Policymaking can often feel far-removed from our everyday lives. Then there are times when we can connect current policy debates with matters of life-and-death with a short, straight line. This is one of those times.
“The Sheriff’s Office would like to remind people that it’s very dangerous to cross dark highways while wearing dark clothing.”
— Washington County Sheriff’s Office
This morning just before dawn there was a fatal collision on Tualatin Valley Highway and NW 341st, about two miles west of downtown Hillsboro. The Washington County Sheriff’s Office says a woman driving a 2005 Mazda minivan was driving westbound when her vehicle came into contact with 51-year-old Leslie Schmadeke. Schmadeke was attempting to cross the road on foot when she was struck. She died at the hospital a few hours later.
The Sheriff’s Office statement attempts to absolve the driver and place blame on Schmadeke. “The conditions at the time of the crash were dark and foggy, so poor visibility was likely a factor in this crash… The victim was also dressed in dark clothing,” reads their official statement. They then added, “The Sheriff’s Office would like to remind people that it’s very dangerous to cross dark highways while wearing dark clothing. Please consider wearing bright, reflective clothing or carrying a flashing light when out walking along busy roads in the dark.”
The statement didn’t mention that the driver should have had headlights to illuminate the street. Or if visibility was impaired, the driver should have been driving a slower, safer speed in order to not endanger others. The police also failed to mention that there are no sidewalks on this stretch of the highway and that the location where Schmadeke was killed is in the middle of 1.5 miles of highway without a single safe crossing (see below).
According to a comment from Schmadeke’s cousin, JenRenee Fairlane, Schmadeke didn’t own a car and never learned to drive. “She was an avid supporter and user of public transport.” “My uncle has been hounding ODOT about that dangerous strip for years,” she added.
This tragic narrative is far too common on TV Hwy, also known as Oregon’s State Route 8, which is one of the deadliest roads in the region. We’ve been sharing its trail of death and destruction since Bret Lewis was hit and killed back in 2011. In October 2018 we reported on two separate fatal crashes in one day. According to Washington County, the TV Hwy corridor had a whopping 3355 crashes and 16 fatalities between 2010 and 2014.
But yeah, let’s blame dark clothing.
Advocates and politicians have tried for years to make the road safer, but their hands are tied because it’s owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation, who treats it like a rural interstate rather than the multi-use urban connector it has become in recent years.
Asked about the crash this morning, Metro Councilor Juan Carlos González (who grew up along the corridor), wrote via Twitter, “Pains me to read about another injury. Absurd that a major arterial in the region is still at that standard.”
In addition to having the leadership of Councilor González, there’s more good news from Metro about TV Hwy.
First, the effort to hasten the transfer of TV Hwy away from ODOT and toward local control is moving along. While legislative attempts to force this transfer failed in 2015 and 2019, Metro is still working hard to make it happen. Their jurisdictional transfer assessment project is moving into its final selection phase (TV Hwy is still on the list) and the implementation plan is set to begin in September.
Also promising is that the section of road where Schmadeke was hit this morning is slated for $10-15 million in investment via Metro’s 2020 Transportation Funding Measure. According to Metro (see graphic above, PDF here), the section between Hillsboro and Cornelius is slated to become a “complete street” with narrower lanes, a planted center median, protected cycle-tracks, sidewalks, transit updates, and more. The entire corridor could receive nearly $600 million in funding if the current list of Tier 1 projects is approved by Metro Council and the measure is supported by voters in November.
Metro’s 2020 Transportation Funding Task Force meets tomorrow (Wednesday, 1/15) to figure out how to raise $3.1 billion needed to fix TV Hwy and make other big investments. It’s a matter of life and death. Stay tuned.
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and firstname.lastname@example.org
— Get our headlines delivered to your inbox.
— Support this independent community media outlet with a one-time contribution or monthly subscription.
If you have questions or feedback about this site or my work, feel free to contact me at @jonathan_maus on Twitter, via email at email@example.com, or phone/text at 503-706-8804. Also, if you read and appreciate this site, please become a supporter.
