Over the weekend, the discussion over enforcement against bicycles in North Plains continued both in the comments of my post from Friday and on the OBRA email list.
Among the reactions was a comment by North Plains Police Chief Scott Whitehead. Whitehead wrote in to clarify his position on the situation:
“It seems that several people have taken my comments out of context…Our efforts to step up enforcement at stop signs has been focused towards everyone…
The point I’m trying to make to bike riders is that they are so much more vulnerable to injury and death because they are on a bike. I never justified my citations because of the death of Timothy O’Donnell. I justify my cites because if a motor vehicle and a bicycle disobey a stop sign at the same time there will most likely be a fatality. I will do everything possible to prevent that from happening.I will park at the intersection of Glencoe and West Union everyday and cite all motor vehicles and bikes if that’s what it takes to preserve a life.
I know people don’t like it and they think its all revenue generated enforcement and that’s not true. There is nothing worse than responding to a crash with injuries or death. You think it’s tough on you as a bike community? It’s tough on us when we have to make a death notification and then second guess if we could have prevented such a tragic event. If I didn’t care about the safety of people in North Plains I would not spend as much time enforcing traffic laws as I do.
As much as it seems that people want us to stop what were doing it’s not going to happen. I will go home everyday knowing that I did everything possible to make my community a safe place to ride and drive, and if I have to write tickets to make that happen I will. North Plains is my responsibility and I have a duty to protect everyone and keep them safe. I will not change what I do and if I ever do then it’s time for me to move on.”
Others did not receive such a well though-out response. Evan Mackenzie allegedly got this reply from Chief Whitehead:
“I can see where your part of the problem and not the solution. It’s people with your attitude and thinking that place bicyclists in danger by listening to your abstract views on things.
…Maybe someday your bike friends will respect the traffic laws that they spend so much time complaining about.
After reading your email again, your a complete idiot!!”
Read the full exchange (as posted to the OBRA email list).
Here’s reply from Whitehead that was posted on the OBRA email list:
“Thanks for writing. As usual your email is consistent with all the others I receive. Maybe next time you could put some thought into it and make a valid point instead of all the blah blah blah crap.”
TeamEstrogen.com owner Susan Otcenas thinks cyclists should vent their concerns at an upcoming North Plains City Council meeting. On the OBRA email list she wrote that she will attend to make two points:
“1) The assertion by the ticketing officer that ticketing cyclists at anintersection is the City’s response to the terrible deaths that have occurred in the County in recent months. Preposterous & offensive. Ignorant too, if they actually believe it.
2) That the Chief of Police would respond to citizen concerns with such contempt and disrespect.”
No word yet on whether Police Chief Whitehead will attend the meeting.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
That response to Chief Wiggum, I mean Whitehead, from Evan MacKenzie was awesome! Whitehead\’s responses speak volumes about his attitude toward cyclists, and to his lack of respect for the views of citizens in general.
These are the kind of statements you would expect from someone who believes that setting up a traffic sting for cyclists could actually prevent a tragedy like that of Timothy O\’Donnell. *sentence moderated* People like this shouldn\’t be in charge of anything nearly as important as a police force, even if it is only a few people. I wonder how the North Plains City Council feels about their chief of police calling people idiots in public?
Some of his responses seem awfully contradictory in attitude. Jonathon, did you verify with the chief that the web post on this site was indeed his?
\”Jonathon, did you verify with the chief that the web post on this site was indeed his?\”
Which one?
The one here
Logan 5,
Yes, I verified that the comment Whitehead made on my site was legit. I did not hear it straight from him, but I noticed that the email he left with the comment (which is not visible to the public) matched up with emails for him listed on the City of North Plains website. That was enough for me.
I have also left a voice message for him in case he wants to contact me.
*Sentence moderated*
Good to see, and read, that he\’s on top of it out there. Really NP, is this the best that you can do for protection?
his \”comments out of context\”? WHAT?!
that was his direct reply!!!
*Sentence moderated*
I\’d advise everyone to avoid calling Chief Whitehead names and instead restrict your critique to specific actions and bits of discourse. I\’d agree that he\’s been less than friendly so far, but how about we all avoid driving anybody into further stepping up particular areas of selective enforcement as a consequence of being driven into a blind rage…
…\’course, if you don\’t buy that, you could dig into the \”not stooping to the other guy\’s level\” thing instead.
