The Oregonian reported yesterday the City of Portland will pay $338,477 to settle a distracted driving lawsuit. The suit involved a police officer who glanced at his on-board computer and did not see an 80-year old woman walking across the street in front of his car. The woman suffered serious injuries and spent five days in the hospital.
In light of the settlement, The Oregonian reports that the city’s risk management supervisors have “asked the police bureau to examine its training to ensure other officers aren’t distracted by the in-car computers.”
This case brings to light the larger issue of distracted driving, which has a major impact on the safety of roadway users who are not encased in steel. In January 2010, Oregon enacted a new law that banned the use of “mobile communication devices” while operating a motor vehicle (ORS 811.507). Not only does that law include 11 exceptions, but it only applies to “two-way communication devices.” In this case it appears the officer was glancing at a computer screen.
Even so, official police policy created in response to Oregon’s new law says that officers should not operate their on-board computer while driving. But, similar to the state law, there’s an exception for when officers are “conducting police business.”
This case might give momentum to people who want to strengthen Oregon’s cell phone law to have it apply to the more general infraction of “distracted driving.”
Read more about this story and about the issue in general in The Oregonian.
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.
I imagine looking at a dash mounted GPS would be just as dangerous
seems that distracted driving is already illegal… which I believe it was before the lame unneeded specific cell phone law that wasted our tax dollars…
I don’t see anything bike related in this story… this isn’t why I come here…
Pretty sure “distracted driving, which has a major impact on the safety of roadway users who are not encased in steel” covers me on my bike and others out walking. The eleven classes of persons who are exempt from the cell phone law seem to center around those engaging in economic activity, because making money is more important than lives in some circles, I suppose.
The problem with the cell phone law is not whether it was needed (it is, IMHO) but that the police have decided to ignore the legislature and refuse to enforce it. The law should be extended to cover distracted driving in all forms, without exceptions.
But you do come here to leave snarky comments about it?
If you want content tailored just for you, fire up an RSS reader and slap in some feed addresses.
Really? You can’t see a relation between distracted driving concerns and biking? REALLY?
I was hoping to find things about distracted biking and driving.
this very topic [poor driving/distracted driving PPD] was written up by the commuter editor/topic writer in The Oregonian; sounded like evryone is okay with it since they are officially working [even if those phone calls are personal….].
This may be slightly off topic, but what is the policy on police cars using lights or siren when exceeding the speed limit? I’ve almost been hit twice in the past few months by police cars driving really fast without lights or siren.
Once while merging on to 5 (driving obviously), but the other on bike while crossing MLK at Tillamook. A friend and I waited for the green light, and when it turned started to cross. A police car came to a very sudden and hurried stop which was great because by then we were right in front of it. As soon as and we got out of the way it took off down MLK. I can’t remember if the light had turned green for them yet. No lights, no siren.
These could just be anecdotal instances, and not to make an indictment of the whole PPD. Just seems dangerous practice.
I think that in order for thew to break traffic laws they have to be in Code, e.g. with lights and/or siren… you could issue them a ticket if you see otherwise…
If it happened to you, it’s not anecdotal – that’s called “direct experience”. “Anecdotal” is when someone else tells you about their experience (or someone else’s).
Direct experience, like anecdotal evidence, it not necessarily representative – but that doesn’t make it any less relevant to the individual experiencing it.
Even with a distracted driving law, some people don’t seem to grasp what constitutes ‘distracted’ driving, and need a specific description and penalty to get the point across. Even with such specification, people disregard obvious procedures for safe driving.
I read the Oregonian story last night. Hard to tell for certain from that story’s reporting, but it seems to suggest the officer wasn’t on a call, wasn’t responding to any emergency, wasn’t driving particularly fast (although fast enough to have the lady fly up over his hood.).
He was just diddling around with his display, checking for updates. Looked down for a second, looked up and there she was. Sounds as though he was in a situation and had the time that would have allowed him to pull over and check the display, but he didn’t do that. Just lazy, irresponsible carelessness on the part of the cop seems to be the main reason his car collided with this lady.
No doubt. I see so many in their cars holding their stupid iPhones in one hand with the darn thing on speaker, as if that somehow fits the bill.
