Google sponsored links


randya
 
http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/marinedrivecrosswalk.jpg

Here’s an excerpt from the statement made by the Police following the collision:

“Based on information from the scene and two independent witnesses, investigators believe that…The bicyclist was in a marked crosswalk but failed to stop for a stop sign prior to crossing the street. Prior to the collision, the bicyclist was also westbound next to Northeast Marine Drive on the bike path.

The two witnesses stated that the bicyclist was traveling very quickly and did not appear to slow or hesitate at the stop sign. Because of the incline at the crosswalk, investigators believe the motorist may not have seen the bicyclist until he was directly in front of her. The bicyclist was immediately taken into surgery at Emanuel Hospital with a life-threatening head injury.

The motorist remained at the scene and is cooperating with the investigation. Speed and impairment do not appear to be factors in the collision.”

Based on that report, the community drew the conclusion that Bob Verrinder made a mistake in judgment that nearly cost him his life.

However, I spoke to several people (who requested anonymity) who had conversations with officers on the scene and they shared several key facts that were not included in the initial Police media statement.

I followed-up and have now confirmed with both the Captain and the Lieutenant of the Police Bureau Traffic Division that:

The marked crosswalk (shown in photo above) had flashing yellow lights that were activated at the time of the collision.

A pedestrian (and dog) headed in the same direction as Bob (from north to south or right to left in photo) had just finished crossing (and had likely been the ones who triggered the flashing lights).
A truck headed eastbound was stopped while the pedestrian finished crossing.

These facts, coupled with the knowledge that Bob Verrinder had 55 years of cycling experience, was a daily bike rider/commuter, had logged nearly 6,000 miles on the road in 2007, and according to his wife Jan, rode through this crosswalk frequently and “always crossed it carefully”, made it hard for those who knew him to make sense of what happened.

Perhaps Bob Verrinder did not come to a complete stop before entering the intersection (there is a stop sign on the bike path). However, if the facts above would have been included in the initial Police statement, I feel it would have changed the community dialogue considerably.

Or, as one of Bob’s friends put it, “It is too bad that this information had not been published and all the stories make Bob out as the person in the wrong.”

According to the Police Bureau’s Public Information Officer Sgt. Brian Schmautz, he simply relays information given to him by officers on the scene. When I asked Traffic Division Lt. Mark Kruger why these facts had been left out of the report, he replied that they, “wouldn’t have changed the facts in the case”.

Head of the Traffic Division Vince Jarmer also confirmed these facts were left out of the initial statement. He says due to the seriousness of this collision, they initially treated it as a fatality and therefore only released a “certain amount of information…the basic facts, nothing more.”

I appreciate Jarmer’s point, however the problem is that in this situation, as well as the two fatalities this month, much more than “just the basic facts” are being communicated to the media. Police Bureau personnel, primarily Lt. Kruger, have made many quotes to local media outlets this month that go beyond what is appropriate given the nature of the crashes and the status of the investigations.

His quotes routinely go beyond “just the basic facts” and they have had a significant impact on how the community copes with and tries to make sense of these tragedies.

The Police Bureau defends their policy of not issuing citations because these investigations are ongoing. I would like to see them use the same reasoning and sensitivity with their public statements.

Full article at: http://bikeportland.org/2007/10/30/update-new-details-on-marine-drive-collision/


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.

Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)

Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net

genec
 
Gee, I sure hate to side with the "other side" in this case... but honestly it read like the cyclist was depending on a flashing yellow to hold back motor traffic... motor traffic that probably had no idea the cyclist was approaching the crosswalk.

I don't know about elsewhere, but in my neck of the woods, a flashing yellow only means proceed with caution... NOT stop. Riding a bike fast into a road crossing protected by only a flashing yellow doesn't sound like a safe thing to do.


randya
 
Gene, the point of the article is about bias in the police media statements; not whether the cyclist was right or wrong. Your comment does not address the former; and if you want to evaluate the latter, see ORS 811.005 through 811.060 (http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/811.html).


genec
 
Gene, the point of the article is about bias in the police media statements; not whether the cyclist was right or wrong. Your comment does not address the former; and if you want to evaluate the latter, see ORS 811.020 through 811.060.

I understand, and likely there is bias... as few police cycle, so therefore have a hard time seeing things from our perspective... however, looking at the laws it appears as though the driver may have violated 811.030 and 811.040...

But did the driver know the cyclist was there... or could the speed of the cyclist have lead to a situation wherein the cyclist was not visible to a motorist at the scene?

Like I said, I hate to side with "the other side" here... but really proceeding along under only the protection of flashing yellow lights still seems foolish to me...

I'd wait until I was sure it was clear to cross... either due to all vehicles being stopped or no vehicle being within "range."


CB HI
 
Seems the information that was left out was both "the basic facts" as well as very important facts.
Leaving those facts out, wrongly implied the motorist had no fault in the collision.


Mos6502
 
hmmm, apparently leaving facts out of a case won't change the facts of a case.

Does Kruger need a cat scan?

As for the actual collision, I would have to say even with flashing lights - it seems the cyclist assumed the driver would see him, and they didn't (although seriously, if the lights are flashing yellow, and oncoming traffic is stopped you'd have to be seriously moronic to not slow down to a snail's pace if not a complete stop - what if he had run over a little kid instead?)