A tragic and avoidable loss of life. Maybe I have been too critical about the Metro Bond. Thank you for reporting on this issue, Jonathan.
Why do police spokespeople not read the relevant law before (mis)speaking? The Oregon Basic Speed Law is pretty clear. One must slow down to a safe speed when factors such as darkness and weather make it necessary. If a motorist hits someone or something in the dark and blames the darkness, the citation should be written on the spot because they are acknowledging a class B traffic violation.
I understand where you are coming from but the law contains the word “reasonable”…for a reason.
Are you suggesting the speed at which the woman was driving was reasonable? The fact that she killed someone suggests maybe not.
I am sure the Driver just needs a good talking to…..
I think it’s entirely reasonable for a driver to expect a person may be attempting to cross the road. And if you are driving at a speed that does not enable you to see the person and react in such a manner as to avoid hitting them, given the current conditions, your speed is by definition not “reasonable.”
I’ll just add that Metro’s Regional Flexible Fund Allocation includes $1.3M in funding for the Council Ck trail, in addition to what may come from the transportation measure to be voted on in November. Vote YES!!!
Everyone knows it was cold enough to freeze last night. Anyone who left their house for their morning commute and didn’t conduct themselves with extreme caution was in the wrong. Such as this motorist, they should have been going slow enough to stop safely on the ice.
Sheriff needs to get voted out.
Leslie was my cousin. After reading many disheartening articles today, I am so glad to come across this one. My cousin never learned to drive; she and was an avid supporter and user of public transport. My uncle has been hounding ODOT about that dangerous strip for years. I just wanted to let you know I appreciate your bringing attention to it.
I’m glad to hear that Leslie supported public transit. I will remember that because, today, I bought my first yearly TriMet card. I’m sorry to hear about this tragedy of Leslie’s death. I’m glad she had a life of supporting public transit.
JenRenee, I’m so sorry for your family’s loss. Each death and injury on roads is one too many. And thank you, Jonathan, for highlighting the way the cops talk about the victims. The victim blaming of vulnerable road users is out of control. All of us could probably be more visible on the road, but a life cut short is not the proper punishment for wearing dark colors.
Her story is tragic. I am disgusted at the Sheriff for blaming her. I offer my condolences to you and your family. I can’t imagine how you feel today.
Please change that to 2 miles West of Hillsboro center
Despite the picture of TV Highway as the epitome of suburban sprawl and strip mall hell, this section of highway is actually semi-rural, and a gap in the urbanized area of the metro growth boundary goes through here.
It makes the appalling number of deaths and serious collisions I hear about all the more egregious. But yes, the fact that there’s no lit marked crossing for almost two miles and to get from the few residential areas on the north side to the eastbound transit on the south is absolutely an infrastructure induced recipe for disaster. ODOT certainly carries some responsibility for the carnage and the upgrades and future trail can’t come soon enough.
The “dark clothing, etc.” official statements need to stop. There was a long Nextdoor thread started in SW this week by someone who was nearly hit while walking on the sidewalk in the South Waterfront area by a car turning directly into her. A high percentage of people blamed her for not wearing reflective clothing or swinging a flashlight while walking on the sidewalk. A scary percentage of drivers believe that if they go the speed limit, blame for crashing into anyone biking or walking is the fault of the victim, unless the victim is reflective and illuminated–even when walking on the sidewalk. They speak of driving at night being like some sort of video game, with ninja figures suddenly appearing from nowhere directly in front of them.
If you mention anything about the driver or vehicle being a factor, they immediately go to “that’s not required by law”, ignoring that neither is wearing reflective clothing and lighting, and often being wrong about the law anyway (“there’s no law against tinted windows”, it’s illegal to cross outside a marked crosswalk”, etc.).
Obviously the official statements are teaching drivers to believe this way. Victims are blamed for not exceeding the law, while no scrutiny is given to even check if drivers were obeying it.
Yep. El Biciclero has been saying this here for years.
