Month: January 2011

In this story by Michael Dresser he states:

"There’s a lot of merit to the idea of creating an enhanced version of negligent driving to cover cases that are grossly negligent but not willful. But the proposal being advanced by the advocates carries the flaw of many such laws: It punishes the result and not the conduct. It would make more sense to create a misdemeanor charge of "grossly negligent driving contributing to a crash" that could be applied whether or not a victim died. One year should suffice as a penalty; three strikes me as overkill unless there was actual intent to cause harm."

Since when has the law turned a blind eye to the extent of damage done? Since when has the law been restricted to treating bodily harm the same as property damage?

Speeding fines increase as the chance of more severe damage goes up (the faster you go the higher the fines.) Increase fines in work and school zones, both are related to the increase potential of harming people and not just "the cause."

Lets take an extreme example: someone takes a baseball bat and hits the corner of your brick house to do damage and all they end up doing is breaking their bat. Now if the baseball bat was applied to a person the charge should be exactly the same as above? After all the intent is the same.

"Actual intent to cause harm" for negligence??? Seriously look up the concept we are talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence

If someone is negligent and ends up wrapping their car around a telephone pole, that is sort of self serving justice, the telephone pole can be replaced but people cannot be replaced or fixed up in the same way as a telephone pole.

***Edit***: I should point out that we do have "grossly negligent driving contributing to a crash" that ‘s basically DUI, as very few other things will qualify for "grossly negligent ". Causing a crash or killing people while under the influence may help to get the maximum penalties for DUI but you could get maximum penalties without causing a crash or hurting someone. There is nothing "extra" legally required for DUI for crashing or killing.

Michael concludes with a red herring that bicyclists are exempt from this purposed new law and somehow one death a year nation wide (if that on average) is more tragic then 35,000 to 43,000 deaths a year by automobiles and the fact that the automobile is the leading cause of death of our next generation of Marylanders (and that is mostly kids INSIDE the automobile.) Sorry Michael but bicycles are vehicles by Maryland law and this will apply to cyclists as well as drivers. I am very disappointed that Michael is perpetuating the myth that bicyclists conciser themselves above the law when all we are asking for is that killing a person whether in a car or not should not be looked at as just collateral damage of a system that puts more emphasis on fast travel over safe travel. IMHO this is a very shameful detractor put forth by Michael and has no bases in the facts.

If people could write Michael in a less inflammatory manner then what I have done here, please do so.

Continue reading “The flaw in our our proposed bill – it does not treat damaging a person the same as damaging a car”

Response: RE: Not Blocking or Parking in Dedicated Bike Lanes (reply) (Still not supportive)

At MBPAC Discussion on Legislative Issues In discussing this issue:
Not Blocking or Parking in Dedicated Bike Lanes
In order to encourage use of designated bicycle lanes by bicyclists and to improve the safety of those dedicated lanes for bicyclists, Bike Maryland proposes that a state-wide statute be enacted to prohibit drivers from driving, stopping or parking in dedicated bicycle lanes.

I was surprised to learn that MBPAC’s initial position is to not support this legislation as it can be done with signs like these:

I suggested that it would be cheaper to sign where parking is permitted (like never.) The counter argument was but “No Parking” signs are cheap, something like $40 each (assuming we already have a pole to hang them on, otherwise it is more like $200 a piece including labor.) Well lets look at that. By my estimate Baltimore Metro (just a small part of the State) needs minimally about 300 miles of bike lanes to truly have a bicycles as transportation network just in the urban designated areas. So let’s do the math: 2 signs per block * 2 sides of the road * 10 blocks per mile (in the city that’s a higher number) * 300 miles * $40 a sign = $480,000. (Can I round that up to a half a million?) Not to mention under the State’s current policies they will not allow Federal funding for signs. Even SHA gave up marking shoulders as bike lanes because of the expense of signs.

My argument I presented at the meeting was: what about bike lanes next to parking like in Roland Park (Starbucks), you can’t sign “No Parking” there. I was countered with: but isn’t double parking illegal? Which I countered with: but police need due cause to give tickets, if the cars are not blocking the car travel lane is there due cause to give a ticket without this law?

I feel very strongly that the facility that accommodates both cyclists and parking is a shoulder not a bike lane. Once it is designated a bike lane there should be no standing cars (unless to make a right turn.) That is best engineering practices IMHO and it would be very helpful if MBPAC would support this legislation.

So I am asking those that agree that parking should be prohibited in bike lanes to write to Michael Jackson mjackson3@mdot.state.md.us the State Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Jim Swift jks36@verizon.net the Chairman of the Maryland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. (MBPAC) And please be polite! these folks are great supporters of our cause but all engineers are subject to “Oh, but I got an engineering fix for that problem.” I have fallen victim to that kind of thinking myself from time to time. So please thank them for their support to date. And while I am at it I would like to give kudos to Carol Silldorff of Bike Maryland and her efforts in engaging this committee.