Advocacy & Safety - Nearly Fatal Bicycle-Automobile Accident in Portland

Driver and Cyclist Both DUI (http://bikeportland.org/2007/02/08/alcohol-suspected-in-nearly-fatal-crash/)


Drunk driver.

Drunk cyclist, at night, cyclist wearing dark clothing, no lights, and no helmet.

Intersection accident, cyclist was on a street with a stop sign; no stop sign for the car.

Darwin awards time.

Portland? I'm shocked! :rolleyes:

Portland? I'm shocked! :rolleyes:Maybe you can somehow twist the FACTS to make it seem like bike lanes are at fault...

"According to police, Slawta was riding her bike west on northeast Skidmore Street shortly after midnight when she failed to stop at a stop sign at the intersection with northeast 15th Avenue. Her bike then collided with the side of Grover's Ford Ranger pickup."

She t-boned the dude's truck after running a stop sign. Is that an automatic "at fault" credit? I hope she recovers and all, but seriously... tanked, no lights, no brain bucket, ran a stop sign. I hope she gets some smarts out of all this mess.

"According to police, Slawta was riding her bike west on northeast Skidmore Street shortly after midnight when she failed to stop at a stop sign at the intersection with northeast 15th Avenue. Her bike then collided with the side of Grover's Ford Ranger pickup."

She t-boned the dude's truck after running a stop sign. Is that an automatic "at fault" credit? I hope she recovers and all, but seriously... tanked, no lights, no brain bucket, ran a stop sign. I hope she gets some smarts out of all this mess.Some typical Portland idiot cyclists are already calling for "no more waste of police resources on bicyclists running stop signs." They clearly haven't learned a thing; I wonder if she will....

sort of amusing it happened on the corner of skidmore st. :roflmao:
No say about charging cyclist with dui:rolleyes:

She ran into him! She should be charged for running stop sign & DUI!

Maybe you can somehow twist the FACTS to make it seem like bike lanes are at fault...

Come on HH, I've got my popcorn and I'm waiting...

She ran into him! She should be charged for running stop sign & DUI!

Last I heard, the driver was arrested on DUII charges, and the cyclist will be charged for the same thing as well. Don't worry, this one is pretty obvious. Two drunks don't make a sober ;).

Maybe you can somehow twist the FACTS to make it seem like bike lanes are at fault...

Come on HH, I've got my popcorn and I'm waiting...
Well, since two of you insist...


The plethora of bike lanes and other bicycling facilities inevitably casts a cloud of carelessness in the minds of Portland cyclists, leading to mindless and lackadaisical cyclist behavior in general, which infects them even on roads without facilities. Running stop signs in front of cross traffic is par for the course for Portland cyclists disabled by bike lane mentality and associated expectations, like invincibility while cycling.

How's that?

yada yada

Drunks are typically careless. In any state... of the union or of the mind.

"Cloud of carelessness"... As Dave Barry would say: That would make an excellent name for a rock band. :p

yada yada

Drunks are typically careless. In any state... of the union or of the mind.

"Cloud of carelessness"... As Dave Barry would say: That would make an excellent name for a rock band. :p
But one is more likely to be willing to drink and bike when he underestimates his or her need to be vigilant while cycling. The "cloud of carelessness" that infects the minds of Portland cyclists makes them more likely to make this kind of error.

Lest you think I'm kidding... the other day someone asked me what I thought my biggest threat was while cycling. Without hesitation, I said me. How many Portland cyclists think of themselves as their biggest threat?

All right, jokes aside, you'll have to back your previous statement up. No third order logic this time. No re-assessment of half understood data. Direct observation.

Otherwise I get to dismiss the statement altogether, as all it is is hot air and paper.

My approach to cycling is different than yours. I am not my biggest threat. However, I am my best defense. FWIW, nothing about accepting personal responsibility contradicts bicycle facilities. You are the only one here who believes that the only alternative to your brand of Vehicular Cycling is blind reliance on bike lanes. You have internalized the either-or fallacy you propogate to the point where you are as bad or worse than those who self describe themselves as "paint 'n path" advocates.

But one is more likely to be willing to drink and bike when he underestimates his or her need to be vigilant while cycling. The "cloud of carelessness" that infects the minds of Portland cyclists makes them more likely to make this kind of error.

Lest you think I'm kidding... the other day someone asked me what I thought my biggest threat was while cycling. Without hesitation, I said me. How many Portland cyclists think of themselves as their biggest threat?Totally backwards, as usual. The Portland cyclists who run red lights and ride drunk don't do it because they feel safe as a result of bike lanes, they do it because of a peer culture in which recklessness is highly valued.

