(Photo: browneyes.)
This week’s Monday Roundup is brought to you by the Ride the Heart of the Valley Bike Ride. Set for April 26th, this ride is a benefit for the Oregon State University College of Veterinary Medicine and the Boys and Girls Club of Corvallis.
–
Here are the bike-related stories from around the world that caught our eyes this week:
Illegal walking: Child protective services threatened to take two Maryland children away from their parents after the parents let their kids (aged 10 and 6) walk home one mile from the park together.
Ambulance bike racks: A hospital in Fort Collins now equips its ambulances with racks to avoid leaving patients’ bikes at the scene.
Car-detecting radar: Garmin is marketing an alert device for bike users.
Gentle music: You can now listen to a version of Mambo No. 5 performed entirely by bike horn.
Global retrofit: There’s an international plan afoot to spend $90 trillion to redesign almost every city in the world for even more driving. Al Gore and the former president of Mexico are arguing that this would be a bad idea but are being mocked for it.
Gas tax: The NYT’s Gail Collins makes the case for a federal gas tax hike.
Car-shaped bike: My favorite analysis of a Detroit Auto Show demo vehicle: if your bike is too light, agile and convenient, the U.S. auto industry has you covered.
Allowing speeding: The political battle over the mechanization of streets and the invention of “jaywalking” came to its climax in Cincinnati in 1923, when auto dealers united against a mechanically enforced 25 mph speed limit and left us with posted signs instead.
Institutionalized speeding: The U.S. engineering practice of deliberately designing our roads for comfortably driving much faster than the speed limit, in the name of “safety,” apparently comes from one 1964 study.
Investigating speed: U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) has asked for a GAO investigation of whether federal standards that make it safer to drive fast are also making it more dangerous to bike and walk.
Yes we can: The NYC Transportation Commissioner’s frequent line that “culture eats policy for breakfast” is self-defeating, argues Brooklyn Spoke. Cities can change the menu.
Advertisement
Lip-syncing motors: Automakers from Ford to BMW to Volkswagen use fake engine noise to make people feel more powerful.
Lane-change collision: A Hillsboro man who changed lanes to pass someone biking accidentally accelerated into another car for a head-on collision Saturday.
Selective enforcement: A new law in Fort Lauderdale requiring bikes to be licensed turned out to be “a law that’s only being used in black neighborhoods.”
Transpo futurism: CityLab has compiled its posts about the future of transportation into a free e-book, its first.
Autonomous cars: Ann Arbor, Mich., is creating a 32-acre testing area for driverless cars.
Ridesourcing benefit: Uber claims that a planned expansion in Europe would take 400,000 personal vehicles off the road.
Inclusionary zoning: A much-anticipated bill that could let Portland and other cities require income diversity in new developments has been introduced in Salem.
Felony DUI: In Olympia, a bill would elevate someone’s fourth DUI conviction in 10 years into a felony.
Seahawk joyride: Seahawks defensive end Michael Bennett says he has three bikes at his house and rides regularly, though the trip he took down the field right after winning a trip to the Super Bowl was his favorite so far.
Mixed dating: How do people who arrive at dates in cars ever get laid? Lovely Bicycle explains.
Finally, your video of the week is an artsy account of an alternative scenario. (For a slightly more narrative approach, here’s the original column.)
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
The Hillsboro head-on collision doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s like driver’s think they are magically immune from head-ons if they are passing a bicycle.
I see it on SE Milwaukie alllll the time. Drivers will flat-out go all the way across the line and play chicken while gunning the engine, going 35 – 45 mph! Its insane.
Yes, but at least he didn’t evade the head-on by swerving into the bicyclist, which is what I think 99% of drivers would do.
Someone tried to pass me on a blind corner on SW Kingston in Washington Park last summer. I saw an oncoming vehicle coming around the corner and threw my arm out to stop the passing vehicle – he slammed on the brakes and a collision was averted. I would have been put in serious danger if not for that quick move… what the hell are these drivers thinking?!
There is an instinctive entitlement just about all drivers believe in: the right to pass any bicycle immediately, without slowing down or waiting for the visibility or space to do so safely. Many further believe that the bicyclist “forces” them to make unsafe passes.
I’ve related these anecdotes before, but:
– In a large parking lot with marked lanes and STOP signs, I was stopped at one such sign, all the way to the left edge of the lane, with my left arm fully extended. As I was about to make my left turn, a driver pulled up right next to me, on my left, fully in what would be considered the oncoming lane, slowed, then made her own left turn ahead of me.
– On three separate occasions (that I can distinctly recall), on a 25-mph road, I was going between 26 and 29 mph in the center-left of the single lane, when I was passed by drivers who moved completely into the oncoming lane to pass me when I was already speeding.
– On many occasions I’ve been a driver and had passengers comment, or been a passenger and heard the driver comment, when approaching bicyclists from behind, something in the general category of “look at these guys! What am I supposed to do? See what they’re making me do? What does he think he’s doing?” I usually respond by pointing out that with careful manipulation of the gas pedal and steering wheel—and sometimes the brake—it’s tricky, but possible to SLOW THE HECK DOWN AND WAIT for a safe opportunity to pass.
“There is an instinctive entitlement just about all drivers believe in: the right to pass any bicycle immediately, without slowing down or waiting for the visibility or space to do so safely. Many further believe that the bicyclist “forces” them to make unsafe passes.”
Is this a verifiable statistic that’s been reported elsewhere
simply anecdotal on your part. Because “just about all drivers” is a heckuvalotta people.
It may not be “just about all drivers” but it’s certainly a large percentage. I take the lane whenever there’s no bike lane while riding downtown and in the inner east side, and even if I’m riding at or above the speed limit it is *inevitable* that multiple cars will pass me “because bike.”
Let’s not get all semantic here; we all know what’s meant here and it’s basically a correct observation as anyone cycling much in car traffic will concur…
Seems that way to me also, I have been passed on the right while preparing to turn into a parking lot on a road that had only 2 lanes and they were too narrow to share safely. One guy lost a rear view mirror on my elbow.