I saw what N.I.K. is talking about firsthand in the 80s with a small-town cop who was called out to a demonstration at the local Forest Service office up in Washington. He was a pretty decent cop, he kept trying to reach some sort of agreement with the demonstrators, who were emptying sacks of cow manure into the ventilation system. Every time he\’d try to reach an agreement with the direct action demonstrators about how the protest would end, they\’d shoot down his attempts at dialog, go back on their agreements, etc. After they were all arrested, he went on to become a very vocal critic of Earth First!, traveling to any town where he could get a speaking gig, writing op-ed pieces, etc. It wasn\’t the protest itself that goaded him into opposition, it was the way he was disrespected– by ONE person in particular– that turned him from an indifferent observer to an active opponent. I was there, I saw the beginning, and I saw the aftermath.
N.I.K. is right.
Does N.I.K. think this man has much credibility with the double standard of discourse he\’s displayed in this instance?
Staying out of NP would be the best course of action for anyone…this man isn\’t trying to \”reach some sort of agreement\” with anyone, he\’s calling them childish, unprofessional names in private while trying to publicly justify his actions. His ticketing is fine and just, his language is nothing but inappropriate.
I had people ask me this wekend what I thought about supposedly $340 dollar tickets being given out at a stop sign in North Plains.
While that is certainly a steep fine, the truth of the matter is this.
It is illegal to not stop at a stop sign.
Until it is legal to yield at a stop sign, if you do, and get caught, you deserve the ticket.
Quit yer\’ bitchin….
Pay the fine.
And learn how to look for the police before you roll through a stop sign, if that is what you are bound and determined to do…
Jeremy, the point is you don\’t go looking for enemies to create. They have a way of living on, long after the original event.
Or, if you prefer, you don\’t stoop to their level.
N.I.K. is correct (Post #9) – Ad hominem attacks and nitpicking over grammar and spelling are inconducive to constructive discourse. Focus on the problem and solutions, instead of engaging in a pissing match – the latter only results in a sticky floor and a bad smell for everyone.
And if you really feel that you must take the Chief (or any one else) to task for his or her grammatical or orthographic inadequacies, you might just want to (at the very least) proofread and spell-check your own posts beforehand.
rixtir-
my point is really questioning whether such a person has the demeanor to be holding a public office if his private responses are such…police are taught and trained to be diffusive, not incindiary…and I believe this guy started the name calling..unless \”idiot\” is no longer consider an insult.
rixtir-
p.s….positions of authority should not just be blindly accepted as \”the way it is\” or just handed a high level of respect…there are plenty of people in this world who hold jobs they are NOT qualified to perform at an acceptable level of proficiency and I think this may be one of those instances. I think he should be called out if he tactics are too blunt or if he\’s unable to handle risk management appropriately.
Agreed, we should try to keep our discourse civil. Jonathan may consider removing the retaliatory personal attacks.
Glad to see folks noticing how pointless and unacceptable it is to name call. I have gone through and edited out the personal attacks.
And just to repeat what I\’ve said many times before… I do not appreciate or tolerate name-calling or personal attacks of any kind on this site. Thank you.
Jeremy:
my point is really questioning whether such a person has the demeanor to be holding a public office if his private responses are such…police are taught and trained to be diffusive, not incindiary…and I believe this guy started the name calling..unless \”idiot\” is no longer consider an insult.
Yes, he started it. N.I.K. is suggesting that we rise above that level of discourse– to not take the bait, if you will. Whether Chief Whitehead is fit for public office or not is up to the North Plains City Council to decide, and I suspect a bunch of disrespectful, law-breaking out-of-towners won\’t have much influence in that regard. If we want to have some influence in North Plains, we should avoid riding in like we own the place, and approach the issue from a more constructive standpoint.
positions of authority should not just be blindly accepted as \”the way it is\” or just handed a high level of respect…
Like it or not, every human being wants to be treated with respect. Think about the difference when a cop treats you respectfully while writing you a traffic ticket, and a cop who treats you disrespectfully while writing you a traffic ticket. Even if Chief Whitehead is wrong on some points, treating him disrespectfully doesn\’t lead to a good outcome for cyclists.
there are plenty of people in this world who hold jobs they are NOT qualified to perform at an acceptable level of proficiency and I think this may be one of those instances. I think he should be called out if he tactics are too blunt or if he\’s unable to handle risk management appropriately.If people feel the need to attack his qualifications to hold that job– and I question whether that tactic will prove beneficial to cyclists passing through North Plains– then they\’re more likely to convince the North Plains City Council that he\’s unprofessional if their own discourse is civil.
