Support BikePortland - Journalism that Matters

Opinion: Why words matter in police statements about traffic crashes

Posted by on February 4th, 2019 at 2:47 pm

Scottie Graser died after a collision with a truck driver while he was riding on Highway 30 on January 13th.

Most people think it was his fault.

The truth is, we don’t yet know exactly what happened. So why do most people blame Graser? Because the Oregon State Police said so.

The official crash statement released by the OSP a mere six hours after the collision read, “Preliminary investigation reveals… Graser… entered the eastbound right lane and a collision occurred.”

As usual, the statement — issued long before the completion of the investigation — was used as the nearly sole basis of many local media stories. It’s one of the big problems in the public perception of these crashes*: Local media copy/pastes police statements into their “stories”. This gives even more authority to the statements because many people think they’re reading reporting when they’re actually reading a police press release. (*For more on the issue of media bias in crash reporting, see this Streetsblog post from January, Six ways the media is still blaming the victim and this new research out of Rutgers and Texas A & M.)

Police press releases are not unbiased accounts. The people who write them are not present when the crash happens and they very likely have a strong bias in favor of the driver’s perspective. These statements almost never interview the vulnerable road user (who is usually either deceased or unable to remember/speak) and when they include information from witnesses, the witnesses are usually also behind the wheel of a car and are therefore are likely to sympathize with that point of view. Therefore, when the media simply regurgitates police press releases without any context, note of caution, or original reporting, they are nothing more than a mouthpiece for police organizations. Even worse, they can perpetuate inaccuracies that misinform the public.


In the case of Scottie Graser, I followed up with the OSP Public Information Officer to learn more. I asked about the assertion that Graser veered out of his lane prior to being struck. “What leads you to believe this?” I asked. The PIO said witness statements from the driver of the truck that hit Graser and another driver that saw the crash led them to that assumption.

So it wasn’t the OSP that believed Graser left his lane of travel and got hit, it was two witnesses — neither of whom are likely to sympathize with a man bicycling on a highway.

To clarify, the PIO added, “I would not want to make any conclusions until the reconstruction is completed.”

Unfortunately, the PIO’s statement did exactly that. It created a narrative that Graser caused his own death.

The real truth is that we don’t know how exactly this collision occurred. The OSP is still working to complete the investigation.

Whether it was carelessness, bias, or some combination of the two, police owe it to crash victims and the public be more sensitive with these statements. They are powerful messages that set the tone for how we digest crashes — and ultimately — what we do to prevent them.

— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and

Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.

BikePortland needs your support.

NOTE: Thanks for sharing and reading our comments. To ensure this is a welcoming and productive space, all comments are manually approved by staff. BikePortland is an inclusive company with no tolerance for meanness, discrimination or harassment. Comments with expressions of racism, sexism, homophobia, or xenophobia will be deleted and authors will be banned.

55 thoughts on “Opinion: Why words matter in police statements about traffic crashes”

  1. Avatar dwk says:

    It is hard for me to believe that there was zero skids marks or crash marks or anything else on the highway that would not have shown where the bicycle was when it was hit.
    This cannot be that hard on a dry road where a human was run over to determine where he was struck.
    I do not get it….

    1. Avatar Gary B says:

      I think you’re seriously underestimating the difficulty of crash reconstruction. Scottie died by a vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed. If there were no skid marks, then all the other evidence would be strewn across a rather large range. Determining where Scottie was–a couple feet right or left–is going to require meticulous reconstruction based on where everything (including, sadly, him) ended up after the crash.

      1. Avatar Dan A says:

        Or the police could just guess at it and release the only statement people will see in the news!

  2. Avatar billyjo says:

    for someone wanting others to not make conclusions, you sure do make some of your own

    “, it was two witnesses — neither of whom are likely to sympathize with a man bicycling on a highway.”

    How do you know that? Did you speak with them?

    1. Avatar Hess Mills says:

      Exactly. I cringed at the irony here.

      @Jmaus, ask yourself the same thing you say in the article: “What leads you to believe this?”
      Give up your stereotypes if you want others to do the same.

      1. Thanks. I did ask myself that. And then I shared what I believe. Then I clearly labeled it as my opinion.

        I appreciate your comment.

