press conference.
(Photos © J. Maus)
At a press conference this morning held at a law firm in downtown Portland, Mary O’Donnell — whose husband Tim was killed while riding his bike — told reporters and news cameras that her push for a vehicular homicide law is “definitely what he would have wanted.”
Facing a packed room full of reporters and television cameras, O’Donnell seemed pensive as she marked the one-year anniversary of her husband’s death. “He said that if he did ever get hit, at least he would die doing something he loved.”
On June 9th, 2007, Tim O’Donnell was struck from behind while riding on a rural road in Washington County. Jennifer Knight — the woman who hit him — had her license suspended in Oregon, then went to Idaho to get another one. Six days prior to colliding with Tim O’Donnell, Knight was involved in another crash which was attributed to her “inattentiveness” by investigators.
Since then, Mary O’Donnell has become active on several issues as she tries to improve traffic safety and bring more closure and accountability for what happened to her husband.
In the 2007 legislative session she tried to push for a bill that would have allowed bereaved families to request memorial signs to be placed at intersections, but that law failed to pass on two different occasions (once in the regular session and again in the shortened session early this year). Also in 2007, O’Donnell’s testimony to Salem lawmakers was key in getting the vulnerable roadway users law passed.
Now, Mrs. O’Donnell — along with the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA) and Lawyer Ray Thomas — is standing up for a vehicular homicide law that aims to get delinquent vehicle operators off the roads.
and Karl Rohde (R).
At this morning’s press conference, noted bike lawyer Ray Thomas said the new law would go way beyond the vulnerable roadway users statute. That law, he says has “limitations” because offenders could “opt out” of the community service provision and get away with a fine ($12,500). In contrast, the vehicular homicide law will be a Class B felony which would carry a ten-year maximum sentence.
“Of course,” added Thomas, “we all know that often the maximum sentence is not issued, but this [law] would send a serious message to law enforcement, to the public and to judges.” Thomas added that what’s important about this proposed vehicular homicide law is that it recognizes the vehicle itself as being a dangerous weapon when combined with choices like using drugs or alcohol, driving with a suspended license or without insurance.
Thomas, O’Donnell, and the BTA’s government affairs director Karl Rohde will work to pass this law during the 2009 legislative session.
_________
— The Portland Mercury blog has some good coverage of this morning’s press conference.
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.
Saw this story pop up on kgw.com earlier today.
In the story there is a poll on whether or not you agree with the vehicular homicide law and, get this, a pretty good majority is against the law even though we are only one of three states who don\’t have the law on the books.
Scary.
Chad, it\’s important to recognize that so-called \”unscientific\” polls are not accurate representations of public opinion.
Folks, please contact your gals/guys in Salem and talk to them about getting this passed.
Check the poll again Chad, 70% in favor.
Thanks for the tip Chad – looks like we should go to kgw.com and register our opinions. That is scary.
Is there something we can do readily to assist in getting this passed, such as writing to our Congressmen and/or Senators?
KOIN had a similar story/poll, however the Yes votes are at 67.9% right now. Goes to show you how unreliable internet polls are.
Poll is badly worded anyway, playing into the car v. bike divide. Bikes really have little to do with this law. It\’s about the law recognizing that the car is a potential weapon and that that danger potential needs to be factored in to driving decisions.
As it is right now, you pretty much need to be drunk, on drugs, or intentional in your actions to face any kind of consequences. This law would change that.
Oh, and the poll is here. Freep away.
http://www.kgw.com/perl/common/surveys/vote_now.pl
This is some pretty biased news reporting:
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_060908_news_odonnell_cyclist_struck_law.1651d1b8.html
biased original headline: \”Drivers could face homicide charges in deadly bike crashes\”
unbiased fixed headline: \”Drivers could face homicide charges when they commit homicide\”
Inaccurate original first sentence:
\”The wife of a man who died after a car struck him while he was riding his bicycle in Northwest Portland is pushing for tougher penalties for drivers who hit cyclists.\”
Fixed: \”The wife of a man who was killed by a car while riding in Washington County is pushing for tougher penalties for drivers who kill cyclists.\”
Jeff, I think you\’re thinking of the koin poll. KGW, about five minutes ago, was at 49 v 48 ish.
This was the top story on KGW\’s 10 PM Sunday newscast. She mentioned that the woman who killed her husband is still driving around. What\’s wrong here?
