Video: Driver speeds across carfree Tilikum Crossing bridge

Screenshot of Tilikum Bridge from TriMet video footage around 8:40 am on August 29th, 2025. Watch the video below.

Is there any place in Portland drivers won’t go? Seems like every week there’s another example of a person taking their car in a place cars aren’t allowed. Parks, paths, peoples’ living rooms — and now the Tilikum Crossing. We spent $130 million to make this one of the coolest carfree bridges in the country, and it’s been a big success for bus and rail ridership, in addition to being a lifeline for bicycling and walking. So when I heard about this incident of a man speeding across it, I was shocked; but unfortunately, not surprised.

It happened around 8:40 am on Friday, August 29th. The first reports I received were from people participating in Breakfast on the Bridges, a monthly event where folks hand out free coffee and donuts on downtown bridges to anyone who rolls by. My friend Shawne Martinez (who you can see biking with his young daughter as the driver flies past in the video below) was first to post about it on the Bike Loud Slack channel. “Did anyone catch that car driver going 80 mph over the Tilikum Crossing at Breakfast on the Bridges this morning?” he wrote. “My daughter and I had just crossed the carfree street at the light seconds before.”

Sometimes drivers get confused and make mistakes. That happens. This doesn’t look like that type of situation. It’s very obvious that cars aren’t allowed on this bridge, and judging by the way he was driving, it looks like he did this on purpose.

TriMet shared a statement with BikePortland after they released the video footage (which I obtained through a public records request):

“This was a dangerous and illegal act that could have had tragic consequences.

TriMet has about 9,000 cameras across our transit system. Using video from our cameras, we were able to identify the vehicle by make, model and license plate of the vehicle involved in this case. The Transit Police Division conducted an investigation, but unfortunately, the driver has not been cited. We understand there was a discrepancy with the title, and the vehicle may have been stolen. As a result, the driver could not be positively identified.

Anyone who breaks the law on TriMet property, including Tilikum Crossing, is subject to prosecution and may be held liable. We are committed to working with law enforcement to keep our transit system secure, so we can continue to provide safe, reliable and welcoming public transportation for all.”

Thousands of people use the Tilikum on transit and on the paths every day. We are very fortunate nothing tragic happened here. If you know someone who drives, please check in with them, ask them how they’re doing and make sure they get the help they need.

Watch the video below:

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)

Founder of BikePortland (in 2005). Father of three. North Portlander. Basketball lover. Car driver. If you have questions or feedback about this site or my work, contact me via email at maus.jonathan@gmail.com, or phone/text at 503-706-8804. Also, if you read and appreciate this site, please become a paying subscriber.

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

66 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Shawne Martinez
Shawne Martinez
3 days ago

The sound from the car’s engine was SO LOUD as the driver smashed the accelerator and sped past us! The only vehicles that we choose to electronically geofence and speed regulate are bicycles and scooters. ‍♂️

Shawne Martinez
Shawne Martinez
3 days ago

Not sure what’s up with that symbol at the end of my comment?

squareman
squareman
3 days ago

It’s sociopathic to me that we electronically regulate the speed of new micromobility vehicles and do nothing of the kind for full size automobiles (ICE or EV) which are involved in tens of thousands of deaths per year.

Jesse
Jesse
3 days ago

Nothing actual bollards wouldn’t fix. Does the video from trimet have time stamps on it? 80mph seems like a wild exaggeration

dw
dw
3 days ago
Reply to  Jesse

Buses and trains have to be able to get through every few minutes, so bollards are impractical and would only serve to slow down already slow transit service.

Max S (Wren)
Max S (Wren)
3 days ago
Reply to  dw

They have retractable bollards that only take a few seconds to raise and lower.

2WheelsGood
2WheelsGood
3 days ago
Reply to  Max S (Wren)

They have retractable bollards

Do they have ones that never break down? If so, maybe PBOT could use them to power the Bob Stacey elevators.

