The C-Blog

Here’s a very good article via webikeeugene.org that explores some of the more egregious cases of hitting cyclists and the resultant (non-) consequences.

Here’s some of the more notable quotes…

Her [Tina Marie Baker-ed.] punishment for prioritizing 30 seconds of her life over Cayton’s safety was 30 days in jail, probation, and losing her license for 8 years.  I’ve known people who’ve received 30 days in jail for shoplifting.

If Baker had killed someone driving a car instead of on a bike would the punishment have been greater?  Are people on bikes considered “less human”  than people in cars in the eyes of the law?  Sadly, the answer is “yes.”  In Oregon and most other states, hitting a cyclist is only a civil crime, not a criminal crime.

Joshua Clifton was sentenced to 7.5 years  in prison for felony hit-and-run, filing a false police report (he reported his car stolen after the accident), and driving with a suspended license.  Tina Marie Baker was sentenced to 30 days in jail and lost her license for awhile. The lesson? Apparently the legal system doesn’t really care if you kill the cyclist or not, as long as they don’t have to look for you afterward.  In terms of jail time, the  punishment for hit-and-run was 91 times more severe than the punishment for killing a cyclist.

That’s right.  If you are driving a car, it is not criminal to kill someone who is not in a car, and the Oregon Legislature prefers it that way.  Changing this would have led to “widespread resistance” because the jails are too full.  Full of shoplifters, minor drug offenders, and the occasional hit-and-run driver who didn’t know that all you have to do to get away with murder is stop and say “I just didn’t see them.”

An Illegal Bike Ban — And the Fight Against It | Bicycling Magazine

Bob Mionske (my favorite cycling advocacy author) writes another excellent article. He lays the ground-work for his article by stating a few facts. Motor vehicles are the cause the majority of deaths in accidents. (Can this possibly be refuted? Some will try.) In fact, motor vehicle operators account for 43,000 deaths each year in the U.S. in spite of our strict licensing requirements (to prove competency behind the wheel) and regulations. Cyclists, on the other hand, cause so few deaths while riding, that statistically speaking, they are responsible for 0% of the 43,000.

Also, the licensing of drivers does not give them the right to the road: it gives them the privilege. One that can be taken away by the revocation of the license. Cyclists and pedestrians, on the other hand, have an innate right to travel: they are not licensed. This right to travel cannot be taken away.

In spite of this, Black Hawk, Colorado, home to several casinos, voted to ban bicycles from the roads in its city limits. According to City Manager, Mike Copp, they banned bikes for safety reasons, even though there have been no incidents between cyclists and drivers in Black Hawk. The city’s argument was this: the streets are narrow, there is alot of motor vehicle traffic, and there’s really not room for cyclists. So for their own safety, the city decided to not allow them to ride there.

So, Mionske asks,

If safety was the goal, one might ask if it doesn’t make more sense to “promote safety” by banning motor vehicles? After all, they are the source of the problem. But of course, casino patrons arrive by motor vehicle, and casinos have kept the city alive, so banning motor vehicles wouldn’t do. But what about addressing infrastructure problems? What about requiring motorists to share road space with cyclists? What about requiring motorists to safely operate their vehicles while sharing the roads?

Mionske continues further with his article, detailing how Black Hawk is flouting state law, and upcoming efforts to curb it, so definitely read the whole article.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Colorado village of 100 people bans bikes (americablog.com)
• Kill the bicycle ban before it grows… (bjsmith.wordpress.com)
• Bicycles Banned in Black Hawk (thedenverchannel.com)