The Real Problem Isn’t Untrained Drivers, It’s That We Let Drivers Kill People

Name one politician that would stand up to the driver lobby to toughen vehicular injury and manslaughter laws to make it as easy to do jail time if you hurt of killed someone with a car, as if you hurt or killed someone with:

A baseball bat.
A golf club.
A dog.
A knife.
A gun.
Driving drunk.

Add in that if you hit someone you automatically get a suspended license and a booted car for minimum three days. Convicted of anything less than death by vehicle? No driving for a year. Death involved? Two+. Booze or drugs involved? Triple the penalties at least.

No politician will ever have the balls to call for such a thing in any flavor. The left would decry the police state and the right would decry the impeding of our liberty. Never mind that it would make sense.

Punish drivers. Punish them. Eat their livers. Drink their blood. Send them to the ovens.

Having been nearly run over while walking and while biking on several occasions, I agree in principle.

But as a driver also, what would we do about stupid pedestrians and cyclists? Eg. riding on sidewalks, riding the wrong way on one way streets, running stop signs and lights with oncoming traffic, blatant jaywalking even in front of oncoming traffic.

My office window has a view of 3rd Ave, and I see all of these behaviors nearly daily. Hey, there's a jaywalker right now, mid block b/t Seneca and University.

Weren't you the one that freaked out because a bus was just going to take you to West Seattle?

Where is Central Kitsap County?

There already is a law on the books that makes driving in a way the puts a pedestrian or bicyclist at risk a felony. Education is a far better way to actually reduce accidents.

BTW when you say “As is typical, she said she 'just didn’t see him' ” are you implying that she saw him and tried to kill him?

Just watched a cyclist southbound on 3rd pull across the center line into the northbound lanes, pass three buses stopped at the light at University, ride around in the crosswalk in front of the buses among crossing pedestrians until uphill traffic on University had cleared, then run the red light southbound on 3rd.

Jaywalker in front of oncoming bus, NB on 3rd

You left off gassing them.

The basic difference in your list from an auto accident is intent. The same law that makes drunk driving a felony makes driving with disregard for the safety of others a felony as well.

Where can one join the driver lobby?

I'd suggest that we firmly and vigorously enforce the law on all parties who are unsafe on the roads, but anytime in the past that I've even offered the scent of a suggestion that there may be a bicyclist in the general longitude and/or latitude of Seattle potentially between today and next August, I've had my head torn off and bicycle grease shat down my esophagus.

Cyclist running red light NB on 3rd at University, near miss with cyclist SB on sidewalk on the wrong side of the street.

That would have been classic.

Cyclist running red light, NB 3rd at Union, near miss w/ pedestrians crossing with light

HaHaHa – bicycle grease – it's lubricant – only a bike-hating killer-car-driver would accuse a modern eco-friendly biker of using grease.

Cyclist SB 3rd on sidewalk, wrong side of the street.

Is your lubricant sustainable with a zero carbon footprint, harvested only from shade-grown and working-wage oil rigs in union operations?

I agree. But my fear as a driver would be doing time for hitting someone who was doing something actively stupid – like riding fast down a sidewalk on the wrong side.

A driver is looking for slow-moving pedestrians while turning, while keeping an eye out for cyclists and cars moving with traffic in the traffic lanes. Then someone darts out on a bike where they're not supposed to be… and that's cause to send the driver to jail? No way. No criminal mens rea at any level.

“freaked out because a bus was just going to take you to West Seattle?”

Yes, b/c Ivan lives there…

Or Vashon maybe… it's all the 34th.

I prefer shade grown soy oil.

A driver is looking for slow-moving pedestrians while turning, while keeping an eye out for cyclists and cars moving with traffic in the traffic lanes. Then someone darts out on a bike where they're not supposed to be… and that's cause to send the driver to jail?

<img src=”http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/7/28/633843813416251630-ForTheGreaterGood.jpg”>

I think the big hurdle is overcoming the current mentality that 'just not seeing' the cyclist is an accident and not gross negligence.

This seems like it'd be a good tactic for the mob. Why shoot someone when you can just wait til your mark is riding on a bike and then run them over?

“Vulnerable users”… that's like when you spent all of your cash on pizza _before_ your dealer showed up, right?