Max S (Wren)
Max S (Wren)
2 days ago
Reply to  2WheelsGood

Reliability is a concern, obviously, but I think the bigger issue is just cost vs. benefit. This doesn’t seem to be a frequent occurrence so I doubt TriMet will be that interested in spending much money to solve it.

Betsy Reese
Betsy Reese
2 days ago
Reply to  2WheelsGood

Good one!

Laughing-emoji
Fred
Fred
3 days ago

The last line of your video is the apposite one: “The City [or in this case Trimet] needs to do everything it can to keep cars out of car-free spaces.”

I’ve said it many times before and I’ll say it again: Design AFFORDANCES rule – they dictate not just how something CAN be used but how it WILL be used.

If we make it POSSIBLE for someone to drive a car across the Tillikum Bridge, then someone WILL drive a car across the bridge.

How to keep cars off this bridge? I can’t see a way to do it unless Trimet were to install barriers (gates) that bus and MAX drivers could raise to allow them to pass through. But that would be expensive. Anyway, their design allows it so no one should be surprised when it happens. A lot of the “people are nice and law-abiding” assumptions in Portland’s public-space designs are proving not to work out very well.

Fred
Fred
3 days ago

One more thing: Wanna bet this guy filmed himself driving across the bridge and put it on social media to show how “fearless” he is? Trimet investigators should look for it.

Angus Peters
Angus Peters
3 days ago

Can’t say I’m surprised this happened. These days in Portland, there’s hardly any consequences for dodgy behaviour. Look no further than the cars and motorcycles frequently using our MUP’s.

Chris I
Chris I
3 days ago

Definitely seems like it was stolen.

Chris Lehr
Chris Lehr
3 days ago

I am outraged. This is so unacceptable. Autobollards please, Trimet. Now. Glad nobody was hurt.

Mark (PNWPhotoWalks)

Yikes! Coincidentally, the day before, I took one of my grandsons on a “transit adventure” loop (bus -> streetcar -> tram -> streetcar -> bus). When we walked over the Tilikum, I explained how cool it was that Portland had a bridge dedicated to active and public transit. I suppose I’m now glad we didn’t do our adventure one day later.

Max S (Wren)
Max S (Wren)
3 days ago

One possible solution would be a sump buster that would allow trains and buses through but not cars. It wouldn’t stop the oversized pick-up trucks you see today but it would have stopped the car in that video.

SolarEclipse
SolarEclipse
3 days ago
Reply to  Max S (Wren)

I think I like the idea of the old swiss granny with the sub machine gun at the gate in James Bond Goldfinger. She’d deter the lawless.
https://jamesbond.fandom.com/wiki/Swiss_Gatekeeper

Robert Gardener
Robert Gardener
2 days ago
Reply to  Max S (Wren)

A quart of oil may contaminate about a million gallons of water*. The oil from one motor vehicle could create a slick extending over several acres. That’s a reason not to break the oil pan of a car intruding on a bridge.

*The article I read had some contradictory numbers, but clearly this is not a good idea.

Max S (Wren)
Max S (Wren)
2 days ago

That’s a pretty easy issue to address; just make a depression for the oil to collect in. Both entrances to the no-car zone are over land anyway.

2WheelsGood
2WheelsGood
2 days ago
Reply to  Max S (Wren)

You don’t think the driver would continue on, leaking oil as he went, until the car died? I’m pretty sure you could make it across the bridge, and likely quite a bit further before your engine overheated and seized (in a hot engine, a lot of that oil is not in the pan, but up lubricating things).

Lots of opportunity to drain oil into the river.

Chris I
Chris I
2 days ago
Reply to  Max S (Wren)

MAX trains and streetcars don’t have enough ground clearance for that to work.

