Advocacy & Safety - Bicyclists: Raise Bad Driver Fines

here's another article from Phoenix:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/0223ar-cyclist0223Z14.html

Randy, I guess that's your comment 'not every road is good to ride on' and 'route choice is important'
Not good public cycling advocacy messages in my opinion. I understand what your saying and it can be said to other cyclists - but it just re-enforces the prejudices that many non-cyclist road users have.

More on issue here:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=269352

Al

I'd like to see fines made a percentage of gross annual income. This would be more fair across the board by not effectively penalizing lower income people more harshly than people in a higher income bracket. I also think traffic laws could and should be more stringently enforced for all road users, not just motorists. Another thing I'd like to see is an automatic manslaughter charge for a driver found to be at fault in any crash that involved a fatality, be it with another motor vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian.

I'd like to see fines made a percentage of gross annual income. This would be more fair across the board by not effectively penalizing lower income people more harshly than people in a higher income bracket. I also think traffic laws could and should be more stringently enforced for all road users, not just motorists. Another thing I'd like to see is an automatic manslaughter charge for a driver found to be at fault in any crash that involved a fatality, be it with another motor vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian.
+100.

I'd like to see fines made a percentage of gross annual income. This would be more fair across the board by not effectively penalizing lower income people more harshly than people in a higher income bracket.

Would that be family income or individual income?

Why should the severity of a crime be tied to ones income?

Why should the severity of a crime be tied to ones income?
Well, why should severity of crime measured in the US dollars to start with?

Would that be family income or individual income?

Why should the severity of a crime be tied to ones income?
Individual, since the individual driver would be the one committing the crime.
Why should someone who is more financially affluent effectively be punished to a lesser degree than someone who is less well off, for the same crime? In other words, let's hypothetically say I make $30,000 a year, and let's say you make $100,000 a year. Let's say we both are caught doing the same crime for which the fine is $500. I think it's plain that I am going to be fiancially hurt worse by this fine than you will.

I'm all for raising the fines for wreckless/irresponsible drivers.. but what about also raising fines for cyclists who use up too much road and impede traffic? Or run red lights? Or who fail to trafficate with hand signals - causing situations that can often get themselves or others killed? ..Perhaps wreckless bicyclists could accumulate 'points' -the same way that drivers get points on their license for traffic tickets, and after a certain number of points for wreckless riding - the authorities simply impound their bike for a certain period of time and require them to take a 'riders saftey course' ?

I'm all for raising the fines for wreckless/irresponsible drivers.. but what about also raising fines for cyclists who use up too much road and impede traffic? Or run red lights? Or who fail to trafficate with hand signals - causing situations that can often get themselves or others killed? ..Perhaps wreckless bicyclists could accumulate 'points' -the same way that drivers get points on their license for traffic tickets, and after a certain number of points for wreckless riding - the authorities simply impound their bike for a certain period of time and require them to take a 'riders saftey course' ?
Running redlights is the only one of these points I could agree with. As for the others, cycling is dynamic, and there could realistically be situations where releasing the handlebar would be less safe than not signalling. In the case of possibly impeding traffic, I particularly disagree. The cyclists road position should be, and is in FL, determined by the cyclist and only the cyclist, for a given situation at a particular place and time. For instance, the safest place to be in a NOL two-lane highway is the middle of the traffic lane. I have never seen this disputed in all the VC/BL flame wars that have taken place on this forum. Will motorists have to slow to the cyclists speed? Of course, until it's safe to change lanes to pass. Is this an unlawfully slow speed, or unlawful road position? Not under Fl law.

I also disagree with the punishments you outline when a simple fine would suffice. The points and bike impound and return policy would be unenforceable. Hypothetically, say I got caught breaking enough laws to rack up enough points to get my bike impounded. What would stop me from riding any one of four other bikes until I got my first bike back? And who would pay for damages to the first bike? In a police impound I would be very surprised to get a bike back in a rideable condition, if I ever got it back at all.

However, I do agree with holding cyclists accountable for breaking applicable traffic laws, i.e., running redlights or stop signs, riding on the wrong side of the road, riding at night without lights, etc.

Fines in the US are dirt cheap... the penalty for speeding is more like a surcharge for getting somewhere faster. This has to do with car culture, in the US-- IMHO. The US uses a very liberal definition of "accident"-- when in fact, true accidents are very rare (if they fit the definition of unforeseen and unpreventable). There seems to be huge resistance towards criminalizing driving related offenses. Furthermore, driving is treated as a RIGHT and not a privilege. Even such simple things as DWI checkpoints are met with a huge fight.

When I moved to Norway, I had to pay about $800US to get a drivers license that expires on my 100th birthday. It would have been far more expensive had I not been previously licensed--- so it costs kids thousands of dollars to take the classes and tests. The age is 18 to drive. If you lose your license, you are required to start all over again--- and spend thousands in classes to get it back. A speeding ticket ranges from $400 to $600-- so people tend to respect the speed limits much more than in the US.

I could go on and on about what a joke it is in the US--- if you ever wanted to get away with murder, just run them over in your car. Say that you sneezed or the sun was in your eyes... or you were avoiding a squirrel or best of all, you just didn't see them. There will be no fines. No consequences. You don't even need to stop. Just drive home and if you get caught, claim that you had no idea that you hit something... or that you thought it was a deer, and they ran off into the woods. It is perfectly legal to kill people in your car... apparently DAs do not want to "ruin the lives" of people who "accidentally" kill peds and bikers.

I find it interesting how people in the US with CDLs tend to be much better drivers. Their livelihoods depend on it. Their hours are logged. They have much lower allowable BACs for drinking and driving. Driving is treated as a skill-- not their god given right.

/end of rant.

Fines in the US are dirt cheap... the penalty for speeding is more like a surcharge for getting somewhere faster. This has to do with car culture, in the US-- IMHO. The US uses a very liberal definition of "accident"-- when in fact, true accidents are very rare (if they fit the definition of unforeseen and unpreventable). There seems to be huge resistance towards criminalizing driving related offenses. Furthermore, driving is treated as a RIGHT and not a privilege. Even such simple things as DWI checkpoints are met with a huge fight.

When I moved to Norway, I had to pay about $800US to get a drivers license that expires on my 100th birthday. It would have been far more expensive had I not been previously licensed--- so it costs kids thousands of dollars to take the classes and tests. The age is 18 to drive. If you lose your license, you are required to start all over again--- and spend thousands in classes to get it back. A speeding ticket ranges from $400 to $600-- so people tend to respect the speed limits much more than in the US.

I could go on and on about what a joke it is in the US--- if you ever wanted to get away with murder, just run them over in your car. Say that you sneezed or the sun was in your eyes... or you were avoiding a squirrel or best of all, you just didn't see them. There will be no fines. No consequences. You don't even need to stop. Just drive home and if you get caught, claim that you had no idea that you hit something... or that you thought it was a deer, and they ran off into the woods. It is perfectly legal to kill people in your car... apparently DAs do not want to "ruin the lives" of people who "accidentally" kill peds and bikers.

I find it interesting how people in the US with CDLs tend to be much better drivers. Their livelihoods depend on it. Their hours are logged. They have much lower allowable BACs for drinking and driving. Driving is treated as a skill-- not their god given right.

/end of rant.
+100
It's so easy and inexpensive to get a DL in the U.S. it's rediculous. Only the very minimal training required.

The US uses a very liberal definition of "accident"-- when in fact, true accidents are very rare (if they fit the definition of unforeseen and unpreventable). There seems to be huge resistance towards criminalizing driving related offenses.


YES +100!!

If just driving 20 mph slower could have prevented the collision then it is not an accident!! I don't understand why this is such a hard concept for our court systems. Well no, I do, most jurors broke the speed limit on the way to court. It's all just so agravating.

I'd like to see fines made a percentage of gross annual income. This would be more fair across the board by not effectively penalizing lower income people more harshly than people in a higher income bracket.

That's exactly the way it is here (Finland). For example, the when Kimi Räikkönen (F1 driver, with Ferrari now) got traffic ticket two years ago it was 30 000 euros. And when one of the Nokia executives was caught speeding with his Harley Davidson, the fine was 116 000 euros.

Raising fines, and even making them a percentage of gross income, sounds like a great idea. But I'm doubtful that it was get the desired result. Not too long ago, Massachusetts had a flat rate fine system for speed limit violations. If you got caught by state police while doing 90 MPH in route 128, the fine would be the same as if you had been caught going a mere 60 MPH. So, the state went to a graduated fine system, used in other states. I forget the exact amounts, but if you get nailed going 80 now, it can be a serious impact on your wallet. Also, MA uses a surcharge system on your insurance, so you will be paying for that speeding ticket for up to seven years. A similiar system applies for other moving violations, such as running red lights and stop signs.

This system was supposed to stop aggressive, belligerent drivers cold. Guess what? Motorists in this state drive just as badly as ever, and probably worse. A drive on Route 128, or 495 on a weekday morning will prove this conclusively. There are a few drivers who cruise along, with reasonable and proper speed, but they must be "on the lookout" at all times for the tough-guy wannabes, who come up from behind and lay their horns. People around here feel they have to apologize for obeying the lawful speed limits.

What really scares the u-know-what out of American Motorists is losing their licenses, either for a suspension or for good. The penalties for this vary from state to state. In MA, you must be caught without a license several times in order to receive actual jail time. A local cop told me that people who they catch operating without a license will typically appear in court in the morning, receive a stern scolding from a district court judge, and be driving again by the afteroon and often, their lawyers will play the system like a guitar and get their licenses back. That's just the way it is here.


There seems to be huge resistance towards criminalizing driving related offenses. Yes indeed. There is also enormous resitance toward making if more difficult to get, and keep, a license. Getting such legislation through the state legislature is damn near impossible. Elected officials know that supporting such a thing could be deadly come election time.

Today, it is so easy to get a license in this state, they might as well just give them away in boxes of Cracker Jacks.

I have an idea that I'll post seperately.

I think it's plain that I am going to be fiancially hurt worse by this fine than you will.

Again, why should financial ability enter into the punishment? If you're economically disadvantaged, that not the judicial systems problem.

Wrap you answer around this:

You and I both commit vehicular homicide. Is the victims life worth less because you killed him. Is it worth more because I killed him? What if I make twice as much as you, but support a family of 4 while you're living with Mom & Dad?

There seems to be huge resistance towards criminalizing driving related offenses.
There sure is, but I don't think it's just about criminalizing driving related offenses being unpopular with the general public. It is expensive when a person enters the criminal justice system, even if they're never incarcerated for their offense. I'm not sure I understand where the money for this would come from, though I'm certainly no expert on the income tax revenue flow. Do we increase our national debt even more to fund it, or do we do something else like stop repairing so many roads? The money has to come from somewhere.

Again, why should financial ability enter into the punishment? If you're economically disadvantaged, that not the judicial systems problem.

Wrap you answer around this:

You and I both commit vehicular homicide. Is the victims life worth less because you killed him. Is it worth more because I killed him? What if I make twice as much as you, but support a family of 4 while you're living with Mom & Dad?
If I make half as much as you, why should the effective punishment for the same hypothetical crime be twice as severe on my part? This is actually a pretty good example of our current unbalanced system, in which the wealthy walk, the indigent pay heavily. If there is a victim in this suppositional crime, they aren't going to see any money from the fine. The victim won't see any money unless they file a civil suit. Then, if they win, they should be awarded without regard to our financial abilities.

Let's flip it the other way. What if you are wealthy and living with the folks while I support a family. The same fine that could financially cripple me for months may be little more than pocket change to you. In this case, how would such a fine be a deterent on your part?

The same fine that could financially cripple me for months may be little more than pocket change to you. In this case, how would such a fine be a deterent on your part?

This argument reminds me of the gas tax one, only in reverse. There is never a fair and equitable solution.

You have to be careful the punishments aren't too severe, otherwise you get unintended consequences. For example, if the punishment for drunk driving is too severe, you might be better off doing a hit and run. If getting caught is punished too hard, killing your victim might prevent it.

Folks, this proposal is about increasing fines for drivers who kill or maim cyclists and other road users, not about fines for traffic violations.

Al

This is off topic, but comes up as it is part of the reader opinions below the article. One person who has a seemingly pro-(good)-cyclist bent wrote this:
"The road belongs more to cars is the bottom line. However, as a good driver, I respect bicyclist who use hand signals and "share the road", but not cyclist that jam up a whole lane."
I think it is an excellent example of how drivers are willing to share the road as long as the cyclist is out of the way.

Al

But noisebeam, this same person (Brian) wrote in his first comment "The roads were initially built for cars, not bikes. There should be a law that says bicycle riders must share the sidewalk, not the street." The first sentence is historically inaccurate, and the second reveals a typical misunderstanding of the nature of transportational cycling.

Another commenter (Rita) tried to correct the historical record, with one glaring innacuracy about interstates.

It's really unfortunate that people believe that the roads belong more to cars. The roads belong to people. They are a public right of way. Everyone has a right to the road, but some people leave their cars at home. Bringing yours with you doesn't make the road yours.

But noisebeam,
Your right, but I don't think its a 'but'. The side point I was making is the idea that many motorist have that 'share the road' really means 'cyclist can also use the road, but they better stay out of the way of me'

Al

Another aside but related to the article is the sidebar photo showing:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic//pics/0223ar-cyclist0223Z14.jpg
"...the state's bicycle coordinator, keeps to the bike lane on 40th Street as he commutes to his home in Ahwatukee. He wears a reflective vest for greater visibility."

When the picture clearly shows the coordinator riding on the bike lane stripe, not in the lane.
But the main point from me is this shows the editorial/writers bias that a 'safe' commute means keeping to the bike lane.


Al

Oh, what do I think about the topic, the proposed law?

I think its fine if there are increased penalties for killing/injuring a cyclist, but that these penalties should apply even if a cyclist is riding outside a passable bike lane or adjacent path.

Currently the way the law is written the penalties only apply if a cyclist is injured/killed while in a bike lane if passable and present.

If the penalties are increased it is only going to make it harder to go back later and correct this flaw in the law.

Al

(ben4775, March 8, 2007 12:49PM)

I am frustrated comment speaks for itself. I am living in an auto centric valley.

My perspective is that the criminal penalty should be the same as injuring someone in an auto--and that the law should be enforced in the same manner---that means if you kill a cyclist, you are on the hook for vehicular homicide. I think enforcement is the problem, not the penalty. If you start making special penalties for cyclists, it only reinforces the notion that cyclists want "special" treatment on the road, rather than being treated like other vehicles. Whether the JAM should have to pay the cylist is a matter for the civil courts.

Another aside but related to the article is the sidebar photo showing:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic//pics/0223ar-cyclist0223Z14.jpg


Al

Thats a good pic of being seen. This guy (bicycle cord. for AZ) is my hero! Everytime I think that is too long I think of this guy.

Thats a good pic of being seen. This guy (bicycle cord. for AZ) is my hero!
He certainly is.

But the irony of the photo and incorrect caption "keeps to the bike lane" is that technically if he was (hopefully never) injured in the riding position he appears to be in (on or just outside the bike lane stripe, not in the bike lane) the 'raised bad driver fines' would not even apply.

The proposed law only ammends the existing law which says that the fines do "not apply to a bicyclist who is injured in a vehicular traffic lane when a designated bicycle lane or path is present and passable."

Al

<i>Iron</i> +1

Randy, I guess that's your comment 'not every road is good to ride on' and 'route choice is important'
Not good public cycling advocacy messages in my opinion. I understand what your saying and it can be said to other cyclists - but it just re-enforces the prejudices that many non-cyclist road users have.


it's an unfortunate truth that what he's quoted as saying isn't based on right to the road or traffic laws, but the realities of survival. there are roads in my city that i WILL NOT ride on, simply because of the ignoramuses that sit behind steering wheels like kings of the world. (i won't get into my whole freudian theory here....)

we DO need stiffer fines for drivers who hit cyclists -- as well as more emphasis during driver training/testing, license renewal, etc. insurance companies -- normally the bottom-feeders in this whole thing -- could contribute to this, by offering discounted rates to drivers who can demonstrate cycling awareness. make it a part of the policy process, as a redundancy to traffic laws; more awareness of the law, and the compliance with same, should result in better deals for the insured. since beyond the level of basic expense of doing business, it's all gravy, let the compliant/aware driver pay the present rate, and the ignorant pay through the nose. additionally, driving w/o insurance needs to be a SERIOUS offense, not just a ticket & a tow.

When I went to small claims court with my wife to sue a lady that owed my wife $1000, we went in early to watch some other cases. All 3 of the cases before us were young spanish speaking males who failed a breathalizer and had no license or insurance (the cases in a row!) all 3 of them got a fine and were told they weren't supposed to drive without a license or insurance.

I think it's a valid point that raising the penalties might also raise the hit n' runs. I think people should just be better drivers. I've never had a ticket in my life, never been pulled over, never been in an accident, never had a moving violation of any kind. I usually drive with the stereo on a medium volume, i only mess with my cell phone at stoplights or pull over to mess with it, if someone calls I'll usually not answer it or pull over to answer it, or answer it and tell them make it quick or call me back.

Or maybe make seperate roads for bikes/peds, just lots and lots more mups around the city. Or i saw in a picture where concrete posts about 5 ft apart separated the bike lane from the road, so then it just becomes a non-issue.