Urban Tribe - Ride with your kids in front.

Collision on SW Canyon Rd sends woman to hospital (Photos) – UPDATED

Posted by on October 19th, 2011 at 10:44 am

Aftermath of a collision
on SW Canyon Road this
(Photo: Beaverton PD)

A collision this morning in Beaverton at around 8:30 am sent a woman to the hospital with what police describe as possible head injuries.

The collision occured at the intersection of SW Canyon Road and SW 110th (map).

A Beaverton Police Department statement said that witnesses saw a woman who on the bike was “down and unconscious” following the collision. The operator of the car was traveling eastbound on SW Canyon. The bicycle operator was going west. When the car turned left (north) onto 110th, “she impacted the passenger side of the the car, as it turned.”

Google Streetview looking eastbound on SW Canyon.

As commenters below have noted, the direction the woman on the bicycle was headed is downhill, which means she might have been traveling faster than the operator of the car expected. Also worth noting is the presence of the sunrise and potential for sun glare.

Police say the person operating the car was “sitting nearby visibly shaking from the trauma” and that the woman she collided with, a 20 year old, had been wearing a helmet. She was sent to a hospital and is in stable condition.

No alcohol or drugs are suspected and the Beaverton PD Crash Analysis Reconstruction Team (CART) are doing an investigation.

Here are more photos from the Beaverton PD:

UPDATE, 3:28 pm: Beaverton PD has released names of both people involved:

The driver of the Dodge Caliber is 40 year old Howard Hagge of Portland and the bicyclist is Yulia Shutman (20), also from Portland. She remains in stable condition and has family flying in from out of state.

No criminal charges will be filed, but the investigation into possible traffic citations is ongoing.

UPDATE, 4:01 pm: Beaverton PD now says that Ms. Shutman is listed in serious condition at Legacy Emanuel Hospital. (They initially reported that she was in stable condition.)

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. Thank you.

  • matt October 19, 2011 at 10:54 am

    I ride through this intersection often, although not the direction she was coming. The cyclist probably had considerable speed as Canyon is a pretty good hill east of this intersection.

    So sad and I hope she is ok.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Lynne October 19, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    assuming the eastbound motorist’s view of the cyclist was not blocked by a westbound vehicle, there’s a clear line of sight eastbound. While the cyclist may have had considerable speed, it is unlikely that she was exceeding the posted speed limit.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • matt October 19, 2011 at 1:07 pm

      yep. didn’t mean to imply otherwise.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • wsbob October 21, 2011 at 1:11 am

      “assuming the eastbound motorist’s view of the cyclist was not blocked by a westbound vehicle…” Lynne

      Which is one possible scenario representing this collision.

      Imagine an eastbound driver is waiting, waiting in the left turn lane conscious of the flashing yellow left turn light…sees one of those big box delivery trucks in the westbound, right lane, approaching the intersection, watches it begin to enter the intersection, and is just waiting for it to proceed through the intersection enough to allow the eastbound driver to quickly start turning left by cutting rather close to the back of the rear of the delivery truck.

      Doesn’t look to the eastbound driver, as though there’s any vehicles to the rear of the delivery truck. So the eastbound driver guns the vehicle into the left turn just as the delivery truck’s rear end clears enough to make the turn.

      Except that it turns out there’s a bike behind the delivery truck, either directly behind it or behind it but in the bike lane.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SilkySlim October 19, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    So sad about the “visibly shaken” driver…

    I hesitate to get too picky about the language in an incident report like this, but that just jumps out at me as a unnecessary subjective detail that will surely affect future perceptions of the event. Perhaps with huge consequences in a trial or civil case.

    I am sure the cyclist would also be “visibly shaken”, that is, if they weren’t out cold.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

    • q`Tzal October 19, 2011 at 2:45 pm

      Yeah “visibly shaken” is an irrelevant detail from the standpoint of legal culpability but it does actually help the cycling public in absence of other media obfuscation.