Story from their paper
Deputies gave her a portable breath test at the scene, finding that her blood-alcohol level was .01, well below the .08 legal limit. They interviewed witnesses who said she appeared to be driving a reasonable speed and had slowed and signaled for the turn. They said that it appeared she didn’t see him. Deputies said McClurkan was possibly in a shadow and that he may have been blocked from view by a car driving along side him.
Davis provided deputies with her cell phone records, which showed she wasn’t on the phone.
Aside from the suspended license criminal charge, Davis was also cited for failing to yield when making a left turn and failure to renew her car tabs, Dennis said.
Davis’ license was suspended for failing to appear in court on a school-zone speeding ticket she received on Jan. 16, 2009, deputies said. They also noted she’d been cited for speeding three times on Holly Road between 2007 and 2008..

So your reporting was almost accurate.

“But if Clemenza can figure a way to get them both to ride bicycles, then I'll kill them both.”

No worthy mark would ride a bike.

I think the problem here is that too often people are given the benefit of the doubt. There are dozens of horror stories about how a driver looking to change the radio or looking for a bag of chips after grocery shopping station kills someone in a totally avoidable crash. The only crash I got myself into happened because I was stupid and was changing a CD — no one got hurt, thank god, but it sure would have been my fault had that happened.

“I didn't see him” does not mean you are innocent of wrong doing — it usually means you were failing to operate your vehicle with due care. See instances where people, blinded by sunlight or fog on the windows, proceed to drive their car normally. Totally insane and those drivers should be treated with the utmost severity.

No one is suggesting that the driver should be 100% at fault, 100% of the time. In situations where the driver is not at fault, there should not be any criminal punishment. The argument is that the pendulum should be swung back to achieve equal protection under the law.

The only crash I got myself into happened because I was stupid and was changing a CD — no one got hurt, thank god, but it sure would have been my fault had that happened..

This is a problem. Just because someone didn't get hurt doesn't change your careless act. Could it be that the vulnerable person saved their own life by avoiding your careless murderous behavior?

All driving that could result in injury or death to vulnerable people should be a felony.

People are stupid. Many of those same people drive cars, others in that group ride bikes.

I generally dislike the bike-nut culture, but drivers need to be taught more about safety for cyclists/pedestrians. They are stupid enough when it comes to their own safety (cutting of semi-trucks, speeding through red lights, following too closely, etc., etc., etc.).

And Doug – read the actual local coverage – they speculated that the biker was shielded from view by a car. Was he wearing visible clothing, a bright flashing headlight, and driving defensively?

Agree.

Accidents happen, on the trail and on the road.
Cars are big, heavy, and vilified. Bikes would cause deaths, too.
But carbon and aluminum make it less likely.

“car crashes are the leading cause of death among children in the US”

NARAL would not be pleased about the competition.

Riding on sidewalks is legal. Sometimes we do it to avoid being run over by the aforementioned reckless drivers.

What do we do about stupid pedestrians and cyclists? Drive more carefully. What do you do when a little boy runs into the road after a ball – hit the bastard for jaywalking?

When a pedestrian jaywalks they aren't hurting risking anyone's safety but their own. That alone has a built in incentive to make sure they don't do anything stupid (whatever your view of “stupid” is). But drivers have no such incentive, which is why we need stiff laws for cars.

“A driver is looking for slow-moving pedestrians while turning”

And a hunter is looking for deer, not hikers. But that doesn't mean it's not manslaughter when he shoots one. You use the weapon, you should be responsible for it's behavior. Don't worry about giving the bicyclist a ticket – he's already dead.

What are you, some kind of soft hippie? If you gas them, how can they feel the oven?

Hey, that was a recent plot from Rookie Blue. Poor old man that accidentally hit the gas instead of the brake.

Hey Matt more on surplus night electricity:

One hundred homeowners are being recruited for an experiment on how to store surplus wind power. Starting next month, the Bonneville Power Administration and a local utility will link up home water heaters to wind farms east of the Cascades. Correspondent Tom Banse explains how this is supposed to work. [:55... soq]

Here's the problem. Wind power is variable. Sometimes wind turbines spin away when there's little demand for the electricity. Other times it's calm just when everyone wants to crank up the AC. Ideally, you could store excess wind energy in a battery. But a battery that big doesn't exist yet. So Bonneville Power Administration spokeswoman Katie Pruder-Scruggs describes another idea that will get a tryout this fall. .

