A bicycle rider was repeatedly rammed by the driver of a large SUV at the No Kings rally and march on Saturday. Footage uploaded to Reddit by user HughAnnus shows the driver of a late model Range Rover attempting to drive northbound on SW 2nd just after Alder. The bicycle rider is wearing a yellow hi-viz vest and appears to have been a volunteer corker for the march.
As you can see in the video (below), the cyclist remained calm throughout the incident. After being rammed and having their bicycle go under the SUV’s front grill, the cyclist simply picks their bike back up and returns to their post. Several bystanders approached the scene and began to address the driver, film, and shout out the license plate. A photo of the driver and the license plate was posted to social media.
The person who shot this video says the woman rammed the cyclists another time before they began filming. They also say the police responded and let the driver go. This was due in large part because, “Biker was okay and didn’t push it with the cops,” the person shared on their Reddit post.
Portland Police Bureau Public Information Officer Mike Benner told BikePortland today that they are not currently pursuing this case. “The Incident Management Team overseeing this event was not made aware of this,” Benner shared. “Perhaps due to what the post suggests – the cyclist not wanting to press charges. If the cyclist has a change of heart and wants to move forward with a case, PPB would be open to reviewing this incident further.”
UPDATE, 3:17 pm: I’ve received an additional video clip from another witness and have not posted a longer video. The new clip shows a PPB Liaison Officer (special unit trained for dialogue and deescalation at protests) talking to the driver. In the video, the officer tells the driver she can either park and wait and that no matter what she does she will probably have to wait. At one point the cyclist interjects to say, “Do not endanger peoples’ lives.” The driver then responds, flippantly, with, “You know what, go give a speech to someone else.” As the woman drives away, the cyclist can be heard questioning why the officer didn’t give her a citation. “That’s pretty fucked up,” the cyclist says upon realizing the officer doesn’t plan to issue a citation.
UPDATE, 4:22 pm: After viewing the second clip where the cyclist requests that the officer cite the driver, I reached back out to PPB for clarification about why the officer chose to not cite. Here’s what the PPS spokesperson said:
“PPB understands the intention of people who want to help facilitate a march, in this case the cyclist, but it is not safe for someone to put themselves in harm’s way in front of a moving vehicle which is what our officer witnessed. As the video shows, our officer spoke with both the cyclist and driver and de-escalated the situation, allowing the driver to find an alternate route and the cyclist to return to the march. The officer then continued their role in facilitating a march that drew tens of thousands of people into the city.”
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.
Two key updates after I received an additional video clip:
UPDATE, 3:17 pm: I’ve received an additional video clip from another witness and have not posted a longer video. The new clip shows a PPB Liaison Officer (special unit trained for dialogue and deescalation at protests) talking to the driver. In the video, the officer tells the driver she can either park and wait and that no matter what she does she will probably have to wait. At one point the cyclist interjects to say, “Do not endanger peoples’ lives.” The driver then responds, flippantly, with, “You know what, go give a speech to someone else.” As the woman drives away, the cyclist can be heard questioning why the officer didn’t give her a citation. “That’s pretty fucked up,” the cyclist says upon realizing the officer doesn’t plan to issue a citation.
UPDATE, 4:22 pm: After viewing the second clip where the cyclist requests that the officer cite the driver, I reached back out to PPB for clarification about why the officer chose to note cite. Here’s the PPS spokesperson said:
I haven’t asked any bike folks about this, but I have wondered about folks who cork for permitted events like this, where the cops are closing roads and blocking them with cones and their vehicles.
There isn’t enough police out there to hold all the intersections. We had several intersections downtown with no police presence, same on the East side. They will grab and block off the major streets, or start some of the smaller ones, but then take off and leave corkers to hold the intersection for the rest of the time.
At SW 4th and Alder for example, we had to clear out a whole block of cars stuck between 4th and the march on 3rd. Those drivers would have been stuck for an hour and a half, or would have had to organize backing out themselves, if corkers hadn’t been there to help. We also had to redirect all the drivers who were still trying to turn down Alder. Eventually we managed to block off the turn lane to make it obvious to drivers that they had to choose a different route.
The protest organizers are aware of this and specifically asked the community for corking support, provided de-escalation training, etc. This isn’t rogue corkers showing up unnecessarily.
“Corking is illegal”
—PPB
COOL
Wow. This is like the “tree just jumped out in front of me” defense. Cars are not a given on our streets, nor are they at an elevated privilege. Your #1 job as a driver is to not run into people especially not on purpose. They failed with an F—————. Cite, ban, or jail.
