a first time duii is a misdemeanor punishable up to one year in jail. Those are just the maximums however, so if she has no prior convictions and the injuries are minor she will likely receive probation on both.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Bjorn July 24, 2014 at 1:38 pm

        When Amy Stack killed Robin Jensen in Corvallis she fled and did less than 9 months of what was supposed to be a 2 year sentence. If she had stayed at the scene and been found to be intoxicated (she had at least one recent prior DUI) she would have definately done more time.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

  • 9watts July 21, 2014 at 3:57 pm

    Thanks to the person who followed her home. This could have gone very differently without that bit of initiative.

    Recommended Thumb up 68

  • Andy K July 21, 2014 at 4:18 pm

    Back in December I said this was the best safety improvement in the metro area per dollar spent. Those two feet may have just saved two lives. http://bikeportland.org/2013/12/02/first-look-new-buffered-bike-lanes-on-beaverton-hillsdale-highway-97978#comment-4480537

    Keep it up PBOT!

    Recommended Thumb up 17

    • paikiala July 22, 2014 at 12:10 pm

      What would be the risk/reward for rumble strips in the buffer – just curious to get other’s perspective?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Andy K July 22, 2014 at 2:06 pm

        Great suggestion – between the stripes would be an outstanding spot for rumble strips, especially since there are very few bikes taking left turns for the ~2.3 miles of roadway. (Forcing a bike to cross rumble strips is a bigtime no-no, which you already knew).

        HOWEVER – I do not recommend rumble strips an urban setting like this. Hundreds of public and private driveways and frequent bus service would require many gaps in the rumble strips and the installation work would be tedious. On top of that, these depressions in the pavement cause small ponds and decrease the overall life of the pavement even when fog seal is applied.

        Maybe you can use the money you were going to spend on rumbles and fog sealing for another buffered lanes project. :)

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • paikiala July 22, 2014 at 3:58 pm

          I don’t follow how urban has anything to do with it. The only place the rumble strips would drop is at intersections. The point of rumble strips is to alert unaware motorists that they are leaving their lane, something very important when they are traveling 60 feet per second or more.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Andy K July 22, 2014 at 11:05 pm

            I’m with you paikiala, I think rumble strips would work in many buffered lane situations and it’s an awesome idea, but you’re not going to get very many in on BHH. Rumbles should not be placed within 100ft on both sides of a private or public driveway, and I definitely wouldn’t want them within 250ft of a bus stop (on either side). Buses on rumble strips are bad for the pavement, uncomfortable for the passengers, and cause unwanted noise for passengers, peds, and nearby residents. And the biker that has to leave his lane to pass? He’s the maddest of them all.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • paikiala July 23, 2014 at 8:50 am

              Do you have an official reference for those standards, or are they personal opinion? Rumble strips can be cut into pavment, or raised up from it, and don’t have to be continuous. How about a 2 ft section with a 10 ft gap? I don’t get the objection to driveways and bus stops. Motorists should not be using the bike lane to make a turn, and turning across a rumble strip at low speed makes little noise. IMHO, if you choose to live next to a high-speed roadway, road noise is also something you’ve chosen.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Todd Boulanger July 21, 2014 at 4:28 pm

    Thanks for the quick thinking of the witnessing driver who took the initiative to follow the perpetrator.

    It is less typical for drivers to get caught fleeing a collision with a bicycle since the car has less damage (is more drivable than if it hit another motor vehicle) and the witness (the bicyclist) is often dead or unconscious.

    Recommended Thumb up 15

  • Joe July 21, 2014 at 4:32 pm

    glad someone chased the car down… hope they are well and heal fast, was on that road few weeks back ppl drive fast and wreckless..

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Paul Atkinson July 21, 2014 at 4:37 pm

    My wife tends to allow an unlimited budget for only a couple things, and one of them is bike safety gear. The other is kilts, but that’s not super relevant.

    http://fly6.com/

    This is a combination taillight and video camera. It shoots 720p video of proceedings behind you, stores a 4-hour loop (more if you put a bigger card in), and if it senses the bike go down it’ll stop after an hour automatically. Plug and play, USB rechargeable…very easy.

    Reading too many hit-and-run stories is why I got one of those. Until I have an accident it was just an expensive taillight, but should one occur it’ll pay for itself twenty times over.

    Recommended Thumb up 12

    • Todd Boulanger July 21, 2014 at 6:47 pm

      You may have more tools in the tool box than you think…Kilts may have a traffic calming / bike avoidance effect for many local drivers.

      (Sounds like a great PSU study…like the UK study of drivers giving less space to riders with spandex/ helmets.)

      Recommended Thumb up 8

      • q`Tzal July 22, 2014 at 12:43 am

        Still think we need a bike jersey that says “Stay back 500′ failed DEQ emissions test”.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Pete July 21, 2014 at 10:32 pm

      Timely – I think you mentioned this in reply to my comment elsewhere and I couldn’t find it but was looking for that this morning. Thanks! (I’m also shopping for a formal kilt for my wedding but that’s another story).

      I do like that these lanes are buffered, but they also lack the diagonal hashing that some buffers include that have been shown to have a slowing effect and increased visible definition of the lane. I know, I’m a broken record…

      More on topic, my best wishes to Cameron and Jasmine for speedy and full recovery.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • LM July 22, 2014 at 7:59 am

      I just looked at the link you posted for the Fly6 taillight/camera. Great idea! I sent the company an e-mail to see if QBP or any other U.S. distributors have it yet. Thanks for the link as it’s a product I hadn’t seen before.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • K'Tesh July 22, 2014 at 11:45 am

      Thanks for sharing the link…

      If anybody is looking for something to get me for my birthday (or any other day), this would do nicely.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • K'Tesh July 22, 2014 at 11:47 am

        “Thanks for sharing the link… If anybody is looking for something to get me for my birthday (or any other day), this would …”

        (my post was directed at Paul Atkinson)… I hate how this replies get linked to the wrong comment.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jeff July 21, 2014 at 4:50 pm

    Hopefully they take her to civil court and sue her grandchildren into poverty for whatever they can get.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • 9watts July 21, 2014 at 4:53 pm

      I don’t think retribution is necessary or helpful. But doing whatever it takes to discourage others from driving in this manner, endangering other road users, seems very worthwhile.

      Recommended Thumb up 19

      • jeff July 21, 2014 at 8:11 pm

        that’s your opinion. civil action would be a high priorit on my personal list. I doubt this woman will learn from a single night in jail and early release due to overcrowding.

        Recommended Thumb up 7

        • 9watts July 21, 2014 at 8:17 pm

          You can’t lock everyone up. That would be ridiculous. The point is to create a system in which people who might do things that lead to these outcomes realize that they can’t & shouldn’t; that the consequences are too high. We know how to do this, to prioritize around this larger question. Whether Lisa Vesely gets this message is in my view secondary to how this case is handled with an eye to how it communicates the severity of driving in this manner to everyone else who might find themselves in her shoes some day.

          Recommended Thumb up 8

          • Spiffy July 22, 2014 at 11:56 am

            “You can’t lock everyone up.”

            But you can lock up the violent ones like this one. I think that would be a good disincentive to driving impaired.

            Recommended Thumb up 5

            • Bjorn July 22, 2014 at 1:19 pm

              I’d much rather see the kind of violent psychopath that could leave someone lying in the street to die in jail than someone who sold some weed near a school. People like this should be our highest priority for prison, dangerous behavior combined with zero concious or empathy.

              Recommended Thumb up 6

              • Scott H July 22, 2014 at 2:13 pm

                Unfortunately, our justice system is flawed in this way. Which circles us back to monetary retribution. I would personally do everything in my power to drive the point home that hitting someone and fleeing the scene is a sick, sick twisted thing to do.

                Recommended Thumb up 2

              • wsbob July 22, 2014 at 11:26 pm

                “I’d much rather see the kind of violent psychopath that could leave someone lying in the street to die in jail than someone who sold some weed near a school. …” Bjorn

                You didn’t include her name in the above excerpt, but there’s little question that you’re thinking of Lisa Lynn Vesely. Also that you’ve already jumped to the conclusion that the reason for her actions, is that she’s a violent psychopath. I’m thinking, what does that say, not about her, but about you as a person.

                The police will investigate, and Vesely may even be obliged to have a psych evaluation at some point along the court proceedings, out of which, some idea of what about her state of mental well being may have contributed to her actions on the road.

                If and when, by qualified professionals, she’s found to be a violent psychopath, then fine, call her that. Until then, for everyone, I think it’s well advised to try use a little restraint, and not imprudently say things to feed the flames of unthinking hysteria.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

              • Aaron August 5, 2014 at 1:36 pm

                I would have to agree with the calls for serious retribution (jail time or preferably high fines). Not for the sake of revenge, but for the lesson it would teach this individual and the stories she would tell to others. Taking away her license would be exceptionally worthwhile

                Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Jeff July 22, 2014 at 3:38 pm

            where did I say “lock her up”…I said “sue the hell out of her”.

            but your big-picture, PC view of the situation does little to financially compensate the two riders who were hit for their time lost, medical bills, future losses, etc. Time is money, and his woman just stole a lot of it from two people.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • Caleb July 22, 2014 at 8:55 pm

              In the post 9watts was responding to, you didn’t say “lock her up”, but you did mention she would not “learn” from “a night in jail and early release due to overcrowding”, so his comment was certainly relevant. Just curious, but on what basis do you claim 9watts’s view is politically correct? Is a desire to be politically correct the only possible thing that could inspire his comment? In the future, I hope you can address others’ arguments rather than dismiss them via characterization. He was expanding on the discussion, and you effectively quelled that expansion as if it were a misplaced, direct response to the first comment you made.

              His view may do little to financially compensate the bicyclists, but by requiring the driver’s grandchildren to compensate them, we would also create a deficit for people who had no involvement in the collision. How does that reconcile with whatever framework of equality or justice that demands the cyclists be financially compensated by the driver for their losses?

              Also, time is not money. Time is time. Money is money. Nothing other than time is time. Nothing other than money is money. If time were money, then everyone would be rich/poor, because all any of us have is now. Nobody can steal the time anyone else has, though anyone can influence what experiences other peoples’ time involves. I realize you were using a figure of speech, but I rebut it, because in my opinion humanity in general has an unhealthy obsession with money (whether inspired by greed, fear, or whatever else), one that less “thoughtful” people may not notice when their minds are stuck on such oversimplifying platitudes.

              Recommended Thumb up 1

            • 9watts July 22, 2014 at 9:17 pm

              Jeff,
              we know that a criminal justice approach that is based on vengeance, retribution, punishment doesn’t work. If it worked we here in the US wouldn’t have the world’s highest rate of incarceration, never mind recidivism. If you think a critique of this can be dismissed as PC, perhaps our chances of continuing this in a productive manner are slim.

              Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Mossby Pomegranate July 21, 2014 at 6:34 pm

      THROW THE BOOK AT HER.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Caleb July 21, 2014 at 11:11 pm

      Before making that comment, did you consider the potential behavior those grandchildren might take to in poverty? Or the complete injustice of punishing someone for something they had no part in?

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • wsbob July 22, 2014 at 12:08 am

      The inclination to revenge can be dangerous. This collision reminds me a bit of the one having occurred several years ago on Canyon Rd between West Slope and Sylvan. Drunk woman driver with passengers, speeding, crosses into the opposing lane, collides with and kills a mom and her son. It’s worth reading about for anyone willing to dig up the stories in the O and maybe here on bikeportland.

      Totally irresponsible, reckless action. Extremely traumatic, for the most part, irreparable damage all the way around. After an intensive investigation and a trial, people knew the person and what brought the person to do what they did. As a result, the driver got a big sentence.

      In this incident so far, little is known about the person driving that collided with the people on their bikes. So, as tempting as it may be to allow feelings of outrage to find expression in stated wishes that the worst should happen to the person driving, for now, some restraint here would be better.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Spiffy July 22, 2014 at 11:57 am

        I judge people based on their actions, not their feelings…

        Recommended Thumb up 2

    • meh July 22, 2014 at 7:23 am

      How very North Korean of you. We must punish three generations.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

    • paikiala July 22, 2014 at 12:13 pm

      Jeff, why penalize her grandchildren? How about we hold you responsible for your father’s mistakes?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • davemess July 21, 2014 at 5:19 pm

    Not to belabor the point, but that location doesn’t make any sense (which I know you admitted). That would be going towards Alpenrose (West towards Shattuck), unless they were doing an extended cool down or something.

    Regardless this is bad news. I rode BHH every day for the year we lived in the area and it was always a little bit nerve wracking (and this was pre “buffered” bike lanes).

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Dwaine Dibbly July 21, 2014 at 5:21 pm

    I hope the Prosecutor throws the book at her, picks the book up, throws it at her again, then sends an intern to go get more books. Why wasn’t she charged under the vulnerable roadway user law? All of those charges listed about should be two counts, shouldn’t they?

