Showers Pass Warehouse Sale

DA declines criminal prosecution in case of man whose leg was severed in collision – UPDATED

Posted by on September 30th, 2015 at 2:22 pm

Bike safety meeting and press conference-7.jpg

Alistair Corkett at a bike safety meeting
in City Hall three weeks after losing his leg in
a traffic collision.
(Photo © J. Maus/BikePortland)

The Multnomah County District Attorney’s office announced today that they will not pursue criminal charges in the case of Alistair Corkett, the man whose leg was severed in a traffic collision at SE 26th and Powell back in May.

In a seven-page memo, Senior Deputy District Attorney Glen Banfield explains that the man driving the 1988 Dodge Pickup that collided with Corkett might have been careless or even negligent, but his actions do not rise to the legal threshold necessary for a finding of criminal negligence.

According to the DA’s office and the Portland Police Bureau’s investigation, here are some facts in the case:

— On May 10th at around 9:52 am Corkett and his riding partner Anthony Disano were riding southbound on 26th. At the same time, Barry Allen was driving northbound. As they approached the intersection with Powell, Allen was in the left turn lane preparing to go westbound and Corkett and Disano were going to continue south on 26th.

“Although Mr. Allen may have been negligent or even careless in failing to yield the right of way to Mr. Corkett, his conduct under the present circumstances is not the type of conduct that rises to the level of criminal conduct. This tragic event is not chargeable as a felony assault. Accordingly this case is declined for criminal prosecution.”
— Glen Banfield, Senior Deputy District Attorney for Multnomah County

— Disano and Corkett told investigators they were riding at a speed of about 18-23 mph. The posted speed at the intersection is 25 mph. Speed was not considered a factor in this collision.

— As he approached the intersection with Powell, Disano said Corkett was just a bit behind him. With the light at Powell a steady green he saw a car turn left (westbound) onto Powell in front of him and proceeded into the intersection thinking it was safe. Then Disano saw Allen’s truck. “He said he saw into the cab as the driver hesitated, ‘like he was waiting for us,'” reads the DA’s memo. “Mr. Disano thought to himself ‘ok, we’re good’.” At that point Corkett was following right behind Disano.

— Seconds later Allen’s truck began to turn right in front of Disano, who then slammed on the brakes of his bicycle and veered to the left. Disano just missed hitting the rear passenger side of the Allen’s truck.

— Corkett told investigators he too believed Allen was going to wait for them to go through the intersection. There seems to have been a bit of miscommunication. The DA’s memo says that Allen began to turn left, right in front of Corkett, but then appeared (to Corkett’s perception) to have hesitated just a bit so he thought he could make it through the intersection.

— Corkett was unable to avoid Allen’s truck and collided with the rear passenger side bumper. He thought he had successfully avoided the truck, “But soon realized,” states the memo, “that he had lost his leg.” “… he looked up and saw his leg on the sidewalk,” states the memo.

— When PPB Traffic Division officer interviewed Allen he said he waited for a car in front of him to turn left and then waited for another car headed southbound to go by him. He says he did not see Disano or Corkett until he was already making his turn. They were “going faster than he realized”, he stated, and he tried to turn out of their path.

— The DA agrees with Allen and concluded that he was not aware of Corkett’s presence until he began his turn into the intersection.

— Allen was not under the influence of any intoxicants. He was remorseful at the scene, responded with aid for Corkett after the collision and cooperated with the investigation.

The investigation proves that Corkett was riding legally and had a green light. Therefore under Oregon law, Allen was required to yield the right-of-way. He didn’t do that, so there’s a possibility he’ll be given a traffic citation by the PPB.

When it comes to whether or not he deserves criminal prosecution, the DA would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Allen’s failure to yield the right-of-way was reckless or done intentionally to cause physically injury to Corkett.

Here are the legal definitions the DA works with in this case:

​Under Oregon law a person acts intentionally or with intent when that person acts with a conscious objective to cause a particular result or to engage in specific conduct. A person acts knowingly or with knowledge, when a person acts with an awareness that the conduct of the person is of a particular nature or that a particular circumstance exists.

A person acts recklessly if that person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

Given the facts of the case, the DA feels they can’t prove Allen acted recklessly or intentionally. “When Mr. Allen began his turn into the intersection he believed he could safely proceed through the intersection,” DA Banfield wrote in conclusion. “As Mr. Allen proceeded through the intersection he saw Mr. Corkett and was unable to clear the intersection in time to avoid the collision.”

Whether or not Allen should have seen Corkett prior to the collision is the key point this all hinged on. If he could have been aware of Corkett, yet he still continued with the left turn, the DA might have had a case for reckless behavior. However, the DA relied on evidence gathered by a PPB officer who retraced Allen’s travel route a few weeks after the collision.

The PPB officer who retraced Allen’s route found that as he approached the intersection to make a left turn, “the north side of the intersection [where Corkett was coming from] appeared extremely busy and congested with activity… he observed pedestrians on the corners of the intersections waiting to cross as bicyclists, and vehicles entered and exited the intersection. The bicyclists he observed were ‘only visible for a short amount of time prior to entering the intersection southbound on SE. 26th Ave.'”

With that experience as part of their investigation, the DA was inclined to believe Allen’s claim that he wasn’t able to notice Corkett until it was too late.

Since the collision Corkett has raised over $90,000 to help with medical bills and physical therapy. In response to a community rally at the intersection The Oregon Department of Transportation installed a new left-turn signal.

​— Download the DA’s memo here (PDF).

UPDATE, 10:00 am on 10/1: Mayor Charlie Hales confirmed this morning on Twitter that the man driving truck will be issued three citations: careless driving, dangerous left turn, and driving uninsured. The careless citation will trigger the Vulnerable Roadway Users law (because it led to serious injury) and therefore Mr. Allen will face a steeper fine (up to $12,500), community service, and so on.

And we just saw that the PPB has issued a statement confirming this news. The PPB says the citations were dismissed initially due to an “administrative error.”

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

205
Leave a Reply

avatar
41 Comment threads
164 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
61 Comment authors
9wattsJohn LascuretteslopsorenDan Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Dwaine Dibbly
Guest
Dwaine Dibbly

What the #^@%$?!?

BeavertonRider
Guest
BeavertonRider

Incredible legal analysis.

9watts
Guest
9watts

“I didn’t see him.”
O.K.

“The DA agrees with Allen and concluded that he was not aware of Corkett’s presence until he began his turn into the intersection.”

9watts
Guest
9watts

Why isn’t it Allen’s responsibility to SEE Alastair?!

9watts
Guest
9watts

The “Ignorance is Bliss” Defense (bicycling.com)
http://bit.ly/wvrs06

“You’re supposed to be able to see what’s on the road in front of you and you should only proceed when it’s safe to do so,” Outagamie County Sheriff’s Capt. Mike Jobe said. “When you run into another vehicle or in this case, a bicycle you should have seen, then obviously it’s our view that the only reason you didn’t see it was because you weren’t paying attention.”

John Lascurettes
Guest

Ding ding ding! Winner!

Paul Atkinson
Guest
Paul Atkinson

Today I discovered that I’ve been using the word “unconscionable” wrong. I’d have thought it applied here, but apparently I was mistaken.