Oh, talking about the bias in the news, no one bothers to mention that (if I am correct) this law could also apply to drivers who kill other drivers. So to play this on the car/bike divide is very sad.
By the way, currently 42 more people have said \’No\’ to the question
\”Should drivers be subject to possible vehicular homicide charges when they kill bicyclists?\”
on kgw\’s poll:
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_060908_news_odonnell_cyclist_struck_law.1651d1b8.html
KOIN\’s web article seems better written, and at the bottom mentions that
\”Most drivers we spoke with agreed with the general aims of the proposal.\”
see koin article
KGW\’s poll is great, you can vote twice if you want.
Once from the main page, and once from the story\’s page.
a.O, thanks for the reality check…this issue has the ability to get a person a little frantic.
Though scientific or not it still gives uneducated viewers of the kgw poll the idea that the bill has limited support…this I worry about as we need all the support we can get.
those polls are absolutely pointless and meaningless.
your time is much better spent educating your state representatives in Salem about the issue and urging them to support it next session.
Russell, you\’re right, I was thinking KOIN. Maybe it\’s because KGW is the bottom of the barrel for local news coverage.
@ #14 & # 15:
Chad, I agree that unscientific polls give people misleading ideas about public opinion – that\’s why they\’re so irresponsible. No respectable media outlet should use these. They are actually worse than \”meaningless\” because – beyond conveying no factual information – they actually convey falsehoods.
@ #7:
Double-fixed first sentence:
\”The wife of a man who was killed by someone driving a car while riding in Washington County is pushing for tougher penalties for drivers who kill cyclists.\”
Polls are dumb and too easily manipulated by wordsmithing. What I find good in this proposed legislation is the recognition that in certain circumstances a car can legally be considered to have been used as a weapon, and the driver punished accordingly. It makes legal what many of us already know in our gut.
21 years ago, shortly after his 18th birthday, my brother (Jeff), while riding his bike in Phoenix, AZ was hit and killed by a drunk driver. The driver was sentenced to 8 years, and served 4. His BOC was > .25, and he\’d had multiple previous DUI\’s.
My brother\’s birthday is June 9th.
RIP Tim and Jeff.
Jonathan and the others are right, the poll is meaningless.
But KGW\’s handling of the story and the poll is not.
We should not allow the media to continue to fan the flames of the car/bike divide.
As I said above, this is not about bikes. This is about drivers who kill people. We are not bikers asking for special treatment. We are people asking that drivers who use OUR public space be held accountable when they kill.
Please send a quick and polite email to KGW, telling them that you don\’t appreciate their tactics.
we should all spend a little time writing to KATU and KOIN to call them out on their crappy reporting?
I just did…in a nice way of course.
Thank you for your continued press on this, it\’s an important, and necessary issue that needs all of our support.
Tonyt, I agree that it\’s irresponsible \”journalism\” when KGW makes this a \”car/bike divide\” issue.
It isn\’t about cars, and it isn\’t about bikes. It\’s about accountability. Vehicle operators who negligently kill, regardless of what type of vehicle they\’re operating, and regardless of who their victim is– pedestrian, cyclist, or motorist– will face criminal penalties for the death that occurred as a result of their negligent operation of a vehicle.
That\’s a law that protects everybody on the road. The only possible opposition to criminalizing vehicular homicide would be the negligent vehicle operators lobby…And the news media ratings lobby.
re: unnecessarily fanning the flames of the the bike/car divide, here\’s my part in the KGW story:
\”Bikeportland.org editor Jonathan Maus explained that under the proposed law, offenders would be held accountable no matter what type of vehicle they are operating.
“If they kill somebody with their car or with their bike, criminally negligent homicide is the closest thing right now and criminal negligence is not going to fly for most people,” he said.\”
in both the interviews i did last night (was also on KATU) i tried to make it clear that this law really has nothing to do with bikes specifically and that the only reason the BTA was pushing it is because bikes unfortunately are much more vulnerable when a collision happens.
Wow, hard to believe they are quoting you as a source for the proposition that a vehicular homicide law would apply to more than just killing cyclists. How dumb are these people?
Not that you\’re not a worthwhile source, but why would they not already know this?
But also, as I understand the law, it applies whenever a negligent vehicle operator kills *somebody*– it doesn\’t just apply when vulnerable road users are killed (although we maybe feel more vulnerable on the road). It applies whenever anybody– motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian– is killed by another\’s negligence.
