On Tuesday morning around 8:00 am, commuting calm was shattered on one of Portland’s busiest bicycling corridors when a driver careened off the road, flew across the bikeway, and slammed into a metal fence, leaving a trail of broken debris in their wake. It happened on Southeast Milwaukie where it crosses the rail tracks at SE 12th.
I heard about it from several people and my first response was: Here we go again. There has been a disturbing drumbeat of drivers failing to control their vehicles and driving them into spaces that are expected to be carfree.
In the past month or so I’ve reported on several serious incidents. In early August, a man drove onto the sidewalk and killed someone on NE Martin Luther King Jr. and then hopped another median before coming to rest after a head-on collision with another driver. Later that month a suspected car thief sped across the (carfree) Tilikum Crossing Bridge. On September 17th, a driver intentionally drove through the Holman Pocket Park, only to be stopped by concrete bollards. Then on Sunday I posted photos of a driver who crashed into a planter area on the sidewalk of SW 1st and Main.
These are just a few recent examples of what feels like an out of control epidemic of dangerous and reckless driving on Portland streets. It’s a violent byproduct of a system where cars and their drivers have too much freedom to destroy and disrupt. If there’s a war on our streets, this is the closest thing to it.
“It’s infuriating that cars are increasingly careening into places they don’t belong,” said BikePortland reader Andy F., who was nearly hit by that driver who crashed into the sidewalk-level bike lane on SE Gideon Tuesday morning.
I asked Andy to share his experience. His account below and photos from the scene are chilling:
“A driver traveling northbound on Milwaukie Ave at high speed lost control near the Clinton/Gideon rail tracks intersection. He struck and knocked down a metal traffic light pole, then careened onto the curb, through fencing, and onto the MAX tracks.
I heard a loud noise (the driver first knocking down a metal traffic light pole). I thankfully was able to quickly move out of the way prior to the driver careening onto the curb, through the fencing next to the rail, and onto the tracks themselves. I escaped a direct hit by at most seven feet. It’s remarkable no other bikers/pedestrians were struck. I saw/heard no attempt to brake before he mounted the pedestrian path. I have no estimate for speed, but it was clearly high velocity given the damage and airbag deployment. If he had hit someone he would have seriously injured, or more likely killed them.
Because the driver now was on the tracks with a MAX train heading Eastward (other bikers were able to flag the train to stop thankfully) — and after ensuring area was safe — I was able to speak to the driver to get his permission to help and open door (very tinted windows made it difficult to visually determine safety) and pull him from the car. A young man, very confused and understandably disoriented. The steering wheel and side-curtain airbags all deployed. It’s easy to assume he was intoxicated, however it’s also totally possible he had a medical event (seizure, cardiac episode, etc.). Irrespective of those circumstances, he clearly was driving way too fast. Fire and EMS took a very long time to arrive. 911 repeatedly dropped my calls, and response times felt very slow, which was frustrating.
A huge shout out to the staff and workforce at Urban Alchemy who (were working working nearby and) were some of the first to the scene bringing Narcan and first aid kits. It was heartening to see the direct caring actions of people biking-by and local businesses — helping make sure the driver was safe and stable, flagging down the MAX train and communicating with EMS, etc.”
In addition to telling us what happened, Andy also wanted to share a personal message about how the incident has impacted him.
“I used to exclusively commute to work by bike years ago. But as I’ve moved further away from the city core and other life circumstances, I had largely stopped. I’ve been ashamed about that for a good while, missing the energy and liberation of biking and connecting with outdoors and Portland again. My choice to “fall out” of bike commuting has not only been a huge physical and mental health loss for me, but totally at odds with my values — wanting to minimize the negative impact my life has on the environment and local communities.
A few months ago I finally bit-the-bullet and bought an e-bike (a total game changer!) and have been so proud to finally be biking again. It’s been transformative just like it was years ago. It changed my work days and my general outlook substantially. And with the e-bike, going from Southwest Portland to outer Southeast is totally doable!
After Tuesday’s incident, I hope I don’t lose my bike-commuting inertia. I hope it doesn’t deter others from choosing more healthy ways of getting around. With that being said though, I don’t know if I can unconditionally recommend biking to/from work right now, especially more vulnerable or less experienced riders… Not with all the increasing road-rage and reckless driving. It’s great for those of us who feel confident on bikes, but it’s not accessible or safe for many people. That’s the unmeasurable tragedy to all this.
It’s infuriating that cars are increasingly careening into places they don’t belong. But it’s even more obnoxious the lethargic responses and sense of resignation from our elected officials. It’s not a moonshot to build infrastructure that can literally save and protect lives. How can we possibly encourage more people to ride bikes, or walk or jog, or do much of anything when they can so clearly see the car shrapnel and tire marks all over these paths? And after hearing and seeing all these near misses?
I’m grateful I wasn’t hit, and even more grateful I didn’t have to watch someone else killed. It was that close.
Please for the love of God, chill the f*** out in your cars and demand more from your elected officials. Maintaining the status quo is not good enough.”
Historically, policymakers have responded to incidents like this as if they are unpreventable one-offs with no systemic solution beyond the slow march toward hardening the system for bicycle users. But it’s clear we don’t have enough physically protected infrastructure. What we need is nothing short of a usable network of bike lanes that is either completely off-street or separated from drivers with tall, immovable concrete curbs — combined with street designs and system of enforcement and legal consequences that make it clear what type of behavior is expected from car users. We will only move the needle for cycling in Portland when our city, county and state jurisdictions provide that level of protection and we see more local leaders directly address the urgency of this crisis.
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’ve said it many times before and I’ll say it again:
Until there is active enforcement of laws in Portland, we will continue to see out-of-control drivers.
In my 20+ years of living in Portland, I’ve seen maybe TWO drivers get pulled over by police. There is almost ZERO active enforcement by PPB and other law-enforcement agencies. Everyone knows you can drive with impunity and get away with it.
People don’t like police? Then get used to being killed and maimed by drivers.
We need more “enforcement” by the thin-skinned incompetents who refused to enforce traffic laws because their feelings were hurt by activist/politician free-speech?
Ummm…no.
The malicious neglect of their sworn duty and their biased targeting of minorities is a part of the reason so many people die on Portland’s roads. When it comes to addressing CAR-nage, our entire legal system needs to be gutted and reformed from the ground up.
Repeal then replace?
So definitely no enforcement then?
That wouldn’t be equitable. Think of all the poor fent addicts who need a car to get around.
Pretty much no enforcement is our current reality and yet “moderates”
and “liberals” cling to more of the same because they are so very afraid of a better Portland for all.
Meanwhile, progressives and radicals are all in on more cops and more vigorous enforcement.
I think it’s telling that I wrote “legal system” and you translated this as “cops”. Moderates, and especially edge-lord moderates, simply can’t envision anything other than more of the same-old failing paradigm.
I translated a couple of things.
You wrote “pretty much no enforcement is our current reality” then said moderates wanted to maintain the status quo because they didn’t want a better Portland. Presumably you wanted to contrast them to people trying to upend the status quo and make a better Portland, which I translated to “progressives”; and if the status quo is “no enforcement”, then the upended status quo would presumably be “more enforcement”.
I also translated “enforcement” into “more cops.”
That’s an awful lot of explanation for a mildly humorous take on your somewhat murky comment. Given that progressives often take the position that we should have less law enforcement (societally agreed upon rules being unfair and all), I thought the joke would be obvious.
The same number of cops would be much more effective if violations of existing traffic laws meant to keep individuals safe were ticketed, docketed, and vigorously prosecuted. Why is there a thing called a Vulnerable Road User law if only a handful of cases a year are prosecuted? If that law is defective let it be amended. If that law is merely misunderstood, it only takes one prosecutor to make a case with it. It wouldn’t take a week of waiting for a fresh violation to come before a court.
Based on comments I’ve read here in the past, the VRU law is misunderstood… by folks here.
I’d say it is mislabeled, or drafted without vital working parts. As far as I can see, the law as written only comes into play in cases of intoxication, hit and run, or both. Law enforcement reliably tickets both categories already, if the offenders are located.
Early in the summer, a brand new (legitimate dealer tags!) Subaru heading west on SE Holgate crossed oncoming traffic, jumped the curb, and hit the telephone pole in front of my house so hard that its battery ended up at least 50 ft away from the car. He nearly perfectly split the telephone pole (~2 ft in diameter) at his bumper. The pole remained vertical, but was shortened and displaced by about 3 ft.
This happed around 3 pm, just as traffic starts to pick up on Holgate. PGE had to be onsite for the next 24 hours (worked through the night) repairing the pole and correcting the tension in the lines.
I was working from home that day, and heard the driver accelerate very aggressively before the crash. Other drivers who stopped indicated that he might have been trying a dangerous (blind) pass around a moving delivery van and had to veer further left to avoid a head-on collision.
This is a section of Holgate where I see people walking up and down the sidewalk regularly. It’s not a pedestrian destination, but there’s steady foot traffic for sure.
Live or drive on Holgate enough and you’ll witness a few (but impactful amount of) people absolutely losing their mind at cars traveling 30 mph or less in the 25 mph speed limit zone. You’ll wake up in the middle of the night hearing cars gun it to make the green light at 52nd, traveling well over 60 mph. You can hear the loud engines in your house for nearly a full minute if they’re going hard enough.
I’ve had people honk, swerve, and flash their lights at me for going the speed limit. I’ve lost count of the so many dangerous passes that force oncoming traffic to take evasive maneuvers.
I’ve witnessed at least 4 parked cars on the side of the road get hit and totaled. The telephone pole across the street from me has been hit before too. Residents closer to Chavez are pretty much parking on the sidewalk at this point to avoid losing their mirrors or worse.
We can’t continue down this path. It isn’t going to work.
I remember this incident. I live just south of you on 52nd, and three weeks ago a drunk driver going probably 70-80 southbound on 52nd lost control, hit the curb, flew OVER our yard, and smashed the neighbor’s parked car INTO their house, knocking it off the foundation. They lost two cars and the house is uninhabitable. It’s an epidemic.
The crash on 52nd is the cover story on the October issue of The Bee which arrived at my house on Monday… I tried to find you a link but apparently it’s not anywhere on their website!
Holy crap! I’m almost always snaking through the neighborhood when I need to head south. This is why!
Aggressive driver. I was driving back home from a mountain bike ride on Sunday, 9/28/25, and remember this car driving aggressive around Powell and Cesar Chavez. I mean who can forget the dimpled rear bumper?? When I saw that car on Sunday I thought to myself that person is a danger.
No worries though, Mr. Broccoli hair behind the wheel will surely be back at it again when he gets his oil pan repaired! Worst that can happen is his insurance rates go up (if he has insurance)
What does this mean?
I think we can guess
I have a couple of guesses. I want DW to type it out and remove the ambiguity.
Some Gen Z kid? Timothee Chalamet?
It’s that undercut perm haircut that lots of gen z (and millennials who can’t come to terms with their aging) sport. Probably a dumb thing for me to say because it assumes a connection between appearance and behavior which is not cool. Drivers from all ages, races, and backgrounds are capable of speeding so fast they plow over a bike path and end up on the MAX tracks 🙂
Capable, probably, as likely, no.
https://www.portland.gov/police/open-data/documents/2023-stops-data-collection-report/download
Lots of things are discussed in that 73-page document. Perhaps you could point folks to particular page that explains the point you’re trying to make.
Page 7.
OK, that page contains a table that breaks downs the race of drivers involved in injury collisions. But it doesn’t take that back to the demographics of Portland.
So again, what point are you making?
Appendix D – Benchmarking Discussion.
From there you can either make the elementary conclusions or ignore they exist.