      2. Avatar Squeaky Wheel says:

        Would enjoy an introspective BikePortland article that takes an honest look in the mirror and asks its editor and its readers to recognize their biases and to own them. Even a casual reader has likely noticed times when @JMaus espouses neutrality while simultaneously advancing stereotypes. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, because it’s human, and I sincerely believe @JMaus is a human. What gets my goat is the shield, selectively deployed, of “Oh, I was just stating my opinion. Thank you, next.” Or rather, the pretense that this is an unbiased news site; as strongly as I believe @JMaus is a human and not an emotionless android sent from the future to warn us of the impending oil-pocalypse, I just as strongly believe this is an opinion site meant to advance the agenda of non-motorized transport. Let’s recognize that, and call it like we see it, so that I can stop rolling my eyes every time @bikeninja calls auto users “auto zombies” and the comment doesn’t get deleted for insensitivity.

        1. Avatar Dan A says:

          Can you refer me to an unbiased news site re: reporting on traffic crashes? I don’t even know what that would look like.

        2. Avatar q says:

          The very first four words under bikeportland’s “ABOUT US” section are “We make biking better.” I don’t see that as a claim of being an unbiased news site, or at attempt to hide that the articles contain opinions or viewpoints. Quite the opposite, in fact.

        3. Squeaky Wheel,

          I feel like I’ve been extremely honest for many years about my intentions with this site. I have never once claimed to be unbiased personally — nor have I ever claimed that BP is an objective news source. As a matter of fact, you can find many comments I’ve made over the years where I tell folks I’m not a “journalistic robot” and that I’m very flawed and biased and so on.

          Again. I’m not sure where your assertions about me/BP are coming from. I feel like you might be doing what many ppl tend to do here… They have assumptions about what BP is/should be (often based on their own personal feelings/biases), then they project those assumptions as facts.. when the truth is actually much different.

          Thanks for reading and commenting.

          1. Avatar Hess Mills says:

            These assertions come from reading the articles and the comments on this site! Taking a look in the mirror as Squeaky Wheel suggests could go a long way in evaluating what you want BP to be.

            Look what’s happened to this website over the years. I started reading BP 8 years ago to find relevant cycling infrastructure projects in the region and similar news. Over time, the AgEnDa has become too much, the commenters too extreme, and the journalism suffers. For example, you see cars/vehicles now being called “death machines” and drivers are now acceptably labeled “auto zombies” on this blog.

            The comment sections are an echo chamber of groupthink and anyone who posts in contrast to the AgEnDa is lambasted. For example, see the post a couple months ago about traffic enforcement cameras. Or the one about trikes on TriMet and how TriMet is wrong even though they are following the regulations.

            What this means is that many of the neutral, moderate, multimodal people like myself have left or just don’t bother anymore. I check BP once in a while now to look for the kind of content I initially found, but go in with a grain of salt knowing I’m going to see some excessive spin on whatever is there. When you write “death machines” or similar and post double standards like in this article, I can’t take it seriously. Maybe I’m not your audience anymore but if the stated goal is to make bicycling better for everyone, thinking about where your audience is at could go a long way.

            1. Avatar Rain Panther says:

              Am I the only one who doesn’t know what an “AgEnDa” is?
              I’m guessing it’s just a lazy way to denigrate and dismiss someone else’s perspective – you know, sort of like name-calling – but someone please help me out if I’m misinterpreting.

            2. Avatar q says:

              I don’t see an “agenda” or “groupthink”. In fact someone else commented recently who felt the opposite of you.

              I see lots of debate and differing opinions in the comments. You say anyone who posts in contrast to the “agenda” is lambasted. But those people are also part of the BP readership. If you’re seeing a lot of people being lambasted for speaking against the agenda, isn’t that proof there isn’t a strong agenda? Otherwise there’d be nobody being lambasted because everybody would be agreeing.

              I’d guess commenters who use terms such as “death machines” and “auto zombies” are only a few percent of all commenters, and maybe even less of all readers.

              Many articles and comments contain strong criticisms of people who bike.

              In the past, there’ve been some commenters who’d tell others (paraphrasing) “Don’t say that here! Those views aren’t approved by BP readers!” They didn’t see the irony of viewing the commenter and themselves as not counting as BP readers/commenters themselves.

              1. Avatar 9watts says:

                The part I’m having trouble wrapping my head around is why someone typing the words death machines causes someone else reading those words to be offended.

                What part of 40,000 deaths per yr is unclear?

                Auto users – the new persecuted majority?

            3. Thanks for the feedback Hess Mills.

              I hear where you are coming from. Keep in mind that things have changed a lot in the past 8 years since you first started reading. Bike advocacy itself has become more intersectional (not just about biking), I’ve gotten solidly into middle-age, I’ve learned about new issues and believe they deserve time and attention here, social media has become a major platform for ideas, and so on.