Portland? I'm shocked! :rolleyes:

Well of course, haven't you heard this is the only place people drink and drive/ride. The rest of the country is completely safe. :rolleyes:

Totally backwards, as usual. The Portland cyclists who run red lights and ride drunk don't do it because they feel safe as a result of bike lanes, they do it because of a peer culture in which recklessness is highly valued.

Wow and all this time I thought they did it because they were stupid.

All right, jokes aside, you'll have to back your previous statement up. No third order logic this time. No re-assessment of half understood data. Direct observation.

Otherwise I get to dismiss the statement altogether, as all it is is hot air and paper.

My approach to cycling is different than yours. I am not my biggest threat. However, I am my best defense. FWIW, nothing about accepting personal responsibility contradicts bicycle facilities. You are the only one here who believes that the only alternative to your brand of Vehicular Cycling is blind reliance on bike lanes. You have internalized the either-or fallacy you propogate to the point where you are as bad or worse than those who self describe themselves as "paint 'n path" advocates.
I made several statements. Which statement do you want me to back up?

You're the one committing the either-or fallacy, Brian, as you are the one who sees me as one who believes that the " only alternative to [my] brand of Vehicular Cycling is blind reliance on bike lanes". I sure don't believe that, by the way. What have I written that makes you think I do?

Wow and all this time I thought they did it because they were stupid.Same difference. ;)

. I am not my biggest threat. However, I am my best defense.

I agree with this. As my protection from danger gets less i.e. motorcycle, riding, walking my attention level increases. I don't see that as a threat I see it as you have to be way more alert to the dangers then the cagers are.

How about start with the one above. Specifically, the "cloud of carelessness."

Show me what'cha got! Remember, no logical sequence this time. Only direct observation will do. Keep in mind that there are thousands of transportational cyclists in Portland every day. I saw numbers up in the 10,000s during one presentation. I also saw data which showed that the number of cyclists quintupled over the last 13 years, with accident rates staying flat and fatalities in the single digits (see here from BikePortland.org (http://bikeportland.org/resources/bikesafety#charts), the stats are from the Portland Department of Transportation, not any advocacy group). You'll have to bring some first hand data to the table to counter these statistics.

As far as the either-or thing... like I've said, you've internalized it. Otherwise, you'd get off your soap box every once in a while. You think you are right. You have the answer. Every other answer leads to death. Your answer leads to life. Etc.

Wow and all this time I thought they did it because they were stupid.Same difference. ;)

A post to this point spotted in the Bikeportland forums:


i'm more cautious than pretty much every other biker under 40 i see, but you know, those bikers over 40 are over 40 for a reason.

My approach to cycling is different than yours.

Indeed.


I am not my biggest threat. However, I am my best defense.
Yes, that mentality is quite different from mine.

Thinking of oneself as one's best defense is consistent with an approach that sees external hazards against which one must defend himself. It's, well, defensive thinking. And consistent with this, should you fail to defend yourself appropriately, is victimization thinking. While you failed to defend yourself, or failed to properly prepare for a given situation, it's still not your fault that some guy ran the red light, or there was ice in the road, or there was glass in the road, or whatever.

My approach involves seeing myself as part of the environment - I'm not defending myself, I'm integrating myself with it in a manner that serves me. If it doesn't serve me, if I get hit by a red light runner or slip on some ice, then I have failed to integrate myself with the environment in an appropriate manner.

How about start with the one above. Specifically, the "cloud of carelessness."

Show me what'cha got! Remember, no logical sequence this time. Only direct observation will do. Keep in mind that there are thousands of transportational cyclists in Portland every day. I saw numbers up in the 10,000s during one presentation. I also saw data which showed that the number of cyclists quintupled over the last 13 years, with accident rates staying flat and fatalities in the single digits (see here from BikePortland.org (http://bikeportland.org/resources/bikesafety#charts), the stats are from the Portland Department of Transportation, not any advocacy group). You'll have to bring some first hand data to the table to counter these statistics.

As far as the either-or thing... like I've said, you've internalized it. Otherwise, you'd get off your soap box every once in a while. You think you are right. You have the answer. Every other answer leads to death. Your answer leads to life. Etc.
This?


