Special gravel coverage

Owner of Mt. Hood Ski Bowl pleads guilty to drunken hit-and-run — UPDATED

Posted by on August 26th, 2010 at 10:54 pm

Kirk Hanna hit someone
while driving drunk at speeds
of 80 mph and did not stop.
(Photo: Multnomah County)

Kirk Hanna, owner of Mt. Hood Ski Bowl, real estate developer, and son of carwash magnate Daniel Hanna, and plead guilty to Hit and Run, DUII, and 4th degree Assault in a Multnomah County courtroom on Thursday.

According to Portland Police, Hanna, 49, was driving his Porsche SUV at speeds estimated to be 80 mph when he swerved and struck Robert Skof, ridig a bicycle on SW Macadam Ave, just north of the Sellwood Bridge on May 23rd. Hanna did not stop and witnesses say he sped up when they tried to follow him to get his license plate. The incident occurred at 2:43 am. The victim was transported to a hospital with bleeding and facial lacerations that were not life-threatening.

Kirk Hanna’s Porsche Cayenne
SUV showing damage from the
(Photo: Portland Police)

Even though he hit a man on a bike at 80 mph while driving drunk and left him for dead on the side of the road, all the charges Hanna plead guilty to today are misdemeanors. He will serve 30 days in jail, lose his license for 90 days, and pay a fine of $1,000. This outcome was part of a carefully manipulated plea deal by Hanna’s lawyers. As part of the plea, Hanna has agreed to compensate the victim within one year.

According to KPTV, the judge will allow Hanna to serve his time on the weekends.

Sargeant Todd Davis of the Portland Police Bureau Traffic Division said, “At the Traffic Division we take a dim view of drunk drivers who run down bicyclists and pedestrians.”

I’ll update this story with more details as I learn more.

Please support BikePortland.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

  • Paul August 26, 2010 at 11:14 pm

    You should lose your license for 5 years at a minimum. Absolutely ridiculous.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Neighbor August 26, 2010 at 11:22 pm

    “At the Traffic Division we take a dim view of drunk driver’s … but only for 3 months, then their future is bright!”


    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • voline August 26, 2010 at 11:41 pm

    Rich man’s justice. This is outrageous.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Marcus Griffith August 27, 2010 at 1:35 am

    A 30 day jail sentence, lose of license for 90 days and a fine for DUI and a hit-and-run? Sounds like the Portland police are condoning the hit and run.

    Any one want to make odds whether the DA is getting a campaign contribution or the police chief free lift tickets?

    Making an error in judgement is human…leaving someone for dead quite another matter.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • 151 August 27, 2010 at 1:35 am

    Driving is a privilege–if you hit someone while driving drunk, you should permanently lose your license. One time deal. Abuse it and lose it. This guy is scum. I hope he drops the soap while he spends those pitiful 30 days in jail.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • freeman August 27, 2010 at 1:37 am

    good behavior days, overcrowded jail system. sympathetic justice system slanted towards the auto culture….
    he’s out in two weeks, max.

    can’t cut off his lead foot or follow him around 24/7 – driving is simply an act of controlling a machine.

    he could just as well have run a weedwacker thru a pre-school playground blindfolded and done potentially less injurious damage. bastard.

    so much more ranting to do…so little internets.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • peejay August 27, 2010 at 5:36 am

    Hit someone while drunk- lose your license forever. Leave them for dead – five years in the clinker. Which is less than what a pot grower can get.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • peejay August 27, 2010 at 5:38 am

    **peejay, I won’t tolerate even a veiled suggestion of vandalism directed at someone in one of my stories. –Jonathan **

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chris August 27, 2010 at 6:07 am

    “Hanna has agreed to compensate the victim within one year.”…. I am sure the victim agreed to this plea deal, I wonder what the compensation is?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • noah August 27, 2010 at 6:10 am

    “At the Traffic Division we take a dim view of drunk driver’s who run down bicyclists and pedestrians.”

    At The Consumerist, the meme about impressive talk with no action in customer service is, “We’re taking this very seriously.” This sounds like the law enforcement equivalent.

    On the less dim side, I wonder if Kirk and Daniel are related to Kathleen Hanna, who has roots in Portland.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • AC. August 27, 2010 at 6:13 am

    Mark your calendar… September 9-12 the Fluidride Enduro mountain bike races at Skibowl. Lots of fun with live music at the Ratskeller on the 11th along with a very cool bike movie. The outdoor area at the Rat is a great place to have a beer in the summer!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • noah August 27, 2010 at 6:14 am

    AC, are you trying to be ironic?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Peter August 27, 2010 at 6:34 am

    No, this punishment is completely correct for our society. We worship rich people and hold them above the law. The wealthy do not need to have morals or to be held accountable for their actions. Bob Dylan explained this perfectly in “Hattie Carroll”.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • dan August 27, 2010 at 7:15 am

    For the winter sports fans here: anyone else surprised to hear that the owner of Ski Bowl isn’t just scraping by? (Assuming that driving a Cayenne really does mean that business is OK up there.) Given that every season it’s a roll of the dice whether they’ll have enough snow to open at all, I’ve always assumed that they were in dire straits financially.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • buglas August 27, 2010 at 7:17 am

    I don’t envy Sergeant Davis his job on this one. The Police did their part. The plea bargain is a product of the DA’s office.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Schrauf August 27, 2010 at 7:44 am

    Dan, he is also a developer and had a rich daddy. And when a private business operation is subsidized with extensive use of prime national forest land, it is easier to make at least a little money, even if you suck, which this guy does.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Stig August 27, 2010 at 8:06 am

    SW Macadam. That’s a speedway for motorists. 4 traffic lanes, no bike lane, no shoulder. I can’t imagine riding it at 3am. I’d be on the sidewalk rather than play Russian roulette.

    That said it’s the few people like Hanna that make the streets 100x more dangerous. He shouldn’t be allowed back behind the wheel for years. Slap on the wrist.

    Maybe be need some mandatory minimum sentences for drunk driving and hit-and-runs so the privileged can’t continue to get away with this.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • andy August 27, 2010 at 8:23 am

    Once again this shows that if you want to kill someone and get away with it all you need to do is hit them with your car while they ride a bike.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Erik August 27, 2010 at 8:52 am

    Seems like THIS is the guy that should have a tri-met bus driver blog post write up.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • A.K. August 27, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Steve #4:

    I hate bike ninja’s as much as anyone else, but give me a break here. He was driving 80(!!!!!) MPH and DRUNK (!!!) on Macadam! Last time I drive over there I thought the speed limit was 35 or so.