      “Visibly shaken” implies that the driver didn’t do it on purpose, that this “accident” was simply a matter of not looking.
      If “visibly shaken” makes it just a little more obvious to drivers that they need to look more carefully lest they be responsible for someone’s death then good.
      The general public can’t just brush this off as an angry driver.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • scoot October 19, 2011 at 3:17 pm

      The article actually says “visibly shaking” which, whether relevant or not, seems more of an actual, physical description than an opinion.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Spiffy October 19, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    driving into the sunrise (which was at 7:31am, later on that stretch because of the hill) and may have been partially blinded by the brief sun we had this morning…

    since it’s a slight downhill for the person on the bicycle she may have been in the zone and didn’t notice the truck turning in front of her, or thought that they saw her and were going to cut in right behind her…

    I think the turn lane is a blinking arrow, but obviously oncoming traffic has the right of way…

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • One Less :( October 20, 2011 at 11:45 pm

      At what point will we stop giving drivers every last excuse? The sun blinded me, I didn’t see the speed sign, thought the light was still yellow. IF YOU CANNOT DRIVE A CAR SAFELY THEN STAY OFF THE ROAD! If you cannot see, use sunglasses or your visor. If you cannot make it through the intersection when the light is green, slow down. If you are going to be late and feel the need to speed, leave earlier. It is not okay to let every user of the road have an excuse to disobey the laws of the road.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Pete October 22, 2011 at 9:22 am

        I’ve nearly hit cyclists on two occasions, and I can tell you that’s one of my worst fears, especially as a rider myself. In my cases the bicyclists were clearly disobeying the law and also not using common sense, but me being a biker and predicting what was going to happen is what likely saved a young girl on a fixed-gear who couldn’t brake downhill in one case.

        In my opinion people who cycle make far safer drivers around cyclists, but sadly this is not the majority case. If the driver here was offered a left turn opening by a stopped and courteous driver, the sun was shining at just the right angle (maybe the driver was heading westbound mostly previous to this and didn’t think they needed sunglasses, or were too short for the visor’s effect), I could see where this might be an accident. I’ve witness this scenario on two occasions commuting on nearby Murray and in my opinion the cyclists in front of me not being cautious when approaching the opening were more careless than the unwitting driver taking split-second advantage of the opening and not wanting to be rude to the awaiting drivers.

        Sometimes, drivers don’t actually set out to hit bicyclists, and negligence is a relative judgment.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Paul Johnson October 22, 2011 at 1:21 pm

        I believe Kansas just made it illegal to drive into a sunrise or sunset, because you can’t see.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Yulia June 3, 2015 at 8:46 pm

      this is Yulia, the victim of the accident. all the court stuff has long been settled, and boy…but well, whatever. although your theory isn’t super-favorable to the bicyclist (me) and doesn’t put all the blame on the driver, it seems to be the most realistic one. Not to mention, it brings up the issue us, cyclists constantly face in traffic: turning car traffic does not seem to realize that bicycles are also vehicles and their right of way needs to be respected.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are October 19, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    hey, while we are all speculating, let’s note that the position of the shifter indicate that the cyclist was in a rather high gear

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Charley October 19, 2011 at 9:01 pm

      Because it’s naturally impossible for a shifter to change position in the event of a head on collision!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • sorebore October 20, 2011 at 5:20 pm

      Hey Sherlock, I assume you were there to investigate and dismiss the possibility that her legs or feet might have moved the shift levers on impact. Sheesh.. you folks crack me up on hear sometimes.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • K'Tesh October 19, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    I hope the rider recovers quickly and fully.

    Since my right hook crash in May, I’ve become a lot more cautious on downhill sections with intersections/driveways.

    Be careful out there… They are not looking for you.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Paul Johnson October 19, 2011 at 2:20 pm

      Interestingly, this was a left-hook. Hopefully, BPD cites for failure to yield, since writing traffic tickets is about the only thing BPD is good at.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • El Biciclero October 21, 2011 at 10:57 am

        “Left cross“, actually–to maintain the boxing lingo. “Hook” incidents imply the driver came up from behind.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Erin C October 19, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    I was there and saw her on the ground. I looked her right in the eyes and it’s been killing me all day. I want to bring her flowers or something. Does anyone know what hospitol she was taken too?