I volunteered corking for this march, and in general it went really well.
The march was huge, with at least 40 thousand people. The head of the march reached the tail, around a 3 mile route, on our widest roads, compacted! There were very many PPB officers (including mutual aid from other jurisdictions) assisting in cars and trucks, on motor bikes, and on bicycles, which was great considering how large the crowd was. I’ve never seen PPB be so supportive.
Neither PPB nor community volunteer marshals could have done it as successfully alone. Portland bike corkers have plenty of experience with this kind of work from our huge summer rides, the march organizers have evolved their skills over the past several years, and this was a complimentary effort with PPB that was highly successful.
What I saw was that PPB was blocking streets right at the march, which traps drivers. Corkers have learned to position themselves a block away from big marches and rides — to help drivers avoid getting stuck. Most drivers are very appreciative.
A very small number of drivers, for me it was two or three that day, are highly entitled like the driver in the video. They disregard basic safety commonsense, and try to push through anyway. It’s nonsensical because they are just trapping themselves, and putting everyone in danger, but this is the tunnel vision of self entitlement.
I don’t know the full backstory, but my guess is that one block away there are thousands of grandparents, kids, and people in inflatable frog suits in the street, and the volunteer with the hi-viz vest is doing a fantastic job stopping and slowing a hyper aggressive homicidal driver from reaching the crowd.
A citation would have been nice, but the important part is that the bike corker kept Portlanders safe on a historic day.
Thank you corker!
I sure hope the cyclist has a change of heart once the shock of being attacked by a multi-ton weapon fades. Best wishes that they will be okay!
I wonder if the driver will have a change of heart when they realize they have used their right foot to do about $2000 worth of damage to one of their assets? Of course they probably lost over $10,000 just driving it away from the dealership.
Thank you, corker, for maintaining calm while putting your body as well as your bike on the line. This driver was clearly intending to use their large vehicle as a weapon, and while I respect the corker’s decision not to press charges, it underscores how much American culture normalizes the danger that huge SUVs and other motorized vehicles create in the hands of motorists like this person. The fact that the police have documentation of this intentional, violent behavior but will do nothing about it speaks volumes.
Perhaps someone trained in criminal law can answer this question (note I am asking for someone with relevant expertise, not just opinions): If I took a gun and shot at a stranger in public but missed them, and the incident was captured on video, would the police say they could not hold me accountable if the person I shot at chose not to press charges?
Your intent there Lois, using a gun and pointing and shooting it would be crystal clear as bullets hitting people usually kill them or create grievous bodily harm. This would be intent to kill or reckless disregard of the possibility of killing someone–therefore attempted murder, a serious felony.
Driving a car at 1 or 2 miles an hour is not likely to kill someone, particularly as a reasonable person would get out of the way. Therefore the intent to murder cannot be presumed. Thus its not as serious a crime.
But were you being rhetorical? I can never tell.
Has your foot never slipped on the brake pedal or the gas pedal? Mine certainly has. Would have taken just a momentary slip of the foot for that SUV to run over and maim or kill the cyclist.
Any good prosecutor would have no trouble establishing intent in this case.
Sure and any good defense attorney, maybe one who someone with a Range Rover can procure, would have no trouble establishing distress of the driver with someone in front of their vehicle and others around it acting unpredictably may have this go the way many of these cases have in the past with no charges sticking.
All the examples I’ve seen of that have had crowds (at least dozens) of angry people surrounding a car, pounding on it and even trying to break windows with motorcycle helmets, etc. and there’s been no way to get past them without driving at the ones in front.
That’s nothing like what was going on here. However–unfortunately–I can also see a decision to dismiss charges because people reviewing it may go straight to identifying with the driver.
The self defense laws in OR are pretty clear that if she didnt provoke the interaction, she can use like force to extricate herself from a situation where she interprets a likelihood of bodily harm. I don’t think the charges stick due to the law, but if they got to court, you’re right, no jury is siding with the mob mentality either.
What attorney would put that video in front of a jury?
Hundreds of children in the US are killed by parents and family members driving 1 to 2mph out of their driveway every year.
4,000lb vehicles are deadly weapons. If you intentionally drive into someone, even at slow speed, it should be treated as attempted murder.
I think there is zero chance a jury would look at that video and decide it was attempted murder, especially if it turns out the cyclist instigated the conflict and repeatedly put themselves in the path of the vehicle.
I’m not sure even you really believe the driver was trying to kill the cyclist.
Any idea why “HughAnnus” was in front of the car to start with?
Looks like he was attempting to block the car from proceeding. Was the road closed? Were there signs indicating the road was closed? Did the driver understand why he was blocking their path? Was it communicated to the driver what was happening? Of course it looks very dangerous what the driver did— moving forward into Mr “HughAnnus”….I wonder if he doesn’t want to press charges because there is more to the story? He will have to give out his real name to authorities if he changes his mind and wants that to happen though. HughAnnus….LOL.
What difference does any of this make?
You think car drivers can just run over people whether they are in the road blocking it or not?
Can drivers run over jay walking pedestrians just because they are in the road possibly illegally? Are you insane?
You have to quit trying so hard to be ***personal insult deleted by moderator – JM***
I think the point being that if a car is coming at you and you are in a crosswalk – for god’s sake still move!
I personally loved and LOLed at this characterization of Angus, but I wonder why JM didn’t insert one of his “Deleted by moderator b/c it’s unkind” comments. I’ve written far less harsh comments that JM deleted. Does he let some harsh characterizations stand b/c he agrees with them?
Nope. I let some stuff through because I’m a fallible human responsible for many tasks and I don’t see everything all the time.
Do you even ride, Angus? I ask because your comment comes across as someone who has zero understanding of how it feels to be threatened by a 4+ ton machine being driven by a raging driver.
I don’t know if they actually ride, but they definitely don’t read the articles they comment on
Even I’m in agreement with my good friend Soren, here
Is Angus accusing someone else of not being a true Scotsman?
People in cars really think they’re invulnerable…but if the cyclist had the gall to smack her hood with an open palm, you know the driver would have demanded the police arrest him. Such fragile little snowflakes, she was probably in a hurry to get home and watch Fox News
It sounds like the goal was to take their dog to the vet, through a crowd of 40,000 people who were in no hurry to watch Fox, or Sinclair either for that matter.
What’s up with navigation apps, they can see the congestion on 99 W, or the apparent No Traffic on a greenway, but they can’t route a motor vehicle operator away from thousands of cell phones moving at 2 mph on Naito Parkway?
So much for AI.
The road doesn’t appear closed as a silver sedan zips right past the Range Rover in the adjacent lane.
More proof the SUV driver was in the bike lane.
Your assumption is that the other driver was following the law and not driving into an area blocked off for the protest. Which is laughable.
Even if you don’t place any value on the well-being of another person or their property, it still takes an incredible amount of entitlement, anger and/or cluelessness to risk scratching a vehicle that costs $80-$130K and is notoriously expensive to repair.
What was he blocking her from? It doesn’t seem like he’s corking for protestors ahead b/c right at the beginning of the video another vehicle goes by at 15-20 mph. Looks like he’s just blocking the parking spot, but that seems weird? Definitely missing some context.
And before everyone jumps on me: of course she shouldn’t attack him with her car. Obviously that’s wildly inappropriate and she deserves consequences. And, super curious the context to understand what was going on.
In addition to cars that can’t speed, we need cars that can’t ram things. We can do this, we have the technology.
The psycho, entitled driver mentality is out of control. Saw a thread where the Hillsboro PD had arrested someone… for driving 120mph. 120! Sure enough, more than half the comments were people whining about the very existence of speed limits and why wouldn’t you just let this kid have a little fun.
A lot of people don’t deserve the responsibility of driving an automobile.
Lmao you can literally hit someone with your car in front of a cop with no consequences, sick, how is vision zero going?
Now a days it all depends on who is doing the hitting and who is being hit.
“In front of a cop”? Was it?
Oh the Reddit poster is HughAnnus not the bike guy! 🙂 Sorry Mr Bike Guy and I’m vey glad you weren’t injured by what looks to be an elderly ,confused and panicked driver in the wrong. If that road was truly closed to protect protestors I’m surprised the DIY internet detectives aren’t also going after the driver that zipped right by the Range Rover at second 4 in the video.
If a driver had done this to an ice agent or a police officer they would have shot the driver.
Regardless:
In Oregon, using your car as a weapon is illegal even if no one is injured. Under state law, a car can be considered a “deadly or dangerous weapon” if it is used in a manner that is capable of causing death or serious physical injury. This can lead to serious felony charges.
Even without physical injury, an individual can be charged with crimes like:
Unlawful Use of a Weapon: This charge applies if a person “attempts to use unlawfully against another” a dangerous or deadly weapon. The law considers it an act of “use” to threaten immediate harm, not just to cause injury.
Menacing: A person commits the crime of menacing if they, “by word or conduct, intentionally attempt to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury”. Using a vehicle to threaten someone’s safety, such as by swerving toward them, could result in this charge.
Recklessly Endangering Another Person: This is a Class A misdemeanor for “recklessly engaging in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person”. Driving a vehicle in a dangerously aggressive manner toward another person would meet this standard.
Example legal precedent
A key Oregon case, State v. Ziska, clarified that threatening someone with a weapon is considered “using” it under the law, even without physical contact. Though the case involved a crowbar, the legal principle applies to any object—including a car—that can be used as a weapon. This precedent shows that the threat of harm is sufficient for a criminal charge.
“If a driver had done this to an ice agent or a police officer they would have shot the driver“
This is just inflammatory, you should cite something to at least back it up. Has ICE shot anyone with real bullets in Portland? When was the last time PPB shot an assaulting car.
There is no doubt the driver was assaulting the cyclist, but to drag the other organizations in seems too much like throwing gas on a fire.
It happened in Chicago but it can’t happen here?
https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/federal-agents-shoot-woman-broadview-ice-facility/
This one? Where they were attacked by 10 cars and then one of the drivers in an attacking car had a gun and was shot?
Well, you win the technically correct award. ICE in Chicago were attacked and did indeed shoot one of the attackers who had a gun.
I don’t see a random ICE agent in Portland shooting someone instead of getting out of their way.
It’s sad but not terribly surprising to see yet another defense of fascist goons who have no honor or respect for the constitution:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bodycam-footage-conflicts-with-dhs-account-chicago-womans-shooting-by-border-2025-10-08/
https://newrepublic.com/post/201748/department-homeland-security-lying-ice-arrest-video
Wait till the renditions start back up as they did in the Bush and Obama years and then we’ll talk about fascism. In a fascist state, none of this info would be allowed or getting out. A**holes brutally arresting people is sadly older than America.
Didn’t the administration effectively render Kilmar Abrego Garcia, before they unrendered him? Albeit nothing on the scale of Bush and Obama (who, I might remind you, deliberately had an American teenager assassinated, something more egregious than anything Trump has done).
They did indeed try a form of rendition on Kilmar and whoever they’ve managed to ship off to whatever impoverished nation will take them.
Since we know about it what happened and who it’s happened too I don’t consider that true rendition. As you do, I consider it “effective” rendition.
I was meaning the classic version like what was going on in Europe and ME countries after 9/11 where people would just disappear and end up in a black site somewhere, never to be heard of again. That’s not happening yet although the Kilmar case is frighteningly close. It will be interesting to see how modern surveillance technology can be used against renditions if they start up again.
ps. At least one American that we know off.
Trump has killed dozens of Fishermen off Venezuela in the last couple of months with Zero evidence of anything but yeah, nothing like Obama did.
If they were American teenagers, you’d have a point. (I’m not even sure they were fishermen, or what evidence the military had that they were drug runners, but I know a responsible poster like you wouldn’t make factual assertions without evidence.)
Those killings, while almost certainly illegal and definitely immoral, are different than the deliberate assassination of an American teenager who enjoyed the full protections of US law and constitution.
So, I agree, bad, but not like what Obama did.
Do you really want to start talking about the thousands of innocent people Obama droned during his presidency again? And yes, Trump hasn’t murdered any Americans (that we know of), while Obama has killed four (that we know of).
I respect your absolute loyalty to the democrat party, but reality is what it is. No matter what else Obama did, he was also a bloody handed killer of innocent people who even was proud of it. People have layers, some layers not so pleasant.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obama-drones-double-down_n_4208815
The funny thing about Jake’s lame “both-sides”* defense of Trump is that in response to the uproar over Obama’s droning, Trump issued an executive order that banned the Dept of War[sic] from releasing any data/evidence of who Trump was droning:
Trump’s Secret Rules for Drone Strikes and Presidents’ Unchecked License to Kill
https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/trumps-secret-rules-for-drone-strikes-and-presidents-unchecked-license-to-kill
Trump appears to have been just as bad as Obama on killing people by drone. Since Biden seemed less enthusiastic about assassinating people, there may have been an opportunity to rein the practice in while the Democrats held all the power, but… they didn’t.
So yeah… “both sides” are complicit.
The idea that an act of indefensible violence excuses not caring about another act of indefensible violence is the soil in which fascism grows.
Huh? You’ll have to expand on this if you have time. I’m not sure what you’re referencing.
He’s saying that Trump’s acts of indefensible violence do not excuse not caring about Obama’s.
Of course, the opposite is also true.
The FBI did in eastern OR a few yars back.
The claimed assault with a deadly weapon as grounds for self defense.
EDIT – NM, he also reached for a weapon.
This was the takeover thin in Harney co. in early 2016.
Yeah, I remember that. When the FBI murdered (can’t think of any other word for it) that guy who “was reaching for a weapon” outside his vehicle? He was found with one, so maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t.
As Soren is attempting to show above, the survivors write the history and it’s definitely hard to believe even first hand accounts these days. Everyone seems to understand the power of narrative and is doing their utmost to make sure their narrative is the “correct” one.
You mean the guy who drove his vehicle 75 mph towards police officers and tried to kill them?
The guy who occupied and ransacked a Wildlife refuge for months and refused to surrender?
You defend some really odd people.
“patriots” like yourself?
I agree with you on this one. He did do those things. Did that make the agents that much paranoid/trigger happy? Probably. Did it make it okay him getting gunned down? Not by any standard discussed here on BP.
I’m not trying to defend him, it was horrible what they did to Malheur and ridiculous that the “occupation “ lasted as long as it did. Everyone seems to think their cause is righteous and not rebellion.
Ice threatened to shoot an ambulance driver if they moved forward just a couple weeks ago in Portland. Do you think they were bluffing? The only reason the driver didn’t get shot is because they didn’t try to proceed. And my comment wasn’t specific to Portland, police officers have shot many drivers for this very thing over the years and claimed they felt their lives were in danger when the car continued to move forward.
“And my comment wasn’t specific to Portland,”
Right?!? Cause the worst you can think of that’s happened in Portland is some punk kid yelling at an ambulance driver. And no I don’t think he would have actually shot the driver. The other examples people came up with were dated and outside Portland as well. If these ICE idiots were really supported by an out of control totalitarian regime they would be stacking bodies pretty tall by now. They are not though because they are not a fascist or totalitarian or whatever government. I know this and everyone wearing a silly costume acting the fool knows it as well because they feel safe to do so. If they were really battling nasty fascists for the soul of a nation they wouldn’t be able to be silly, it would be an actual desperate struggle. What’s going on with ICE is definitely worth protesting, but it’s not a battle against fascism. The protestors are having too much fun.
My dads high school friend didn’t think some punk kid would shoot him decades ago. He was in a wheelchair for the rest of his life.
Basic reasonable person rule:
If someone says they’ll shoot you, you believe them.
Have you not been paying attention? When fascists get punched in the face, they go whining to Fox News and fuel the fire for military boots on the ground. Pointing out the absurdity of their position (Portland is burned down, has no sewers [curiously specific] etc.) is the best way to fight them.
It’s only been 10 months and look how far we have slipped towards authoritarianism.
We can’t wait for the horrible stuff to happen because once it does it is already too late.
“The United States is “on a trajectory” toward authoritarian rule, according to a sobering new intelligence-style assessment by former US intelligence and national security officials”
Source
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/16/trump-authoritarianism-warning
“A survey of more than 500 political scientists finds that the vast majority think the United States is moving swiftly from liberal democracy toward some form of authoritarianism.”
Source
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5340753/trump-democracy-authoritarianism-competive-survey-political-scientist#:~:text=WASHINGTON%2520%E2%80%94%2520A%2520survey%2520of%2520more,that%2520figure%2520plummeted%2520to%252055.
Maybe, but also TODAY in LA:
““A vehicle is a deadly weapon,” Essayli said in the criminal complaint against Parias. “If it is used against federal agents, not only will you face years in federal prison, but you also face the possibility of deadly force being used against you.””
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-10-21/immigration-enforcement-hurt-operation-southla
She backed up and hit the person a second time, that’s unhinged. A person like this shouldn’t be allowed to drive.
I think what is unhinged is people putting on hi-vis vests and appointing themselves traffic cops.
Even if that’s true, it doesn’t justify her actions, or negate what Joel said about her not being allowed to drive.
It has an aspect of civil disobedience. I understand that does not clear it with everyone. I am very itchy about corking, have only done it a few times, if it was paid work I’d have to get at least $500/day and solid benefits to feel that way.
That looks like assault to me. I would press charges.
The driver seems to have lost her sh%t and it was not cool what she did. Glad the bike blocker gentleman was not hurt or injured. That being said my grandma always said “it takes two to tango”. Being an unofficial unauthorized self appointed traffic control person and blocking cars (driven by sometimes unhinged people) is not a smart move for one’s personal safety. I think the officer did the right thing in defusing the situation as he did.
I don’t see that the officer necessarily diffused anything.
And I don’t think “diffusing” was necessarily what he should have been doing anyway.
At least from what can be seen in the video, I don’t think the bike rider was getting ready to attack her back. By declining to cite the driver–and I also don’t see that the cop even tried to tell her she’d done anything wrong (!)–the cop may have avoided having her throw a tantrum, but that’s no reason for him to treat her so deferentially.
Well…she was driving a RAGE rover.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s noticed this is the second video/article in about a week where the cop “diffuses” the situation by declining to cite a driver who hit a bike rider.
At least in the previous one–the response caught on the body cam of the cop who responded to the bike rider’s 911 call–the cop at least told the driver they’d done something wrong. This time the driver was even more blatantly wrong, but the cop treated her like a hotel concierge helping a guest with directions.
I’m pretty sure diffusing situations and not holding anyone to standard (or the actual law) is exactly what Portland has and will continue to vote for. It totally sucks! Those officers are just following the street response protocols where visible law breaking and/or mental illness/intoxication is diffused and not arrested.
Only an eyewitness* would have this kind of dogmatic certainty. I’m assuming that you were not an eyewitness and are once again defending the in-defensible.
*making no claims about reliability
I read the article same as you did and made assumptions based on my knowledge and viewpoint. Are you saying every commenter here needs to be an eye witness to each and every event JM covers before they say anything?
That may or may not be true–I don’t know what their protocols are. If it is true, it looks like it needs revising–at least based on what’s visible in the video. Someone intentionally driving into somebody deserves a different response than someone being mentally ill (not a crime at all) or intoxicated but not endangering others, or any of a number of other situations where diffusion and nothing more might make sense.
JFC! it doesn’t matter why someone is in the road. Even if they are there illegally by some contortion of what people think the laws are, you can’t ram your car into them.
Can I just walk up to a jay walker and start punching them? Or maybe the next time I am driving, I can pick out someone who parked in a bike lane and smash into them when they get out of their car.
This cop is f*cking out of control. He should be fired. The Mayor’s office needs to address this.
That driver was not even in the driving lane! She was very clearly either all the way in the bike lane or at least half, and turning towards the bike guy, who was all the way in the bike lane.
This was a pretty clear cut assault, there is no excuse.
If not Comment of the Week, this is at least Observation of the Week. I didn’t see anyone else pointing this out, but it’s obvious once you did, and it seems incredibly relevant.
Am I the only one who wishes we had a bit more context for what happened? What led up to this incident? What was down the road, out-of-frame to the right? Why did the driver turn into the bike lane just before the video starts (not something most drivers do)? Was the driver pursuing the cyclist? Why didn’t the cyclist get out of the way (something I surely would have done if I thought my life were in danger)?
Did the cop see something we didn’t? Was this the end of a longer interaction? What else was going on? Was anyone else involved? Is there any explanation other than “cop sees assault with deadly weapon, let’s perp go without even asking questions”?
There’s more to the story than is shown here. Aren’t y’all curious about what it is?
In an ideal world BOTH the car driver and the cyclist should have been cited for their respective violations. However it’s Portland and we have decided few consequences are better.
Blocking cars in Portland using a bicycle, is clearly prohibited under Portland City Code § 16.70.320. This provision directly states that no person may leave a bicycle in a way that obstructs vehicle or pedestrian traffic on public ways like roads or sidewalks. Intentionally using a bicycle to block traffic, even temporarily, violates this rule regardless of the individual’s purpose or intent.
He didn’t LEAVE a bicycle anywhere. HE was standing while HOLDING an object. Sorry; doesn’t apply.
On top of that valid point, he was in the bike lane, and the adjacent vehicle lane was clear, so can’t really say he was blocking traffic anyway (at least for the actions shown in the video).
It’s clear the driver had just turned into the bike lane, possibly trying to evade the bicyclist. Without more context it’s hard to know if you have a valid point or not.
That’s very funny.
It looks like the cyclist wanted a confrontation.
I hope the cyclist gets their bike thoroughly checked over. I had a driver run into me in a similar manner years ago and the problems it created didn’t start cropping up for a few months.
Many years ago the New York Times ran an article with the provocative headline, “Is it okay to hit a cyclist with your car?”
We finally have the answer: Yes, it is – in Portland, at least.
Apparently PPB’s approach to descaling is to let drivers do whatever they want.
The second attempt to ram the guy standing in the street protecting the marchers was clear evidence of intentional violence.
The driver should have been dragged out of her car by the cops, pushed onto the ground, handcuffed and hauled away for processing. The car should have been impounded to be analyzed for evidence. Having that story on the “6 o’clock news” would cause drivers to take care even if charges against the driver were later dismissed.
Under PPB interpretation, drivers can do no wrong. Disgusting.
I think it’s worth noting that the PPB officer who responded very likely did not see the incident occur. His job as a Liaison officer is to keep the peace and there were 40,000 people on this march and a ton of other things going on. I think it’s reasonable that he walks up seeing two parties mad at each other and makes the judgment call that his top priority in that moment is to just make sure no one is hurt and that both parties can continue on with their day. Maybe the response would have been different if this was a normal situation removed from a massive protest march. I think sometimes in these situations we have unreasonable expectations of police officers and we fail to consider what it was like on the ground in that moment.
That’s a good point. On the other hand, now that there’s multiple videos’ of evidence, the rider should be following up and seeking justice!
Yes I would absolutely encourage the cyclist to seek justice – both with the cops and by a claim against the driver insurance.
yes, you may have been punched. but why were you standing in the path of the fist? that is also bad. my job here is done – PPB
Lots of points made on both sides about this driver’s behavior. On the “against” side:
On the “for side”:
It’d be helpful for a lot of the commenters here to familiarize themselves with Oregon’s fairly liberal interpretation of self defense statute and case law. If someone without any official capacity, other than a high viz vest, blocks traffic and provokes an interaction with a driver followed by others surrounding the vehicle preventing/complicating retreat, they are setting up textbook self-defense cases over and over.
I’d be happy to have one of the legal sponsors here suggest otherwise.
Honest question: if someone tries to run you down with a car, does that also set up a self-defense case?
It depends on who is seen as the first aggressor. If it was found that the driver could have driven away easily (they did, obviously) they’d be the one that shot first. My guess is that it’d be dismissed without prejudice.
All else aside, the idea that castle doctrine should ever apply to someone inside a car is the kind of joke my maoist friend that spells america with 3 K’s would make.
In this case “provok(ing) an interaction” amounts to simply not moving aside to let a driver proceed down the block into a throng of protestors. But it wasn’t just an interaction that took place in the video, right? It was an assault. At the time she made the decision to step on the gas and drive her car into a human being, she was not surrounded, nor was she being physically threatened in any way. She was inconvenienced and it made her angry, so she reacted with physical violence. It’s incredibly disturbing that so many people are doing backbends to try to justify this behavior.
We don’t know this or many of the other things you’ve surmised. We need more context for what happened. The video certainly makes it look like the driver tried to go around the cyclist, and that the cyclist moved into their path, but for all we know, the driver could have been chasing the cyclist or trying to commit murder as other posters have theorized.
Note that I am not justifying anything, just stating that we’re all filling in details from our own imaginations, and we don’t really know what happened outside the frame of the rather short video.
“The video certainly makes it look like the driver tried to go around the cyclist, and that the cyclist moved into their path”
That’s sort of the point of corking, isn’t it? He’s trying to keep drivers from proceeding when it’s not safe to do so. But in this case the driver decided to ram the guy with the bike and, at best, scare him into moving aside. That pressing of the gas pedal and lurching forward is not theoretical or the product of anyone’s imagination.
Provocation shouldn’t be the point of corking. If moving into the way was primarily what the cyclist was doing, then that was definitely “provoking an interaction” not just merely “not standing aside.” De-escalation and communication skills are critical for this role.
Did the cyclist explain why it would have been futile to continue on down the road? (“You can’t get through, the road’s blocked off ahead for the march, you’re much better off turning here and going around. If you go down that way you’re going to be stuck for an hour.”) Why wouldn’t the driver listen to reason? (she seemed receptive when the cop explained the situation and helped get her turned around).
The other car in the video appears to proceed just fine, so I’m really not sure what’s going on. We need more context!
I definitely didn’t say provocation was the point of corking, that’s your take. I said the intent was to keep drivers from proceeding when it’s not safe to do so, which to me seems pretty sensible.
I’m mystified by the contortions you’re doing to see both sides without addressing the part where, whatever the context, a person drove a car into – or I suppose technically at – another human being. I’m not claiming to know what the guy with the bike said or did leading up to where the video starts, but I’m not sure it matters as much as you seem to think it does. What exactly would justify the violent and dangerous action the driver chose? Surely it ought to take more than rudeness or inconvenience to “provoke” a violent physical assault, right?
Like if someone flips me off and then I threaten them with a gun, that’s not a proportionate response. If someone steps on my foot at the bus stop, I can’t just pull out a hammer and take a swing at them. But if I did that, and someone caught it on video, would you be saying we need more context?
Did the victim say excuse me? Which bus were they catching? Who was waiting longer?
I’m not going through any contortions, I’m saying I want to have more context to understand what happened.
In this age of short-form video, hot takes, and post-Twitter social media, understanding context and looking at things from different sides in order to understand the whole story seems like an important — and rapidly disappearing — skill.
That’s a good attitude to have as a general rule. More context can provide a better and more nuanced understanding of a situation. I just feel there’s a middle ground between jumping to conclusions and abstaining entirely from judgement unless/until all possible context is gathered.
In this case, there are plenty of details that aren’t available to us as observers, but based on what is plainly observable in the video I believe it’s pretty clear that the driver’s behavior was violent and dangerous. The fact that no serious injury occurred comes down to some luck and the reaction time of the other party involved. I don’t feel I need more context to say so.
Why do I have to make a judgement at all, especially of a short video taken out of context? Who does it help?
You don’t have to. Nobody’s trying to force you to vote on anything.
Who does it help to downplay dangerous behavior?
Ok, it sounded as if you thought that abstaining from judgement was an extreme reaction; it’s possible I misinterpreted the bit I quoted above.
I haven’t downplayed anything, unless you mean I haven’t made any judgement at all (which you say I don’t have to). I’m open to a range of possibilities, including, as I said several times, that the driver was trying to murder the the cyclist (as others have asserted), or the possibility that the cyclist was deliberately trying to draw the driver into a confrontation.
How is that downplaying the situation? The cyclist should definitely press charges (or sue) if they feel it is warranted.
I’m a day late, and this is a little off topic, but I wanted to mention two things I noticed as a march participant, during and after:
It was difficult to hear the speakers unless you were close to the stage. Perhaps loudspeakers could be positioned at key points next time. That would really help, especially when instructions are being given (like at 1 p.m.). The crowd I was in was confused about when and where to leave to join the street parade route.
Also, just for fun and a social media moment, I think the inflatables should’ve been given their own lane 🙂
I walked around downtown yesterday and noticed the central city was the cleanest I’ve seen it in a long time. I don’t know if that was the result of a cleanup for the march, but it was delightful to see. I also saw lots of tourists and about half a dozen DHS officers stationed around the Pioneer Courthouse (perhaps protecting the courthouse from the tourists), and watched the repaving crews on SW 4th.
That courthouse houses the local court rooms and chambers of some judges on the 9th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals. Not the ones who ruled on Judge Immergut’s temporary restraining order, I believe they are in San Francisco.
Agreed – speakers facing behind the stage would also have been very helpful. Having said that, I assume the whole day was put together on a shoestring budget and they knocked it out of the park
This is a second time in as man weeks I’ve read a story where the PPB refused to enforce the law and let off a driver who clearly assaulting someone with a vehicle. This time is even more clear cut than the first in fact.
Elected leaders should look into this. What’s PPB doing? What exactly even qualify as an assault with a vehicle these days?
When you literally have people running directly into cyclists, on camera, and PPB just shrugs — the police clearly are unable or unwilling to do the job of protecting and serving the public.
The liason officers do have a different role than the police officers who might respond to a collision unrelated to a demonstration. Those responders could reasonably be expected to enforce traffic law after they assure that people are safe.
I’ve seen PPB liason officers actually defuse a much more volatile situation with a vehicle in a large crowd of people. No one was hurt or pepper sprayed, and everyone got on with their day. Things weren’t looking too good before the White Shirts stepped up. It seemed like a good use of resources.
Late to the party, but I just wanted to point out that the “victim didn’t want to press charges” line is and always has been bullshit. The state prosecutes a criminal, not the victim. The offense is against the state. Regardless of whether the victim thinks something does or does not need to happen, the state has a responsibility to maintain public safety and order, and part of that is prosecuting people who violate criminal statutes.
Chalk another one up for PPB doing their best not to do their job.