Back in June I shared the story of Vivek Jeevan, a man who believes he was the victim of a road rage collision while on a group bike ride. Jeevan called 911 and a Portland Police Officer responded to the scene and take a report.
There were several things about this case that piqued my interest. First, I know Jeevan from his work as a cycling and road safety advocate in our community. He’s a League of American Bicyclists Certified Cycling Instructor, he owns a bicycle riding education business, and is a dedicated local cycling advocate who could be found on Saturdays over the summer volunteering for Bike Loud PDX at the downtown farmers market behind a table with a sign that read, “Take a bicycle safety quiz.”
So when Jeevan expressed his dismay about this incident and his disappointment in the way the officer responded to it, his concerns carried more weight in my mind than a typical source.
The law this incident hinged on — that requires bicycle riders to use a bike lane when one is present — is one I’ve covered at length over the years. It’s also a law Jeevan knows very well. In a twist of irony about this particular collision, in 2023 Jeevan organized an effort to change the law that was inspired by a Portland woman who claims she was improperly cited for breaking it while riding downtown in 2022.
Given his concerns over what happened on Northeast 7th Street back in June, Jeevan requested bodycam footage from the incident. His request was initially denied on the grounds that there was no public interest in the footage. Jeevan appealed the denial on the grounds that BikePortland was interested in reporting on the findings and the PPB reversed their decision and granted his request.
I’ve watched and listened to the footage. It’s rare that we get this type of access to police interactions and the footage provides a valuable window into how some police treat bicycle riders an incidents they’re involved in. I believe it highlights a pervasive cultural bias that favors drivers and is skeptical of bicycle riders, and it shows how that bias plays out in some police-cyclist interactions.
Below is my summary of the footage.
“So, you were going north on 7th. What lane where you in?” Officer Williams asked Jeevan at the outset of their exchange.
“The main lane,” Jeevan replied. “I was part of about 25 cyclists…”
“Were you in the bike lane or were you in the car lane?” the officer interrupted.
After Jeevan once again began to explain himself, the officer once again interjected. “So you overtook the main lane?” he asked Jeevan, to which Jeevan tried to reply that he didn’t “overtake” anyone and that he was just riding straight. But the officer immediately challenged him: “Nah, you just told me you were in the main roadway where you’re not supposed to be, when there’s obviously a visible bike lane. Because it’s available to you, you’re required to use it.”
At this point the two continued to talk over each other at times and it was clear the officer didn’t want to take time to listen to what Jeevan was trying to explain to him. As Jeevan (a very soft-spoken person who is not one to lean into conflict) grew frustrated and continued to explain the context of what was going on prior to the collision, Officer Williams spoke over him to say, “That does not matter.”
“I’m a certified traffic instructor. I teach traffic skills,” Jeevan pleaded, trying to break through and earn respect in the conversation, only to have Officer Williams speak over him to say, “Yeah. Perfect. Awesome,” in what sounded to me like a dismissive and disrespectful tone.
Jeevan tried again: “Cyclists are allowed to use the traffic lane, right?” “Yes,” the officer ultimately acknowledged.
The officer then moved on to asking about the collision itself. Bear in mind, this happened in a complicated context where Jeevan and one other rider had been gapped by the larger group of about 25 riders. As the two riders approached the intersection of NE 7th and Holladay, Jeevan says one driver began to rev their engine and then pulled in front of them. As he typically does, Jeevan was riding sweep and was supporting the other rider who was with him. He says he was taking the lane (outside the bike lane), riding two abreast when the first driver zoomed past, and that once the driver was in front of them he moved back out of the bike lane to check in with the other rider. It was at that point, Jeevan alleges, the second driver became aggressive too.
In the bodycam footage, Jeevan explains to PPB Officer Kyle Williams that as the light turned red he and the person he was riding with began to signal a stop. “Then we heard someone from behind yelling, ‘What are you doing? Get out of the way!’ But it was a red light [it might have been a stale yellow, I haven’t been able to determine exactly] and we were stopping anyway, and for some reason, [the driver] came up from behind and didn’t like the fact that there were bicycles there and he drove right into me.”
“He drove right into you?” the officer asked.
“He drove into me,” Jeevan replied. “In a way that hit me with his side view mirror and it collapsed, and that became a crash so I called it in.”
Officer Williams then walked across the street to interview the driver, who I’ll refer to by his initials, JK.
“So what happened?” the officer asked.
“He’s out in the bike lane and I’m trying to get by,” JK replied. “So I beeped and I don’t know if he hears it or not, but all he does is just look back and then, like, was just determined to stay there, so I squeezed by him.” Then JK, in an attempt to demonstrate that he didn’t intentionally run into Jeevan, added, “I know how close my car is to somebody, and if I wanted to hit him, he’d have been on the ground.”
“So what happened when you were coming up to the intersection?” Officer Williams asked.
“He was out, nowhere near the bike lane,” JK answered. “So I go around them… I honked, he didn’t get over, so I squeezed by.”
At one point during their exchange as the officer and JK discussed whether the signal was yellow or red, JK became frustrated. In an attempt to calm down JK, Officer Williams said, “Hey, hey hey, it’s just an accident… It’s okay. It’s not a big deal.”
Then JK tried to blame his damaged mirror on Jeevan. “That guy [pointing to a witness] saw [Jeevan] hit it,” JK told the officer.
“So you made contact with him [Jeevan]?” Officer Williams asked.
“No I didn’t make contact. He hit my rear view mirror on purpose… With his elbow.” JK replied.
The driver seemed frustrated that he was put into this position, that his mirror was damaged, and that his insurance premiums might go up as a result of the collision. You can hear the officer try to calm him down several times. “He’s not claiming any injury… I just have to write a report due to the fact that it’s a bicyclist. You’re not in trouble,” Officer Williams reassured him.
“My insurance? You’re not doing nothing with that, come on man!” JK pleaded with Officer Williams. “I haven’t even checked to see if it’s valid!” the officer replied.
After stepping away for a minute, the officer came back to JK with his verdict. “So I’m writing up the report. It’s non-injury, non-damage — It’s just saying that I spoke to you guys and said you guys are okay. You don’t have to report it to DMV. If you had to report a crash to DMV, then it’d be a problem. It’s just gonna be like, ‘Hey, I spoke to you both. You guys said this happened. Nothing happened.’ That’s literally all it is. All right, you can go chill in your car.”
The driver continued to bemoan the situation, so the officer added, “I don’t know why you’re upset. This is, like, the best solution.”
“I just can’t believe you guys are here,” JK said as he walked back to his car.
“I know, that’s ridiculous,” Officer Williams replied.
After Officer Williams was finished filing the report in his patrol car, he walked back over to JK. “Like I said, you’re not in trouble,” the officer said to JK. Then, referring to Jeevan, he added, “He’s also some, like, certified bike instructor guy…”
“Then why is he not in the lane?!” JK interjected.
“I know. I already kind of said that [to him] too,” Officer Williams replied. “So, Portland has weird laws for bikes, so he’s technically right, but he’s also ignorant at the same time.”
“It’s just flat out inconsiderate, trying to be king of the road,” said JK.
“Yeah, he was definitely ignorant and I agree with that,” Officer Williams concurred. Then he added, “There’s no injury, so you’re good, all right? You’re good to go.”
When Officer Williams returned to Jeevan one last time to sum up his conclusions, he said, “There’s no criminal nature here, so [the incident] is just documented. There’s no injuries, so no one needs to report to DMV.”
Then, in a contrast to the more friendly banter with the driver, Officer Williams blamed Jeevan for what happened, called him ignorant, and lectured him about what he should have done differently to avoid it. “My suggestion would be to use the bike lane… you easily could have moved over and prevented that hostile situation and just have been the bigger person,” Williams said to Jeevan. “He [the driver] also could have been the bigger person by not doing it. Honestly from my point of view, you guys are both ignorant and you guys both instigated each other. So I got somebody saying that you tucked your elbow out there, but the other person saying you got hit by the thing. That’s what it is. That’s it. Have a nice day.”
And without waiting for Jeevan to respond, the officer was already walking back to his patrol car. Jeevan, a bit stunned by it all, said “Thank you.”
What’s notable to me about these interactions is how differently the officer spoke to the two men. There was sympathy, patience, compassion and collegiality in the officer’s tone and demeanor when he spoke to JK that was absent when he spoke to Jeevan.
Unlike what he did to Jeevan, Officer Williams didn’t give the driver unsolicited advice on what he could have done differently and he didn’t call the driver “ignorant” to his face. On the contrary, the officer agreed with JK, insulted Jeevan to him behind Jeevan’s back and went out of his way to assure JK that he wasn’t in trouble, that he did nothing wrong, that was just an “accident,” and that his insurance premium wouldn’t be affected..
If you step back and look at what happened, Jeevan had a reasonable argument for being out of the bike lane at that moment. While safely using his bicycle, Jeevan was victimized by an impatient driver who made an unsafe pass, struck him with his rear-view mirror, then verbally berated him until the police showed up. Jeevan was understandably shaken up by the incident, so much so that it took him 10 days to regain the confidence to ride his bike again.
But to Officer Williams, Jeevan was just an “ignorant” cyclist who should have moved to the side to let an angry driver pass. And after a cursory investigation, Officer Williams determined both men were equally at fault and the incident was minor enough to not be reported to the DMV.
Police officers have an incredibly difficult job and they’re just fallible humans at the end of the day. But from what I heard in this footage, from what I know about Jeevan, and from what I’ve experienced myself after being stopped by PPB officers, this incident illustrates the challenge some cyclists face in interactions with police — and how cultural bias that favors drivers can make it hard for bike riders to get justice on our streets.
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.
Example #1312 of PPB’s contempt for addressing traffic violence and reckless driving.
Absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable.
What we’re seeing here is that according to PPB, it’s actually ok to assault someone with your vehicle, so long as the driver is in some way…maybe slightly bothered.
It is hard to have people who are supposed to enforce laws who are so uneducated about fundamental traffic laws in a city with a lot of biking.
I want to continue to believe this is ignorance, instead of a bias that comes with carbrained people who think streets are just for cars.
For a car to overtake a cyclist on a street like this, it typically exceeds the speed limit. They also risk injury to pedestrians and others in the vicinity. This is increased tenfold when it is a group ride.
Drivers, if you’re hurrying to your brain surgery, please just take another route. I know it’s *a lot of effort and strain*, but you just look like a douchebag and risk a lawsuit or killing someone.
So, is a complaint going to be filed against the officer? I know it’ll probably do nothing but just like the bodycam footage, it needs to be documented that that type of behavior is not acceptable. We need to hold them to higher standards.
This is also the experience I have had with PPB when I am biking. They have a set of imaginary laws in their heads and a grudge against people on bikes. This is frequently accompanied by a lack of emotional maturity.
Last year, as I was biking through my neighborhood at the end of my commute from work, a driver coming up from behind me purposefully drove past me at extremely close range so that the passenger in their vehicle could climb partway out of the car through the window (clearly violating requirement to wear a seat belt) and physically strike me. Yup, a vehicle I did not know just wanted to let their passenger assault a random bicyclist. I got the license plate, and called the police immediately. It was hours before I got a response (in the middle of the night — the incident happened between 5 and 6 pm). I spoke to Portland police repeatedly, sharing the license plate number and even the name of the vehicle owner, traced through the license plate. Officer said they would follow up and get back to me, but never did. In my case, there wasn’t even a dispute about who had right of way. I was bicycling, a motorist came up behind me, and their passenger intentionally with the aid of the driver physically assaulted me. There had been no interaction between me and this vehicle previous to the assault. And still, Portland police did not do anything. So yes, as we all have these kinds of experiences, it seems the police clearly do not act as though protecting any Portlanders from reckless and aggressive drivers is part of what we pay them to do.
Lois,
That’s the problem with an understaffed police department. Few consequences for dangerous and/or illegal behavior. For example, guess how many detectives we have dedicated to property crime in all of Portland?
ONE!
Source: PPB spokesperson Terri Wallo-Straus.
Apart from the PPB’s appalling history of civil rights violations (beating and killing Portland residents), it’s kafkaesque how you continuously ignore the fact that PPB employees admitted to a systemic policy of intentionally not enforcing traffic laws — in clear violation of their oaths.
bikeportland.org/2023/08/08/portland-police-bureau-officer-admits-no-traffic-enforcement-messaging-was-politically-motivated-377939
Why would anyone believe that these petty tyrants are capable of treating Portland residents with a modicum of respect?
Soren,
Look, no one’s handing the PPB a gold star — they’ve copped their fair share of screw-ups. But saying “they’re dodgy anyway” as a response to someone getting belted by a passenger hanging out of a moving car is a bit rich, mate. That’s not critique — that’s checked-out nihilism dressed up as insight.
And let’s not rewrite history — the 2020 protests weren’t all folk songs and sunflowers. There were peaceful moments, sure, but also plenty of rocks, fireworks, and opportunists running riot. Pretending otherwise doesn’t help your case — it just makes you sound like you’re auditioning for a documentary no one asked for.
You can hate the system and still expect the people paid to enforce the law to, you know… enforce the law. If someone used a car to help punch a cyclist and the cops shrugged, that’s not some grand political statement — that’s just failure. And calling it anything else is like watching a house burn and critiquing the paint job
I had a PPB officer on Sunday tell me that until cyclists start paying registration fees he will not enforce any traffic laws on their behalf. This was after I asked him to move 2 police cruisers that were parked in the bike lane near SW waterfront.
Horrible.
Maybe you could have told them, “Yeah, but I–and every other driver on this road–DID pay vehicle registration fees for our vehicles. And one thing they go towards is bike lanes so drivers don’t have to drive behind slow bikers in the vehicle lane. But you’re blocking that bike lane, so you’re wasting the money that every driver using this road paid. Whether bike riders paid anything towards it is irrelevant. So move.”
Says the officer who probably lives and pays gas and property taxes in Vancouver, WA.
Our local police chief here in NC once explained to us that 80% of our police force lives outside the city, that most other jurisdictions had roughly the same proportion, even counties will have most deputies living in other surrounding counties. They do so for 3 main reasons: They believe it’s cheaper (and sometimes it is); They don’t want their neighbors to recognize them at work (and vice versa); And they sincerely believe (without any proof) that where they live has a far lower crime rate than the jurisdiction they patrol.
As for the law, most police I’ve met know the laws very well for the communities and states where they trained and got certified, but that’s not necessarily the city and state they are currently working in, and the longer they’ve been working the more out of touch they are about current law changes.
Ah yes, because as we all know, the true measure of a police officer’s competence is their proximity to a Portland food cart. Forget training, ethics, or accountability — what really matters is whether they pay Multnomah County property tax, right?
Should we start checking surgeons’ mailboxes too? “Sorry doc, your appendix removal is invalid — you live in Beaverton.” Maybe the barista who makes your coffee should show proof of residence before steaming the milk. Heaven forbid someone cross a bridge to get to work.
Some cops live in Portland, some don’t — just like literally every other profession. If the issue is performance or accountability, great — let’s talk. But this obsession with postcodes? It’s about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.
The point was the hypocrisy of privileging (certain) local fee/taxpayers over those that presumably don’t pay the fee/taxes.
Meanwhile PPB vehicle parked in the bike lane….
you should see how they park in people’s grass between the sidewalk and the curb.. made a remark about parking skills and privilege while riding by and got stalked for fifteen blocks by a lonely officer attempting to make a friend… or state-grape victim.. so hard to tell…
Completely legal in this situation. Where would you suggest he park?