\”but I noticed that the email he left with the comment (which is not visible to the public) matched up with emails for him listed on the City of North Plains website\”
I would just like to point out that this is in no way a verification of authenticity. Indeed, if I were to inflame and mislead this is exactly what I would do.
S
Does N.I.K. think this man has much credibility with the double standard of discourse he\’s displayed in this instance?
No, Jeremy, I don\’t. If you\’d been paying attention to my comments to the previous NP-centric post, you wouldn\’t have to wonder about that for so much as a lone nanosecond. In this comment thread alone, I\’ve already used \”unfriendly\” to describe Chief Whitehead\’s apparent demeanor towards concerned citizens. There are certainly more emphatic ways of putting it, but why waste time? I think there\’s quite a bit more at stake here than a guy doling out insults to those who might be his constituents. That\’s not to say \”overlook it!\”: indeed, I don\’t see how anyone could miss it unless they\’d completely skipped the actual blogpost and dove for the comments.
You prove in post #15 that you definitely can articulate your point clearly and without resorting to name calling or other strictly inflammatory practices. My point is that you\’re better off focusing on the issues and making your point. Others will take you more seriously *and* you don\’t give any fuel to any extreme reactions on the person you\’re criticizing. If they react in an extreme manner, your point from above is proved twice over without any wrong-doing of your own. It\’s much easier to gain respect that way than it is to be the *other* guy doling out \”idiot\” or whatever other insulting noun you might care to dig up.
I would just like to point out that this is in no way a verification of authenticity. Indeed, if I were to inflame and mislead this is exactly what I would do.
A fair point, Sasha. Re-reading it, the style, usage, and typos *do* seem fairly consistent with the bits and pieces of emails that have been made public, though I\’d say it scarcely matters at the posting was decidedly less inflammatory than the personal emails people have received. If somebody maliciously made that post in Chief Whitehead\’s name, they certainly did him no great disservice by making it, at least comparatively speaking.
Sasha (#20),
The tone and style of the comment also lead me to believe it is authentic.
why would someone try and pose as Whitehead and make a well though-out, sincere and professional response?
I think the reason his tone is so different is because when writing on this site he knew it would be public, but when responding to emails he forgot that it would be public.
Jonathon, the major difference in the email responses by the chief makes me think a bit. Perhaps you know better the people who forwarded his responses to you but considering the tone of some posters on this site, I wonder if the chief\’s words weren\’t twisted en route to you.
Jeremy in #15 says, \”and I believe this guy started the name calling..unless \”idiot\” is no longer consider an insult.\”
Sounds like you\’re saying, \”well, since he started calling us names, we\’re justified in calling him names, too\”.
Geez, folks. Be the adults you\’re supposed to be. \”If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?\”
Man! What a ton of drama!
*goes back to work*
Obviously the effect of printing what the Chief wrongly thought was personal correspondence is to embarass him. I can\’t see any other reason for it, other than to make him look like an ass.
Perhaps the whole thread should be deleted.
And let me \”second\” everything Dabby said (post # 12)
The response I received from Officer Whitehead is exactly as I received it. I have forwarded the entire exchange to Jonathan for his records. I have received no further emails from Officer Whitehead. If I were to alter anything I received from Officer Whitehead (or others) I would undermine and jeopardize any legitimacy I might hope to bring to this entire discussion. I can\’t speak for any other comments and/or posts.
Some of the comments I see here appear to be voices of reason; some do not. While Officer Whitehead may or may not be a reasonable person, we MUST be reasonable with him, just as we would be with any other authority. To be any less is to defeat our cause.
What we need to convey to the City of North Plains is that the impression we as cyclists have received is decidedly negative, both from the arresting officer (no warning, and a condescending attitude) and the Chief (indifference and very unprofessional, generally conduct not becoming of an officer of the law). This may seem like an insignificant issue when so many bigger problems exist, but in our local world it\’s the kind of thing that can quickly get out of hand.
We as cyclists have every right to be on the road, but we must respect and not abuse those rights, and hope that those who enforce them will do the same. Just think of all the time and hard feelings that would be saved if we didn\’t even feel an obligation to discuss this issue? That\’s really all I want.