              Also… the climate change issue has blown up. I think some of what you feel in the words and comments used here reflect the fact that many people are not content to play nice anymore and just sit back and watch our abusive driving culture continue. These are very trying times for a lot of people and you’re seeing how that stress and frustration manifests in our comment section.

              If you want to see a different tone in the comments, I strongly encourage you to leave more of them. If you find anything abusive or inappropriate posted here, please tell me and I will consider deleting/editing it.

              And I do look in the mirror. Very often. I am constantly checking my perspectives/privileges/biases and I’m being as honest about them as I can be in my work product.

              BikePortland is not run by a team of journalistic robots. It’s mostly the product of one person – Me. As my abilities/interests/capacity/brainpower/energy/interests change — so does the site.

              Ideally I would be working with a team so the site would be more immune to my personal changes and could continue forward on a more strategic path. But having staff takes money and time and it’s not something I’m able to pull off right now.

              Thanks again for your comments.

              1. Avatar Pete says:

                Live in Portland once, but leave before it makes you soft.
                Oh, and wear sunscreen…

    2. Hi billyjo. One of those people was driving the truck that killed someone. Do you think his mind is able to be clear and objective in assessing what happened prior to the collision? I don’t.

      And I said that about the other person for the simple fact that they were driving a car… And the very good likelihood that they have never ridden a bicycle on Highway 30. Also note that I wrote, “are likely to”.


    3. Avatar Michael Ingrassia says:

      This is an opinion piece. I don’t think that speculation was overstated. Or that it was unreasonable, or hard to identify as sounding true.

      1. Avatar meh says:

        Yet when drivers make sweeping statements about cyclists based on their limited observations how does Bike Portland react? You are simply laying your prejudices on the witnesses without facts.

        1. Avatar Michael Ingrassia says:

          Which, is sort of the whole point of the piece, all first hand reports are biased in some way, police reports are biased too. “Opinion” or “Opinion Piece” are effectively disclaimers that a journalist is expanding on and exploring their own biases in the article. Parsing out what actually happened from it all requires judgement, which isn’t exactly a scientific process either. There is an art to weighing a writer’s or speaker’s credibility, and taking in to account the role perspicuity plays in perception and belief is a big part of it.

        2. Avatar Dan A says:

          It’s a fact that witnesses have been known to be biased against VRUs. Do you need specific examples?

    4. Avatar soren says:

      I was a witness to an injury collision at a crosswalk on the Hawthorne bridge (gave a statement to the police). I was interviewed on the phone by the motorist’s insurer and the interviewer accused me of lying to protect the other cyclist because I was also a bike rider.

      1. thanks for sharing that soren. Yes, that happens frequently — The system assumes that bicycle riders are inherently biased in favor of other bikers and against drivers. I’ve heard of people being kicked off juries on bike-related cases because they said they were a bike rider. However, that assumption never happens the other way around. IMO we need to talk about these biases more. They exist and they impact innocent people.

  3. Avatar q says:

    I’m glad you’re focusing on this whole issue of police reports that include a conclusion prior to the investigation.

  4. Avatar J_R says:

    To counteract the possibly erroneous assumption that the “bicyclist swerved into the travel lane in front of the motorist,” there should be an additional statement issued by the police agency that says “since motorists are notoriously known for illegally using cellphone while driving and the driver acknowledges owning a cellphone, it is highly likely that the motorist was distracted and may have run onto the shoulder immediately prior to the collision. The investigation continues into behavior of the driver.”

  5. Avatar pdx2wheeler says:

    Baffled why so many don’t use a camera during their rides. A camera talks, BS walks…

    1. Avatar Devin Quince says:

      I agree on one hand, but on another it brings up the idea that another high priced piece of equipment is needed to just ride a bike, which only disenfranchises people from riding.

      1. Avatar PS says:

        I don’t know, someone who doesn’t want to ride a bike because someone on a blog said they need cameras to do so, probably shouldn’t be riding. At least outside of MUPs. I say this, because cameras are only going to document the absolutely insane stuff you see drivers doing every single day and be a reminder of how little recourse riders have. It may be helpful if you get blasted from behind, hooked, etc, so you get a good settlement, but otherwise, who wants a reminder of all the cell phone usage, no signaling, door zone issues, makeup application, eating, reading, etc.

        1. Avatar 9watts says:

          “I don’t know, someone who doesn’t want to ride a bike because someone on a blog said they need cameras to do so, probably shouldn’t be riding.”

          This strikes me as unhelpfully reductionist, it to mention patronizing.

