Author: ArizonaBikeLaw

Vulnerable Legislation

What is a ‘Vulnerable Roadway User’ Law?

The general idea is to create a subset of road users who are somehow more vulnerable than those inside of enclosed motor vehicle; this usually would include pedestrians and bicyclists, and might include motorcyclists, animal riders, animal drawn conveyances, and so forth. If someone in this subset is harmed by the negligent actions of a motorist, then that motorist is subject to enhanced penalties.

This page from the Cascade Bike Club (the state of Washington) describes it pretty well. The idea of making it a legislative priority is pretty popular. E.g.: Virgina Bicycling Federation. LACBC (California). Illinois. New York. Rhode Island. So it is a bit of a trend — and much like the Safe Passing Distance Laws were/are a trend, there isn’t any evidence one way or another that show these laws are effective.

Oregon 2007

Oregon has had a vulnerable road user law since 2007 (effective date Jan 1,2008) — making it the first such law in the US. Bike lawyer Ray Thomas  was instrumental in passage. He offers interesting and useful political legislative considerations here. Oregon’s enhance penalties are non-criminal, and involve various trade offs between a fine, license suspension, or community service. The penalty is keyed to the commission of a careless driving offense that results in a serious injury or death.

To see the actual language of the law: look up HB 3314 from the 2007 Regular Session at www.leg.state.or.us. It adds a new section to Oregon’s existing careless driving law, ORS 811.135

What have been the results? It’s way to early to tell anything with crash stats (I originally wrote this article several years ago; perhaps in 2010?) — it ultimately might be impossible to discern. But one does wonder what became of prosecutions under this law?? There were, for example, 104 traffic deaths of bicyclist and ped in 2008 and 2009, the last full year of NHTSA stats available. (51+35 peds, 10+8 cyclists, 2008 and 2009 respectively). And there must have been at least several hundred of serious injuries. What became of these cases? How many vulnerable users’ prosecutions; any license suspensions, etc? I can’t find any outcomes.

As I am updating this now in late 2013, Oregon’s law has been on the books for just shy of six years; I have yet to see more than a tiny handful of mentions of this law (here is one involving a bicyclist hit by a garbage truck; I can’t even find the outcome, the article just says the driver will be charged). There have been now at least many hundreds (more reasonably a couple of thousand — it is some fraction of fatal or seriously injured bicyclist or pedestrian) of potential cases; where are the charges? (that fraction tends to hover around 50%). See this comment below from story published in nextcity in 2014. Here is one conviction where a Trimet bus driver Sandi Day killed two peds in a crosswalk.

Nevada 2011(?)

I can’t find the legislation, but it seems to be from same year as a 3-foot/move over bill was passed. In any event it obviously passed, here from NV’s DMV:

Motorists may be charged with reckless driving if they are at-fault in any collision with a bicyclist or a pedestrian. Penalties include a driver license suspension. (NRS 484B.280)

Washington 2011

Legislative effort in state of WA passed a vulnerable user’s law in the spring 2011 (but doesn’t become effective until June 1, 2012). As of March, a similar bill had passed both houses. See kiptasun article, which also has lots of links. HB1339 passed March 2, 2011; and SB5326 passed the week before. The bill is being pushed by the widow of bicyclist James “Mike” McClurkan. Here is a good graphic representation of “how a bill becomes law” in WA (but is very similar everywhere); Several articles from the Cascade Bicycle Club have lots of rich detail.

The law was signed by the governor May 16, 2011. To see the actual law; follow the link above to the senate bill SB5326, and in there there is a link to Session Laws: Chapter 372, 2011.

Some updates:

City Attorney to police: Don’t write a ticket at scene when someone walking or biking is injured includes references to SCAO (Seattle City Attorney’s Office) memo that i would like to read but can’t find; “…conduct falling just short of King County’s filing standards for ‘dry’ vehicular homicide charges”. I assume ‘dry’ being a reference to not impaired.

Law enforcement and judiciary still in the dark about Vulnerable User Law refers to what may have been the first prosecution under the VUL stemming from a serious injury in 2012; the driver was fined $2,500 and (I think?) a 90-day license suspension (or is it a maximum 90 day?).

Note that according to seattlebikeblog, my emphasis added:

“The brilliance of the law is that it does NOT SEEK TO CRIMINALIZE negligent driving. Instead, it outlines a series of financial penalties, license suspensions and driving education or relevant community service projects that, in theory, will ensure the person driving takes a level of accountability for what they have done.”

Washington updated 2019

Includes a very worthwhile change-lanes-to-pass provision. www.stritmatter.com/firm-blog/2019/4/30/rules-of-the-road-washington-grants-new-protection-to-vulnerable-roadway-users

See Substitute Senate Bill 5723; As of 5/3/2019 the bill is awating action from Gov. Here’s a .pdf of the markup.

The Texas Experience 2005-2009

San Antonio Metro Columnist Veronica Flores writes of political problems with such legislation: “For eight years, bicycling advocates worked to get such legislation passed, changing the proposal as necessary to gain widespread support… In vetoing the bill, Perry cited penalties that he said already exist when a motorist is at fault for causing a collision, “whether it is against a ‘vulnerable user’ or not.”

But here is some more detail on the actual sausage-making process… Saying that the proposal was changed as necessary to gain widespread support is a nice way to put it. NTVC (North Texas Vehicular Cyclist) puts it more bluntly “Bills introduced this session sought to include various pedestrian groups among legitimate road users in an effort to garner support among otherwise indifferent legislators” — in other words, a little horse trading that would, in NTVC’s view, would water-down cyclist’s rights.

In more recent news, the CITY of El Paso pass their own version, Ordinance number 017466.

New York 2010

New York state recently got two new laws, the first dubbed Hayley and Diego’s Law (A0791) is a vulnerable user’s law. The second, Elle’s law (A10617), stiffens penalties including mandatory license suspension for any motor vehicle driver who KSIs (kills or seriously injures) anyone. More at streetsblog.org.

The LAB weighs in (early 2013 timeframe)

LAB weighs in in support of VRU (Vulnerable Roadway User) laws, and has model language.

Wisconsin 2013, 2014, 2015 and ongoing

Interesting history… this is the first instance that I am aware of where motorcycling groups formally got involved, in this case to block legislation. The model bill from LAB includes motorcyclists as vulnerable users; it’s not clear to me how many of the states that have passed VULs include motorcyclists. Ray Thomas (of OR), the one who started it all, at least in the US, mentions/implies that the AMA would be in favor of VUL “…even though the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) ‘Motorcyclists Matter’ campaign was a pioneer in the enhanced penalty area”; though i’m not so sure of the implication.

I get the impression that the AMA is to motorcycling what the  (modern day) LAB is to the bicycle industry. I.e. large-scale D.C. lobbying shops, more industry-supported rather than member supported. And that the MRF (Motorcycle Riders Foundation) and the ABATE chapters are what the LAB used to be — they are true member-based organizations. I say this based on like 15 minutes of googling on motorcyclist organizations. If you don’t know what I’m talking about regarding LAB see e.g. labreform.org

2013: wisconsinbikefed.org  gets a bill introduced, LRB 1701/2, I think (not sure of the numbering scheme), be sure and scan through the comments because there are comments from ABATE leaders as well as counter-comments from WBF.

ABATE of Wisconsin ( a motorcyclist rights organization) opposes the bill, for equity reasons.

2014: A law passes which WisconsinBikeFed describes as “diluted” version of last year’s bill. From what I read briefly it contains no penalties, just some sort of education. Urbanmilwaukee.com story about Gov Walker signing AB388. (There was also an unrelated bill which passed, AB730, to allow bicycles on state trails; apparently they were heretofore banned?)

2015: Ramping up for what I imagine is their next legislative season, an Oct 2015 jsonline.com opens with the usual sensationalized nonsense “It’s been a deadly season for Wisconsin bicyclists. More than a dozen have been struck and killed by cars, but in most cases the drivers don’t face criminal charges, even when they appear to be at fault”

Why I do not support Vulnerable User Legislation

As an aside —  I don’t really see it happening in our current political climate.

The foundation for the supposed need seems to be based on a false premise. That being that when cyclists (or peds) are killed, the justice system has some sort of bias that prevents the responsible party from being appropriately punished.

This has not been my experience; at least in the cases of cyclist fatalities. That is to say, a negligent motorist who kills a cyclist is treated the same as a negligent motorist who kills another motorist.

The general rule involves whether or not the negligent driver is impaired: impaired = criminal charges; not impaired means no criminal charges. It is independent of the mode of transportation of the victim.

And in flagrant cases, charges are brought against reckless drivers who cause fatalities. See e.g. the driver who killed Drake Okusako, who was charged with manslaughter. Or the driver who killed Bob Walmsley (neg hom and leaving the scene).

What should be done

Arizona has no vehicular homicide or vehicular assault law.

I support any sort of stiffening of penalties for negligent drivers who kill / injure anyone. Arizona is one of only three states (AZ, Alaska, and Montana) that does not have a vehicular homicide law (more here), so perhaps that would be helpful. The general idea is that a special/another type of homicide is created; generally with relatively minor criminal penalties. So it would be similar to negligent homicide, a class 4 felony; but with a different standard of conduct. Neg Hom requires the prosecutor to prove the defendant was “criminally negligent”.

More tangibly — Arizona already has a criminal misdemeanor law 28-672. Causing serious physical injury or death by a moving violation. There are only two problems with it, 1) getting (in this case typically city) prosecutors to use it — but that would be the same problem with a new VUL law, and 2) the law itself has a discrete list of infractions.  The answer is to simply do away with the list of infractions and make it any moving violation. It would also be good to open up the ranges for the amount of time driver’s licenses get suspended — shamefully, the law has no mandatory minimum suspension period. This law has been tweaked several times in recent past, so there is at least some hope it could be tweaked again.

 

…

Here are some thought from cyclist mighkwilson.com (and here too) regarding vulnerable user legislation generally.

…

some context: Bicyclist’s trip represent about 2% of traffic (citation?); In Arizona there were 106,767 crashes between all types of traffic in 2009, of those 1,995 were bicylist crashes, representing 1.95% of all crashes. Source:  Motor Vehicle Crash Facts for the state of Arizona (ADOT)

….

Here is Mionske’s take on vulnerable user legislation.

More on the socialized cost of parking

An integral part of unrestrained car use is having somewhere to put the darn things when we’re not driving them. Enter the “free” parking space.

They aren’t, of course, actually free — thus someone else is paying, not the driver using it, it is external to the cost of driving; call it socialism for drivers. Thus leading to ever more demand for more driving and more parking spaces.

from the Arizona Republic 12/28/2009; Ahwatukee Park-and-Ride Lot Expanding.

In the example mentioned in the story, 353 spaces are being added to the existing 562 for a cost of $3M. That’s $8,500 per space. But that is only the cost of construction (or land but that is cheap); the ongoing costs aren’t listed but they are significant. A not exhaustive list would look something like; lighting, maintenance like sweeping and cleaning, and re-sealing asphalt, full-time(one employee ~ 50hrs/week) security during operating hours, cost of operating the small building (heat and cooled approximately 24×7, even though no one is usually there; didn’t these people ever hear of a programmable thermostat?).

see Doug Shoup’s book mentioned here; The High Cost of Free parking.

In the particular example of a transit park-and-ride lot it gets even more interesting because of the cross-subsidies involved in mass transit. One wonders if the best use of presumably limited transit funds is to build parking spaces for the relatively well-off remote suburban commuters. This lot serves only one bus line; a rapid/express (no intermediate stops) route between Ahwatukee and downtown Phoenix. The line only runs one way, and only in the morning and evening. Thus the parking spots have low turnover — one spot equals one round trip rider.