    Even if they had no lights on, no one deserves to be hit in a situation like that and left for dead.

    Even if he is successful, he certainly is a terrible person. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • cyclist August 27, 2010 at 8:56 am

    Jonathan: Do you know whether or not this is Hanna’s first offense? If it is, then that was probably a mitigating factor. Regardless though, the excessive speeding (more than 30mph over the limit should be considered reckless endangerment) along with the DUI and the hit and run should have added up to more than a 90 day suspension of the license (if not a longer jail term). I wonder if the a lesser punishment was traded for greater compensation to the victim? Maybe in exchange for the victim not suing in civil court?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • cyclist August 27, 2010 at 8:57 am

    A.K. #21. Steve #4 is trolling, just trying to provoke a reaction. The driver is obviously 100% in the wrong, DUI + excessive speed + hit and run makes it absolutely clear.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • f5 August 27, 2010 at 9:00 am

    Dan #15: They make more money during summer than they do winter. And the summer crowds are more consistent, less dependent on weather cycles.

    Steve#4: If this were my blog, I’d block the IP address for tools who defending hit’n’runners.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dabby August 27, 2010 at 9:05 am

    A cyclists can ride on Macadam at any time of day they want to…..

    I wonder how many of you have been caught out without lights, or have ended up riding somewhere and realized you donot have lights with you.

    Or, how many of you have had to ride around at night without lights simplybecause you can not afford to buy them. Or because a crapy mount failed and your light exploded on the ground.

    I was hit by a sunglass wearing, cell phone talking girl who just left a bar after drinking.

    She right hooked me from the middle lane.
    Ended my career, racing, and a life of comfortable sleeping. Oh and not to mention refused to give me her info… Then left…

    I was two blocks from home at 9:32.
    Government calls 9:30 dark on that day.

    So I lost, and they tried to make me pay for her car.

    Oh sweet justice…..

    Driving drunk?
    Straight to jail. No pleas, public humiliation, and huge fines, not to mention loss of the right to drive for life………

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • deborah August 27, 2010 at 9:17 am

    How is this not a felony?
    Oregon has a LOT going for it – but our legal protection for bikes and pedestrian is a COMPLETE joke! I can imagine the people that get hit and left for dead aren’t laughing. In most states hitting a parked car and leaving the scene of the crime would get you stiffer punishment than what Oregon does when you hit a human being. I am outraged.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • drew August 27, 2010 at 9:19 am

    All road users ar equal but motorists are more equal than others. Especially wealthy ones.
    Macadam and Taylors Ferry will see more bike traffic this winter because the cemetery will be off limits to bikes when it gets dark. Dress up like a Christmas tree if you hope to avoid getting hit by drunk or distracted. .

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Helen McConnell August 27, 2010 at 9:31 am

    To Chris #13: If you’re implying that the victim is wrong for agreeing to this plea bargain, consider this: I’m the victim, and I have no money for a lawyer, and I’m just grateful I wasn’t killed, and my PD tells me I can’t win without a long, expensive legal battle, and they’re offering, say, 500k to keep me quiet, I’m gonna go for it in a heartbeat. The driver was ABSOLUTELY in the wrong – drunk, speeding, hit and run. But with that 500k, I can buy new bike lights, pay my medical bills, send my kids to college, and maybe afford to work days so I don’t have to be riding at 3 a.m.
    It’s easy to be an armchair judge.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) August 27, 2010 at 9:32 am

    Folks, I’m working on bringing you more of this story. Hanna’s lawyers obviously had a huge impact on how this ended up. And yes, the victim agreed to the plea deal because he knows he will be compensated nicely. Obviously this should have resulted in felonies… but with good lawyers and the way our court system works, this type of thing is unfortunately not uncommon. Given what I know about how the police handled this case, it is definitely not their fault he ended up with such a light sentence.

    I will share more as soon as I can.


    I have just deleted several comments from someone defending Mr. Hanna and blaming the victim for riding at that hour and “without lights” (which has not been confirmed as a fact). The comments were deleted because they were all left by the same IP address with different names — something I don’t tolerate.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Neil August 27, 2010 at 9:44 am

    You bikers are just jealous because you’re not rich. If you were rich, you’d want such leniency too when you hit and run when drunk.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • NewRiderInPDX August 27, 2010 at 9:45 am

    I lost a family member due to a drunk driving hit and run. He hit my cousin (who was on a motorcycle) so hard with his truck that his license plate flew off. That’s the only reason we were able to find him. Drunk driving should NEVER ever be taken lightly. Lose your license. Period. I live right up the street from where this incident occurred and it is definitely a scary street to ride your bike on but that is absolutely no excuse to be driving 80 MPH especially drunk.

    Thank you for deleting the comments defending Hanna.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • NewRiderInPDX August 27, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Neil. That is ridiculous.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe August 27, 2010 at 9:56 am

    #1 spot on!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe August 27, 2010 at 9:58 am


    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • matt picio August 27, 2010 at 9:59 am

    noah (#10) – The police did their job. They found and arrested the offender. That’s all they can do. The charges filed were selected by the District Attorney’s office based on what they think will stick – and that’s the portion of the system that needs to be addressed. The DA’s office needs to file charges based on the crimes actually committed, and that’s not happening. Based on conversations I’ve had with a number of officers in PPB, I believe they’d love to put these offenders in jail and keep them there.

    We need to help them do that, by either pressuring the DA’s office or putting a DA in that office who’s willing to do the job we want him/her to do.

    Stig (#10) – I can imagine riding it at 3am – that’s pratically the only time it’s safe to do so. Normally, the drunks have all made it home before then.

    3am to 5am is one of my favorite times to ride (not that I do it often) – it’s practically the only time one can have the roads all to one’s self. Under most circumstances, it’s perfectly safe. Obviously a Porsche at 80mph is not somthing any reasonable road user should expect nor can do anything to reasonably avoid. With the sightlines on Macadam in that area, I doubt the victim had more than a couple seconds to perceive and react.

    Thank whatever higher power that the cyclist survived, and without life-threatening injuries – the odds against that are pretty steep.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • matt picio August 27, 2010 at 10:04 am

    Neil (#29) – Sounds like you’re arguing that we should ensure no one becomes rich. I might be onboard with that, depending on your definitions and methods of prevention.

    The problem here is that Hanna showed no regard for other people. There are certainly cyclists that fit that category, but they’re no more likely to be jerks than any other segment of the population.

    The other problem with your argument is that a rich, drunk cyclist is not a 4,000 lb object at 80mph – not even on the steepest hill. While driving drunk is a crime regardless of the mode used, certain vehicles are far more damaging. (Not defending drunk cycling – this isn’t a case of “right” and “wrong”, it’s a case of “wrong” and “wronger”)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • cyclist August 27, 2010 at 10:10 am

    Jonathan #28: There’s a lot of vitriol being levied at the DA in the comments, it would be nice to know what role the compensation issue played in the plea deal. In other words, did the DA prefer to levy more serious charges against Hanna at the victim’s request? We shouldn’t be blaming the DA if that’s the case.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jason August 27, 2010 at 10:15 am

    I know he has at least one prior vehicle collision because I represented a person injured in a car crash with Hanna. Hanna was not paying attention, did not see my client’s car stopped for a red light and plowed into the rear of the car. We had to take the case to a jury.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) August 27, 2010 at 10:17 am


    i will do a follow-up to this story as soon as i can. Knowing what our DAs are like, I’m sure they tried more severe penalties… but this type of case — with a team of high-paid lawyers working for the defendant — becomes a chess match which can make it very difficult for the DA and/or the police to reach the type of outcome they want.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • love skiing August 27, 2010 at 10:22 am

    This is totally outragious!

    This is the man who owns SKIBOWL who is supposed to provide excellent guest service on the mountain!
    no one should ski their and support his actions, & behavior of complete selfishness & neglect!

    pass it on!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • cyclist August 27, 2010 at 10:24 am

    Jonathan: My last comment was unclear because I must have accidentally deleted part of one of the sentences. I was curious if the victim’s attorneys asked the DA for the lesser charge so that the victim would receive more compensation. Given the amount of money Hanna’s spending on lawyers, that might be the best outcome for the victim, though definitely not for the public at large.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Sean Casey August 27, 2010 at 10:27 am

    “He who has money can eat sherbert in hell.”

    – Lebanese Proverb

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • f5 August 27, 2010 at 10:28 am

    One of the ironies here is that Hanna makes a living in part off of cyclists. I wonder if public awareness of this hit and run, and once (if) the Timberline Bike Park comes to fruition if he’ll see any significant loss in revenue.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe August 27, 2010 at 10:30 am

    On a Hit and Run the law needs to get harsh with these ppl!

    link below

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John August 27, 2010 at 10:33 am

    This may work out for the victim (who’s lucky to be alive & deserves the criminal’s every penny) but what about the rest of our community? This guy is going to be back on the road? It’s like saying a sex offender doesn’t have to rehabilitate or register himself, because he paid the victim enough money.

    This is a terrible way to hold together a society. No one with any sense of decency should visit Ski Bowl while this loser’s making a dime.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • beth h August 27, 2010 at 10:33 am

    When I was injured in a bike-truck collision back in 1997, the owner of the truck was at fault — and said so at the scene. Still, I’d never been hit before so I called a lawyer to find out my rights/responsibilities.

    My injury was also career-ending (I used to be a professional pit orchestra percussionist), and I required two surgeries and a year of PT to become “medically stationary”.

    I had a VERY strong case. Even so, my lawyer advised me to accept a settlement if at all possible. The rationale? Statistics show that juries consider adults who ride bikes for transportation to be something less-than-fully-adult; and as a result are biased against them in 50 to 60 % of court cases that go to trial — EVEN WHEN THE MOTORIST IS CLEARLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COLLISION.

    In the end, I got my medical bills and time-loss paid for, plus a lower-end, five-figure settlement that allowed me to replace my bike and go back to school. It wasn’t much, but it was better than having the whole thing tossed out by a jury.

    I could lose sleep over it, or take the money and move on. I chose the latter. Today I have no regrets. It’s the best outcome I could’ve hoped for in a car-centric country whose laws are so skewed to the rich and to motorists in general.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • El Biciclero August 27, 2010 at 10:47 am

    “I’m the victim, and I have no money for a lawyer, and I’m just grateful I wasn’t killed.”

    I would say a victim is rarely wrong about any decision they make regarding prosecution of the crime against them–they are the wronged party and should have the right to agree to whatever benefits them the most.

    However, in the example provided by Helen above, note the part of the quote that I emphasized. The implication is that if the victim is too poor to engage in a legal battle, a perpetrator with money can buy their own custom “justice” package. That is the essence of the injustice–not that the victim makes the “wrong” choice in such matters, but that they don’t have much of a choice.

    Also, where are people getting the information about the victim’s lighting situation?

    Further, who in their right mind drives an SUV at 80mph on an urban highway at 2:43 AM while drunk? What did they think would happen?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anthony August 27, 2010 at 10:47 am

    Rich mans justice, only spend the weekends in jail.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jerry_W August 27, 2010 at 11:00 am

    Sad, these were all serious crimes, this isn’t even a slap on the wrist.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Amos August 27, 2010 at 11:09 am

    Don’t feed the trolls, folks. Jonathan does a great job of shutting up the sock puppets, let’s do our part by ignoring them and keeping the conversation civil.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • BURR August 27, 2010 at 11:16 am

    hasn’t Oregon passed a vulnerable road users bill yet?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Babygorilla August 27, 2010 at 11:16 am

    I take a little issue about the characterizations made about the defense attorneys – that somehow they “manipulated” the DA or the system. They didn’t. They did their job. The DA’s office did its job.

    From what little I could gather, the defendant wasn’t arrested on the scene and wasn’t subjected to field sobriety tests or bloodwork. The only reference I could find stated that he turned over his automobile to police 3 days after the hit and run.

    Couple that with eyewitness estimates of speed, which are generally unreliable, the DA would have had a very difficult time proving the more serious charges which the DA most certainly filed. By pleading out, the Defendant admits fault and gets punished and the court system saves judicial and penal resources, which are scarce.