The car lane sounds about as reasonable as the bike lane, how about there
This stressed me out so much, I couldn’t watch the whole video. I had to switch to reading the quoted dialogue. I was already worried about aggressive driving (hard not to be if you’re paying attention) but now I’ll think of this every time I’m on my bike.
How long until it happens to me? I probably won’t have done anything wrong at all, and I don’t even ride my bike that much. And I’ll be sitting there, injured and abused, being told how it’s all my fault.
If the bike rider was close enough to the car to break the automobilist’s car’s side mirror with his elbow . . . clearly the driver was in violation of all the “safe passing” guidelines and laws — maybe even the Fall Distance rule if the street in question has a speed limit of 35 or higher. “Nah, you just told me. . . .”
https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.065
https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Safety/Documents/BikeSafePassage.pdf
DEFinitely file a complaint against this officer.
I am so frequently in the main lane at this very spot because too often, directly across the intersection, door dash drivers use the bike lane as their auxiliary parking to pick up food from the cafe they were standing next to in the video. I will not be pinched by a driver and would rather be already taking the lane before even crossing. In fact, I’ve had drivers pass me in the intersection and then pull over into the bike lane to park, blocking me as I am actively using the bike lane.
JK said in the video that he had deliveries to make. This implies that he’s driving with urgency instead of purpose, and likely would have been one of the people who so frequently block the bike lane in front of Cafe Yumm.
I can second the cars stopped in the bike lane here. I don’t ride this as often as I used to but was happy to see that the bike lane in front of the chipotle a few blocks up was now protected from parking.
Delivery drivers at Cafe Yumm do this regularly. It’s de facto part of the CY business plan. They are sorry, not sorry.
There was also the part of the video where the cop was reprimanding the driver for considering driving through a yellow light. I didn’t see that in the transcription.
Watch the video. I can’t imagine a complaint about this incident going anywhere.
Hi. My story isn’t meant as a transcription. I shared the stuff I felt was relevant. The signal being yellow or red isn’t really relevant to the situation. I also don’t think the exchange itself was particularly noteworthy. I don’t agree it was a reprimand, it was more of a challenge to JK’s story which was immediately resolved.
It was highly relevant to the narrative of the post, which is that cops treat bicyclists differently than they do drivers.
“Sounds like you should have stopped! Yellow doesn’t mean go!” with a raised voice. Sounded like a reprimand to me. It’s at 2:30, so folks can decide for themselves.
Anyway, it’s probably just me, but I got a much different sense from watching the video than I did from your description of it.
Yes and that’s why I also included the full video. I’m glad the video gave you a better sense of what happened.
Does PBOT still maintain their intersection cameras? When I worked there (2000-2006) they had a whole bank of monitors on the 7th floor of the 1120 Building (Portlandia).
Here in Greensboro NC, both our city DOT and our police have cameras all over the city monitoring traffic, to the point that we have yet to come across any police cars on our monthly Critical Mass rides that we’ve been doing for over a year now – we figure they are simply monitoring us remotely, big brotherish, and have no issues with us yet compared to all the crazy drivers out there.
Police officers should be required to walk beats as pedestrians and make patrol rounds on bikes. This incident is a microcosm of the empathy gap between drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. This is probably the only country in the world where transportation is so deeply ingrained into one’s identity (meaning – in other parts of the world, people ride bikes and drive cars, but people are people rather than “drivers” and “cyclists”)
I agree. I made a similar walk-or-ride-a-beat recommendation here a few years ago. It’s also why I supported Eli Arnold when he was running for city council last year.
Instead of telling the driver the bike rider was “technically right” he should have said “absolutely right”.
There is no difference between being “technically right” and being “right”.
And since the bike rider was right–which he was, and the cop may have even understood so by that point–there’s no way he was “ignorant”. How can you be ignorant about something the same time you’re right about it?
Really, the cop should have told the driver: “He’s absolutely right. I was ignorant.”
There’s nothing stopping the cop from saying that right now.
Sounds like the cyclist knew his stuff and did nothing wrong— fair play to him and of course I’m glad he wasn’t injured. But crikey, Maus writes like every copper’s supposed to be the second coming of Solomon, handing down perfect wisdom at every fender-bender. And c’mon, Jonathan — you left out that the cop actually did tell the driver he should’ve stopped and even called the cyclist a vulnerable road user. Sure, the officer could’ve shown a bit more tact, but he’s not Judge Judy in uniform — he’s just trying to piece together two wildly different stories without a lie detector or a crystal ball!
Crikey, mate! Throw some shrimps on the barbie and pass the Fosters!
Nope. That’s not what I’m saying here Angus. I don’t expect every cop to be perfect, but this shows that this cop has a clear bias against a particular road user and I don’t think that is OK.
So how do you change that bias?
Well I’m just a guy with a blog. But I know the first step is always identifying a problem. Then I think changing culture at police bureaus is way beyond my pay grade. However, if I was in charge I’d start by building relationships between PPB leaders, officers, and cyclists. That could have a big impact on agency culture.
As I recall, you once had a pretty solid relationship with a PPB officer, who offered you all sorts of interesting insights into what was happening with the cops, and who, I hope, was able to transmit some of your views back to his people.
It’s too bad for us, the reading and riding public, that you no longer have that.
I agree! And yes I was proud of my work with the PPB back in the day and the relationships I had led to good things for the community.
I’ve started to think about re-establishing those, but in a post 2020 world, things are different when it comes to PPB and policing in general. It’s not something I want to rush into.
What makes it different?
A guy named George Floyd was murdered by a cop and it sparked a national protest era against police and PPB spent months in riot gear throwing tear gas into n’hoods and aiding federal officers downtown and helping white supremacists instigate in our city.
So yeah, all that strained relationships on both sides.
And yet, here we are… we still have cops, they still impact our lives, and the bicycling community would still benefit from a better relationship with them.
So in some ways nothing is different.
What I saw in 2020, is a bunch of white people in Portland, with a tiny black population breaking windows for months. After 2 weeks it had nothing to do with George Floyd and this city is still trying to recover 5 years later due to present day incompetency by our elected officials.
Weak excuse. I’m tired of doomer stances that endlessly complain, fan flames and ultimately have nothing to contribute re: how we right the ship and get out of this mess.
It sounds like you were radicalized and feel that civil war and revolution will work out in your favor due to blatant white privilege and the garnered favor of progressives in your walled political garden of Portland.
Meanwhile some of us stand to suffer greatly as you drape yourself in slogans and run around playing white savior.
I’m over it. You need to learn how to get along with others and rebuild civil society. This doesn’t start with dehumanizing people and endorsing arson. Until you work to fix this, your “community” is nothing but part of the problem.
I’m at a loss to understand a lot of the message here. Perhaps there is some history I am missing that 11 upvoters at this point feel affinity with. “Fan flames”, “dehumanizing people”, “endorsing arson”? I don’t see it. Where do you get these from this article? Is this a fair description? Is this diatribe an example of how we get along with others to rebuild civil society?
Apart from the glaring logical issues, I think the subtext of Freeda’s post is that until we [e.g. anyone to the left of Megan McCain] fully submit to xenophobic fascism, the fascists will never let us rebuild society.
How we right the ship and get out of this mess:
1. Identify the elements of the unrighted mess as clearly as possible.
2. Consider possible actions to make desired improvements.
3. Repeat.
Can we work together on this?
I think this story is part of step 1. I find it elucidating, worthy of calling out. The discussion of it here seems to be more identification and clarification, with a few suggested actions we might take, when I can read around the personal attacks, loaded phrases, and apparent baiting.
I’m not sure what has led to the heavy judgement about what JM is doing here. I do know that when I get in attack mode or feel overwhelmed by a problem, I find it more difficult to generate helpful ideas. It seems that you, too, may be experiencing that feeling, judging by how your comment reflects some of the very attitudes it decries. If this is truly the case, I hope you feel better soon and can find ideas here or elsewhere to bring clarity to and incrementally improve the mess you see, perhaps in community with others here or elsewhere.
Really? Functionally, Maus is a journalist and that’s what pays his bills. Community organizing is pretty much a volunteer thing that he can’t help doing a little of in a New Media world. He writes about stuff and takes pictures of stuff. Fixing relationships between police and public isn’t the duty of a journalist, I’d put that more on the Mayor, the Chief, the command officers, and the professional individual police.
Fair play to you, Jonathan — I’ll give you credit for admitting you’re just a bloke with a blog, not running a full-on newsroom with balanced journalism. That kind of honesty’s refreshing these days.
But honestly mate, holding onto this grudge from 2020 doesn’t really help move things forward. What happened to George Floyd was horrific — no doubt — but dragging that into every local traffic stop or interaction with PPB just keeps the walls up instead of breaking them down.
It’s also pretty easy to criticise when you haven’t walked a day in a copper’s boots. Most of us here — yourself included — spend our time behind desks in white-collar jobs. There’s not many out actually dealing with chaos on the streets, trying to make sense of conflicting stories on the spot.
If building better relationships is what you’re after, maybe it’s time to ease off the sweeping judgment and start giving a bit of credit where it’s due — especially when an officer handles a tricky situation without anyone getting hurt
Seems like a low bar in this case.
You make officers patrol on bike regularly. Nothing builds empathy faster than walking in the same shoes. Police e-bikes are available for purchase:
https://www.policepowerbikes.com/
This is mostly why I don’t cycle commute any more.
“I recommend you use the bike lane”… as we look at the cop car parked in the bike lane and see cyclists forced to go around it.
So glad that this violent act didn’t end worse, and good on Jeevan for calling it in. A couple of questions:
1) was the witness appearing in the video the first driver who passed aggressively but did not collide with Jeevan?
2) what compelled JK to remain at the scene? I’m surprised they didn’t just drive off.
The law desperately needs to be changed to make it clear that bikes are entitled to use whatever part of the road is the best for the situation. As Jonathan points out, though, the bigger challenge facing bicyclists is the social expectation by many drivers that bicycles only be operated in a way that does not impede cars. It’s not clear to me what the precise limits of legality are, and I don’t think it’s really important. I would rather live in a world where drivers thought I was a legitimate road user than a world in which reasonable biking didn’t violate any traffic laws. TBH, I’m surprised the cop wasn’t a bigger dick.
What “weird laws for bikes” does Portland have that apply to this situation? The applicable laws are Oregon stautes, are they not? Is the officer or the driver visiting from some far-off land where the law allows drivers to attempt to squeeze by a moving cyclist without giving enough clearance to avoid contact? Are they both from a place where it is legal to honk at a cyclist when the only dangerous situation is one the honking driver is about to perpetrate?
No to honking to show impatience with a vulnerable road user.
No to speeding up to cross intersection on yellow light.
No to squeezing by.
No, no, no.
I’m not aware of any, but it’s a good idea despite the source. Maybe the city council could work it in as part of some kind of deal about the police and their giant budget. I’m thinking specifically of an explicit right to take a lane at the operator’s discretion when riding a bike in the city. I know different cities have different laws about riding on the sidewalk … this does not seem too different.
This is where you reach out to your local elected officials and point them to this page. Tell them how you are appalled at the disdain this police officer showed a citizen of Portland who had a valid complaint. That you demand that the Police Department institute training, not only in the rules and laws of Oregon, but how to work better with victims of what was a road rage incident.
Obviously, the Police department will close ranks and deny any issues, but if the elected officials that approve or disapprove their budget complain, they’ll take notice.
Don’t forget to reach out to your elected officials and insist PPB follow all traffic laws and ordinances including noise ordinances around a certain building. The culture of officials encouraging/instructing PPB to enforce some things and not others absolutely contributes to the daily chaos on the streets.
Nowhere in 18.14.010 Exemptions under Title 18 Noise Control does it permit noise violations for leftist approved protests/rabble.
Enforce speed limits, driving standards and nightly noise ordinances !!
It is really weird that someone thinks only”leftists” oppose the incredible lies coming out of the WH concerning the tiny protest. Have you been there?
Did the guy in the chicken suit disturb you?
Focus on the noise ordinance aspect and the documented suffering of the nearby residents. If the city deliberately picks winners and losers in enforcing laws, don’t be surprised when our side is also chosen to be a loser. By our side I mean any vulnerable road user outside a vehicle who has to deal with essentially zero traffic enforcement.
Not that it really matters as you’ll simply twist what I’m saying into something else and then get a in good “gotcha” and never come back for a discussion.
From what our local media is reporting, most people in the area are not bothered or upset by the small group of nightly protestors.
You must listen to ICE Barbie for your information
Her and her boss are pathological liars.
You obviously believe the BS .
Noise ordinances?
Maybe they can also get them for jaywalking…,
If local news is the only thing you read, then here you go……
https://www.wweek.com/outdoors/2025/07/10/portland-apartment-tenant-sues-to-stop-the-loudspeaker-noise-directed-at-the-ice-facility/
https://www.koin.com/news/portland/south-portland-tenant-sues-city-over-weaponized-noise-by-protesters-at-ice-facility-07112025/
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/portland-protests-cloud-elvengrail-sues-city-ice-facility-noise-laws/283-f72a222a-f8db-4564-84e5-fd618a457e52
If you have any intellectually curiosity and some free time you can google the women’s name and follow her battle against the nightly barrage.
3 article’s about the same person.
I have sympathy but I think it is clear that the Vast majority of People in Portland support the small group of protests at the MAGA /ICE facility.
You don’t and I can see with 4 likes to your comment that there are other Cult/Maga followers on this site.
Its a free country and you can support what the Feds are doing and you obviously are buying the Lies that Krist Noem and Trump are selling.
Using Bike safety as a ruse to insert your MAGA values in every comment has become laughable.
Not as bad as the person who wrote this anti-government post mocking Floyd protests….
“What I saw in 2020, is a bunch of white people in Portland, with a tiny black population breaking windows for months. After 2 weeks it had nothing to do with George Floyd and this city is still trying to recover 5 years later due to present day incompetency by our elected officials“
Can you believe this person’s hatred of the Portland council and the contempt the poster must have for the first amendment?!
Ah yes, the ol’ “no one’s bothered except the woman with bleeding ears” argument. Classic. Poor Cloud Elvengrail — disabled, elderly, POC, living in low-income housing, PTSD, and apparently now part of a right-wing psyop because she dared to ask for a bit of quiet at 2 a.m.
But sure, let’s ignore the lawsuit, the videos of the high-pitched screeching, the threats, and insults from the “open minded and tolerant” protesters. Must be ICE Barbie mind-controlling her from across the street. Maybe next she’ll fake jaywalking too — better keep the tin foil handy.
Because when your defence is “other people aren’t complaining,” maybe… just maybe… you’re not listening to the ones who can’t shout over the protester’s speaker system.
https://katu.com/news/local/resident-living-near-portland-ice-facility-sues-city-over-protest-noise-oregon-immigration-trump-crime-lawsuit-customs-protesters-mental-health
Maybe we shouldn’t have jails and detention centers located in residential neighborhoods? I can think of quite a few good reasons.
Nobody – not one person – is suffering because of the protests. The city is not selectively enforcing laws. There is a legal, peaceful protest ongoing, and creeping fascism that wants to squash it.
John, let’s hit pause on your disinformation campaign. Here’s a list of those that have publicly said they are suffering from the protest. There’s obviously many more that haven’t spoken with the media. And let’s remember that smashing a vandalized stop sign pole through the front doors of a federal building is not “peaceful”.
List of names of people publicly saying they were impacted:
Cloud Elvengrail
Tim Paulk
Susan Norris
Lawshanda Shavers
Brian Nelson
Jesse Warden
Louise Dunn
Tim Burks
Anna Carlton
James Moon
Children and staff of Cottonwood School of Civics & Science
Cloud Elvengrail — Portland Apartment Tenant Sues to Stop the Loudspeaker Noise Directed at ICE Facility, Willamette Week
Tim Paulk — Woman Files Lawsuit Against City of Portland Over Noise Outside ICE Facility, KPTV 12
Susan Norris — Neighbors of Portland’s ICE Facility Concerned , KPTV 12
Lawshanda Shavers — Neighbors of Portland’s ICE Facility Concerned, KPTV 12
Brian Nelson — Portland ICE Facility Draw Noise Complaints from South Waterfront Neighbors, KPTV 12
Jesse Warden — Portland ICE Facility Draw Noise Complaints from South Waterfront Neighbors, KPTV 12
Louise Dunn — ICE Building Neighbors Clean Up, Reflect Following Latest Portland Protests, OPB (Oregon Public Broadcasting)
Tim Burks — ICE Building Neighbors Clean Up, Reflect Following Latest Portland Protests, OPB
Anna Carlton — ICE Building Neighbors Clean Up, Reflect Following Latest Portland Protests, OPB
James Moon — ICE Building Neighbors Clean Up, Reflect Following Latest Portland Protests, OPB
Cottonwood School of Civics & Science — Portland Charter School Moves Because of Protest Activity Near ICE Building, KGW News
Don’t blame protesters, the cause here is obviously our terrible government. The cause is ICE.
You bring up the point I was trying to make.
“Don’t blame the protestors, …the cause is ICE.”
That is exactly the attitude the cagers have and the one mentioned in this specific thread. The belief that it wasn’t the cagers fault he was so close to the cyclist. It wasn’t the cagers fault he nearly hit (and finally did with a mirror) him several times. It was the cyclists fault for being there.
It is a cultural of lawlessness that has been reinforced for cagers over and over again that no matter how fast they drive, how dangerously they threaten people and no matter what harm they do that it is always the vulnerable road users fault.
It is also something we are seeing at the ice facility. No matter how much suffering is inflicted on nearby residents, it’s not the protesters fault even though they are the ones actually causing the suffering. No, it’s someone else’s fault.
Both are the results of the same culture of pick and choose law enforcement. Laws need to be applied fairly to all to be effective and when they are not a culture of permissibility arises as it has.
So if the city isn’t selectively enforcing laws, why are the streets such a nightmare with lax enforcement of traffic laws?
Also, your statement that “not one person is suffering “ is disproven by the local articles you don’t want to read.
The whole point of this comparison is that the city has a documented culture of picking which laws to enforce and against whom they are enforced against. The streets won’t be safe for vulnerable users until a culture of enforcement for all comes together.
“Nobody – not one person – is suffering because of the protests.”
It has been very well documented that at least one person is suffering because of the protests.
And given the number of noise complaints the airport has received about the circling helicopters, it’s clear there is more than that.
I am completely not shocked Watts wants the military here to deal with some noise ….
Is that because of the protests, or our shitty president’s crackdown on free speech?
Yes, it’s clear that the noise is all Trump’s fault. I was just pointing out that your statement was demonstrably false.
Before you do that, I would suggest showing the video to somebody who doesn’t instinctively hate cops and get their read of the incident.
Maybe give them a Foster’s or 2 first?
I guess you hear what you want to hear. It sounds to me like the officer’s tone is pretty much the same with both parties. It baffles me why you want to paint the officer in such a bad light. And, it takes a lot of force to fold a mirror in to the car, so either Vivek hit it pretty hard on purpose or the driver hit Vivek with a lot of force. The way that Vivek waves his arms around in conversation makes it clear that the car did not hit him. His arm would be too sore to move, perhaps broken. Sounds like the driver was inpatient with Vivek, and Vivek was just looking for a confrontation. Bringing up the ‘I am a certified bike instructor, blah blah’ is a red flag for someone trying to dominate a discussion.
Modern (anything in the last 30 years or so) automobile mirrors actually fold very easily. It doesn’t take much force at all, certainly nowhere near enough to break an arm.
I tested my vehicle, a 2007 Nissan Murano yesterday to see how much force it took. I am a pretty strong guy, and I would say it took me about the same amount of pressure as I need for the last 10 psi on pumping up a bike tire, for comparison…so significant. They are designed to be fairly resistant to movement, for obvious reason. So, getting hit hard enough to dislodge the mirror would definitely cause enough pain to make his arm significantly bruised or strained. No way would he be able to wave his arm around freely like in the video. Vivek embellished the experience at best.
I think what animates us bike riders is the officer’s implicit interpretation that the source of the conflict was Jeevan’s choice of position in the lane (outside the bike lane and far enough left to require auto traffic slow down or, as JK colorfully put it playing ‘king of the road.’). I find it telling that the officer is critical of JK regarding the light (‘yellow doesn’t mean “go”!’) instead of being critical of JK for harassing Jeevan by honking and passing closely.
I agree with your assessment that ‘the officer’s tone is pretty much the same with both parties,’ but the parties are not in any way equivalent. Becoming angry about having to wait for slow traffic on that section of 7th is such an outrageous and unjustifiable response. In addition to the bike traffic there are streetcar and max stops, all of which will generate unpredictability that may slow cars. Road rage about slow bikes retarding your auto transit in such a location is unreasonable prima facie. MLK is a couple blocks to the W. If you are pissed off about bikes on 7th, the problem lies with you, not the people on bikes.
The cop had previously (and presumably incorrectly) accused Jeevan of riding illegally. What would you do in that situation? It’s entirely reasonable for Jeevan to invoke relevant knowledge and credentials in that situation. It’s not like Jeevan brought it up out of the blue.
I’m not 100% sure of the legalities of Vivek taking the car lane. What justifies that? and, I just noticed a ‘not minor fact’. JK points to a witness who he claims saw Vivek hit the mirror, but there is nothing in this piece, or the video that indicates the officer interviewed the supposed witness. That might well have clarified this whole situation.
I’m not 100% sure about the legality of the bike riding (or what actually happened). What I’m crystal clear about is that acting aggressively towards bikes when driving through this block is not reasonable behavior, regardless of any ‘incitement’.
There’s some ambiguity about Vivek’s lane position.
There’s absolutely no question about a motor vehicle operator’s duty to overtake safely in ALL circumstances without causing injury or property damage. Any bad results are on the person overtaking as far as I know. A person who does not yield may be ticketed but that does not make them fair game for assault.
I fundamentally agree with this — the propriety of Vivek’s lane position is a secondary issue.
The only relevant factual question is whether the driver struck Vivek or whether Vivek struck the vehicle. One might argue (as I would) that if the vehicle was close enough for this to even be a question means it was too close, even at the low speeds apparently involved here. However, legally, if the vehicle was traveling at less than 35 mph, that issue is irrelevant — an inch of space is sufficient (and yes, the law should be changed).
With no injury or property damage involved, what we’re left with is a legally/factually ambiguous situation, with a moral component that most folks here are mostly aligned with, and the tone of a cop who apparently doesn’t see it our way (or, in the absence of any damage or clear evidence of a legal violation, feels like he’s being asked to mediate an argument between two people who were probably each partially at fault).
Isn’t that one of the problems?
For many readers of this blog, apparently yes.
Yes, that has been my point from the beginning; most listeners indicate that the officer’s tone was pretty much the same with each party. But, JM and most readers/listeners see it completely the opposite. That’s why eye/ear witnesses are so unreliable. They see things the way that comports with their biases. I say that as a former private investigator.
I disagree with you on this Steve. Yes our pre-existing biases color everything we see/hear… But you can objectively read the officer’s demeanor, tone, and behavior and it’s clear to anyone in good faith that he is much friendlier to the driver. The officer clearly talks over, dismisses, and almost mocks Jeevan – while doing nothing like that to the driver. The officer sees the driver as a buddy and an equal, and he sees Jeevan as the “other.” That is crystal clear to me — and I can say that as someone with very deep perspectives on all sides of this. I am a driver, a bicycle rider, and have worked with, had relationships with, and have treated police fairly throughout my entire career.
Anyone who is a parent or works closely with kids will recognize the dynamic of a stronger kid pushing around a weaker one, the weaker one appealing to an authority figure, and the authority figure dismissing their complaints, telling them not to tattle.
In this case, there was no injury, no damage, no evidence of wrongdoing, and the only witness would have (apparently) backed up the driver. It feels like a similar dynamic at play.
This doesn’t justify anything, but it might help explain the cop’s attitude. I’ve never fully understood this dynamic, but it seems very real.
Guess we simply disagree about this. Maybe because I’ve been treated similarly by PPB officers in the past, so I know for a fact how this dynamic works. Some of them just don’t like cyclists. It’s a fact. And it’s a powerful bias that’s fine to have, but when it changes how you treat people than it’s not OK. And I think this video is a good illustration of that pattern.
Do we disagree that this dynamic exists, or that it could apply here? Either way, it doesn’t rule out the cop disliking bicyclists.
yes that is a dynamic that exists among people.
First you say
Then you say
Can you explain that to me? Who are these listeners who are not “most listeners/readers here”? Where are they seeing this video? Where are they commenting so you know that they agree with you that the officer treated both pretty much the same?
How can most people have the opposite view of most people here unless they’re seeing the video and commenting elsewhere?
The biggest issue with your comment:
I don’t agree the cop treated both the same, but if he did, why do you think he should have? The bike rider called 911 because of what the driver did to them. The cop–after being argumentative and dismissive to the bike rider–ultimately agreed the bike rider was correct about the law.
So this is basically a victim-vs.-lawbreaker situation. Why would you think the cop treating both equally is appropriate? Isn’t that the opposite of what a cop should do?
There’s no world I can imagine where drivers won’t be annoyed about a bike taking the lane when there’s a bike lane available. Regardless of whether it’s legal or not, I think it’s good defensive biking to be aware of that, and I consider it reckless to stop in the middle of the main lane when there’s a bike lane.
Obviously this driver is terrible, but if you’re a bike traffic instructor and your first rule isn’t “there will be terrible aggressive drivers, and our job is to keep ourselves safe” then I can’t really understand what you’re doing honestly.
ACAB
Viv needs to regularly teach a bike traffic safety class to Portland Police officers. It would be a good part of a restorative justice outcome from this incident.
That’s a good idea. He can teach bike traffic safety after he’s done a few ride alongs with various shifts so they can all understand each other better. It’s truly a win-win.