I agree that we need to be the \”better man\” in this debate.
We being the \”cycling\” community.
A police chief, no matter how disliked, has the law on his side. He has hundreds of years of precedence, he has the \”specter\” of authority.
We have nothing except public opinion.
It is crucial that if we want to sway opinions or to make a good point that we remain polite and try to make our points with logic, data, and common sense.
It is easier to catch flies with sugar than it is with vinegar.
It is perfectly legitimate to disagree with authority. But we MUST do it in such a way that does not damage our position.
\”politics 101\”
there are a lot of apologists on this site (Kristen, Dropped,etc)…apparently a lot of people hoping to protect the good name of this officer…when in fact it doens\’t appear so \”good\”.
he states that his words \”were taken out of context to seem less caring\”…which is totally inaccurate.
I\’m afraid of people like this in power (see current president of the united states) who have no proven ability to communicate in a professional manner but still hold positions of higher management and control over others.
*ok, back to work(
I\’m afraid of people like this in power (see current president of the united states) who have no proven ability to communicate in a professional manner but still hold positions of higher management and control over others.
Making vague generalizations about these types and their maybe-supporters is going to make it all the more easy for these types of people to get into and stay in power Jeremy: the more seeming-raving-lunatics on the corners, the less prickly these types appear and the more they can get away with. Please, stop shooting yourself in the foot and get back on topic! It\’s getting absurd!
Jonathan, I don\’t understand why you think you should moderate words like \”clueless\” and \”buffoon\” as personal attacks when the first conversation on this topic called people who criticized the enforcement \”childish\” and \”whining crybaby rebel wannabees\” and those were left up.
And why would *you* post the part of Whitehead\’s message calling someone who criticized him an \”idiot\” if you \”don\’t appreciate or tolerate name-calling or personal attacks of any kind on this site\”? Is it really unacceptable (to you) for me to say \”I think Whitehead is the actual idiot\” or \”I think Whitehead is clueless\” in response to such a statement (politics aside)? What did you expect people would say?
Now the disclaimer: I appreciate bikeportland very much. I\’m not attempting to tell you what policy to set. I just don\’t understand it because it seems inconsistent to me.
I disagree…the reason these people stay in \”power\” is that people do not stand up and question them and their ability…
I hardly think I\’m \’shooting\’ anything…
my problem is not with the tickets, even though by \’law\’ they\’re about 90$ more than is legally mandated for a traffic stopping violation (ORS 811.265)…I\’ll pay my fine if I ever break any traffic laws, no problem. My problem is with the demeanor of this person and the lack of professionalism…I mean do you, at your job, go around talking like that? How far do you think you\’d get if you called people \”idiots\” and referred to their concerns as \”crap\”?
Looks like when his comments say the light of day, Chief Whitehead has for the time being risen to the occassion. When all the hears about is complaints about \”those damn bike\”, that is how he responds. Now that he is realizes he is part of a bigger picture, he seems to understand what it at stake.
What would really make a difference is in the actions of his department. When asked about equal treatment, if I was the chief I would have presented statistics show how many enforcements of car vs bicycle citations my department handed out. How many bike lane violations has the department written, how many failure to yield to a cyclist incidents have been written up. If his truly concerned about everyones safety it would be reasonable to assume the department would have a very good record protecting cyclists. Maybe someone should ask him for data. If someone is also interested, the might sit at a popular stop in NP and count the true stops vs rolling stops and see what the count is. Chief Whitehead may or may not be saying how he really feels. But the departmental data will not lie.
#34 makes a good point: Has anyone ever seen an \”enforcement action\” prompted by cyclist complaints against actions taken by motorists? Anybody?
I know we\’re in the minority, but shouldn\’t there be a CAR sting for every five BIKE stings (specific to bike/car interactions)?
Or maybe the other way around… do we get to bring morality up in the legal arena? Anybody?
\”Has anyone ever seen an \”enforcement action\” prompted by cyclist complaints against actions taken by motorists? Anybody?\”
When I did my ride-along with PPB Traffic Division it was my impression that they did \”stings\” against motorist every single day.
The refer to them as enforcement missions.
I personally sat in a patrol car on Hwy 26 (with 2-3 motorcycle officers) and we nabbed tons of motorists for speeding.
Also on my ride-along I went on a response to a citizen complaint for running stop signs (cars and bikes) and we stopped several motorists.
Evan Mackenzie\’s first letter to Police Chief Whitehead was terribly written, and invited exactly the response that it received. He began with the profoundly foolhardy assumption that a rumor posted on a blog was fact. Then, rather than inquire were such indeed the case, he proceeded to browbeat the officer over assumed situation, admonishing him for dereliction of duty, and even going so far as to accuse him of practicing a \”Dukes of Hazzard\” style of law enforcement, musing that he would respond to an armed robbery by ticketing the victims for not wearing armor. If this is how we make first contact with ET, then our planet is doomed, and you can throw me under MAX right now. So, Evan, what I think is a little ironic is your halcyon call for reasonableness on this messageboard in light of this flaming turd of a letter you left on Officer Whitehead\’s front porch. Does anyone know how to fucking communicate politely anymore? As rixtir\’s discussion of the Earth First! protest spotlights with stunning clarity, you do not change the system by preaching at your adversary. This does not excuse Police Chief Whitehead for his own inappropriate response. As a public servant, he should hold himself to a higher standard than he demonstrated. We all should, but I\’m not holding out hope. The incompetents who are hemorrhaging opinions from both sides of this \”debate\” could restock the damn White House.
Also, just FYI I received a voicemail from Whitehead tonight and I plan to talk with him tomorrow morning.
I\’ll of course let you know how it goes.
\”Does anyone know how to fucking communicate politely anymore?\”
Post #37
You invalidated your own post.
Just this morning, and every morning, I stopped entering Ladd Circle and watched as not one, not two and not three, but four bikes ran the stop sign at Ladd Circle from Harrison. And no, I am not the guy who complained to the city with the result of the enforcement action of a couple months ago.
And yesterday I recived my first speeding ticket (after a 13.5 hour workday) doing 71 in a 60 zone. Does everyone do it? Yeah. Does that make it ok? Maybe. Did I break the law and thus, deserve a ticket? Yeah. Wrote the check last night.
So why all the heat and light about bicyclists blowing stop signs? Think of yourself as a car insofar as obeying the laws is concerned and you will be safer, both physically, and froma citation. All the whinging comes off as self righteous claptrap.
\”You invalidated your own post\”
Haha, wrong. My being snarky on a blog messageboard says NOTHING about the language I would use while corresponding with a public official concerning his or her behavior, and at any rate, the not so subtle irony of my using the word \”fucking\” to make a point about politeness was counterpoint to highlight the issue at hand. You obviously don\’t like something I said, but seeing as how you chose to attack a strawman, I am left clueless as to what actually set you off.
I ride through North Plains almost every weekend. I bet most of you posting here do not.
The intersection being talked about is not a big time killer. You can put your foot down and count to 2, or you can keep pedalling and count to 335. Like Dabby said, if you get a ticket you deserve it. Take your lumps like a big kid.
Comlaining to their Chief of Police about a guilty-as-hell ticket is very counter-productive. If there ever was an issue where some cyclists give other cyclists a bad name, this is it.
It is not helpful to the people who actually ride out there on a regular basis for you folks to lambaste North Plains and their neighbors. It will only generate animosity and increase the chances of us getting hit in the head with a bottle by a passing motorist.
I\’m sort of curious as to what the level of enforcement is on these sorts of things. Are they giving people tickets for not coming to a complete and total stop, or not putting their feet down on the ground, or what? Or is it just tickets for people who slow down a little but don\’t really make an effort at stopping at all?
I see plenty of people in Portland who will just blow through stop signs like they don\’t exist, or even slow down just a tiny bit and look both ways… as both a cyclist and a motorist this drives me nuts. Along Broadway and downtown I see plenty of people actually blow through red lights when there are no cars coming, some of those cases when visibility is less than completely clear. Is a little extra pedaling really worth potentially being hit?
If that\’s the sort of thing they\’re giving tickets for I can\’t have a whole lot of sympathy (though they do seem awfully expensive). If it\’s \”hah!! I saw you, you didn\’t completely stop rolling and put your feet down! TICKET!\” then that\’s pretty insane… most cars don\’t even do that.
Comlaining to their Chief of Police about a guilty-as-hell ticket is very counter-productive. If there ever was an issue where some cyclists give other cyclists a bad name, this is it.
Realize, pushkin, that many of us aren\’t outraged about the fact that people got ticketed, but rather:
1) the amount of the fine for a cyclist\’s traffic violation vs. the amount fined to a motorist who killed a cyclist, which is disturbing
2) the fact that at least one officer in NP has explained that there has been an increase in enforcement of traffic laws towards cyclists as a direct response to the death of a cyclist at the hands of an irresponsible motorist
3) Chief Scott Whitehead and another ticketing officer\’s \”teach those cyclists a lesson\” attitude, when it\’s *individuals*, as individuals, violating traffic laws who are at fault for thinking the law doesn\’t apply to them
4) Chief Whitehead\’s downright unprofessional, insulting, and dismissive demeanor when approached with concerns, even respectfully (see J\’s rather polite letter dismissed as \”blah blah blah crap\”)
Those of us who have these concerns have voiced time and time again how anyone running a stop sign -including those acting as though we\’ve already passed Idaho-style stop sign laws- do in fact deserve their tickets because they broke the law. Note that this does not necessarily denote ENDORSEMENT of the law, but rather acknowledges that, when you break the law and get caught, you receive some sort of penalty. Very simple.
So get it straight: we\’re not *ALL* your whiny bunch of cry babies. There are quite a lot of us who can conduct ourselves as mature adults. This doesn\’t mean that we don\’t have our concerns or outrages, though it probably does mean we\’ll take a bit more care in explaining ourselves so people can\’t just write us off.
So: don\’t be so absolutist. Thanks.
Oh, and as an aside: please stop perpetuating the \”foot down\” myth. As was rightly pointed out above, a \”complete stop\” is when the wheels cease to move forward. It is possible to come to a complete stop and then continue at a clear intersection, and it is legal. I do it every day on my scrappy old Schwinn road bike, even in front of police officers, and I\’ve not once been ticketed or even so much as given a talking-to. Of course, where there *is* other traffic to contend with, or where there\’s a blind corner, it does make sense to put a foot down, but this is more a safety thing than a legal thing.
N.I.K.,
I couldn\’t find Jess\’s actual letter in the midst of all that formatting muck, but he does seem like a very cordial writer in his introduction. Still, it only takes one bad apple to ruin the barrel. Moving on, I don\’t think it\’s appropriate to compare the fine these cyclists received for running a stop sign with the fine that was levied against the driver who killed Timothy O\’Donnell. She was not in fact fined for causing his death, but rather for the illegal passing et. al. which caused his death. This is an important distinction, being as it is the same maximum fine that could be applied to someone who committed the same violations, but injured no one. Until the vulnerable users bill or better is made law, it was the best the cops could do, and we should not consider the maximum 1000 dollar fine that may be levied against her as some sort of baseline with which to deem a 350 dollar rolling stop ticket some sort of sentencing injustice. Better to take 350 dollars for the act of running a stop sign as the baseline, and try to extrapolate from that how much a driver ought to be punished under a vulnerable users bill or whatever. Of course, even that is a silly way to think about things, but I\’m no jurist.
And Pushkin, I know I\’ll be in North Plains on Sunday, but it\’s definately gonna feel weird this time.
After reading the morning paper I had a few questions and clarifications. First each bicyclist received citations. Had three driver\’s struck Mr. O\’Donnell then we would have 3 times more fines in his crash. Also, Hillsboro like other agencies feel into the trap many years ago of not adequatley enforcing bicycle and pedestrian law. Thus only one ticket all last year. Is that right? I think not. Bicyclists would like equal \”rights\” on the road and enfrocement of the law. Well here it is. One should always watch what they ask for. I find it amusing that bicyclist bemaon it when one receives citations on a bicycle. It\’s easy, the traffic code applies. To whine about it is to say that bicyclists are above the law. I will also have you know that regardless of whether one is an officer in North Plains, Troutdale, Cornelius or Portland, the job has the same challenges. One will also see that the smaller the department, the officers are usually very knowledgable as they tend to actually carry their own investigations and arrests. So quit watching T.V. for your info and stereotypes and move. The \”Dukes of Hazards Comment\” was vulagar and rude and clearly showed your lack of intelligence about modern law enforcement.
I read this article about the North Plains area and thought…finally. I got a ticket out there in the past and pleaded not guilty for making a right hand turn without stopping at the same intersection: Glencoe and West Union. I saw the officer across the intersection by the railroad tracks just waiting for me. Well, I had an oncoming car wanting to make a left hand turn so as I rolled up to the intersection and was stopping, the oncoming car signalled me to go first and so instead of actually coming to a full stop to the point where I\’d have to step off the bike, I speeded up and made my right hand turn first and then the car made its left hand turn, followed immediately by officer Whitehead who then prompty pulled me over and ticketed me. Well, I went back to exactly where he had parked and I sat until the same type of vehicle approached the intersection just as the SUV that had turned left when I was at that intersection and sure enough, I found that from his vantage point, he actually couldn\’t see the stop sign. I took pictures to prove it and I had diagrams explaining the whole thing. But during the court proceedings, Officer Whitehead flat out lied and said that wasn\’t his police car watching that intersection and that he was observing me from behind on Glencoe road. Right! First of all, there is no shoulder on Glencoe for him to have parked to observe me and I saw him drive past me at I was first heading up Glencoe road in the first place. Second of all, how can one actually observe a bike stopping from behind? They don\’t have break lights and you wouldn\’t have the right angle to be able to see that. I was never so angry ever about a citation because I didn\’t do anything wrong and felt like they were just running their little North Plains money generating system over there. I too got an unfriendly lecture and a clear attitude that bikes shouldn\’t be on the road. I would have appealed but the cost to do so was the same amount as the ticket and not redeemable so I dropped it. I\’d also thought about calling the Oregonian at the time and see if they would do some investigation on what is going on in North Plains. I find it interesting that I must have watched at least 30 different citation pleads during my two times in that mock courtroom and every single one was found guilty and every single one paid the maximum amount of the ticket. I have never seen a place that didn\’t have some reductions here and there. Apparently they have a good money making operation in North Plains though so why reduce their profit margin with reductions.
Excellent account EW. It could be highly worthwhile to hear if other\’s accounts share any similarities. Some of the points you claim ought to fairly easy to verify, such as that there\’s no place for him to park on Glencoe that is a reasonable distance away from the stop sign and observe violators, and that the North Plains Court is generally disinclined to make reductions in fines.
This one comment you made got me thinking though:
\”Second of all, how can one actually observe a bike stopping from behind?\” Susan
…because earlier up in your account you said:
\”…so as I rolled up to the intersection and was stopping, the oncoming car signalled me to go first and so instead of actually coming to a full stop to the point where I\’d have to step off the bike, I speeded up and made my right hand turn first and then the car made its left hand turn,…\” Susan
So, assuming the cop really was behind you on Glencoe, and as you say, you \”speeded up\”, would he perhaps have been able to see your pedals moving all the way through the signed intersection, making the violation a dead giveaway? Lots of variables and uncertainties here, but couldn\’t help asking.
Quoting EW:
Well, I went back to exactly where he had parked and I sat until the same type of vehicle approached the intersection just as the SUV that had turned left when I was at that intersection and sure enough, I found that from his vantage point, he actually couldn\’t see the stop sign. I took pictures to prove it and I had diagrams explaining the whole thing. But during the court proceedings, Officer Whitehead flat out lied and said that wasn\’t his police car watching that intersection and that he was observing me from behind on Glencoe road.
Next time (not that there should be a next time), do it in reverse order. Get the officer to testify about where he was when you committed the violation. Then introduce your evidence to prove that he couldn\’t have seen you.
wsbob – What I don\’t like about the law is what constitutes a stop. On a bike, I tend to stop just for an instantaneous second before going again so I don\’t have to actually step off my clips (I\’m no good at balancing). In my case, I\’d come up to that intersection fast, broke to a stop, and accelerated out on my right turn fast. All that he could observe from across the way was me coming up fast and accelerating out fast. But while breaking to a stop, I was coasting so I don\’t know what anyone could have observed from behind to determine a stop from a non-stop. Of course, there wasn\’t anyone behind me anyway; that was just his fabrication to destroy all my evidence to the real situation.
rixtr – Yeah, great point but I had no idea an officer would lie in court. What is the motive for that other than vindictiveness or monetary? He clearly doesn\’t like bicylists. During my ticket he told me that bicyclists shouldn\’t be out here on the roads in response to a comment I made about bicylists having to deal with a lot of legitimate safety concerns and not some sting operation to watch me like a bug under a magnifying glass. I just held on to a belief that in the end, dishonesty will come back to bite you and having read the newspaper article and seen a lot of this correspondence, it is starting to come back around to him. Finally.