Such a sense of entitlement.
Sounds like you have neither a car or an iphone.
One glaring loophole in the cell phone law is that it exempts police officers, maybe that isn’t such a great idea.
The iphone driver users on their facetime still scare me the most.
FaceTime only works on wifi. Try again.
Do you have any idea how many cars have wifi nowadays?
Yeah, and almost all these folks have MiFi hotspots in their cars. Use a wifi scanner on the max on your way out to Beaverton as you pass the highway you will get tons of routers like Jimbob’s Car etc.
Would be interesting to see the stats on distracted cyclists. Seems to be an awful lot of them on the road lately.
Agreed. I love seeing some hipster plaing with his ipod while rolling through a stop sign on Mississippi Ave.
KInda funny, I was bringing in my garbage can this morning, just as in officer was driving by, I made a causual wave, then I noticed he was texting and didn’t notice me. Those who thinks it’s off “bike” topic, don’t ride very much. Distracted driving puts in in greater danger than just driving.
The problem with the new law is that people are still using their phones. They are just holding them closer to their lap so as to not be seen by law enforcement. This causes the driver to have their eyes further away from the windshield and the road. I too have almost been hit twice by distracted police in the last two months; They were both looking at their computers.
I think it is good to remind ourselves that when a journalist writes “the City of Portland will pay” it is our (tax) money we’re talking about. I’ve never understood this. Why doesn’t this come out of the police officer’s pockets? Why do all of us get to foot this bill,too?
When the LA Policy Dept. had to settle lawsuits around the Rampart division scandal, the sums were > $100 million. To my knowledge this too came out of taxpayers’ pockets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal
” … it is our (tax) money we’re talking about. I’ve never understood this. Why doesn’t this come out of the police officer’s pockets? Why do all of us get to foot this bill,too? …” 9watts
Taxpayers foot the bill because the police officer was working on the job in his capacity as a police officer. That’s the story. Supposedly, he was checking for call updates or something police business related.
At least he wasn’t having sex with a fellow officer under the Morrison Bridge on the public’s time…although that would certainly have been a less harmful distraction than letting his car run into the poor old gal trying to cross the street.
Sure. I understand that this was while he was working for us, but why draw the line there? He’s found guilty (I think) and we pay(!?) Why should his job supply immunity from personal consequences for these actions? I’m (obviously) not a lawyer, but this just doesn’t make sense to me.
This collision wasn’t simply the result of consequences arising out of personal actions. It’s not like the cop was sitting at a sidewalk cafe for lunch, proceeding to absentmindedly throw a banana peel onto the sidewalk with the result that a pedestrian subsequently walks by falls and injures there self.
Theoretically, the collision occurred in part because the responsibilities of his job required he check his police department on board computer display. If he hadn’t been on the job, driving along in the police car, and checking his display, he likely wouldn’t have on a path to collide with this pedestrian.
Employers are obligated to assume certain responsibilities for the personal actions of their employees if those actions are job related.
Trying to think of another example… : Say a couple guys, employees of a business, are on coffee break and decide to play catch. One of the guys wings the ball into a neighbors window and bonks the old guy sitting in his laz-y-boy reading the paper, resulting in a concussion. I’m not a lawyer either, so I won’t swear on it, but I’m thinking the possibility is very strong that in such a scenario, rather than his employer, the guy that through the ball would have to assume full responsibility. The employee is on his own time engaging in a non-business activity, so it’s his baby. Conditions would apply though.
And the rampart cops?
I see your argument, and suspect you’re probably correct, but am still peeved.
Actually the policy is exactly the opposite, he is not supposed to be checking the computer while driving. I think 9watts is right, some of this money should be coming straight from the cop. If I seriously injured someone at work while doing something against company policy I don’t think I’d be fully covered by my work.
“And the rampart cops? …” 9watts
Sorry. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘rampart cops’.
re; bjorn’s comment…Read or re-read the Oregonian story, or check the PPD policy if you can.