    Recommended Thumb up 16

    • paikiala July 22, 2014 at 12:14 pm

      The DA determines what to charge. it’s a double jeopardy thing.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • wsbob July 22, 2014 at 10:43 pm

      Oregonlaws.org has the laws available to easily read. Here’s the link to ‘reckless endangerment’ one of the laws Lisa Lynn Vesely is reportedly charged with violating. It doesn’t have a vulnerable road user provision:

      http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.195

      Vesely wasn’t charged with ‘careless driving’, section (3) of which, seeks to implement additional penalties and remedies in the event a vulnerable road user has been affected by someone’s careless driving:

      http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/811.135

      Those of us reading here can speculate, but better, would be to hear from the PD or the DA, their reasoning for why Vesely wasn’t charged with careless driving. There’s also a ‘reckless driving’ law, 811.140, but it also does not have a vulnerable road user provision.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Joe July 21, 2014 at 5:24 pm

    yes broadcast this!! but pubic tv only really bashes the person outside an auto.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Peter Drake July 21, 2014 at 5:32 pm

    She has a number of beer photos and drinking related status updates on facebook. https://www.facebook.com/lisa.vesely

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Pete July 22, 2014 at 10:59 am

      I can’t see updates as I’m not on FB, but it does show “Bike Riding” under her selection for “Sports” on her public profile.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Nick July 21, 2014 at 5:42 pm

    This is my neighborhood and I’m embarassed by BHH. Worse than Barbur since its notoriously high-speed traffic is compounded by even more stores and neighborhood streets dumping traffic into the corridor. The buffered bike lane gets some positive press, but an extra 2 feet of air doesn’t soften the blow from a 40 mph auto collision. This is the only relatively flat route throught the area, so obviously it is attractive for bicycle use. The comparatively few cyclists I see on it, however, speaks volumes about its overall continued lack of appeal.
    PBOT (or is it ODOT?) can keep their extra paint and instead buy some new lower speed limit signs and traffic enforcement. As it stands, Beaverton Hillsdale HIGHWAY lives up to its name.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • Todd Boulanger July 21, 2014 at 6:45 pm

      Perhaps a new name is thus needed: The “Beaverton Hillsdale [Hell]way”

      Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Spiffy July 22, 2014 at 12:01 pm

      whenever I drive on BHH I feel like everybody hates me because I’m doing the speed limit and people are on my ass and passing my doing 10+ mph over the limit… it’s in serious need of traffic calming and enforcement…

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • wsbob July 23, 2014 at 10:12 pm

      For biking, there’s better routes than BH Highway, for example, Vermont and Garden Home road. Not as straight through, but the climb is similar, less traffic, slower, more pleasant to ride. BH Highway has always been a highway, and it’s probably always going to be a highway.

      If you’d like the motor vehicle speeds to be slower than posted, you can hope for increases in people using the road with their motor vehicles, creating the creeping pace level of congestion conditions existing during rush hour on roads such as Hwy 217 or I-5 Portland and Vancouver.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • davemess July 25, 2014 at 1:30 pm

        Except that Vermont is probably sketchier to ride west of 45th (no shoulder, decent traffic load, small hills creating bad sight lines). And both of the options you listed are not practical for someone who lives around or north of BHH.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Joe July 21, 2014 at 8:03 pm

    haha hellway awesome!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe July 21, 2014 at 8:04 pm

    such a straight shot to catch the curves tho.. can we get a few less cars pls.. :)

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • q`Tzal July 21, 2014 at 8:29 pm

    Often in situations like this there is a positive impulse to collect money to help the injured party. I’m sure that could never hurt.

    What stands out in this situation was the uninvolved 3rd party volunteering to be a material witness in such a way as to ensure positive identification and almost certainly a conviction. This does not usually happen.

    While I’d prefer a society where people would automatically stand up for the weak and/or injured empirical evidence plainly shows it ain’t so.

    As mercurial & mercenary as it may seem in light of a singular event it might make some good difference if we (the nebulous “bike” community) had a fund to reward witnesses who came forward with solid evidence thay leads to a conviction

    Get a few thousand bicycle riders to pay in $1 per month, invest it in slow “safe” bonds, have the fund and payouts administered by a pro-bike legal firm and offer rewards in the $5,000 – $10,000 range for witnesses that are willing to step forward and testify to what they saw.

    It’s ridiculous and sad that we’ve come to a place like this but the only reason this article stands out from all the others is because an uninvolved 3rd party stepped up and did good for no reward.

    Imagine how many more we could get with a little cash incentive.
    Imagine how paranoid absent-minded drivers might be about helmet cameras.
    Now imagine what $10,000 does to an average person’s willingness to rat out a driver who does something injurious when the witnessing driver doesn’t know for certain who is at fault.
    Only so many people can afford helmet cameras; our roads

    Recommended Thumb up 9

    • q`Tzal July 21, 2014 at 8:37 pm

      … our roads are full of people who wouldn’t turn down a few thousand dollars for anything.
      It could potentially cause a lot of drivers to rethink their driving habits.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Pete July 21, 2014 at 10:39 pm

        This is not a bad idea at all!! I wonder if it could be managed under the coffers of a non-profit bike coalition like the BTA? If you don’t mind, I might have to ‘borrow’ this idea to float by our local coalition (SVBC).

        The Florida law caught my eye this morning because I have a friend by the same name living in Portland so I was concerned. Last spring I lost a friend to a hit-and-run who was also followed by a concerned witness. The young driver wasn’t drunk; it was believed she was texting and I know her cell phone records were examined by police (our neighbor and riding buddy is on the force), but unfortunately she was never prosecuted (!!). The witnesses claimed she swerved off the roadway and onto the wide shoulder, and they confronted her at a coffee shop where she stopped a few blocks away. She said she was scared, they stayed with her while she called her father, and they accompanied her back to the grisly scene and waited for her dad. My friend was taken away alone, but the witnesses advertised in the paper that they were willing to be involved in any prosecution. I contacted them and put the investigators in touch with them (through my neighbor), but my friend was a lone Polish immigrant with no family here so no civil suit was ever launched.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • q`Tzal July 22, 2014 at 12:38 am

          Steal away :)
          If my evil ideas can be used for the betterment of mankind then dy-no-mite.

          Recommended Thumb up 5

        • estherc July 23, 2014 at 10:41 am

          The cops and prosecutors identify with “the poor kid who made a mistake”. They’ve got teen sons and daughters that text too much too. They don’t have family members that ride bikes.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Spiffy July 22, 2014 at 12:05 pm

        “our roads are full of people who wouldn’t turn down a few thousand dollars for anything.”

        yep, they would lie about anything to anybody…

        I’d rather not pay to encourage people to lie in your favor…

        same reason I would never offer somebody a deal on jail-time/prosecution for their testimony…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • q`Tzal July 22, 2014 at 12:55 pm

          That’s why it would be administered by a law firm and not pay unless the “evidence” held up in court.

          Would this prevent all potential false claims: no way!
          Like all rule changes involving money it merely shifts the impetus for gaming the system to a different area.
          The logical disconnect occurs when we propose that any new paradigm is worse than the carnage and corruption we have now.

          Perhaps my suggestion here might make things worse but to do nothing to attempt to change what occurs now is tantamount to endorsing all the harm that occurs now as just the cost of living.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

    • LM July 22, 2014 at 8:09 am

      I don’t remember which country does this, but someplace out there uses red light and speeding camera fines to pay incentives to drivers who don’t speed or run red lights. It was some type of random system where good drivers got surprise checks in the mail. Incentivize good behavior as well as penalizing bad.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Caleb July 22, 2014 at 9:05 pm

      I wonder about the possibility of online crowd funding for people who suffer injuries brought upon them by others’ reckless and/or careless and/or malignant behavior. A single dollar from tens of thousands of people across the country and world could make a huge difference.

