VanPortlander

Not content to let Washingtonians get all the stupid driver news this week, last night a Canby, Oregon man must have decided it was payback time. He drove over to Vancouver to the Salmon Creek area and ignored the signs and barriers that have closed the Klineline Bridge over Salmon Creek. Instead, he drove past the road closed signs, through the standard barriers, and into a heavy concrete barrier at a high enough speed that it was displaced about 8 feet.

photo by Clark County Sheriff’s Office

According to the press release “Alcohol may have been a contributing factor…”

A bicyclist was hit this evening around 5:15 at the intersection of Southeast 11th and Oak. When I walked by she was talking and moving as she was being treated by medical personnel. According to a witness, the cyclist rode through the stop sign without stopping, into the path of the car. So it was likely the cyclist’s fault, but the driver is still a giant asshole for leaving the scene.

More info and a few (tasteful) photos later this evening once I get home.

Apparently a postal carrier in Vancouver has admitted that he has been vandalizing trees in a residential neighborhood while on the job. The postal service has accepted responsibility. This really shouldn’t take a long, drawn-out investigation, should it?

As you’ve probably heard, TriMet has put the brakes on a plan to either eliminate or shorten the hours for Fareless Square. They obviously bungled the public (sorta) input process and now they say they’re going to do some evaluation comparing Fareless Square to crime data before making a decision.

That might not be the best plan.

Last week on this blog I asked my one question about the link between Fareless Square and the violence. Folks like Amanda Fritz took time to go to the hearing and attempt to make their views known. Today I had a thought: it’s all irrelevant. We’ve been asking to see some correlation between Fareless Square and crime on MAX. That’s the wrong question to ask.

The question that should be asked is whether a simple change in fare structure would act as a deterrent to those who would end up committing a robbery or assault. Even if there was a link between Fareless Square and crime, would instituting a $2 fare actually keep anyone from getting mugged? I doubt it… the folks who are going to beat someone aren’t going to be put off by a fare evasion issue. Given the very sporadic fare inspection, a slight change in fare structure isn’t likely to reduce violent crime. For the fare change to be effective would require a significant increase in fare inspectors or security personnel on the trains… which likely would act as a deterrent.

If TriMet wants to boost security to fight crime, that sounds like a reasonable plan. But to suggest that a $2 fare is going to keep someone from committing a violent felony is laughable.

Earlier today I read the news of today’s shooting but it didn’t really hit me until I read a comment over on Damnportlanders:

I mean can’t these gun wielding people get it right? It’s fucking a day before MLK’s special day and you choose to *shoot* someone on the damn boulevard? For fuck sakes, back that shit up a block or two to Haight or 7th ave and then shoot the mofucka.

Plus this stereotypical event doesn’t help my wonderful neighborhood. Way to go!

Interesting observation.

Often when there’s a tragedy, a number of factors have combined in an unfortunate way to lead to a bad result. Today, via BikePortland, I read though the DA’s investigative report following the death of cyclist Brett Jarolimek, and it sounds like such a case. A number of factors including the design of the intersection (resulting in poor visibility), the speed of the cyclist, and a questionable rear-view mirror led to a bad combination of factors resulting in the collision. There wasn’t one clear factor or act of gross negligence, instead a series of (independently minor) formed a fatal mixture.

Life would be simple if there was always someone to take 100% of the blame. Unfortunately, life isn’t always simple.

There’s an informal slogan in Portland: “Keep Portland Weird” and nowhere was that more evident than at today’s No Pants on MAX event. I headed towards Holladay Park to meet up with the group. I was curious how many folks would show up as well as what sort of police/security response would await them.

The group gathered in the park along with several Portland Police vehicles and officers. One sergeant talked to some of the gathering crowd and mentioned that as long as the clothing covered up folks’ private parts, there shouldn’t be a problem. The group received some informal instructions from event organizer Mary Allison Tadina, took off their pants in the park, then headed towards the train. Once onboard, it was a calm crowd, gathering quite a few questions and stares from the general public as the train made its way downtown.

  

The police presence followed the train, with a few patrol vehicles trailing MAX on its journey.

Check out all of my photos from the event at this set on Flickr.

Over the past several months there has been a fairly public discussion of bicycle safety following a few accidents and two well-publicized fatalities. One of the topics that has been visible in discussion amongst the cycling community (primarily on bikeportland.org) has been the Portland Police Bureau’s guidelines as to when a collision will be investigated by the police.

Today, Jonathan at BikePortland notes there is a change in the threshold for investigating collisions. Previously, collisions were only investigated if the injuries were severe enough to require entry into the regional trauma system. The new standard is that the threshold is lowered to investigate all accidents requiring medical transport, but only if the injured is considered a “vulnerable road user”.

So, we all pay taxes for policing services, yet because someone chooses to ride a bicycle, which makes them vulnerable to being severely injured from what would be a minor fender-bender in a car, that person will benefit from a greater level of service when they are in an accident? What about moderate-level car accidents, that require an ambulance ride but are not trauma-level? Why is a cyclist’s broken arm more of a public safety concern that an auto driver’s broken arm?

It would seem to me that if the Police Bureau has enough resources to perform more investigations, that’s great, but the standard ought to involve injury level regardless of one’s chosen method of transport.

There’s nothing particularly exciting about the latest update, but since the topic of former cheerleading coach Neil Finger’s pleading guilty to sexual misconduct with a minor has led to a lot of (sometimes contentious) comments on this blog, I might as well note that today he was sentenced to 9 months in jail.

Uh oh. Another elected government official is advocating for more government intrusion into private lives, with probably-unconstitutional searches of folks without any suspicion of committing a crime other than being in a particular place at a random time.

The Bush administration? Nope.

The CIA? Nope.

The TSA? Nope.

Washington (let’s recount until she wins) Governor Christine Gregoire is pushing forward a proposal to institute “sobriety checkpoints”, despite the fact that the state Supreme Court ruled them illegal. Way to go, Ms. Gregoire… at one point I thought the Democratic party had something to do with respecting civil liberties.