You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Feel free to look it up. Back when I tracked these things, the percentage of serious car-bike collisions that were hit-and-runs was near 50%. Recent experience shows that this hasn't changed all that much. Next time you look out over a sea of cars, realize that half of those drivers, if they hit you, are quite willing to leave you for dead. But don't let that sour your opinion about people or anything.
That's a complete non-sequitur. Let's assume that you're correct that the percentage of car-bike collisions that were hit-and-runs is near 50%. That seems a bit high, but I wouldn't be too surprised if that's true. To proclaim, however, that this implies that the percentage of all drivers who would commit a hit-and-run on a bike simply goes well beyond your first statement. First, most bike-car accidents are the fault of the car driver and often they are doing something extremely bad. Many are drunk, driving without licenses, driving with revoked or suspended licenses, etc. Many hit-and-runs are drunk drivers who are fleeing not simply because they caused an accident, but because they are afraid of being arrested for drunk driving. ...and seriously injuring someone while drunk implies an additional penalty. ...or driving without a valid license.
Although the prevalence of drunk driving is certainly far too high as is the prevalence of folks driving without valid licenses, you simply can't assume that most automobile operators fall into these categories.
Going further, how are you defining, "anti-bike bias" - how would you propose measuring this ? What percentage of the public do you believe has an "anti-bike bias" ? If it is a high percentage, how might that correspond to the number of bikes owned by many families ? Can a parent have an "anti-bike bias" if they have a few bikes in their garage that are ridden by their kids? At what point is it fair to say that the public in general or the police have an "anti-bike bias" - are we speaking about a majority (e.g., 51% or higher ?) Are you proclaiming that it is most of the public and police (perhaps 95%?).
Do you really have that dim an opinion about people in general and car drivers in particular?
In my short 30 mile ride today, I had no less than 4 people wave and smile at me. When I got a flat right as I was coming to a convenience store and was changing it outside, at least 2 asked if I was okay and another few smiled as I put the tire back on and asked if everything was fixed. I had absolutely no one give me any indication that they had an "anti-bike bias." What are you doing out on the road to get so many people mad at you if you think that half would not mind killing you ?
No, I don't believe that most officers are bad or will illegally abuse citizens. But a large enough percentage of them do, sure. Why did they fight tooth and nail against having an independent police monitor or a citizens' review board? Why did they so strongly oppose any oversight to weed out the "few bad apples"?
I suspect that "they" fought a citizen's review board for the same reason that police departments in many areas of the country fight them - because they are notorious for not working well, demoralizing police departments, acting capriciously, and acting in a way that will likely bring legal liability to the city.
It's not "organizational", it's just that police are simply *people* and they have bias against cyclists for the same reason that non-police officer *people* do. Whatever percentage of the general population carries that bias, is likely reflected when citizens matriculate to become police officers. I don't think that people suddenly, magically lose their bias when they become cops.
You seem to have a very negative view of people in general then. I've run into my share of poor drivers who are a hazard to everyone including cyclists. I've also run into a few who clearly have a bias against bikes. ...but when I can see a driver's expression while riding, they are generally smiling at me and not swearing. ...particularly when I'm riding a tandem. Everyone seems to love tandems. ...back to the point, those few individuals whom I have come across who don't seem to like bikes also don't impress me as being good drivers. I see your point about the fact that the cops are people and won't lose their biases when getting the job, but there is also clearly a self-selection mechanism where people who are younger, more fit, and likely better drivers are more likely to be attracted to police work than are those who are otherwise. ...and then there is another selection/filter mechanism called a background check that is going to weed out from law enforcement careers the criminals, those with poor driving records, those with substantial medical problems, those with poor eye-sight, etc. ...and I strongly suspect that the characteristics that I just mentioned are the ones most associated with poor driving and anti-bike bias. In other words, I simply don't buy your argument that the proportion of anti-bike cops vs. other cops is the same (or higher) than the proportion of anti-bike-non-cops vs. other-non-cops. I would strongly suggest that it would be lower than the the anti-bike bias among the general public. ...and the anti-bike bias by the general public I am sure is much lower than what you suggest. I simply have not met a single person who has observed me ride to work or who has seen bike gear in my office or home make negative comments - in contrast, all of the comments I've ever heard have been positive. ...and this includes the comments of every police officer I've ever personally known or spoken to. Do you think that the average cop also has a bias against bike-patrol officers?
Among the general population or among cops? You think that neither has bias, or that the general population does but that somehow police are immune to it? So you're welcome to your opinion that there's no such thing as bias against cyclists, but the evidence tells me otherwise.
What evidence? You're providing selected anecdotes. I must admit that I am also, but I'll admit it.
I'm not saying that there is no anti-bike bias among selected individuals, but I simpy do not see it as widespread as you - among the cops nor among the public. Again, you seem to have a very negative view of people in general. Perhaps I'm just an optomist.
Wow. I think if you sit at any busy intersection in town you'd see drivers running the red on pretty much every cycle, and drivers rolling stop signs at least every couple of minutes. If you include not signaling turns or not stopping before the marked stop line, we're talking well over 50% of drivers.
...not sure where you drive, but I used to drive over 50 hours per week and have never observed the type of thing you're speaking about. Are you sure that you're defining "running a red light" correctly? I would guess that the definition of running a red light in TX is similar to most other states - the light has to be red *before* you enter the intersection to be considered a violation. If you're already in the intersection when it turns red, or you enter while yellow, it might not be good driving, but it isn't illegal. ...and an intersection generally starts back at the crosswalk, so the legal standard is pretty high. I do see a number of drivers go through yellow lights when they probably shouldn't - but shouldn't doesn't equate to illegal.
It's not a terrible analogy at all. What seems to be clear is that you have labelled all of the cops with the same brush and are grossly overgeneralizing a few cases claiming that "the police" do something when what you're really describing is a single police officer doing something you don't like. Police officers are individuals and have a good bit of discretion in how to handle various matters. You seem to be suggesting that there is some type of formal organizational bias against cyclists. I'm not saying that this is not possible, what I'm saying is that I don't believe that it is occurring in Austin - perhaps in some small town elsewhere in Texas, but I don't see the evidence here. Would I believe that individual officers make bad decisions occasionally - absolutely - just like people do in any organization. ...but I simply see no evidence that there is some widespread anti-cycling bias as you imply.
...and there is simply no way that the officer in question in this particular incident saw multiple simultaneous violations - while I haven't lived in Austin all that long, I have never observed 2 traffic violations simultaneously, and I have never "immediately" observed an offense worthy of a ticket when I have been out driving.
I find myself agreeing with doug and savanni. Let's not blame the cop here. It's unrealistic to think that he could have simply let one person go who is already stopped just to get another. ...and although I don't think that the original poster mentioned it, but wasn't this a bike cop? What did you want him to do, chase after a car on a bike?
It's also unrealistic to suggest that "from a public safety standpoint, it makes sense to target those who are the greatest threat..." if that were the case, then thieves would be ignored simply because folks are also committing robberies and robbers would be ignored because people are committing murder. I admit this is an extreme example, but the point is that people should not have the idea that they can ignore certain moderately serious law violations simply because others are committing other violations are more serious. I might fault a cop who specifically spends his or her time out on more rural roads specifically targeting cyclists who very clearly aren't causing problems going through a sign when no one is around, but I don't see evidence of that here.
Hi Lynn,
You didn't include your email in the post. Please do so and I'll send you an email directly.
Jeff
jma6610, I don't know about this case, but when I used to track cases like this, it wasn't the case that there was just a slight delay before the police pressed charges: literally *months* could go by with no charges being filed, and in at least one case, a driver who ran a red light near campus and killed a cyclist ultimately paid no fine, faced no jail time, and didn't even get a citation for running the red light in the first place.
So maybe charges were finally filed in the case that started this thread, but I kind of doubt it. And I no longer have the heart to keep tracking cases like this like I used to. Someone else will have to do the follow-up on cases like this one now.
...just to be clear, I'm for giving most police departments the benefit of the doubt about any single case in particular, because I've seen many instances where there are extenuating circumstances that justified various decisions that on the face of it looked bad. But I do agree with you that if there are clear patterns toward ignoring this type of thing, that it is problematic.
badgnome wrote:I might even go so far to say that plea-bargaining not be allowed\
Plea-bargains aren't offered for the benefits of the defendants. They're offered for the benefit of the *prosecution*.
So as much as I'd like to see plea-bargains go away (they send too many innocent people to prision), I have to say that any attempt to make an offense "more serious" by prohibiting plea bargains is likely to backfire.