      Hell, why don’t we just crowd fund everyone’s lives? :)

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Pete July 21, 2014 at 10:42 pm

    Man, to start off the day with a video like that so-called ‘cop’ posted, and then to see this horrible news, I’m gonna have nightmares tonight. Maybe this lady watched that thing?? Sorry, I shouldn’t speculate – just thankful not the worst possible outcome, and hopeful that there’s quick and full recovery – and justice served.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Tom July 22, 2014 at 11:19 am

    Hit and Run: Lifetime drivers license revocation.
    DUI first offense: Lifetime drivers license revocation.

    Driving is a privilege, not a right.

    Think they will drive anyway. Maybe not for long. Portland police now scan 128,000 license plates a day with automated plate scanners. But they are mostly looking for stolen cars. We need them to start looking for cars owned by people with suspended or revoked licenses. This would make it very difficult to drive with a suspended or revoked license.

    http://www.kgw.com/news/Portland-Police-scan-128000-license-plates-a-day-216090771.html

    Recommended Thumb up 10

    • estherc July 23, 2014 at 10:37 am

      Why are people with suspended or revoked licenses allowed to own cars? Take away their tags and registration.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • q`Tzal July 24, 2014 at 2:07 pm

        Seizing private property is legally problematic.

        I’m all for those 1960′s era Star Trek shock collars being required of convicted dangerous drivers; if you so much as touch the controls or sit down in the driver’s seat POW!

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • El Biciclero July 24, 2014 at 3:00 pm

          What happens to the firearm found in the possession of a felon? Does Law Enforcement tell them to go home and put it back in the safe? Or does it get confiscated? Cars being driven by revoked or suspended drivers should be treated as contraband. Until it becomes legal here, what happens if a non-medical-mj-card-holder gets caught with pot? Is it seized? What happens if a Siberian Tiger is found in a cage in your back yard? I don’t have any experience here, but what happens if you bag a deer without a hunting license and get caught by Fish & Wildlife? Do they fine you and let you keep it, or take it away? You either have a valid license or you don’t—if you don’t, and are in possession of the thing you aren’t licensed for, it shouldn’t be a legal problem to get it taken away. Maybe it is currently, but if so, that needs to change.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • q`Tzal July 24, 2014 at 4:08 pm

            A lot of this comes down to relative cost and real ownership.

            What happens to the firearm? AND what happens if a non-medical-mj-card-holder gets caught with pot?
            These are relatively inexpensive items (usually) and are out priced by automobile ownership by 10x-100x the cost. Confiscating a “38 special” or a dime bag of weed is nothing compared to the financial loss of a car sold in the last 10 years.
            This probably would be covered under the 8th Amendment as “unusual punishment”. If the goal is to financially punish former driver then the punishment should be a large fine; it is then up to that person how they come up with the money. If the goal is to prevent them from driving an automobile and they refuse to stop you are going to have to confine them to jail, house arrest or get all sci-fi on their a$$.

            What happens if a Siberian Tiger is found in a cage in your back yard?
            These are a clear and present danger if the owner does not have proper training and good equipment. If there were no prior laws and the owner is compliant everybody is just gonna have to stop whining. If a dangerous animal got loose the same laws that apply to aggressive dogs should apply. If the owner brought in an animal that is illegal to own in that area the law can require that they remove it but mere governmental confiscation doesn’t remove it from the area.

            what happens if you bag a deer without a hunting license and get caught by Fish & Wildlife? Do they fine you and let you keep it, or take it away?
            The deer didn’t belong to you in the first place. I’d guess they fine you AND take it away.

            Cars being driven by revoked or suspended drivers should be treated as contraband.
            ….
            You either have a valid license or you don’t—if you don’t, and are in possession of the thing you aren’t licensed for, it shouldn’t be a legal problem to get it taken away. Maybe it is currently, but if so, that needs to change.

            See, the thing is that I agree 100% that reckless drivers should not be allowed to drive an automobile. Not owning a vehicle is a poor deterrent and an arbitrary punishment where a simple monetary fine will do.

            If a husband (with partner and children) loses his licence do We The People confiscate the only vehicle a family owns imposing hardships upon the innocent members of the family in your personal desire for cathartic revenge?
            The law and its punishments are meant to be dispassionate so we avoid emotional overkill and the inevitable cycle of retribution.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • El Biciclero July 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm

              Maybe my other examples weren’t completely apropos, but in the case of a family with one car and one unlicensed (revoked) household member, there could be a simple condition of whether or not the car was knowingly “loaned” to the revoked driver or not. If so, then car gone. If the revoked driver coerced other family members to use the car, or “borrowed” it without their knowledge, separate charges should apply to the revoked user, such as unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. I could also argue that, like a Siberian tiger, a motor vehicle driven by a revoked driver constitutes a “clear and present danger” to those around and merits strong action.

              Recommended Thumb up 1

            • Caleb July 24, 2014 at 4:56 pm

              “These are relatively inexpensive items (usually) and are out priced by automobile ownership by 10x-100x the cost. Confiscating a “38 special” or a dime bag of weed is nothing compared to the financial loss of a car sold in the last 10 years.”

              So if a gun is valued at $239,087,987,509,247,502,734, should we not confiscate it after a person uses it to murder somebody else? Basing confiscation and punishment in general on financing alone (or even primarily) doesn’t generally lead to social justice. The banking and energy sectors come to mind here…

              “Not owning a vehicle is a poor deterrent and an arbitrary punishment where a simple monetary fine will do.”

              Except El B does not simply propose not owning a vehicle as deterrent, but also losing a vehicle one already possessed.

              “If a husband (with partner and children) loses his licence do We The People confiscate the only vehicle a family owns imposing hardships upon the innocent members of the family in your personal desire for cathartic revenge?”

              I wonder if El Biciclero perhaps misrepresented his position in the post you replied to. Historically I’ve seen him propose automobile confiscation in the event an unlicensed driver actually uses his/her/its automobile, whereas in the above post he only mentioned confiscation happening if someone is unlicensed.

              Regardless of just what events he was suggesting automobile confiscation occur after, if such policy were in place, could we not also have laws requiring such confiscation come down to case-by-case circumstances? I’m thinking along the lines of the automobile staying with the family for the mother’s use (assuming she is licensed and capable, of course) while tighter watch is somehow placed on the father.

              “The law and its punishments are meant to be dispassionate so we avoid emotional overkill and the inevitable cycle of retribution.”

              Maybe I misunderstand you, but I don’t think “retribution” is the term that fits what you were trying to say, because it involves “morally right and fully deserved” punishment.

              Regardless, I agree with what I believe you say the law and its punishments are meant to be, but would add that they are also meant to be multiple other things and sometimes not even the former, because the intention behind each law or punishment varies with the intention behind their creators. That said…

              Perhaps I’ve misinterpreted, but in all the posts I’ve read from El B, I’ve never gotten the impression he was seeking revenge, but instead focusing on creating drunk, reckless, and/or unlicensed driving disincentive. Relating that to the family situation: would not losing the automobile be a relatively high incentive for a person to avoid driving in those ways?

