Bike Tires Direct Warehouse Sale

Woman suffers serious injuries in collision with e-scooter rider

Posted by on December 11th, 2019 at 10:56 am

View northbound on 26th at Wasco. Scooter rider allegedly ran a stop sign on Wasco.

Candace Barboza’s injuries.
(Photo: Casey Taylor)

A Portland woman suffered facial fractures, a concussion, and other injuries after allegedly being hit by a man riding an electric scooter in the Sullivan’s Gulch neighborhood Monday night.

BikePortland reader Casey Taylor contacted us yesterday with the sad news about his partner, Candace Barboza. According to Taylor, Candace was riding home from her job as a bicycle courier and was headed northbound on NE 26th crossing NE Wasco when, “A guy on an electric scooter ran his stop sign causing Candace to hit her brakes and go over her bars.”

Candace’s face and shoulder took the brunt of the impact. Her knees and hands were also cut and bruised. After a trip to the hospital they found out she received fractures under her eyes (cheekbones) and in her nose, a broken tooth and a concussion (she was wearing a helmet).

Beyond his partner’s injuries, Casey says the big headache now is dealing with the administrative aftermath of insurance claims and bills. He’s set up a GoFundMe to help with expenses.

Advertisement

Get well soon Candace!

As we shared after another scooter collision back in August, collisions like this fall into a legal and insurance grey area. Casey said he was advised to treat this like a motor vehicle collision and the claim was filed against the scooter riders’ insurance. “The catch is, he’s not even old enough to drive and has no insurance. His mom is trying to file a claim with her insurance but it is not likely that will work. My insurance should help but I am not sure how much.”

Given that Candace went to the hospital and reported her injuries being caused by a scooter rider, it’s likely the crash data will be captured by the Portland Bureau of Transportation. (If not, it can be reported to PBOT via e-scooter@portlandoregon.gov.)

I haven’t confirmed whether or not a police report was filed and/or if the scooter operator will be cited for his role in the collision. I’ll update this post when/if I learn more.

Here’s that link to Candace’s donation page again.

UPDATE, 12/18: A fundraiser party for Candace is planned for Friday 12/20 at the Chrome store (425 SW 10th Ave) from 7:-9:00 pm. There will be a raffle and auction with prizes provided by Western Bike Works, Stillpour, Chrome, and N.U.T.R.I.A. and then an after-party at Wildwood 1955 W Burnside St.

— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
— Get our headlines delivered to your inbox.
— Support this independent community media outlet with a one-time contribution or monthly subscription.

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

60 Comments
  • Avatar
    oregonlahar December 11, 2019 at 11:50 am

    I need a clarification. Do Idaho stops include electric bikes and scooters? What is the justification for the Idaho stops? And sorry about the accident, heal well!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 11, 2019 at 12:08 pm

      No. Idaho Stops are just for bicycle operators. There are a ton of justifications for the law by the way. Here’s more info on that.

      Recommended Thumb up 18

      • Avatar
        Bjorn Warloe December 11, 2019 at 1:55 pm

        In this case if the scooter rider had been on a bicycle Candace would still have had the right of way and the rider who went through the stop sign would have been at fault just as he was in this case with the scooter. It is Stop As Yield, not Don’t Stop.

        Recommended Thumb up 30

      • Avatar
        soren December 12, 2019 at 8:20 am

        It is my understanding that e-bikes that conform with ORS 814.405 are also covered.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Avatar
      John Lascurettes December 11, 2019 at 12:09 pm

      It’s a violation of the law if you fail to yield to through traffic or any other situation where you do not have right-of-way. The “Idaho stop” as written in Oregon means you can treat the stop as a yield, but yield means yield or stop to avoid conflict. The scooter operator failed to do that.

      Recommended Thumb up 33

      • Avatar
        John Lascurettes December 11, 2019 at 12:10 pm

        … regardless of whether it even applies to scooter operators.