No one battery is that big but a whole bunch of electric cars would have enough.

Eriica,

Great story, great cause. Thanks for the wonderful blogpost!

This is a law and order issue, let's win it!

Jazzerciser

That last cyclist probably isn't breaking any law. It is usually legal to ride on the sidewalk on either side of the road.

It should be as difficult and rigorous to get a drivers' license as it is to get a forklift certification or similar heavy equipment operators certification. The problem lies in the re-certification of the majority of drivers out there who do not know basic rules of the roadway, who do not use common sense, who do not make efforts to make traffic flow by considering the impact of their selfish moves on the people behind them, and who are too bothered to stop at crosswalks or look in the right hand mirror for bicylists when turning right.

You can't fix stupid.

What would be the cost to the state and to taxpayers for this upgrade in certification? Lots. How much is it worth to keep people off the road who have no business being behind the wheel, drunk or sober? How much of a dent would this put into the auto industry and the consumption of related products? Lots. What would be the result in safety, cleaner air, and less congestion? You do the math.

Screw trying to put traffic into the toilet and punish everyone to “get people out of their cars” with flawed ideological waterfront development schemes. Make it tough to get and keep a license in the first place. Think of all the jobs created by an expanded testing program, the safter streets and highways, and the time saved from dinking around 4-ways where drivers don't know the concept of right of way.

Shit happens. Sometimes, it happens to people on bikes.

“SMC Section 11.44.120 RIDING ON A SIDEWALK OR PUBLIC PATH. Every person operating a bicycle upon any sidewalk or public path shall operate the same in a careful and prudent manner and a rate of speed no greater than is reasonable and proper under the conditions existing at the point of operation, taking into account the amount and character of pedestrian traffic, grade and width of sidewalk or public path, and condition of surface, and shall obey all traffic control devices. Every person operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk or public path shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian thereon, and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian.”

Ah, you are correct – legal, but, the cyclists I saw on the sidewalk yesterday were traveling 2 – 3 times the speed of the pedestrians and weaving between them.

Plus, it's stupid vis a vis drivers, who aren't looking for fast moving bike traffic on the sidewalks.

Erica, I strongly suggest the focus be on enforcing the existing laws we already have. The pattern is always one of repeat violations of speeding then DWLS etc. The courts in these cases are letting off the bad drivers th 2d 3d and 4th time they commit infractions; then when they commit the felony of vehicular assault, it's too late. Changing the law to have more severe crimes and penalties is a good idea but it's not going to really change the behaviour of these drivers who today are taught by the system that “driving infractions are minor, go ahead, keep speeding, turning without signalling, and DWLS just pay $200 each time, it's a minor thing.”

No. Instead they should have to pay the full fines that are on the books for those infractions; and we should have a three strikes you're out kind of law (speeding three times or three infractions within ten years means the fine on the last one is $10,000 — that kind of thing.).

The whole putting people in jail thing? It's a fee good measure. The fact is when you put jail in the mix people tend to fight the charges endlessly and appeal forever it will take seven years to convict them, also you need witnesses, who often are dead….again, it's fine to add jail but it really doesn't work in practice as much as the more-certain, more-evenly and routinely applied penalties would work.

What would REALLY work would be automatic revocation of the right oops privilege to drive FOR LIFE if you EVER commit DUI or DWLS or DW insurance. These are actually horribly dangerous and irresponsible things; but we basically say to people who do it it's about as important as going ten miles over the spped limit. Seriously I was speeding once, went to the courthouse in Kent and for ONE HOUR the judge sped through about 40 cases where in case after case after case the colloquy was this: “oh still no job, can't pay the $500 fine yet and can't pay for insurance? WEll, promise me again you will TRY REALLY HARD to get a job in the next thirty days, we will set this over AGAIN for thirty days, now this is the fourth time so really try HARD this time, then you can come back after you get insurance and I will defer the prosecution of this charge of driving without insurance ….” they do this because when they do that the county gets a $150 admin fee yet if they convict of DWinsurance for a $500 fine it goes to the state. Seriously you have to go pay attention to what these courts do which is basically in case after case they refuse to enforce the law. And btw it was totally clear that not one person in that Kent courthouse took the bus to the courthouse, about 30 of these defendants waltzed out to their F150s in the parking lot and drove off again …clearly without insurance as they just tol the judge they still don't have insurance. I don't know what passing more laws does when the system consistently doesn't even enforce the ones we have.