Yup, well stated. ...and by the way, how certain is anyone that the driver was not eventually charged? I've heard on several occasions about cases where similar has occured where the cycling community gets outraged when they read in the paper that there were no charged filed at the time the story was written, when the charges occured a few days afterward. What people who don't work in the legal system don't often realize is that the police have essentially one chance to gather information and collect evidence and that most of this has to be done before charges are filed. If they rush into things, they will miss things, make mistakes, or otherwise mess up an otherwise good case. The papers are unlikely to follow up about an incident that is several days old and then print an update if charges are filed later.
What I'm saying is that it would be wonderful if a criminal prosecution would result in a major story in the Statesman that people would read and take pause. ..and then realize that there are worse things than getting a ticket. It would be wonderful if they would take seriously piloting a vehicle. ...but several decades of research about such matters has told us that this generally doesn't occur. ...and the article that Dougmc posted a while back that was published in J.Personality and Social Psych explained that people who are incompetent in a variety of areas are the ones who are least likely to learn about how incompetent they are. The implication is that the folks who are most prone to drive poorly are the least likely to learn and be deterred from reading about the consequences that have occurred to others.
What I'm saying is that the thing that will result in the most safety here is the driver's license being revoked through an administrative process that is likely already initiated. Whether or not he is charged with a traffic or other violation is secondary. It would certainly be appropriate, but I don't think that it's critical and don't think that it will do all that much to deter others from engaging in similar behavior.
I'm not suggesting that the driver shouldn't be charged, only that I'm not ready to fault the police for not doing so unless I would hear all of the facts in the matter and what exactly they have done.
Re-read my prior post about losing the license. In most states, and I'm sure TX is one, there are a few ways in which an elderly driver can lose his or her license. One way is for the police to send paperwork to the licensing people that they suspect there is a medical/health issue after the police have had contact with the driver in some way. Then, depending on the state law, the driver has to either get medical clearance, get a new driver's exam, or otherwise prove he or she is still capable of driving. This just occurred with my 82 year old step father. Another way is for family members to request this, often through the person's physician. ...but health issues are considered more confidential than many other matters and the police are certainly going to resist efforts to release copies of reports that specify that they have filed such paperwork. Picture the publicity the police would have if their paperwork stated that they spoke with the driver's family members who mentioned prior bad driving on the part of the driver. If such paperwork was routinely released to the public, how many family members would want to openly speak to the police about such matters?
The courts can only suspend the license for a short period of time based upon the specific law pertaining to the offense. The medical community can start the process to revoke it completely.
...and unfortunately, it really doesn't matter what you call it. The law calls every death at the hands of another (even justifiable ones) homicide. Murder is generally used when the homicide is done illegally in some way, and generally only when done intentionally. Negligent or vehicular homicide is used when the homicide is accidential but done while committing another offense. I really think that we need different penalties depending on the intent of the actor. This is a major foundation of the US legal system.
There are many things I can fault the police for. Perhaps they didn't do their jobs here and failed to file any paperwork to start the process of license revocation. But right now, I see no evidence that this is the case.
Let me play devil's advocate here. As much as I hate bad drivers on the road, especially when I'm riding, I'm unsure I see any real advantage to criminally charging an 85 year old man in this situation. There are other avenues to obtain "justice." If the police officer was doing his job, he should have filled out paperwork to send to the drivers license folks to start a process to get the driver's license revoked. That generally involves a medical exam by the driver's physician (at least in most states, I don't know about TX). Since these matters involve health issues, they are generally considered confidential, and therefore, this is one reason why the police are not going to want to release their reports about these types of things. The family of the cyclist can also sue.
Now think about what's going to occur in a criminal or traffic court. First, what's the actual charge ? Perhaps speeding and/or reckless driving. Perhaps there are other charges. Perhaps the actions were serious enough to potentially warrant a charge of vehicular manslaughter (or whatever TX calls it). That's still a misdemeanor offense, meaning the possibly of jail time is near zero (do you want to start to think about which rapist or murderer should be left out of the crowded jail system to make room for the 85 year old?) ...and guess who pays his medical bills if he is locked up ? If the violations were only traffic violations and not something more serious, you're speaking about fines that might total $1,000 or less even if multiple citations were issued. ...and in terms of deterring other drivers (especially other elderly drivers?) do you really think that more than a handful of folks would ever know what would happen to the man if he was criminally charged? At best it would be a back story in the paper that few would ever see. ...and if no one knows the outcome, how could anyone be deterred from similar action?
Would seeing the man face punishment through the criminal justice system make the victim's family feel better? Would it make us feel better? Perhaps. Would it really make us safer on the road? Frankly, I doubt it. What is going to do the most good on a practical level is the police starting action to get the license revoked and the victims family suing for compensatory and punitive damages.
If you type the first phrase into Google, you will get a number of examples of form letters written by the AG's office to various law-enforcement or other local governmental agencies. If I understand correctly, you asked a local agency (or the DPS) to release to you some type of document under the state's open record laws. Someone from that agency sent your request to the AG's office for a ruling/opinion because that local office didn't want to release the document, suggesting that their refusal to release is an authorized exception to open records matters. The AG's office agreed with them, but stated that they must release some very basic information like the name of anyone arrested. I believe they are stating that your request is the type that such agencies receive all of the time from folks who might not understand what the open records laws actually are and that such requests are very routine and not novel or complex. Therefore, rather than spending a great amount of time on the details, they will simply issue a form letter stating that the agency doesn't have to comply with the records request.
Again, however, this is just my guess, I'm not an attorney, and I haven't been following the thread.
At 05:04 PM 7/7/2012, you wrote:
>We are a family of 4 wanting to start recreational riding together. Can someone please advise on the best bike shops in/around Austin to help us get started off in the right direction as far as equipment? Ages 43, 39, 7 and 4.
This is a nearly impossible question to answer without some information about your budget, interest, past cycling history, level of fitness, etc. If you want to cycle decent distances with the goal of some fitness, you will never do so with a 4 year old unless you have either a tandem or a single with a trailer. Tandems can be fit with a "child stoker kit" in the rear that places a second set of cranks/pedals within reach of younger kids (I'm unsure if these are still made, however - I heard years ago that the company may have gone out of business). I've heard of kids as young as 3 having fun on the rear of tandems so equipped. ...but such an arrangement can be very expensive. A semi-decent tandem that you would want to ride for more than just a mile or two will cost at least $1,000 and that's really at the bottom end of something that would be okay to ride more than around the block. Less expensive options include bike trailers or "trail-a-bike" options that can be hooked to a single. The former requires the kids to do nothing, while the latter permits them to do some pedaling if they wish. Some of the nicer trailers have suspensions and can be converted to jogging strollers - Chariot brand is the one I went with years ago when my daughter was young.
My tandeming and trailering was in another state, however, so I don't know about the shops that would be best in this area. I've ridden with some families that had a beautiful triplet with a trailer that they took on centuries with their kids of about your family's ages. I would guess, however, that they laid out about $10,000 or more for their custom Santana triplet.
I did a quick check on google and noticed that Bicycle Sport Shop rents tandems. I would guess that someone in town might rent trailers or possibly trail-a-bikes. I certainly wouldn't want to put out thousands of dollars on something only to find out that the kids (or parents) didn't like it. ...so renting or borrowing might give you some idea about what the family will appreciate before you lay down too much money.
Jeff
These studies clearly don't seem to be accounting for the number of miles ridden yearly by the cyclists. Although I don't know, I strongly suspect that even if the number of cyclists has decreased, the miles ridden has gone up and thus the exposure to accidents will go up. Bikes have become much more high-tech over the years and this has made them both objectively easier to ride for longer distances and more comfortable, and also more appealing to those who simply like to ride something that they are proud of and feels good to them. I also suspect that none of these studies differentiates between the strong recreational (or even professional) cyclist who is riding many hundreds or thousands of miles on more heavily travelled roads each year and the teenage cyclist who is riding around the block twice a week. I suspect that more of the latter are turning towards skateboards and other similar hobbies but that this trend doesn't much affect the adult cyclist who is riding more miles now than before. I rarely hear about a child or teenage rider being hit by a car, but often hear about the more serious adult cyclist who is riding on more heavily travelled roads being hit. I've also heard that more serious road riding has increased in the US since Armstrong become popular (many people I know seem to get motivated during the TdF each year). The studies also do not seem to be accounting for the number of miles driven by the motor vehicles each year. More miles by either cars or bikes will create more accidents if all else is equal.
Another thing to consider is that making comparisons across years by using the percentage change in accidents (or whatever) can be somewhat misleading). E.g., if there is a 1 in 1 million chance of something happening and that increases by 80%, this means that the new rate is only 1.8 in 1 million. ...still a very small number.
What the message should be in these studies is that cycling can be dangerous in some ways and that danger might be increasing somewhat in recent years (although that danger is offset by increased health that will make one live longer and healthier). So you need to protect yourself by wearing a helmet.
Pages: 1
[ Generated in 0.122 seconds, 7 queries executed - Memory usage: 647.92 KiB (Peak: 679.05 KiB) ]