Smart guy! I’m sure I’ve been influenced by his comments then. And of course by Jonathan, who’s convinced me how badly so many official statements are written, and how they encourage people who read them to blame victims.
The article is correct to focus on ODOT’s ownership of the road being an issue. ODOT’s focus is always moving vehicles through areas, without much regard for other users of the road, or for the community the road goes through.
The scary thing about this article is that it seems the sheriff’s office has decided its job is to support ODOT’s position, and make sure people driving through the community aren’t hampered by people doing things like trying to cross it. At least, that’s the impression I get from its statement totally aimed at protecting people driving through, and telling pedestrians to change their behaviors so drivers don’t have to.
The sheriff’s office is not in cahoots with ODOT. It is just made up of lazy people with a major windshield perspective. They can’t step out of their own world for a few minutes to consider life as a transit-dependent citizen.
That’s what I meant–not that there was any real agreement between ODOT and the Sheriff, but that the Sheriff’s attitude (as you describe) means it’s taking ODOT’s side at the expense of people it’s supposed to be protecting.
Thank you. Btw, Carl is Leslie’s father who has been on them for years to make it more safe. I appreciate your including me in the article.
The missing piece of this story is whether the car had its headlights on. I often cycle after dark and see so many cars with headlights off. I can’t believe Leslie would walk across TV Hwy if she saw a car’s headlights coming toward her. Law enforcement needs to do a better job not only of communicating about these mishaps but also of enforcing the law that requires drivers to turn their headlights on.
For a start, the Sheriff should charge the driver with reckless driving! If the conditions warranted Leslie Schmadeke to dress more visibly, then the Mazda driver should have been driving cautiously. Driving is a privilege, and a responsibility. I am well past tolerating behavior that indicates otherwise.
I can’t believe that we live in a country that considers itself to be “a shining city on a hill”, above the rest of the world morally. Yet, a machine operator has the right to kill pedestrians that get in their way. We do not live in an enlighten society, take note and act accordingly.
The Oregon legal definition of “reckless”:
“Recklessly,” when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a 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.
Yep. I would call the driver’s conduct reckless. If they were not aware that it was icy and dark, well… I’m not sure they have any awareness at all!
The question is whether a prosecutor thinks a crime was committed, and whether they think a jury would agree with your (and their) assessment.
My guess is that “gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation” is a tough bar to overcome, assuming neither drugs/alcohol or substantial violation of the traffic rules were at play.
And if you were to assert the street was icy, you’d probably need some evidence to support that.
Given the excessive winter weather alerts over the past few days from NOAH, the known precipitation yesterday leaving moisture on the ground and the verifiable over night low temperature, there is no disputing the fact that “the roads were icy”. To debate if that particular quarter mile was icy is asinine, given the previously stated – known conditions. Also consider that a motorist is obligated to know the current conditions and expect the worst. Are you trying to debate if the roads were icy this morning, or that extra caution was not called for?
I’m not debating anything. You suggested reckless driving charges should be filed. Reading the law and putting yourself in the head of the sheriff/prosecutor should make it pretty clear why, unless new facts surface, there is almost no possibility of that happening.
You don’t even know that the driver wasn’t driving cautiously, much less that she “deviated from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.” I’m not saying she didn’t, but being personally sure she must have is not the same as proving she did.
If it can be proven the driver was driving recklessly, I would totally support prosecution.
I find this logic enabling to the culture that leads to dead pedestrians.
I do not exceed the speed limit. It annoys 99% of the other drivers. When roads are wet, I further cut 5 mph. If it’s dusky, dark, or low angle sunny, another cut of 5 mph. My cell phone blocks calls & messages in & out when the vehicle is under way. Too many cars, not enough infrastructure. It seems people must die before safe crosswalks and side paths are installed. Maybe the victims should be memorialized by naming the crosswalk after them.
Over the past decade or so this is more or less what I have noticed in far too many jurisdictions. People call for better facilities for those not inside motor vehicles which only primes the pump. It takes a death or four to actually get the work started.