Dchiefransom
 
hmmm, apparently leaving facts out of a case won't change the facts of a case.

Does Kruger need a cat scan?

As for the actual collision, I would have to say even with flashing lights - it seems the cyclist assumed the driver would see him, and they didn't (although seriously, if the lights are flashing yellow, and oncoming traffic is stopped you'd have to be seriously moronic to not slow down to a snail's pace if not a complete stop - what if he had run over a little kid instead?)

You can see a pedestrian on the other side of the street finishing crossing with the crosswalk lights flashing, and no pedestrians near the sidewalk as you approach. We've got these in the area I deliver mail. The driver would be able to see if any pedestrians are near. My take on this is the driver didn't see farther away from the street where the cyclist was approaching, and went on through. From the picture, I fail to see any obstructions or "over the rise" as the police mention. I'd wonder how far away the cyclist was from the street when the motorist made the decision to proceed, and also whether the side windows of the car were tinted. As a driver, I'd have been slowing down as I approached to a point where hitting the brakes would have stopped me instantly.


Brian Ratliff
 
There might have been an issue with the setting sun, but it was pretty bad weather all that week. I think it rained and thunderstormed most of the week and through the weekend.


randya
 
y'all are speculating now, read the comments on the BikePortland tread, several people with experience at this intersection do a fairly good job of explaining. Also, you can get a pretty good look at the intersection with Google streetlevel, linked in the original BP story on this incident.


Dogbait
 
I for one wasn't speculating, I was asking a question about the conditions at the time of the accident

There are much better views of the intersection available (better than the Google streetlevel in the OP). None of them helpexplain how a conscientious driver could have missed a cyclist that checked for traffic before crossing the road, hence my question.

It's not clear from the google photo but the street, Marine Dr., runs parallel to and below the top of a levee. Just before it reaches the crosswalk, it rises up and runs on the top of the levee. The bike lane, a MUP, runs parallel to and below the levee on the other side from Marine Dr. Just before the crosswalk, The MUP rises up to the top of the levee and makes a 90° right turn about 30-40 feet from the stop line at the edge of Marine Dr. Bikes on the MUP and traffic going west on Marine Dr. cannot see each other until they rise up to the top of the levee.

To the left of the google photo in the OP there is a large parking lot used by folks using the beach to the right. This makes for a lot of pedestrian and bike traffic crossing a very busy 45 mph street in an area where no one has the best visibility.

I used to travel this route daily in a 65,000 lb. vehicle. It is my opinion that the speed limit should be reduced to 35 mph 400 yd. east of the crosswalk and serious consideration should be given to installing a standard red/yellow/green traffic signal.

From these KATU Photos (http://www.katu.com/news/local/10660401.html), it doesn't appear to have been a sunny day.


donnamb
 
Whatever the causes, Kruger should not have been permitted to run his mouth the way he did. He knew perfectly well what conclusions the majority of the cycling community would come to given the information he made sure was released right after the collision.

Even if Bob Verrinder's actions contributed the slightest bit towards the collision, the point is we have a Traffic Division Lieutenant who had made the decision to twist and warp the facts of this case, as well as the 2 recent deaths. Most serious is the way he's been interpreting the traffic laws as they pertain to us. He does this in the manner he wishes they read rather than how they actually are. His denial of reality is going to get someone else killed and/or injured. This is absolutely disgusting.


randya
 
I for one wasn't speculating, I was asking a question about the conditions at the time of the accident

There are much better views of the intersection available (better than the Google streetlevel in the OP). None of them helpexplain how a conscientious driver could have missed a cyclist that checked for traffic before crossing the road, hence my question.

I was actually responding to Brian. Here's a link to the active streetlevel view I was referring to in BikePortland's original post on this incident, you'll probably get more out of this than the static view in my OP on this thread:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=4300+NE+Marine+Dr,+Portland,+OR+97218&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.592876,94.306641&ie=UTF8&ll=45.603455,-122.617228&spn=0.008557,0.023024&z=16&om=0&layer=c&cbll=45.599725,-122.616942&cbp=1,297.0717864542291,0.5,0,13.760302695341844


randya
 
Whatever the causes, Kruger should not have been permitted to run his mouth the way he did. He knew perfectly well what conclusions the majority of the cycling community would come to given the information he made sure was released right after the collision.

Even if Bob Verrinder's actions contributed the slightest bit towards the collision, the point is we have a Traffic Division Lieutenant who had made the decision to twist and warp the facts of this case, as well as the 2 recent deaths. Most serious is the way he's been interpreting the traffic laws as they pertain to us. He does this in the manner he wishes they read rather than how they actually are. His denial of reality is going to get someone else killed and/or injured. This is absolutely disgusting.

I'm much more concerned about the impacts Kruger's misinformation regarding these cyclist crashes have on the attitudes and behavior of the general motoring public, and that's why we should be unrelenting in calling for his removal.


Brian Ratliff
 
You're right, I was speculating. I was just remembering that the weather that week was pretty bad; quite the opposite of sunny.


Previous - Top - Next