Todd?Boulanger
3 hours ago
Reply to  Max S (Wren)

“Sump Buster” = bussluis = bus gate

See the 1938 bus gate photo as another example of possible low cost design “solutions” https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bus_traps#mw-subcategories

dw
dw
3 days ago

This was a dangerous and illegal act that could have had tragic consequences.

the driver has not been cited

TriMet just told every sociopathic driver looking to skirt freeway traffic “Hey! We won’t be able to see you through your tinted windows! Go ahead and drive across our transit-only bridge.”

aquaticko
aquaticko
2 days ago
Reply to  dw

The window tint issue was something I noticed immediately after I moved out here 5 years ago. I know the “eye-to-eye” theory of driver safety isn’t well substantiated–maybe just straight-up disproved?–but I know that whenever I’m out and about, behind the wheel or walking around, I always try to see what the other person in their car is doing. If I can’t see them, I have no way of knowing if they can see me. Not to mention that having deep-tinted windows all around just gives people that sense of being in a private space when they very simply are not; we don’t want people to feel like they can behave anti-socially just because we can’t “see” them.

2WheelsGood
2WheelsGood
2 days ago
Reply to  aquaticko

“eye-to-eye”

Humans have hundreds of thousands of years of practice discerning the intent of others by making eye contact and using other subtle visual cues. It’s not foolproof, but making eye contact (or not) can communicate a lot.

dw
dw
2 days ago
Reply to  2WheelsGood

Yeah and thankfully humans have also been in charge of multi-ton vehicles that can accelerate faster than we can comprehend for hundreds of thousands of years too.

2WheelsGood
2WheelsGood
1 day ago
Reply to  dw

I agree that driving is not something we are innately good at. I don’t see your point.

dw
dw
1 day ago
Reply to  2WheelsGood

My point is that common human behavior cues – like eye contact – break down in the context of an activity like driving. Someone looking for other car traffic can easily be confused for eye contact with a pedestrian. Someone in a car traveling fast might make eye contact but not react. What eye contact means on the road is somewhat subjective, as some drivers take eye contact from people walking to mean “I see you so go ahead and keep driving”. The law is clear that the driver should yield, but in practice it doesn’t always shake out that way for a myriad of reasons.

I do think that eye contact is effective when vehicles are moving very slowly, but faster than about 10 mph I’m gonna be watching their front tires. They are holding a deadly weapon and eye contact doesn’t tell my monkey brain when their hand is about to swing a club at me.

2WheelsGood
2WheelsGood
23 hours ago
Reply to  dw

Non-verbal communication is never foolproof, even in non-driving contexts. Ignore it if you wish, but I, and many others, find it useful.

And yes, absolutely, pay attention to other cues as well. No need to pick one thing or the other.

PTB
PTB
7 hours ago
Reply to  aquaticko

The rise of tinted windshields blows my mind and makes me pretty angry. This is not Phoenix, it’s Portland. There is no reason to black out all your windows in this climate.

2WheelsGood
2WheelsGood
3 days ago

I’ve walked and ridden my bike over some of our forbidden transit-only bridges and viaducts, so it’s not totally surprising that someone would do the same thing in a car.

Fred
Fred
3 days ago
Reply to  2WheelsGood

Equivalence is not always a virtue.

2WheelsGood
2WheelsGood
3 days ago
Reply to  Fred

Not an equivalence at all; just an observation about human nature.

Jeff S
Jeff S
3 days ago

There’s no telling what other sort of egregious behaviors this driver might engage in.

qqq
qqq
3 days ago

Crazy but not surprising to see a few comments on your Instagram post defending the driver (for doing it intentionally)–fortunately not many.

Chris I
Chris I
3 days ago
Reply to  qqq

I’m sure they would respond differently if they learned that the driver was an auto thief.

Ruben Halperin
Ruben Halperin
3 days ago

If it wasn’t reported stolen then why wouldn’t they cite the driver?

2WheelsGood
2WheelsGood
3 days ago
Reply to  Ruben Halperin

why wouldn’t they cite the driver?

Because they don’t know for sure who the driver was. It’s different than a parking ticket.

PTB
PTB
7 hours ago
Reply to  2WheelsGood

If it’s not reported as stolen, cite the owner. The owner was driving or the owners bro was and they can sort things out.

2WheelsGood
2WheelsGood
6 hours ago
Reply to  PTB

How do I “sort out” a moving violation with my friend? How do I get the points transferred from my insurance to his? And if the car really was stolen, what then?

The urge to punish someone, anyone, to make an example reminds me of period movies from the early 1940s.

PTB
PTB
3 hours ago
Reply to  2WheelsGood

I guess the owner can point the police in the direction of his buddy? If it was really stolen I’d assume a report had been filed and that would be easy enough to check. Just shrugging here, like we seem to do with so many problems in this city, is maybe the correct course to take.

2WheelsGood
2WheelsGood
44 minutes ago
Reply to  PTB

I’m not sure why you have a hard time imagining someone not reporting a car solen, especially if it were low value and it wasn’t properly registered. Doubly especially if they were themselves trying to keep a low profile.

There is a legal process for getting people to divulge information, and if TriMet thinks it’s important enough, they can use it. If anyone is shrugging, it’s them. And given the severity of the crime, who can blame them?

Aaron
3 days ago

If you know someone who drives, please check in with them, ask them how they’re doing and make sure they get the help they need.

I don’t think it was intended this way but this is genuinely one of the funniest things I have ever read on BikePortland

Jakob Bernardson
Jakob Bernardson
3 days ago

A stoned drunk once drove halfway into the westbound Robertson tunnel.

Steve C
Steve C
3 days ago

“We understand there was a discrepancy with the title, and the vehicle may have been stolen.”

What does this mean exactly? They can’t find the registered owner of the vehicle? Was it reported stolen? “may have” is a weirdly vague way of putting it.

jayson
jayson
3 days ago
Reply to  Steve C

it means the registered owner is a cop 🙂

Robert Gardener
Robert Gardener
2 days ago
Reply to  jayson

I doubt it. Police officers probably keep track of their own vehicles because they spend a big part of their life sorting out problems with vehicles. Why take a cheap shot at cops with no evidence?

SD
SD
3 days ago
Reply to  Steve C

Yeah… where is the car now? Is the owner like “It was stolen for a day and I got it back?” Was it ever reported stolen? How does a discrepancy with the title indicate it was stolen?

2WheelsGood
2WheelsGood
3 days ago
Reply to  SD

We understand there was a discrepancy with the title, and the vehicle may have been stolen.

Sometimes someone sells a car, but the buyer doesn’t update the title, so it becomes a bit unclear who the proper owner is by looking at DMV records, especially if the buyer then sold the car to someone else who also didn’t attend to the title. I understand this sometimes happens with low value vehicles (paid for in cash) and buyers who want to make themselves harder to track. And, additionally, the vehicle may have been stolen from that buyer who might prefer not to get the cops involved.

I’m not saying that’s what happened, but it could easily account for the statement.

SD
SD
2 days ago
Reply to  2WheelsGood

I understand all of that, because I have had to deal with that to some extent before. But, I still don’t see where a title discrepancy, by itself, indicates that it is stolen. Not saying there is a conspiracy or anything- just feel like a piece of info is being left out.

2WheelsGood
2WheelsGood
1 day ago
Reply to  SD

“I still don’t see where a title discrepancy, by itself, indicates that it is stolen.”

It doesn’t. The quote says the title has issues, and, also, that the car may have been stolen. Not that the title issues meant that the car was stolen.

By this point, we are parsing the quote far more than it deserves. The important thing is that TriMet doesn’t think the owner according to DMV records was driving.

Max S (Wren)
Max S (Wren)
2 days ago
Reply to  SD

Maybe they looked up the title in the DMV records and noticed something fishy about it that got missed in the initial filing.

