Skip to Content
Accidents and Crashes

Bend man charged with DUII, assault in Hwy. 26 three-vehicle head-on crash

All three drivers taken to hospitals after unsafe pass attempt, OSP says

WARM SPRINGS, Ore. (KTVZ) – Three drivers were taken to hospitals after an unsafe pass attempt led to a crash Sunday night on U.S. Highway 26 on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, Oregon State Police said. One driver later was cited on DUII, assault and other charges.

OSP troopers and other first responders were called to the three-vehicle crash around 9:50 p.m. on Highway 26 near milepost 97, Captain Tim Fox said.

A preliminary investigation found that a 20-year-old Bend man was heading east at the wheel of a  pickup and attempted an unsafe pass of a car driven by a 69-year-old Bend man, Fox said. The pickup collided with a car driven by a 22-year-old Sandy man, then with the other Bend man’s car.

The man from Sandy was flown by Life Flight helicopter to St. Charles Bend. The 20-year-old was taken to the Bend hospital by ambulance and the 69-year-old was taken by ambulance to St. Charles Madras.

The younger Bend man was taken into custody after release from the hospital and taken to the Jefferson County Jail, where he was cited on charges of DUII, third- and fourth-degree assault, reckless driving and reckless endangering, the OSP captain said.

The crash and investigation closed Highway 26 Sunday night. OSP was assisted by Warm Springs EMS, the Warm Springs Police Department and ODOT.

Central Oregon / Jefferson County / Local News / News / Top Stories / Warm Springs

KTVZ news sources

Comments

5 Comments

  1. Seems like tyranny. It wasn’t this person’s job to keep other drivers safe, so it was his right to get behind the wheel. Many drunk drivers do not cause crashes, so the other drivers were probably just too old or slow to get out of his way. This is just Brown and Biden subverting everything the Founders fought for. This guy was in no way self absorbed to the point of sociopathy, it was his right to endanger the public. After all, the only important part of America is the ME and the I. Hoping for a full and speedy recovery to the victims and an epiphany for the alleged offender.

    1. So what you are saying is that we have a responsibility to protect each other and it is respectable to make small personal sacrifices to protect ourselves and others. We shouldn’t do patently dumb things that cause others harm all in the name of freedom and to complain about tyranny when those freedoms subtly restricted is tyranny. Making this all political, by mentioning whomever is president, as if they have anything to do with it anyway, is politicizing an issue unnecessarily. This is my feedback on how I interpret what you are saying. Nonetheless, you could have picked a better example to make your points as no one, even conservatives, are going to make the arguments you are suggesting they would make in this situation, which is classic straw man. The question is if you can reasonably describe what you think conservatives really think. If you can’t genuinely understand those at the opposing end of the political spectrum, maybe that’s the problem you are having. But don’t cop out and say anyone who disagrees with you is incomprehensible, that shows your lack of understanding.

      1. I appreciate your reasoned and rational response. The point, sarcastically delivered, is the “It’s not my job” rationale has been repeated here and a particular mainstream media source over and over again. That train of thought is insidious, especially when bolstered with perceived and assumed rights and then politicized to further entrench the tribalism. It is a cancer in our society. We can, and should, be having conversations about what constitutes a public health emergency, what powers the executive branch does and does not have without oversight, when and how can medicines be fast-tracked, how do we best communicate information accurately and how can global health situations be attenuated (those, by the way, are reasonable concerns across the political spectrum). But, I will put precisely zero effort into comprehending the idea that it is acceptable to intentionally endanger others out of a sense of entitlement.

  2. By the standards of the left now, the people injured will be able to sue the driver, the automaker of the pickup he was driving, and the booze/drug seller and manufacture, the same standards they want to apply to guns.

Leave a Reply

Skip to content