    Its not a bias against cyclists or manipulative lawyers that led to a “soft” sentance, its a difficult to prove case (the DUII and speeding part of it at least) in an overtaxed system without the resources to properly penalize criminal behaivor, and carry out that penalty.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) August 30, 2010 at 10:52 am


      Hanna’s lawyers absolutely manipulated this situation to minimize their client’s exposure. And i agree, that’s their job. So why is it wrong for me to state that fact? The truth hurts perhaps. The reason the case was difficult to prove was that Hanna’s lawyers made it difficult to prove. There’s doing your job and then there’s working the system. it appears the lawyers worked the system in this case… and they won.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • K'Tesh August 27, 2010 at 11:24 am

    If this is justice, please stop the world… I want to get off.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • El Biciclero August 27, 2010 at 11:27 am

    …and beth h at #44 relates a really good example as well. In her case, she was able to get a reasonable-sounding settlement, but if word gets out that juries don’t tend to decide in favor of cyclists–then what happens to even those settlements? If I’m a convicted drunk, hit-‘n’-run driver, but my victim was a cyclist and I know that juries like to rule against cyclists–regardless of my level of guilt–then bring on the civil trial, settlement schmettlement.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mindful Cyclist August 27, 2010 at 11:31 am

    beth h: Thanks for sharing your story. And, I agree fully. I would take the sure thing rather than rolling the dice and hoping the outcome is better in court. Also, the victim will be compensated in a year according to the story. Who knows when this would have made it to court in the first place. It will be really interesting to see how much the victim was compensated and really looking forward to the potential update about that.

    Another thing I think about when it comes to revoking a driver’s license: It does not stop people from driving. The guy that killed the teacher in Vancouver was driving on a suspended license. All one needs to do when the license is revoked is make sure you don’t speed, come to complete stops, don’t run red lights, make sure your headlights are fully functional, and don’t pick up the phone. The only way I could really think we could prevent this is by throwing people in jail. I really wish we had a better system in place to monitor driving with a suspended/revoked license.

    No matter what the compensation is, this thing still has me sick to my stomach.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • beth h August 27, 2010 at 11:38 am

    # 53: “Another thing I think about when it comes to revoking a driver’s license: It does not stop people from driving.”

    True enough. I was at a bus stop the other day when a woman came and asked me if I knew anything about the penalties for driving without a license. I shook my head. She admitted to me and the other two folks at the bus stop that she’d been caught and had to go to court. She’d been driving with a suspended license for TEN YEARS.

    And people wonder why I get angry at the suggestion that bicyclists ought to be licensed.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Zaphod August 27, 2010 at 11:44 am

    It seems one must work within the system to “win” within it. It seems the winners pay a premium to win cases. Thus cyclists need to find a way to fund high quality lawyers so we get what is fair and just. That appears to be the game.

    So, I wonder if advocacy groups might best have a portion of their funds dedicated to what might be considered landmark cases. If cyclists win these cases, settlements will have much higher penalties/consequences and be, as I see it, more fair.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Steve B August 27, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    He will serve 30 days in jail, lose his license for 90 days, and pay a fine of $1,000.

    90 days loss of driving privileges? Beyond victim’s compensation, taking away this man’s privilege to operate an automobile would be the most effective way to make this right.

    How will we get a grasp on street safety, when this guy–who’s way more on the AWFUL side of driving behavior–only has to stay off the road for 90 days. That’s just 3 months!

    How about 3 years?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • BURR August 27, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    for a die-hard driver, 90 days will probably seem like forever.

    (not agreeing, just sayin’)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • buglas August 27, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    It would make sense to start the clock on the license suspension after the 30 days in jail if he served them straight through. With him serving his time on weekends, I hope he is on foot now and that none of his jail time – when he wouldn’t be driving anyway – is concurrent with the license suspension.

    Anybody have any insight on this?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob August 27, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    “When I was injured in a bike-truck collision back in 1997 …

    …I had a VERY strong case. Even so, my lawyer advised me to accept a settlement if at all possible. The rationale? Statistics show that juries consider adults who ride bikes for transportation to be something less-than-fully-adult; and as a result are biased against them in 50 to 60 % of court cases that go to trial — EVEN WHEN THE MOTORIST IS CLEARLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COLLISION. …” beth h #44

    More than 10 years ago is a long time. Perceptions and attitudes can and do change. Especially in Portland and increasingly in Portland’s suburbs where serious commuter cycling seems to be ever on the upswing, greater respect for cyclists in court decisions has good potential to develop.

    All the more reason for cyclists traveling the streets and roads to travel them responsibly, competently, and with the same consideration and respect for other road users as you would hope to receive from them.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rebecca August 27, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    Thanks for sharing your story and your lawyer’s advice, beth h. Good to hear from a victim’s perspective on such a situation.

    Skibowl was my favorite place to ski, but I don’t think I’d feel good paying this guy lift ticket fees anymore. I’d hate to contribute funds for the legal team that will get this guy off the hook the next time he nearly kills one of my friends – or me.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • mikeybikey August 27, 2010 at 12:43 pm


    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • KWW August 27, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    I have said this before and I will say it again, the BTA or someone else should have a District Attorney watch. These DA’s work for US, not rich people; and they should be identified when they reach these sweetheart plea bargains.

    We can vote out this behavior, but it takes the knowledge to know who framed up this disastrous plea bargain.

    I know what the DA’s would say, that they would of had trouble proving the case, but I would rather see them try and fail, then to put up with this bull.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • boneshaker August 27, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    What kind of person hits someone with their car and doesn’t stop?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Steve August 27, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    “What kind of person hits someone with their car and doesn’t stop?
    Boneshaker #63

    Drunk drivers do!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe August 27, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    #63 A person with no heart!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Pete August 27, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    cyclist (#36): dead on. The DA is always an easy target, but if there’s not enough evidence proving Hanna was behind the wheel, drunk (at the time of impact), and actually the guy who hit Skof and not just the owner of the car, then a plea bargain may be a much better option than losing in trial.

    Hopefully the deal didn’t involve waiving the victim’s rights to a civil case. Good luck Robert, I hope your recovery is full and speedy.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • craig August 27, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    Agree with #43 & 60.


    …and anything else KIRK HANNAH is ever into…

    The victim made his deal. OK for him, no hard feelings. But I hope the criminal pays sufficiently for his crime against us all, one way or another.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • annefi August 27, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    ws bob at #59 makes a serious point!
    Cyclists who ride recklessly and irresponsibly affect all of us if they strengthen the negative image the car-centric public has of cyclists and this negative image makes juries more inclined to be biased against cyclists. Enough of the MYOB, they put all of us at risk.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • GreggB August 27, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    Maybe his restitution should also include being required to put XXX number of miles on a bike, over the next 90 days, on the same roads…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Velophile in Exile August 27, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    Annefi (#68): That is certainly true, and the trial lawyers will tell you the same thing from personal courtroom experience.

