Yesterday, on a cold and rainy Sunday morning, elected officials, advocates and survivors of fatal and serious injury traffic crashes gathered at Luuwit View Park in East Portland. They came together for the annual World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims, a global event that holds space for people who’ve made the ultimate sacrifice in the war against traffic violence.
The event was organized by Families for Safe Streets Portland, the local chapter of a national organization that raises awareness and pushes for policies that make roads safer. FSS Portland is an all-volunteer group on rise thanks to dedicated leaders like Sarah Risser (whose work on memorial signs I recently profiled) and Michelle DuBarry. Both of these women share an unwanted bond: they lost their sons to traffic violence.
I wasn’t at Sunday’s event, but I spoke with DuBarry this morning. I wanted to hear how it went and learn more about an exciting development in her work: FSS Portland and their coalition of partners plan to lobby the Oregon Legislature for a bill that would install speed-limiter technology inside the car of drivers who repeatedly speed. Dubbed “Stop Super Speeders,” the campaign has already led to new laws in Virginia and Washington and is proposed in nearly a dozen other states.
Below is the text of my conversation with DuBarry. You can also watch the interview in the player above or on YouTube.
Jonathan Maus: What was your role in the World Day of Remembrance on Sunday and what is the point of the event?
Michelle DuBarry: I am the board chair for the Portland chapter of Families for Safe Streets. We partnered with, Portland Bureau of Transportation, The Street Trust, Bike Loud, Portland Parks and Recreation, 1000 Friends of Oregon and Oregon Walks. Our event is intended to honor everyone who has been injured in a traffic crash and to support survivors and grieving families. It’s a memorial event, but there’s an advocacy component.
Jonathan: Take me to the event. What happened there and how could attendees participate?
Michelle: Everyone who is there as a member of Families for Safe Streets had a sign with a photo of their loved one and their age. Those signs were set around the little pavilion. Some of the family members held the signs and there were flowers. There was a small altar where anyone could light a candle to honor somebody who’s been impacted by traffic violence. It was very cold and and it was raining, but I think that makes it even more meaningful to those of us who have lost family members… Just knowing that people brave the weather on a Sunday morning to spend time with us and support is really, really meaningful to us.
Jonathan: It’s somber and said, but you mentioned that it’s also hopeful. Why would this actually be a hopeful event in some ways?
Michelle: I think that all of us who do this work are really motivated by not wanting other people to experience what we’ve experienced, and the knowledge that there is or there are solutions that just aren’t being used because of lack of political will and lack of money — it’s frustrating.
So raising awareness and letting people know that there is a path forward to prevent traffic violence, engaging our political leaders, building support on the ground so that we can actually create momentum for potential solutions, is really exciting.
The other thing I should mention about the event is… We try to center our own members, so a lot of our will share their stories. It’s incredibly powerful. It’s really sad. This year we had a couple of folks who are new to families for Safe Streets and so having them there was very powerful. There was one woman who had just lost her fiancé nine days ago and managed to show up for the event and is looking to get involved with our group.
The idea that somebody can show up for an event like that after going through something so tragic, I think it’s sad, but it also demonstrates incredible hope.
Jonathan: It demonstrates a lot too to the elected officials that show up and I saw there were several at this event. I think more, more so than usual. Is there anything about what an elected official said that stood out to you?
Michelle: I was really moved by Dacia Grayber, a state representative. She’s a paramedic for her day job and so I think that she understands on a very deep level what the impact of traffic violence is for victims and families. I felt like she gave a really powerful speech from her heart.
City Councilor Jamie Dunphy was there too, and he’s been pretty vocal in recent weeks talking about traffic violence because he’s had three constituents who were killed in crashes in a matter of a few days [actually one day]. And the event was held in his district in East Portland where we know that traffic violence is a more serious problem. So it was really meaningful to have him there both as a resident and as a city councilor.
We heard from State Representative Mark Gamba. We heard from Thuy Tran, who’s also a state representative. Both of them spoke really movingly in support of what we’re doing. And obviously Tiffany Koyama Lane city councilor from District 3, who’s been a big champion of Vision Zero on the council, gave a really wonderful speech.
Jonathan: Remembering people that have been killed in traffic and holding space and bringing these people together is really important; but you also want to actually do something about it. What is this I hear about new legislation regarding speeding that you’re working on?
Michelle: The legislation is called Stop Super Speeders and it is a bill that would require repeat offenders or people who have very serious reckless driving or speeding convictions to install technology in their vehicle known as intelligent speed assist (ISA). It uses GPS, digital maps and road sign recognition cameras to prevent a vehicle from going over the posted speed limit. It’s kind of similar to the technology that prevents impaired drivers from driving.
Jonathan: Is it modeled after the effort in New York? Isn’t there a New York State Assembly person working on this?
Michelle: They haven’t passed a bill in New York yet. But there’s a lot of momentum there. The states that have passed laws are Virginia and Washington and Washington DC has also passed a law and they’re broadly similar. I think there are some details that are different that will need to be worked out in Oregon, such as; what’s the threshold for mandating someone install ISA?
But the great thing about this legislation and why I think it will earn support from a broad spectrum of leaders is it replaces the need to suspend driver’s licenses — which is not a effective strategy for reducing crashes. We know that people who are convicted of these offenses, who have their driver’s licenses suspended, usually keep driving. And so this technology allows people to continue to drive so they can go to work so they can keep participating in society. They just can’t speed.
Jonathan: Wow. Okay. I didn’t realize it was actually in place in some states already. Interesting to know you’re working on that. What’s the timeline or the next steps on the super speeder legislation?
Michelle: Right now we’re planning for the 2027 session. So we’ll spend the next year or so gathering sponsors and hammering out the details of the legislation.
Jonathan: Your group’s been like busy in other ways too. Tell folks about the new website.
Michelle: Our new website is pdxfamiliesforsafestreets.org. My colleague and my friend Sarah Risser, has really led the charge on getting this website set up and she found a nonprofit who was willing to donate their time and we just launched it. It’s a really beautiful website. It has a section, with memorials for victims, so anyone who’s lost a family member or a loved one — or who has been injured in a crash — is welcome to send us a photo and share a little bit about what happened to them. And we have this online memorial space, which is really nice. There’s also information about our advocacy both at the state and the city level. We’re hoping the website can be a place where people can go for information on the legislation that we’re hoping to pass. You can sign up for our emails, you can donate. It’s just in the last month that we’ve had that kind of capability, so it’s really exciting!
But we are a fully volunteer organization. We don’t have any staff. We don’t have a budget. And so we’re, we’re hoping to get, you know, a small trickle of donations coming in just so that we can pay for things like storage and Zoom membership and our email listserv, things like that.
Jonathan: Is there anything else you want to add about the work you’re doing or anything we haven’t talked about yet?
Michelle DuBarry: The only thing I would say is that World Day Remembrance is a really hard event. As someone who’s lost a son in traffic violence, it’s a difficult event. But the connection to the community is really healing in a lot of ways. Feeling connected to people not only in Portland, but across the country and across the world is really powerful and I think it really does drive increased awareness — and hopefully, political change.
Jonathan: Thanks so much for sharing it with us, Michelle. And thanks for all the work you’re doing.
Michelle: Thank you.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
I’m completely on board with the goal of safer streets. What I struggle with is the contradiction. Some of the loudest traffic safety advocates are also firmly against police enforcement of traffic laws in any meaningful way. It is hard to improve safety when the people responsible for enforcing the rules are treated as if they should not actually enforce them.
It gets even more confusing when the same groups oppose enforcing no-camping laws, which leaves people living in tents just a few feet from fast-moving traffic. That is not compassion. It is putting vulnerable people in truly dangerous conditions and hoping no one notices how risky it is.
If we want safer streets, we have to be honest that enforcement plays a role. You cannot demand safety while blocking the people and tools that keep streets safe. At a certain point the logic starts to wobble like a scooter abandoned in the middle of the sidewalk.
Thank you for this comment Angus Peters. I am speaking for myself and not on behalf of any other group. I don’t think road safety advocates are against police enforcement so much as they – I – believe that of all the possible ways to confront road traffic violence, enforcement (along with educational campaigns) is significantly less effective. There are many reasons why police enforcement isn’t super effective. First, we don’t now nor will we ever have enough troopers/police on the road to catch all offenders. It’s ultimately haphazard with lots of misses. And people know this. Automated enforcement is a step in the right direction! But even that is unlikely to ever be widespread enough to solve the problem. Second, police enforcement it is reactive instead of proactive. Police get involved after the harm or digression has already taken place. I thought about this a lot when preparing to talk about Intelligent Speed Assist Technology at World Day of Remembrance. In my case – at the risk of oversharing – I might have felt better if the at-fault driver who killed my son was held accountable by the police or justice system. But it wouldn’t have brought him back. These things could not have saved him because they only kick in after someone has been hit or killed. If the (fill in the expletive) man who killed Henry was driving a vehicle that was unable to exceed posted limits I might not be typing this now. So yes! Enforcement plays a role. But not a very big one in the grand scheme of effectively addressing our road fatality and serious injury crisis.
Sarah, thank you for sharing your perspective, and I’m truly sorry for the loss of your son. Your advocacy and the way you channel that pain into trying to make the roads safer is something I deeply respect.
I do think there’s one point worth clarifying, though. While enforcement can be reactive — responding after a crash or violation — it’s not accurate to say it’s inherently or primarily reactive. A lot of police enforcement is actually preventative: visible patrols, targeted stops in high-risk areas, DUI saturation efforts, and routine traffic enforcement that reminds drivers that consequences are real. Those proactive efforts don’t get as much attention, but they change behavior long before a tragedy happens.
No single measure is sufficient on its own — not police enforcement, not automated enforcement, not road design, not technology. But enforcement is one of the few tools that directly influences driver behavior before harm occurs. That’s why places with consistent, proactive enforcement tend to see fewer extreme-speed crashes, fewer DUIs, and fewer repeat offenders.
So I agree with you that technology like ISA and better road design are powerful and necessary. But I think it undersells the full picture to frame enforcement as mostly something that “kicks in after the harm.” At its best, enforcement is one of the mechanisms that keeps the harm from happening at all.
Good points. The best intelligent speed assist system is the one right between all of our ears.
Not the best because it malfunctions so often that it’s unreliable.
But I only believe in 20% of the solution.
Earwax, you might want to give both ears a rinse because you seem to have missed the point entirely.
I do believe in the full spectrum of traffic-safety solutions. Engineering, design, infrastructure improvements, automated enforcement, vehicle tech, all of it. But pretending enforcement is only “20%” of the picture is like saying brakes are only “20%” of what makes a car safe. You still need them, and ignoring them because they’re not perfect is how we end up with chaos on the streets.
You can’t build a safer system while insisting the rules shouldn’t actually be enforced. That’s not visionary. That’s magical thinking
I’m not sure what you think the other 80% is, but here are some quotes from an article in today’s NYT:
In other words, there may be solutions to road safety that let us get out of Flatland.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/18/technology/personaltech/zoox-driverless-taxis-san-francisco.html
This is one of the reasons that people have advocated for speed control on city vehicles. If a whole fleet of vehicles are traveling at the speed limit that is effective traffic calming everywhere they go. It is also a good example for other fleet operators and provides a natural experiment demonstrating the benefits of the policy.
There are lots of good reasons for fleet owners to better manage the driving of their employees.
Unfortunately Samsara (one of the premier products for fleet management) is *really* expensive. Verizon’s offering is a lot less full featured, but affordable to a small business like ours.
Samsara’s benefits to the fleet operator are tremendous, when I worked for a company that used it we had 10 people at our location using company vehicles who we coached into much better drivers with the tools it provided.
I live in a city that deliberately uses its municipal bus service and painted bike lanes to control the speed of car traffic on certain arterial and collector streets – it’s quite an effective traffic-calming tool.
You’ve got it wrong here, eauwrist. Angus is saying that Portlanders want safe streets but no active law enforcement, which is impossible. We need active, daily, constant enforcement of speed and safety regulations by sworn officers. It works everywhere else and will work in Portland also, if we let it.
Hey Fred. There is little long-term relationship specifically between manned enforcement and reduced MV fatalities. Manned enforcement targets specific drivers and locations, but has very little lasting effect on the broad spectrum of behavior of drivers.
Angus is partially correct that it is a necessary tool for specific purposes (e.g., for DUI stops), but the story he tells himself is based on passionately held beliefs, and a story: We can eradicate and punish the scofflaws with massed manned enforcement, if only Portlanders would let us! It’s a fantasy that ignores the actual problem, and benefits the comfortable status quo.
Personally, I support police doing things that are effective (e.g., crash investigations, DUI stops). We can send dozens of officers out to wait all day at high crash intersections for people to invariably run a light or speed (resulting in a short term effect), or we can install traffic cameras to do the same at a fraction of the cost, and resulting in a persistent reduction in those behaviors over time.
Ignoring all the distracting politics, and try to look at it from a practical, data approach, manned enforcement is ultimately a partial, stop-gap, faith-based measure that has no lasting effect. Police officers should not be used as political pawns to do ineffective work because we have strong feelings. Stopping one speeder and punishing them might feel and look good, but that’s it: it does not scale, and therefore does not affect aggregate behavior.
People desperately want to believe manned enforcement works because it’s the solution that we’ve poured our money into, and makes the most common sense to people in the US who cannot imagine changing other things (e.g., limiting urban speeds via speed cameras and/or governors to 20mph).
People who are understandably angry about the entitlement of drivers, and especially people who have been hurt or know someone who has been hurt by them, want a lasting solution. In the US, the solution has always been: How much manned enforcement? The problem is: it’s not based on any evidence. And that fixation on manned enforcement while ignoring everything else is one of the biggest reasons we as a country are an outlier in traffic deaths comparable to Syria. If we want to have a significant lasting effect on crashes, manned enforcement as a sledgehammer approach to all traffic violations isn’t the answer.
COTWs and Ws and Ws
The benefit of enforcement is not stopping all the speeders, it is making people think that if they speed there is a reasonable possibility they’ll get stopped, so they behave more cautiously. Speed cameras are great, but they only work in the specific, well known locations where they are installed, and only check for one thing — speed (or red light running for red light cameras). Human enforcement, on the other hand, can happen anywhere, covers a range of infractions, and is unannounced.
Human and automated enforcement are different things, work in different ways, and have different impacts. One is not a substitute for the other. They are complimentary.
Sorry to burst this never-ending comment bubble, but the reason that police enforcement is not solving the problem or that homeless people aren’t constantly being swept away from ubiquitous car infrastructure is not because of “opposing groups.” It is because these solutions are not practical to implement at scale that would be effective.
Right SD. Unfortunately, this idea is always simplified to enforcement vs no enforcement. That’s a false dichotomy.
Manned enforcement is effective at its location for a temporary period. We should be clear that specific places might have a need for this. But this needs to be with the understanding that its an ephemeral measure, targeted at a specific population or context.
A lot of people think visible police means deterrent. It does, for that specific place and time. Some people think having a cop show up at a random corner has an effect as a deterrent. That would be true if that happened on an unpredictable, but frequent schedule (variable ratio as used in gambling). But that would require thousands more police officers just in one neighborhood and, as you said, it does not scale.
We need manned enforcement and we should use that effectively. But there is no evidence that HVE has any lasting effect on behavior as it is currently used. It’s not because police are lazy or aren’t trying (they mostly are). It’s not because of a conspiracy that we just don’t fund or appreciate police enough. It’s because our ideologies prevent us to understand basic behaviorism and how to use police effectively.
So these 2 mothers who lost children are advocating for what they think they can do best. I do not see a no enforcement message in what they are advocating. They seem like selfless volunteers to me.
You or others can begin your own organization to advocate for enforcement.
I would support both groups.
I see no reason to criticize what they are doing at all.
Conversation is not criticizing. Something lost on a lot of people here.
Isn’t it? Angus starts off the conversation by claiming there is a contradiction in the work of the advocates for safe streets. That is criticism. Angus also mocks a user by mangling the username. That is not only critical, it smacks of bullying.
Right?!? The comments I agree with are always written by good people while the comments I disagree with are somehow always written by bullying a**holes. It’s crazy how it’s always like that!
Seriously though, I’m old and I remember when people could debate ideas politely (as angus did in responding to Sarah) without the British thought police here jumping in claiming bullying. Sure, misspelling the poster’s name wasn’t cool, but do you really think it was bullying? Knowing how eawriste responds to people and the way those two bicker it seemed more like irritation to me which is admittedly splitting hairs on poor online manners.
I know there are a lot of people out there who wants other peoples ideas censored so I am glad we have the 1st amendment (and Jonathan’s normally good sense of when things have gotten to far).
None of these points I hope detract from the amazing work Sarah and her group is doing!
I think opinions on the level of etiquette and politeness of Angus’s posts differ.
I agree, as I mention in my post. Thanks.
In your post (as I quoted), you hold (exclusively) Angus up as an example of polite debate, so it’s not clear to me that you do agree. I find posts by Angus to be repetitive and confined to a few exhausted right wing hobbyhorses (more cops, less taxes). No matter what is being discussed, Angus will post a comment arguing some combination of these two themes, which has a cumulative effect (in my observation) of disrupting, not furthering, substantive, useful debate.
I value the BP comments for the lively and interesting discussion, including your posts (and those of Angus!). I find the right wing snipers pull the level of discourse down. You probably have a different perspective.
Hmmm, perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I thought I was. I was very particular (I thought I was anyway) about which Angus post (his first one) I felt was polite in his interaction with Sarah. After that it was different with the mis spelling of eawriste’s name. I appreciate that Angus had limited himself to repetitive one liners until chastised enough to open up to fuller expressions and this is what we have now.
I don’t know if you’re familiar with the concept of the “10th man (or woman)rule” made famous by the Brad Pitt zombie movie? Taken from an actual small, elite real life group it was to take a contrary position from the rest to force the larger group to consider unlikely or unpopular positions.
Whether Angus is a deliberate contrarian, a troll, really believes in what he is saying or a combination I am not bothered by his views. They are not as right wing as a lot of stuff I’m unfortunately exposed to so that might be it as well.
As an aside I enjoy your measured takes, outlooks on events and life and the way you arrange your verbiage.
Gotcha. I had not heard of the 10th man. (I’m familiar with the 12th man from the Seattle [American] football hooligans.) I would offer that I don’t think any active internet commenter is unaware of the Nextdoor-style ‘moderate’ right viewpoint talking points (pro-business, anti-tax, broken window policing, etc.). So, yes, I absolutely agree that it’s worthwhile to consider dissenting (i.e. conservative) viewpoints and to acknowledge that many people who hold those kind of views do so sincerely. But I think everybody has heard the standard republican critiques enough to establish familiarity. That I disagree does not imply that I don’t understand the argument.
Thanks for your good faith engagement! I think dialogue is very important in time like these.
It’s been a pleasure and an enjoyable period of civility. Thank you as well!
Micah, your approach exemplifies gatekeeping discourse and poisoning the well: by labeling recurring or challenging perspectives as inherently disruptive, you avoid engaging with their substance while presenting yourself as a defender of “polite debate.” This is a form of rhetorical control that curates which ideas are acceptable rather than fostering genuine exchange. True dialogue requires welcoming perspectives that unsettle our assumptions; disagreement is not disruption, it is the engine of learning. Defining good debate solely by what aligns with your preferences risks turning discussion into ideological comfort rather than inquiry.
Thanks for the critique of my style; I’ll take your comments under consideration. And I’ll reiterate my statement that I think the debaters here are well aware of pro-cop arguments. Some of these arguments have been proffered in this thread by Angus, Fred, and TwoWheels, as they frequently do on other threads with what I consider various degrees of good will that, as you say, fosters “genuine” exchange. If you want to address why you think I am missing the point, please feel free to make a reasoned substantive post that goes beyond tone policing. I will be happy to engage.
Funny, I find their posts just fine.
Sarah Risser seems like a person with her heart in the right place but now it appears she is raising money to knowingly violate city code by placing well meaning but illegal signs on utility poles. We have codes such as this for safety reasons, she should follow them.
https://www.portland.gov/code/17/64
https://pdxfamiliesforsafestreets.org/
17.64.040 Use of City Poles or Posts.
Oh boy. No, we are not raising money specifically for signs at this time. My original 2024 sign project was entirely funded by national Families for Safe Streets (you may want to take this up with them). They fully endorsed and were excited about it. They hope other chapters will do something similar. The latest 82nd Avenue Project was funded by other contributions separate from those raised via our new website, for anyone who might be concerned. Many FSS chapters place signs. Your post hardly warrants a response but on the small chance you have caused concern in the community I would like to clarify that any donations given through our website will be used for the most basic things first – things all non-profits need and that have, to date, been funded out of our own pockets. These upfront and basic costs include web hosting, email service, support for members, personal memorial signs, shirts, informational flyers. Ideally we’d like to shore up our presence in the community with a table and tent and banners. Beyond that, we’d like to advocate more effectively for Stop Super Speeders Legislation and other sound safe-streets policies at the state and local level. We are an all volunteer organization. Every member has been impacted by road traffic violence. We have paid for all of our expenses – not including the signs which were paid for with private directed funding – out of our own pockets. I sure hope anyone reading this will continue to support families for safe streets and make a small donation via our website. I would like to hear from others who are concerned about our sign project.
Clarification. Families for Safe Streets national paid for all of the signs for the 2024 memorial sign project. BikeLoud also provided financial support – mostly for zip ties.
Yeah, it’s also illegal to kill someone with your car. Which causes more social harm, some illegal signs zip tied to poles or reckless drivers killing and maiming your neighbors?
You people are such dweebs about this.
Can you show me the law that you are thinking of?
It’s clearly illegal to kill someone intentionally (with exceptions), and it’s illegal to drive in ways that are considered reckless or highly dangerous that might make a fatality more likely, but I know of no law that establishes criminal sanctions for simple involvement in a crash where someone dies.
I guess we don’t have that law, it doesn’t square with any principle of common law that I’m aware of. Instead of that we pretty much put the burden of proof on the victim. Some run cameras.
I would support a law that requires law enforcement to impound vehicles and subpoena all data that can be obtained after a fatal crash.
In our system, the burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) is always (or close to it) on the accuser for a criminal accusation. This is as it should be.
For a civil accusation, the burden of proof is much lower (more likely than not). Traditionally, claims for unintentional injury or property damage, which is what most car crashes entail, are handled through the civil courts.
Note that the penalty for passing a cyclist too close is a $265 fine.
This is what I meant; sorry my language was not precise.
Hmm…any evidence these signs reduce traffic violence?
Angus, 20 is plenty. If you need a reminder you can look at the sign.
The “our neighbor was killed here” signs certainly elevate awareness of traffic violence among several of my neighbors who have commented on the signs in our neighborhood. Awareness is often the first step toward a solution.
I’m glad you don’t work in law enforcement, where officers apply the law even-handedly.
I need to renew my passport, maybe then I can get a ticket for that place you’re thinking of.
I spit out my beer when I read this. I can’t even imagine such a world.
Jose, thank goodness you’ve gleaned the true message of this story and topic — the epidemic of conscientious advocacy on our city’s utility poles.
I mean, look at your photo, I think I can just about make out a large red Stop Sign above that noticeably smaller black and yellow leaflet that is not impeding the sightline to the stop sign. But just.
Amphibious rodent in the city, dude.
You sink we are kidding or taking with the funny stuff? Ve believe in nusing Lebowski!
Thanks for all you’re doing Michelle and Sara!
And good luck on the Super Speeder Bill. Your effort is appreciated!
Here’s an article from my hometown paper that ran yesterday. It offers a look at another city’s pedestrian deaths. I haven’t checked, but I’m sure other cities reported similar tragedies yesterday.
Anchorage Daily News
November 18, 2025
‘He was not invisible’: A brother remembered as Anchorage’s pedestrian death toll rises to 15
https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/anchorage/2025/11/18/he-was-not-invisible-a-brother-remembered-as-anchorages-pedestrian-death-toll-rises-to-15/
Coincidentally, on a long loop walk to downtown Portland yesterday, I encountered several motorists who couldn’t wait for me to safely cross. One almost right-hooked me.