        Recommended Thumb up 7

      • Avatar
        middle of the road guy December 11, 2019 at 9:33 pm

        And regardless, the Idaho stop is still not legal.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Avatar
          John Lascurettes December 12, 2019 at 12:11 am

          You can’t say that 19 days from now.

          Recommended Thumb up 7

          • Avatar
            middle of the road guy December 12, 2019 at 11:58 am

            nope. But I can say that today.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      BradWagon December 11, 2019 at 12:43 pm

      I need a clarification. What do Idaho stops have to do with the incident being discussed?

      Recommended Thumb up 14

      • Avatar
        oregonlahar December 11, 2019 at 2:27 pm

        Nothing really, other then I see ALL ebike and all electric scooters using the Idaho Stop that I did not think applies to them . It got me to wondering about the justification for the law and reminding myself to be more alert on my commute.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • Avatar
          BradWagon December 11, 2019 at 2:44 pm

          It will apply to bicycles starting after the first of the year… but again, if someone is failing to yield and cutting people off they are NOT “using the Idaho Stop”. That you see people already harmlessly rolling through stop signs when clear to do so is very far down the list of things anyone should care about… yet here we are.

          Recommended Thumb up 12

        • Avatar
          Johnny Bye Carter December 11, 2019 at 2:48 pm

          Correction, I see all PEOPLE do the Idaho Stop, regardless of mode of travel. Nobody wants to stop, but the dangerous ones should.

          Recommended Thumb up 19

          • Avatar
            Mike Cobb December 11, 2019 at 6:52 pm

            It’s not an Idaho Stop if it’s not a cyclist carefully rolling through a stop sign while violating no right of way. Strict Yielding behavior applies, using clear and simple right of way rules we learned in driver’s Ed.

            Recommended Thumb up 4

          • Avatar
            Mike Cobb December 11, 2019 at 7:05 pm

            What you seem to want to say is “I see all kinds of vehicle and conveyance operators dangerously violating intersection Traffic laws all the time”. On this point, I agree. Idaho stopping is neither dangerous nor illegal, in a month. Any cyclist who rolls through a stop sign, in the act of violating right-of-way, should be busted, for the good of everyone.

            Recommended Thumb up 6

            • Avatar
              Johnny Bye Carter December 12, 2019 at 8:26 am

              Yes, exactly. But the people doing it don’t see it that way. They see it as an excuse for taking advantage of something that should be exclusive to another mode. Monkey see, Monkey do.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Todd Boulanger December 11, 2019 at 1:14 pm

      To OregonLahar: please avoid the use of the word “accident” and use “crash” or “collision” when possible …I know its a tough habit to break…I have struggled with it too…
      See the link to the citylab.com article for a recent discussion on this.

      https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/12/news-journalism-traffic-deaths-road-safety-accident-research/603289/?utm_campaign=citylab-daily-newsletter&utm_medium=email&silverid=%25%25RECIPIENT_ID%25%25&utm_source=newsletter#

      Recommended Thumb up 11

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty December 11, 2019 at 3:01 pm

        Would you object to saying the collision was accidental?

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Avatar
          Johnny Bye Carter December 11, 2019 at 3:10 pm

          I think saying the collision was unintentional sounds good. The word accident is so dismissive I’d only consider it appropriate when describing a child’s actions.

          Recommended Thumb up 6

          • Hello, Kitty
            Hello, Kitty December 11, 2019 at 3:48 pm

            I disagree that it’s dismissive, or even inaccurate. The word is used in other contexts and taken quite seriously (“industrial accident”, FAA’s Office of Accident Investigation & Prevention, etc.).

            Recommended Thumb up 7

            • Avatar
              dre December 11, 2019 at 9:13 pm

              It seems a little unclear which word to use here. I think it might be because the first paragraph says that she was hit by the scooter (a collision) and then the second one says that she hit her brakes and went over the handlebars when she reacted to the the scooter that had ran through the stop sign (not a collision). “crash” seems broad enough a term to encompass either of those scenarios. just a thought….

              Recommended Thumb up 6

            • Avatar
              Wylie December 12, 2019 at 7:46 am

              The framing of industrial disasters as “accidents” is also harmful. It erases the intentional profit-motivated decision making that leads to catastrophic events and normalizes worker injuries.