    But, what now?

    Posting on a blog won’t get them to suddenly ride right.

    Telling them personally on the road gets an eff you.

    The cops have enough to worry about and do not have the resources to fully enforce traffic laws (against anyone, as you can obviously see from all the speeding motorists).

    So, how to we solve the problem?

    I don’t mean to be impertinent, but lots of people come here and complain about the behavior of bicyclists — indeed, that’s all wsbob ever does — and it gets old. It is not constructive in addressing the problem.

    So, do we have any ideas about how to move forward? Or just more endless bitching like wsbob?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • adam August 27, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    I think the lesson to take away from this is that if you are going to drive recklessly and drunk and hit somebody THEN make sure you don’t stop or give any aid and, for heaven’s sake, make sure you have some good lawyers. carry on.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Perry Hunter August 27, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    Velophile…enough of the wsBob bashing already. We get it that you don’t like the guy and would like to rally up some support for your position. What else can you do?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • deborah August 27, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    We, as Oregonians needs a hit and run law, that carries with it the stiffest sentences, with no hope of plea bargains. I don’t care if you hit a bike, pedestrian or even another car.

    These murderous criminals should not be able to walk away from a jail sentences and certainly never be allowed to drive again. It should be tantamount to a manslaughter charge. Period.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Velophile in Exile August 27, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    Thanks for your input, Perry (#72). That was very helpful.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • craig August 27, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    Jonathan, as you’re updating this story, could you ask PPB whether the bike had the legally required lights? Or did the rider share responsibility for the accident by riding in stealth mode in the middle of the night?

    Not relevant wrt hit-n-run/DUII, but it still seems like a crucial fact, or least question, to accompany this story, and the motivators for accepting the plea bargain.

    There are multiple facets to what happened. I’m for punishing severely the crime of hit and run, more so when drunk.

    But the proportion of lightless riders I regularly encounter at night is about 50/50. It’s a big problem, and I have to ask whether it was a factor in this sensational instance.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • VeloBusDriver August 27, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    But… But… But… At the Canadian border they have a sign that says you can’t enter Canada if you have a felony and specifically list a “DUI” as an example. I guess there is such a thing as a misdemeanor DUI – whatever that means.

    Hmmm… Wonder if he used this guy: http://j.mp/acUuOE

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rrandom rider August 27, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    I agree that we cyclists need to be careful and courteous on the road. But how is that even remotely relevant to this story? This is about an individual who made a choice to consume alcohol and then drive impaired. He made a choice to go twice the posted speed limit. He made a choice to continue on his way after hitting another human and leaving that person unaided on the road. He made a choice to wait three days, during which he surely consulted his lawyer and received advice on how best to limit his punishment, before “voluntarily” turning his vehicle in to the police.

    Given all of that, please somebody tell me how the claim that cyclists should be polite enters into this thread. It is as completely off topic as me stating that Radiohead is clearly better than Coldplay. Both are truths, but neither has any bearing to this conversation.

    Back on topic, under Oregon law, I could go to prison for years for kicking a dog. Hannah spends a few weekends in jail. I could receive a harsher sentence for vandalizing a mailbox than he got. Accepting this plea agreement values Skof’s life less than it does a mailbox. And the fact that he got away with his crime virtually scot-free is a tacit societal agreement with that valuation.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • buglas August 27, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    Hi rrandom rider. Back in comment #44 beth h shared how juries don’t tend to take seriously adults on bicycles. The speculation is that Mr. Skof may have considered that in accepting a settlement.

    Since we’re all ambassadors for cycling, anything we can do to improve the public perception of us as valuable members of society will help. Stacked up with my own set of biases, it doesn’t seem too far off topic.


    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mike August 27, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    I’m very suprised there are no drug charges as well. Did they do a blood test?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Schrauf August 27, 2010 at 5:22 pm


    Not ALL publicity is good publicity…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Stig10 August 27, 2010 at 5:25 pm

    Who was the DA? I like the DA watch idea. They may be a lot less keen to attempt this sort of thing if their name and actions are highlighted on the Internet for all the public.

    The BTA should can their work on the vulnerable road users and Idaho stop laws for a while and focus on enhancing the law in areas where ALL users of the road should be able to agree on:

    Hit-and-run and DUI

    No more misdemeanor status. Mandatory minimum sentencing and driving bans. There’s no reason Oregon shouldn’t be the toughest state in the U.S. on the above. Currently motorists have better chances just driving off after an accident. Madness. It’s like we need to wait until someone important gets run over than us little people for laws to get enhanced/fixed.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Crash N. Burns August 27, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    How about letting Mr. Hanna know directly how you feel about this matter. I for one will never spend another dime at Skibowl.

    Mt. Hood Ski Bowl
    ATTN: Kirk Hanna
    PO Box 280
    Government Camp, OR 97028

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are August 27, 2010 at 7:46 pm

    i do think the district attorney ought to issue some kind of statement explaining the decision to make this plea bargain. also the terms of the victim compensation arrangement. difficult to imagine it is exactly as many dollars as someone might get in a civil action if the proof was there and the jury weren’t idiots, subject of course to beth h.’s caveats.

    also, i don’t care whether so and so goes to prison, i just want him off the road. why can’t we make these suspensions last awhile, or simply revoke? here is a guy who clearly does not need to be extended the privilege of driving, period, the end.

    and wsbob: there may be a thread on which talking about how some cyclist over there did something that made me look bad is appropriate, but this is not that thread.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • random writer August 27, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    karma will get the best of him later in life. just because someone has the money to get themselves out of a sticky situation, doesn’t mean authority figures should cut him some slack. i wish the portland police system cracked down a little bit more when it comes to crimes like these. kirk is lucky to have not taken that boy’s life and future. i’m am stating my opinion on the situation, not trying to insult mr. hanna

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • CaptainKarma August 27, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    This man should have the bumpers of all his vehicles painted yellow as a universal sign of a drunk driver.

    (Not saying the color reflects anything at all about his character…..)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob August 28, 2010 at 12:17 am

    annefi #68 and Perry Hunter #72 …thanks for your comments.

    Yours too, Babygorilla #51. It showed some thought rather than a reflex remark.