I also learned that if I ever hit anything while driving, I should just claim I didn’t see it. That way I can’t be charged with reckless driving.

We just might need to update Oregon law to hold people accountable when they hurt others in this way.

Mark
Guest
Mark

If cycle groups teamed up with motorcycle riders, that would work. Bikers have long been marginalized by the law.

was carless
Guest
was carless

This. When I first got my old scooter, I was sternly warned by veteran motorcyclists to ride extremely carefully, and to assume that every. vehicle. on the road would try to kill me.

They were not kidding… was amazed at how blind drivers in general are. Can’t wait for driverless cars!!!

Dan
Guest
Dan

Saw a video on driverless cars yesterday that said that 93% of collisions were caused by driver error.

ethan
Guest
ethan

I wonder if DA Banfield has any relation to the highway?

Or if he would feel the same if his leg was forcibly removed from him?

Adam Herstein
Guest
Adam Herstein

Honestly not surprised by this. Our judicial system in this country is set up to protect drivers above all else.

If a person is driving and is involved in a crash, it should be prima facie of the drivers guilt and up to them to prove they are not at fault. The fact that the crash occurred should be evidence enough that the driver was acting recklessly or irresponsibly.

BeavertonRider
Guest
BeavertonRider

“The fact that the crash occurred should be evidence enough that the driver was acting recklessly or irresponsibly.”

Oh wow…

By the way, upon what basis do you conclude that the judicial system is “set up” to protect drivers?

Just curious.

are
Guest

on the basis of an accumulation of instances such as this

Mark
Guest
Mark

At this point, its a civil case. To any car driver reading this, simply bulk up your liability coverage to 1 million ansndrive however you want. No need to even look, or keep looking through the turn. At leàst, the DA has no desire to even try a case.

Now…steal a candy bar or sell the tiniest amount of heroine, that’s criminal. Rip off a guy’s leg, no big deal.

ethan
Guest
ethan

Yeah, it’s pretty messed up.

Run over and kill 3 children? Here’s a $400 fine.
Sell 3 children some powdered sugar and tell them it’s cocaine? Going to jail.

Tom Hardy
Guest
Tom Hardy

It is something that happens when stoners drive. Unfortunately it is going to get worse real fast, beginning tomorrow October 1.Oregon has all ready experienced a 40% increase in highway deaths this year. Over 40% of those involved in the deaths have tested as high in THC. Does this say something?

Psyfalcon
Guest
Psyfalcon

Source?

I only found one thing from Seattle, and a few from Aus.

suburban
Guest
suburban

Start seeing….cataracts.

Spiffy
Guest
Spiffy

“With that experience as part of their investigation, the DA was inclined to believe Allen’s claim that he wasn’t able to notice Corkett until it was too late.”

if somebody is unable to see something that’s there then it’s negligence of their ability to see clearly… the phrase “I didn’t see them” is an admission of negligence…

you don’t drive forward just because you don’t see anything in the way… you drive forward when you SEE that the way is clear…

the driver did not check to see and confirm that it was clear… they drove without looking… might as well have closed his eyes and hit the gas…

I think the case could proceed…

can’t one of the area bike lawyers take up the case against the driver? why do we have to rely on wishy-washy pro-driver district attorneys to proceed with charges?

canuck
Guest
canuck

This doesn’t mean that there won’t be a civil action.

m
Guest
m

This.

Different standards for criminal v. civil.

are
Guest

yes but if the guy has no insurance you are looking only at his nonexempt personal assets. often people drop their insurance because they calculate they cannot afford it. what we need is a fund that compensates people at least minimally where the driver is uninsured. this could be funded by auto insurers and by court costs and fines in traffic cases. new york and new jersey, among others, have had this for fifty plus years.

Mark
Guest
Mark

After reading the initial article, I wonder why left turns are even allowed?http://bikeportland.org/2015/05/10/sunday-morning-collision-26th-powell-severs-leg-man-bike-142971

Adam Herstein
Guest
Adam Herstein

Because if we don’t allow left turns at that one intersection, the entire economy of Portland will fail.

Daniel Costantino
Guest
Daniel Costantino

So true.

Rob Chapman
Guest
Rob Chapman

You forgot the /s Adam!

pixelgate
Guest
pixelgate

And we’re still a “platinum bike city”? That’s rich.

Mark
Guest
Mark

Strike that, I am in favor of moving the bike lane to 28th. It already has a diverter that could be made larger with an on demand light. 28th goes through father south and doesn’t run along a major arterial that is narrow.

Todd Hudson
Guest
Todd Hudson

Also doubtful a civil suit against Allen will get much traction – suing a broke Burner who drove an uninsured art car doesn’t seem promising.

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

So many inconsistencies here. Forget about “criminal” prosecution; if the driver was even “careless”, then ORS 811.135 (3)-(6) (the so-called VRU law) should apply. I know that this particular memo was related only to criminal prosecution, and there is still “a possibility he’ll be given a traffic citation by the PPB”, but…

I note the DA believing that the driver “…wasn’t able to notice Corkett…”—based on the testimony of another driver (the PPB officer) who drove the same path (did he do this at 10am on a Sunday?) and concluded that the intersection was just too busy for anybody to notice bicyclists coming straight at you.

So on one hand, the DA says Allen may have been careless, but then agrees that he “wasn’t able” to notice Corkett, so then, was he careless? We should note that the definition of “careless” does not require intent or even awareness, but merely the observation that any person or property was endangered or likely to be endangered—which in this case, I think we can readily see.

Given the conclusion that Mr. Allen (the driver) “wasn’t able to notice” Mr. Corkett—not that he merely failed to notice, but that he wasn’t able—I would be surprised if there were any more than a citation for dangerous left turn, with no invocation of the vulnerable road user amendment to the careless driving statutes.

Then there’s the whole signal thing: why take action spurred by the injury of a cyclist and add a left turn signal at this intersection, then allow ODOT to remove the bike lane and essentially tell cyclists “now that it’s safer, don’t ride here”?

9watts
Guest
9watts

Now that the careless citation was reinstated, I’m even more curious to hear someone speak to El Biciclero’s questions above.

Eric Leifsdad
Guest
Eric Leifsdad

If they were “going faster than he realized”, that means he saw them. When turning across an intersection which “appeared extremely busy and congested with activity”, it sounds reckless to go ahead without a clear right-of-way. How fast was the truck moving at the time of the collision?

It’s time to remove the auto lanes from 26th.

mran1984
Guest
mran1984

Another ridiculous “idea”…that is the direct route to Powell from my neighborhood. Should I utilize the residential side streets instead? A bunch of people could simply move back home and traffic would decrease. Yeah, leave town now! Traffic was not an issue before “everyone” thought they should move to Portland and make it more like the awful place that they left. It was better here.

Eric Leifsdad
Guest
Eric Leifsdad

Okay. You can drive a car on 26th only if you were born on 26th? That might work too. We’ll need to carry RFID chips to activate the retracting bollards?

Chris I
Guest
Chris I

You will get your lanes back when you prove that you can drive safely.

Dan
Guest
Dan

Too many scofflaw drivers. Time to restrict access and come up with a transportation plan for them, if we are able to raise funding.