You keeping saying this document supports your point without stating your point. When asked about your point, you direct attention to a different place in the document.
What is your point?
His point is clear — not all demographic groups crash their vehicles at the same rate. Which is something we all already know — it’s why young men have much higher insurance rates than almost anyone else, and why we sometimes have to take the keys away from our aging parents.
Based on your comment, his point is not clear as every section of the document he cited discusses race/ethnicity and not age.
The groups I cited are ones that everyone accepts without needing to provide evidence (because I provided none).
I’d need to look at the report to know if the data shows the same thing for other demographic groups. Since it sounds like you have, what does it say?
In terms of 2023 injury crashes, racial and ethnic groups are represented roughly in proportion to Portland’s estimated ethnic makeup.
The problem with making statements any more specific than that is that 1) Portland’s 2023 ethnic demographic data has fairly wide error bars since the 2020 census was such a mess and 2) the report does not (that I’ve seen) discuss the ethnic makeup of drivers as a subset of the larger population.
Hence my question to PS:
Since you keep pointing to sections of the report discussing injury crash rates across ethnic/racial lines, which lines in the tables stand out to you?
Fine, I looked, and that’s not what I saw. The most obvious example is the Black/African American category was involved in 17.2% of injury collisions in 2023, but makes up only about 6% of Portland’s population.
That really didn’t strike you as anomalous, even allowing for some generous error bars?
To be clear, that aggregate statistic tells me absolutely nothing about how any individual can be expected to drive. It also suggests there may be opportunities for interventions to help reduce crashes and save lives (just as there could be with young male drivers).
Considering how much of the population is “two or more races”, how race in collisions is reported, the fact that we don’t know if the drivers are residents of Portland or not, and what the make ethnic make up of drivers is in Portland, yeah I could see those error bars overlapping. Further consideration is that this report is just for one year, so there’s that variability to consider too.
If there was an explicit statement to be made there, I think the authors of the report would have made it, and it would be easy to point to it to support claims.
I don’t think there’s an “explicit statement” to be made. It’s just data.
I stated my point in my first post.
Were you talking about race or age? According to your document, the uncertainty in the demographic make up of the city makes it plausible that Portland’s racial/ethnic groups are all proportionately represented in injury crashes.
You think it is plausible that blacks went from not above 7.5% of the city in the last 5 census’ to 17% and the 2020 census was off by 300%?
No. Read my response to Watts above.
“No.”
Yes. You think it is more likely that the data is wildly wrong than that it is essentially right. Because… why exactly?
Maybe if you showed that previous data was inconsistent with this report, or that there was something else (other than your intuition) that actually suggested an error you would be more convincing.
Google around a little, and you’ll find lots of data generally aligned with these stats.
You’re reading things into my comments that aren’t there.
First, the 2020 census was exceptionally difficult and had many quality/accuracy issues compared to past decades.
Second, the demographic shifts between 2020 and 2023 are not well understood (per Appendix D).
Third, many folks in Portland identify as biracial or multi-racial. So if approximately 6% of Portland’s population (not drivers) self-identified as African American, and ~11% of Portlanders self-identified as multi-racial, then there’s potential for responding officers to identify multi-racial individuals as belonging a single racial/ethnic group.
Theoretically, that’d be a maximum 6% + 11% = 17% for black Portlanders, but we know that all not of Portland’s 11% multiracial population has African American heritage.
Fourth, we have the compounding factors of non-Portland residents being in injury crashes on Portland roads.
Fifth, we have year-over-year variation (noise) that is completely unknown based on the portions I’ve read of the references provided.
Sixth, if we account for socio-economic class, we know that newer (typically more expensive cars) do a far better job of protecting the driver and passengers than older cars. We know that economic class is Portland isn’t perfectly split across racial/ethnic lines. For all we know, richer Portlanders were in non-injury crashes that would have had a different outcome in a different vehicle. That phenomenon would affect different racial/ethnic groups I. Different ways.
So, if the two of you want to come out and that you think a particular racial or ethnic group are bad or dangerous drivers, I recommend you stop being coy and just come out and say it. The authors of the report don’t feel that the data supports such a conclusion, and based on all the confounding factors listed above, I would agree. I would not be surprised if there are other confounding factors that I’ve missed.
Lastly, it’s not “just data”. Far from it. The report presents highly distilled and aggregated results and summaries synthesized from data that the report doesn’t present directly.
Under no circumstances do data or numbers speak for themselves, despite the desires of our dopamine-addicted, pattern-seeking brains. They require context, curation, and scrutiny. Appendix D of the report provides this.
“if the two of you want to come out and that you think a particular racial or ethnic group are bad or dangerous drivers, I recommend you stop being coy and just come out and say it”
Because you’re getting all accusatory, maybe I need to repeat what I said above:
To be clear, that aggregate statistic tells me absolutely nothing about how any individual can be expected to drive.
and:
I don’t think there’s an “explicit statement” to be made. It’s just data.
But it is data, and it is generally supported by other data. Your speculations about why it might be wrong are just speculative.
I think this is a clinical case of square peg round hole and willful dismissal of Occam’s Razor. The simplest and most obvious explanation, corroborated via other population analysis in other geographies over time, is so evidently uncomfortable to you that you’ll twist yourself in knots in an attempt to explain it away.
The conclusion of what you suggest is that, surprise everyone, Portland is wildly more diverse than our daily experience suggests (much less, than every census done ever has ever indicated) and they are just hiding except for when they get in car crashes exactly in line with their pro rata share of the population.
Insane.
BP please post the PPB report when it comes on line.
I think this example underscores the limitations of infrastructure. The Gideon path is a curb-protected MUP, and the curb did nearly nothing to stop this car. Enforcement needs to be a part of the solution to help change the driving culture. Cameras, cops, all of it. Pull people over for speeding, noisy mufflers, tinted windows, not using a signal, etc. Send tickets to cars with out of date registration, red light runners, speeders. Oregon should ban right on red today, state-wide.
I am a big proponent of safety through infrastructure, but some of our best “protection” is low concrete curbs. This shows how futile these are against today’s over-sized, over-powered vehicles.
I think small curbs are a good example of something I’ve been saying for many years now: That our mitigations to these threats have fallen behind the severity of the these threats. I think we need more four foot high curbs instead of four inch high curbs.
Look what Denver is doing – https://www.reddit.com/r/bikecommuting/comments/17lhlnh/beautiful_new_protected_bike_lane_with_tall_curbs/
A million times this! The 4 inch barriers are a joke with the same design priority as floppy plastic flex posts – minimize damage to cars instead of minimizing loss of life.
They have one just like it on 10th Street NE in Atlanta too next to Piedmont Park, but 2-way.
We are lauded as a celebrated biking city. But I think this recognition is based on the legacy of individuals who’ve created a town that extolls biking and the folks who continue to endure on our roads; the bike bus movement being a recent example. Largely, it is not based on our biking infrastructure.
Visits to Minneapolis and Seattle in the past decade have illustrated more robust and extensive projects than we are undertaking. And now apparently Denver is also showing us what is achievable when barriers are taken seriously and buffers aren’t mere inches-high bumps.
Our city’s leadership, through a succession of inert mayoral administrations and proclamation-without-activation city councils, has abdicated their responsibility to construct meaningful, safe, and permanent physically protected and physically separated bike infrastructure.
Therefore, it’s no surprise that all too often PBOT announces a project with great fanfare to only find that the final, completed project is a half-hearted construction dominated by what-could-have-been possibilities. The far too commonplace painted lines and plastic wands are the municipal version of smoke and mirrors. It’s almost as if PBOT just shrugs and mutters, “it’s better than nothing.”
in regard to a recent project, for all of the talk about the upgrades on Broadway, from a biking perspective I’m left — as we are so often with bike projects in Portland — exceedingly underwhelmed by another concession-laden conclusion. Is it a hot mess? Probably not, but it’s tepid, lacking necessary protection. And should we build showcase projects that can be characterized this way?
City leadership has been forewarned. It is far beyond time for Portland to build an extensive network of genuinely safe physically protected or physically separated bike infrastructure. The ink isn’t even dry on another recent Vision Zero proclamation when we’ve had a vivid reminder that Portland needs to completely reconfigure the way it views physical barriers.
cotw
Logged in just to emphatically second this.
A major deficiency with solid barriers or tall curbs is that those configurations result in debris building up in the bike lane. I read the articles about Portland’s mini street sweepers but I’ve never seen one in use and the region is full of bike facilities that are basically not maintained.
I’m not sold on solid barriers until there is adequate (almost any) maintenance.
I hear you on this J_R, but would caution you that the way you are looking at this is a scarcity model which I believe we really have to avoid. We must expect and demand the maintenance will happen and not let the inadequacy of current maintenance stop us from pushing for these better solutions.
We’ve been doing that!
yes I know. It was meant rhetorically as an argument against a scarcity mindset
One reason that you haven’t seen the mini street sweepers in operation is that PBOT routinely does street sweeping on a night shift. I also feel that the bike lane sweepers are underused in general but I’ve advocated for them to be run in the day time. If PBOT happened to want support from bike riders this would be amazing PR.
I see the lil sweepers on outer Division a lot. They’ve been sweeping a lot more frequently as of late and it’s made a huge difference for me (and my tires)
One thing about those tall curbs is I doubt they cost a huge amount more than lower ones. Most of the costs of a tall-curb project would be identical to a low-curb one.
And so many of the supposedly protective curbs are beveled and intentionally mountable. They are low speed bumps, and designed to not damage a motor vehicle that runs over them.
This is what the PBOT is building on SW 4th right now- expensive but largely ineffective infrastructure.
If you define “effective infrastructure” as parts of the roadway that are physically walled off from other parts of the roadway by a barrier capable of withstanding a crash like the one in this story, then PBOT will never build “effective infrastructure” in any more than a few isolated spots.
They simply can’t given the other constraints they face (such as their budget).
I agree! Infrastructure has severe limitations. We need people to drive differently/better.
Yes. Or not at all. The sooner humans are out of the driving game, the better.
totally agree with this! I was disappointed to saw Mayor Wilson cave on the increased parking times. We need more paid parking in more parts of the City and for longer. There was something going on at the MODA last night and the streets were absolutely PACKED with cars- 1 or 2 per giant SUV. Burnside was a parking lot, Broadway and Broadway Bridge also stopped bumper to bumper traffic. But no one was walking or biking over the Broadway bridge. No one was walking over the Burnside Bridge. I couldn’t see the Steel, but based on my last 3 years of commuting over it, it was likely only lightly used. Portland has become a total driving City.
Well, when public transit is exceedingly poor in Portland, what else are people coming from the burbs supposed to do? Just not bother going downtown for any events.
fair point! I would hope that we would make TriMet better, make biking better, and get driving under control- make sure people are registered, insured, brake light/taillights work, and they aren’t speeding, drinking, texting, running red lights, etc. We cannot realistically wall off/bollard-protect every sidewalk, bike lane and MUP. We can and should do better, but the cars and trucks just keep getting bigger, stronger and faster. Whatever improvements we can make to alternative transportation need to be accompanied with efforts to control driving.
To consider your visitor form the ‘burbs: clean up the MAX and connect the bike routes so they have viable alternatives. If they choose to drive, make sure they drive slowly and legally. We should not continue to let cars ruin things
Bollards look nice and easily could have stopped this car. They would need to be installed right where it looks like they should obviously be installed.
Do you mean where they should obviously be installed in hindsight, at this particular location, or do you mean they should be installed at every bend on every collector and arterial in the city?
I don’t know who’s side you think you’re on, but you sure advocate for the devil a lot.
This intersection is obviously a good place for bollards. It could have been foreseen. Traffic that has to turn, pointed at an unprotected busy pedestrian and bike path.
Even if we pretend this wasn’t easily predicted, yes, do it in hindsight, since now it is obviously needed and there is no downside.
Bollards in this location is workable. But why this site when there are dozens, hundreds of sites where a crash is equally or even more likely that just haven’t come to your attention recently. Every time there’s a crash, someone claims it was foreseeable.
We need to approach safety in a systematic way, not just go after the most recent problem to have happened. Figure out where the crashes are most likely to happen (we could call these “the high crash network” or something) , and prioritize spending our resources there.
Which side am I on? I’m on the side of rationality. Which side are you on?
Who said we shouldn’t put bollards at those locations too?
You know, the last thing a person says isn’t actually the only thing they care about, usually.
“Who said we shouldn’t put bollards at those locations too?”
The accountants. We should put this site on the prioritized list and continue working on the most urgent spots.
I agree with 2WheelsGood. We have hundreds of miles sidewalks and bike lanes adjacent to driving lanes separated by a 6″ curb or less. Bollards needs to spaced at 4′-6′ on-center. The cheapest bollard costs nearly $1000, more for a removable, locking bollard. Add in engineering, design/utility coordination, permitting, traffic control, public outreach/internal coordination, excavation, waste removal, gravel and concrete for the footing and installation costs and they are closer to $5K/bollard. A mile is 5,280 feet, at 6′ o.c that would be 880 bollards or $4,400,400. Those numbers may seem high, but PBOT would never install miles of bollards and dozens of small projects would increase the inefficiency so it would likely cost even more. PBOT could make bollards a part of its standard detail for curbs or sidewalks adjacent to driving lanes or bollards adjacent to bike lanes but that would only apply to new projects or full rebuilds.
It is tempting to call for bollards to be retrofit at every crash site, but as we have seen, the crash sites are ubiquitous. IT is not possible to quickly protect all the places car can lose control. If I was king of the US, I would require additional annual fees to drive anything larger than a Nissan Versa or Honda Fit, and additional licensing and fees for SUVs. But alas, I lack that authority. Since we cannot protect ourselves from drivers, and we cannot restrict what people drive, we need to change how they drive. Some options: no right on red, even lower speed limits (20 MPH City-wide), speed cameras, redlight cameras, parking enforcement for oversized vehicles at intersections, tinted window enforcement, altered muffler enforcement, registration enforcement, require a permit to drive with studded tires within City limits, and traffic patrols. In addition, prioritize transit everywhere. Make buses, streetcar and max safe, clean and fast. Make sure that MAX runs on time when it snows! Prioritize bikes- ticket/fine delivery/Uber for parking in bike lanes, put some money into fixing all of the known gaps in the network. Prioritize pedestrians. If there is not a sidewalk on each side of the street, then remove a driving lane and paint a sidewalk- let cars queue. I am sure there are many more sensible things to include, but these are just a start to highlight that a reactionary retrofit of bollards is not adequate
For less than $200 I could make a reinforced concrete obstacle that would disable almost any passenger car driven over it. It would cost more to anchor it in place as a retrofit, but not too much more if new construction were built with padeyes.
Mass produced with skills that are commonplace on PBOT crews, such a thing could cost less than $100.
Excellent. Make sure your obstacle meets the various safety standards, has any required certifications, has the minimum aesthetic standards for public work, and get ready to make a mint.
It’s not meant to be safe, it’s meant to take out serious bits of the undercarriage, radiator, oil pan, etc, what have you. There are some environmental concerns, same as any crash.
How is a bollard safe around careless driving?
I actually think the planters are fairly safe if you must crash into something –no projecting angles, somewhat crushable, likely to slide after impact with a fast moving vehicle especially if the fill has a suitable amount of Perlite™ or similar.
Sue the driver for wilful destruction of property, or just grout it and ease it back into place.
Not good if the driver is traveling at high speeds, which might be why you don’t see them lining highways — there you see systems designed to absorb energy and deflect vehicles. Bollards are much more common where travel speeds are low.
PBOT did deploy the planters, so they probably agree with you on their level of hazard.
Unfortunately for you, PBOT probably won’t deploy your invention if it doesn’t meet safety standards, and doesn’t even pretend to be safe. Don’t quit your day job!
I’m aware that there’s a large institution and bureaucracy around safety. The thing I mentioned but did not describe would decimate a car without seriously affecting the occupants beyond a harsh slap from their air bags (a safety system). It would be meant to motivate people to make their trips inside the lines.
People who drive aggressively or for sport on open streets should know that it’s going to hit them in the pocket. If we can aim infrastructure at skaters, one of the most harmless identifiable groups in our society, we can certainly be harsh on dangerous drivers. I can have all the job(s) I want or need and still hold that opinion.
I doubt it. Have you considered finishes? Delivery? Storage? It is not just about material costs. This also needs to be engineered and installed in a public right-of-way so traffic control is needed. I doubt you could sawcut, remove material, excavate and dispose of the spoils for $200.
Yes, yes, yes, installed outside existing traffic control, not needed or irrelevant
Maybe every street project in Portland going forward, whether fixing some pot holes are completely redoing a street, should be required to install bollards/concrete barriers as part of the project.
All PBOT has to do is have the will to do it and they could.
Call a PBOT engineer and suggest it! Of course, they’ll tell you it’s not that simple, but they’ll be lying.
Wow. Scary – so many folks bike on that path, lucky nobody was seriously injured. Maybe concrete bollards protecting pedestrians here are needed – the speed you can achieve from milwaukie (and even gideon) can be pretty quick. Also – doesn’t trimet/UP have cameras here – there might be video to be had here. Glad to hear Alchemy in a positive light, I think that’s a first.
PBOT needs to redirect a portion of their budget away from concrete planters and strips of paint to PDX Police specifically to fund traffic cops. I know PDX Police have been hiring more officers recently. But I have seen only one motorcycle cop pull over a driver in the past 4-years. I could be missing other enforcement actions, but it sure looks like there aren’t many.
The increase in bicycle commuters and recreational riders during the COVID shutdown was largely due to the lack of cars on the road. That was empirical evidence one of the largest detractors to more cycling by many is fear of drivers – specifically reckless ones.
Some readers may be ambivalent about the police. But if the cops were actively citing more of the reckless drivers their attitude might shift.
I agree with you that more enforcement is needed; however, the “budget shift” has already happened as PPB gets the lions share of the general fund while PBOT gets scraps.
I know, from direct experience, that PPB officers will refuse to ticket motor vehicle operators in unambiguous situations where a car driver has struck a bike rider moving with right of way, with witnesses present. One such incident resulted in $20,000+ in medical bills. That’s not a touch foul.
More cops like that will just make a bigger bill for tax payers. We need a new idea in this situation, from the mayor and the council, through the chief’s office, and down to the streets.
Hard infrastructure that’s always there is preferable to cops who are sometimes there, and seldom do anything useful.
Point taken. I have never advocated for more sworn officers. I’m disgusted that police who are actually on scene will ignore demonstrable bad behavior and say, in effect, ‘Exchange information, our work here is done.’
There’s a thing, drivers hit fixed objects so the objects are removed. This is confusing. Are the objects not there to be hit? The drivers are the offenders, extract them from the cars and remove their keys and their licenses.
Double down on the obstacles!
On monday after dark, as I rode east on ankney approaching the rainbow and seats, i saw a person lying on the ground being attended by emt’s, a car askew in the intersection and a bike with it’s lights still on 20 feet away from the person down and a cop quietly listening to the driver try and talk their way out of running a stop sign and striking someone. Im a driver and a biker. We can all do better. Thanks Jonathan for keep ing the conversation going.
Last week a nine-year-old boy was hit by a negligent driver in a crosswalk with flashing lights activated, and sustained life-threatening injuries. Last I read, he’s stable now but his life will be forever changed. The driver got nothing more than a “have a better day” from the cop and permission to drive off and cause more harm.
I am not optimistic about anything changing. The state, city, county, and every other organization in charge of streets and roads are all broke, and at any rate, refuse to make the political sacrifices necessary for life-saving infrastructure. The Feds are pretty much pro car-violence now (as if they weren’t before). Perhaps if PBOT had the courage to piss off some car dealership owners and narrow 122nd, that little boy and his family wouldn’t have had their whole world turned upside down.
On the enforcement side, PPB won’t pull people over because they got their feelings hurt; and at any rate, they are all carbrains anyway. Even if they aren’t driving in from Camas or Battleground, they are still spending all day in a McSUV, playing on their computers while they drive around. PBOT has been absolutely anemic in the rollout of speed and red light cameras, and now they’re turned off for another month plus.
As we saw with the snafu around the transportation funding bill, there’s no way the state legislature could get their shit together to craft a legal response to reckless driving that would dole out consequences commensurate to the harm that willfully negligent drivers cause when they fail to regulate their emotions.
It really is not going to get better. Best we can do is keep our eyes and ears open, and keep our heads on a swivel.
“Best we can do is keep our eyes and ears open, and keep our heads on a swivel.”
Great point! I neglected to mention this in my very rambling account. This was definitely a wake-up call to not have headphones in. Being able to hear the commotion effectively kept me out of the hospital/morgue. Stay alert out there!
I hope you’re not right about the rest, but I think I agree. And it’s hard not to feel pessimistic. That was not an act of God what happened to that nine-year old, but a collective apathy and ineffectiveness at all levels. It’s unacceptable and tragic.
I’m trying to (usually not that successfully) be less cynical with all of the non-stop discussing and planning, and disingenuous vague promises by the various professionals and decision-makers. They don’t really seem to have skin in the game so why assume they would genuinely care?
But change will, one way or another, happen. The area I’m hopeful in is that I think individually and collectively–via direct democracy/action–we can have measurable small influences and if done effectively and pro-socially, be “contagious”. Seeing fellow bike commuters, joggers and nearby business-people show up, ready to help was really affirming. Humans looking out for humans. That experience of caring people looking out for one another, shifted my outlook at least for the day.
I have zero ideas myself but I think it would help me (maybe us?) feel less disempowered–less cynical–if there were physical/tangible things could actually work on(repairing pot holes, cleaning bike lanes, flagging intersections, building bikes to give to people, etc). I’m ashamed I rarely actually get my hands dirty. We shouldn’t have to do these things, but it’s not realistic right now to be holding our breath for ODOT/PBOT/PPB, etc. to change their pace or behavior. Writing form letters to representatives or donating money to whichever non-profit doesn’t feel like much of anything but a pressure valve for us to exonerate responsibility.
Anyways…Rambling again…Thanks for your thoughts!
Head Swively yours, Andy
Andy,
I have been commuting down Interstate Ave since 2008- basically all the routes form North Portland funnel riders down to the Interstate Bike Lanes between Greeley and the Moda Center. This is a critical segment of the bike network, but it is HORRIBLE. The lanes are super narrow, there is only a sidewalk on one side of the road for most this segment. I often wonder what tangible thing could be done now to make a difference. I have tons of ideas of you to redesign things, but it was only in the last 6 months or so that I had the following realization: This shared R/W does not HAVE to prioritize people driving. PBOT could head out tomorrow and paint a 6′ sidewalk on the right side of the pavement and 6′ bike lane next to that. There would not be enough space for a full driving lane, so some cautionary paint and signs would need to added to warn drivers to slow down and yield to pedestrians and cyclists. Just imagine our City if PBOT actually, really, truly prioritized pedestrians. Instead of closing crosswalks, they painted zebra crossings. Where there is not space for a sidewalk and full driving lane, the sidewalk goes in the the cars are told to accommodate.
Congratulations, Andy! Welcome back.
I am a believer that electric bikes are life-changing tools. We can have the city of our dreams with electric bikes.
Very disturbing. I hope this driver is not inconvenienced. The good news is that he will probably need to buy a new car and may have higher insurance premiums. This will maintain the positive flow of economic resources out of our local economy, maximizing the concentration of capital and wealth disparities. Fortunately, our taxes will go repair all of the damage he caused to further facilitate the extraction of monetary wealth and quality of life from Portlanders. Should we lower the driving age to 14 or just stop requiring driver’s licenses? All this over-regulation is surely bad for the economy.
Maybe the benevolent and enlightened president can send Portland some surplus national guard or army soldiers to enforce traffic safety laws in the city, including negligent drivers, bicyclists who run red lights and stop signs, and pedestrians who cross against the lights? It looks like a war zone out there…
It’s like freakin’ WWII, man. Antifa hellfire everywhere!
Heck, yeah! Then after a couple of weeks of better traffic enforcement, Jonathan can write a blistering article about how the federalized road safety troops are somehow trampling on the dignity of some oppressed groups and exacerbating the situation in Gaza. After all, that is the Portland way.
So true. Meeanwhile Jonathan Maus is on Bluesky furiously blaming Portland’s problems on Angela Todd, DA Nathan Vasquez, Rene Gonzalez and Andrew Hoan — like a guy yelling at the thermostat while the house burns down because he forgot to turn off the stove. Progressives have run City Hall and Multnomah County for years, Jonathan, maybe check the mirror before the centrists.
never change Angus!
Well, he’s right. It’s an old story that is repeated again and again. Opportunists make things worse when they crank up the volume on grievances without offering viable solutions. Not that you would know anything about that.
Explain how and why you need to include Gaza in your comment.
Small nitpick- a cyclist rollng a stop sign isn’t automatically an infraction in Oregon. (ORS 814.414).
Maybe we can put them to work – just attach some engineers and use them to fix road issues …….
I’d wager the majority of them would be happier doing something for the community.
Per ORS 814.414, it is an infraction if the cyclist is flying through the intersection (not slowing down) and others are already trying to cross (including other cyclists, pedestrians, tanks, etc). Yeah, I get you, I’ve gone through numerous stop signs and red lights without stopping too, but only when no one else was looking (usually at night). What I’m talking about is the blatant disregard for other users, acting like some of the more obnoxious car drivers out there, and nearly colliding with other cyclists and folks out walking.
This is not the same driver (or at least not the same car) that scary passed me going N bound on SE Milwaukie as I was driving the 25 mph speed limit just two weeks ago. They also passed another car driver many blocks ahead of me. Only for all of us to gather at the light at SE Powell. In my case it was a middle aged white guy driving the car. I think that’s the thing — these aren’t one-off stories, but they are stories that all of us can share that happened yesterday, last month, last week.
I really think cars should be banned in many areas of Portland because they are deadly weapons and not treated as such. We are no co-existing safely AT ALL.
Ah yes, Portland — where the traffic division was axed, then half-heartedly revived, the speed cameras are offline, and the only thing moving fast is City Council’s next resolution about Gaza or a fresh hot take on Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, back on our streets, drivers are turning bike lanes into bumper car tracks and sidewalks into shortcuts. Actual enforcement? Nah. We’ve apparently decided that talking about safety is the same as doing something about it.
Lower speed limits, no enforcement, no cameras, and a City Council more focused on foreign policy than the SUV currently airborne over the curb on SE Milwaukie.
At this rate, bollards and dumb luck are the last line of defense.
You’re a Ben Garrison political cartoon pretending to be a bike Portland commenter.
Ah yes, the classic Portland move: express frustration about basic public safety, immediately get sorted into the “MAGA cartoon villain” bucket. Next stop: someone accuses me of owning a lifted truck and a backyard smoker named “Freedom.”
Relax, John. Wanting speed limits with enforcement doesn’t make me a far-right caricature — it just means I’d prefer not to play “Frogger” every time I cross SE Division. I’m not storming the Capitol; I just want my sidewalk back.
You defend the Status Quo in Portland like you are a city councilor.
Progressives that want No Change is your mantra.
Does not matter how bad things are (you are responding to an article about a terrible auto threat), you can’t stop your trite arguments.
You are the poster child of conservative thinking.
Yes, I want to keep things the same. And by that I mean end fossil fuel dependence, end reliance on automobiles, bring democracy to our not very democratic country, open borders, and generally anything to chip away at capitalism in the long run. Exactly the way things are today.
You must be thinking of someone else.
Open borders are the definition of Capitalism. Keep an endless supply of workers to keep labor costs low. No one loves open borders as much as big tech and big business.
You are a Simp for capitalism and apparently don’t realize it.
Yeah…when I think about “capitalism”, the very first thing that some to mind is open immigration from low income nations to high-income nations. After all, the one true definition of capitalism is redistribution of hoarded capital to lower-income people. /s
César Chávez intensely disagreed with you but what would he know about protecting low income workers…
Some wealthy white dude in Portland knows better.
I work in Spanish immersion schools, the last thing hard working low income people need is more competition for their jobs so you can get your lawn done cheaper….
You stated that open borders (an anarchist/socialist political position) is the definition of capitalism. Evidently, you can’t even be bothered to defend your own unhinged statement, so you again resort to ad hominems and strawpeople.
So people who support immigration are by definition “capitalists” and people who want to block immigration are somehow like César Chávez?
If you genuinely work in a Spanish immersion school, I hope you move on to a job better suited to this xenophobic world view. May I suggest, the border patrol or ICE…
Our unconstitutionally violent* and bigoted police, whose outrageously inflated pay-as-you-go pension is bankrupting the city, is the status quo that you are defending.
https://www.opb.org/article/2022/07/27/us-justice-department-portland-police-use-of-force-settlement/
At least those pension dollars are being put to good use by being funneled to private equity!
LOL, the concept that a material reduction in the police force by head count, or their historic monopoly on violence (the best thing we’ve done for civilization other than separating the water we drink from the places we defecate) improves either the fiscal stability of the city through pension costs, or the economic activity required to be taxed to fund everything else, is out there.