              Recommended Thumb up 6

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty December 12, 2019 at 9:44 am

                Only if you believe that accidental means “without discernible cause” or “no one at fault”, neither of which is true.

                And, of course, “industrial crash” doesn’t describe a tank explosion very well.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

              • Avatar
                Wylie December 12, 2019 at 1:38 pm

                So you’re going to tell me that people don’t interpret “accident” as ‘no one is at fault’? ok then

                Recommended Thumb up 1

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty December 12, 2019 at 1:47 pm

                You mean like a car accident? People are all over the “whose fault” question. It determines whether you get your insurance rates hiked, and, sometimes, whether you can collect at all. I would say that in almost every accident, fault is assessed and recorded.

                So yes, I think fault is very much on the mind of people involved in accidents, or those investigating them.

                Airline and industrial accidents are much the same.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Johnny Bye Carter December 14, 2019 at 10:10 am

                A tank explosion would be an industrial explosion. You want to describe what happened, not how or why.

                The word accident doesn’t make it seems like you’re less at fault, it makes it seem like it’s more out of your control and thus it would be cruel to punish you for it.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Suburban December 12, 2019 at 7:33 am

          The article says nothing about a collision between road users.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • Avatar
            John Lascurettes December 12, 2019 at 9:23 am

            The GoFundMe page does.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Lauren December 18, 2019 at 2:01 pm

              The GoFundMe page is inaccurate. The direct quote from the article is the correct one. The scooter did not strike the cyclist. She crashed when she slammed on her brakes.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Jay Dedd December 12, 2019 at 9:08 am

          In this case, according to the wording of the original post, there was no collision.

          Recommended Thumb up 5

      • Avatar
        dre December 11, 2019 at 9:25 pm

        that citylab article is really neat. thanks for sharing.
        i’m always fascinated by how a passive voice in writing can be used in small ways t hat then greatly change the overall message/comprehension of an article.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Avatar
        Lauren December 18, 2019 at 1:59 pm

        I think in this scenario the word collision even is misleading. Collison implies the vehicles connected. This was not the situation.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 18, 2019 at 2:28 pm

          Thanks Lauren. I really want to be accurate on stuff like this. Can you offer proof/evidence for what you’re saying? Thanks.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    billyjo December 11, 2019 at 11:56 am

    How did the scooter driver manage to rent the scooter? Don’t you have to be 18?

    Recommended Thumb up 6

    • Avatar
      John Lascurettes December 11, 2019 at 12:07 pm

      Contractually, yes. But, as an example, my son has friends that have their parents’ credit card info on their phones. That’s all it takes to “prove” you’re an adult apparently, because I heard them planning to get scooters to go somewhere once from our house and I put the kibosh on that as soon as I overheard it. So there’s not really much keeping kids off of them. Heck, I’ve seen families riding them together around town where obviously the parents themselves condoned the behavior.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Avatar
        billyjo December 11, 2019 at 12:19 pm

        Mommy and Daddy just lost the house……

        Recommended Thumb up 11

    • Avatar
      AndyK December 11, 2019 at 12:33 pm

      Where does it say in the article that it was a rental e-scooter?

      Recommended Thumb up 6

    • Avatar
      Bob Weinstein Portland/Save Our Sidewalks December 11, 2019 at 8:15 pm

      Regarding age to rent a scooter, in Portland it is 16. FYI: Learner’s permit: 15 years old. Provisional license: 16 years old. Unrestricted driver’s license: 18 years old.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Avatar
        Johnny Bye Carter December 12, 2019 at 8:34 am

        You have to be 18 to rent an electric scooter from Lime, Bird, or Skip.

        You have to be 16 to pilot an electric scooter.

        So you could be old enough to ride your own electric scooter and not old enough to be able to rent one.

        However, the person in this story was apparently under 16 (not old enough to get a license) .

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    X December 11, 2019 at 12:03 pm

    Damn.