              Yes, (because of how common and pervasive is intrafamily interdependence, and how uncommon and concentrated is intracommunity interdependence [I hope that makes sense to anyone else...my vocabulary is weak]), the result would put quite a burden on most families, but many families already live without automobiles, so I’m inclined to believe they could somehow adjust without unbearable adversity (while also acknowledging I have no practical knowledge of what anyone could bear in that outcome, and that rural situations create more difficulty). In short, I don’t think a family losing its only automobile is as extreme a punishment as I interpret your comment to suggest.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • q`Tzal July 26, 2014 at 12:59 am

                Caleb
                Maybe I misunderstand you, but I don’t think “retribution” is the term that fits what you were trying to say, because it involves “morally right and fully deserved” punishment.

                Regardless, I agree with what I believe you say the law and its punishments are meant to be, but would add that they are also meant to be multiple other things and sometimes not even the former, because the intention behind each law or punishment varies with the intention behind their creators. That said…

                … the result would put quite a burden on most families, but many families already live without automobiles, so I’m inclined to believe they could somehow adjust without unbearable adversity (while also acknowledging I have no practical knowledge of what anyone could bear in that outcome, and that rural

                Yes but why don’t we just punish the person that is guilty?
                Why are we considering as valid and moral a punishment that has as much collateral damage as a US military drone dropping ordinance on a village to target a single bad guy?

                For me this is the crux of the problem with indiscriminate vehicular confiscation: it is guaranteed to have negative consequences on people that did nothing to deserve them.
                Sure you’ve noted rural living as a potential problem but what of physically handicapped family members?
                Any family members with special needs (medical, educational) that require transportation outside of the local mass transit area if one exists at all?
                What if the other income earner needs that vehicle to remain employed?

                We know for a fact that extreme economic hardship leads to increased probability of later criminal activity in children and adults. Desperate parents do desperate things, not all of them legal. Children raised in the stress of the only life they’ve ever known taken from them often lean towards violent nihilism with feeling that they have nothing to lose.
                In attempting to punish a person for committing a very bad crime not on purpose we will help to insure the creation of many more criminals with actual intent and premeditation.

                The DUI driver deserves never to drive ever again.
                They deserve to have a 10 year prison sentence with immediate parole on the singular condition that if they are ever found behind the wheel of anything bigger than a bumper car (or an actual life threatening no-ambulance situation) the prison sentence will be served in full in a state facility.
                They deserve to be required to wear an ankle monitor that alerts a parole officer when ever that former driver ever goes faster than X-mph. Their parole officer would then make a video call at some random interval which the parolee would be required to answer and show plainly that they aren’t operating a motor vehicle.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

                • wsbob July 26, 2014 at 9:01 am

                  More effective and practical, would be technology applied that just won’t let a motor vehicle start up and move if the person trying to operate it is under the influence of intoxicants.

                  Recommended Thumb up 2

                • El Biciclero July 26, 2014 at 2:10 pm

                  “What if the other income earner needs that vehicle to remain employed?”

                  In cases where there is no other income earner, what happens if the only income earner commits a crime that gets them incarcerated for more than 30 days, and then they lose their job while they are in jail? Is this not just as bad, if not worse than confiscating a car? If incarceration of a sole income-earner for a family is worse than confiscation of a car from a family, then it should be the case that the crime committed to incur incarceration should be “worse” than whatever gets a license revoked. So we then have a question of when is some arbitrary infraction/crime “bad enough” to merit harming an entire family unit for the sake of sanctioning one member.

                  Is hit-and-run, with subsequent driving while revoked “bad enough”? Is DUI, with subsequent driving while revoked “bad enough”? Vehicular manslaughter, a traffic crime, must be “bad enough”, since people go to jail for that—is Vehicular Manslaughter worth harming an entire family in exchange for retribution on the perpetrator?

                  Recommended Thumb up 2

                • Caleb July 26, 2014 at 8:21 pm

                  I already considered similar questions and hypothetical situations as you posed. If you doubt that, please see my earlier comment on Jeff’s suggestion the cyclists sue the driver’s grandchildren.

                  We would only be punishing the guilty person. The collateral damage, while influenced by that punishment, is more a product of the family and community’s structures.

                  “Valid” and “moral” are relative to individual opinion, so I was not considering any such notions. Regardless, you propose untrue equity here. Ordnance can destroy life-supporting infrastructure and kill people, while vehicle confiscation can not.

                  Could you expound on your use of “indiscriminate”? I ask, because if laws were made to confiscate vehicles after particular infractions, I don’t see how such vehicle confiscation would be indiscriminate.

                  Some people can live without trouble after losing their only automobile due to illegal behavior, but in their egocentricity they might still consider that consequence “negative”, while other people might suffer actual health, social, economic, etc hardship. I assume you are talking only about the latter, but disagree that’s a guarantee. Also, what anyone “deserves” is strictly opinion, thus something we can possibly chase around indefinitely without making any progress toward consensus.

                  Thanks for bringing up possibilities other than rural living. My life has been largely and directly influenced by it, but I was tired and hurried, so failed at realizing other possibilities. What happens when any such people lose access to a vehicle they already had, whether due to collision, mechanical failure, permission, chauffeur availability, or whatever else? Do people not already cope with losing automobile access every day? In many places there are social institutions to aid people in getting around. In places where there are not, people rely on friends and family. And sometimes people get stuck where they are, which is a result I don’t want for anyone who actually needs to get somewhere, but for which I have no remedy.

                  “Children raised in the stress of the only life they’ve ever known taken from them often lean towards violent nihilism with feeling that they have nothing to lose.”

                  I am also concerned about that possibility, like when drunk driving kills a child’s parent or parents. While I have hardly anything substantial to say in response, I’d like to at least offer my emotional reaction: our society is a massive failure if a child experiences socially debilitating stress after his/her/its family loses access to their only private automobile.

                  “In attempting to punish a person for committing a very bad crime not on purpose”

                  Which crime is not on purpose? People know what they are doing when they choose to drive with a revoked license. Unless they are more drunk than ever I have been, people know what they are doing when they get into an automobile while intoxicated and choose to drive somewhere. If they are so drunk they don’t know what they are doing, they knew what they were doing when they risked drinking so much and failed to make sure they could not drive afterward.

                  Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Jeff July 22, 2014 at 3:39 pm

    where did I say “lock her up”…I said “sue the hell out of her”.

    but your big-picture, PC view of the situation does little to financially compensate the two riders who were hit for their time lost, medical bills, future losses, etc. Time is money, and his woman just stole a lot of it from two people.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Mick O July 23, 2014 at 11:08 am

    Any support for banning booze?