And that\’s something we should all be able to get behind.
i admire mary o\’donnell\’s strength in helping to push for this much-needed law. anything that might make a proven bad driver think twice before getting behind the wheel is fine with me. i\’m just so tired of careless drivers getting $250 fines for taking someone\’s life.
to steal from a.O on another post: drive to not kill people.
I ride a bike every single day. I have been hit by a car, and have had many friends quite seriously injured by cars. I have also had friends seriously injure people with their bikes.
I am absolutely against this law. The misconceptions and misunderstandings on this website are absolutely appalling.
First, this law does not punish bad drivers. Bad drivers are already covered by the criminal statutes. If you kill someone recklessly, that is a Measure 11 offense, which has a mandatory minimum sentence of about 9 years in prison for each charge. If you kill someone negligently, there is criminally negligent homicide. In other words, if you simply kill someone taking a risk that you shouldn\’t have taken, that is negligence. A lot of the postings have been about \”bad\” or \”negligent\” drivers. That\’s not what this law targets. This law is for people who made no serious mistake driving, and were involved in a serious tragedy.
Second, this law, while having nice intentions, does nothing more than punish poor folks. Those with lower incomes make up a disproportionate amount of people with suspended licenses. This is because, oftentime, it can hundreds of dollars to get your license back. Not much of a problem for someone on a brand new Bianchi, but a big problem for folks trying to support a family on a minimal wage.
Third, this law discriminates against undocumented workers. It is going to be very challenging for these folks to get licenses in other States now, and many farm jobs are migratory in nature.
Let\’s think twice before jumping on the jail bandwagon. I would not that centuries of prison haven\’t solved criminal behavior, and likely never will.
Killing somebody through your own negligence behind the wheel is \”no serious mistake driving\”?
Time to put the crack pipe down, you\’re done.
OK, on second thought, I see your point. The law targets anybody who kills while negligently driving a vehicle, and presumably (not seeing the text), negligence includes driving without a license and/or driving without insurance.
So, theoretically, somebody driving on a suspended license or without insurance could, through of fault of their own, be involved in fatal accident. For example, somebody could run a red light, crash into the person driving without a license, and the person driving without a license is sent to prison on a felony charge.
That IS unjust.
That said, I don\’t care that somebody can\’t afford a license or insurance. It costs money to drive. If you can\’t afford it, you don\’t belong behind the wheel, period. Is it unjust that somebody would be sent to prison when all they did was drive after they were forbidden to drive?
Yes.
It\’s also unjust when that same person, under the excuse that they can\’t afford insurance, injures or kills me while driving uninsured. Life IS tougher for the poor. That\’s no excuse to abandon personal responsibility. Sometimes, you just can\’t afford things that other people can. Like driving a car. In short, I don\’t care what their reason is, if they can\’t afford to drive responsibly– that is, if they can\’t afford to get their license back, or they can\’t afford insurance, or even if they can\’t afford to meet pollution standards– and they drive anyway, they\’ve lost my sympathy.
Finally, you might take a look at the accident statistics sometimes. A disproportionate number of motor vehicle accidents are caused by people who are driving on suspended or revoked licenses. There\’s a reason they lose their licenses in the first place– no easy task in a society which views driving as a right– and if they\’ve reached the point where society finally suspends or revokes their driving privileges, and they can\’t afford to get them back, tough.
***Is there something we can do readily to assist in getting this passed, such as writing to our Congressmen and/or Senators?***
Certainly. Here\’s the website to find out your current legislator\’s contact info: http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/
Many of them will be lame ducks right now, with new people taking over in January, but contact them anyway.
You can also call, toll free: 800-332-2313, and ask the nice lady for the rep you want, or tell her where you live and she\’ll connect you to the right person.
Leave them a voicemail, something to the effect of: \”I\’m a bicyclist and I urge you to support safety for bicyclists. Please support the vehicular homicide bill.\”
If you\’ve got a new Democrat coming in in your district, find out who it is –shouldn\’t be that tough –and call or email and ask them to cosponsor Mrs. O\’Donnell\’s bill once they\’re sworn in.
We\’ve got a plethora of young, fresh bright new legislators going to Salem, and every one of them should be harassed relentlessly about how important bike safety is to the voters in this community.
JJ
Mr. Rixtir-
Stop repeating the proposed law requires negligence. It absolutely DOES NOT. Criminally negligent homicide ALREADY EXISTS; check Chapter 163 of the Oregon Criminal Code. You should review the terms strict liability, negligence, criminal negligence, and recklessness before you continue this debate. This proposed law is one we would term \”strict liability.\”
Your proposal that its ok to punish an individual more harshly because they are part of a group that causes more harm is a species of collective punishment. That is a very dangerous proposal.
There is another point worth talking about: suspended licenses only come about with the intersection of the criminal justice system. Currently, Multnomah County drastically discriminates against people of color in every phase of the system from traffic stops to sentences received. Is that really a system you want to become a part of?
Last, all of the arguments made about this law are made in favor of captial punishment: it would deter people because of the harsh punishment. It doesn\’t work.
Tab, just because you ride a bike doesn\’t mean you are capable of understanding what policies are needed to lessen the approx. 43,000 deaths each year in this country caused by people driving motor vehicles.
Your first argument totally ignores the problems that Oregon DAs have had getting convictions under the existing laws. I wonder if you\’ve been paying any attention at all to the punishments received by drivers killing and injuring bicyclists lately?
Your second argument is about economic inequality, which has nothing to do with what behavior the law punishes. The idea that poor people (who are dangerous to others on the roadway) need to be able to drive to get out of poverty is simply not true. Europeans have a higher standard of living than Americans and use half the gasoline. If anything, it\’s pretty clear these days that driving more costs more!
Your third argument about deterring illegal immigration is a reason to support this bill for me. I had to wait in line, fill out the forms, and pay my fees to get into this country – why should others get to break the rules and stay for free?
Can someone provide a link to the text of this bill?
I\’m not saying we should have collective punishment. I\’m saying that it\’s laughable to imply, as you have, that people who are driving on suspended or revoked licenses are good drivers who just got unlucky because they\’re poor. The statistics demonstrate otherwise.
I am not even suggesting that somebody who is involved in a fatal collision through another party\’s negligence should be punished as if they were the negligent party.
However, I do think they should pay a penalty for ignoring the fact that they have been ordered not to drive. For those people, taking their driving privileges away is meaningless, because they have demonstrated their willingness to drive anyway. Therefore, I have no objections to punishing them with jail time. I do object, however, to punishing them with the same sentence that applies to somebody who negligently kills.
Again, as I understand the law, negligent operation of a vehicle resulting in somebody\’s death will be punishable as a criminal offense. Despite your dance with words, you haven\’t really denied that basic fact, have you?
And yes, I am somewhat familiar with the terms \”\”strict liability,\” negligence,\” et al.– a familiarity I acquired before my J.D.
As far as you playing the race card, I don\’t really care what color the person is, if they\’ve lost their license, it\’s because they are unsafe drivers to begin with. I don\’t have any issue with taking them off the road. I do have an issue with leaving unsafe drivers on the road simply because they have a racial advantage in the criminal justice system. The just solution is to remove all unsafe drivers from the road, not to leave unsafe drivers on the road in some misguided application of social justice.
Finally, whether it\’s a deterrent or not, they\’re not driving while they\’re in prison. That\’s good enough for me….And more respectful of the victim\’s life than the collective shrug of the shoulders we engage in now.
Tab,
You said, \”Last, all of the arguments made about this law are made in favor of captial punishment: it would deter people because of the harsh punishment. It doesn\’t work.\”
Actually, all of the arguments made about this law are made in favor of jail too.
Because we have jail but still have crime does that mean we should stop sending people to jail for killing people?
The implications and consequences of any proposed vehicular homicide law have to be simple enough for people to understand if it such a law is to be an effective deterrent against lethal driving behavior.
I\’m interested in knowing how this proposed law might have altered driver Jennifer Knight\’s behavior behind the wheel, had it been in existence before she happened upon cyclist Timothy O’Donnell. Any effective law has to be simple enough for someone like Knight to understand if it\’s going to be any good. For this example, I\’m presuming she has a little more intelligence than an Idaho fencepost.
I agree with Tab, in a sense, that prison, jail or otherwise locking people up, is not the best objective. The better objective is to have a new law somehow effectively communicate to certain drivers that their driving must be changed to avoid a situation they would not be happy with, before they actually run over and kill someone.
tab (#32) – \”Your proposal that its ok to punish an individual more harshly because they are part of a group that causes more harm … is a very dangerous proposal.\”
The law exists in 46 states currently. I don\’t think it\’ll be any more dangerous in Oregon than it is in, say… Michigan.
