(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
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.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
I 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!
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.
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.
It is my understanding that e-bikes that conform with ORS 814.405 are also covered.
I need a clarification. What do Idaho stops have to do with the incident being discussed?
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.
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.
Correction, I see all PEOPLE do the Idaho Stop, regardless of mode of travel. Nobody wants to stop, but the dangerous ones should.
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.
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.
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.
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#
Would you object to saying the collision was accidental?
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.
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.).
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….
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.
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.
So you’re going to tell me that people don’t interpret “accident” as ‘no one is at fault’? ok then
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.
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.
The article says nothing about a collision between road users.
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.
In this case, according to the wording of the original post, there was no collision.
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.
I think in this scenario the word collision even is misleading. Collison implies the vehicles connected. This was not the situation.
Thanks Lauren. I really want to be accurate on stuff like this. Can you offer proof/evidence for what you’re saying? Thanks.
And regardless, the Idaho stop is still not legal.
nope. But I can say that today.
How did the scooter driver manage to rent the scooter? Don’t you have to be 18?
Mommy and Daddy just lost the house……
Where does it say in the article that it was a rental e-scooter?
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.
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) .
Damn.
Was it a rental scooter?
I can’t believe no one mentioned it yet, in jest of course. Where’s Extinction Rebellion when you need them the most?!
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.
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.
Day lighting intersections would prevent a lot of these sorts of crashes from occurring. Get well soon Candace.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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?
Is a motorized scooter a motorized vehicle?
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.
If the question about bring positive was to me, answer is yes. Checked with insurance companies last year and this year.
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.
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?
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.
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.