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • bjorn July 23, 2014 at 11:54 pm

      That is MADD’s solution. Already tried and failed though. Prohibition isn’t going to stop these people. Honestly with the kind of person who would leave someone lying in the street after severely hurting or killing them is there anything that can be done? With someone that self centered and uncaring I think the only solution is to prevent them from driving and with a lot of the cronic drunk drivers involved in these cases you just have to lock them up because there is no other way. I think if the guy who killed Orion and Angela wasn’t in jail now he would be drinking and driving. Jeremy Jordan the guy who robbed our local Safeway while drunk and then permenantly injured Eric is going to be released soon and my only hope is he won’t live in our neighborhood anymore because he will probably right back to drinking and driving since he clearly blames his victims for his actions. The problem isn’t alcohol it is people who think it is OK to put others at risk and who don’t even fell responsible when their poor actions hurt others.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • wsbob July 24, 2014 at 9:18 am

        “…Honestly with the kind of person who would leave someone lying in the street after severely hurting or killing them is there anything that can be done? …” bjorn

        Yes, and there most likely will be measures taken directly to the person driving, involved in this collision, to try direct her from committing similar acts in future.

        It’s only until there’s at least some understanding of what brought Lisa Lynn Vesely to do what she did, that some hope of an effective, just and humane remedy can be taken on. Conversely, it seems that you and some others posting comments here, would be content to rather indiscriminately take whatever measure that comes to your minds that would be the easiest, quickest way of keeping her from drinking and driving ever again.

        People are creatures of free will, and consequently are inclined to make bad decisions and choices. This isn’t a perfect world. If you can’t handle that, you’re welcome to go someplace that suits you better.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Pete July 24, 2014 at 11:20 am

          “…would be content to rather indiscriminately take whatever measure that comes to your minds that would be the easiest, quickest way of keeping her from drinking and driving ever again.”

          Absolutely. With modern technology there are easy and cost-effective solutions to prevent repeat offenders from getting behind the wheel drunk. Instead they’re rarely used (as they invade ‘privacy’) and repeat offenders end up driving unlicensed after the courts revoke their “privilege” to drive.

          What I’m experiencing quite frequently now here in California is the herbal wafting of marijuana coming from cars going by – some even resembling Cheech & Chong’s scene from “Up in Smoke.” A few days ago I was driving with my contractors and we witnessed some really aggressive moves from a guy puffing on a jay – you’d think it would have a mellowing effect – and when I pointed out he was smoking the guys all said “maybe he has a medical card.” Many people I’ve talked to don’t realize that 1. it’s illegal to smoke pot and drive, or even that 2. it’s technically still illegal under federal law, regardless of what states have decided. Unfortunately there’s no cheap and easy technology (yet) to detect a stoned driver getting behind the wheel.

          Free will doesn’t include indiscretions that result in mowing people down… at least without repercussions.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • wsbob July 24, 2014 at 5:07 pm

            The two examples of modern technology I know of that you may be thinking of, are the electronic ankle bracelets used to keep people confined to home, etc, and the breath activated ignition interlock. Neither are perfectly effective at stopping people that shouldn’t, from driving, but either can be of some help in keeping bad drivers off the road.

            After Vesely’s acts are sized up in court, and her sentence determined, either of them could turn out to be reasonable means of helping to work towards preventing her from continuing bad driving. Applying penalty measures indiscriminately to anyone that has driven drunk, isn’t probably a good idea.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Pete July 24, 2014 at 6:08 pm

              Clarification – I do NOT mean to imply Vesely was drunk. I have no idea why she hit those cyclists, and I try to be very careful to avoid armchair speculation.

              Ignition interlocks are FAR more effective at keeping repeat offenders off the road than license revocations. The cost of installing them and leasing them – as courts would order you to incur – is less than you’ve already paid your defense attorney. Newer technologies make them very hard to trick, and they have to pass the same SAE safety requirements as any other ignition interlock.

              Sorry to apply the word “indiscriminately”, as I would only apply the penalty to everyone who has been convicted of driving drunk. It’s an inconvenience, not an inhumane punishment, nor does it preclude court-ordered treatment programs.

              “Today, nearly half of the nation (24 states) has passed an all-offender ignition interlock law.”:
              http://www.staceypageonline.com/2014/07/24/madds-campaign-strengthened-drunk-driving-laws/

              Recommended Thumb up 3

              • wsbob July 24, 2014 at 11:08 pm

                “…Vesely was arrested shortly after 10:00 pm and booked in jail on charges of Assault in the Third Degree, Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII), Failure to Perform the Duties of a Driver, and two counts of Reckless Endangerment. …” bikeportland

                Strong likelihood Vesely was DUII. How to respond effectively and productively to people that have done so, to turn them away from repeating that behavior is big challenge. Browsing over peoples’ comments to this story gives a range of examples of what they would seem to like done, and some of that seems indiscriminate at best.

                People ought to have read Josh Lamborn’s comment: http://bikeportland.org/2014/07/21/woman-arrested-hit-run-injures-two-riders-beaverton-hillsdale-highway-109075#comment-5226437

                Stay tuned. Possibly, more details about Vesely’s history and character will be reported in future bikeportland or other media stories. Then, people will have a better basis on which to think about what would be an effective treatment and reasonable penalty for this person, to try keep her from repeating more such mistakes.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

                • Pete July 25, 2014 at 5:24 pm

                  Thanks, I missed that (or forget it, actually). The biggest challenge is indeed modifying addictive behavior and substance abuse. Tomes have been written on effectiveness of approaches, psychologically, clinically, and budgetary (~50% of taxpayer-funded treatment programs are court-ordered), as well as their impact on jail overcrowding.

                  I don’t agree that there’s a big challenge to preventing convicted drunk drivers from driving drunk – the technology is proven, which is why MADD is having success with it. The bigger challenge there is getting society (particularly courts) to accept punishment that imposes on the driving “privilege.” If you’ve spent time in a courtroom you’re undoubtedly familiar with the refrain “I can’t lose my license – I won’t be able to get to work or take my kids to school.”

                  Recommended Thumb up 1

                • wsbob July 25, 2014 at 10:45 pm

                  Pete at: http://bikeportland.org/2014/07/21/woman-arrested-hit-run-injures-two-riders-beaverton-hillsdale-highway-109075#comment-5237103

                  Evolving technology may continue moving towards offering better yet help towards keeping DUII and other people that drive badly, from operating motor vehicles. It’s going to have to be better than ankle bracelets that some people cut off, and breath interlock devices some people pay others to breathe into to get the vehicle started.

                  I do hope we eventually hear Vesely’s story, and what the court figures out to do to try keep her from being the source of future and worse problems on the road.