    Maus subtly hints in his story that he may have had some fairly solid, perhaps inside info about how this case played out like it did: “… This outcome was part of a carefully manipulated plea deal by Hanna’s lawyers. …” He says he’s going to have more to report about the deal the involved parties came to. I’m looking forward to reading it. Unless I missed it, The Oregonian doesn’t yet have a story on the drunk driving Kirk Hanna and the deal that was arrived at.

    By the written account in maus’s story above, what Hanna is reported to have done, is very serious. Will more details eventually come out that will confirm or discount the degree of seriousness?

    Or will something more be revealed about Hanna, raising the spectre that allowing this person to drive so soon again poses greater risk to the public that the DA wasn’t able to arrive at adequate precautions against? Hopefully not, but it’s not impossible.

    In that light, Jason #37’s comment bears keeping in mind:

    “I know he has at least one prior vehicle collision because I represented a person injured in a car crash with Hanna. Hanna was not paying attention, did not see my client’s car stopped for a red light and plowed into the rear of the car. We had to take the case to a jury.”

    Crash N. Burns #83…don’t forget that Hanna’s ski resort has a bunch of employees that depend on people spending money there so the business can make their paychecks in return for all the hard work they do.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • peejay August 28, 2010 at 7:48 am

    All of those twitter folks should do what they can with the hashtag #boycottskibowl. I know I did.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dutch August 28, 2010 at 11:06 am

    this makes me furious. How is that not a bigger story, and where is the mass public outrage?

    Drunk driving hit and run Porsche SUV vs cyclist?

    You’d think this would be plastered all over the news.

    And then a slap on the wrist.

    This guy is gonna get to serve his 30 day jail sentence on the FREAKING WEEKENDS.


    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mike August 28, 2010 at 11:35 am

    @Dutch Remember, the Oregonian has a hard enough time paying their bills, why would they want to smear a big money advertiser that has year round business?
    Saw the Alpine Slides and Mountain Bikes on a huge ad all summer long.

    You think his lawyers were twiddling their thumbs for those three days he was at home? His Dad owns a car wash company, so I’m sure he knows how to make sure his Porsche had no sign of drugs or alcohol in it when it got turned in to the Police for their so called “search”. The PR department, I mean, his lawyers probably visited a few media outlets to let them know how much ski bowl pays for advertisements annualy.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Seager August 28, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    Remember, hitting a bike with a car isn’t criminally illegal, it’s a civil crime.

    If it hadn’t been for being drunk and the “and run” part he wouldn’t be facing any penalties at all except for the victim compensation.

    Law explained in part here: http://www.webikeeugene.org/index.php/2010/06/editorial-30-days-in-prison-is-not-enough-for-killing-a-cyclist-by-driving-recklessly/

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mtnlvr August 28, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    The driver was intoxicated.
    The biker was hit, and fortunately survived.
    I’m not going bash the driver–it was poor judgment, probably alcohol -impaired.
    Hanna has and will continue to pay a price. Being wealthy doesn’t insulate him or anyone else from regret and shame.
    But all those people who are bashing Hanna also should know that he is very quietly generous to many causes; and on a personal level to many people in need. Boycotting Skibowl won’t hurt him as much as it will hurt the people who work there because they love it.
    Maybe something good will come from this situation.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • dolphin August 28, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    Does insulting Mr. Hanna really make things better??!! It’s understandable how this would upset people, but leaving insulting remarks only perpetuates anger and violence. Let’s use this communicative opportunity to make positive changes not negative ones.

    Thanks dolphin,

    I absolutely agree. I have been out of my office since last Wednesday so I’m just now having time to clean up the comments. — Jonathan

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • slowneasy August 28, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    You know, I did some research on this issue before posting here. I looked at the link Jonathan has to Jeremy Keith Jordan and found out that he was sentenced to 70 months in prison for a similar case and the person injured, is still injured. I also looked up the violations of VCB 811 and found several including 811.100:violation of basic speed rule, VCB 813 title 59 but was unable to download or quick look it for Drunken Driving. I know that this is a case of money working for the rich and injustice to those that need justice. It is gross and disturbing and offensive to me and many of us by looks of the responses to the story. It is also a case of the rider making a deal and letting a guilty person get back on the street to do it again and maybe the next time kill somebody.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are August 28, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    unless we hear something expressly to the contrary, i would not assume the victim is at all compromised in seeking actual (or even punitive) damages in a civil suit, merely because the sentencing judge here has ordered restitution. take a look at ORS 137.106 and .109. not only is the victim free to pursue a civil action, but evidence that the perpetrator paid restitution under a plea agreement is not admissible. in other words, he can recover twice. it would be interesting to know what amount the judge ordered as restitution, and presumably this should be a public record.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • slowneasy August 28, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    You are right. I am wrong to assume anything especially concerning facts I know nothing of. I stand corrected.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous August 29, 2010 at 9:03 am

    you are what you do- if you hit a person and run away without offering aid, without making sure the person is ok, you ARE NOT A GOOD PERSON. That woman could easily have died out there as a direct result of Mr. Hanna’s choices. Whatever else he is, he has a long way to go to being a good person.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe R. August 29, 2010 at 11:32 am

    **Insult deleted** Take his license away forever. He can afford a limo service…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Light it up like a x-mas tree August 29, 2010 at 11:40 am

    Clearly Hanna is in the wrong, acted stupidly, and is lucky that he didn’t kill anyone. Clearly he “deserves” a much harsher consequence than he is apparently going to get. Clearly the injured man deserves compensation, and will hopefully get it. And, clearly he is lucky to be freaking alive!

    Cars are bigger and faster that you! And regardless of bicyclist rights on the road way in the end it is the cyclist who bears the risks and bodily consequences of collisions.

    For that reason, when we cycle at night it is definitely in our best interest to wear excessive lights/reflective clothing etc. that are enough to make you seen by an 80 mph drunk driver. We should do this not because it is the law, but because it may save us from an untimely death or a life of painful disability. In fact, visible lighting and reflective clothing can potentially help save your can in the day light too.

    Between drunks, texting drivers, cell phone users, latte drinkers, distracted drivers, tweekers, incompetents, and speeders, realistically when we ride a bikes the street with cars we must do everything we can to be seen easily from a distance.

    If you aren’t already lit up like a freaking christmas tree, please take a moment to weigh the expense and hassle of lights and reflective clothing as well as the importance of looking cool against your physical well-being.