Even in Detroit, where car entitlement is practically a God-given right, I haven\’t seen the kind of issues you\’re positing in your previous posts.
1. This law does not punish bad drivers. The law punishes those who have suspended licenses. To assume one is the same is laughable at best. For example, your license will be suspended if you are caught by the police with a bit of cocaine whether or not you were even in a car. Does this make you a bad driver? Your license could be suspended if you fail to appear at a traffic hearing, even if you are totally innocent. Does this make you a bad driver?
Mr. Rixtir, you state, \”I don\’t really care what color the person is, if they\’ve lost their license, it\’s because they are unsafe drivers to begin with.\” However, African-Americans, for example, are prosecuted for drug offense at a rate approximately 10 times their proportional representation in this community, and we all know white people do drugs. Every drug conviction carries with it an automatic license suspension (there is an escape clause, but it is no guarantee). Its not a race card, its reality.
2. When your driving is bad, and it hurts someone, there are a lot of laws of the books to deal with it. The fact that prosecutors don\’t apply them as vigorously when cyclists are injured is a reason to get new prosecutors, not bad laws with unintended consequences.
Although I ride a bike and feel it\’s tragic anyone would be killed while riding one, I cannot support this bill because too many cyclists ride like they are immune to traffic laws. Though most people ride responsibly and realize the consequences of unsafe behavior, too many do not.
What\’s telling about tab\’s posts is what you don\’t see: The language of the bill.
Does anyone really think that arguing with tab is going to do any good or change his/her mind?
He is arguing from an ideological position about the current functioning about the criminal justice system – he is not even discussing the bill at issue here.
By citing arguments like racial disparities in drug prosecutions, tab is using examples of injustices that no one here likely would disagree with and conflating them with the mechanism for punishing dangerous behavior described in this bill.
Those injustices are happening regardless of whether the vehicular homicide bill becomes law. By making them seem as though they are related to this bill, the obviously falsehoods tab is spreading (the law does not punish those who deserve it) gains some credence in the mind of the gullible reader.
Tab wants you to think that defeating this bill is a way to deal with those problems. And that is absurd.
So tell us, tab, if the law \”does not punish bad drivers,\” what does the bill specifically say?
Where does the language of the bill fail to capture its intended target?
Hey, how \’bout a bike ed law too? NOBODY wants CHANGE until someone croaks. Who am I kidding?
And, getting into a car when drunk should count as premeditation–so that killing another road user when so affected should be considered murder, not manslaughter.
#32. I sat in a room with the Washington County DA and heard him read and interpret the law. And say that there was not a crime he could charge the driver with, by the LEGAL DEFINITION OF NEGLIGENCE. I want that law.
Tab, you haven\’t got a shred of credibility if you are going to maintain with a straight face that \”This law does not punish bad drivers.\”
Of course, you are free to step up to the plate, as I previously challenged, and deny that negligent operation of a vehicle resulting in a death will be a felony offense under the proposed law. Are you prepared to make that denial? Or will you continue to dance with your words?
You make an interesting point that a suspended license does not necessarily indicate that the driver is a \”bad driver.\” OK, fair enough, I don\’t know much about drug convictions, so let\’s assume that some drivers lose their licenses due to circumstances unrelated to their driving behavior. Now, since you\’re bringing up the circumstances under which one loses one\’s license, you must surely be aware that a DUI conviction is another one of those circumstances under which one loses one\’s license. So is Oregon\’s \”repeat offender\” program, under which drivers with multiple traffic convictions face losing their licenses.
Now, Tab, what percentage of drivers who have lost their licenses have lost them due to drug convictions completely unrelated to driving, and what percentage of drivers who have lost their licenses have lost them due to convictions directly or indirectly related to driving? I\’m taking a guess here that MOST license forfeitures are the result of convictions directly or indirectly related to driving. And frankly, I want those drivers removed from the road.