                  Recommended Thumb up 0

  • mark July 23, 2014 at 3:42 pm

    Spiffy
    whenever I drive on BHH I feel like everybody hates me because I’m doing the speed limit and people are on my ass and passing my doing 10+ mph over the limit… it’s in serious need of traffic calming and enforcement…
    Recommended 1

    Plus 1 on that! I’m new to the Hillsdale area and noticed almost immediately people drive way faster than the speed limit on BHH… figured I was in the “Socal” transplant area of town… lol

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Pete July 24, 2014 at 11:32 am

      Pulling away from a light on BHH once, the elderly couple in front of me didn’t notice it was green so I waited a little for them to go (I can’t stand horn honking). Almost instantly I was whacked from behind by a pickup who’d already been stopped with us. We turned around the corner together and I saw no damage to my wagon, but he was friendly and apologizing profusely. When we looked at the front of his truck I saw the California plate so I said (light-heartedly) “We don’t drive so aggressively around these here parts.”

      But if you think it’s bad there, you should see what I deal with now obeying speed limits here on California roads! Maybe I need a http://fly6.com for my car… :-)

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Lisa Frank July 24, 2014 at 5:10 pm

    Very sorry to hear about this crash. These incidents are preventable and engineers, law enforcement, and community members can work together to stop them. A physically protected bike lane (see https://btaoregon.org/2014/06/protected-bikeways/) here might have stopped the driver from hitting these people. Our big streets need more than just paint to keep everyone safe. Here is the TV Highway part of our Blueprint, one of four areas we’ve prioritized to “Make Big Streets Safe:” https://btaoregon.org/blueprint/#big-streets.

    Lisa Frank, BTA Washington County Advocate

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • El Biciclero July 26, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    “What if the other income earner needs that vehicle to remain employed?”

    In cases where there is no other income earner, what happens if the only income earner commits a crime that gets them incarcerated for more than 30 days, and then they lose their job while they are in jail? Is this not just as bad, if not worse than confiscating a car? If incarceration of a sole income-earner for a family is worse than confiscation of a car from a family, then it should be the case that the crime committed to incur incarceration should be “worse” than whatever gets a license revoked. So we then have a question of when is some arbitrary infraction/crime “bad enough” to merit harming an entire family unit for the sake of sanctioning one member.

    Is hit-and-run, with subsequent driving while revoked “bad enough”? Is DUI, with subsequent driving while revoked “bad enough”? Vehicular manslaughter, a traffic crime, must be “bad enough”, since people go to jail for that—is Vehicular Manslaughter worth harming an entire family in exchange for retribution on the perpetrator?

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Paul in The 'Couve July 26, 2014 at 4:00 pm

      Well, a couple of things here to consider in addition to what you have mentioned.

      First, the issue of creating a built environment where the predominate choice is obviously absolute dependence on motor vehicles with the potential for DUIs, and Vehicular Manslaughter as things that can (and do) happen to fairly average and normal people in the course of ordinary events.

      Clearly I have the opinion that this is the real problem. I, as an average, middle class (light) family guy with wife and kids shouldn’t need to place my family safety, and our security and personal freedom at risk multiple time a day in the course of ordinary life routine to simply transport my kids around town, get to work, and buy groceries. (Driving carefully to follow).

      Second, this discussion requires clarification about victims vs. consequences. As a father and family provider myself I am well aware that many decisions and behaviors of mine can have consequences either immediate or remote for my family. This is nothing new, nor is it anything that a democratic society can totally remove from my role as parent. To a large, and healthy for society, extent my families future depends on my partner and I and our sound judgement and responsible behavior. If my family is “victimized” as a consequence of my behavior and mistakes, it is ME, ME and only ME that is really responsible for making my children the victim of my stupidity or ineptness.

      The component that is inadequate or totally missing is the part of social pressure and education that makes it abundantly clear to parents that transportation choices, driving skill, and safety and carefulness and even good manners (good citizenship?) is an integral part of being a good parent. Unsafe driving, speeding, road rage, light running, are antisocial behaviors and needless risks to one’s financial and family security.

      This goes further than you even apply it. Your arguments could be made equally even for tickets and fines without losing driving privileges or having cars impounded. I have seen on regular commenter here make such suggestions on other thread. For very many poor families a ticket for running a red or speeding can be financially devastating. The cost of the fine may mean children go hungry and the increase in insurance (if they actually have that) keeps imposing the penalty. Then the fines go unpaid, tickets accumulate, … bench warrants are issued.

      Third, moral hazard. To a large extent we have the problem with cars today that we have because we have so lowered the moral hazard. The way out is not to keep lowering it. See #1 (where I know overall you do agree with me roughly at least).

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • El Biciclero August 5, 2014 at 10:21 am

        I wish I would have seen this reply sooner—I actually agree with you on all counts, I think. If I summarize what I hear you saying, it sounds like we, as society have created a hostile environment for ourselves in the transportation realm (and elsewhere—but that’s another discussion), and then pretty much forced everyone to engage in, or at least with, the hostility. Coupled with a more general “lack of shame” about violating some basic moral principles (or if I’m being benevolent, at least being blind to them) involved in coexisting with our fellow humans, the hostility is bound to manifest itself in the ways you mention. I’m not sure what you mean by “moral hazard” (I’m using the term “lack of shame”, as in nobody will think much less of you—or you won’t care if they do—for violating moral principles), but the attitude seems to be that since “everybody does it”, the manifestations of hostility that we see on a daily basis are viewed as no big deal.

        It would indeed be wonderful to turn this Titanic around and start making more thoughtful choices about the environment we create for ourselves, the ways we conduct ourselves around others, and how we view the impacts of our actions on other people, but human nature being what it is, there will always be a large percentage of folks who will do whatever they think they can get away with. There will also always be antisocial folks who won’t care how they impact others, and will violate moral principles freely regardless of how much social pressure there may be to do otherwise. We will always need some sort of deterrent, diversion, or, dare I say, “punishment” for those folks who just cannot abide by standards of behavior that don’t hurt other people.

        Even with near perfect design, education, cultural attitudes, social contracts, what-have-you, we will still need laws and consequences for breaking those laws. I was attempting to compare different kinds of consequences using the metric of “negative effects that ripple out to the immediate family units” of those subject to such consequences. If we agree that we must always have some way of deterring, diverting, or punishing those that pose a danger to others in society, my question was “at what point does a violation of law become great enough to warrant negatively impacting the family of the violator?” What would you suggest as a way to keep, for example, habitual drunk drivers from driving, without impacting their immediate family?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • kj August 5, 2014 at 6:56 am

    Good thing crucifixion has been outlawed for a few centuries. For the record this woman is one of the nicest, sweetest and compassionate people I know. She made a terrible mistake by drinking and driving and then showing worse judgement by leaving the scene, but I am sure she was terrified and in panic mode. For those people who would like to have their pound of flesh and see her life destroyed, those of you that have never, ever consumed an alcoholic beverage and operated motor vehicle, then you will be happy to know that her hell is only beginning. She will lose her job, her car, and her license. She will go to jail almost certainly, will then have a record, a felony or misdemeanors who can say, but the effect will be about the same. Goodbye gainful employment and good luck passing a back ground check in order to rent an apartment. She will undoubtedly be sued, if for nothing else than the medical bills for the two victims. There will be stiff fines imposed along with incarceration plus a monthly probation fee she will have to pay for the duration of her probation. There will be mandatory classes with fees or AA meetings. The court could order her to pay restitution as part of her probation/parole. Her credit will be shot because she will be unable to pay the fines and fees because she will likely be unemployed for a long time. This could then violate the terms or her probation and she could go back to jail. We then create yet another person who will need government services like welfare, food stamps and low income housing. Considering the facts here that neither cyclist was seriously hurt, who here then is being hurt the most? The utter vicious condemnation in some of these posts show the worst in human nature.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Sir Randall August 5, 2014 at 10:01 am