Buzz
Guest
Buzz

According to the Mercury, the driver was issued three citations, which were subsequently dismissed pending the criminal investigation, and should now (theoretically) be reinstated, including one for careless driving which could make the driver liable under the vulnerable user section of that violation.

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2015/09/30/the-driver-who-severed-a-cyclists-leg-in-may-wont-face-charges

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/811.135

Charley Gee
Guest

The statute of limitations for citing the driver with violations, including careless driving, is 180 days so PPB better get moving if that’s what they are going to do.

mark
Guest
mark

Oregon needs to get rid of this “knowingly nonsense” and instead install “causes significant bodily harm”. Let a jury sort out what significant is. The knowingly stuff more or less provides immunity to a car driver…and they know it.

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

It doesn’t help with criminal prosecution, but to invoke the so-called VRU law, there is seemingly no need to prove knowledge, awareness, or intent. The definition of “careless” (from ORS 811.135) merely states that a driver must drive “in a manner that endangers”, NOT in a manner that they believe would endanger, or “knowingly” drive in any particular manner, they must merely drive “in a manner that endangers”. In my non-lawyer opinion, this should result in a stipulation that if any injury or property damage (VRU or not) occurs as a result of the commission of any traffic violation, it should be considered prima facie evidence of careless driving.

I will be waiting to see whether a careless driving citation is issued in addition to “dangerous left turn” (if even that), and whether the VRU provisions are then applied (community service + traffic safety, else $12,000 fine + one-year suspension).

PNP
Guest
PNP

Has anyone heard anything lately about how Alistair is doing?

J_R
Guest
J_R

What a gutless decision!

Once again, it sends the message: we don’t care about people, especially those on bikes.

Even prosecuting and failing would send a message that it’s wrong to run down cyclists and pedestrians.

Choosing to drive without insurance should be viewed as a conscious decision by Allen that he was being reckless.

Disgusting!

mark
Guest
mark

At the very least, prosecuting would involve the defendant would mean ponying up for a lawyer and/or slumming it for a PD.

Tom Hardy
Guest
Tom Hardy

Any driving without insurance should be regarded as conscious Premeditation. Drinking and driving is also to be considered as conscious Premeditation. Smoking weed and driving is also in the same catagory for 2 weeks. As long as the THC is in the system.

LC
Guest
LC

I don’t disagree about premeditation but your weed scenario makes no sense and reeks of reefer madness prohibition era fear mongering.

Paul Wilkins
Guest
Paul Wilkins

While I wish it were criminal, I think civil action is the way to go on this anyway. Even if he did get convicted, would he serve any jail time? Is there any amount of jail time that makes up for the loss of limb?

A settlement that provides financial remuneraiton for Alistair is likely more just, because it’ll be tough for Allen to earn money to pay the settlement from the clink.

J_R
Guest
J_R

Unfortunately, Allen didn’t even bother to have insurance and likely has no meaningful assets. That means he gets off scot free! Yippee!

9watts
Guest
9watts

“I think civil action is the way to go on this anyway.”
Sure. And I’m not the least bit interested in vengeance or retribution. My own anger at how these cases seem to almost always unfold is that at the symbolic level—at least as far as what we are able to learn via bikeportland and Google—the drivers who kill and maim our fellow bikey folks tend to get off with a slap on the wrist. There is absolutely no readily apparent disincentive to driving like Mr. Allen did – tomorrow. That part rankles.

Pete
Guest
Pete

I think 9watts nailed it in his reply. My neighbor was killed by a woman who was texting and weaving all over the road (witnesses who followed her say). She didn’t even stop. We watched her all through court proceedings and she didn’t show the slightest bit of remorse, like she was inconvenienced by the whole thing. The DA was quoted in the paper as saying she made a grave mistake by leaving the scene. Even after all the tough talk she got barely a slap on the wrist because it was her first offence. So you have to ask, how many times do you have to kill someone and then leave the scene while driving distracted to actually lose your “privilege” to drive, for even a short period?

Civil actions are no picnic for the plaintiff. They’ll put him through a long and expensive process just to prove he has the right to collect a sum that he then has initiate another long and arduous process to collect. The defendant’s insurance company may get involved to ensure their losses are minimized. And then there’s the whole “blood from a stone” thing…

Meanwhile, yet another opportunity has passed for the “legal standards” (quoting Jonathan) to reflect that repeated carelessness won’t be tolerated, but clearly it will, if a lack of previous record is significant enough to prevent a careless driver from losing her license in one case, while a repeat record of carelessness (that culminates in significant bodily injury) still doesn’t prevent another driver from losing his driving privileges in another.

wsbob
Guest
wsbob

“…yet another opportunity has passed for the “legal standards” … to reflect that repeated carelessness won’t be tolerated, …” Pete

What ‘opportunity’ would you be referring to? Present some solid, realistic ideas for bringing a greater certainty of consistently responsible road use to the roads. Realistic, meaning legal measures that, put to the public for consideration, people won’t reject outright as unreasonable limitations on people’s ability to use the road with motor vehicles.

It seems quite a stretch to consider the public will support ideas suggesting that people having caused collisions, any collision, while driving, unequivocally be responded to with license withdrawal, imprisonment or worse.

Though if anyone reading here is truly serious about exploring such ideas and the public’s reaction to them, at least try put them in some tangible, legibly coherent form that could at least be considered as a possible law for submission to the public for consideration.

From what information about him can be gathered from bikeportland and oregonian news stories, despite his reported display of remorse following the collision, there’s some serious indication that Allen is considerably far from being someone that can be relied upon to consistently drive safe. Nevertheless, at one time, apparently he did pass the driving test, and had a license to drive. At some point in time, he was considered by the state through testing, to have been a person competent to operating a motor vehicle on the road.

So when people considered competent drivers make mistakes in driving (and almost everyone that drives, does make mistakes at some point.) at what level of mistake do critics of the current road use with a motor vehicle authorization believe the ‘wrist slapping’ cut-off point should be? A speeding ticket? Insurance policy lapse? A single cite for failure to yield?

It’s very easy to talk about making access to the road with motor vehicles, tougher. Actually accomplishing changes to that effect, stand to be a very big challenge, if they even stand a chance of being brought about.

TheRealisticOne
Guest
TheRealisticOne

I struggle with the “I didn’t see him/her” excuse. I’ve personally had problems with sun glare, which scares me, but I’m really getting tired of this irresponsible excuse. I expect chaos and stupid human behavior all the time, I actively look for it. I take great responsibility while driving, I only “drive” while in the car and recognize that I can be a deadly factor on the road. I almost hit a lady crossing a crosswalk and scared the shit out of myself, and her as well. I had distractions all around me as well as in the car. From that point, I don’t proceed unless I know for sure it’s safe to go.

Buzz…you’re right on! this guy has had other citations, I believe he didn’t show up for one of the charges. This guy has shown a pattern of irresponsible behavior, do we really need these people on the road? Do we need prosecutors that won’t follow up on charges already processed and not resolved? So, we all get to watch his next move, likely to kill someone the next time. His crimes are elevating.