What a terrible way to do infrastructure. I just imagine doing freeway overpasses and bridges like this. Just slap up some crude thing made of rotten lumber and ignore public pleas for something safer until one falls down. Then replace it with something slightly better and wait for the next tragedy.
Google “washington county sheriff” and you’ll see a lot of black uniforms. Same with “portland police”. The agencies criticizing victims for wearing dark clothing are out there walking around on highways and streets responding to night calls. Granted they may have some reflective material somewhere, but on the other hand they’re out in the midst of chaos, flashing lights and moving vehicles as a basic activity of their jobs.
Anyone criticizing or blaming people for walking in dark clothing should feel comfortable telling law enforcement that if they get hit by a car, it’s their own fault. That includes the agencies’ own spokespeople.
Another other pedestrian fatality occurred within 1/2 mile of this location in the last year.This is a super scary section of highway. I grew up living on 336th Ave and it’s just tragic. People on foot are crossing TV Hwy to catch the bus, these fatalities are occurring at bus stop locations.
Here is a link to the news story.
March 9, 2019 – 59-year old man hit and killed near NE 334th
A motor vehicle fatality also occurred at NE 334th in November 2019.
My article in the Hillsboro News Times-Opinion-11/20/2019,made it clear of the situation that my neighbors and the adjacent streets have put up with, forty yrs is to long when it was first brought before the county on the land zoning change that went to the State “LUBA”.
Those memories and the fight to make it safe came with lots threats, the poisoning of our lawn, roofing nails in the drive way ,windows shot out with a bb gun, verbal threats and the street blocked off so we couldn’t exit.
After 35yrs, we moved away because of pain and suffering of being rear ended three times. The love and memories of our old neighborhood and neighbors where our children grew up still lingers in our hearts .
Did the only child of my neighbor lose her life in VAIN LIKE ALL THE OTHERS ?
It wasn’t darkness it was the failure of those in power to make a known hazardous and accident prone area a” Safety Corridor” Zone under 2017 guidelines, Speed limit ,Flashing caution signs, cross walks.
It just shows the lack of knowledge, judgment, irresponsibility and failure of that those in power have at the expense of 40yrs of doing nothing and many lives lost. Its time to come out of the DARK and do something.
There a lot more to the story, its about politics, special Interest and the greed.
Anything to protect life, health and environment is always secondary to financial gain, this
I have learned through my quest and years of experience. The answer I get is it would to much money is a direct Quote from a local politician that will stick in my mind forever.
Driving is not a right, it is a privilege and such the safety of everyone is paramount. The area government’s spend a fortune on traffic control apparatus only to find out that more is always needed. It is time to require map speed limiting equipment on all vehicles. Speeds could be set at 20 mph for neighborhoods, 30 mph for collector avenues, and 40 for arterials, this wouldn’t eliminate accidents but slower speeds would reduce severity of injuries and reduce drivers overdriving conditions and capabilities of automobiles(headlight illumination).
The speed limit should be 40mph,It doesn’t make any since going from 40 mph to the next 40mph takes only 15 seconds, leaving it at 50 mph is like hurry up and wait inline .
I think pedestrians should try to make themselves more visible. Is there something wrong with getting a light colored jacket, so you can be seen on dark, rainy nights? Are we still in the goth craze? Bicyclists have tended to get smart and wear some kind of bright colored clothing. I respect a person’s right to get around via the way they choose, but the Portland fashion for brooding, dark clothing is carried too far.
As far as whether roadways enhance the importance of life, just remember that ambulances, fire trucks and police have to use them as well.
Dogs, pedestrians, tree limbs, are these all also supposed to wear the right colors?
What happened to it being the responsibility of the person in the car to adjust his or her speed to the conditions? The clothing really only becomes an issue when the person-who-needs-to-see-them is inside a hermetically sealed box trying to speed through a town. Retroreflective or light colored clothing is all to the good, but putting the responsibility on those outside of cars is dead wrong in my view. There will always be the potential for an unreflectorized object or being and by harping on clothing choices we make it that much more likely that whoever that is will be blamed for their death-by-inattentive-autoist. This is wrong.