    Rechargeable batteries are great…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • middle of the road guy August 29, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    There seems to be a lot of underlying hatred for those who have wealth.

    If any of you became wealthy, would you then have a case of self-hatred?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are August 29, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    it might be resentment against the abuse of the privilege of wealth

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • trail abuser August 29, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    Bill Murray?

    Like any of you wouldn’t settle for a million bux(I’m sure Hanna’s insurance policy covers him for many millions) and his own criminal attorneys would cost much more. Hanna goes free and the victim’s a millionaire, everyone’s a winner.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • kitten August 29, 2010 at 11:13 pm

    **This comment has been deleted because it was an insensitive and unproductive insult directed at Mr. Hanna. — Jonathan Maus**

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Merckxrider August 30, 2010 at 7:29 am

    If I can get my dog chipped for tracking in case she gets lost, why can’t dangerous drivers be chipped? Being able to track this dangerous species could be very useful. Habitually speeding and/or intoxicated drivers are a species of vermin. Whatever economic class, whatever color their skin is, they’re not really human–why are we so soft as to treat them that way?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe Rowe August 30, 2010 at 10:00 am

    Jonathan, you’ve tagged this with the keyword hitandrun – please add a category for reckless drivers who get off easy.

    This article is more closely related to the issue at hand.


    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Lindsay August 30, 2010 at 10:34 am

    How do we take action? I don’t have time to read all the comments, so I apologize if it was covered here. Is there a law that we should ban together to work on changing?

    I understand the benefit to victims of plea-bargaining, but the law should not allow dangerous individuals to be so easily freed to potentially harm others. Sure, plea bargain for a lighter sentence and to get the victim so instance cash, but still force the driver to at minimum lose his license for 10 years – and volunteer for a cycling advocacy organization! (ok – that’s a stretch)

    Seriously, is this a DA policy, federal policy, is there a statute # we can protest….? How can we change this pattern?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jayson L August 30, 2010 at 10:35 am

    This reminds me of when Mr. Burns hits Bart Simpson..

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • cyclist August 30, 2010 at 11:02 am


    Before you assert that Hanna’s lawyers made it difficult to prove the case shouldn’t you provide some evidence of such? You haven’t given us anything other than the facts of the case. There are no facts about the lawyers in this story other than that they negotiated a plea deal. Claiming that the lawyers “absolutely manipulated this situation” could rise to the level of libel if you don’t provide evidence of such, couldn’t it?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) August 30, 2010 at 11:08 am


    again. All I’m saying is that Hanna’s lawyers manipulated the situation to make sure their client was as protected from legal harm as possible. I think that’s actually a good advertisement for their services! They did an awesome job!

    i’ll have more on this story soon.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Velophile in Exile August 30, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Except that a lawyer’s job is to “manipulate” a legal case. Again, just very poor comprehension skills.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan August 30, 2010 at 11:11 am

    Hey Jonathan #8,

    Thanks for keeping peejay’s msg intact in your moderating – got it loud and clear – good idea 😉

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • JPT August 30, 2010 at 11:14 am

    How difficult could it have been prove if Mr. Hanna was willing to plead guilty?

    I’m hoping that Mr Hanna will come out w/ some public statement of contrition. Without something of that sort I’ll find it nigh-on impossible to ski at the Bowl in good conscience.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Steve Brown August 30, 2010 at 11:17 am

    Maybe Mr. Hanna should be sentenced to 90 days of bike commute from Nov-Jan. Let him ride in the dark, cold and rain. Then maybe he can spend a few weekends or lunches sharing this with business groups around the city. Maybe if a few more people in cars saw things from the other side it would be safer out there?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • slowneasy August 30, 2010 at 11:26 am

    I like Steve Brown’s idea. #114 because it is very similar to why I am here posting on this blog. I am a school bus driver, driving Portland Public Schools route 140 up beyond Cornelius Pass on Skyline for Lincoln High School. I am here to find a way to bring some kind of understanding to how school buses and bikes can interact safely on the Metro Streets and Roads.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are August 30, 2010 at 11:30 am

    re comment 113, he did not plead guilty to the felony versions of any of this, only to misdemeanors. the actual difference between 811.700 (misdemeanor hit and run) and 811.705 (felony hit and run) is whether there was injury to a person or merely property damage. so what was it they were unable to prove? presumably the question of intent, as in, did he know he had hit anyone.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Velophile in Exile August 30, 2010 at 11:37 am

    @ #116:

    This is very interesting to me, because, if I understand correctly, the prosecutor would only have to prove that a “reasonable person” would have known that there was injury. How could he have not known that there would be injury to someone on a bicycle when hit by someone driving a motor vehicle going anything over ~15mph?

    So, seems to me that it would have been very easy to prove this, raising the question of why he was allowed to plead to the lesser charge.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • JPT August 30, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    In answer to #117: Good lawyers (and I don’t mean that in a pejorative sense.)

    FWIW, this guy seems like a pretty airtight eyewitness.

    The Fox piece is the *only* other article I can find abt this matter. I hope everybody bugs the Oregonian about this. I’ve written two emails to them w/ no response so far.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are August 30, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    what i am saying is he might not have known he hit anyone at all

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are August 30, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    re comment 118, interesting the guy would not comment when the judge asked him if he would like to explain himself. the plea is an acknowledgment that the state could prove its case. any statement hanna might have made that denied responsibility would cause the judge to refuse the plea. which gets us back to the fact that the only difference betw. misdemeanor and felony here is the fact that a person was injured. that fact is obviously not disputed. therefore, how could the judge accept this plea?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • JPT August 30, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    to #119:
    If we imagine that he was *that* drunk, yes.

    #120: I’m sticking w/ my first answer. 😉

    Putting myself in the victim’s shoes, I can imagine an amount of money that’d allow me to say, “No harm, no foul.” And I hope he gets at least that twice over.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe Rowe August 30, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    I think 99% of Portland residents would agree that we’re at future risk from Mr. Hanna’s actions for letting him off easy.

    The big question is how can we design different effective consequences for different reckless drivers who may be low or high income? Is the goal to punish an individual or to make our streets safer? Can we have both?

    I’d love to hear from Mr. Hanna. What does he think will change his repeat behavior that is deadly to other vulnerable road users? He’s rear ended a car and now a bike hit and run.

    For Mr. Hanna money is no object, and I feel that locking him up for anything longer than a year would be useless.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Babygorilla August 30, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    I’d love to know more, thanks for following up Jonathan.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • cyclist August 30, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    Jonathan: You keep saying “manipulated” without providing proof that they did anything other than argue the facts of the case. Babygorilla (#51) provides a pretty reasoned explanation for why the defense attorney did not do any manipulation, your response was simply to say that the defense attorney “absolutely manipulated the situation” without providing any reason for your opinion.

    You’ve repeated your opinion three times without providing a basis in fact. Please tell us *how* the defense attorney manipulated the system.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • matt picio August 30, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    Steve B (#57) – I don’t agree that taking away his license for longer would be “effective” – 40,000 people last year were convicted for driving on a suspended license. What would be effective is confiscating his car and selling it at auction. That should be true of any property used in an assault, homicide, or attempted homicide.

    Velophile (#71) – This is semi-serious, but we could always remove all the traffic management signs and let nature, Darwin, and the courts sort it out. It’s one hell of a problem – how do you encourage people to be good citizens? Because the options are individual policing, self-policing as a group, or a police state. I have to wonder how much of the apparent movement to the police state is in reaction to the apparent failure of the other two methods.

    Stig10 (#82) – Not only driving bans, but confiscating and selling the vehicle. If you shoot someone, they don’t let you own a gun again, period. Cars aren’t intentional weapons most of the time, but the principle holds.

    wsbob (#87) makes a great point. It’s not Hanna’s business that’s the problem – it’s his driving. Confiscate and auction the vehicle, suspend the license. If he drives another vehicle, confiscate and sell that. He can afford a driver. Punish the offender, not all the folks under his employ.

    middle of the road guy (#100) – There are valid reasons why many are mistrustful or resentful towards the wealthy – the the US now has a substantial and growing gap between the so-called “haves” and “have-nots”. Wealth is like authority – the more you have, the greater the potential for misuse, and the higher the bar is set regarding expected behavior. This are people who are expected to lead by example, and who are expected to give something back to the community from whom they derive their wealth. If I were wealthy I would expect to be held to that same standard. I also expect I wouldn’t remain wealthy for very long.

    Velophile (#117) – Agreed, but how drunk *was* he – it might be easier to prove that he had no comprehension that he’d struck anything.

    Joe Rowe (#122) – “effective consequences”? Confiscate and sell the vehicle in question. Suspend or revoke the license. Those driving under a suspended or revoked license, regardless of the reason for the stop have the vehicle they are driving confiscated and sold at auction. Proceeds go to the lienholder.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Justin August 30, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    Macadam’s so nice and wide and empty at that time of night. After seeing this, maybe I should drive a little faster. After all, if I’m somewhat sober, or if I hit someone but stop to leave my information, I’ll probably avoid jail altogether. Full speed ahead for justice!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • adam August 30, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    i can imagine the scene
    DA: “Mr.Hanna, were you aware that you hit a cyclist?”
    Hanna: “no, it was late, I was hammered and going about 80 miles an hour…I could have run over several families and never realized it”
    DA: “fair enough, make sure you don’t do that again”
    Hanna: “deal”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ethan August 30, 2010 at 8:10 pm

    He’ll need to get a new car, that one won’t be safe at the Ski Bowl parking lot.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • trail abuser August 30, 2010 at 8:34 pm

    It’ll buff out.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • t-man August 31, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    trail abuser: perfect

    It’s interesting and shameful that there is so much pervasive prejudice against bicyclists in the U.S – even in Portland. Hanna should have his license suspended and be required to ride a bike for at least a year.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rigormrtis August 31, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    @125 Matt

    Why are those who have managed to gain wealth expected to lead by example, or give back?

    That’s an extension of your values and expectations onto others…..and I doubt you find it enjoyable when someone does the same thing to you or tells you how you should spend your money.

    My point is that there are plenty of INVALID reasons why people are untrustful of the wealthy (people they do not know, mind you).

    I find it ironic that a community that worships individuality and diversity finds it so easy to lump together a group of very diverse people they know little about on a personal level.

    In my opinion, equality means equal standards for everyone….not a different level of expectation of behavior based upon socio-economic status. Take that in the opposite direction and it means one should ‘lower the bar” of expectation for those with less. At an extreme, this would lead to the excusal of criminal acts by the poor.

    We are all supposed to lead by example, regardless of the size of our bank account.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • confused September 4, 2010 at 10:12 am

    Interesting posts, I understand your concerns. Here’s mine: I was recently indicted on a hit and run in which substance abuse was not a factor at all. With a concussion, I apparently meandered away from the accident, lost consciousness, and called the police immediately upon coming to the next day. I am facing 6 felony charges and many misdemeanors. Noone was hospitalized or seriously hurt. I have never been in trouble in my life. I am perplexed how this drunk guy can do what he did and how I can be facing years and years in prison for a head trauma in a car accident. BTW, my lawyer costs as much as a new car and I’m still looking at 6 felonies. How can the DA’s office get away with this imbalance? My career, master’s degree, and ability to adopt a child are all on the line. Oregon’s legal system mystifies me.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob September 4, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    confused #132 …the brief summary of your mishap and ensuing details, and what they suggest happen that you probably can’t tell us, are tantalizing. Since it appears you’re in the midst of sorting it all out, I expect you’ve been advised to use care in talking publicly about what happened.

    What you’ve described would be a tough row for anyone to be hoeing.

    There is plenty about Hanna, personally, and about his mishap that haven’t yet been told, that would be interesting to know. It’s also interesting that The Oregonian hasn’t seem to yet have uttered one…single…word…, about Hanna’s mishap and the deal he was able to arrange (I just now again, did a simple search of the O site…about a DUI and colliding with a cyclist, nothing for him came up).

    I don’t personally know the guy at all. Doesn’t seem as though anyone commenting to this thread does either(with maybe one possible exception, a person mentioning that Hanna donates to charities). He might be a great, straight up guy.

    One big difference between his mishap and yours, is that apparently, he didn’t get a concussion from it. In possession of whatever mental clarity he still had over the influence of yet undisclosed intoxicating substances in his system, he appears to have chosen to split the scene of the collision.

    That seems to have given him an edge in negotiating the deal he got.

    Your own story is amazing to read. Seems that you’re saying you were unconscious for a number of hours, yet soon after regaining consciousness, you called up the police and let them know what happened. Compare that to what Kirk Hanna seems to have done. He called his attorneys, and they in turn called the police.

    Recommended Thumb up 0