The plethora of bike lanes and other bicycling facilities inevitably casts a cloud of carelessness in the minds of Portland cyclists, leading to mindless and lackadaisical cyclist behavior in general, which infects them even on roads without facilities.
You want direct observation supporting that? You've got to be kidding.

I'm sorry, I'm unable to comply. LOL.

This?


The plethora of bike lanes and other bicycling facilities inevitably casts a cloud of carelessness in the minds of Portland cyclists, leading to mindless and lackadaisical cyclist behavior in general, which infects them even on roads without facilities.
You want direct observation supporting that? You've got to be kidding.

I'm sorry, I'm unable to comply. LOL.

So then...

Why the comment? Just talking out your ass?

This?


The plethora of bike lanes and other bicycling facilities inevitably casts a cloud of carelessness in the minds of Portland cyclists, leading to mindless and lackadaisical cyclist behavior in general, which infects them even on roads without facilities.
You want direct observation supporting that? You've got to be kidding.

I'm sorry, I'm unable to comply. LOL.We know. :evillaughsmiley:

Hey everybody!!! Look!

Helmet Head has just made the first step towards recognizing that his talk is all hot air!

It's okay, HH. The first step towards the cure is acceptance of the problem.

Hey everybody!!! Look!

Helmet Head has just made the first step towards recognizing that his talk is all hot air!

It's okay, HH. The first step towards the cure is acceptance of the problem.
:rolleyes:

Indeed.


Yes, that mentality is quite different from mine.

Thinking of oneself as one's best defense is consistent with an approach that sees external hazards against which one must defend himself. It's, well, defensive thinking. And consistent with this, should you fail to defend yourself appropriately, is victimization thinking. While you failed to defend yourself, or failed to properly prepare for a given situation, it's still not your fault that some guy ran the red light, or there was ice in the road, or there was glass in the road, or whatever.

My approach involves seeing myself as part of the environment - I'm not defending myself, I'm integrating myself with it in a manner that serves me. If it doesn't serve me, if I get hit by a red light runner or slip on some ice, then I have failed to integrate myself with the environment in an appropriate manner.

It'd be right, except I don't like getting hit... Are you saying that just because I don't internalize my demons, that I have no stake in the matter of getting hit? And if I screw up my defense... if you make a mistake... well, the outcome and the stakes are the same. Yes... that's right, the zen thing. But I'm not Budhist, and I don't pretend to be. I just bike.

Speaking of which... g'dby.

You just had to go and dare HH to make a case about drunk driving/riding into an issue about bike lanes.

Duh, HH, drunks are careless by definition! It has nothing to do with bike lanes. How many drunks have shot their own feet off cleaning their guns? Is that the problem of guns being around the house or drinking to excess? Or wait, maybe it's the fault of bike lanes. Yeah. Got it.

You just had to go and dare HH to make a case about drunk driving/riding into an issue about bike lanes.

Duh, HH, drunks are careless by definition! It has nothing to do with bike lanes. How many drunks have shot their own feet off cleaning their guns? Is that the problem of guns being around the house or drinking to excess? Or wait, maybe it's the fault of bike lanes. Yeah. Got it.The "Cloud of Carelessness"© that cyclists develop from riding in bike lanes carries over into other life activities; soon, cyclists, enveloped in their "Cloud of Carelessness"©, find themselves carelessly engaging in activities, such as drinking while cleaning guns. And before you know it, BLAM!-- there goes your foot!

Driver and Cyclist Both DUI (http://bikeportland.org/2007/02/08/alcohol-suspected-in-nearly-fatal-crash/)


Drunk driver.

Drunk cyclist, at night, cyclist wearing dark clothing, no lights, and no helmet.

Intersection accident, cyclist was on a street with a stop sign; no stop sign for the car.

Darwin awards time.


One In Three Fatal Bicycle Accidents Linked To Alcohol

Drinking alcohol and bicycling don?t mix well, say Johns Hopkins researchers, whose study of 466 Maryland bicyclists found that a third of fatally injured riders had elevated blood alcohol levels at the time of their accident. In addition, a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 grams per deciliter ? the legal level of drunkenness in most states ? was found to increase the rider?s risk of fatal or serious injury by 2,000 percent.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/press/2001/FEBRUARY/010220.HTM

One In Three Fatal Bicycle Accidents Linked To Alcohol

Drinking alcohol and bicycling don?t mix well, say Johns Hopkins researchers, whose study of 466 Maryland bicyclists found that a third of fatally injured riders had elevated blood alcohol levels at the time of their accident. In addition, a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 grams per deciliter ? the legal level of drunkenness in most states ? was found to increase the rider?s risk of fatal or serious injury by 2,000 percent.