Can we advise people to wear more visible clothing while still recognizing driver responsibility? I think most people can recognize it’s not either-or.
I’m not sure. History suggests this hasn’t worked very well. My neighborhood association meeting last week involved an extended pile-on blaming the ‘invisible’ humans scaring the automobilists. Which is so reminiscent of the ODOT, Trimet, PBOT campaigns reviewed here over the years.
And yet drivers are still liable if they hit a pedestrian behaving legally even if they are wearing dark clothes. To me, comments from your neighbors notwithstanding, that is a clear indication that those advocating for safety haven’t undermined driver responsibility.
“drivers are still liable if they hit a pedestrian behaving legally…”
Really? When did we last hear of that?
What were the consequences for the driver?
Look at whose insurance pays to see where liability rests.
Then why wasn’t the driver charged? When is the driver ever charged?
Because criminal sanctions are not the primary way we assesses responsibility and compensation when a person injures someone else unintentionally.
OK, so what is the primary way we do this, then?
Seems like you are trying to weasel out of that unsupportable claim….
I don’t understand your comment. I am asserting that we hold people responsible for their actions, including while driving, through a system of civil liability that is separate from the criminal liability that most people in this forum focus on.
In most cases, someone crashing their car and injuring another person is not a criminal act, even if you wish it were. But the driver can (and usually is) still held liable (i.e. responsible) through the civil system, and has to pay compensation for the damage they’ve caused. Since damages can be quite high, all drivers are required to purchase insurance to ensure that funds are available to compensate those injured by the driver’s actions.
Compensating someone financially for physical injuries has plenty of well known shortcomings, but its the best system we’ve come up with so far.
Except that in the case of an insurance payout (or not, given the high percentage of drivers who reputedly have no insurance policy) *we* aren’t holding anyone accountable. The *we* is commonly reserved for the legal system, which we have ample opportunity in these pages to learn tends not to trouble itself overly with these matters.
Civil liability is part of the legal system (and a large part at that), and *we* requires drivers to pay for the damage they incur. If they have no insurance, they can still be sued personally to make them pay. If they have no assets, you’re stuck, but that’s why we legally require insurance in the first place, and why I consider driving without insurance to be a serious offence.
This is my final post on this thread, because I think I’ve adequately substantiated my claim that we do hold drivers responsible for the damage they cause when they injure people or damage property with their vehicles. The oft-repeated claim that drivers are rarely held responsible for their actions is simply not accurate.
I think you’re missing the point when people here say drivers aren’t held responsible. When a driver causes an accident it’s often because they were violating some traffic law. Like this driver admits to speeding. If that violation of law contributes to a crash it makes sense that they should be held accountable through the issue of a citation. For instance this driver’s speed contributed to this person suffering greater injury not to mention it’s quite possible the accident might not have occurred.
As it stands unless they’re being extremely negligent we don’t hold them accountable by citing them for the traffic violation they committed that contributed to the crash. That’s what people are talking about. Personally I’d prefer the fines be removed or replaced with ones that scale by income and a strict point system introduced.
I started looking at Nextdoor recently. Based on comments there on discussions about pedestrians and drivers, a sizable number (probably not most) think pedestrians are at fault–even primary legal fault–if they do not wear reflective clothing and even lights. This includes a discussion where someone was walking on a sidewalk in the very urban South Waterfront and nearly got hit by a driver on the sidewalk at rush hour.
Another noticeable thing in those discussions is that many people–including people who walk and do wear high-vis gear–think of walking primarily in terms of “going for a walk” or “jogging” or “walking the dog”. They don’t consider that much walking–and injuries to pedestrians–involves walking a few blocks here or there to the bus or parking garage after work, etc. If you ask if they wear hi-vis gear when they do that incidental walking, they won’t answer.
Pedestrians shouldn’t be obliged to dress like traffic cones. This would be coddling entitled motorists. Motorists need to be aware of road conditions and actually look for pedestrians and cyclists. That is the responsibility that comes with the privilege of driving a car.