          Plenty of people who are reasonable and likely qualified to ride (whatever that means) could hear this idea – that cameras are essential – and be discouraged from riding, riding in certain areas, times of day, etc. I think the pushback against cameras-as-essential is healthy, akin to the pushback against high-viz-is-essential talk. Both put the onus on the most vulnerable, and tacitly accept that cars driven dangerously, I cautiously, distractedly, too fast is just how things are, oth ing to be done about it.

    2. Avatar Gary B says:

      I’m very stable financially. I looked at cameras after this report came out and evaluated spending several hundred dollars for each of two pieces of equipment (front/rear) I probably would forget to charge and the manufacturer doesn’t actually claim will survive a major impact (the memory card is in the center is all they say). I decided it wasn’t worth it. I assume for lots of others with less financial means, it’s an even simpler calculation.

      Why don’t car insurance companies require their customers to have dash cams?

      1. Avatar Dan A says:

        At a minimum, it should be required of commercial drivers.

      2. Avatar Rain Panther says:

        I have a constantly evolving wish list of bike related items, and cameras never seem to bubble up to the top. They just don’t hold the same promise for fun and enjoyment as other items. Dealing with that every day seems suspiciously like a chore.

    3. Avatar Pete says:

      Crash cams I’ve tried (older Rideye and Cycliq) have narrow field of view and not really enough resolution to consistently and clearly make out license plates (let alone drivers; American court tends to require proof of who’s driving). I’ve reviewed footage in varying light and it’s not great. The latest Cycliq footage from the article about the fellow who got confronted taking the lane downhill seems good, but that model is pricey and didn’t get stellar reviews. Also have two Hero4s which are less than ideal for commuting, and their remote sucks.

    4. Avatar soren says:

      Because cycling is very safe*. I also don’t use mirrors, helmets, or hi-vis clothing for the same reason.

      *PBOT serious injury statistics indicate that cycling in Portland is about as safe as driving on a per “commuter” basis.

    5. Avatar dragoonO1 says:


      I’ve been the victim of a hit-and-run, and I recorded my own crash video. The camera survived undamaged, while my bicycle and I were destroyed and seriously injured respectively. The camera($90), memory card(~30), and mount(12) totaled $142. It was a generic China action cam, but it was 1080p 30fps.

      The crash video was immediately reviewed by the investigating officer on the scene, and established my version of events in the police report. The video was invaluable in my (Uninsured motorist and PIP) insurance claims, and enabled me to negotiate a successful settlement. The insurance adjusters all commented on the video and praised it(They all remarked how they never had seen a crash video before.), and it made the claim process very smooth.

      I later replaced that camera with 2 others, helmet(~160 total, Sony HDR AS-100V) and tail mounted(~160 total, Xiaomi Yi Lite), and spare batteries. Using the Sony, I have also submitted 2 close calls to police as evidence in complaint(s). The Sony was able to clearly capture a registration plate at night. In all 3 cases, the videos were instrumental in obtaining support from law enforcement (Tigard PD). Both of the drivers in the complaints were notified by police that they had been recorded violating traffic laws and endangered the safety of a VRU (me).

      It is absolutely a chore and time consuming to charge them and manage the memory cards and video files. Cameras are yet another accessory, but I also use these them as dual dash cams when I drive, windshield and rear window mount. Despite the inconvenience, I have video evidence demonstrating that a crime and dangerous traffic violations occurred, where I otherwise would not.

      1. Avatar 9watts says:

        Fascinating. Thanks for that elaboration.

  6. Avatar dwk says:

    Again, it is kind of shocking that hardly anyone responding is addressing the basic question…
    Unless Mr. Graser had a stroke or something, he was a very experienced cyclist and would not ride into the lane…..
    The police have to know from the scene, I am not sure why this is a mystery or why anyone is questioning that Mr. Graser was run over by an inattentive driver.

    1. Avatar billyjo says:

      oh, that has to be it. No question about it!

      this attitude, that is on bike portland alot is my main problem with fully embracing and fully defending the bike community in this city. But when I talk with people outside of this circle, there is no way I can do anything but cringe.

      1. Avatar dwk says:

        Ok, Mr. Glaser swerved right in front of a truck going 50mph….Is that find with you?
        Case closed.

  7. Avatar Todd Boulanger says:

    Yes yes and yes! Great article. When we in the transportation safety industry started talking about this shift in thinking in the last 90s…I so thought we would be past this point of “understanding” how the current systems stacks the deck against vulnerable roadway users (aka customers).

  8. Avatar Glenn the 2nd says:

    The most basic reason for skepticism of the police report in this case was right there in the news release: “preliminary.” As in, “not yet complete or final.” Granted, a lot of the biases and tunnel-vision that creep into police or other investigative work, do so in the “preliminary” phase, simply because, well, that’s what comes first.