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/press/2001/FEBRUARY/010220.HTM
Closetbiker,

I think you just posted a link to a study that supports bicycle helmet usage. ;)

John

Do you think drunk cyclists fare best when they ride on 6 lane, narrow, high-speed, no-bike lane roads?

Closetbiker,

I think you just posted a link to a study that supports bicycle helmet usage. ;)

John

Yeah, like that's the solution to drunk cycling. :rolleyes: Sheesh. Goes to show how harmful that train of thought can lead.

Anyway, between this report and the recent one you posted in that other thread, children and drunks on bikes make up three-quarters of all cycling deaths, so we have little to worry about, eh? ;)

the cyclist will be charged for the same thing as well. ;).
Where does it say that?:p

Odd. I thought there was a direct reference to both of them getting charged. However, we do know that both were drinking, and apparently in Oregon, biking under the influence yields a DUII as well. I saw this on one of the previous versions of the KATU news report. Perhaps I am wrong; I don't really know what happens when the person driving or cycling under the influence is the one hurt by the accident.

Odd. I thought there was a direct reference to both of them getting charged. However, we do know that both were drinking, and apparently in Oregon, biking under the influence yields a DUII as well. I saw this on one of the previous versions of the KATU news report. Perhaps I am wrong; I don't really know what happens when the person driving or cycling under the influence is the one hurt by the accident.Yes, in Oregon biking under the influence is a DUI-- same offense, same penalties. I don't know if she's been charged yet or not, but I would be surprised if they don't charge her. Her problems have only just begun...

Poor girl. Don't drink and bike...

Yeah, I hope she pulls through, I hope she gets her health back, I hope she gets back on a bike, and I hope she's learned her lessons...

yeah I hope she gets better too, I did a search for her name, this came up http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Dawn+Slawta%22&btnG=Search&hl=en
maybe she should stop drinking

when i used to drink and bike regularily, I wouldn't have been able to even recognize a bike lane! And those curbs they'd mysteriously install in the middle of the road during the workday :eek: would just throw me some nights. and the next morning, on the way back to work, the curb'd be gone....

got to learn how to roll with it. a couple of serious head knockers too, always glad i was wearing my helmet while drunk biking!

she probably did a couple of thousand in damages to the truck.

Dawn, get well soon, best wishes for a complete recovery. you'll probably be liable for all damages. oh well, could've been worse.....

Closetbiker,

I think you just posted a link to a study that supports bicycle helmet usage. ;)

John
And deeply flawed just like other "studies" formulated by a team with an agenda to reach a predetermined conclusion (to provide "scientific data" for
developing education and other intervention programs).:mad:
see: http://www.rightofway.org/research/jama.pdf

Indeed.


Yes, that mentality is quite different from mine.

Thinking of oneself as one's best defense is consistent with an approach that sees external hazards against which one must defend himself. It's, well, defensive thinking. And consistent with this, should you fail to defend yourself appropriately, is victimization thinking. While you failed to defend yourself, or failed to properly prepare for a given situation, it's still not your fault that some guy ran the red light, or there was ice in the road, or there was glass in the road, or whatever.

My approach involves seeing myself as part of the environment - I'm not defending myself, I'm integrating myself with it in a manner that serves me. If it doesn't serve me, if I get hit by a red light runner or slip on some ice, then I have failed to integrate myself with the environment in an appropriate manner.

You were on the debate team in school weren't you? You can grab one word and try to completely change the intended meaning of the statement.

Have you also heard the best defense is a good offense. With either aggressive or defensive riding I place myself in the best position to go with the flow of traffic. In some cases I place myself where the car won't even know Im there, for the fact that if they are making a right turn and I swing around the left of their car and everything goes smoothly I consider that the best for going with the flow of traffic. In other situation either with use of my whistle or where I position myself I make sure I get eye contact so we both know (me and cager) what the other is doing. Being your best defense doesn't mean you are expecting to be a victim at any moment. It means you are looking out for yourself using whatever actions are required.

Well, since two of you insist...


The plethora of bike lanes and other bicycling facilities inevitably casts a cloud of carelessness in the minds of Portland cyclists, leading to mindless and lackadaisical cyclist behavior in general, which infects them even on roads without facilities. Running stop signs in front of cross traffic is par for the course for Portland cyclists disabled by bike lane mentality and associated expectations, like invincibility while cycling.

