Portland Bike Forums (by BikePortland.org)

Go Back   Portland Bike Forums (by BikePortland.org) > General Discussion > General Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-04-2008, 11:52 AM
Krampus Krampus is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 100
Thumbs down I just don't get this

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/storie....42c85a77.html

By KGW Staff

VANCOUVER, Wash. -- An SUV driver ran a red light and caused a chain-reaction crash that injured two people including a bicyclist Thursday morning, police said.

Investigators believe the Nissan Pathfinder went through the intersection with the red traffic light at Columbia Street and Fourth Plain and crashed into a Land Rover Discovery. Then, the Land Rover went on to hit a bicyclist.

"The Discovery rotated counter-clockwise striking a bicyclist that was also heading southbound next to the Discovery. The Discovery rolled onto its passenger side, ending up at the southwest corner of the intersection.
The Nissan Pathfinder ended up facing east in the middle of the intersection," Lt. Martin Holloway, Vancouver Police Department said. "The bicyclist was knocked to the ground."

The driver of the Discovery, Irene Sheppard, 54, had to be cut out of her SUV. She was transported to a local hospital but her injuries were not life-threatening, Holloway said.

The bicyclist, John Schaffers, 54, was also transported to a local hospital. He had minor injuries.

The driver of the Nissan Pathfinder, Angel Vasquez-Garcia, 20, was not injured. He was cited for failure to obey a traffic device and no insurance.

So you can run a red, cause a chain reaction that knocks down a cyclist and causes a Discovery to roll, walk away as the only one with no injuries... and the punishment for all this fun? A ticket for failure to obey a traffic device (200-300, same as running a red on a bike) and no insurance?

It's official, drivers can do whatever they want! All this mayhem and only $500 in tickets? I just don't get how this is even possible. Isn't running a red light reckless endangerment of some sort?

Last edited by Krampus; 09-04-2008 at 11:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-04-2008, 12:56 PM
biciclero's Avatar
biciclero biciclero is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Beaverton
Posts: 238
Default By the pound

Tickets might be more interesting if the fines were calculated by the pound.

Speeding: $0.03 per lb. per MPH over the limit. So a 3000-lb. vehicle going 10 over = .03 x 3000 x 10 = $900. Bike + rider at 200 lbs. blasting down a hill at 30 in a 25-mph residential neighborhood could get stuck with as much as .03 x 200 x 5 = $30. Or $60 if they managed to get it up to 35mph.

Failure to obey a traffic control device: $0.20 per lb. So a 3200-lb. (e.g. Nissan Altima) vehicle would be fined $640, while a 200-lb. bike + rider, would be $40. 5500-lb. (e.g. Lincoln Navigator) SUV = $1100. A surcharge ($1000?) should be added if you are deemed at fault for any accident caused by the offense.

Gotta be responsible for the amount of power you are wielding.
__________________
Dang! You got shocks, pegs... lucky! --Napoleon Dynamite
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-04-2008, 01:12 PM
K'Tesh's Avatar
K'Tesh K'Tesh is offline
Super Moderator
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Subject To Change
Posts: 2,739
Talking I like it!!! Drivers wouldn't though...

Quote:
Originally Posted by biciclero View Post
Tickets might be more interesting if the fines were calculated by the pound.

<snip>

Gotta be responsible for the amount of power you are wielding.
I like it!

But, of course, the drivers would all B**CH about how the cyclist are not treated equal. They'd all complain about enforcement because cops would only be going after the I/C engined vehicles, not the HPV's due to the vast difference in potential income from the fines.

Still, I think it would be fair...

Rubberside Down!
K'Tesh
__________________
Riding my bike is MY pursuit of Happiness!!!
beam.to/UFOBike
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-04-2008, 02:10 PM
djasonpenney's Avatar
djasonpenney djasonpenney is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: near Nike in Beaverton
Posts: 452
Default It would never fly but...

I would be in favor of legislation requiring a mandatory revocation of a drivers license if you are found at fault in an injury accident. Say, for three years?

Similarly, driving while suspended or revoked ought to have some real teeth (like mandatory jail time).

I think that would calm down a whole bunch of frantic drivers out there....
__________________
ORS 811.065 (1)(a):

The driver of a motor vehicle may only pass a person operating a bicycle by driving to the left of the bicycle at a safe distance and returning to the lane of travel once the motor vehicle is safely clear of the overtaken bicycle. For the purposes of this paragraph, a “safe distance” means a distance that is sufficient to prevent contact with the person operating the bicycle if the person were to fall into the driver’s lane of traffic....