The O story doesn’t report that officer drivers checking “… for service calls on the mobile data terminal. …” while the car is in motion, is against department policy. I suppose that’s partly why the city recognized that it, rather than the officer, had to pay up. O story also reported:
“… The Police Bureau’s collision review board reviewed the case and ruled the accident was “preventable” and issued the officer a letter of reprimand. …” Oregonian
That’s the city and the PD conceding that the officer messed up, but understanding that when it happened, he was working for them and us, involved in police work when making the mistake.
They’re called Unions and while I support them because they are generally good, there are inherent evils in just about everything and this is but one of them.
Honestly, now that I type that out, I don’t think that cops should be allowed to belong to Unions.
This is what we get when the police union negotiates behind closed doors.
while it is frustrating that people are run over because of distracted driving, i also do not see a bike tie in with this story. so, i was not able to read it.
But you were able to post about it? If you don’t see the “bike tie-in” from a distracted driving article, then you quite honestly don’t ride or don’t ride outside of your house’s block.
I’m pretty sure adam was posting a sarcastic response to the earlier comment up-thread.
geez, I can’t even figure out the comments structure, if jackattack could help me with that too, i will hang up and listen.
Distraction.gov reports that 5,000 people are killed every year by distracted drivers, the equivalent of a Boeing 747 every week. How does that effect cyclists? We are the ones in greatest danger. Distracted driving is one of the most demonstrably dangerous activities we can engage in but it’s become commonplace and attitudes reflect that. I guess I just find it shocking that given the stats we are doing so little in terms of legislation and the media reports so little on it.
Velo, how many of those 5000 people killed are cyclists? I doubt that the cyclist is the one in greatest danger, unless they make they highest percentage of those 5000 individuals.
After reading this article in the paper today, I am troubled that our officers are graduating without any/ or substantial training in minimizing distracted driving.
Has anyone looked closely at a police type laptop/ communications device? It is very detailed … like driving around with your desktop monitor with several open programs at your side. [The consumer GPS units generally are much less detailed – assuming they are set up to keep your field of view clear and the driver is not entering destination info while driving.]
Distracted driving has many levels of impairment: One could assume that a lost driver would be distracted ‘more’ looking for street signs (and looking at address instructions) and turing late vs. listening and glancing to a GPS give advance notice of a turn. Now if drivers have the GPS units on all the time on a known route…then one could assume that there would be additional distraction of using it – perhaps as great as a disoriented driver.
As our vehicles and our tools offer greater opportunity for distraction (ever since Motorola marketed the first successful car radio) our community leaders/ engineers still have one under utilized tool to minimize the negative outcome of distracted driving: slower streets.
In-car police computers deliver far too much information to be used safely while driving. If the computer displays simplified themselves when the car was in motion, they’d be far less potentially dangerous. We’re now seeing the same types of information overload that have previously plagued (and in some cases, still plague) the US military and other information-intensive organizations. The human brain (generally) can’t receive that volume of information without “dropping” something – either the data on the screen or the data coming in from the road ahead. When the latter suffers, the public is at risk, especially when police vehicles run “quiet”.
I forgot to add…
…our traffic laws managing distracted driving that currently give great latitude to police (and other emergency operators) may need to be revised given two recent changes in operational practices: 1) shift from simple operation of 2-way radio sets to computer/ cellular communication and 2) the more common deployment of solo police officers in urban areas that have to both drive and communicate at high speeds on congested roads vs. having two officers per car – one driving and one navigating/ working the radio.
I was on my bike on NW 16th yesterday traveling south and was sharing the road with a weasel in a white pick up truck who was texting while driving. He went right through two stop signed intersections without stopping.
I caught up to him at the traffic light at NW Lovejoy and motioned for him to roll down his window. I informed him politely that he had just run through two stop signs and he looked utterly surprised. I told him it would be best for everybody’s health if he would put down his phone. I gave him the peace sign and rolled forward when the light turned green. Hope he didn’t nail anyone while he continued to text and drive.
Distracted drivers affect us all.
See my earlier post where I mentioned that the City of LA settled for upwards of $100M with victims of rogue cops who were framing, murdering, and beating up people, on the pay of drug lords and the list goes on. I don’t know but suspect that there too the City’s settlements simply were paid for with tax dollars. Anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal
I am pretty sure matt would have had a better opportunity to understand the subtlety of my comment, but who knows, i have not been on a bike ride with him in years…. happy holidays, matt.
but I am not sure what the bike tie in was and I had not read Jeff Bernards comment, which I have now so now i understand his point – but I still dont see how i don’t ever ride a bike in my neighborhood.
can you help me understand your comment, sir?