My grandfather started to play “bumper cars” or Nascar swapping paint on the streets of Portland, and thankfully they took his license away.

He’s likely uninsured, driving an “unsafe” vehicle and showing his inability to pay attention to his surroundings. Whether the DA thinks there’s a criminal case or not, some action needs to be taken. I call out to our cycling attorneys to step up, take this case pro bono (?) and show Portland that this won’t be tolerated.

Tom Hardy
Guest
Tom Hardy

Allen had a modified rear bumper on his pickup. It was modified with a horizontal spacer to set it back and provide a “capture hook” on the side so anyone’s lag would be cut off if the person was riding a bike and grazed the side of the pickup or a pedestrian was too close when the driver was turning a corner.The Extention had a serrated edge on it.
Don’t believe me? Look at the pictures!

9watts
Guest
9watts

Got a link? That sounds egregious.

9watts
Guest
9watts

I looked up photos of the truck I could find online, and (the paint job aside) the truck looked pretty stock to me. Jacked up a bit, sure, but besides that I didn’t see those grisly features you did. Rear bumper (from the left side at least) also looked perfectly stock.

BeavertonRider
Guest
BeavertonRider

Wait, what?

You acknowledge the very real complication of sun glare, yet insist citing it as a contributing factor to an accident occurring is irresponsible??? What?

“Whether the DA thinks there’s a criminal case or not, some action needs to be taken.”

Right, because it will satiate your emotional need to punish Allen, ok. So long as we recognize your starting point. Maybe now we can deal with real facts and legalities and not:

“I call out to our cycling attorneys to step up, take this case pro bono (?) and show Portland that this won’t be tolerated.”

Take up how exactly? In a civil case? It cannot be criminal because only law enforcement can charge and prosecutors prosecute. So what civil case is there? Or are you in favor of throwing frivolous civil action after frivolous civil action at the courts in order to deliver a message that most people will never hear?

John Lascurettes
Guest

You acknowledge the very real complication of sun glare, yet insist citing it as a contributing factor to an accident occurring is irresponsible??? What?

Because sun glare is not an excuse for failing to exercise due care. And it’s not an accident if it was preventable (with due care); it’s a collision that you could have avoided. If you cannot see because of sun glare – s l o w . d o w n !

Dan
Guest
Dan

“An 80-year-old driver was blinded by a sun glare when he crashed his SUV into two men riding bicycles north of Battle Ground on Wednesday afternoon, sheriff’s deputies said.”

http://www.kgw.com/story/news/2015/05/27/bicyclists-hurt-clark-co-crash/28047183/

From the top of a small crest at NE 132nd, to NE 128th, where this collision occurred, is a full 1/5th of a mile of straight, flat road. Assuming the driver was going 55mph, he would have had 13 seconds to see the riders at any point and adjust.

Last I heard, the “investigation” was “ongoing”. Now, why you would need to investigate a clear case of a driver violating the basic speed rule and ADMITTING as much, I have no idea.

TheRealisticOne
Guest
TheRealisticOne

John, I think it’s quite obvious that slowing down is what I do, you didn’t understand this?

John Lascurettes
Guest

I wasn’t replying to you. I replying to Beaverton Rider who was saying that it was inconsistent of you to say that using sun glare as a defense for irresponsible and unsafe driving was “inconsistent” – to which I was saying no, it’s not inconsistent. It’s logically consistent.

John Lascurettes
Guest

… That is, “because of sun glare” cannot and and should not ever be used as a defense. If you hit someone because of that, you are driving unsafely and too fast. Beaverton Rider seems incredulous to that.

TheRealisticOne
Guest
TheRealisticOne

Hey, BeavertonRider, I simply posted a comment, some of which you obviously misunderstood. I acknowledged sun glare as an issue, and I mentioned how I deal with it. Done, got it? It’s very clear that you’re blinded by the need to attack. I honestly don’t know the legalities of the case, apparently you know all the details. I didn’t ask you to comment on my post, sadly the cost of free speech is having to deal with people like you. If you don’t like the comments, then leave.

Mitch
Guest

The cop observed a lack of visibility at this intersection. The DA found that the crash happened as a result of poor visibility. Is it possible to find out who designed the intersection and charge them with criminal negligence? Or at least recover compensatory and punitive damages from them in a civil case? And if he can’t go after the designer, could he go after the city officials who reviewed/approved the design?

BeavertonRider
Guest
BeavertonRider

Uh, no and no. You’re just out looking to hurt someone. Accidents happen. People here want to believe that Allen used his vehicle as a weapon because absent being 100% iron-clad sure that nothing would magically appear in front of him, this shouldn’t have happened, right?

Rob Chapman
Guest
Rob Chapman

I’ve spent way too much money on reflective tape, B&M lights, helmets, helmet cam, Fly6, Hi-viz rain gear , etc. and I’ve spent too much time slowly learning how to get around in the city, reading and following the Oregon Driver and Bicycling handbooks and surviving too many near misses to give a shit about how little my life is valued by the “authorities”. Nobody is going to protect you but yourself.

You take my leg and I’ll take yours, I promise. Censored in 3,2,

9watts
Guest
9watts

When the DA finds that Allen’s decisions and actions were not problematic enough to cite (do I have that right?), the message this seems to broadcast is that shooting the gap under conditions of poor visibility are in fact O.K.
How can this be?

9watts
Guest
9watts

“When Mr. Allen began his turn into the intersection he believed he could safely proceed through the intersection,” DA Banfield wrote in conclusion…

When have we seen this kind of deference to judgment when the person in question was on a bike? If I believed that I can safely pass a line of parked(!) cars on the right, would that be good enough for the cops much less the DA? Would they defer to my judgment? Um, not in my experience.
. . . . .

I would have thought that if Corkett & Co. had been riding South through this intersection at night, in the rain that Allen would still be (held) responsible for seeing them, for taking whatever precautions he needs to to see them, not run over them. But if the DA cannot bring himself to find fault with Allen’s decision to proceed under the questionable circumstances in broad daylight, what hope is there for the night-time or rain-soaked biker to receive any justice, when visibility would certainly be far less good?

This strikes me as madness, but the fact that you are pushing back, Jonathan, leads me to think that I must be missing something.

soren
Guest
soren

I don’t think you are missing anything. One of the limitations of journalism is that the need to maintain a relationship with relevant authorities *can* have an influence on the strength of any editorial commentary…

BeavertonRider
Guest
BeavertonRider

You are missing something and it’s huge.

You’re demanding an orange when the DA only had an apple on the menu. The DA was assessing whether the driver should be prosecuted for criminal negligence. The DA was not trying to find fault in the driver’s evaluation of whether it was safe to proceed.

You do see the important differences, right?

We could all agree that the driver failed to exercise sufficient caution, failed to properly consider all factors in deciding when and how to proceed, and was a poor driver given his history and not being insured and, yet, none of that proves criminal negligence.

9watts
Guest
9watts

Yes I see those differences, and thought I said as much upthread. My point, however, remains: When and where in this process do we get to witness a finding, a statement, from the authorities that clearly and unequivocally communicates that what Allen did was unacceptable, was beyond the pale, cannot be allowed?