    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • krr October 21, 2011 at 8:54 pm

      Emmanuel Hospital.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Michael October 25, 2011 at 12:31 am

      Thank you.
      She was released from hospital today in good condition (no any serious head injures)

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan October 19, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    Failure to yield, $200, thanks & see you later.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Hugh Johnson October 19, 2011 at 6:06 pm

      What do you want to happen to the driver?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Schrauf October 19, 2011 at 9:46 pm

        Negligence, depending on the facts of the case, which none of know most of at this point? Negligence in a legal sense is a big deal when someone gets hurt. Oh, maybe it was sunny and the driver could not see? Well then don’t turn. Drive farther down the road and turn where it is safe, and then backtrack. Or turn blind, and be negligent, and maybe kill somebody.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Hugh Johnson October 20, 2011 at 6:16 pm

          But this doesn’t answer the question. What do we want to happen to the driver? If we’re not “happy” with the punishment being the full extent of the law as it is now, then the laws need to be changed.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Yulia June 3, 2015 at 8:54 pm

      yup.just under $500, to be precise. but considering the dude nearly killed me and caused me years of stress, medical and attorney headaches and pains, inability to function properly in society and disrupted large and small motoric skills for the next year or so, caused me to withdraw from college and, for some unimaginable reason, move back to upstate ny…i call major BS! im sure he felt bad and all…but i think i felt worse.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • GlowBoy October 19, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    Ouch. I ride through this intersection often, and saw all the emergency vehicles in my (car’s) rear view mirror as I turned onto Canyon Road this morning

    The westbound bike lane starts just a block or so prior to 110th, so motorists may not be as alert to cyclists’ presence as in other places … and on top of that, there is enough downslope to achieve higher speeds than many motorists expect.

    I usually ride through this spot at about 25mph, having just entered the road at 107th and put the metal to the pedal in order to get through the non-bike-lane section as quickly as possible. The downhill starts to level off around 110th, but is still enough to easily maintain a high speed through that intersection.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe October 19, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    looks like she was hooked, after checking the pic.
    hope shes well. so bummed the streets are reckless these days

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Randall S. October 19, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    Well, I think what’s most important here is that we make lots of excuses for the driver (sun might have been in their eyes, cyclist may have been going faster than the driver expected).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) October 19, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    Just updated story. Woman on the bike was Yulia Shutman from Portland. Her condition is listed as serious.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe October 19, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    Forget the driver! the person hit someone, ppl need to take the time to understand we are out there and slow down, and take time to look in rear mirror.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Paul Johnson October 20, 2011 at 9:02 am

      Not sure looking behind you when making a left turn is the best way to spot oncoming traffic.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

  • noah October 19, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    I just came from the KPTV website article about this collision. Go there if you wanna feel much worse about it. The comments there are more disgusting than even those at the Oregonian site. [shudder]

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • RonC October 19, 2011 at 5:21 pm

      Those people are sick. They clearly have no compassion. I hope Ms. Shutman recovers from this, and that Mr. Hagge is well-insured.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Paul Johnson October 20, 2011 at 9:03 am

      Well, it is a FOX News affiliate.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Erin C October 19, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    does anyone know what hospitol??

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) October 19, 2011 at 5:04 pm


      Beaverton PD says Legacy Emanuel but I called them and they say they don’t have anyone by this name. I’ll hope to get to bottom of it tomorrow.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Alexis October 19, 2011 at 6:24 pm

        Maybe they are not able to release info for legal reasons?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Cecil October 19, 2011 at 7:26 pm

        Under federal and state law, the hospital is barred from releasing any information about a patient without the express permission of the patient. Many hospitals interpret that bar to include information about whether someone is even a patient at all.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Erin C October 19, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    forget cruelty..I saw her… I saw the blood and the bike and the look on her face. That area is crazy with aggresive drivers. I would love to be able to locate and comfort her.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Kevin October 20, 2011 at 12:22 am

      You’re posts just keep on tripping my “creepy” alarm

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Brent October 19, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    Is this one of those places where they have those stupid flashing yellow turn lights? I have those things it makes drivers take poorly calculated risks.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • GlowBoy October 19, 2011 at 8:02 pm

      In many cases the flashing yellow arrows replace old “doghouse” signals with that used to just display a solid green ball when left turns are permitted but not protected. They have been adopted because they substantially reduce crashes, and more accurately convey that there IS risk in making the left turn.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Paul Johnson October 20, 2011 at 9:05 am

      No, poor judgement does that, with lack of operator education being a contributing factor. The tools are fine, we need to fix the people. Because we lack mandatory retesting, there’s not much incentive for people to keep up on their driving skills until they cause an accident or get cited.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Eric in Seattle October 19, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    Maybe it is necessary to explain to car drivers that they can cause great harm to others if they do not exercise a great deal of caution on the roads. Really. This is serious stuff. Perhaps we should require that drivers be able to estimate the speeds of other road users in order to get a license. Maybe clue them in that bikes go faster downhill than uphill.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Paul Johnson October 20, 2011 at 9:07 am

      People seem lack the grasp that large trucks do the same thing. Had people cut me off so close that they disappeared under my hood from my perspective in my trucking days.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Barbara Chapnick October 20, 2011 at 9:27 am

    I am alarmed by this mornings Oregonian interpretation of the accident. “Women collides with car”. What? Sounds like a ‘left hook” and the article makes it sound like a bicyclist hits the car.