      All consequences that she should have considered BEFORE driving intoxicated. Be an adult. Be accountable for your actions.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Tom B. Taker August 5, 2014 at 10:08 am

      This is a perfect example of why you don’t drink and drive. Ever. Even if involved in an accident that wasn’t your fault you’re totally screwed. Why would anyone willingly take that risk? The problem of drunk driving in our society is huge. It justifiably needs deadly serious consequences. If alcohol wasn’t involved, perhaps this “sweet and compassionate” person wouldn’t have decided to flee the scene? It’s not that hard, really. If you can’t arrange for your safe transportation you don’t drink. Period. That works for me. The severity of the injuries is absolutely irrelevant here. The choices of this extremely dangerous person are all that matters. Every day good, innocent people are killed by people driving drunk. It has to stop. There should be zero tolerance. Just my opinions.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • wsbob August 5, 2014 at 10:59 am

      “…For the record this woman is one of the nicest, sweetest and compassionate people I know. She made a terrible mistake by drinking and driving and then showing worse judgement by leaving the scene, but I am sure she was terrified and in panic mode. …” kj

      kj, thanks for sharing your thoughts, particularly if you do know Lisa Vesely personally, which by your words, it sounds as though you may.

      Yes, she made a big mistake in drinking and driving, although as bad as the future you describe for her may turn out to be, by some chance of fate, she was very lucky not to have seriously injured or killed the two people she collided into while DUII. Many people are not so lucky.

      Drinking and driving is bad for everyone on the road. Fortunately, Jasmine Zamora and Cameron Duff, the two people on bikes that Lisa ran into with her car, survived and are apparently going to be o.k. Nevertheless, among the consequences of the incident, is that some people’s response to the perpetrator’s actions, comes across as meanness and irrationality, which in some instances it may be.

      Meanness and irrationality in response to instances of drinking and driving, isn’t defensible, but neither is drinking and driving, even though being lucky enough not to have seriously injured or killed someone while doing so. One of the good things Lisa did following the crash, is that she came back past the scene. Maybe she didn’t want to get caught, but by her coming back, she did get caught. As a result, with a little more luck and lots of effort, she’ll get the help she needs, offering an example to others, so all of us can be a little safer on the road in future.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Aaron August 5, 2014 at 1:57 pm

      I thank you very much for describing the situation for this woman. I must admit to not feeling much sympathy. There are reasons that people should NEVER drive while intoxicated (or talking on the phone, texting, eating, etc.)
      I would not completely blame her because truly a large part of the problem is with ODOT creating infrastructure that makes any other choice difficult if not downright impossible, DMV which provides little to no requirement for knowing the safe operation of a vehicle, and media/oil corporations for creating enormous social pressure to drive and stigmatizing those who don’t.
      Despite all of that however, driving is a choice. It has enormous potential for harm to others (even without alcohol). The money that goes into cars and gas is sucked out of the local economy, making life even harder for low-income people. Drinking is also a choice. It also has potential for harm (though not as much).
      I have spoken countless times to dozens of people trying to help them to let go of this addiction to driving and describing the potentially enormous cost. Unfortunately people don’t understand that because unlike transit, the cost isn’t paid per use, it’s paid unequally and sometimes in enormous sums. Then, with no warning, a person’s life becomes financially ruined. Often they become homeless, or otherwise destitute (I’ve talked to many homeless people and not a single one lived a car-free lifestyle)
      I truly hope that other people will learn from incidents like this and realize the potentially debilitating damage which can occur.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Bjorn August 6, 2014 at 1:38 pm

      I can honestly say I have ZERO sympathy for her. If she had stopped at the scene and tried to make sure the people she hurt got medical attention then sure maybe some sympathy. Instead she left them lying hurt on the ground possibly to die while she went off to hide the evidence and maybe get away with it. I’m glad someone followed her but insurance may not be enough to cover the injuries of the people she hurt. She should be sued if it is needed to try and compensate her victims. As someone who was nearly killed when hit by a car I am very thankful that the driver who hit me did everything he could to get me immediate medical attention. I almost died but if he hadn’t immediately gone into help mode I would have certainly lost my leg.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • wsbob August 6, 2014 at 7:31 pm

        “I can honestly say I have ZERO sympathy for her. …” Bjorn

        No surprise considering some of your earlier remarks to this story. Well, that’s fine, so you and some others here, have no sympathy for Vesely. Maybe you feel better having expressed that feeling.

        Continuing on, is the big problem of what to do about the inclination, for what likely is a wide range of reasons, people have to go and get soused, and then decide to drive their car. I doubt American society would seriously entertain extreme, undiscerning conclusions about people that drive intoxicated, or corresponding punishment to try and make the problem go away.

        Link to 9watts comment from the 21st, to this discussion: http://bikeportland.org/2014/07/21/woman-arrested-hit-run-injures-two-riders-beaverton-hillsdale-highway-109075#comment-5219833

        Read that. I’m sorry about your experience with a drunk driver. My brothers’ too. But really, far more important than sympathy, is well reasoned responses to the situation of people that do drive intoxicated. Society needs better responses to the actions of these people, than taking measures that may severely risk rendering them dependent on society for the rest of their lives.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Bjorn August 7, 2014 at 9:05 am

          The issue isn’t that she was drunk, it is that she callously left her victims lying in the street rather than trying to help them.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

  • GlowBoy August 6, 2014 at 2:24 pm

    I’m sure she’s a “nice person” in other contexts, but when you assault two people with a deadly weapon and run away — drunk or sober — you get very little sympathy for me.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • GlowBoy August 6, 2014 at 2:25 pm

      oops, I meant you get very little sympathy from me.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob November 20, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    Oregonian has the story today on Lisa Vesely’s felony conviction and sentence:

    30 days in jail. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/11/drunken_driver_who_struck_sout.html

    Vesely works as a caregiver. Doesn’t have much money. Stands to reason that, as she says she is, she’s broke, from hiring a lawyer. Let’s hope she stays off the sauce from here on out.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Alan 1.0 November 21, 2014 at 9:46 am

      Thank you for posting that.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rick November 20, 2014 at 6:17 pm

    BH Highway, an ODOT highway, needs a lower speed in Portland city limits. Raleigh Hills has it at 35 mph. Portland has it at 40 mph.

    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.