I think the fact that I’ve also had just a few drivers pass me so dangerously and illegally (on the right) made me ride much more defensively than ever before. As a result, I may end up inconveniencing more drivers than I used to, but I’ve pretty much eliminated the possibility of these dangerous near misses now.
Frankly I’m not concerned with how many drivers behave this way; the fact that some drivers have endangered me in this manner is all I needed to become more assertive about my road positioning as a habit.
Hear hear! The main thing that scares me is not knowing if I have a driver’s attention. To this end when on neighborhood streets I ride the centerline and don’t make way for oncoming drivers until they move over a little or slow down. Passes are very rare (but my typical speed is greater than 15mph).
Turning left from NE 42nd onto Going can be dicey, I try to hold the lane so cars don’t start blowing by.
I emailed my state rep to show my support for inclusionary zoning.
Ford Lauderdale?
Regarding “Illegal Walking:”
Statistics support that crime has gone down in the United states over the last few decades. We live in one of the safest countries in the world, but our reporting of crime has increased drastically. We *perceive* the world as being much more dangerous than it actually is.
I feel like similar arguments apply to cycling- many people I’ve spoken with about bicycle commuting write it off as ‘impossible’ or ‘way too dangerous’ where they live, when in reality, engaging transportation cycling while abiding by the rules of the road (and eschewing sidewalks) is one of the safer activities one can participate in. They become even safer when you realize that a sedentary lifestyle is one of the biggest killers in the US.
Fixed it for you:
“…engaging transportation cycling is one of the safer activities one can participate in whether one chooses to obey irrelevant-to-safety motorist-centric traffic laws or not.”
Thank you for placing your opinion into my comment.
I understand that you do not agree with the concept of vehicular cycling, and I respect your stance. However, I will not substitute my opinion into your comment as you have so gracefully done to mine.
“abiding by the rules of the road (and eschewing sidewalks)”
if a cyclist wants to ride on the sidewalk on SE 122nd, who am i to judge?
if a cyclist wants to roll a stop sign on a residential street, who am i to judge?
if a cyclist wants to treat a red light as a stop sign, who am i to judge?
“Regarding “Illegal Walking:” …” Nick Skaggs
If you’re talking about walking in general, o.k. If you’re talking about situation the Washington Post story reports on, which is children inadequately attended or supervised, then maybe not.
The story says that in Marlyand, there is a: “…state law about leaving children unattended, which says children younger than 8 must be left with a reliable person who is at least 13 years old. …”. The older of the two kids was just 10 years old.
The Washington Post story made a reference to a couple phrases I’m not sure I’ve heard before, at least, not often: ‘free range parenting’, and ‘free range kid’.
You should look it up. It was a big deal last year in the news.
From the Post story, it sounds as though Montgomery County, Maryland officials, may not support the ‘free range’ parenting, kid concept on the route the kids take to school.
Wsbob,
I’m talking about this instance in Maryland in particular. I think that although circumstances and children all vary, most children are much more intelligent and capable than we give them credit for. Our perceptions of danger are out of touch with reality in the United States, and I am personally a huge fan of the “Free Range Kids” movement.
I was raised as a Free Range Kid, and it did wonders for my desire to explore my world with the power of my own two legs and kindled a love for the outdoors that I haven’t outgrown, unlike my old boots and bike.
I think we must be very careful where we allow the state to draw the lines restricting our freedom to raise children as we see fit- but a balance must clearly be struck.
Surely we don’t want children to be neglected, but it is statistically proven that children free to play outside are in little to no danger of “krazy person abuduction” the United States- esp. in constrast to the number of children maimed or killed in automobile accidents every year.
“I’m talking about this instance in Maryland in particular. …” Nick Skaggs
And how much do you know firsthand, about the instance, or situation with the young kids walking a mile by themselves in Maryland? Some people living along the route these kids walk, apparently do know the situation firsthand. They were concerned, and called the police in.
Introducing young kids to exercise and independence can be a fine thing. The parents in Maryland, in this instance, apparently went about the introduction, the wrong way.
If you haven’t spent time in Maryland, and thus don’t know how fitting is its law restricting child independence according to age, you contradict your own rebuttal by promoting the parents’ methods as “wrong”.
“If you haven’t spent time in Maryland, and thus don’t know how fitting is its law restricting child independence according to age, …” Caleb
At least some citizens of Maryland, the police and CPS in that state seem to feel the law is fitting enough for them to have to come out and investigate when young kids appear to be insufficiently attended. I’ll take their word for it until there’s solid information to the contrary.
Yes, the law’s existence shows at least some citizens were concerned enough for its creation to occur. However, as you have multiple times pointed out, the police and CPS were following protocol, so we can’t (as you have here) logically assume they share that concern, even if they do.
But back to my previous point: in taking their word for it, you still contradict your rebuttal against Nick’s argument, because you also don’t have first hand experience of circumstances in the scrutinized neighborhood.
Why no sidewalks?
Correction: The $90 Trillion Davos proposal is to redesign cities for LESS driving NOT more driving.
Toward the end of the post, they tell you that the Gore/Calderon proposal is actually to redirect $90 trillion that’s currently expected to be spent on auto infrastructure into non-auto infrastructure.
In the post, the Gore/Calderon proposal is presented as ridiculous. My point is that it’s actually less ridiculous than the status quo, which is to rebuild non-auto-oriented areas into auto-oriented areas.
> Transpo futurism: CityLab has compiled its posts about the future of transportation into a free e-book, its first.
Hopefully CityLab’s idea of transportation future has nothing to do with futurism:
> The Futurists admired speed, technology, youth and violence, the car, the airplane and the industrial city, all that represented the technological triumph of humanity over nature, and they were passionate nationalists.
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism
You might like an antidote http://www.generation-online.org/p/fp_bifo5.htm
We should have the votes to overturn the inclusionary zoning preemption this session. In some neighborhoods, such as mine, it could really make a difference. It is only one tool, of several, we included in North Tabor’s comprehensive anti-displacement comprehensive plan letter to the city.
From the story(which by the way, actually seems to be an ‘unattended child’ story.) this Monday Roundup “Illegal Walking” headline and accompanying link leads to:
“…We’re saying parents should pay attention to risks that are dangerous and likely to happen.”
She added: “Abductions are extremely rare. …” Danielle Meitiv, mom speaking in Washington Post story, titled: ‘Parents investigated for neglect after letting kids walk home alone’
The mom says ‘abductions are extremely rare’. That’s a relief. Her rationale sounds like something some people may think of phrasing as: ‘If you think you wont be abducted, you won’t be abducted.’.
Maybe the type of area the six and ten year old kids walk through is so nice, no bad people would ever think to drive through, stop, scoop them up and throw them in a van, never to be seen again.
There’s a large body of commentary under the article both defending and refuting your perspective. Several people chimed in saying that if there’s the smallest chance of harm to my child, I’m going to prevent it at all costs. It’s certainly up to parents to decide what emotional weight to apply to statistical risks affecting their own kids. To me, the interesting question of the case is how far government should be involved in making that risk assessment for individual families.
Also, as a BikePortland regular, I of course want to ask all the stranger-danger-fearing parents why they EVER let their kids get into a car, and then leave them to consider their understandable, but irrational, fears.
To the Washington Post story, no comments displayed, maybe because I have dial up. That story said also, as I mentioned in an earlier comment to this comment section, that by law in Marlyand: “…children younger than 8 must be left with a reliable person who is at least 13 years old. …”.
That’s the way things are in Maryland now. Maybe people in that state will at some point decide to move fully to embrace the ‘Free Range Parenting’ and ‘Free Range Kid’ philosophy of child attendance. That philosophy is not in force now, so the police and the children’s protective services in the state are obliged to enforce the law as it stands.
Free range parenting…build a cafe next door / across the plaza from the playground…Euro style.
That whole law is completely asinine. My friends and I pretty much ran (mostly on Huffys and Schwinns) loose on the streets at about age 6 or 7. The general rule was out of the house by 11 am….be back for dinner at 5:30. Statistically, it was much more dangerous in the 70’s than it is now.
I found it funny when people questioned my letting my kids walk down to the school yard to play which is 3 blocks away. And honestly I still don’t get it, but then again I don’t get many of the laws.
“…My friends and I pretty much ran (mostly on Huffys and Schwinns) loose on the streets at about age 6 or 7. …” gutterbunnybikes
It’s all funny, until a kid gets snatched, or worse. Then the laughing is over. You’re thinking about your situation, not that of the family in Maryland. If the kids walking by themselves in Maryland was something everyone along their one mile route new about, and were fine with, despite the state law, there likely would have been no stir raised.
I don’t think any of this is funny, but I still understand your point that because it’s not funny when a kid gets snatched, or worse, we ought to consider gravely the possibilities that exist in public. Even so, who can ever take lightly our society’s rampant paranoia, regardless of whether or not a child comes to any harm? One could care less about driving until a child dies in a collision. One could promote education as the smartest investment for a child until that child falls victim to a mass shooting. Et cetera. Any human being can make any decision their circumstances allow, so we constantly take risks just being part of our society, whether or not we find any condition funny. That the parents under scrutiny let their kids walk a mile alone does not mean they don’t consider your implication as heavily as do you.
As for the hypothetical situation in which no stir would have resulted, I have my own presumptuous description of events: what if the person who called the police was the one person who was concerned despite there being nothing dangerous?
The WSJ journal story doesn’t offer details about who, or how many people called about seeing the kids walking alone. The story just mentions that the police were called up about the situation.
The police couldn’t just toss the call off as paranoia. Their policy requires them to go check out the situation. Then, apparently based on what the police learned, CSP had to come out. If the Maryland parents want to introduce their neighborhood and city to being less paranoid about unattended young kids out on the street, significant distances from their home, it seems they’ve chosen the wrong way to do it.
I mean this as cordially as possible… what are you trying to say here? Can you cay it more concisely?
At the least, the parents aren’t abiding by law requiring that kids be attended by a person that’s thirteen years old or older. Worst case, depending on situations through which the kids are walking, the parents may be exposing their kids to possible mishap.
This is like the argument that nobody should cycle because there might be a bad driver out there somewhere. A holistic analysis would take into account things like the health risks of childhood obesity from no activity, the risks of traveling there in a car instead of walking, the risks of being under parental supervision (as many children are continuously harmed by there parents and may be better off at the park), the risks of not obtaining life skills, etc.
This risk/benefit for the child should really be decided by the parent based on the individual case, taking into account the benefits, experience level, training, neighborhood, and existing street smarts of the child.
As far the bad guys, they are the ones that need helicoptering. Use modern technology to track those with particular records (hit and run, kidnapping, etc) and leave the streets for the good guys to roam free.
“This is like the argument that nobody should cycle because there might be a bad driver out there somewhere. …” Tom
What is it that you’re saying is like the argument that nobody should cycle because there might be a bad driver out there somewhere?
Nothing in the Washington Post article is saying that Maryland law makes such an argument. Neither does it say the law in that state says kids shouldn’t walk a mile to school. The article says simply, that the law in Maryland requires that kids under the age of eight years old, should be accompanied and supervised by a reliable person that’s at least thirteen years of age.
It’s fine if Danielle and Alexander Meitiv, the parents in Maryland want their kids to get some exercise and experience in in independence and self reliance, by walking to school. With this desire though, they have an obligation, to their kids and the community they live in, to be aware of their responsibilities as parents and as members of the community, and be prepared to live up to both those responsibilities.
People like you are the reason that kids are so soft these days.
If you’ve got any more thought behind that remark than the simple smart alec remark it is, explain.
I applaud parents that encourage their kids to be physically and mentally active. Walking to school a mile or two, is just fine as far as I’m concerned, as long as the walking situation is safe, and the parents have checked and know they’re legally within the law to do so.
Judging by the parents’ quotes, I have no reason to assume they are even close to ignorant or incompetent of what you say they are obliged to know and be.
Their remarks in the WSJ, would lead a reasonable person to imagine the parents would have thought to do a little more preparation before deciding against the law, to send their kids out unattended.
I’ll agree with you if by “reasonable” you describe a person who thinks checking with the law is required before making most his/her/its decisions regarding how to raise one’s children.
As I mentioned in another comment, and as Kathy implied in one of hers, the article doesn’t say the parents knowingly decided against the law, and if anything, implies they did not.
“…As I mentioned in another comment, and as Kathy implied in one of hers, the article doesn’t say the parents knowingly decided against the law, and if anything, implies they did not.” Caleb
The WSJ story reported that the Maryland parents had their kids wear plastic signs around their neck that said the kids were “Free Range Kids”. Maybe they were unaware of the law, but that they decided to use the signs, suggests they likely were aware of it.
I noted that part, too. However, their using the signs as a result of knowing the law is one possibility, but certainly not the only possibility, so we make a logical leap when saying their doing so suggests they knew the law.
Using “bad” and “nice” as you have here is one way to simplify matters.
Typically, I’m a fan of cool new gadgets, and the higher tech the better. BUT…but the handlebar mounted car detector makes me go, “Hmmm…I wonder if there’s some low tech, inexpensive way to accomplish this task, like, say, I dunno, with MIRRORS!”
Now if the bike radar automatically activated a rear camera, that might be useful
Or some type of car-disintegrating laser beam.
Indeed. Also, my ears!
In the context of city commuting, the radar device would be going off constantly. Not helpful.
fourth DUI?!
Who comes up with these ideas? Why not the tenth, or the first?
Or at least go with the ‘three strikes’ concept…
There is a typo:
Investigating speed: U.S. Rep. Peter DeFasio (D-Ore.)..
It is DeFazio with a z not an s.
Thanks! Fixed.
The solution for repeat DUI is simple. Permanent drivers license revocation and a ban from automobile ownership. If its a felony they will still get out of prison in no time, get there license back and do it again. DUI is a very high risk of repeat offense. The emphasis should be on saving future victims.
I would add immediate confiscation and sale at auction of any vehicle being driven by a revoked driver (unless it could be proved that vehicle use by a revoked driver was completely unknown to/unauthorized by the vehicle owner).
Before we get too righteous in our condemnation of DUI (which due to 50 different state laws is relative and inconstant) let’s recall stats are emerging that phoning, texting, make up applying map studying and more are even more debilitating of reaction time, and focus than mild alcohol impairment. Nowadays I feel more anxiety about being hit by a texter or GPS user than a drunk. Do you propose the same penalties for these at least equally if not more dangerous activities? In some places DUI can involve quite minute levels of alcohol. Are missing something here? Those thinking I’m defending drunk driving are missing the gist of this…
I get what you’re saying and I can see the logical difficulties. But logically, if it’s a fact that distracted driving and drunk driving are equally dangerous, then equal penalties should apply to them.
Realistically, however, since society isn’t generally a real logical proposition, I expect that this problem won’t go be resolved until autonomous cars are the norm.
Yeah, the problem is one is provable via forensics (blood tests) on residual evidence, and the other is not. Don’t get me wrong, I think distracted driving is just as much a hazard to others as DUI, but proving distracted driving is orders of magnitude more difficult than proving DUI. And thanks to Federal “persuasion” DUI itself is consistent nationwide at 0.08%BAC. What happens afterward is the inconsistent part. WI is the real bad guy on this one as there are people driving around with valid licenses and more than 10 DUIs on their records, I think the record is something like 14 or 18. That is something that has to be stopped. I am a firm believer in making first-time DUI a misdemeanor if there was no wreck involved, with second and subsequent DUI being felonies with mandatory license revocation and full retest required (written and road) to recover license after the revocation.
Then again I am also in favor of mandatory confiscation and destruction of any car driven by a driver with a revoked or suspended license…
Re. The Gore / Calderon proposal in Davos to limit global vehicular traffic- try as I might I fail to appreciate how that write up by the Business Insider UK was “mocking” them in any way shape or form.
Well, their proposal is described as “possibly outlandish” in the second paragraph.
Regarding “Lip-syncing motors” :
While this might be new for 4 wheeled vehicles it has been an intentional design element for motorcycles for many decades.
Early traffic interactions between cars and the relatively new and tiny minority of motorcycles were violently in favor of cars. The “hell raiser” mystique of biker clubs had less to do at first with any real criminal activity other than the power of their numbers to prevent crimes against themselves. Basically the same “I’ll run you off the road” power dynamic that exists now between bicycles and cars existed at first for motorcycles.
And while motorcycles don’t need to be as loud as jet engines the simple fact of the matter is that “Loud pipes save lives”.
A loud motorcycle not seen is quite often heard.
When manufacturers became aware of this customer preference they designed specific exhaust sound profiles for their bikes and have even gone to the effort to get copyright protection on their exhaust sound so competitors can’t legally copy their sound.
“And while motorcycles don’t need to be as loud as jet engines the simple fact of the matter is that “Loud pipes save lives”
Any data, other than anecdotal, that this is actually a “fact?”
Nope. It’ll never be “officially” and scientifically observed: bad drivers behave better and obey the law when they know they are being observed.
I only have anecdotal accounts from the opposite sides of this conundrum:
() I can recount in excruciating detail 3 separate incidents on my bicycle where my AirZound horn, not maybe but DEFINITELY, saved my life by waking up a distracted driver who LITERALLY screeched to a halt before they would have run me over at speed mor than sufficient to kill me. These 3 had the frightened look of someone who realized they came within mere fractions of second from killing someone. All three looked honestly severely shaken and sorry. The “probably saved my life” count is easily in the several dozen category.
() as a truck driver it is easy to lose visibility of moving objects, especially two wheeled vehicles. Even in a closed cab of a loud truck, with the AC at full blast and loud music I can audibly track Harley Davidson bikes by sound alone. Same with Ninjas but they move so fast it is easier to hear them than see their +100mph lane jockeying.
Yes but would you ride with your air zound blasting all the time you’re cycling if you could? That’s the equivalent of the sociopath “loud pipes save lives” argument. Madness…
There is a difference between understanding and endorsement.
I understand WHY it is done. This does not mean I agree that it is the best course of action or justifiable.
AND: How EXACTLY is the statement itself “loud pipe saves lives” sociopathic? An obnoxiously loud motorcycle IS annoying and likely a civil noise ordinance violation but in what way does it revel in the pain and suffering of others?
You might be scared of ghe Big Mean Scary Biker trope but they are just as empathetic and human as you and I.
Real sociopaths don’t announce their attack method with auditory warnings: that would give their victims the chance to get away.
It’s exactly sociopath in its utter disregard for everything and everyone else. And in its selfish, flawed and inaccurate premise. Sociopaths are not all Jack the Ripper or whatever stereotype you’re alluding to. They’re CEO’s, clergymen, politicians, cops. (and robbers) The high function ones are often immensely successful in our culture, where such behavior is well rewarded if channeled right. Hope that answers your question.
Selfish behavior in and of itself is a component of sociopathy not the whole.
Please go read actual DSM V diagnostics before trusting Hollywood.
If that were really the intent of loud pipes, one should point them to the front and each side, I’d think, rather than to the rear. Usually when I hear an obnoxiously loud motorcycle, it’s because it is already blasting down the road, moving rapidly away from me.
Oh, I’m not going to deny that they can be obnoxiously, excessively and needlessly loud often…
BUT…
I have witnessed a markedly more distant and respectful set of behaviors from automobile drivers in proximity to groups of Harley Davidson riders than any other type of motorcycle rider. Conversely I’ve seen childish blocking maneuvers attemped to thwart the high speed antics of Ninja riders but they are usually moving so fast they will get around anything.
The simple fact of the matter is that automobile drivers in the US rely almost exclusively on vision to know if another road user is around. Two wheeled narrow vehicles are inherently more easy to not notice simply because of their visual cross section. By forceably introducing another sense (hearing) in to the automobile driver’s consciousness loud motorcycles provide unique stimuli (reducing the odds of being ignored) and by each brand having their own “voice” that sonic profile ties directly in to memories of motorcycle encounters. Even if you aren’t really aware of it consciously you’ll be prompted by your subconscious to start looking around for that thing that triggered a fear response.
They’re rude, way too loud and a clear sign of rampant testosterone poisoning but a slogan like “loud pipes save lives” doesn’t stick around for this many decades because of machismo alone.
loud bike brakes save lives too…thus I leave my brakes squeaky (poor toxin etc.). Just ask my friends and family I ride with them as they try to stay away from me…
I asked several bike repair techs at several different shops in town about my “fingernails on chalkboard” brake screech problem. I was assured that it would go away and it never indicates an actual problem.
Thing is that when I gradually fade in the brake power on the front brakes I always get the screech at a particular applied power.
So I always use that power of brake application in pedestrian areas. It wakes up texting zombies unless their earbuds are blaring.
Though not scientific, I do have numerous biker friends and all of them swear by loud pipes.
I have a very small car so can I drive around without a muffler then? Safer, right? Or when I ride my bike in motor traffic maybe I’ll just scream loudly the whole time. After all I’m even less likely to be seen than a motorcyclist 😉 Wrote in an unrelated comment the other week of the utter narcissism of the “loud pipes save lives” proponents. Riding home on the Harley late at night and waking up maybe 50,000 sleepers in the process… but “safer for me”. In reality the loud bikes crowd is mainly defending infantile ego gratification. Noise pollution isn’t just an aesthetic concern – it has real world physical and mental heath consequences, not to speak of damage to songbird survival and the environment on many levels. Am I stating the obvious when I say we need much less not more noise?
Parenting philosophies and government interference are near and dear to my heart, so the article about the kids walking home from the park was of interest to me as a parent and a citizen. A more judgmental, critical group of folks than Other Parents would be hard to find; it seems everyone else knows best how to raise your kids, including—to an ever-increasing degree—the government.
The interesting and terrifying contrast between the government knowing how to raise your kids and the government knowing, let’s say, how you should drive, is the vast difference in the stakes of the “game”. Knowingly endanger other people on the road with bad driving (including with your own kids in the car), and—if you’re caught—usually pay a fine of some sort. Maybe you do it because you think the law of speed limits or texting while driving is “overly restrictive”, and even if you cause a crash that injures or kills your own kids and/or somebody else and/or their kids, assuming alcohol wasn’t involved you’re still looking at a fine (maybe), some medical bills, and vehicle repair. So, engage in behavior that is known to be dangerous—even injure your own kids in doing so—and get a fine as your legal consequence (if you’re caught).
Now, let your kids play at the park, walk or ride their bike to a neighbor’s house, sports practice, or to the 7-Eleven—very low-risk, depending on your kid(s) (and who knows your kids better, you or the government?)—before the law dictates that they are old enough, and the consequences are that you are threatened with legally sanctioned kidnapping of your children, even when nothing happens to them except becoming more confident and independent. What’s more, an anonymous “reporter” can make any kind of accusation about how your kids aren’t being raised right, and CPS will be at your door, threatening removal of your kids. Call in an erratic, speeding driver that almost ran over your kid? Meh—that’s your fault for not keeping them in the house.
The situation the WSJ story reports about happening in Maryland, is fairly straightforward, simple. The police apparently received reports about a couple underage kids off by themselves. By law, the police were obliged to go check the situation out.
The parents were resourceful enough take the ‘free range parent’ concept to heart and have their kids be free range, but either the parents didn’t know about the state law requiring their kids be attended to by a reliable person older than 13 years, or knew and didn’t care what the law says. At which point, CPS had to go find out, what the situation was.
The parents may have been able to avoid the entire controversy if they’d just checked with the police before giving sending their kids out free range.
Right. Part of my point is that if I decide that coming to a complete stop at a stop sign or before a right turn on red is a law that is too restrictive, or I think I’m perfectly able to text while driving, even though it has been shown to be extremely dangerous, the worst I will face if caught ignoring those laws (or similar ones)—even with my kids in the car—is a fine. Overtly endangering my kids with terrible driving because I don’t think the law applies to me carries no threat of having my kids taken away.
In contrast, if I happen to think that the law regarding appropriate ages for kids to do things on their own is wrong and I decide to ignore it by letting my kids do reasonably safe things by themselves, CPS threatens irreparable harm and emotional damage to my kids by taking them away and putting them in a foster home for…how long? Who knows?
In both cases, I ignored a law. In the more egregious case (bad driving) the consequence is minimal; in the innocuous case (giving kids independence and responsibility), I’m threatened with family destruction.
Your analogy does not address the central issue regarding the parents in Maryland, which is that they left their kids unattended to the extent the police were called and then CPS, to find out what exactly was the situation.
Whether or not the situation in which the kids were walking was dangerous, the parents allowed something to happen, associated with their kids, that apparently to concerned citizens, caused red flags to rise.
El Biciclero didn’t make an analogy, but instead made a direct comparison between two acts and their consequences. Further, in that comparison he specifically addressed that central issue which you claim he did not.
As Caleb points out, I’m not making an analogy, I’m contrasting how we as a culture perceive different situations. I suspect the only thing that raised a red flag to “concerned citizens” was seeing two kids walking alone.
But this brings up another facet of the comparison besides the legal perspective: would the same “red flags” be raised if a “concerned citizen” watched two kids roll by in an SUV, strapped in their car seats, while Mom (the driver) was texting or speeding? What if the SUV had just run a red light or a STOP sign?
Nevertheless, you sidetracked and failed to address the central issue, which is that the parents in Maryland used their kids to disregard the law. That caused other people within a mile radius of their home, to be alarmed at seeing the two kids apparently unattended. Result was that the police, and the CPS was brought in, because the parents acted outside the law, with their kids’ welfare in the balance.
I’m starting to think you completely overlooked most of El B’s comment. He specifically alluded to the outcome of letting your kids walk a mile home, so I fail to see how you think he wasn’t addressing the issue you call central, especially since he was giving an opinion on that very issue.
“…used their kids to disregard the law.”
Just as a thought experiment, suppose there was a law that banned running by children under 5. After all, children that young are not very coordinated, might fall down, and could sustain significant injuries. Silly, I know, but this is an example of a law that many people might find unjust and ridiculous—and might use their kids to disregard it by letting them run. Kids might be seen running even at the tender age of two or three, much to the horror of “concerned citizens” who would feel a “responsibility” to call the police or someone—anyone—who will think of the welfare of these poor children, since the parents are obviously out to lunch and have no concern of their own for their children.
I don’t know whether you have kids, but if the no-running law were in effect right now, would you obey it? Or would you possibly “use your kids to disregard the law”? I know exactly what you’re thinking right now: “but that isn’t the law, so it doesn’t matter what I would do—it only matters what those other parents did in a place where it is the law not to leave your under-eights alone without anyone over thirteen around.”
Well, now imagine a slightly less silly law, maybe that no child under 8 shall play on any playground equipment in such a manner that the child climbs or is otherwise caused to be more than 6 feet off the ground. Maybe, no child under 5 shall ride any bicycle unless such bicycle is equipped with approved “training wheels”, or is a tricycle. Perhaps a law such as, “A person commits the offense of unlawful passengers on a bicycle if the person operates a bicycle and carries…A child under six years of age on the bicycle or in a bicycle trailer” (you may recognize that last one as an actual bill introduced in the Oregon legislature in 2011).
At what point does a law become silly (oppressive) enough for someone to “use their kids to disregard” it? Perhaps the law in Maryland (which, by the way, is more restrictive than the law in Oregon; in Oregon, these parents would not have been breaking any law, as far as I can tell) was seen as silly enough for these parents to disregard it. You have shown yourself to be a believer in the philosophy that the rules are the rules because they’re the rules, but many people don’t see it that way. I don’t think these parents had a goal of breaking the law and saw “using their children” as the best way to stick it to the man by doing so. I believe the parents in this story want their children to grow up confident in their abilities and able to act independently without undue fear in the world. Part of teaching their children those skills comes close to violating a law that is based on subjective criteria and imposes arbitrary limits on children being permitted to operate in the way these parents allowed.
So, if you believe the point I’m not addressing is that if parents break the law, they shouldn’t be surprised when they get “caught”, then sure—just like if I roll a STOP sign, I shouldn’t be surprised to get a ticket. My only musing here is that breaking a law that actually endangers your child—driving while texting, speeding, running red lights, etc.—raises no “red flags” among “concerned citizens” (at least not enough to generate a call to the cops), and has legal consequences that are trivial compared to those resulting from breaking a law that probably won’t endanger your children—and in fact may teach them valuable life lessons. Granting your own children a degree of independence you believe they can handle, but “concerned citizens” (and possibly the law) don’t, has potentially dire consequences: up to and including removal of your children, invasive scrutiny of your home and life, and long-term stigma attached to being deemed “bad parents”.
“You have shown yourself to be a believer in the philosophy that the rules are the rules because they’re the rules, but many people don’t see it that way. ”
And thank goodness for that.
Here’s Howard Zinn: “It’s very bad for everybody when young people grow up thinking that patriotism means obedience to your government.” Zinn often recalled Mark Twain’s distinction between country and government. “Does patriotism mean support your government? No. That’s the definition of patriotism in a totalitarian state…”
Is there a similar law in Oregon? Our 9 & 6 year old walk home from school together.