BeavertonRider
Guest
BeavertonRider

Oh, so you’d be satisfied if the DA said a bunch of words? Come on.

“Beyond the pale”? “Unacceptable”? Sheesh… The accident was a tragic one and thenbunch of words you want to hear doesn’t makenit any better, doesn’t community cate anything important, and will not help avoid similar accidents in the future.

9watts
Guest
9watts

I wonder if you’d talk this way if it were your brother or your son whose leg had been ripped off?

lop
Guest
lop

FWIW in my experience when driving, biking, or walking at night if a cyclist has a bright non blinking light it can be easier to spot them behind a car than during the day. If their light is blinking judging how far away they are and how fast they’re moving gets a lot dicier, never mind making it much harder to keep up with everything else on the road. Cyclists aren’t visible just because it’s midday.

BeavertonRider
Guest
BeavertonRider

[Note from Publisher:

Hi BeavertonRider,

You might have noticed I have deleted several of your comments. You are being a bit too mean and you are using words of criticism directly toward other commenters. That’s something we don’t tolerate here. Please use more caution and choose your words more carefully. I value your comments and want to post them, but I don’t like your current tone. Thanks for understanding.

–Jonathan Maus]

BeavertonRider
Guest
BeavertonRider

I hope that aporoach is consistently applied. Rolling through this thread there are several comments that are directly critical of me. Just saying…

Dead Salmon
Guest
Dead Salmon

This case proves the point that “if they can see you, they probably will not hit you”. It’s a sad reality that cyclists are small and difficult to see when riding in a sea of cars – this is even more so when the colors they wear do not stand out against the background. Not liking that reality, or choosing to ignore it or to believe otherwise, will not change it. Understanding that reality, a cyclist can choose to improve their odds of being seen. Obnoxious, fluorescent yellow and orange clothing at all times, reflective clothing at night, flashing lights all over more than any other place – these are a few of the things cyclists can do to make themselves more visible.

Let the assassination of my character begin in 3, 2, 1……

9watts
Guest
9watts

“assassination of my character”
this is not the Oregonlive comment section. Since when does that phrase describe what goes on here? People who make wild, unfounded claims (here) do tend to receive push back but that is a far cry from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_assassination

Pete
Guest
Pete

Being seen is key for cyclists riding in traffic, but clothing is only one aspect. If I’m wearing a high-viz jacket and I’m heading into an intersection like this, depending on my riding position, the color and brightness of that jacket may not actually enhance a driver’s sight of me that’s facing me. When you see road bikers riding around in the drops, how often are you able to read the logos on the front of their jerseys?

We’ve done evening workshops (which I want to start up again) recording cyclists riding away from and towards a car with headlights on in low light. (I know there are many studies available too). Long story short, people are almost always surprised when reviewing the videos at how visible they really were. (Ironically some of the most reflective clothing materials we’ve seen are black in color).

There are also those who’d argue that lane positioning makes a difference, as drivers tend to look for oncoming cars in the center of the oncoming lane.

John Lascurettes
Guest

I’ve got a very bright, always-on dyno light. I have a white helmet with reflective piping. I almost always wear bright shirts, many with reflective piping. I still get car drivers in broad daylight turning left across my path dangerously close. What’s the point? What happened in this case was not two riders, all in black without front headlights at night. This was broad daylight.

9watts
Guest
9watts

“What happened in this case was not two riders, all in black without front headlights at night.”

And believe it or not in some countries (Strict Liability) even this would be handled with more compassion than we can probably imagine sitting here in this country.

Dan
Guest
Dan

Back with the character assassination claim again? I was still waiting for you to apologize for the last time you threw this out.

wsbob
Guest
wsbob

“This case proves the point that “if they can see you, they probably will not hit you”. It’s a sad reality that cyclists are small and difficult to see when riding in a sea of cars – this is even more so when the colors they wear do not stand out against the background. …” salmon

Salmon…the point about ability to see vulnerable road users is relative to this particular traffic collision. Review of the facts summary in this story brings out that Allen, the person driving, before commencing to turn, apparently did see the two guys on approaching him from the opposite direction of travel.

Though not in time to decide not to turn, he said. Why might that have been? Reasons maybe why are certainly debatable. Fact is though, as you basically noted, compared to most motor vehicles, people riding bikes are relatively small and difficult to see, particularly among other motor vehicles in traffic.

In this incident, Allen said that preceding the two guys on bikes, were two motor vehicles, one traveling straight ahead, the other turning, both of which he allowed to pass him without commencing to turn. Allen’s view of the two guys on bikes may have been blocked somewhat until these two motor vehicles passed him by…or not; have to look at the traffic location more closely to be certain. And even if his view of the two guys on bikes was not blocked by the other motor vehicles, visibility gear they were wearing may have positively factored somewhat into how readily he happened to see them when he did finally see them.

Regardless, the relative visibility of people riding, to other road users, is something important to consider. Various gear enabling vulnerable road users to visibly be more readily noted by road users, is an obviously beneficial aid to their safer use of the road.

Bottom line in this traffic incident, Allen didn’t wait long enough to be absolutely certain the way was clear of oncoming traffic before commencing his left turn across that traffic’s lane.

Don’t know what the two guys were using for visibility gear, but it stands to reason that because Allen apparently used some very bad judgment in deciding to commence his turn, even had the the guys happened to be equipped to stand out like a neon sign, and Allen had seen them before the two cars passed him, it’s not certain his awareness of their presence would have had him decide not to turn across their path, putting all three road users on a collision path.

Dead Salmon
Guest
Dead Salmon

The other thing this case points to is the dangerous nature of intersections. Over 9,000 deaths per year in the US occur due to collisions at intersections. And as a motor vehicle operator I’ve learned this: when one road user can cross the path of another road user significant danger exists.

This occurs at intersections where left turning vehicles can cross the path of pedestrians in the cross walk. The pedestrian is always at huge risk in that scenario, and that scenario is the norm – white crosswalk lines do not stop cars. Another monster problem is the one in this particular case: left turns on yellow (or green ball) across opposing lanes of traffic – I suspect this one kills the most people. It should never be allowed.

Intersections are horrible places, particularly for pedestrians, cyclists, etc. That’s why, given the opportunity I will always cross mid-block when no traffic is coming from either direction. I can’t always do that, but, when possible, that is the safest option by far. Mid-block I only have to worry about what’s happening in 2 directions – at an intersection I have to worry about 4 directions at least.

Chris I
Guest
Chris I

We need more traffic circles.

Jason
Guest
Jason

This has nothing to do with who was right, or who was wrong, who was negligent or who had the right of way. It has everything to do with whether the DA thinks they can win the case. If there’s a shadow of a doubt, decline to press charges and preserve the win/loss ratio.

Dan
Guest
Dan

What’s frightening is that a case like this isn’t winnable in the US. Pretty much everyone on a jury is a driver.

Pete
Guest
Pete

Which begs the (hypothetical) question, if you were called to serve on the jury of a case where a cyclist was hit, what if you showed up for duty with a messenger bag wearing a helmet and reflective vest with your right pant cuff rolled up and pinned with a reflective Velcro band? 😉

Tom Hardy
Guest
Tom Hardy

Pete. From my experience with jury duty, if you showed up and even look like you might be a cyclist or mention that you are a cyclist, you would be permanently dismissed on the spot. I only mentioned that I was a cyclist after I was in the box and the judge dismissed me because I was familiar with the intersection in question.

