Online subscriber? Please Log In
  

Need Help? | Forgot Your Password?

Woman struck and killed in downtown McMinnville

Victim was operating a motorized scooter

Photo courtesy McMinnville Police Department<br>
<b>A 71-year-old McMinnville woman was killed Sunday afternoon when her motorized scooter was struck by a car at the intersection of Northeast Baker and Third streets. A bystander, not the driver, is standing next to the vehicle.</b>
Photo courtesy McMinnville Police Department
A 71-year-old McMinnville woman was killed Sunday afternoon when her motorized scooter was struck by a car at the intersection of Northeast Baker and Third streets. A bystander, not the driver, is standing next to the vehicle.

Oct 20, 2013 | 17 Comments


News-Register Staff

A 71-year-old woman operating a motorized scooter was struck and killed by a car about 3:15 p.m. Sunday at the intersection of Northeast Third and Baker streets in downtown McMinnville, according to McMinnville police.
 
The victim has been identified as Patricia Warren. She was pronounced dead at the scene.
 
The driver of the vehicle was identified as Jordan Christie, 55, of McMinnville. He remained at the scene and is cooperating with the investigation.
 
Police gave this account:
 
A witness reported that Warren was traveling eastbound in the crosswalk when she was struck. Witness statements indicated Christie, who was driving a 1955 Chevrolet sedan, was westbound on Third and was attempting to turn right onto Baker when the crash happened.
 
It does not appear alcohol and/or speed were factors. The traffic control device was working properly.
 
McMinnville police are being assisted by the Yamhill County Sheriff's Office and Oregon State Police with the investigation.
 
The crash scene and surrounding streets were reopened following an extended closure.
 
Anyone with information about the incident should contact Sgt. Michael Huber at 503-435-5617.
 

Would you like to comment on this article?

Only online subscribers may comment on articles. Click here to see how you can subscribe.
Already a subscriber, please

Note: Some articles do not accept comments at all.

Comments

11:28 am - Mon, October 21 2013
Trafik said:
Let me guess: another moron "didn't see" a pedestrian/bicyclist/driver resulting in the death of a person who was just out enjoying a beautiful autumn day. A woman died because a man was incapable fulfilling his responsibilities as a driver under Oregon law. An regrettable accident you say? Regrettable, yes; accident, not so much. Minimal driving skills would have prevented this entirely unnecessary event. And if it goes as it usually does, Mr. Christie will pay a nominal fine and maybe a slightly increased insurance premium while Ms. Warren pays with her life.

If your driving skillset doesn't include seeing the people with whom you share the streets, please stay home, take the bus or have someone who is a qualified driver haul you around! The rest of us are unwilling to place ourselves and our families at risk just so you can blindly and stupidly tool around in your souped-up old hot rod.
11:40 am - Mon, October 21 2013
Trafik said:
Before anyone claims that Ms. Warren was traveling against the light, ORS 811.028 requires a driver to yield to a pedestrian whether the pedestrian is crossing with or against the light.
03:35 pm - Mon, October 21 2013
Dough said:
If I am right, "hood scoops" are not to be more than 4" above the hood of the car.
That "scoop" looks alot taller than 4"?

That would be sad if that's why he was unable to see the lady in the cross walk.


03:38 pm - Mon, October 21 2013
Jonathan said:
Trafik---- what the pedestrian control light for her crosswalk was displaying does matter. If you read 811.028 again and then reference chapter 814.010 to 814.040, you will see that a pedestrian must obey the pedestrian signal and must yield to vehicles that are lawfully proceeding. If he was making a legal right turn on a red light, she too would have had a red light/don't walk signal, the difference being, he could legally proceed into the intersection to make the right turn, she could not. If he had a red light, and was looking to the south, which is where the only legally conflicting traffic would be coming from, why would he expect someone to be crossing illegally to his right when he proceeds to make the legal right turn on the red light? If she was unlawfully within crosswalk, in effect running a red light/don't walk signal herself, she would then be required to yield to vehicles legally proceeding. What the traffic signals were displaying does matter........
04:56 pm - Mon, October 21 2013
Trafik said:
I never said the signal's display didn't matter. The way I interpret it, yes, the pedestrian is required to yield if so directed (814.020). But 811.028 clearly states that a motorist must yield to a pedestrian under multiple circumstances, some of which do not require a green pedestrian light.

Regardless, a motorist vs. an electric scooter is a patently unfair fight. I maintain my position that the hawk-eyed Mr. Christie should have yielded for Ms. Warren regardless of her right-of-way--especially in a heavily-populated-with-pedestrians-area like Third and Baker. If Warren was jaywalking, then she clearly is partially at fault. But the bulk of the blame should rest squarely upon the shoulders of Christie.

When a driver is issued a driving license, there is an assumed minimal level of competence attached to that. One would hope this includes the ability to see the other folks on the streets.
05:16 pm - Mon, October 21 2013
Trafik said:
My complaint goes far beyond this incident.

The other day, I drove to work in downtown McMinnville, following a woman who stopped her car at every intersection. Every freaking intersection. Was the light green? Yes, but she felt it was safer to stop and then very hesitantly proceed across the intersection. If cross traffic had a stop sign and we didn't, she stopped anyway. When she turned right, she stopped, regardless of any traffic control device anywhere. In twenty-or-so blocks, she stopped 16 times. She was legally required to stop exactly three times.

Two weeks ago, I was behind another driver who was absolutely terrified of any opposing traffic. When we crossed Baker Street eastbound on Second, she proceeded across the intersection and--you guessed it!--stopped behind a pesky parked car in front of the city hall. She drove half-in and half-out of the parking lane and whenever there was a parked car blocking her way, we stopped until there was no opposing traffic in sight.

My point: why do we allow people who are clearly incompetent to get behind the wheel and endanger the entire community?

08:21 pm - Mon, October 21 2013
David said:
This is a sad situation regardless of how it unfolded. The point being it was an accident and if you read the ad it states speed was not a factor and neither were drugs or alcohol.Instead of pointing fingers and blame and speaking about the character of people you most likely don't know. Why don't we all figure out how to prevent another unfortunate accident from happening again. I personally have been traveling around and came across electric wheelchairs/ power chairs after dusk operating without any lights or add on's to alert motorists of there presence. --------traffic as far as your comments are concerned why do you start off ranting about the driver and end with a rant about people not getting outta your way and stopping unnecessarily multiple times just to ensure their safe travel down third street -----------
10:39 pm - Mon, October 21 2013
Trafik said:
If, David, you read my remarks in context, you'd see the common theme is incompetent drivers putting us all at risk. Timid and terrified drivers are as much of a risk as stupid drivers. Without coming right out and saying it before, I thought my comments were pretty clear: we need to dramatically increase the minimum competency of local drivers.

And a woman lost her life. Her life! I can't imagine a situation more deserving of finger-pointing.
12:32 am - Tue, October 22 2013
David said:
if you were there you may be able to do just that but you weren't ....and neither was I I simply stated you started off insulting and ended with complaining about people driving cautiously so your obviously not the one to judge anyone or there "competency" my prayers go out to the family's involved on both sides of this accident
04:27 am - Tue, October 22 2013
Jonathan said:
Hmmmm, okay, I think I have Trafik figured out. He expects every motorist to be extremely careful and diligent in pedestrian congested areas(not a bad idea) but if he finds himself behind someone that is exercising this extra due care, and that extra care is holding him up in any way from HIS style of driving or HIS schedule, that person apparently goes from a good, diligent driver, to an incompetent driver that should'nt be on the road. Makes perfect sense.

Oh.....on a side note, I still can't locate this parking zone in front of City Hall for eastbound traffic on 2nd Street between Baker and Cowls. You know, where you claim you encountered a parked car in front of City Hall. They must have anticipated your rant was a comin,,, and conveniently had that parking zone removed and the curb painted yellow before the city could be made to look a fool. Good Job Public Works!!!
08:12 am - Tue, October 22 2013
Kat758 said:
I too feel sorry for both families and prayers go out to both.
02:14 pm - Tue, October 22 2013
Trafik said:
My intent here was never to offend anyone and I do know that my views are towards the extreme on matters of driving. David and Jonathon, you've both missed my point and I'm sorry I was unable to make myself understood.

I do not EVER hold it against anyone when they exercise intelligent caution when driving. On the contrary, I've been trying to state that drivers should do exactly that. What I do find problematic, however, is the ridiculous level of "caution" demonstrated by both drivers I used as examples above. Those behaviors are not "cautious," they're absurd and dangerous. When a driver stops unexpectedly and for no reason, it creates an abrupt hazard for everyone behind him or her. (See ORS 811.130 Impeding Traffic.) Likewise, an inattentive and careless driver is far more likely to cause serious injury and death than a driver who is alert and intelligently careful. These are all competence issues.

My complaint is against the general incompetency we allow on our streets. Am I qualified to judge whether or not a driver is competent? Of course not (although I am entitled to form opinions based on observations). Once more, in this situation, a woman paid for a simple and accidental mistake with her life. Perhaps we can use this event to reexamine what constitutes the minimum level of driver competence we allow.

Even though I did express myself in rather blunt terms, I also feel badly for Mr. Christie. I'm certain he meant no harm and I do not wish to disparage his moral character. My focus is purely on driving skills.

I apologize if I've offended either of you but I stand by my points. But I most definitely could have expressed myself in politer terms.
02:20 pm - Tue, October 22 2013
Trafik said:
Oh, and the parking spot to which I refer is on the south side of NE Second Street, front of Civic Hall/City Hall, The vehicle that occupied it on the day I described was a Sysco truck presumably delivering supplies to Cornerstone Cafe or Geraldi's. The truck was right up against the curb and may or may not have been parked legally. It did not intrude into the traffic lane, did not block a view and there was no reason for anyone to stop behind it.
01:29 pm - Wed, October 23 2013
Trafik said:
The comments posted in this forum and on the News-Register's Facebook page have made me realize that my remarks were both callous and hurtful.

I apologize for the offense that I have caused.
05:53 pm - Wed, October 23 2013
preacher said:
traffic-----your screen name alone says a lot. you used a key word earlier "entitled" . Next time you are driving your "entitled"
but around town in your prius or smart car , or what ever piece of crap works for you, just shut up and keep "your" incompetent actions and comments to yourself. apparently you have not seen the Drag the gut festival in town to see just how many locals blindly and stupidly own and drive their stupid souped up hot rods!!
07:06 am - Thu, October 24 2013
kickstart16 said:
preacher---you seem to be someone who may have an electric wheelchair. I firmly believe that we need to require a license to operate them. Also since they are driven in the bike lanes, they should be subject to rules of the rode. We should set new laws to require an attached orange flag with 5-6ft pole, seatbelts, and helmets when riding them. I also believe little old ladies driving the wrong way on second street should be ticketed. I have seen many electric wheel chair drivers just pull out on the rode without ever looking. I think there is much more to this than just blaming the driver of the car.
06:48 pm - Tue, October 29 2013
preacher said:
kickstart16---------- perhaps you should reread my comment. electric wheel chairs are not my choice of transportation at this time. I to have a "hopped up car" and also agree with you that the motorized wheel chairs that insist on driving in the road are also a danger to every motorist that may encounter them. I seen an earlier post and
would also like add that hood scoops and altered suspensions does not make them any less safe than a stock car, some times it is a great improvement.

© 1999- News-Register Publishing | © The Associated Press
The News-Register and NewsRegister.com are owned and operated by News-Register Publishing Co., P.O. Box 727, McMinnville, OR 97128.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Web design & powered by LVSYS