This looks like a great location for some bollards
i rode across the Sellwood Bridge this morning.An eastbound truck managed to trigger a flashing “47” on the speed camera at the east end of the bridge. The 30 mph limit on the bridge changes to 25 mph.
Until the PPB decides to start doing traffic enforcement again and that driver gets a fine of $1000, expect more of the same.
Sounds like a great spot for a speed camera. I think we should have them on every bridge (and many other locations).
“Until the PPB decides to start doing traffic enforcement again…”
Let me fix this for you mate… “until Portland leaders and voters decide to fully restore the PPB traffic unit, adequately staff the PPB and stop the “police are evil” and “enforcement is racist” diatribes that we frequently hear…expect more of the same”.
Long before any political issues like BLM the PPB has been shrinking vs. the # of people in Portland.
2000 1,039 sworn officers, 529k people (1.96/1000)
2010 978 sworn officers, 584k people (1.68/1000)
2020 865 sworn officers, 652k people (1.33/1000)
In 2020 (pre Floyd/BLM) they were funded for 1,001 sworn officers.
This is reflective of many things – budget shortfalls, large numbers of officers reaching retirement age in the teens, competition with neighboring local agencies with shorter hiring times, political climate (see the 2012 DOJ settlement) and shifting job duties to civilians.
There is no one reason we are so understaffed for our size, and simply blaming it on 1 group of people is pretty short-sighted.
JM, you prominently quote Andy F., who states that “cars are increasingly careening into places they don’t belong”. Is it true that car-related violence is increasing?
I ask this sincerely. Any is too much, PBOT Vision Zero work has been weak tea at best, and I appreciate your work showing how important it is to dramatically reduce the damage to life, limb, and infrastructure. It’s just that I scanned the article for data to back up the claim and didn’t see any.
Everyone has their own anecdotes or sense of things, and mine is that things got worse during and post-pandemic, but have leveled off or gotten a bit better in the last year or two.
I bet if you asked the traffic engineers that designed Milwaukie/Gideon from Powell to Divison they would have described creating “efficient through-fares” that reduce traffic and so on. These types of “efficiencies” like we saw on the Hawthorne bridge bike-lane snafu this summer are designed to help cars move as quickly as possible–though the speed limit will be posted much lower. That stretch of Milwaukie between Powell and Division connects two neighborhoods. There is no need for cars to be able to go 30, 40, or maximum speed through this area.
I live in SE and ride to work in inner NE. I ride this path along Gideon starting at 17th and Haig, connect to the esplanade and ride up Williams just a few blocks. I feel lucky that I get to have such a “car-free” commute. Then occasions like this are a stark reminder that “car-free” commuting in Portland is anything but. Just as PBOT parks full-size Tacoma pickups on the Esplanade while bullshitting with the firefighters or picking up trash. I’m glad no one was seriously hurt.
Anyone know who pays for the repair of the infrastructure? Seems the options are:
1. All of us via our taxes
2. The driver’s insurance company. And, if this is the answer, who pays if they don’t have insurance. All of us via taxes?
3. The driver out of their pocket
4. Other?
Probably TriMet, so most of the bill is on all of us out of our payroll taxes and a small portion is with bus and MAX riders.
I had to cruise past today to visualize where the impact was, since it’s all concrete and fencing there. It’s the center one, which if you look at a straight line up milwaukie makes sense. Damn.
There’s a lot of issues listed in the comments here, but the real one is that cars are completely unregulated in terms of power and speed. Based on some suggested laws, you can’t legally possess an ebike with 1hp but you can have a 1000 hp car that can do 200mph on milwaukie and not break a single rule until you do it. It’s untenable, and unsustainable.
“you can’t legally possess an ebike with 1hp but you can have a 1000 hp car”
Of course you need a license to drive that car, it has to be registered with the state, and you need to maintain liability insurance to pay for any damage you cause. E-bikes have none of those requirements so it makes sense that their capabilities are more limited.
If you want more 2-wheeled power, get an electric motorcycle, which is like an e-bike with way more than 1hp. Perfectly legal to possess if you do the paperwork.
I believe that cyclists deserve the same rights as drivers but only as far as their ability to destroy. If a driver can hop the curb, take down a light post, and crash into a fence, I demand the ability to do the same.
It’s worth mentioning that the light post that the driver took out before hopping the curb was DESIGNED to break away. It could have acted as hardened infrastructure (preventing the car from fully leaving the roadway), but we’ve made a policy decision that it’s more important to protect the people inside their metal cages than it is to protect people outside of them.
That’s a good point. But would it really be better to design the light poles to kill the drivers who hit them?
Yeah, maybe make them explosive? Or some sort of guillotine type mechanism? /s
I kid, but seriously it doesn’t have to be a zero sum situation. A lot of this break-away infrastructure was designed when automobiles were comparative death traps. Nowadays, people inside automobiles have crumple zones, side curtain airbags, etc. to protect them. (seriously a post ~2005 automobile vs. say anything built before 1990 is night and day). Meanwhile folks outside the metal cage have breakaway lampposts, beveled curbs, and paint.
If this is a binary choice, and I have to pick who dies, the driver driving so fast, selfish and recklessly that he’s dead if he hits a light pole, or, me, my wife, daughter, coworkers, you, Karstan, Jonathan, anyone else who happens to be on the sidewalk on the other side of the light pole, yeah, the reckless driver is the one I sacrifice here. Some hard architecture to stop pedestrians from dying, even if it ends up hurting a driver, I’m for.
Luckily, it’s not a binary choice. In the vast majority of cases, “hard architecture” in places it could conceivably be used would endanger the driver and passengers but have no impact on pedestrians.
I know my opinions are unpopular here, but I think we want to minimize the number of people injured and killed. Sorry, that’s just who I am.
Will the driver be cited for the window tint or do we not do that anymore