Motorcylist seriously injured in crash near major I-15 exit in Salt Lake City

SALT LAKE CITY () — A motorcyclist suffered serious injuries after being involved in a crash on 300 West and 600 South in Salt Lake City on Wednesday morning.
The Salt Lake City Police Department on social media shortly after 8 a.m. on June 11. Police did not immediately provide details about the crash, saying only that the crash involved two cars and a motorcycle. The motorcyclist was reportedly taken to the hospital in serious condition.
The police department warned that due to debris scattered through the intersection, the crash would cause significant traffic impacts to the area while officers conducted their investigation and cleared the scene. Officers fully closed the intersection and began diverting traffic one block away in each direction.
According to the Traffic Monitor map provided by the Utah Department of Transportation, 600 South is experiencing significant slowing, backing up on the off-ramp from eastbound I-80. Additional traffic impacts are affecting 400 West and 300 West.
It is currently unclear when the intersection at 600 South and 300 West will reopen, but investigators expect it to be closed for 'several hours.'
Utahns on their morning commute into Salt Lake City are advised to use alternate routes. Northbound traffic from I-15 can take the 1300 South exit or the West Temple exit to 900 South. The 400 South exit is also available to northbound drivers for those carpooling or with an HOV Express Lane pass.
This is a developing story. ABC4 will update this post as new information becomes available.
Thune threatens to nix July 4 recess to finish work on Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'
EXCLUSIVE: Utah man who underwent 120 surgeries advocates for rare disease awareness in Washington, D.C.
Motorcylist seriously injured in crash near major I-15 exit in Salt Lake City
Harmful algae blooms pop up in Utah Lake, Zion National Park – what to know
Speaker Johnson to address Israeli Knesset
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Forbes

4 hours ago

• Forbes

250 Million Acre Public Land Sale Would Ruin The Off-Road Industry

Ford Performance at the 2025 King of the Hammers in Southern California's Johnson Valley. Since President Trump took office in January, the amount of threats to anything considered public—from a large slice of our nation's workforce to the media—have been unrelenting. Earlier this month, these threats took on a new form: potentially robbing the American people of millions of acres of public land. Unveiled on June 11th and revised on the 14th, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's budget reconciliation bill outlines over 250 million acres, to be slightly more exact, that could be offered up for sale to private business. As reported on by Jonathon Klein of Ride Apart, this could have a tremendous negative impact on not just our natural resources, but every corner of the outdoor industry as well. For those amongst us who enjoy off-road driving (or hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, cycling, climbing, etc.), the possibility of being cut-off from lands where we savor such activity is very real. Klein points out one particular swath of land in Southern California, Johnson Valley—home to one of the world's top off-road racing events, King of the Hammers—is on the chopping block, which would not only be detrimental to this event, but every single industry that's involved in it. Automakers, the aftermarket performance and racing industries, tourism, general outdoor equipment industries; the list goes on. Take that same scenario and multiply it by every other parcel of land that outdoor enthusiasts could lose access to, and the damage would be extensive. For a good overall picture of what's on the chopping block, The Wilderness Society has created a handy map. Competitors at the 2020 King of the Hammers in Johnson Valley, California. But why is all of this land potentially for sale? As stated in the bill itself, as much as $15 billion in revenue could come from expanded oil, gas, coal, and geothermal leasing. Other aims include increased housing production, domestic energy security and timber production, as well as, in the bill's summarized words, 'ensuring states and counties benefit from energy projects on federal lands.' The Wilderness Society has also outlined a handful of counter arguments. In its words, 'research suggests that very little of the land managed by the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) and USFS (US Forest Service) is actually suitable for housing.' It also explains that the federal government can revoke national monument status and that certain changes would negatively impact sovereign Tribal Nations. We can't forget the fact that increased energy production carries its own environmental hazards, too. It's all bad and very unnecessary. One thing that truly makes America great is its beautiful natural land that's here for all of us to savor, and this bill could cut off a very significant portion of it. And again, there's the immense adverse effect on every single outdoor industry, especially off-road driving and racing, and the massive amount of American companies that feed it. Contact your US senator and let them know how you feel. Especially if you live in Utah, which is Senator Mike Lee's turf. He's Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the creator of this bill—ironically, as many as 18 million acres of his state's land could potentially be up for sale. That's a lot of territory for off-road driving, hunting, shooting, fishing, climbing, camping, hiking, mountain biking, and so on.

San Francisco Chronicle​

5 hours ago

• San Francisco Chronicle​

Supreme Court delivers another blow to California's imperiled emissions standards

The Supreme Court reinstated legal challenges by oil and gas companies Friday to California's strict emissions standards for motor vehicles, standards that the Trump administration is likely to halt on its own in the near future. Federal law allows California to set tighter limits on auto emissions than the national standard, and since 1990 has allowed other states to adopt California's rules, an option taken by 17 states and the District of Columbia. But fuel companies affected by the increasing use of electric vehicles contend the state's standards are too restrictive and have sued to overturn them. Lower federal courts ruled that companies had failed to show they were being harmed by the standards, and therefore lacked legal standing to sue, because electric car sales are increasing for other reasons. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 7-2 decision. 'The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court.' But dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said lawyers in the case had told the court that the Environmental Protection Agency, under President Donald Trump, was about to withdraw its approval of California's waiver from nationwide standards, 'which will put an end to California's emissions program.' The EPA took that action during Trump's first administration, which was reversed under President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Trump would prevent California from banning sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles in 2035, a law the state has challenged in court. The Supreme Court 'is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' and Friday's ruling 'will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act,' said Jackson, a Biden appointee. In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court should have returned the case to a lower court to await the EPA's action. Kavanaugh, however, said fuel companies affected by California's current standards could seek to prove in court that they were arbitrary and unlawful. His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said it was not a full-scale rejection of the state's emissions standards. 'This ruling does not change California's Advanced Clean Cars rulemaking, nor does it dispute what data has shown to be true: vehicle emissions are a huge source of pollution with grave health impacts, consumer adoption of zero emission vehicles continues to rise, and global auto manufacturers are committed to an electric future,' she said in a statement. But attorney Brett Skorup of the libertarian Cato Institute said the ruling was 'a welcome rebuke to judicial gatekeeping' and affirmed that 'predictable economic harms from government regulation' entitle 'injured parties (to) have their day in court.' The case is Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, No. 24-7.

Miami Herald

7 hours ago

• Miami Herald

Hopes Of Lower Tariffs Against European Cars Are Fading Fast

One of the biggest promises of President Donald J. Trump's electoral race was to impose tariffs on foreign imports, and shortly after he was inaugurated for the second time, "tariffs" quickly became one of the buzzwords of his presidency. When it comes to cars, just about anything produced outside of American borders is going to get a lot more expensive, and due to vastly complex international supply chains, even domestically produced products could be impacted. But there was a glimmer of hope that the president would change - or at least soften - his stance against America's allies in Europe. European Union leaders had publicly expressed this expectation, citing a history of cooperation. However, as the July 9 deadline for tariffs to be further increased approaches, hope is fading, reports Reuters. The publication spoke to an anonymous official who reportedly noted that hopes of relief are fading faster now that tariffs have come into effect: "10% is a sticky issue. We are pressing them, but now they are getting revenues." A second source reportedly said the EU still would not accept the baseline rate but acknowledged that it would be difficult to change or abolish the measure. The European Union has also publicly declared that it would not accept double-digit tariffs as the United Kingdom has, but U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has ruled out the idea of any tariffs being lowered under the 10 percent baseline. What makes this worse is that the tariffs don't only apply to finished products; steel and aluminum from Europe face a 50 percent tariff, and that doesn't even include the standalone 25 percent tariff on foreign cars. The good news is that Europe, with a trade surplus of $236 billion with the U.S., needs to continue doing business with the largest economy in the world, so your local BMW dealer isn't closing up shop anytime soon. An EU official is quoted by Reuters as saying that the 10% baseline rate would "not massively erode competitive positions, especially if others receive the same treatment." And although hope of a compromise is fading, it hasn't been extinguished just yet. As noted by CarScoops, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has confirmed that negotiations are still underway, despite President Trump's assertion earlier this week that the EU hadn't been fair thus far. "We're talking, but I don't feel that they're offering a fair deal yet," said President Trump. "They're either going to make a good deal or they'll just pay whatever we say they have to pay." Von der Leyen said, "It's complex, but we are advancing - that is good - and I push hard to pick up more speed. So we are mixed in the negotiations, and we will see what the end brings." The United States government is adamant that its long-standing partners are benefitting more from the status quo than America is, and that mindset means that any price increases as a result of tariffs on EU imports will likely not be small. That said, automakers are working to find ways of absorbing as much of the financial strain as possible, and one way of doing that is by pushing sales of existing inventory with incentives and employee pricing offers. Related: Mercedes CEO Has a Trump Tariff Deal That Could Reshape US-EU Auto Trade Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.