    Did anyone read that article?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) October 20, 2011 at 9:37 am


      A few things.

      First, as I’ve been saying for years now, I think it’s irresponsible for police statements to draw even subtle conclusions about how a collision might have occurred.

      Also, remember that The Oregonian didn’t really write that story… They simply make a few edits to the Beaverton PD police statement and then publish it as a reported story (therein lies the danger/power of police statements).

      Also, we do not know who had the right of way in this collision. It’s possible the woman in the car had the right of way and the woman on the bike didn’t stop as she was supposed to.

      Results of investigation aren’t known… Which is precisely why it’s unfortunate that the police statement uses phrases like “she impacted the passenger side of the car.”

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • wsbob October 21, 2011 at 12:49 am

        “…Officers arrived and found 40-year-old Howard Hagge, who was driving the car, …” Oregonian

        “…It’s possible the woman in the car had the right of way …” maus/bikeportland

        Kind of seems like the person driving the car was probably a guy. Maybe the O got that wrong. Either way…minor point.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • wsbob October 20, 2011 at 11:14 am

      Not sure the link below leads to the O story you’re referring to, though it does include a phrase similar to the one you mention.

      “…after she collided with a car while riding her bike on Canyon Road, said Officer Pam Yazzolino, a Beaverton Police spokeswoman. …” oregonian


      Technically, I suppose the ‘left hook’ description has some application to this collision, but the position of the car and bike in relation to each other prior to and leading up to the collision are very much different than the that of the more common ‘right hook’.

      Unlike in a typical ‘right hook’ scenario where a car and bike are right next to each other, parallel to each other, in this collision, the car and bike approached each other from opposite sides of a an intersection.

      It’s a wide intersection, and the car and bike were separated by two lanes of traffic. Visibility is good. The intersection is well signaled. It’s complicated to figure out the likely reason for this collision.

      One of the comments from the O story:

      “…The left turn signal has a flashing yellow, as well as a steady green cycle. If the auto driver had a steady green left arrow, then the cyclist ran a red light and the driver would likely not be found at fault. But if the left turn arrow was flashing yellow, the driver is at fault for not yielding to traffic.

      So what I’m guessing is that the police are trying to determine what state the signal was in, and thereby who exactly had right-of-way. ” dimag05, person commenting to O story…link above.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • FB October 20, 2011 at 10:48 am

    Looking at the facebook page of the man driving, his interests are Fast Cars, Lars Larson, and Tea Party. I doubt that he is a cyclist.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • MIddle of the Road Guy October 20, 2011 at 8:28 pm

      conservatives can be cyclists, too. I know several.

      I suspect you get your panties in a bunch when people make broad based assertions against cyclists.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Steve B October 20, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    Stay with us, Yulia.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • One Less :( October 20, 2011 at 11:41 pm

    The thing that irritates the hell out of me…..

    “Cyclist hits car!”

    Sure, the cyclist hit the car but was the driver or cyclist at fault Oregonian idiots! I highly doubt that they knew anything more than what they wrote at the time of the article. Yet they write it like the cyclist is at fault. Right back to the us v them crap. I hate most forms of the news these days because the stories they tell lack truth and actual facts about 95% of the time.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • wsbob October 21, 2011 at 11:20 am

      “…”Cyclist hits car!” …” One Less 🙁

      Go read the Oregonian story and you’ll find the statement you’ve posted is not what the O wrote or published. What it published, was the statement, which I copied directly from that story and pasted to my earlier comment:

      “…after she collided with a car while riding her bike on Canyon Road, said Officer Pam Yazzolino, a Beaverton Police spokeswoman. …” oregonian

      It says, the woman on the bike collided…with…a car. Two vehicles together, involved in a collision. Those words create a sentence that forms a simple statement of fact that does not imply a presumption of fault for the collision to either of the two parties involved in the collision.

      Recommended Thumb up 2