    Was it a rental scooter?

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Avatar
    GNnorth December 11, 2019 at 12:37 pm

    I can’t believe no one mentioned it yet, in jest of course. Where’s Extinction Rebellion when you need them the most?!

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Avatar
    Matthew in PDX December 11, 2019 at 1:40 pm

    If an Idaho stop was in play (and it’s not), a prudent rider, when approaching a stop sign, should slow down considerably (I slow to walking pace), and be prepared to stop on a dime if another road user has right of way. The Idaho stop does not mean you can blow through a stop sign or red signal as if it were not there.

    Funny story, I was taking a walk at lunch time yesterday (in Clackamas). I was standing well back from the curb waiting for the green walk signal. A driver made a peculiar face which I interpreted as her being pissed that I wasn’t crossing the street. Really? If I am faced with a traffic signal, my go to reaction is to obey it. Of course I could have been mistaken in my interpretation.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Avatar
    David Hampsten December 11, 2019 at 3:00 pm

    I lived at the corner of 26th and Clackamas for a couple years in what was known as the Leeds Apts, very close to this intersection. As in most of the Gulch, the streets are narrow, there’s lots of parked cars, and I learned early on to ride slowly through the area, as cars often didn’t stop even when I clearly had the right-of-way. This was back in 2003-2006. I dare say it’s even busier and crazier now.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Avatar
    Phil Richman December 11, 2019 at 4:02 pm

    Day lighting intersections would prevent a lot of these sorts of crashes from occurring. Get well soon Candace.

    Recommended Thumb up 17

  • Avatar
    mark smith December 11, 2019 at 5:25 pm

    The way this article reads, it’s not clear a collision between two people occurred. It’s clear that the bike rider hit the brakes to avoid, but didn’t actually hit “the guy” (who turns out to be a child). So did they collide or didn’t they? And if they didn’t, did the kid stay and take responsibility? Which, could be problematic legally. If she sues her own insurance, attached to her car, then the insurance company will then sue the mom. That’s how it goes. Regardless, if you ride on the road, get health insurance (medicaid if you are poor) and get a title to a car and get insurance on it (get PIP coverage) and use it.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Avatar
      Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 11, 2019 at 5:27 pm

      Good questions Mark. Sorry it wasn’t more clear. I don’t think she made contact with the boy, but I’d have to confirm. I can confirm however, that Candace and Casey are in touch with the boy and his mom and they are trying to work everything out.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • Avatar
        John Lascurettes December 12, 2019 at 12:16 am

        According to the GoFundMe page:

        My partner, Candace, was on her way home from work yesterday evening (December 9th) when someone on an electric scooter ran a stop sign and hit her.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • Avatar
          Lauren December 18, 2019 at 2:06 pm

          This is 100% untrue. I don’t know why they chose to phrase it that way as it’s incredibly misleading but she was not hit by the scooter.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      BikeRound December 11, 2019 at 6:57 pm

      That is not how it works. First of all, there is no basis in tort for suing any insurance company in this situation since no insurance company engaged in negligent behavior that caused damages to someone else. The bicycle rider’s auto insurance–assuming there is such a policy–is also irrelevant in this case since her injuries did not arise out of the operation of a motor vehicle. If the injured party has health insurance, then the health insurer will pay for her medical bills. After paying the bills, the health insurance company may turn around and sue the person responsible for the damages or his parents, but once again, there is no actionable tort against any insurance company. If the suit is successful, then the responsible party’s homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policy would probably cover the losses under its liability provisions.

      However, we should also note that in many states it is difficult to successfully sue juveniles if the damages were not caused intentionally.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • Avatar
        BikeRound December 11, 2019 at 7:10 pm

        There is another potentially problematic angle in this case. In general, the liability portion of a homeowner’s policy will cover any judgments against the insured as long as it doesn’t arise out of the operation of a motor vehicle, watercraft or aircraft. However, in a case such as this, if the insurance company wants to weasel out of paying, they could potentially make the argument that scooter was a motorized vehicle and, therefore, falls under one of the exceptions. As far as I know, these are untested legal waters, but I have a feeling that sooner or later this issue is going to be tested in court. At the same, of course, any auto insurer is going to argue that the scooter is not a covered vehicle .

