The Argus Observer | Online

Comment Blog - Note: All Comments Subject To Approval

Right Side Clyde wrote on May 17, 2009 9:43 PM:

" You type "simultaneously". that would have made it a head on. Cops drive bad sometimes. Hide behind an ORS or OAR or what ever it wouldn't be "under investigation" had it been so cut and dried. Call me a moron or what ever you are all the dorks that get sucked up. Perhaps if you really learned how to tackle issues instead of the cross walk stings you would have learned something. there's a doughnut for you all. now eat it. "

right turd clyde wrote on May 15, 2009 8:42 PM:

" Clyde or too funny could you guys give me the ORS (Oregon Revised Statute) that you are referring to. I didn't think so. Try this one.....811.275 Failure to yield right of way at uncontrolled intersection; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure to yield the right of way at an uncontrolled intersection if the person is operating a motor vehicle that is approaching an uncontrolled highway intersection and the person does not look out for and give right of way to any driver on the right simultaneously approaching a given point, regardless of which driver first reaches and enters the intersection. "

Miss Me wrote on May 15, 2009 8:04 PM:

" HEY Morons!! How about yielding to an emergency vehicle!!! Cop car, Ambulance........Get the Heck out of the WAY or STOP!! "

Right Turn Clyde. wrote on May 15, 2009 7:46 AM:

" Hellscanyon; you write tickets for a living? Glad to see your scope of employment doesn't task you with much. There are things called Priority-to-the Right, this is a provision that includes police/patrol cars the automattic right of way. BUT simply turning on the lights does not give any officer the "right" to fly through town and traffic lights. "

TOO FUNNY1 wrote on May 14, 2009 7:39 AM:

" Right of way does not "always" go to the person on the right! If I am merging into traffic from an on ramp I do not have the right of way, the vehicles on the interstate have the right of way. However they should move over and allow the oncoming vehicle to merge but if unable to, the merging vehicle must yeild the right of way. Furthermore, in Hells Canyon example where a vehicle is already in an intersection and the other vehicle is just approaching that same intersection, the vehicle that is already in the intersection has the right of way. Common sense would tell you this much! Oh, and I dont write tickets for a living. Ha. "

To hellscanyon wrote on May 13, 2009 9:06 PM:

" You couldn't be more wrong the right of way always goes with the person on the right, unless they are exceding the speed and they then give up thier right of way.

I write fail to yield tickets for a living, you don't. "

hellscanyon wrote on May 13, 2009 7:39 AM:

" Right of way goes to the person already in the intersection. The Kia was struck in the right rear. Pretty much sums it up, unless the Kia was backing up. Nice to support the police, but they are human and make mistakes just like the rest of us. "

FACT wrote on May 12, 2009 1:57 PM:

" A police officer does not have the right of way just because he has his lights and siren on. He is by law permitted to proceed with caution above speed limits or thru red lights, etc. If he hits somebody he may still be responsible. Other vehicles are required to yield to emergency vehicles but it is not a free pass to just go as fast as you want through an intersection without caution. Not looking for an argument, just a fact. "

A wrote on May 12, 2009 12:30 PM:

" To Dodge:

Well holy crap, do you want everyone to start crying over a wrecked cop car...things happen, deal with it. It's not like they drove into each other on purpose.

Besides, as stated before....it was only a dodge, lol.

And I doubt the mayor only cared about the new car that was wrecked...sounds like he was just trying to vent frustration and thats what came out. It's not like he carries a teleprompter around. "

Dodge wrote on May 12, 2009 9:17 AM:

" Are you kidding? It's only a Dodge? A Dodge that cost the City a ton of money! Why would that play into your opinion in the least? Please tell me that you never intend to run for city-based office of ANY type. "

Bill wrote on May 11, 2009 11:18 AM:

" ...For the life of me I cannot understand the sense of uncontrolled intersections, having been around them most of my life, they are an important safety tool at any intersection. It's far too easy for a driver to assume he/she has the right of way (not faulting the officers here)and I have witnessed that assumption way too many times. Oregon needs to come up to speed and install stop signs...now. "

What wrote on May 10, 2009 9:14 PM:

" You're right, the cop does have to obey traffic laws. But, when his lights are on, he has the right-of-way.

How fun is it to jump on the blogs and critique a cop that was hit in an intersection with his lights on? Unfortunately, if the same cop responded to your call for helpa and took the time to stop and yield at every intersection, you'd blog about their slow response time. Damned if they do, damed if they don't. "

to Optimist wrote on May 10, 2009 12:01 PM:

" Actually they are allowed to go faster than the speed limit in and emergency, and the officer had the right of way. I know, I was there. Were you? (and no, I am not a cop)

Also, I bet if you had an emergency you would want them there as soon as possible, correct? Get the facts before you go off half-cocked. "

A the real A wrote on May 10, 2009 11:50 AM:

" Thats too bad. I'm surprised more accidents don't happen on all these uncontrolled intersections,I've had my share of close calls through all of them over the years.

Most people are terrible drivers anyway, so you are safer to let them go first. "

Optimist wrote on May 9, 2009 7:16 AM:

" Look at the bright side. It was only a Dodge. Those worthless things cant be worth the money that the city of Ontario is dishing out for them. Just glad neither occupant was seriously hurt. The boys in blue will eventually cover for themselves and the officer will be found innocent when, in fact, wreckless endangerment should be seriously contemplated. Just because you have a lightbar, does NOT mean you disregard traffic laws. "

What wrote on May 6, 2009 11:28 PM:

" You bloggers disappoint me. There hasn't been an inteligent thing come out of Joe's mouth in years, yet you expected something smart now? "

A wrote on May 6, 2009 12:48 PM:

" “Of course it had to be one of the new ones,” Ontario Mayor Joe Dominick said Thursday afternoon.

JOE U R AN JACK A$$ "

great comment wrote on May 6, 2009 9:37 AM:

" glad to see our great mayor is so concerned about the individuals involved and not the car! What a joke, looks like he was hoping for a free replacement of an older vehicle.

Thanks Joe, for the concern for the citizens of Ontario and the officers of Ontario, you moron. "

oregongirl wrote on May 4, 2009 2:33 PM:

" for all those confused on "right-of-way" please refer to your drivers manual. it is the same rule regardless of what kind of car you are driving, police or otherwise. pretty sure that is what the police chief is referring to. "

JIM P. wrote on May 4, 2009 1:23 PM:

" OF COURSE IT HAD TO ONE OF THE NEW ONES HUH JOE? MAYBE, " ALTEAST NO ONE WAS SERIOUSLY HURT" WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SUITABLE. "

boiseman wrote on May 4, 2009 4:14 AM:

" Of course the officer had right of way. Several times I have to avoid collisions with police officers thinking the wolrd revolves around them. just because police have lights and sirens doesnt mean they can break the law. officers should be held more responsible for these types of accidents. "

TERMS OF USE

Those who post comments are accountable for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they furnish. While we encourage writers to utilize this service on our Web site, we also strongly suggest they treat it as public forum where good taste counts. We reserve the right to decline for approval objectionable material from these blogs.

Writers that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments - such as racists language, threats or comments unrelated to the story - will not be approved for the blogs. Also, entries that are unsigned or "signatures" by someone other than the actual writer will not be approved.

While writers can still post anonymously, we strongly suggest that they do not do so.

Opinions, guidance and other information expressed in Argus Observer story blog comments and on the Argus Observer blogs represent the individuals' own views and not necessarily those of the Argus Observer. The Argus Observer furnishes this type of forum and does not endorse and is not accountable for statements or advice from anyone other than an designated Argus Observer spokesperson.