So what do we do about those drivers who lose their licenses due to other circumstances? Nothing. There is that old saying, \”If you can\’t do the time, don\’t do the crime.\” If you\’re going to get involved with drugs, then criminal convictions and sentences are part of the scenery, and if losing your license is a part of the sentence, then that\’s the path you chose, isn\’t it? Even if drug convictions are racially imbalanced (something not demonstrated through the dubious use of statistics– conviction rates compared to the percentage of population invite us to assume racial bias, but actually tell us nothing about the fairness or lack of fairness of the criminal justice system), if losing your license is pat of the territory that comes with drug use and/or distribution, then that\’s the path you chose if you\’re subsequently convicted, isn\’t it? If you have a court appearance and losing your license is what will result from a failure to appear, then if you fail to appear you\’ve made your choices, even if you are \”completely innocent.\” Failure to appear due to exigent circumstances? Inform the court and ask that the hearing be rescheduled. Otherwise, accept the consequences of your failure to appear and stop complaining. I have NO sympathy for somebody whose license is suspended but who chooses to drive anyway. Is that person facing a \”strict liability\” conviction if they are caught up in a fatal accident due to another person\’s negligence? Yes. Do I care? No. That\’s the choice that person is making when they get behind the wheel after the state has suspended their license. If they choose to place themselves in the position where they can be convicted under a \”strict liability\” theory, they don\’t really have have anybody to blame but themselves afterward, do they?
And what about that \”strict liability\”? Is it appropriate to make driving without insurance or driving without a license a strict liability activity? Absolutely. Motor vehicles kill in excess of 40,000 people very year. People who are prohibited from driving but choose to drive anyway elicit no sympathy from me if they find themselves facing a conviction under a strict liability theory. That\’s what they chose, so no use whining to me afterwards about \”no fair!\”
All that said, I think it\’s mostly a red herring– I think most license forfeitures are directly or indirectly related to one\’s driving behavior. Of course, you\’re free to prove that most license forfeitures are completely unrelated to driving behavior, but I think you know that you\’re blowing smoke to protect the relative handful of people who will be caught up in a felony conviction for offenses unrelated to their driving behavior.
The BTA\’s proposed law so far exists in only a few conceptual fragments. Is that not right? The actual proposed law is currently in the process of being written and its specifics or language have not been finalized. Correct?
I have no idea what the completed law will specify, but personally, I think it should provide that any road user whatever their vehicle of choice happens to be, that runs over and kills a vulnerable road user, should answer to the criteria of vehicular homicide.
Whether a road user has insurance or a valid license is beside the point. People need to get used to the idea that their vehicle is a potentially lethal weapon and take all necessary precautions accordingly.
David, #42:
Getting behind the wheel while drunk could not possibly constitute \”premeditation\” to support a murder conviction. The state of mind necessary to convict on premeditated murder just isn\’t there.
However, getting behind the wheel while drunk should be sufficient to prove recklessness, which is an element of some homicides.
wsbob is correct.
the language of the law has not yet been drafted.
The BTA has to have a legislator officially sponsor the bill (it will likely be either Floyd Prozanski or Tobias Read) and then the Legislative Council in Salem will draw up the first draft.
Once a draft is available, I will do a follow-up story.
And for what it\’s worth, my hunch is that the law will not be vehicle-specific… in other words it would apply to anyone operating any vehicle (be that a bike, a car, a skateboard, etc..)… but that\’s just my hunch.
But Jonathan, I still think the real point that\’s being missed by everybody is that this isn\’t a bill to punish motorists who negligently kill cyclists– it\’s a bill that will punish motorists (and other vehicle operators) who negligently kill another person, whether that person is a pedestrian, a cyclist, or another motorist.
While cyclists are vulnerable road users, and therefore behind this bill, the bill protects the rights of everybody on the road. I think we do ourselves an injustice when we sell this as a \”cyclist\” bill, because it provides the same measure of justice for everybody in Oregon, regardless of whether they\’re walking, riding, or driving. If we want this bill, I think we should focus on getting past this false car/bike divide that the media is portraying, and emphasize that the bill protects ALL Oregonians.
rixtir,
you are preaching to the choir with me. i completely agree with you.
i think its unfortunate that some of the local media presented the news as being bike vs. car instead of it being — like you say — vehicle neutral.
i think you\’ll definitely see the effort to pass this bill focus on protecting everyone… but of course as we all know, the media will do whatever they want with it.
Sensible people wait until there is at least a draft bill before saying things like \”this law does…\” or \”this law does not…\”
What\’s abundantly clear from paying attention to the news, talking with prosecutors, and reviewing the Oregon criminal code is that something needs to be done to get people like Jennifer Knight out of motor vehicles for good.