Bicycles May Use Full Lane, SLM; MUTCD updates

R4-11 Bicycles MAY USE FULL LANE

[Update 2017: please also see “Change Lanes to Pass placard R4-11aP available for use in Arizona]
Apparently I’m a little behind the times, a new version of the MUTCD was released in Dec 2009 and includes a couple of new items for cyclists:

Section 9B.06 Bicycles May Use Full Lane Sign (R4-11) , sometimes denoted as BMUFL  and

Section 9C.07 Shared Lane Marking. (known colloquially as a Sharrow)

The last time I wrote about Shared Lane Markings,  see Sharrow / Shared lane marking (SLM), they were “experimental”. Continue reading “Bicycles May Use Full Lane, SLM; MUTCD updates”

State V. Patrick

State v. Patrick, 153 Ohio Misc.2d 20, 2008-Ohio-7142

Link to .pdf decision on Ohio Supreme Court website, or can google for it, to quick view it.

It is unusual for a lower court decision to be published (so why was this one?).

The short summary is; since there was no probable cause for the deputy to do the stop in the first place (because the defendant was doing nothing illegal), everything that came later (the alleged disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and whatever else) was supressed. All charges were dismissed.

Mionske covered this case on his blog at bicycling.com.

Also, a roundup of this, and many other, “Right to the Road” cases.

Steve Magas described it as follows:

In State v. Patrick, 153 Ohio Misc.2d 20, Tony Patrick and another rider were riding two abreast when a police officer ordered them to get off the road. They refused and Tony was ultimately stopped, TASERed, beaten and arrested by police and charged with felonies and misdemeanors. However, the trial judge dismissed all charges holding, in part, that cyclists have the right to ride two abreast and the officer had no right to stop Tony. The judge in that case, a cyclist himself, stated that while cyclists SHOULD display courtesy to motorists, there is no legal requirement that they give way.

.

Phoenix marks first year of light rail

The Arizona Republic is running all manner of “year in review” stories, so of course Phoenix marks first year of light rail, Dec 26, 2009 hit the news.

The light-rail cars are cyclist-friendly, greatly aiding multi-modal trips to many valley locations. The lines themselves have caused some difficulties, though that was due to engineering missteps.

The first year of operation has exceeded ridership estimates “On Dec. 27 last year, Metro opened on time and on budget. Over the next 12 months, the $1.4 billion system carried an average of nearly 35,000 passengers a day, 34 percent over estimates” and fares are covering 24% of operating expenses, despite losses on the corporate cards caused by other confusions.

The light rail, of course, garnered all sorts of opposition from anti-rail (and anti-public-transit, or perhaps I should say pro-car) folks.  On any and all grounds including that it is claimed to be phenomenally dangerous. “( light rail) averaged almost a collision a week, causing lingering doubts about light rail’s safety”. But is that really a problem, or unexpected, or out of line? Nobody seems to know. What is clear is that negligent motorists are at fault: “…No one has died, and no pedestrians or bicyclists have been hit. Police have attributed every accident to motorists ignoring traffic signal” (emphasis added).

Notwithstanding fault, is ~ 50 collisions significant? Nobody says. Keep in mind that Phoenix PD investigates ~ twenty thousand motor vehicle collisions per year.

Nevada High Court Says Pharmacies Can’t Be Sued for Death

This story about who can and can’t be sued in the case of wrongful death is interesting to those who follow such matters; Nevada High Court Says Pharmacies Can’t Be Sued for Death, WSJ 12/26/2009.

I was more interested in a habitual prescription drug abuser who killed this guy and served a whopping 9-months. 9-months!  She killed one guy and seriously injured another according to the article.

“…Ms. Copening was driving a Dodge Durango when she hit two delivery men who were standing on the shoulder of a highway, killing one and severely injuring the other. In Ms. Copening’s car, police found prescription bottles and loose pills. Police reports said she appeared confused, and a blood test detected the painkiller hydrocodone. Ms. Copening pleaded guilty to two counts of reckless driving and served nine months in jail”

Photo Red Enforcement found ‘illegal’?

Well, not exactly. After an article in “theNewspaper.com” (“a journal of the politics of driving”… an anti-photo enforcement website), the local anti-photo enforcement blogosphere Camera Fraud has declared that a FHWA letter will be “will be sending shock waves through the insidious network of red light cameras across the country”.

Despite the camera-foes’ protestations to the contrary, the FHWA has no legal standing, can not make laws, and is not a legislative body (For Arizona, the Arizona state legislature is); the only tie to the law is through the MUTCD; and “violations” of the MUTCD are common. In any event the FHWA interpretation letter refers to the extra ground markings in use being dis-allowed, and not cameras.

An image of the FHWA letter is linked at that article, above (here is the letter). I don’t know who this guy, Paul Pisano, Continue reading “Photo Red Enforcement found ‘illegal’?”

Driver cited in death of baby in stroller

There was a particularly horrifying crash in September  where a 7-month old baby was killed instantly while being pushed in a stroller ON THE SIDEWALK passing in front of a private driveway. The infant’s mother and brother escaped serious harm by leaping out of the way. Phoenix police announced almost immediately (My, that was a fast investigation! the crash occurred 9/14/2009, the media reported that outcome 9/16/2009) that there would be no criminal charges recommended. “Police said, Macias (the driver) did not see Clayda Lozoya, 27, walking down the sidewalk with her 4-year-old and 7-month-old children in a stroller. The SUV ran over the stroller and killed the baby instantly” [kpho]. “The investigation reveals Ms. Macias may have looked left before entering Northern Avenue to go east and not see the family approaching from the east,” Holmes’ news release indicated. ” [abc15]

In any event, the Arizona Republic reports (I guess the final police report?) in a Valley and State brief (not online? see below), that the driver was cited for two traffic infractions: failure to yield, and too-dark window tints. In the report, police (strangely) fault the mother of the victim for walking in front of the vehicle without making “eye contact” with the driver — now, remember police have also said the driver’s windows were illegally dark. hmmm. And remember, the victim was on a sidewalk, passing in front of a private driveway. It sounds to me like the Phoenix Police have invented a new duty — now it is the victim’s duty to ensure eye contact has been made, before making any sort of movement, regardless of right-of-way (the pedestrian has complete right-of-way at a driveway)? This is nonsense. This report is sounding like a tort lawyer. And, with all due respect to tort lawyers, is this really the sort of thing that should be in a police report? In my opinion, police reports should stick to application of THE LAW. Such “creative” interpretations in police reports frequently cause problems for cyclists.

On the other hand, the Police’s press release (reproduced below) was quite strong, admonishing drivers to look both ways — but of course, talk is cheap.

In case there is any confusion about what a driver is supposed to do at a driveway:  §28-856 “The driver shall… Yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian as necessary to avoid collision”. (nothing about “eye contact” here).

For the curious, the window tinting statute is  §28-959.01. I get the impression that this is one of those laws that generally only ever gets invoked after-the-fact.

The driver is, understandably, devastated over the incident. But from a punishment perspective, if the driver pleads or if found responsible for these infractions, she is facing a few hundred dollars in fines, and a couple of points on her license.

As noted above, police almost immediately dismissed any notion of criminal charges (e.g. Negligent Homicide). There is another far less serious law which makes it a crime (albeit a very minor crime) to kill a pedestrian, but it only applies when in a crosswalk. This seems to be yet another shortcoming of 28-672 see Crime and Punishment.

This sad sad sad story, and some of the Phoenix Police’s response reminds me of  a quote from Mr. Burn of The Simpsons:  “Beep Beep out of my way I’m a motorist” Wiggum “that some nice reckless driving Mr. B”

—

By the way, the outcome on public access shows up as something I don’t understand — normally the outcome would be either guilty/responsibile, or not responsible, or dismissed, or somesuch… what this about bail forfeited?

Case Number: M-0741-4090176

YIELD TO PED REQ FROM ALLEY/DRIVEWAY 11/24/2009 BAIL/DEPOSIT GIVEN/FORFEITED

IMPROPER TINTING OF WINDOWS 11/24/2009 BAIL/DEPOSIT GIVEN/FORFEITED

By the way, this crash shows the dramatic shortcoming of 28-672 “causing death or serious injury by moving violation”. The driver was plainly at fault, and plainly committed a moving violation, but because that particular violation isn’t on the list of infractions that triggers 28-672, nothing more serious than the ticket for failing to yield could be brought.

Driver in fatal crash was cited

The Arizona Republic, Dec 11, 2009, p. B2

PHOENIX — A woman whose SUV rolled over and crushed a 7-month-old boy outside a school in September was cited for two misdemeanor [ed’s note: this is incorrect — these infractions are strictly civil] traffic citations, records show.

Leticia Macias, 41, received the citations for failure to yield and for having improperly tinted windows on her 2007 GMC Yukon the day she struck and killed the baby at a busy parking lot at Westwind Middle School Academy near 20th and Northern Avenues.

The baby’s mother “never made eye contact with the driver prior to walking in front of the the vehicle” of the baby as she prepared to pull onto Northern Avenue on Sept. 16 after dropping her own child at school, according to a police report release this week. (ed’s note: there’s something wrong with the wording, e.g. “of the baby” makes no sense, and “as she prepared” obviously must mean the driver, who isn’t “the baby’s mother”).

A Phoenix police spokesman said Macias was never criminally charged. The baby’s mother, Clayda Lozoya, 26, was pushing the stroller and walking with her 3-year-old son at the time of the accident. The baby, Roman Mata, was pronounced dead at the scene as parents and children arrived at the campus around 8 a.m.

Phoenix Police Press Release at time of crash:

 

Infant in stroller killed by SUV leaving school parking lot

Information Provided by the Police Department

officers at scene in front of a school Tragedy struck at a private school near 19th Avenue and Northern this morning when a 7-month-old infant was struck and killed by an SUV. The infant, a boy, was being pushed in a stroller by his mother who was also walking with her 4-year-old son.

An SUV being driven by a 41-year-old woman who had just dropped off her child was pulling out of the Westwind Preparatory Academy parking lot and struck the stroller. The infant’s mother and brother were able to get out of the way, but were taken to a nearby hospital to be checked. The driver of the SUV remained at the scene; police were investigating and it was not known if she would face charges. “This is one of the calls you never get used to,” said Phoenix Fire Captain Hugh Chase. “We all have kids.”

PIO James Holmes at scenePhoenix police Public Information Officer James Holmes stated from the scene, “It is imperative that motor vehicle operators remember they are required to yield to not only vehicular traffic when exiting a private drive, but pedestrian traffic as well. Way too often a driver who intends to make a right turn will look left to ensure the way is clear, but not right. This endangers all pedestrian traffic which may be approaching from the right. We have to be careful.”

Ped Seriously injured by Driver at driveway

 

In echos of the stroller death, years later May of 2018 Pedestrian seriously injured following crash in Phoenix it seems that someone was walking on the sidewalk near 15th ave and fillmore in what appears to be a residential neighborhood when a driver ran over him while turning into a driveway. (a driveway is part of the sidewalk)

 …a man who was driving down a dark street overnight didn’t see the victim on the sidewalk.
That’s when the driver hit the pedestrian as he pulled into his driveway… Impairment is suspected with respect to the pedestrian’s actions, according to Phoenix police.

By “pedestrian’s actions” i don’t know if they mean the pedestrian lept in front of the moving car, regardless… If it’s too dark for a driver to see, then the driver must slow down; stopping if necessary, and has complete responsibility for ensuring the sidewalk is clear before crossing it. Even if it’s “his” driveway.

Criminal Speeding and Photo Radar

In Arizona, speeding, like most traffic infractions, is generally a civil matter — but “excessive” speeding, defined as above 20mph (and actually above 85mph on the highway[update: this was later changed to 20 over posted limit, AZ has some 75mph posted]) over the posted limit, is a class 3 (minor) criminal misdemeanor; it carries a theoretical maximum punishment of $500 fine and 30 days in jail. See §28-701.02.

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas has quietly recanted all or most of the loony things that he said back in February. I say quietly because Continue reading “Criminal Speeding and Photo Radar”

New Crash Forms / ALISS database

ALISS — stands for Accident Location Identification Surveillance System… it apparently feeds the ADOT Safety Data Mart.

As of Jan 1, 2009(?); Arizona has new forms. The old “Arizona Traffic Accident Report” will now be an “Arizona Crash Report” (as an aside, if you don’t know why that is significant, please see here). You can see what’s on the new form here, in a presentation by Rick Turner; includes the tantalizing bullet point “Customers Will Be Able to Query, Analyze and Retrieve Their Own Crash Data”. Continue reading “New Crash Forms / ALISS database”

Incidence of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crashes by Hybrid Electric Passenger Vehicles

This ponderously-name technical report from the NHTSA, Incidence of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crashes by Hybrid Electric Passenger Vehicles [DOT HS 811 204 pdf here]

Has a bunch of interesting tidbits. It’s obviously leading or suggesting that quieter motorvehicles, particularly at low speeds where tire noise would be less significant, have a tendency to not be heard by cyclists or peds thus leading to more crashes. Sounds plausible. The difference may explain some human behavioral factors of operators of bicycles; such as why cyclists rarely make a complete stop, yet rarely get seriously injured in those situations. (Motorist, too, rarely stop but that’s another story)

What mainly caught my eye was a juicy dataset as describe in the METHODS section “State crash files from NHTSA’s State Data System (SDS)… The SDS includes all police-reported crashes, regardless of the injury or crash outcomes”. Though the SDS actually only contains records for 32 states, arizona not being one of them.

Motorist Doctor Convicted on all counts

[This article about the 2009 Doctor-criminal in LA, has become a repository of these flagrant, intentional acts, with the advent of omnipresent video recording, these incidents which at one time would have just been he-said-she-said types to things and brushed off, are becoming more frequently heard about;  jump down]

In a highly unusual incident, Physician Christopher Thomas Thompson was convicted on all charges in a Los Angeles court, including multiple felonies of intentionally causing a crash that seriously injured two bicyclist. Continue reading “Motorist Doctor Convicted on all counts”

Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the future of a continent

a book by Andrew Nikiforuk.

This was mainly a polemic against the tar sands (though the industry prefers the term oil sands) industry as practiced in Alberta, Canada, and how it connects to provicial politics there. The problems with the industry are legion: they use enormous amounts of natural gas to extract and upgrade the tar; loads of water is used; this load of water is then collected in highly toxic tailings ponds. Open pit/strip mining uses less natural gas than in situ extraction, but leaves obvious scars. And in any event, only 20% of the bitumen is available through mining — the other 80% requires in situ (referred to as SAGD,  Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage). Continue reading “Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the future of a continent”

Settlement in Phx Police crash

Fairly unusal story, stemming from an incident in September 2007.

A Phoenix police officer driving an unmarked car collided with an elderly cyclist, Edward Allen Leigh, who was crossing Third Street in a crosswalk (what I refer to as a “rolling pedestrian”). It was dark and the cyclist was unlit.  Cyclists in crosswalks generally get treated like pedestrians under civil lawsuits.

The city settled a lawsuit brought by Leigh for $750,000, who had significant medical bills as a result of the crash. [azcentral]