ORS 163.565:
Depends on your definition of “criminal negligence” and “likely”.
ORS 161.085:
So, depends on your definition of “substantial”, “unjustifiable”, “gross deviation”, “reasonable”….and “likely”.
The ambulance bike rack is pretty cool. When i lived in Fort Collins I kind of inherited a fixed gear bike because the previous owner had left it when his dog was hit by a car. Sad story for him, as he rode with someone to take it to the vet, and left his bike at my friends house. We tried pretty hard to find him, but never were able to reconnect. I felt really bad for him, as losing your bike AND potentially your dog in the same day really stinks. Something like this ambulance rack could help people in that kind of situation (well with a person and not a dog).
The “Illegal Walking” article says that “the law covers dwellings, enclosures and vehicles.” To me that doesn’t sound like it covers children walking to places in their neighborhood. Even here in New York State, which has laws attempting to keep everyone extremely safe, my 9 and 7 year old grandchildren live in a city neighborhood in which they can walk three-quarters of a mile to school by themselves. And they can walk to friends’ houses within a several-block radius. Now, my daughter and her husband don’t give their 3 year old the same freedom. However, he can ride his glider bike by himself on the sidewalk a couple of blocks to the house with the “two horses” (fence decorations). Don’t worry–there are no street crossings involved and they watch him.
I’ve only recently heard the term “free-range parenting/children,” but the concept has been around for generations.
“The “Illegal Walking” article says that “the law covers dwellings, enclosures and vehicles.” To me that doesn’t sound like it covers children walking to places in their neighborhood. …” Kathy
Good one. You’re the first to mention here, the WSJ story’s summary of the law in its specifying that attendance of kids, covers dwellings, enclosures and vehicles. Most likely though, the court would acknowledge that avoiding potential for danger is a fundamental element of the law, that by reason would include also, the street, considerably out of a reliable, attending person’s view. These young kids were walking a mile distant from their home.
And that walk situation may be just fine for young kids. I don’t know first hand, because I haven’t been there to see it. People where these kids live, do know. They called. People had to come and check the situation out.
Do parents with regards to their young kids, generally consider the neighborhood to be a mile wide? I kind of doubt it. In some places, yes, others, no. Typical for a young kid, may be they get to walk to the end of the block. Or maybe two or three blocks to a friend’s house, etc. If they don’t arrive in the anticipated time, party on the other end calls. You know the routine.
I have the impression you put undue faith in the one who called the police with concerns. That someone is right in the neighborhood does not necessarily mean that person has a rational perception of the situation. Further, why is that person’s judgment to be trusted over that of the parents’?
Like I said in the comment of mine you responded to, the WSJ story said the police got a call from somebody about the kids walking. The call obliged the police to go check the situation out. What the police found out, obliged the CPS to investigate. All because the parents of the kids decided to toss regard for the law to the wayside.
I understand the concept of people following their professional protocol, and the fact it applies to the Maryland case. I understood that before you alluded to it in this thread multiple times. My comment was not contradicting that notion.
However, your comment mentioned the idea that “avoiding potential for danger is a fundamental element of the law”, and then against that juxtaposed the fact “these young kids were walking a mile distant from their home”, implying the parents were not avoiding potential for danger, as though anyone can avoid all potential for danger. You then followed up that juxtaposition by mentioning “people” who live there know the neighborhood, and that “they” called. All this appears to me as though you are portraying the call as more informed than we can ascertain through the article, as though you think the parents living there provides no merit for their judgment in contrast to the caller’s judgment. That’s what I was contradicting with my previous comment.
In regards to your comment that the parents tossed regard for the law to the wayside: I wonder that such a comment might indicate on your part a deeply held bias favoring law, especially since I’ve seen similar suggestive comments from you in other threads. Where does the article state the parents knew the law before the incident? That they disagreed with it afterward does not mean they disagreed with and flaunted it prior. I’ve never known of any laws restricting children’s movements, so I would not be surprised had they not known, either. But…if they did knowingly break the law, why object as strongly to that act as you have? To me, the law is preposterous in the sense that it puts onus on the potential victims to prevent something caused by another person’s choice(s) all while judging according to an arbitrary standard. Are children nine years old less likely to be abducted or otherwise hurt than children seven years old? Are children 13 years old less likely to be abducted or otherwise hurt than children six years old? My answer to both questions is maybe in some situations, but certainly far from all situations.
Now touching on something I overlooked before: how is the parents’ perception of a neighborhood’s width at all relevant? Anyone aiming to harm children is not limited by arbitrary, abstract neighborhood boundaries.
“I’ve only recently heard the term “free-range parenting/children,” but the concept has been around for generations.”
Exactly. Maybe is should just be called “Normal parenting prior to the year 2000-parenting”.
We have a 5 month old and I am really terrified of raising her up in today’s society. But not because I’m afraid of all the things that are out there, but because I’m afraid of people not letting her have some independence and freedom. I’m only 34, and I realize now that it’s almost impossible to allow children to have the same type of childhood I had just 25-30 years ago. And as pointed out above, we actually live in a SAFER time than back then.
I suspect that including children walking in this Maryland law is an unintended consequence of the law. I would love to know what the framers of the law think. Now I’ll tell you an account that will make this Maryland couple look like the safest parents ever. 28 years ago, when my oldest child was in 1st grade and my next child was in kindergarten, we lived just under the one and a half mile limit to qualify for bussing. I also had a 3 year old and a 1 year old at home. My husband drove our only car to work. Our neighborhood wasn’t the worst but wasn’t the best either. We had a hard time getting teenage babysitters because their parents didn’t think we lived in a safe neighborhood. As there were no other school-age children nearby whom we knew, my 6 year old son took the city bus, which stopped right in front of our house, to school; it stopped right across the street from the school. My daughter was picked up by the school bus to take her to afternoon kindergarten. Then my 6 year old son and 5 year old daughter would walk home from school together. Am I just “lucky” nothing happened to them? I don’t think so. I think the odds were against it, as they would be now in the same neighborhood, which I still live in. I could tell you scarier stories (that all worked out) from my days of teaching school in the inner city, but I’ll leave it here.
On the DUI story they are way behind TX where you can commit felony DUI by being DUI under 18, or by having a second DUI in your lifetime. If you have DUI minor then all your DUIs are felonies. It doesn’t get used much but there is a provision in TX law that deaths that happen during the commission of a felony may be charged as murders and subject to the death penalty, which means that killing while DUI can get you on Death Row. Unless you have affluenza, which will get a murder charge downgraded to a traffic ticket.
What is even worse is the photo of those two poor children standing under a series of metal objects. Have their parents no concept of what those pieces of metal might do to their kids if they were to collapse under pressure from a tornado or an earthquake?
Absolutely. One should always check with the police before allowing your children to do something which children have always done. I also hope that the children are equipped with safety helmets before going up or down stairs
God bless America, the land of the free!
“Absolutely. One should always check with the police before allowing your children to do something which children have always done. …” Atbman
When what the parents and the kids want to do, is contrary to the law, yes they should check with police. It’s a fairly simple matter. All they needed to do was go to the nearest police station, explain the situation in which their kids would be walking, and listen to what the police had to say.
One of the parents in Maryland could have walked their kids the mile to school, or the park. Or, like with Bike Train, a group of kids could have been organized to walk together, with at least one or two reliable persons older than thirteen accompanying the group, something like is done with Bike Train.
This from the Slate article on this incident: “After the police came, they immediately researched what the law said about leaving a child alone and discovered it only applied if the child was “confined in a dwelling,” not outside.” That hardly sounds like “the parents of the kids decided to toss regard for the law to the wayside.” Besides which, I think most parents operate on the premise that the law falls in line with common sense and that we don’t need to check it for every parenting decision we make.
“…that we don’t need to check it for every parenting decision we make. …” Kathy
But perhaps should, if it involves allowing young kids, insufficiently attended according to the law, to walk by themselves a mile from home.
I assumed Kathy was, by mentioning most parents think they don’t need to check the law for every parenting decision, primarily supporting the idea the Maryland parents were not aware of the law.
No, the story says “someone” “reported seeing them”. For all I know, the article’s author is lax with words, and/or police provide to journalists no count on calls made regarding an incident, and/or people commonly use “someone” in reference to more than one person, so I grant that I at least can’t necessarily assume only one person called. I do hope, though, that you will apply to your own posts the skepticism you have espoused, as you have at least once used the word “people” to describe the “someone” who called.
No matter how few or many people called, the core of my argument remains the same: what if all the people who called were concerned despite there being no danger? Yes, I’m aware the police can’t dismiss a call as stemming from paranoia, but I was not at all implying they ought to have. I mentioned paranoia as commentary on the law’s existence in the first place, and not as commentary on officials following the protocol given them. And I made that commentary, because to me your previous comment implied the parents couldn’t have held a similar view to that of gutterbunnybikes.
As for this most recent suggestion the parents did something the “wrong” way: at what length does a distance become “significant”? At what age does someone stop being “young”?
“…Yes, I’m aware the police can’t dismiss a call as stemming from paranoia, but I was not at all implying they ought to have. …” Caleb
The WSJ story simply reports police essentially saying that if they get a call about kids apparently off by themselves insufficiently attended, the police have to go check the situation out. Nothing in the story about paranoia accompanying the call being a deciding factor as to whether or whether not to respond to the call.
Again you have severely misunderstood my comment(s).
Never did I assume the police could avoid following their protocol. Never did I assume paranoia spurred the call in the Maryland case. Never did I intend for any of my comments to say or imply anything contradicting my skepticism on both those points. In rebutting my comment here, you were again addressing a nonexistent issue.
error. error. error. preventing my making clarifying comment after an error, whether on my part or the site’s, placed my comment where I did not intend.
Oh, but look, that one worked. So trying again: The above lengthy comment from me was in response to wsbob’s comment starting with “The WSJ journal story doesn’t offer details about who”.
“When what the parents and the kids want to do, is contrary to the law, yes they should check with police. It’s a fairly simple matter. All they needed to do was go to the nearest police station, explain the situation in which their kids would be walking, and listen to what the police had to say.”
When has any parent ever done that? I have 5 grown children, 12 grandchildren, I teach elementary school, I have worked with children, youth, and parents at church for years and years. Never have I ever heard of anyone suggest such an idea.
“One of the parents in Maryland could have walked their kids the mile to school, or the park.”
Maybe the police and CPS in Maryland think that is reasonable, although not contrary to any Maryland law that has been cited in any of the articles I have read on this incident. Since it doesn’t appear to be contrary to a law, it should be left to the judgment of the parents. And if it turns out to be contrary to a law, I hope people work to have their legislators change that law.
“Or, like with Bike Train, a group of kids could have been organized to walk together, with at least one or two reliable persons older than thirteen accompanying the group, something like is done with Bike Train.”
In my experience, this can get real complicated. But I’m open to hearing success stories.
“…I have worked with children, youth, and parents at church for years and years. Never have I ever heard of anyone suggest such an idea. …” Kathy
You’ve worked, etc in the Maryland parents’ neighborhood? The issue relates the situation in their neighborhood, and not necessarily yours.
The Maryland parents allowing their kids to walk unattended, a mile away from home, likely was contrary to the law, if we can rely on the WSJ reporting what the law their specifies.
As far as I can tell from bikeportland stories written about it, Bike Train in Portland is very successful.
What law did the Maryland parents break? The only one I’ve seen referred to in the several articles I have read, including this one, has nothing to do with children outside.
WSJ story reported that the law the parents actions were at odds with, had to do with children being attended by a reliable person at least thirteen years of age. The law most likely would apply to young kids being on the street away from home, as well as in it, or in the yard or garden.