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Avatar
          Bob Weinstein Portland/Save Our Sidewalks December 11, 2019 at 8:25 pm

          Homeowner’s and presumably renters insurance as well extends to bicycles, but does not extend to e-scooters. PBOT has allowed the e-scooter companies to send untrained, uninsured riders onto our streets and sidewalks- a recipe for disaster.

          We brought this to the attention of Commissioner Eudaly and PBOT last year and this year, asking them to require the e-scooter companies to provide coverage for their scooter riders, and anyone (or any vehicle) they hit- perhaps via an actuarially-based surcharge- instead of transferring all financial risk to the rider and giving people they hit the option to pay medical bills, and sue the rider.

          Nothing was done. Perhaps this will cause the City to take another look.

          Recommended Thumb up 9

      • Avatar
        GlowBoy December 12, 2019 at 9:19 am

        I thought that auto insurance (if Candace has it) covered all activities operating legal vehicles on the road, not just motorized vehicles (and I will point out that in Oregon, bicycles are defined as motor vehicles under the law). You sound like a lawyer, but are you sure about that one?

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty December 12, 2019 at 9:35 am

          Is a motorized scooter a motorized vehicle?

          Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Avatar
          Kate December 12, 2019 at 10:55 am

          Also very interested in this answer. I’ve been operating under the assumption that if involved in a crash while biking, my auto insurance would cover me if needed.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Avatar
          Bob Weinstein/Portland Save Our Sidewalks December 13, 2019 at 4:22 pm

          If the question about bring positive was to me, answer is yes. Checked with insurance companies last year and this year.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Burk Webb December 11, 2019 at 5:30 pm

    Donated, heal up Candace! My wife had a very similar injury from crashing her bike on wet train tracks (broken left cheekbone/concussion). She is all healed up now but the medical expenses were huge, thank god we have good insurance. I’m hoping Candace and here partner can get all the insurance/medical stuff worked out.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Avatar
    Mike R December 12, 2019 at 8:07 am

    I know the facts are a little thin at the moment but, are there potential criminal charges related to:
    Assuming the scooter is a rental: did the operator rent it fraudulently (ie. clicking “yes of course I’m 18”)
    Did the parents give the child permission to do something illegal “I know you’re not old enough to rent a scooter but, here is our credit card, have at it”
    Assuming the scooter is not a rental: Are there license requirements for the scooter? Did the operator have such a license?
    Since the operator did not have insurance, I’m going to assume there is no license involved so, did the parents allow the child to illegally operate their scooter?

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Avatar
      Johnny Bye Carter December 12, 2019 at 8:38 am

      According to the story the scooter operator was under 16 years old (not old enough to get a license) and so was not legally allowed to operate an electric scooter in public.

      There are no licensing or insurance requirements for operating an electric scooter.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Avatar
    mark smith December 12, 2019 at 9:57 pm

    BikeRound
    That is not how it works. First of all, there is no basis in tort for suing any insurance company in this situation since no insurance company engaged in negligent behavior that caused damages to someone else. The bicycle rider’s auto insurance–assuming there is such a policy–is also irrelevant in this case since her injuries did not arise out of the operation of a motor vehicle. If the injured party has health insurance, then the health insurer will pay for her medical bills. After paying the bills, the health insurance company may turn around and sue the person responsible for the damages or his parents, but once again, there is no actionable tort against any insurance company. If the suit is successful, then the responsible party’s homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policy would probably cover the losses under its liability provisions.However, we should also note that in many states it is difficult to successfully sue juveniles if the damages were not caused intentionally.Recommended 4

    Some/most I don’t know have a clause about operating on the road in any format. People do have auto policies on fake cars. Yes, it’s rare but it happens. It’s pretty easy to do. And by the way, the other vehicle ..you don’t have to prove was at the scene. It could be a dang deer.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar