Lot's Knife

Denied platinum status repeatedly by the League of American Bicyclists, Arizona's second-largest city still can't get it together.

Ky_Rider

Thanks for sharing. I was just telling my wife the other day that if you want to kill someone just run them over with a vehicle. Rarely does anyone serve time. Somehow it's the walker or cyclist's fault they got hit.

turbo1889

Provided a prosecutor really wants to actually do something and isn't a accomplice after the fact him/her-self. In almost every state and under almost any set of laws in any half way civilized nation there are provisions for something that could be best defined as "willful gross criminal negligence in a position of responsibility over a potentially dangerous situation resulting in the death of innocent people" the same kind of statute that applies when the operator of a chemical plant knowingly and willfully ignores safety and it results in the plant going up in a blast that kills people or having a breach and people being killed by poison gas, etc . . .

Usually such statutes are applied in industrial settings, the captain that is drunk and runs his ship onto the rocks and passengers die, the chemical plant operator above, the contractor who builds a supermarket and deliberately and knowingly cuts corners and the roof caves in a week after it opens and people die, etc . . .

But a prosecutor that actually wants to make something that is worth something actually stick can use those same laws and legal precedents against drivers who are also guilty of killing other people by deliberate gross negligence in the operation of their dangerous machine. Very few are willing to actually do it though and are they themselves accomplices after the fact and are looking for ways to let fellow motorists off as easy as possible and by so doing are themselves guilty of felony obstruction of justice.

B. Carfree

Only dealing with deadly driving habits AFTER someone is maimed/killed is never going to make our streets safe. We need to use available technology to change motorists' habits BEFORE they kill/maim. Automated red light cameras have been around for decades, but aren't being used. In fact, they are being removed because of the hue and cry of incompetent motorists who have been cited by them. The same technology can be used at stop signs, but isn't. Automated speed detection vans are commonly used in Europe, but we don't employ them.

Until motorists are taught that scofflaw driving will have consequences they don't want to experience, then we will continue to have dangerous driving as the norm.

turbo1889

^ +1



One of the complaints about red light cameras which has even been made by some people on this board is that "they cause rear end accidents at stop lights". What a complete load of &(%&^@ @T%& &*$Y@ %&#U^%& @#%^^%&U# ^%&#&U %^UQWE 5@%&#& @%^%@^ @^%@%^ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First of all they are NOT "just accidents" they are a case of reckless selfish disgusting fool at the controls of a multi-ton killing machine acting at the bare minimum with criminal negligence in the operation of such a dangerous machine. Secondly the camera does NOT "cause" such collisions nor does the driver of the car in front who actually stops for the red light "cause" such collisions. Rather it is a case of the following driver following too closely and at too great of speed and ASSuming the driver in front of him/her will "get out of the way" and "move it along" even when doing so is in direct violation of the rules of the road and directly putting the lives, health, and property of others in peril.

What really "causes" such rear end collisions is that reckless selfish disgusting fool at the controls of a multi-ton killing machine acting at the bare minimum with criminal negligence if not outright vicious intent in the operation of such a dangerous machine and ramming into things right in front of him/her.

Jimi77

I have to disagree with you. To paraphrase Starman, "Green means go, red means stop, yellow means go really fast."

People slam on their brakes to avoid the ticket, but the car behind them and the car 2 cars back fully intend to run the light and end up slamming into the car that stops because basically everybody thinks it's okay to run the light. I got slammed into pretty hard for stopping at a red and the guy in his "2 ton killing machine" behind me punched it thinking I would run the red (like everybody else) and launched my van about 15 feet from a dead stop. 20 years later and my neck & back still hurt and I lose sleep over it (the pain). Luckily, I had my seat belt on or I would have suffered significant chest injuries too. I sure would rather have a ticket than a lifetime of pain. Ironically, I still stop at red lights.

rydabent

ky rider +1

I have said for a long time that if you are so deranged you want to kill someone, buy them a bike and just run over them. Get a slap on the wrist, and then go about your pathetic life.

turbo1889

@ Jimi77


Actually you and I might not disagree all that much.

My point is that ----- red lights (or yellow) do NOT cause such a collision, you as the person in front who stopped for the red light do NOT cause such a collision, the presence of a red light camera and any encouragment it may have on you or another to go for the brakes rather then the gas do NOT cause such a collision, rather the idiot with the "starman mentality" as you paraphrase it are the ones who DO cause such collisions.

And everything else to the contrary is a "shift the blame game". And unless the idiot earth men and women have those magic balls which allow them to make it so everyone walks away from the fiery wreck like Starman had and are using them what they are doing is the deliberate knowing free will choice to engage in gross criminal negligence directly endangering the property, health, and very lives of others and they should be dealt with accordingly to the full extent that justice demands same as if they had committed such a reckless selfish act with any other dangerous machine.

dynodonn 

Curious, because of one motorist's actions, why do you consider stopping at red lights, and saving others a similar fate as yours or possibly worse, as an irony? Put the blame on the other motorists negligent actions, not yours.

turbo1889

It's the same argument that some cagers try to make that "if that cyclist hadn't been on the road then I wouldn't have hit him/her from behind and run them down in the lane ahead of me and therefore they are the problem and the reason why the collision occurred". That is not logical and is a "shift the blame" statement when the truth of the matter is actually more like "if that motorist had acted responsibly and acknowledged the fact that they were operating a dangerous potentially lethal machine around other innocent people and had operated that dangerous machine accordingly then the collision would not have occurred."

The "red light cameras cause rear end collisions" mentality is the exact same sort of twisted "shift the blame" anti-logic and needs to be recognized as what it is and I personally believe that anyone using such a defense for either infraction should be treated in the courts of justice as "belligerent unrepentant offenders" and take such twisted "shift the blame" anti-logic statements and defenses into consideration when it comes to the sentencing discretion of the court.

ModeratedUser150120149

Thank You for keeping up the high standards of analysis and discourse that Advocacy & Safety has come to be known for. I really needed that on this Monday morning.

turbo1889

Are you serious or are you being sarcastic? Anyone in particular your referring too?

I'm asking a couple of serious legitimate question hoping for an answer, either way on both. I just want to understand you correctly which ever way you meant that. (Voice inflection doesn't translate through in the printed word.)

Matariki

Good article. Criminal court only assures justice to the accused. Civil court is where victims (or their families) can get some satisfaction

Jimi77

But I cannot control the actions of others and I can control my own actions. Had I run that red light, I certainly could have avoided 20 years of neck and back pain and "starman" still would have punched the gas.

Jimi77

It's not twisted anti-logic, it's accepting the reality of the situation. People are going to text & drive, get high and drive, drive even though they have no idea how to drive, people are going to continue making lefts from the right hand lane, etc, etc, etc. If you know of some way to make people respect that they are behind the wheel of a large killing machine, then I'm all ears. As far as I can tell, many if not most drivers are blissfully unaware of how dangerous driving can be.

howsteepisit

Or maybe, calling them "killing machines" and saying drivers are blissfully unaware of how dangerous driving can be are hyperbolic exaggerations of the true to life risks involved in our daily existence?

I-Like-To-Bike

If only "advocates" would recognize just how counter productive it is to use hyperbolic exaggerations and emotional ranting as if it was rational discourse.

genec

Mount a sharp object on the steering wheel of the vehicle... mount it in a manner so that it is pointed at the driver... they will eventually get the message.

B. Carfree

In spite of the fact that a plurality of people won't ride bikes or walk because of their fear of the way motorists operate their vehicles, the odds of getting maimed by a motorist in an average lifetime are about 50%. Where's the hyperbole? Check out your local paper's web site for a week and count the number of road deaths and drunks-in-ditch stories.

Walking, cycling, driving and otherwise using the public roads should not be an activity that entails any risk. The fact that motorists kill and maim people on a regular basis rightfully has reasonable people alarmed and angry. But you go ahead and put your head back into that hole; I'm sure that's comforting for you.

howsteepisit

No way is the chance of being "maimed" by an auto accident is 50% in an average lifetime. I am 58, can count on 1 hand the number of people I know who have been maimed in auto accidents. More hyperbole I think.

I-Like-To-Bike

See https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post16160095

I-Like-To-Bike

Is that the same reason why a plurality of people don't ride horses or don't ski?

Where did you find the info to support your rhetoric that the reason a plurality of people won't ride bikes or walk is because of their fear of the way motorists operate their vehicles?

genec

Horses are not cheap to own... compared to say a bicycle. Skis require snow... so not the best thing for use on public roads for transportation. Does that answer your somewhat insipid question?

genec

Wow, so the deaths of my uncles, the injuries to my dad, as well as the scars on my high school friend, and the scars on my face must just be statistical anomalies, right? And the 35,000 or so people killed each year are just some sort of odd occurrence, eh?

I will state that perhaps the term "maimed" is a bit of hyperbole...

dynodonn 

Seems to me that you are still blaming yourself for someone else's negligence. Since you still stop at red lights, have been rear ended again?