  9. Avatar B. Carfree says:

    In the spirit of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, I’m going to need a LOT more than the statement of the driver who collided with someone and another motorist to believe that a reasonably experienced cyclist on a roadway he has ridden hundreds or even thousands of times previously suddenly veered into traffic in such a way that the motorist had no time to adjust. It is simply much more likely that the motorist left the lane and struck the cyclist. I can’t remember the last time I saw a motorist remain in a single lane for more than a half-mile.

    As far as the police spokesman misleading the public by prematurely blaming the victim, he has an incentive to do so. If the public comes to understand that the police are completely failing to tame dangerous motorists who are killing people, that’s going to lead to some questioning of police effectiveness. Far better, for the OSP, to give the impression that this was some weirdo doing something dangerous than to acknowledge they have lost control of their jurisdiction.

    As we used to learn in high school, always consider each party’s motivation in presenting what they do.

    1. Avatar q says:

      That’s perceptive to note that the police as well as the driver have an incentive to blame the victim, for the reason you said.

      During the Sellwood Bridge project, someone drove onto the sidewalk and got their truck stuck. The project’s statement blamed the driver, even noting drug paraphernalia was found in the vehicle (could have been legal pot products with no relevance to the situation?). But I’d been there right before, and the construction barricades were set up in a confusing way that seemed to lead people directly into where she drove. And right after the truck was removed, the barricades were totally redone to eliminate that confusion. The driver still could still have been substantially at fault (or not) but the statement not surprisingly didn’t mention the barricades as a possible factor. But with statements being written by agency employees who may also act (even officially) as agency PR spokespeople, there’s an incentive to shield the agency from blame.

    2. Avatar billyjo says:

      And remember your motivation. Honestly, people like you making statements like this is exactly why the vast majority of people don’t even listen to the bike community. We get it, you hate cars and people who drive cars.

      1. Avatar 9watts says:

        “the vast majority of people don’t even listen to the bike community.”

        That is quite the statement. Care to clarify some of the claims?

        You have a direct line to ‘the majority of people’?

        And ‘bike community,’ who is that? How do we know if someone is a member, or perhaps an infiltrator? You post here, are you also a member? How come we disagree over so many things? Do the ‘majority of people’ ignore both of us equally?

  10. Avatar Pat Franz says:

    That the bias is allowed to stand is especially awful because the initial release is the only “information” most people will ever hear about it. They will make their travel and voting plans based on what they hear.

    The public is being mislead. Purposefully, or lazily, or ignorantly, it needs to stop. The people filing these reports are supposed to be professionals, with training and oaths.

  11. Avatar Buzz says:

    Double standard in effect; you disagree with OSP on this tragedy but you sympathize with PPB on Ladd’s Addition stop sign monitoring video; make up your mind or stop editorializing.

    1. Avatar X says:

      In the case of the Ladd’s Addition video, we have that video and we have a named traffic officer who gave a specific account of his experience and his reasons for acting and not acting. This is entirely credible. In this post, labeled as Opinion:. . ., Jonathan discusses the effect of a spokesperson who is -not- the investigating traffic officer shaping public discourse by releasing a preliminary report into a short attention span media environment. Result: for all time, bike riders are prone to veering into the track of motor vehicles and getting killed on Highway 30.

      State troopers of all people would know better. One of their greatest occupational hazards is getting hit by motor vehicles travelling at speed on the shoulder of a highway. Construction workers, same thing. It’s a commonplace. Police, other emergency personnel, and road workers have laws that are -enforced- to protect them in such cases. Nobody suggests that they leaped into traffic.

    2. Avatar q says:

      What is the double standard that you’re seeing?

      1. Avatar Chris I says:

        When you’re only ever looking for hypocrisy, everything starts to look like a double-standard.

  12. Avatar Tom says:

    Why don’t the police reports say if they plan to pull black box data from the car, or if they asked the driver about cell phone usage, or plan to get a warrant to scan the phone?. Fatal collisions should require mandatory warrant requests for cell phone and black box data.

    1. Avatar MantraPDX says:

      What a great point. I can’t imagine this would be a hard policy to implement given the amount of work that already goes into a fatal collision investigation. Seems it should be a matter of course.

    2. Avatar X says:

      We don’t know how much discretion individual officers have, how they’re trained, or what messages they receive from senior officers. All we know is what we read in the papers. 🙁

  13. Avatar Pete says:

    Recently I saw a TV news banner reading, “pedestrian seriously injured in collision with pickup truck.” Good thing the truck’s OK!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *