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!
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.
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.
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
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
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).
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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”: