Citizen's Arrest
Bicyclists Take Dangerous Drivers to Court
BY AMY JENNIGES
On a warm Thursday evening last fall, Mike Rueter hopped on his bike downtown after work, and headed toward the Hawthorne Bridge, which he crosses on the way to his Northeast Portland home.
That night, however, Rueter took a detour to the ICU at Legacy Emanuel Hospital. He doesn't remember what happened—"That whole day is sort of a wash for me," says Rueter, who moved to Portland from Minnesota last May—but a cyclist riding behind him saw a Dodge minivan slam into Rueter as he crossed SE Grand.
“The light turned green and Mike crossed the intersection," says Jim Fox, who's been commuting by bike for a few years. A minivan, however, ran a red light and hit Rueter. "He went flying and landed in the middle of the intersection. It was an amazingly violent sight."
Emergency personnel responded; an ambulance whisked Rueter to the hospital, and a Portland police officer talked to the van's driver. Fox and a few other witnesses hung around, waiting to give their info to the cop.
The next day, Rueter's girlfriend called Fox, asking for his help. "She told me she was collecting information because the police officer who was there didn't cite the driver for running a red light, even though the witnesses all said the same thing," Fox says, incredulous.
The police, Rueter later found out, don't always investigate collisions unless there are extenuating circumstances, like traumatic injuries (Rueter was mis-classified as non-trauma at the scene, he says), or an intoxicated driver. Instead, to save resources, the cops facilitate the exchange of info, and leave the investigation to the insurance companies.
Rueter understands the cops' policy: "It definitely is a manpower issue. They can't respond to everything," he says. But he still wanted resolution after his ordeal—the accident left him with a separated shoulder, a cracked tailbone, and numerous lacerations, and he spent the night at the hospital.
So he wrote a letter to the mayor, and even scored a meeting with the cops' traffic division.
Then, Rueter talked to Ray Thomas, a Portland bike lawyer, and got surprising advice: "I can go after this guy myself," Rueter found out. Thomas had just finished writing a how-to manual for bikers, explaining a little-known law that allows citizens to enforce traffic laws.
If they can identify the driver, a citizen can ask the police to initiate a citation, Thomas explains, "and the cops have to do it," he says. "The law is very clear here. You cobble this thing together, and it's served by a uniformed officer. If the person is convicted, it's the same as if the citation was issued by a police officer." (Portland's cyclists used the citizen-initiated law in the '80s to go after drivers who threw litter at them, or tried to run them off the road, Thomas explains.)
"We've been working with the Portland Police Bureau, and they've heard our concerns and are working to devote more resources to crashes and take them more seriously," says Jessica Roberts, metro-area advocate for the Bicycle Transportation Alliance. "In the meantime, though, citizen enforcement is the only avenue open to many people who have been abandoned by the legal system."
Rueter went for it. He called the officer who responded to the accident. "I said I wanted to use the citizen-initiation law," Rueter says. "He had never heard of it, and I don't think his supervisor had heard of it. I kind of got a lot of blank looks the whole way through."
But the officer consulted with the police traffic division, and filled out a citation form. Then Rueter gave a sworn statement, "saying all the information I had was correct," and the police delivered the citation to the driver, summoning him to court on April 5.
At the courthouse that day, Rueter—armed with written statements from some witnesses, and Jim Fox there to testify in person—was ready to present his case against the driver who'd hit him.
He didn't get the opportunity: The driver ended up pleading guilty at the traffic court counter, and paying a fine. "It was nice to hear that he pled guilty," Rueter says.
This Thursday, April 13, a second biker is taking a driver to court, on an "improperly executed right turn" citation. Bicyclist Sean Barrett slammed into a car last November, in a bike lane near the Rose Quarter. The driver had cut off another car, and veered into Barrett's path, causing him to crash. "I was pretty battered up," he says. "I had bruises everywhere, a sprained wrist, an abrasion on my check and neck, and a bruised heel on my right foot."
Thomas hopes more bikers follow their lead. "The idea is to save it for a situation where the driver is really being dangerous or where you got hurt and the driver committed a violation."
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
is this just a portland thing or is this applicable nationwide(states)?
Blue Order
is this just a portland thing or is this applicable nationwide(states)?I believe it's actually statewide in Oregon (because it's a state statute, as far as I know). You'd have to have a similar statute in other states to be able to do that outside of Oregon.
Daily Commute
I bash Portland a lot, but the city deserves credit for this one. It sounds like the city has a law worth copying.
randya
Another success story under this law just this morning:
I believe it's actually statewide in Oregon (because it's a state statute, as far as I know). You'd have to have a similar statute in other states to be able to do that outside of Oregon.
thanks - and I agree with Daily Commute - the law worth copying bit
Helmet Head
This Thursday, April 13, a second biker is taking a driver to court, on an "improperly executed right turn" citation. Bicyclist Sean Barrett slammed into a car last November, in a bike lane near the Rose Quarter. The driver had cut off another car, and veered into Barrett's path, causing him to crash. "I was pretty battered up," he says. "I had bruises everywhere, a sprained wrist, an abrasion on my check and neck, and a bruised heel on my right foot."
In a bike lane (i.e., too far to the right) going straight across an intersection...
But I guess a bike lane and the legal right of way makes it worth all those "bruises everywhere, a sprained wrist, an abrasion on my check and neck, and a bruised heel on my right foot." :rolleyes:
randya
In a bike lane (i.e., too far to the right) going straight across an intersection...
But I guess a bike lane and the legal right of way makes it worth all those "bruises everywhere, a sprained wrist, an abrasion on my check and neck, and a bruised heel on my right foot." :rolleyes:
Give it up already, Serge. :rolleyes:
Blue Order
In a bike lane (i.e., too far to the right) going straight across an intersection...
But I guess a bike lane and the legal right of way makes it worth all those "bruises everywhere, a sprained wrist, an abrasion on my check and neck, and a bruised heel on my right foot." :rolleyes:Too bad you didn't read beyond "in a bike lane." You might have gotten to that really interesting part about the car that hit him cutting off another car and veering into the bicycle lane. In other words, the kind of out-of-control, flagrantly-violating-the-law driver who would've hit the cyclist no matter where he was riding.
Helmet Head
Too bad you didn't read beyond "in a bike lane." You might have gotten to that really interesting part about the car that hit him cutting off another car and veering into the bicycle lane. In other words, the kind of out-of-control, flagrantly-violating-the-law driver who would've hit the cyclist no matter where he was riding.
I read that, Blue Order. Did you? The cyclist hit the car; the driver did not hit the cyclist.
The driver was cited for "improperly executed right turn". The cyclist slammed into the right-turning car that cut in front of him, probably because he was "not seen" since he was riding outside of the driver's zone of attention - the traffic lane adjacent to the bike lane. Read it again:
This Thursday, April 13, a second biker is taking a driver to court, on an "improperly executed right turn" citation. Bicyclist Sean Barrett slammed into a car last November, in a bike lane near the Rose Quarter. The driver had cut off another car, and veered into Barrett's path, causing him to crash. "I was pretty battered up," he says. "I had bruises everywhere, a sprained wrist, an abrasion on my check and neck, and a bruised heel on my right foot."
Either the cyclist and the car were traveling in the same direction up to the intersection, but the cyclist was going straight from the bike lane (i.e., too far to the right) and the driver turning right cut off another car and veered into the bike laner's path, OR... the cyclist was traveling perpendicular to the driver who turned right in front of him. Either way, the cyclist was going straight across an intersection from the right side of the road, thanks to the guidance of the bike lane.
I bring this up because time after time the same factor is so often involved in car-bike collisions, and you guys refuse to see it. It's not the cyclist's fault. Of course the driver was technically responsible. BUT, that doesn't mean the collision could not have been avoid had the cyclist been riding with a bit more responsibility and vigilance - choosing a more visible and predictable lane position. As a matter of fact, I bet the first car that the second car cut off was probably stopped in order to allow the cyclist to proceed straight. As long as you keep closing your eyes, inserting your index fingers in your ears, and keep repeating "NOT LISTENING NOT LISTENING" out loud (how else do you get the driver hit the cyclist rather than vice versa, unless you're just not paying attention?), I am going to keep bringing up these instances. Heck, I don't even bring this stuff here. I mostly just note it in stuff that others bring to this forum.
Blue Order
I read that, Blue Order. Did you? The cyclist hit the car; the driver did not hit the cyclist.
The driver was cited for "improperly executed right turn". The cyclist slammed into the right-turning car that cut in front of him, probably because he was "not seen" since he was riding outside of the driver's zone of attention - the traffic lane adjacent to the bike lane. Read it again:
Either the cyclist and the car were traveling in the same direction up to the intersection, but the cyclist was going straight from the bike lane (i.e., too far to the right) and the driver turning right cut off another car and veered into the bike laner's path, OR... the cyclist was traveling perpendicular to the driver who turned right in front of him. Either way, the cyclist was going straight across an intersection from the right side of the road, thanks to the guidance bike lane.
I bring this up because time after time the same factor is so often involved in car-bike collisions, and you guys refuse to see it. As long as you keep closing your eyes, inserting your index fingers in your ears, and keep repeating "NOT LISTENING NOT LISTENING" out loud (how else do you get the driver hit the cyclist rather than vice versa, unless you're just not paying attention?), I am going to keep bringing up these instances. Heck, I don't even bring this stuff here. I mostly just note it in stuff that others bring to this forum.The driver cut across two lanes of traffic to make that turn. The driver cut off a car that was driving right where you expect the cyclist to be positioned. And yet you contend that had the cyclist only been riding in the lane, instead of the bike lane, the driver of the car would not have made that illegal turn. Uh-huh...
ZachS
this kind of law is pretty ancient, and used to be much more widely used - private prosecutions have always been party of common law.
it's a good thing.
Helmet Head
The driver cut across two lanes of traffic to make that turn. The driver cut off a car that was driving right where you expect the cyclist to be positioned. And yet you contend that had the cyclist only been riding in the lane, instead of the bike lane, the driver of the car would not have made that illegal turn. Uh-huh...
If the cyclist had merged left out of the bike lane, to take a centerish position in the adjacent traffic lane, then he would not have been blocked from the field of view of the driver of the 2nd car, as he drove around the left side of the first car and then cut across in front of it and the cyclist in the bike lane, who came out of no where (the bike lane) from the right side of the 1st car to slam into the 2nd car.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge this?
I'm not saying the driver of the 2nd car wasn't wrong, I'm saying the cyclist probably could have avoided this situation by choosing a standard vehicular lane position as he approached an intersection where he was going straight.
Also, in theory, the driver of the 1st car is partially at fault for not merging into the bike lane behind the cyclist, rather than pulling up beside him and stopping, waiting for him to get out of the way. But you can't really blame him, since that's what Oregon law says he is supposed to do.
zonatandem
Too many laws on the books that are not being enforced, or that people don't know about.
One of our sons was a paper boy (years ago) and delivered papers on his stingray bike riding on the sidewalk. One of his customers was the police department and city hall.
Son delivering papers, cop car comes out of blind alley at city hall and smacks kid/bike. Kid flies over hood of police cruiser; cop had to call wrecker as front fender's bashed in and cruiser cannot be moved as tire's rubbing on fender.
Pop goes to city hall to collect damages for kid/bike. They whip out an ordinance that states: "bicycles prohibted on the sidewalk" . . .ergo: we will not pay for damages as kid broke the law and is at fault.
Pop does research on ordinances and finds an earlier law: "bicycles prohibited on the road" . . . older law still in force as it was never repealed when new law went into effect prohibiting bikes on sidewalk.
Selective enforcement? You bet.
End of story: city paid for damages.
Blue Order
If the cyclist had merged left out of the bike lane, to take a centerish position in the adjacent traffic lane, then he would not have been blocked from the field of view of the driver of the 2nd car, as he drove around the left side of the first car and then cut across in front of it and the cyclist in the bike lane, who slammed into the 2nd car.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge this?Because it's groundless speculation.
If the cyclist was positioned exactly according to your specifications, the law-breaking driver would have executed a quck right turn, without first checking to see if anybody was in the lane (which appears to be exactly what the driver did in the actual accident), and would have either cut the cyclist off in the traffic lane, causing the exact same collision, or would have slammed into the cyclist because the car would have reached the cyclist sooner. Either way, the car would have executed an illegal turn. Your assertion that the car would have noticed the cyclist if the cyclist were "properly positioned" is based on an assumption that the driver of the car was carefully checking the surrounding lanes before executing a turn. And we know that the driver wasn't carefully checking the surrounding lanes.
Blue Order
HH, this isn't a thread about VC. It's a thread about cyclist's prosecuting violations of the law. Please don't hijack yet another thread to turn it into your favorite topic.
Helmet Head
HH, this isn't a thread about VC. It's a thread about cyclist's prosecuting violations of the law. Please don't hijack yet another thread to turn it into your favorite topic.
I shared an observations, a comment. Then you chose to engage with me. If you want to take this elsewhere, then do so. But in case anyone else is paying attention, I am going to respond to your challenges of what I'm trying to explain.
If the cyclist was positioned exactly according to your specifications, the law-breaking driver would have executed a quck right turn, without first checking to see if anybody was in the lane (which appears to be exactly what the driver did in the actual accident), and would have either cut the cyclist off in the traffic lane, causing the exact same collision, or would have slammed into the cyclist because the car would have reached the cyclist sooner. Either way, the car would have executed an illegal turn. Your assertion that the car would have noticed the cyclist if the cyclist were "properly positioned" is based on an assumption that the driver of the car was carefully checking the surrounding lanes before executing a turn. And we know that the driver wasn't carefully checking the surrounding lanes.
No, it's not based on such an assumption at all. It is based on the assumption that the 1st car blocked the driver of the 2nd car from seeing the cyclist in the bike lane. See attached image.
12691
Once the driver of the 2nd car started turning right and cut in front of the first car, he was probably looking left to make sure he didn't cut in front of someone coming from the left on the street he was turning onto. His path in front of him was clear, since the cyclist was not in the lane in front of the first car, but off to the side in the bike lane.
Blue Order
I shared an observations, a comment. Then you chose to engage with me. If you want to take this elsewhere, then do so. But in case anyone else is paying attention, I am going to respond to your challenges of what I'm trying to explain.
No, it's not based on such an assumption at all. It is based on the assumption that the 1st car blocked the driver of the 2nd car from seeing the cyclist in the bike lane. See attached image.
12691
Once the driver of the 2nd car started turning right and cut in front of the first car, he was probably looking left to make sure he didn't cut in front of someone coming from the left on the street he was turning onto. His path in front of him was clear, since the cyclist was not in the lane in front of the first car, but off to the side in the bike lane.The driver of the first car didn't see, or didn't care, that he/she was cutting off a car in the adjacent lane. Why would the driver see or care if he/she cut off a cyclist who was in the adjacent lane?
By the way, this is exactly the type of advocacy I referred to in your poll when I say that your advocacy style turns me off to anything that Forester might have to say. Not very effective advocacy, is it?
closetbiker
If you ask me, the thread's about cyclists taking drivers to court. Citizens arrest. Details on speculation of what may or may not have happened and the involvement of bike lanes could be moved to the sticky.
I wouldn't want to be involved in the same arguments on every thread. I suspect others feel the same. Mentioning a point is one thing, beating it is another. Different threads, different points.
Helmet Head
The driver of the first car didn't see, or didn't care, that he/she was cutting off a car in the adjacent lane. Why would the driver see or care if he/she cut off a cyclist who was in the adjacent lane?
By the way, this is exactly the type of advocacy I referred to in your poll when I say that your advocacy style turns me off to anything that Forester might have to say. Not very effective advocacy, is it?
Ugh, I think you're referring to the 2nd car as the first. Look at my attached image on the previous post. The first
car, orange, is stopped. Of course the driver of the 2nd car (blue) didn't care about cutting off the 1st car. It was stopped (or moving very slowly). He would care about the cyclist (if he would see the cyclist), because the cyclist was not stopped.
All the guy did was go around a stopped car. It's not that bad. It's bad, it's wrong, but it's not like he did something really all that bad. I mean, if the car he went around was stopped because, say, it had run out of gas, he would have had no choice. He just didn't happen to consider that the car might be stopped to allow a cyclist to its right proceed. Look at the image. I spend 10 minutes throwing it together, the least you could do is look at it. Maybe I'm missing something.
Keith99
Is it just me or does this part bother anyone else?
The police, Rueter later found out, don't always investigate collisions unless there are extenuating circumstances, like traumatic injuries (Rueter was mis-classified as non-trauma at the scene, he says), or an intoxicated driver. Instead, to save resources, the cops facilitate the exchange of info, and leave the investigation to the insurance companies.
Does the profesional writer know what "extenuating" means?
Blue Order
Ugh, I think you're referring to the 2nd car as the first. Look at my attached image on the previous post. The first
car, orange, is stopped. Of course the driver of the 2nd car (blue) didn't care about cutting off the 1st car. It was stopped (or moving very slowly). He would care about the cyclist (if he would see the cyclist), because the cyclist was not stopped.
All the guy did was go around a stopped car. It's not that bad. It's bad, it's wrong, but it's not like he did something really all that bad. I mean, if the car he went around was stopped because, say, it had run out of gas, he would have had no choice. He just didn't happen to consider that the car might be stopped to allow a cyclist to its right proceed. Look at the image. I spend 10 minutes throwing it together, the least you could do is look at it. Maybe I'm missing something.I don't care about your attachment. The driver of the first car is the driver who cut off a car and caused an accident with the cyclist. The driver of the first car didn't see or didn't care that he/she cut off the driver of the second car, which was positioned in the adjacent lane, right where you argue the cyclist should be positioned. Now, if the driver of the first car didn't see/didn't care that he/she cut off the second car, then why on Earth would the driver of the first car see/care that he/she cut off the cyclist?
HH, you remind me of an alcoholic that just can't put down the bottle. Let it go. This thread is not a VC thread. Let it go.
Blue Order
Is it just me or does this part bother anyone else?
The police, Rueter later found out, don't always investigate collisions unless there are extenuating circumstances, like traumatic injuries (Rueter was mis-classified as non-trauma at the scene, he says), or an intoxicated driver. Instead, to save resources, the cops facilitate the exchange of info, and leave the investigation to the insurance companies.
Does the profesional writer know what "extenuating" means?I sure didn't, apparently. :o
Blue Order
Ugh, I think you're referring to the 2nd car as the first. Look at my attached image on the previous post. The first
car, orange, is stopped. Of course the driver of the 2nd car (blue) didn't care about cutting off the 1st car. It was stopped (or moving very slowly). He would care about the cyclist (if he would see the cyclist), because the cyclist was not stopped.
All the guy did was go around a stopped car. It's not that bad. It's bad, it's wrong, but it's not like he did something really all that bad. I mean, if the car he went around was stopped because, say, it had run out of gas, he would have had no choice. He just didn't happen to consider that the car might be stopped to allow a cyclist to its right proceed. Look at the image. I spend 10 minutes throwing it together, the least you could do is look at it. Maybe I'm missing something.OK, despite my better instincts, I looked at your attachment. You are making a ton of assumptions that aren't supported by the story. Where in the story does it say that the car that was cut off was stopped? Where in the story does it say that the car that made the right turn was behind the car that was stopped, but then went around? All the story says is that the car made a sudden right turn across another lane, cutting off both an adjacent car and a cyclist.
Now, got any comments on the use of that law?
Helmet Head
I'm continuing this in the bike lane sticky.
Blue Order
I'm continuing this in the bike lane sticky.Thank you.
closetbiker
I think citizen enforcement being an avenue open to many people who have been abandoned by the legal system is great.
In my municipality I know I can lodge a complaint with all the proper details about a driver breaking the law with the police and the driver is charged with the offence.
The driver has an opportunity to defend himself, and the accuser has to be present ready to back up the accusation, but if either chooses not to be present, they'll have to either pay the penalty or have the charge dropped for what the offender was accused of, depending on the presentation of evidence.
Bekologist
someone stop Helmet Head before he hijacks again!!!!
It would be nice to know what states this type of procedure is expedient and legally acceptable. Does anyone have a state by state breakdown of the applicapibility of this type of citizen action?
brokenrobot
someone stop Helmet Head before he hijacks again!!!!
+1,000,000
It's a shame that we can't get him some form of partial ban... if he were limited to specific threads (ie the bike lane thread) then it's possible some real advocacy and safety information could be shared around here; as it is, the entire forum is so plagued with his dogmatic nonsense that it's nearly unreadable.
Bekologist
+1,000,000
It's a shame that we can't get him some form of partial ban... as it is, the entire forum is so plagued with his dogmatic nonsense that it's nearly unreadable.
I wholeheartedly agree! The fella cannot self censor. I've monitored HH's semantics the last few months, and seems like he's always driving an automobile or his RV and confusing them with bicycling anyway.
I am personally VERY INTERESTED in the states this "citizen citation" process is still legally acceptable....all it will take is a camera and a pen and the desire to inform the agressive drivers you encounter that intimidating cyclists can have ramifications....
closetbiker
To HH's credit, he did move it over to the sticky. Now we can stay on topic.
I mentioned what I can do in my municipality, yet accross the bridge in a different municipality, the driver only gets a warning after a complaint.
Never thought to ask why. I guess practically, it's pretty hard to get all the detais down to report something and there are so few bad incidents that require reporting that I've never thought to ask why. I probably should though. It's always best to be prepared.
The Human Car
Could someone supply me the actual text of this “citizen-initiated law?”
Thanks!
ZachS
It's listed here (http://bikeportland.org/2006/01/04/new-campaign-to-bring-motorists-to-justice/).
“153.058 Initiation of violation proceeding by private party. (1) A person other than an enforcement officer may commence a violation proceeding by filing a complaint with a court that has jurisdiction over the alleged violation. The filing of the complaint is subject to ORS 153.048. The complaint shall be entered by the court in the court record.
1. (2) A complaint under this section must contain:
(a) The name of the court, the name and address of the person bringing the action and the name and address of the defendant.
(b) A statement or designation of the violation that can be readily understood by a person making a reasonable effort to do so and the date, time and place at which the violation is alleged to have occurred.
(c) A certificate signed by the complainant stating that the complainant believes that the named defendant committed the violation specifically identified in the complaint and that the complainant has reasonable grounds for that belief. A certificate conforming to this section shall be deemed equivalent of a sworn complaint. Complaints filed under this section are subject to the penalties provided in ORS 153.990.
(3) Upon the filing of a complaint under this section, the court shall cause a summons to be delivered to the defendant and shall deliver a copy of the complaint to the district attorney for the county in which the complaint is filed. The court may require any enforcement officer to serve the summons.
(4) If the complaint does not conform to the requirements of this section, the court shall set it aside upon motion of the defendant made before the entry of a plea. A pretrial ruling on a motion to set aside may be appealed by the state.
* * *
(b) Traffic violations under ORS chapters 801 to 826, or any violation of rules adopted pursuant to those chapters if the violation constitutes an offense.
Daily Commute
To HH's credit, he did move it over to the sticky. Now we can stay on topic. . . .
Closetbiker is right, so I deleted my comment about the anti-HH thread jack. Now, back to the topic. . . .
As I said in my first post, this looks like a good law. Sometime over the next few days, I'll check out my state's law. Perhaps the rest of you should check out your state's laws. I know that in Ohio, citizens can file criminal misdemeanor charges, but I don't know about traffic charges.