BTW it is hard to see cyclists, especially when they are right in front of a car. I couldn't see a motorcyclist in front of a car at the Greenlake Ravenna five way stop signs, I registered the car behind him, not him as I swept the other four stop signs to see if it was my turn to go first. Requiring LIGHTS even in day time would help. Expecially for cyclists who are in fact hard to see. Education would help. More laws would help and the sharrows help as they educate you there are bikes around. But what would help most of all is for the media to start examing the fact that our seattle muni court and the kent district court and all the little courts basically have an unwritten amnesty program where everyone knows you can violate repeatedly and nothing happens other than paying a few hundred dollars and you can even get a payment plan for that!

But if said hiker throws himself suddenly in front of the deer from behind a tree (perhaps a committed member of PETA)… the situation is different.

“When a pedestrian jaywalks they aren't hurting risking anyone's safety but their own.”

Sure – but you're talking about assigning serious criminal and civil liability to drivers who hit pedestrians and cyclists who do actively stupid things… like jaywalking across busy streets.

One time a few years ago, I came around a corner at a green light on to an arterial, traveling an appropriate city arterial street speed, at night, and there were three young men jaywalking about 10 yards from the crosswalk. I'd have seen them and stopped if they had been in the crosswalk at the intersection; instead I had to swerve to avoid them, since they were screened from view by a fence at the corner.

Under your rule, I would have little or no defense if I had hit them, even though they took no care to abide by the law and protect themselves by crossing with the light in the crosswalk only 30 feet away.

By contrast, yesterday afternoon on my way to the bus, I was crossing with the light in the crosswalk at 1st and Spring and was nearly hit by a car turning left from Spring on to NB 1st. I didn't get hit because _I_ was paying attention, not the driver.

Perhaps enhanced penalties for drivers are appropriate where it can be shown that the cyclist or ped were not contributorily negligent.

This has nothing to do with penalizing drivers who kill bicyclist & pedestrians who ARE obeying the laws.

While many accidents can be traced to negligence on the driver, the human brain is not perfect and mistakes happen. Unless there's a clear case of negligence (cell phone use, intoxication), I don't think society has any interest in jailing someone because of normal human error, regardless of how tragic the outcome.

Would you jail a harried single mother who accidentally left the stove on and burned down an apartment complex?

Erica, you'd save more lives by encouraging cyclists to use blinking lights so they are impossible to miss.

if harried mothers burned down an apartment house 50,000 times a year, yes, we would jail the harried mother — or the harried father — who burned down a apartment house making 40 other people die a horrible death.

No question. then we'd prohibit stoves and require advanced certification to use stoves and make it a felony to use a stove, the same way we do with dynamite.

I think the issue is real, but it seems to me that our “bikes, peds, streets for the people” editorial angle espoused by this “news” blog should be looking to the root of the problem rather than a different treatment of the symptom.

Our beloved, idolized Copenhagen – the wet dream fantasy of many in these parts – has a streets policy that creates SAFE places for bikes and pedestrians. Here in Seattle we profess a bike culture then send us and our kids out onto Rainier Ave or wherever, and paint 'targets' (sharrows) on the road for hapless drivers such as the Kitsap County woman.

“Most Copenhagen's city streets have a speed limit of 30 to 40 km/h (19 to 25 mph). Even more impressive, there are blocks in some neighborhoods with limits as low as 15 km/h (9 mph) where cars must yield to residents. Still other areas are “shared spaces” where cars, bikes and pedestrians mix freely with no stress, usually thanks to traffic calming measures (speed bumps are popular), textured road surfaces and common sense.”

http://www.streetfilms.org/copenhagens-car-free…

Asdf123 points out a barrage of stupid pedestrians and bicyclists, but the stupider thing is that we “think” we're Copenhagen and we are in reality a world away.