Keyanne Williams
Keyanne Williams
3 days ago

We shouldn’t jump to conclusions. I’ve heard that the driver was temporarily experiencing a circumstance of sub-optimal housedness

Robert Gardener
Robert Gardener
2 days ago

Well, why is an unattributed slur on people who neither own or rent a residence still up? If we don’t know who was driving the vehicle there’s no reason to talk shit about anybody’s housing situation.

donel courtney
donel courtney
2 days ago

Because its satire. Maybe not good satire but satire nothetheless coming from a default position of freedom of speech in the United States. This person has made a satire on their perceived political opponents in Portland’s usual supposed coddling of criminals who are homeless.

No one knows who the driver was so there is no slur. No particular person in the “unhoused” community was referred to, there was no defamation.

If you don’t agree with people, debate or ignore but don’t seek to silence them. Not everyone agrees with your interpretation of who should be allowed to speak and what they can say.

Max S (Wren)
Max S (Wren)
2 days ago
Reply to  donel courtney

Absolutely nothing Robert said could possibly be construed as “seek[ing] to silence them”. He just called them out for using this incident to make a dig about a completely unrelated grievance. Come on.

donel courtney
donel courtney
1 day ago
Reply to  Max S (Wren)

He didn’t call them out, he asked for the comment to be taken down. (“why is…still up?). You said absolutely nothing he said could possibly be construed as “seeking to silence them”.

His first sentence asks for the person to be silenced. Are we looking at alternate facts?

And no its not unrelated because many, many, many things are stolen by homeless people because they need drugs which arent available at service providers and they dont work.

This includes many cars, like my own, which are driven recklessly and there is seemingly little appetite to punish people who are supposedly down on their luck for such crimes.

So it is, at least tangentially related.

I don’t think his comment was particularly “good” but nothing you wrote is true, yet you are convinced of your correctness.

Middle of the Road Guy
Middle of the Road Guy
9 hours ago
Reply to  Max S (Wren)

You’re right. Stolen cars are never recovered at homeless camps.

Robert Gardener
Robert Gardener
7 hours ago
Reply to  donel courtney

Ok, satire, and I get it that it’s not great to silence people.

I specifically object to two things: the “I’ve heard…” statement when there is no reason or hint that it is true, and the implicit argument that all such people are alike and therefore all criminals.

At last report there’s no information about who was in the car except that it was not reported stolen.

I don’t know many homeless people, meaning people with no fixed address, but out of those few there are working people, custodial parents trying to make a life for their families (and get housing), students, artisans and at least one person committed to recovery from drug addiction.

Mark smith
Mark smith
2 days ago

Need some bollards

Brian
Brian
2 days ago

Miracle they didn’t take the pedestrian/bike path

Wanderlust
Wanderlust
2 days ago

This incident is completely unacceptable and dangerous. Motorists and bikers should learn to share the road, with motorists being mindful of the vulnerability of pedestrians and bikers. However, mistakes and poor judgement are on display on both sides. On Thursday this week, a massive number of bikers took over all the eastbound lanes of Burnside Bridge at 730pm as part of a weekly run bike ride. How was this safe? They did not stick to the designated bike lane. Instead, they occupied all lanes and brought motor traffic to a virtual stop. Where is the accountability for these violators? They weren’t a handful. Nearly 100 bikes were in the group.

Fred
Fred
2 days ago
Reply to  Wanderlust

Not surprising that someone finds a way to bothsides this incident.

SolarEclipse
SolarEclipse
2 days ago
Reply to  Wanderlust

It was perfectly safe as most motorists don’t lose their minds just because they have a minor inconvenience. Did it totally ruin your week?

qqq
qqq
1 day ago
Reply to  Wanderlust

If a group is going to ride across a bridge, 7:30 PM on a Thursday evening sounds like a pretty considerate time to do it.

A couple hours earlier that day, a massive number of drivers also “brought motor traffic to a virtual stop”–not just on Burnside, but on dozens of streets and bridges all over town. Same group does that every weekday all year round!

Paul
Paul
19 hours ago
Reply to  Wanderlust

Imagine if it had been 100 cars instead of 100 bikes. They would’ve caused even more delay.