Dead Salmon
Guest
Dead Salmon

Couple of points I did not see raised in comments above:

How is it possible that Disano, who was in front of Corkett, was able to miss the truck while Corkett could not miss the truck?

I’d think that the cyclist in front would have the greatest chance to hit the truck. The cyclist behind, Corkett, should have more time to avoid the collision – but perhaps he was trying to avoid hitting Disano who was braking in front of him. Could this play a part in the decision not to file charges?

Is it possible that the close proximity of one bike to the other bike, caused Corkett to hit the truck while attempting to avoid a collision with Disano? Tailgating is illegal in cars and contributes to many accidents. Although drafting (tailgating) is standard procedure on a bike, did it contribute to this accident?

wsbob
Guest
wsbob

Questions you’ve raised, aren’t much addressed in the facts summary in this story. As to whether they were drafting, beyond Disano reportedly saying “… Corkett was just a bit behind him…”, no report of how close the two bikes were to each other, or to the rear of the last of the two cars that preceded them through the intersection. Facts say Disano just missed the rear of Allen’s truck. Corkett hit it.

Travel duration on the part of the guys biking, upon entering to the point of the collision, I doubt would have been more than two or three seconds. So split seconds were literally critical here, as they often can be in many traffic situations.

I wrote earlier that I think 18-23 mph through intersections, isn’t too fast, and I feel certain about that, though, motor vehicles across the intersection waiting to turn left, are a scary, dangerous situation. While riding, from people driving in such a situation, I’ve sensed their hesitation as I approach and proceed through intersections. It can be difficult to be absolutely certain some people driving won’t decide to bolt into their turn, trying to get it done before I pass by them.

Dead Salmon
Guest
Dead Salmon

In any case, I still question WHY the cyclist in front was able to avoid hitting the truck, and the cyclist behind him was not able to avoid the collision. There is a reason. I’d like to know what it is.

wsbob
Guest
wsbob

Keep thinking the collision through. Allen turned directly across their lane of travel, obliging the guys riding to divert from the direction they were traveling to try avoid a collision. The guy in front just missed colliding with the pickup. The guy behind almost missed the truck did but not quite.

Speculating: leading up to and entering the intersection, one of the guys may have been somewhat closer to the right side of the road than the other. In other words, right behind but not directly behind each other; riding somewhat parallel lines of travel. So as they reach the point of collision, and Allen across the intersection from them proceeds to turn, one of the guys has farther to veer left in order to clear the pickup, but isn’t able to enough to make it.

Dead Salmon
Guest
Dead Salmon

The cyclist in front had to veer left more than the cyclist behind since the truck was farther west for the 2nd rider. BUT the truck was also farther north on his arc path and that may play a part.

wsbob
Guest
wsbob

Possibly, what you’re suggesting is as valid as some other ideas. It’s all a lot of speculation though. Unless the nature of the investigation conducted was of such an in depth type that it was possible to recreate with a high degree of certainty, what each road users exact line of travel was, the time sequence of entering the collision to the point of collision, and so on. Most likely not anything close to such an investigation with this particular collision.

Bottom line: Allen decided to turn across their direction of travel without allowing himself sufficient time to clear the intersection and avoid a collision. He caused this collision.

It’s a sobering thought, or should be to everyone using the road, to realize that the kind of rather common road use riskiness that many people, even people that are very good drivers may occasionally feel tempted by, can result in such devastating consequences for other people. As bad as the consequences of this collision are, maybe it will somehow figure into giving Allen the kind of personal awakening that will lead him to being a better, person and better driver.

davemess
Guest
davemess

Yes, I wondered this too.

This is definitely a bit of a weird incident as the cyclists actually hit the truck, and not the truck hit the cyclists.

soren
Guest
soren

Huh? The people cycling had legal right of way and the truck turned into their path.

J_R
Guest
J_R

So, is your definition of who hit whom determined by which vehicle had damage to the front? Assume you are driving along the main highway and I pull into your path from the side-street; I realize too late that I missed seeing the stop sign and stop in the middle of the highway; you initiate a panic stop but T-bone me. Since I was stopped and you sustained front end damage, you hit me, right? What relevance does that have to anything? What actually matters is who had the right of way.

davemess
Guest
davemess

Pretty much. My definition is simply based on physics: the truck was moving West and the cyclists moving south. The truck was hit on the North/South plain.

Bill Walters
Guest
Bill Walters

Except it wasn’t moving purely west; that would be more cut-and-dried. Rather, its driver was in the process of changing its vector *from* northward *to* westward by turning left without benefit of a specific left-arrow cycle (because it didn’t exist there yet) — a maneuver that calls for caution and restraint, hence the right-of-way law.

Dead Salmon
Guest
Dead Salmon

Actually, if you got all the way out into the street (not just front 1/3 of vehicle), and you had time to stop, had I been paying attention I might have had the time to see you, brake and stop my car. It could be my fault. Lots of factors to consider: speeds, road/lighting conditions, visibility of your vehicle (to me) as you entered the street, etc.

wsbob
Guest
wsbob

“This is definitely a bit of a weird incident as the cyclists actually hit the truck, and not the truck hit the cyclists.” davemess

Weird, but not so extraordinary. Not uncommon, except that in this particular traffic situation, the timing of the road users relative to each other in the intersection, was so close that the guys on bikes were brought very close to Allen in his pickup truck.

Apparently from the facts summary, Allen was debating with himself as to whether he could make it through his left turn before the guys on bikes would enter into what would be his path of travel. Allen apparently guessed that he could make it, and guessed wrong, just about making it but not quite, leaving the rear of his pickup still in the path of the guys on bikes as he proceeded into his turn, and they on their way through the intersection.

Something I wondered about but didn’t see mention of in the facts summary, was whether there also were motor vehicles behind the guys on bikes in addition to the two in front of them. If so, possibly Allen may have been looking further in the distance for that traffic and a possibly looking for gap through which he could make his left turn, failing to concentrate on the two guys on bikes which the summary suggests he did say he had seen, but too late.

lop
Guest
lop

>How is it possible that Disano, who was in front of Corkett, was able to miss the truck while Corkett could not miss the truck?

http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Barry-Allen-SPI-Crash-Investigation-final-2.pdf

>Mr. Disano said he then saw Mr. Allen’s truck pull into the intersection in the northbound turn lane. He said he saw into the cab as the driver hesitated, “like he was waiting for us.” Mr. Disano thought to himself “ok, we’re good”, and described he was already crossing the “Bike Box” at this point and Mr. Corkett was right behind him. A second later he saw Mr. Allen start to turn left westbound onto SE. Po well Blvd. and thought “Oh no! He’s turning.” Mr. Disano slammed on his brakes and started left as the truck started to turn. He said Mr. Corkett came up behind him on his left, “probably trying to avoid hitting me, because I slowed down so fast.” Mr. Disano said tha t Mr. Corkett kept going straight through the intersection. Mr. Disano said he was in full skid when Mr. Corkett passed by him.

Sounds like Disano, the lead cyclist, didn’t proceed south through the intersection, but instead swerved eastbound to avoid the truck. Why Corkett was not able to do the same is unclear.

“He said Mr. Corkett came up behind him on his left”

I’m not sure what this means. After Disano swerved left Corkett was on his left continuing south? Or Corkett tried to swerve left but then swerved back right to avoid Disano? Waited to swerve left until after Disano had passed him and was unable to thread between Disano and the truck?

soren
Guest
soren

BikeLoudPDX is discussing a possible protest next week. If you are interested please comment on our email list and/or community facebook page.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer#!forum/bikeloudpdx

https://www.facebook.com/groups/293708270840115/

Lester Burnham
Guest
Lester Burnham

Well now I know all those stop sign runners crossing the neighborhood greenways can just claim “they didn’t see me” before running me over. Great! Platinum!

BeavertonRider
Guest
BeavertonRider

J_R
Of course you won’t obtain a conviction if you don’t even try for one. If you try and fail, you are at least sending a message that what you believe that the motorist was wrong. And, if you fail, you may have a better chance of demonstrating to the legislature that the law needs to be changed.Can anyone reasonably conclude that Mr. Allen should not receive SOME punishment for his recklessness, carelessness, not paying attention that was compounded by choosing to NOT have insurance?Recommended 2

No. What you’ re describing is prosecutorial abuse and prosecutors are sanctioned for it. Prosecutors are not supposed to seat a grand jury in order to teach the Legislature a lesson.

The prosecutor here has determined that he could not successfully convict on avery specific charge. Perhaps he’s seeking other charges? Perhaps he sees no criminal wrongdoing.

None of that, though, should suggest that he or anyone else doesn’t believe that the driver made a mistake, is responsible for the accident, etc. Quite frankly, not having insurance, while a citable offense, had nothing to do with this incident as having a piece of paper in the car was not going to avoid what happened.

Look, can we set aside emotions and think more clearly about this? The emotional outrage, combined with the inherent anti-car bias is leading many people to presume perfect knowledge of facts, the law, etc.

Dead Salmon
Guest
Dead Salmon

Hey! A post with some common sense. You’re not from around here are ya?

9watts
Guest
9watts

I wondered how long it would take the two of you to discover each other 🙂

Pete
Guest
Pete

LMAO

9watts
Guest
9watts

“What they are saying is that ‘I didn’t see him’ is a good enough defense. It is not.”

Mark Ginsberg commenting on the Police exonerations in the Jarolimek/Sparling cases.
http://bikeportland.org/2007/10/24/when-failure-to-yield-isnt-5663

BeavertonRider
Guest
BeavertonRider

But, again, that’s not what the DA based his assessment and conclusion on, now is it? Why pretend that “I didn’t see him” was the central tent to the DA determination process?

BeavertonRider
Guest
BeavertonRider

Actually, having read the article above morr closely, it’s more clear that respondents here are responding more from an emotional basis than a logical basis.

None of the respondents here is actually addressing the legal standard of negligence nor are they citing facts that would suggest the driver acted intentionally and/or recklessly.

The DA held out the possibility of other citations, so many of the respondents here are simply wrong to conclude that the DA failed to fund any fault on the driver’s part.

I really am surprised by the animosity here given what facts are available to us. Perhaps some of the respondents here were eyewitnesses or have had the chance to interview the driver so that they are in a better position than the DA to judge that the driver was, beyond any reasonable doubt, acting intentionally or recklessly?

soren
Guest
soren

Intent and recklessness are not the same thing.

BeavertonRider
Guest
BeavertonRider

I know, that’s why I didnt assert or imply as such. I am using the words that the DA used.

Not clear why you thought I was saying they were the same…

Dead Salmon
Guest
Dead Salmon

BeavertonRider said: “I really am surprised by the animosity here given what facts are available to us.” You are?

This animosity is displayed every time a cyclist is hit, but if someone suggests safer measures that might actually make a positive difference, they are accused of victim blaming and we hear why car drivers are responsible for cyclists safety, not the cyclists themselves. Nope, it is all on the car driver and they should be thrown in jail, fined until they are broke, etc, if they hit a cyclist in any scenario. I’ve seen it a hundred times on this website.

Right now, there are many car-hating comments on the BP article on how much to charge for car parking. If a vote were held today to outlaw cars in PDX many on this website would vote for it. 🙂

9watts
Guest
9watts

willfully obtuse.
“Nope, it is all on the car driver and they should be thrown in jail”

Since we are discussing this particular case, let’s remind ourselves that the two folks on bikes had the right of way. Is there anything else you’d care to admonish them for?
When was the last time someone on a bike caused someone else to lose a limb?

9watts
Guest
9watts

“If a vote were held today to outlaw cars in PDX many on this website would vote for it.”
What does outlaw cars even mean?

http://bikeportland.org/2014/02/24/editorial-a-pro-bike-lane-argument-that-seems-to-work-23-powell-boulevards-101922#comment-4514767

J_R
Guest
J_R

OK, BeavertonRider, please spell out for us what a logical, non-emotional reaction should be to the huge amount of damage caused by inattentive and/or careless motorist behavior.

Maybe you’ve done some calculations and boiled it all down to dollars and cents. Perhaps you’ve calculated the delay of motor vehicle drivers at $10 per hour or whatever and a few lives at $1 million and a few injuries at $50,000 and concluded that it’s “cost effective” to incur a bit of “collateral damage” as long as we’re collectively saving a few million hours per year.

I want sufficient monetary and non-monetary penalties to deter or at least reduce the inappropriate behavior that is costing so many people their lives, livelihood, and their wellness. I’ve concluded that a more aggressive prosecutorial approach, higher fines, longer sentences, and a few other things might have the desired effect. I’ve previously advocated for random sobriety stops and requiring proof of insurance on a more periodic basis than the once-every-two-years requirement that Oregon uses. I recognize that these all have limitations and problems, but I’m not content with the status quo.

I’d be really interested in what non-emotional approach you recommend.

John Lascurettes
Guest

Given the facts of the case, the DA feels they can’t prove Allen acted recklessly or intentionally.

But I bet you American dollars that if he had turned across opposing motor vehicle traffic without a break in traffic (as was the case with the bicycle traffic), he would have been charged with recklessness. Why? Because it’s a reckless maneuver to do so without checking traffic.

BeavertonRider
Guest
BeavertonRider

Interesting hypothetical that is quite irrelevant and meaningless. Perhaps if you want to do a bit of data gathering and evaluate whether there’s a statistically significant disparity the in such bike v car prosecutions then you may have a point. Otherwise, you have an uninformed hypothetical.

scott
Guest
scott

This is really close to the logic that they use on civilian deaths from drone strikes. They didn’t know they were raining fire from the sky on innocent civilians, so how can the be held accountable for unleashing hell?

BeavertonRider
Guest
BeavertonRider

Uh, actually, no. Who has presented such logic? Not US officials as far as i know. In fact, US officials acknowledge and then investigate such incidents. The reports that have been published don’t ever conclude that the drone operator or the mission planners just didn’t know.