A better place to start would be separate these modes and create a safe environment for all by looking at our 30mph arterial policy and policy that is allowing our neighborhood streets to be spillover thoroughfares because our roads are already too clogged (the latter issue continuously glossed over by DPD with DNS assessments, and by SDOT w half-assed traffic calming solutions).

Our oil and water transit mix ain't working.

I would like Joe Fitzgibbon to respond to the question, “Can the charge of irresponsible driving be more related to manufacturers of over-powered cars?”

And, “Is electric motor drive a mandate for public safety?” (due to its 'flat' torque curve and extra braking compenent.)

30,000 people die every year IN automobiles. When was the last time you heard of a multiple-fatality bicycle pile-up?

Again, even if we had a smart grid, there are real issues with cycling batteries, since batteries are the most expensive piece of an electric car and they're only good for a certain number of cycles.

“Under your rule, I would have little or no defense if I had hit them” Correct. You are the one driving the deadly weapon. They are the ones that end up dead. You need to be aware of all possible scenarios, not just the expected ones, and drive appropriately. It's already your ethical responsibility – I'd be fine with adding legal teeth to this.

Washington drivers are notoriously dense. Case in point, I was crossing 1st avenue to get to Fran's chocolates on Friday. As I approached the middle of the crosswalk, I saw they didn't open until 9:30am and it was earlier than that. So I did an about face…which shocked the BMW driver who was practically ploughing into me, salivating at making her left hand turn. When I looked shocked (because she was so close) she gave me a scowl. I used my current move which is to point at her license plate…meaning, I will sue you until oblivion. At that point, she pulls around me at breakneck speed, and tears up to the red light that awaited her. This resulted me giving her a well justified middle finger and loudly shouted F.U.

The think is, as a pedestrian and bicyclist its business of usual. The concept of pedestrians having the right of way is not taught to drivers in this state. In fact, I've talked to people who say things like, people crossing the street should “wait to let the cars turn”.

Another thing drivers do not do is look both ways. Oh, they might look the other way for once, but then if they sit there waiting to make a right from a driveway, they stop looking left to see what might be coming along the sidewalk.

A woman was killed in April by a “cyclist” on the Cedar River Trail near Renton.

Pedestrians, bikes and cars do not mix. They have different speeds, different momentums. Any system that interfaces them so much like an urban grid, is bound to create safety hazards.

Is capital punishment going too far? Or, do you think that this would provide just the right amount of deterrence?

Public flogging?

Caning?

Stoning?

Forcible … ?

Perhaps, if someone makes a driving mistake we should take their children away from them too?

Nice try ECB. At this point I undertstand. At 4:20 p.m. on Friday you need to post something inflammatory to keep the “readers” satisfied over the weekend. You almost got me.

You can do better.

Sometimes, a ped should wait for a car to go through. Peds in succession are an example of this, each may have the right, but it's nicer if say the 3d one realizes the car should get a turn, too.
I often let cars go by, wave them by, because it's FASTER if they just go by — then the intersection is clear.

Most cities just put up hella lots of traffic signals, that works better than all these etiquette rules….Sesattle likes to have arterials with just two lanes, no lights for long stretches, the result is every ped crossing is an intense mini drama of will the car stop, now will the cars going the other way stop, then the ped crosses, then there are 5 cars backed up, oh wait here's another ped, etc. etc. Other cities regulate it better, via lights, which are clear indicators of whose turn it is. MAny times drivers can't see peds, who love to wear black, or peds actually have the right to stand on a corner, you know? Sometimes they're not crossing but you can't tell. Anyway this host of considerations is easily solved with that great invention, the red light!

I always read Publicola to find out the “real solution” to society's ills.

Like the “real solution” here: give each driver a quota of one kill each, but take them off the road to prevent their 2nd, 3rd, …, and Nth kills.

Because there are so many successful serial bicycle-killers out there.

Looking forward to practical “real solutions” to other major problems

My best friend's dad died in a bicycle accident another guy I know was paralyzed in a bicycle accident. However both of them were in accidents with stationary objects. Bicycles are inherently dangerous machines.

Why we slap a helmet on a kid and send them into traffic, I haven't a clue. If the bicycle were invented today it would be required to have a safety capsule and no one under 16 would be allowed on one.

I agree that repeat offenders need to have their licenses revoked. If you repeatedly drive drunk or drugged up, if you're consistantly recklessly and if you're unable to drive due to age or illness your license should be taken.

The punishment for damaging/destroying property or even stealing a dog are harsher than for taking a human life with an automobile. In the early 20th century people who killed with autos were rebuked, humiliated in the newspapers, and did serious time. Somewhere along the line our culture changed in that drivers have the “right” to the road and most of the liability falls on the pedestrian/bicyclists.

The liability does fall on the pedestrians and bicyclists. Bicyclists and pedestrians are liable with their lives. The mother always reminded me to look both ways before crossing the road. I am amazed at the people on the Ave blindly crossing the street or the people texting or surfing not looking at what cars are doing.

There are hundreds of laws governing automobiles, but I guarantee 100% of drivers have broken those laws.

Here's the Law:

RCW 46.61.235
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46…

(1) “The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section “half of the roadway” means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway.

(2) No pedestrian or bicycle shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or otherwise move into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to stop.”

Point Two causes me a lot of grief. If I'm at a corner, and a car is salivating to make a quick right turn, I like to step into the curb because I don't want to have wait for a row of cars to make their rights. However, is that “moving into the path”… I say no, because the driver shouldn't be there ready to gun his engine.

What is more the notion of right turn on red should not apply in dense crosswalks especially in city streets, or even in heavily trafficked intersections like Center Avenue in Kent.

For really trafficked intersections, we should use the All Stop, like near Pike Place Market.

Love your lack of nuance. You're so good at defining absolutes that are convenient to yourself. Maybe we should have summary executions and that will deter it…well maybe you just want drivers to stop driving, in which case maybe this is a good strategy.

See, I think the problem has more to do with infrastructure rather than every driver being a reckless nut. I like to think I'm very contentious about bikes and pedestrians on the road, but I'm constantly put into awkward positions by roads that were built only for cars, and some poorly even for that purpose. Between blind spots, choke points, unmarked crossings, and other fun one second everything is fine and the next you're forced to make a quick decision that isn't always made correctly. I want more dedicated bike lanes, clearer signage, etc. It makes my life as a driver easier and reduces the risk. I wish I didn't need a car, but this is Seattle and we're 30 years behind other big cities in public transit.

If someone is purposefully reckless, sure they should be held accountable, but I don't see how charging everyone in the extreme makes any difference from a public policy perspective. Draconian punishment rarely serves as an effective deterrent, especially in cases where something is a true accident and not a reckless act. So if I'm paying attention, but for some reason don't see someone (because there are 1000 things you need to focus on while driving and frankly accidents do actually happen) I should go to jail just because? I'm pretty sure I'd feel so horrible that I'd never drive again regardless. Just because someone is seriously injured or killed from something doesn't mean someone necessarily has to go to jail for it. Life is full of risks and both parties accept a certain level of risk by participating in their respective activity. Accidents are part of that risk, reckless behavior however shouldn't have to be tolerated.

point two is an unworkably ambiguous rule.

the ped waits on the curb. the driver thinks, oh well he's making no move into the street, how do I know he want to cross the street? so driver keeps going. then ped realizes he'd be moving suddently into the path etc. and can't go. alternatively, ped moves or makes like he's going to move into the path of the oncoming cars…this creates duty of driver to stop….it's all sort of a game of chicken. my thesis is that if therre's enough cars and peds to make these interactions frequent, they just don't work too well, they're difficult, and so we should just put up traffic lights like other major cities do, and stop pretending drivers and peds can figure it out according to complex rule books, etiquette, perceptions in the dark, “reading” pedestrian intent, etc. etc.

just put up traffic lights and peds cross when they have the light, duh. No more games of chicken.

BTW I wasn't talking legal.

I agree with you entirely.

I would argue no. I believe that bad planning has put the pedestrian, the cyclist and the driver in a bad position where there can only be accidents.

I also believe (and here the Critical Mass people can stone me) that bikes, cars and peds should have minimal interface. That is, there should be separate topologies for each which intersect only when necessary.

These are hard things to do. But they require more thought than money.

A bike path for example takes a minimum amount of construction, far less than a street or highway. But it does take a lot of planning.

I don't fault cars. As a driver who I feel takes turns with 3 times the caution of most, and who obeys the speed limit at all times, I still find it very hard to drive with a cyclist ahead of me…just the nervousness alone decreases my ability to drive.

I would ask that people start to think in new and better ways, such as alternative topologies, and to appreciate each “transit system” for what it can do, and not simply to write articles saying “cars are bad” or “trains are ripoffs” or “cyclists are obnoxious”.

Unfortunately, you speak the truth. I am a member of my town's Bicycle Advisory Board, there to promote cycling, but my own experience of the dangers of cycling make me cringe every time I see an 8 year old barreling down a hill without a helmet.

I'm pretty sure turning a corner on a green light, going at an appropriate arterial speed limit (assume between 30/35mph, but then slowed down to turn) *is* driving appropriately. There's a reason we have both speed limits and cross walks. All parties should act appropriately, whether walking or driving (or cycling).

“It’s tougher laws that actually penalize people who kill or maim people with their cars.”

Citation please.

And how many more people were struck by lightning?

Cars are far more inherently dangerous machines. Garbage disposals and toasters are also dangerous machines.

Are you going to name your children Lefty and Lucky?

I would far rather have my child in a thirty mile an hour car verses car accident then in a bicycle verses car accident. Auto companies spend billions to safely protect the occupants of vehicles. Bicycles have zero safety features.

Isn't lightening already a felony?

Yes Matt they won't last forever.

Avoid frequent full discharges because this puts additional strain on the battery. Several partial discharges with frequent recharges are better for lithium-ion than one deep one. Recharging a partially charged lithium-ion does not cause harm because there is no memory. (In this respect, lithium-ion differs from nickel-based batteries.) Short battery life in a laptop is mainly cause by heat rather than charge / discharge patterns.

The kind of laws ECB is suggesting would lead to more hit and run accidents.

No cite needed. Obey.

Now after reading all the comments you can see why no politician dares to try to change the law. Almost all the posts were against making any change to the current laws. Apparently losing a child to a dangerous or distracted driver is less of a loss than spending time in jail as the dangerous driver.

you're insane.

“I ran over your kid because she got in my way and I couldn't be bothered to pay attention and slow down.”

Just pointing out also that it's not just children, but the leading cause of all non-natural deaths between ages 4 and 65. For all the other age groups, car crashes is still #2. Age 0-1, suffocating is the leading non-natural cause, 1-4 is drowing, 65+ is complications from falling. And then car crashes.

Why don't we just make it more difficult to get a driver's licence. It's a priveledge, after all, not a right.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying here, but I personally would like to see harsher laws enforced specifically for cell phone use in cars. I think the key is to address the causes of distracted driving, and non-hands free cell phone use in cars is incredibly dangerous.

I work as a Seattle car accident attorney, and have seen a shocking amount of crashes resulting from texting while driving. We already have a state law that punishes this crime, but it is not nearly harsh enough to prevent people from doing it. We need to understand that texting and driving is statistically as dangerous as drinking and driving, and should be treated as equals in the eye of the law. Check out my Straight Talk Law post on the subject for further information on the matter, and let me know what you think.

Soundz gud, oh wait have to turn left here…..k, good post!

The gall durn grandkids done hooked my Olivetti to the boob tube. How's the heck I'm goin' fire off a letter to those bums at the Seattle PI?

A Worcester chimney sweep or a chimney sweeper is really a person who cleans chimneys. It’s critical to get a chimney at our residence since it is often a successful device that prevents the harmful air and supply fresh and healthy air. It is also significant to retain chimney clean to prevent fires and noxious gasses. The chimney eliminates toxic gasses and makes it free from blockage. Therefore it requires a routine inspection and maintenance to make sure fresh air and proper safety. Its cleaning should be done once per year. The facility of cleaning of chimney is accessible everywhere and it’s affordable. The chimneys made with steel are normally advised by the experts for safety purpose.

Check out this link for more information: Chimney Sweep Worcester