LCI #2105 Lambchop Rides!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-04-2008, 04:06 PM
boneshaker boneshaker is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krampus View Post
Isn't running a red light reckless endangerment of some sort?
Should cyclists be cited for reckless endangerment if they run a red light?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-04-2008, 06:56 PM
Krampus Krampus is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boneshaker View Post
Should cyclists be cited for reckless endangerment if they run a red light?
Yes, they should.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-04-2008, 07:46 PM
Simple Nature's Avatar
Simple Nature Simple Nature is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 857
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biciclero View Post
Tickets might be more interesting if the fines were calculated by the pound.

Speeding: $0.03 per lb. per MPH over the limit. So a 3000-lb. vehicle going 10 over = .03 x 3000 x 10 = $900. Bike + rider at 200 lbs. blasting down a hill at 30 in a 25-mph residential neighborhood could get stuck with as much as .03 x 200 x 5 = $30. Or $60 if they managed to get it up to 35mph.

Failure to obey a traffic control device: $0.20 per lb. So a 3200-lb. (e.g. Nissan Altima) vehicle would be fined $640, while a 200-lb. bike + rider, would be $40. 5500-lb. (e.g. Lincoln Navigator) SUV = $1100. A surcharge ($1000?) should be added if you are deemed at fault for any accident caused by the offense.

Gotta be responsible for the amount of power you are wielding.
The punishment must fit the crime... I'd say you have something here. The potential damage for failing to obey the law does indeed go up proportionally with the weight of the vehicle with rider[s].
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-04-2008, 08:00 PM
vincentpaul vincentpaul is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 293
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by djasonpenney View Post
I would be in favor of legislation requiring a mandatory revocation of a drivers license if you are found at fault in an injury accident. Say, for three years?
Hmmm, I'd want to do a risk/benefit analysis on that idea. Setting the standard at "fault" would pretty much grind society to a halt.

Do some reading on red light timing and driver response time studies and you'll find that the timing of red lights is an interesting thing. There's lots of data to support the idea that if you extend the yellow period you can almost eliminate anybody who's not impaired from running a red light. Humans make poor decisions when they are under pressure to do so; removing the pressure encourages better decision making. Ironically, though, when you eliminate poor decision making you reduce revenue from traffic tickets. Putting in intersection cameras does not eliminate the running of red lights, but it does generate quite a bit of income. Guess which strategy is more popular in the U.S.? Since we already have the highest incarceration rate of any industrialized country, don't you think we could at least hazard a solution other than imprisonment?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-04-2008, 10:20 PM
wsbob's Avatar
wsbob wsbob is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,755
Default

Yeah, I'd agree with you Vincent, that is very interesting, and a typically wacky way to manage traffic. Nothing quite beats the allure of quick money.

Incarcerating people always seems to reflexively spring to law abiding people's minds as the right way to put offenders on the straight and narrow. Problem is, incarcerating takes a lot of room and it costs a lot of money. Extending the yellow period for traffic lights seems like a lot more sensible approach.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vincentpaul View Post
Do some reading on red light timing and driver response time studies and you'll find that the timing of red lights is an interesting thing. There's lots of data to support the idea that if you extend the yellow period you can almost eliminate anybody who's not impaired from running a red light. Humans make poor decisions when they are under pressure to do so; removing the pressure encourages better decision making. Ironically, though, when you eliminate poor decision making you reduce revenue from traffic tickets. Putting in intersection cameras does not eliminate the running of red lights, but it does generate quite a bit of income. Guess which strategy is more popular in the U.S.?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-05-2008, 07:50 AM
Haven_kd7yct's Avatar
Haven_kd7yct Haven_kd7yct is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Tigard, OR
Posts: 486
Default

Extending the yellow is an interesting idea, on paper-- but in practice, you'll see a lot more people trying to get through the intersection because "it wasn't red yet".

From my unofficial and unscientific observations, people want to get through the intersection as fast as they can. That means they'll run the yellow-- and the red, if they're following someone who just ran the tail-end of the yellow.

The best place to view this phenom: Down here in Tualatin/Lake Grove, at the traffic signals on either side of I-5, exit 290 (Lake O-Durham exit). Watch 'em as they are getting on or off the freeway. There's so much squeezing the lemon out here, the streets are awash in lemonade-- and orangeade, when the light goes from yellow to red and people are still going through the intersection.

I've seen strings of cars 3 and 4 long running the red, that's 3 and 4 cars leaving the stop line after their light has turned red.

That's after 3 or 4 cars have also run the yellow, which for the light turning onto I-5 south, seems pretty long anyway.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:41 PM.




A production of Pedaltown Media Inc. / BikePortland.org
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.