In fact, ror’s require command approval when dumping ordinance in space populated by civilians in drone sorties precisely because commanders are given the authority to weigh the mission objective against the risk of civilian casualtirs and deaths. So, clearly, no one would argue they didn’t know they were dropping ordinance near civilians because there is a deliberate decision making process.

scott
Guest
scott

Kind of like he decided to go even when he knew the cyclist was there? Like that decision making process?

soren
Guest
soren

Careless driving is reckless driving. People walking or biking are 2nd class people.

barb lin
Guest
barb lin

” He found that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove to a jury that Allen was guilty or criminal negligence.”
???????
Jury trial is EXACTLY where this belongs. This looser had a crap driving record, was uninsured and had numerous prior moving violations. He is the type of person who should not be operating a motor vehicle. PERIOD. Jury trial? Slam dunk!
And for Pete’s sake don’t ever let the words “administrative errors” appear on the same page as a story about someone loosing their leg.
-Absolutely DISGUSTED

Bjorn
Guest
Bjorn

I don’t think a jury would ever know about his prior driving record as it would be inadmissible. I agree that he is the type of person who should not be allowed to drive, but I don’t think that this case would have been a slam dunk. The way the law is written makes it very difficult to convict, and legislators have not been supportive of making it easier.

rachel b
Guest
rachel b

I feel for Corkett. And it scares me to know that someone can convince the law “I didn’t see them” at what I consider to be an intersection with uncommonly good visibility on all sides.

I think the way drivers have come to expect to be able to drive on both Powell and SE 26th contributes greatly to the danger at that intersection. The absence of speed enforcement on SE 26th has created the monster we now live with. I live on SE 26th (as many of you know, har). The attitude drivers exhibit here is one of impatience and entitlement : “Oh, good! I can step on it here and save some time!”  We’ve all seen how frustrated, thwarted drivers like to hit the gas when they can, and that flat, un-calmed stretch from Clinton to Powell is a real temptation. Even the presence of a school does nothing to slow speeders. I think there’s a similar attitude between SE Powell and Gladstone. And I believe that entitled driver mindset established on SE 26th barrels right into the intersection at Powell/SE 26th.
 
Commuters who’ve ditched SE 39th and SE 11th & 12th have come to see SE 26th as the “fast” shortcut and they expect to be able to drive faster and to get home at a certain time. And absent the traffic calming measures (naturally occurring and built) of many other Portland streets, there’s nothing to discourage speeding (except more cars, and I see there are more every day). The light for north and southbound drivers on SE 26th at Powell is long, and the impatience builds to just get across the intersection so they can go go go on the other side.

The mindset of drivers everywhere in Portland is rancid in general nowadays. But I do think it’s esp. bad on little streets like SE 26th for the very reason that it’s less logjammed (for now) than SE 11th & 12th and SE 39th, i.e. Drivers inching through Portland everywhere else look forward to those little stretches where they can floor it, like they floor it from Cleveland H.S. to the Clinton intersection and back. No visible speed signs, no crosswalks, no enforcement and a lengthy flat stretch to put the pedal to the metal.

I see more and more dangerous situations every day on SE 26th between Clinton and Powell. Frustrated neighbors attempting to cross the street, waiting 5 minutes with no cars stopping and then deciding to hightail it w/ fingers crossed. Saw a man pushing a stroller on one corner and a kid (maybe 8 or 9) kitty corner from him yesterday, waiting, waiting… They decided at last to make a dash for it. The kid almost get mowed over by a driver who never even stepped on the brakes, and just sped on. This sis a common sight. There’s going to be another horrific accident on SE 26th if something doesn’t change, and soon. 

Speed and carelessness begets speed and carelessness, and when they go unchecked, drivers have the power to maim and kill neighbors, and neighborhoods.

My best wishes to Alistair.

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

“Speed and carelessness begets speed and carelessness, and when they go unchecked, drivers have the power to maim and kill neighbors, and neighborhoods.”

Amen. Like a classroom full of kids who are supposed to stay working quietly at their desks—if one kid starts whispering and doesn’t get “in trouble” for it, others will start. Then it escalates to louder and louder talking, and if nothing is done, pretty soon there are paper wads flying and kids running around the room.

I view speeding through a neighborhood as a sign of serious disrespect. It is comparable to going to someone’s house and starting a game of football in the living room. If you wouldn’t do that in someone’s house, don’t speed and drive carelessly or aggressively through their neighborhood

Dan
Guest
Dan

Speeding is not a victimless crime.

Dead Salmon
Guest
Dead Salmon

It is if you don’t get into an accident, which is the case in 99.9% of speeding incidents. In fact probably 90% of cars are speeding at any given time if the road ahead is clear.

Dead Salmon
Guest
Dead Salmon

BUT I don’t recommend speeding in congested or residential areas. I usually go slower than the speed limit there because I don’t want to kill a child or a pet, or a cyclist, etc.

Bill Walters
Guest
Bill Walters

“In fact,” 90% of your posts seem to specify shares of 90%. That seems about 99.9% non-credible. Sadly, you’re probably half right in this case.

But no, it’s not victimless. Even if you don’t collide with anyone, you’re one of the lemmings driving group lawlessness that _does_ result in collisions. Including bizarre, high-energy rollover collisions on city streets. Collisions with buildings, even.

rachel b
Guest
rachel b

That spot where SE Woodward (the latest, greatest cut-through for those avoiding Division and Clinton) meets SE 26th is becoming an esp. dangerous spot. Saw a crash there myself a few weeks ago and have seen evidence since of other crashes (glass, debris). Have also witnessed a lot of close calls. SE 26th is becoming more dangerous by the day. I’m really worried someone crossing the street on foot or bike is going to get mowed down.

Dan
Guest
Dan

Speeding on the roads in and around my neighborhood causes people to be afraid to use those roads in any conveyance other than a car. It causes pedestrians to be afraid to cross the street even when it is their right to do so. It causes kids to stay inside and play minecraft instead of playing soccer in the street or riding a bike to their friend’s house. It causes noise pollution, and requires everyone to spend more money on ‘street widening for safety’. It wastes gasoline. It stresses out other drivers who are not comfortable driving over the speed limit, and submits them to road rage and intimidation from those drivers unwilling to stay under the limit.

Mark
Guest
Mark

The solution to intersections like this is simple. The Europeans have been at it for decades. This intersection needs a roundabout. With a bike/ ped flyway.

wsbob
Guest
wsbob

Mark…for this particular intersection, a roundabout and a flyway is an interesting idea…but could such a treatment really be a simple solution? Next time you’re out that way, take a look at the intersection: high volume of traffic, all corners of the intersection already have established uses.

Roundabouts as I understand them being, generally require a greater area of land than do intersections with streets at right angles to each other. And flyways…if that’s something like an overpass, it sounds like lots of money, not to mention the climb involved in getting to them over the main road below.

The left turn light, where there had been none, which had been on the installation schedule but was moved forward following the collision, should help quite a bit to reduce hazards of this type traffic situation. Left turns though, across traffic approaching from the opposite direction, are inherently of greater hazard to vulnerable road users than they are to people within the protective bodies of motor vehicles having them. Something to always keep in mind when passing through intersections.