Did you read the exceptions? They are not just centered on economic activity. There is an exception for volunteer work, public safety functions, amateur two way radio operators….
Yes, I have read section 1.3 of HB2377, sorry if my wording was imprecise. I believe it’s safe to assert that the majority of calls made by people legally using those exceptions are engaged in economic activity – making a buck. I’m not opposed to public safety folks using the cell phones in the line of their duties because I know that sometimes the antiquated radios they are forced to work with just don’t make it. That, however would be a very small proportion of actual calls made. My point remains that it’s ridiculous to prioritize personal convenience or economic gain over lives and the law in it’s current form does exactly that.
see, that is my concern, while 9watts makes alot of sense to me in alot of ways, I am not convinced of the nexus btwn Rampart, which was horrible, and distracted driving, which is also horrible esp if we are paying for the distracted driver’s salary, car, laptop – heck, I can’t even afford to have a laptop in my car, etc – and bikes.
Right now, I am trying to understand how to fold and unfold my new commuter ride, so I don’t have alot of time to think about drivers, really.
now that I can fold my bike, I was wondering if there would be anyway that some computer people could figure out what, exactly, the officer was reviewing on his laptops and phones and all the other distractions at the moment when he ran over the lady.
it would also be interesting for me to read about the details of how often a public officer is wasting money and gas while pointlessly driving around reading emails. in my worldview, if i want to read emails, I will go somewhere, sit down, get comfortable and read emails. I would not be able to read a simple email while paying attention to the road – but I am not a fully trained officer.
given all that, I am still hazy on the bike connection. but I will think about it as my day goes on.
“… it would also be interesting for me to read about the details of how often a public officer is wasting money and gas while pointlessly driving around reading emails. …” adam
Adam…there may be cops and other city employees doing what you describe, but the officer involved in this collision reportedly was checking his email when he momentarily took his eyes off the road. In an earlier comment to this thread, I included a snippet of what the O reported: he said he was checking “… for service calls on the mobile data terminal.
I’m not exactly sure what ‘service calls’ are, in police parlance, but it sounds like it has something to do with police business or assignments rather than emails.
Thankfully this did not end in death for the victim. Yet, your post illustrates why driving a car requires your full attention on the road at all times. Even a millisecond of distraction can result in injury or at worse death.
The exceptions are moot since the law isn’t really being enforced anyway. I passed at least SIX drivers with cell phones IN THEIR HANDS on my commute this morning, and another dozen with hands-free earpieces who appeared to be talking animatedly to themselves.
Without enforcement the law is pointless.
“At any given daylight moment across America, approximately 660,000 drivers are using cell phones or manipulating electronic devices while driving, a number that has held steady since 2010.”
http://www.distraction.gov/get-the-facts/facts-and-statistics.html
Perry, what is up with those radios?
i would love to have a tea with their purchaser, because though mine were cheaper in the long run, I think my fancy snowshoe radios that work perfectly and dont need batteries may have been cheaper.
Eighty? that’s just too old to be behind the wheel — or under it
man, I have to go on vacation for a bit and they cannot even afford a laptop in my tent. I hope you all have a good holiday, though, i am not even sure this is the right place for this comment – even though it is somewhat pleasant – at least that was my intention.
I do pray that jackattack was not run over by a distracted city water dump truck like the one that almost killed me the other day on greeley. I doubt that anyone in my family would have wanted to read that story on bikeportland, or anywhere else, really.
be well, see some of you next year.
What about the driver ysterday that had to stop the buss because her contractions had started? If she crashed because of this would there be 40 lawsuits starting now?
sorry to wreck this comment thread, mr. maus, but I just could not determine if this was a bike related story or not nor whether I could still comment on bikeportland, thank you for clarifying.
while it takes some repeating for me and jackattack to learn anything, I am working on it. thank you for the help. I truly enjoy reading this blog.
safe travels.