How's that?
I was thinking that Portland's bike lanes have facilitated access to local bars.

She just got smashed and lost her way...

You were on the debate team in school weren't you? You can grab one word and try to completely change the intended meaning of the statement.

Have you also heard the best defense is a good offense. With either aggressive or defensive riding I place myself in the best position to go with the flow of traffic. In some cases I place myself where the car won't even know Im there, for the fact that if they are making a right turn and I swing around the left of their car and everything goes smoothly I consider that the best for going with the flow of traffic. In other situation either with use of my whistle or where I position myself I make sure I get eye contact so we both know (me and cager) what the other is doing. Being your best defense doesn't mean you are expecting to be a victim at any moment. It means you are looking out for yourself using whatever actions are required.
(no, I was never on a debate team)

Maybe I am splitting hairs, but, honestly, I think there is a significant difference between seeing yourself as the biggest threat to your safety versus seeing yourself as your best line of defense. Obviously, there is a lot of overlap, we can certainly agree on that much.

I think the difference is that seeing yourself as your own best line of defense can lead to more of a reactive approach, while seeing yourself as your own biggest threat leads to more of a proactive approach.

For example, in dealing with inattentive drivers, the "best line of defense"/reactive approach might be to try to identify inattentive drivers and steer clear of them, while the proactive approach is to identify those drivers whose attention may matter to your safety in the near future, ignore those whose attention doesn't matter to your safety, and to keep yourself from getting in a position where their attention matters to your safety before you are able to verify that they are paying attention to you.

Again, perhaps I am splitting hairs. But I honestly think the difference is subtle but significant, especially when you're out there making split-second decisions.

(no, I was never on a debate team)

Maybe I am splitting hairs, but, honestly, I think there is a significant difference between seeing yourself as the biggest threat to your safety versus seeing yourself as your best line of defense. Obviously, there is a lot of overlap, we can certainly agree on that much.

I think the difference is that seeing yourself as your own best line of defense can lead to more of a reactive approach, while seeing yourself as your own biggest threat leads to more of a proactive approach.

For example, in dealing with inattentive drivers, the "best line of defense"/reactive approach might be to try to identify inattentive drivers and steer clear of them, while the proactive approach is to identify those drivers whose attention may matter to your safety in the near future, ignore those whose attention doesn't matter to your safety, and to keep yourself from getting in a position where their attention matters to your safety before you are able to verify that they are paying attention to you.

Again, perhaps I am splitting hairs. But I honestly think the difference is subtle but significant, especially when you're out there making split-second decisions.


I think we are saying nearly the same thing but are using different terms. When I ride I use many different techniques (for lack of a better word) sometime I am proactive; realize a driver is not seeing me blow my whistle to get his/her attention before we have trouble, reactive; they didn't see me or I wasn't ready for the stupid move (none signalling or swerving) they just made so I am on the brakes/or accelerating while blowing my whistle to get their attention or defensive; I can tell they are just out of it or are don't like bicycles and are going to be trouble so I just plain avoid them.

Being my best defense takes many forms and riding styles.

I don't know if she's been charged yet or not, but I would be surprised if they don't charge her. Her problems have only just begun...
If they were going to they would have already done so.

Perhaps I am wrong; I don't really know what happens when the person driving or cycling under the influence is the one hurt by the accident.
They(law) doesn't care about injuries . They want their money & revenue regardless.
They WILL leave a DUI ticket right at ones bedside.

If they were going to they would have already done so.

Then they probably already have. However, I don't think the cyclist is in good shape at the moment, and might not even be conscious.

And deeply flawed just like other "studies" formulated by a team with an agenda to reach a predetermined conclusion (to provide "scientific data" for developing education and other intervention programs).:mad:
see: http://www.rightofway.org/research/jama.pdf

...and the link given doesn't even pretend to be a study on helmets, but a study on deaths involving drunk cyclists. There is information on helmet wearing drunk cyclists and speculation on possible benefits of wearing helmets but even that speculation is ridiculous.


The helmet laws that worked well for children should be extended to adult bicyclists, says Susan P. Baker, M.P.H.

because the laws that worked well (:rolleyes:) for children, have had the same conditions occurring in falls as for drunk adults colliding with cars. Sheesh.

That this is a suggestion on how to manage drunks on bicycles is asinine.

Ms. Baker should be embarrassed to have her name associated with such drivel. It's insulting to her intelligence.

**did I say drivel? I should have said, deception.**