hmmm

We don’t normally report on vehicle crashes here on the Capitol Hill blog, but this was so outrageous we couldn’t help ourselves.

A 30-year-old woman in Marietta, Georgia was convicted of vehicular homicide this week – and she wasn’t even driving a car. The woman was crossing the street with her three children when a driver, who had been drinking, hit and killed her four-year-old. The driver, Jerry Guy, was initially charged with “hit and run, first degree homicide by vehicle and cruelty to children,” Elise Hitchcock of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. “Charges were later dropped to just the hit and run charge.”

The man has previously been convicted of two hit-and-runs – on the same day, in 1997, one of them on the same road where he killed Raquel Nelson’s son.

Guy will serve six months for killing the boy, but Nelson will serve up to 36 months – just for crossing the street with her child. Yes, it’s true: they were not in a crosswalk. Are there any crosswalks on that street at all?

Hitchcock at the AJC says:

The conviction does not sit well with Sally Flocks, president and CEO of PEDS, a pedestrian advocacy organization.

“Invest the money in safe crossings,” Flocks said. “For the costs of the trial yesterday, they could have made a safe crossing. But they don’t want to do that.”

The Atlanta-Sandy-Springs-Marietta, Georgia metro area ranks 11th in the country for most dangerous streets for pedestrians, according to Transportation for America’s recent report on pedestrian safety and street design. The region had nearly 800 pedestrian deaths between 2000 and 2009.

Despite the fact that Atlanta-area municipalities continue to build roads, like the one where Nelson’s son was killed, with inadequate pedestrian crossings and sidewalks, and despite the fact that the federal government continues to vastly underfund pedestrian safety infrastructure on federally-funded roads and highways, the courts have pointed the finger at Nelson, blaming her for the death of her son on a road that was designed with no regard for pedestrian safety.

via streetsblog http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/07/14/mother-convicted-of-vehicular-homicide-for-crossing-street-with-children/


+++UPDATE+++
28 JULY

A Georgia mother who faced a longer prison sentence than the drunk driver who killed her son has avoided time behind bars, following a public outcry. An all-white jury had convicted Raquel Nelson, an African American, of homicide by vehicle and of jaywalking. Nelson’s son, A.J., was killed as the family attempted to cross a busy street between a bus stop and their apartment complex. There were no crosswalks nearby. After facing three years in prison, Nelson has been ordered to serve one year’s probation and carry out 40 hours of community service. The driver who struck and killed A.J. — a partially blind man who admitted to drinking and using painkillers the day of the accident — served six months and is currently on probation. An online petition demanding leniency for Nelson prior to her sentencing gathered more than 125,000 supporters.

via democracynow.org

SNAFU

Well, have fallen into the digital divide so not so much opportunity to post. The fossil fool follies roll on, though. Business as usual.
Gasoline is still cheaper than milk.
40% of the urban environment is devoted to making cars happy.
Nearly 90% of daytime motor trips continue to be single occupant vehicles, three empty seats, 2000lbs to haul yer sad sorry 200lbs to someplace you probably don't really need to go.

What we Already Knew

SHANGHAI -- China's booming car sales have had a devastating effect on the environment, the national environmental watchdog has warned in its first-ever report on pollution caused by vehicle emissions.

About a third of 113 cities surveyed failed national air standards last year as the number of vehicles swelled to 170 million, up 9.3 percent on year and 25 times the number on the roads in 1980, the ministry of environmental protection said.

"All the problems are closely related to vehicle exhaust emissions," said the government report, which was published on Thursday.

Vehicle exhaust emissions exceeded 51 million tonnes in 2009, including more than 40 million tonnes of carbon monoxide, nearly five million tonnes of hydrocarbons and about six million tonnes of nitrogen oxide, the report said.

China's auto sales hit 13.64 million units in 2009, up 46 percent on year, and are expected to rise by a further 25 percent this year to 17 million.

The ministry pledged to toughen supervision and control of vehicle exhaust emissions.

Projects are already under way in several cities to upgrade petrol stations, oil storage tanks, and oil tankers to rein in emissions, the report said.

China's latest Five-Year Plan, for 2011-2015, which was adopted last month, called on car makers to focus on researching and developing new energy vehicles, such as electric cars and hybrid vehicles.

Addicted

A Nation of Addicts
Can oil and democracy mix?
by Franklin Kalinowski in Orion Magazine

When I was a young man, I worked for a while as a drug counselor, first in a methadone clinic, and then in a heroin detoxification unit. I have seen and know something about addiction. I later earned a PhD in political science, in the process acquiring an idea of what the Founders of the American political system were trying to accomplish. If we take seriously the news that Americans are "addicted to oil," it means we have become a nation of addicts, and the question that must be addressed is what a democracy composed of addicts portends for our future. Reconciling a population of addicts with the principles and practices of the American political system will not be easy. In fact, it will be impossible: democracy wasn't built for addicts.

The Founders of our democracy bequeathed to us a legacy of cultural values that display the diversity of their social perspectives. One group argued that politics was about the public, patriotic pursuit of the common good of the community. Americans were viewed as citizens who would be willing to sacrifice for the general welfare. Other Founders asserted that humans are essentially individuals and not community members. These consumers are primarily motivated by the passionate pursuit of their economic self-interests and should be given the freedom to seek their unique pleasures in their unique ways. Over the years, we as a nation have never totally accepted nor totally rejected either vision. We have ignored the logical contradictions and constructed a society where people are encouraged to be both patriotic and self-interested.

But where do addicts fit into this picture? Surely the addict cannot be considered a virtuous citizen. The essence of citizenship is a concern for the community and a willingness to forgo personal pleasure for the common good. The addict cares nothing about others or tomorrow, and for this reason, addiction and civic virtue are antithetical. Either the craving for the addictive substance will destroy all other pursuits, or the republic must cure the addiction and convert the addict into a citizen.

On the surface there may appear similarities between the addict and today's consumer, but these melt with closer scrutiny. Like an addict, the consumer may be a pleasure-seeking (an economist would say "utility maximizing") individual, but consumers know there are costs and benefits associated with their various choices, and they are rational enough to engage in calculations regarding these trade-offs. For the addict, there is no alternative to acquiring the addictive substance, and that is why they will pay any cost and ignore any harm their addiction will cause. Economic markets, built upon the assumption of rational consumers, are institutions ill suited to restrain addicts bent on ever greater overindulgence, even unto death.

If America is "addicted to oil" we will have to reach deep into our Founders' legacies for the strength to struggle against what we have become, for the truth is that there is a citizen, a consumer, and an addict in each of us. Citizens and consumers might grimace at the difficult policy choices lying ahead, but they will acquiesce in the face of necessity and move to have tough energy policies that restrict our addiction to oil put into practice.

It is urgently important that Americans not let our inner addict supersede our citizen and consumer. Imagine, just for a second, what would happen if we let the addicts run the methadone clinics and the detoxification units. Imagine what will become of America if we let our oil addiction determine the fate of our democracy.

Lessons in Greed pt.1

It is often the smallest nuggets of information that are more disturbing than the frequent Grand Mal articles common to media on both sides of the corporate divide. A case in point is this little data point that I found most disturbing. The Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) reports that although 89% of drivers are concerned about “driver distraction”, yet informed of the fact that “that cellphone use made them four times more likely to be involved in a collision.”, “60% of drivers would not agree to stop using their cellphones while driving.”



OK? Got that?

So 9 out of 10 drivers see someone doing something stupid on the road, often associated with cell phone use. Ten out of ten bicycle riders would report the same thing. Anecdotally, the connection is often made. “So, I look up after seeing his bumper go by my handlebars with two inches to spare, the guy’s got a cellphone glued to his ear...”

They have been made aware that using a hand held in-car distraction may quadruple their likelihood of an accident. Still, given their own choice, 6 out of ten would choose to ignore this simple collection of pertinent facts, and give a big “fuck you” to all other road users.

We already know that all cagers believe that the roadway and the space enveloping their car is their exclusive property. “Get off the road! You don’t pay for it!” is a common call of the wild cager in flight.

We also know the common cager belief in the idea that one’s own time and personal errands are all that matters. “That guy on the bike is obviously not going anywhere too important. I mean, where could he possibly be going if he can’t even afford a car...”

We know the cager deliberately wants to be isolated from the world, sealed inside his steel and glass cage, lost in a delusion of “freedom”, “individuality” , traffic-free winding seaside roads and other kinds of marketing mythology...see any car commercial for more details.

Now we know that three out of five cagers believe the safety of other road users is inconsequential. The IBC data gobbet drips with the grease of motor mentality, steeped in the shit of marketed car culture.

This is indicative of the greed culture we live in, the me first, stuff my pockets full, ignore the obvious, play the game, screw the future, business as usual, fuck the rest of you, just don’t get caught society we have built.

Rescuing Dinosaurs

Senate Hearing On US Auto Bailout Signals New Attacks On Workers

By Jerry White

19 November, 2008
WSWS.org

Tuesday's Senate Banking Committee hearing on a $25 billion government bailout of the US auto industry underscored the reactionary framework of the official debate on the crisis of the Big Three auto companies. At the center of the dispute between those senators who support an emergency loan and those who oppose it is how best to impose the burden of the crisis on the backs of auto workers and the working class as a whole.

more

Couldn't Have Said it Better

Craig McInnes

Vancouver Sun


Thursday, August 11, 2005

VICTORIA - Dear motorist:

Excuse me for not addressing you by name, but given your rage the other day when you wanted to talk to me about my riding habits, I thought it best to press on rather than exchange formal greetings.

My first inkling that you were somewhat irate came when you stomped on the gas as you squeezed by me going down the hill on Fort Street across from the Royal Jubilee Hospital.

I didn't realize your anger was directed at me, however, until you narrowly avoided being run down by that pickup truck after running out on to the road, where I heard you explain heatedly to the driver that you were trying to get to the cyclist who was taking up most of a lane coming down the hill.

As I left the scene of your narrowly avoided accident, I was sorry that we could not have chatted, since although I suspect something else was going on in your life to leave you so tightly wound, you are not alone in your misunderstanding of the rights and responsibilities of bicycle riders with whom you reluctantly share the road.

In fact your reaction reminded me of the caution in the excellent primer on cycling in traffic contained in the British Columbia Bicycle Operator's Manual, which is available on the web at www.bikesense.bc.ca.

"Be prepared for the occasional frustrated driver who is not familiar with the safe and legal operation of a bicycle."

Before you fly off the handle again at what you may perceive will be another attack on drivers, let me add that there are as many cyclists who are ignorant about the safe and legal operation of a bicycle as there are motorists.

That shared ignorance is not helped by grey areas in the law where what is safe and what is legal are not always the same.

The first thing you should know is that under the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, "a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle." So whether you like it or not, bicyclists have a right to use the road. They also have a responsibility to obey all the rules of the road that you do, in addition to a few others.

For example, they can't pretend to be pedestrians. They can't ride on the sidewalk or across crosswalks. They can't ride side by side, blocking the road. They have to wear a helmet, even though police in Victoria appear to ignore bareheaded bikers, and they have to keep one hand on the handlebars.

Unfortunately, the situation in which you and I first met is one of those grey areas I mentioned.

The Motor Vehicle Act requires a cyclist to ride "as near as practicable to the right side of the highway." If we had been in Vancouver, we would have also been subject to a bylaw that requires slow-moving vehicles to drive "as close as possible" to the right hand edge or curb. Under that bylaw, bicycles are always considered slow-moving vehicles, even when they are not.

Hence the conflict between safety and the law. At times, such as when you found yourself behind me, they travel at or near the speed of cars. Regardless of how the wording of the Motor Vehicle Act is interpreted, it is a violation of my law of personal survival to hug the curb when I am flying down a hill at or near the speed limit.

It may be counter-intuitive to you -- it was to me at first -- but there are times when riding at the speed of other traffic, it is safer to be out in the middle of the lane where other motorists can see you and will be less tempted to squeeze by when there is really not enough room.

Finally you can be sure that if it comes to a choice between claiming my rights or staying alive, you will always have the upper hand. I hope, however, with a little civility on both our parts, as fellow commuters we can learn to share the road.

Sincerely yours,

Craig


© The Vancouver Sun 2005

How the U.S. Auto Industry Wrecked Itself

By RALPH NADER

The Big Three are in big trouble, and they have themselves to thank for it.

Ford and General Motors have reported substantial losses in the second quarter amounting to $15.5 billion, and $8.7 billion, respectively, while Chrysler, which was bought off last year by a private equity firm, Cerberus, refuses to reveal its financial standing.

It is no wonder why their lobbyists were spotted schmoozing with members of Congress at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, liquoring up in their plush suites and private parties while they made their case for direct government loans which, if approved, would likely add to our federal deficit.

Last December, Congress approved a $25 billion loan to automakers and their suppliers under the Energy Independence and Security Act, though it has yet to be funded. That bill includes a modest requirement for automakers to increase their average vehicle fuel efficiency to 35 mpg -- a benchmark we should have set decades ago, and would allow the companies to have their way with virtually no oversight or accountability.

This corporate Congress cannot be expected to issue serious demands, set tough conditions, or impose strict rules on the auto companies to ensure their workers receive fair pay and benefits, and prevent their fat-cat executives from making off big while leaving their companies in shambles.

more

Who Pays?

A local bicycle rider has written:

“Every spring I hear the same two complaints from motorists. Cyclists don't follow the rules of the road, and they do not pay to use them.”

Leaving aside the first complaint for the moment, I had some thoughts about the second.

The counter-argument to the false idea of “my taxes pay for the roads” are many. The simplest one is that taxes are taxes and everybody pays them. Saying that this kind of tax is earmarked for that kind of program is a false argument. Its like saying I can’t pay you the $20 dollars I owe, because its in my left pocket....
--Sure I have the $20, but its in my left pocket and that’s for something else.
--See, my right pocket is empty.
--If I had the $20 to pay you, it would be in my right pocket....

It’s all about priorities.

The most elegant one is that if everybody rode bicycles [by using the word “bicycle”, generally I mean any self-propelled, lightweight, emission free vehicle], we’d likely never have to build another road. Ever. Think about that for a moment.

Well maybe that is an exaggeration, but maintenance budgets would drop to a quarter or a tenth of current levels. In the absence of free and easy (read subsidy and society-enabled) motor vehicle traffic, we have already built every road we are likely to ever need.

Ten thousand cyclists a day passing over any given piece of road for a hundred years will not equal the damage done to roads that a year’s worth of motor traffic will inflict.

Currently, the motorist ensures he will be paying high taxes simply by being a motorist. Most car owners have never even considered how much society subsidizes their “right” to drive.

A sane system would demand the demonstration of “cause for use”. In the short term, this would allow a road user such as a contractor who absolutely requires a vehicle to still make a living. But the single use motor driven commuter would no longer be a viable option. It is ridiculous how we preserve some of the most expensive real estate in Canada for keeping our cars happily waiting for us at the end of an office-bound day.

Getting people out of personal use cars will free traffic gridlock and allow once again the efficient use of roads. Dedicated routes could then be maintained for heavy and light truck/service traffic along commercial routes. Other routes would be exclusively for transit--maxi and mini buses, and clean-air taxis. Still others would be dedicated to bicycles. Many neighbourhood streets would gratefully succumb to depaving.

By creating separate traffic streams, one of the three major impediments to getting people out on bikes is removed, as conflict with motorised traffic is limited to infrequent intersections. Imagine how quickly you could get from SFU to ScienceWorld if you only had to stop at lights at Willingdon, Boundary and Main streets, with the Boundary overpass coming online next year!

It’s all about priorities.

The Party's Over

The automobile is one of the most energy intensive modes of transportation ever invented. This is true not just because of its direct use of fuel, but for the energy embodied in the construction [and maintenance] of so many individual units that require replacement every few years. The rate of car ownership in the US is now 775 per thousand people [2005] --nearly the highest in the world -- and many less-consuming nations, such as China, are foolishly seeking to emulate the American love affair with the [mostly single use (aka three empty seats), personal] automobile. Because increased car ownership results in changed patterns of urban development and resource distribution, it creates [a false and market manipulated] social dependency. Wherever this dependency has taken hold, it will have ruinous consequences in the coming century.

--Richard Heinberg. The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies. New Society Publishers, 2005. p.191 [with ed. additions]

Tell me why

                   Why is it that if I am crazy enough to take a large and powerful weapon out of my house, travel for a short while and then begin to target individuals out enjoying their day; peaceable law-abiding people causing no harm to no one, if I should target guys wearing hats, or kids playing basketball or any random assortment of people engaged in a mutual activity like walking down the street or riding bicycles, if I should maliciously and willfully try to cause grievous injury or death--why is it that the consequences of this certifiably insane act of mayhem should be weighed in the balance of my choice of weapon?

Now to create mayhem without consequence, the choice of weapon is one to be pondered before a hasty decision is reached. Maximum effectiveness might be realized through the use of an M1A1, a highly efficient and manoeuvrable killing machine. The trouble is that deniability is hard to  claim as they drag your smoking corpse from the hull of your shattered tank. Besides, those babies are really hard to get a hold of.

No I'll need something more practical, more personal, more American--I need a gun. Not just any gun. I need a big gun. A really big gun....

So now that I got my Mr.Keaton giant earthworm killin' death bringer loaded, one must decide upon a target, say, bicyclists...NO--short people. Yes that's it, short people. They are always getting in front of you when you're walking and because they have small little legs they take short little steps, so they're slow as jam and you're in a damn hurry and why are you so slow??!  They usually wear weird clothes too, a fine enough reason right there.

--But wait.

I must admit that I have been watching a lot of  NCIS on the tube lately and you know them crafty coppers have a million and one ways to tie you to a gun like that. Shoot a bunch of people down and  your options become few--a bullet self administered, die in a hail of police gunfire, or spend the rest of your mortality swapping out brutality, sodomy and boredom.

--There must be a better way. Hmmmm, there must be a better way. Think think think.

--I know. I've got it! I've been overthinking this all along. The answer is sitting right there. Right there in my driveway.

I can get behind the wheel and for the most part can give my attention  to my cell phone, changing the CD, making a grocery list, checking my email, balancing a cup of coffee, burning a cigarette, swattin' the kids--anything and everything expect paying attention to actually driving. This is viewed and is fully accepted as normal and rational behavior.

I can get behind the wheel and injure, maim and kill others, usually with minimal consequence. The word "accident" will be falsely applied to many of my sins, so long as I keep it alcohol free (cuz those Muthas will put a quick end to all the fun) . When the accident excuse fails, it is of little matter, for remember always that it is very rare that you will be labeled as "killer" or "attempted murderer"  because first and foremost you are a "driver", and that supercedes all.

I can kill a man with a gun and receive twenty-five years to life as punishment, kill the same man with my car and, most often, I'll see NO jail time.

Routinely we view a driver's license as a right and not a privilege. Driver's licenses are handed out to wild-eyed sixteen year olds like ritalin is handed out to their little brothers. At the other end of the scale, old men who can barely walk and barely see still motor around in their oversized ancient automobiles, yet it cannot be argued that those whose wisdom has increased are shown to have decreased reaction times. 

All organisms degenerate, all systems will slow to zero. 

How do we acknowledge this fact when it comes to making the tough decision about our very old relatives, within our families and within our societies, about their "right" to drive? We rely on self-assessment, or more often, wait for the inevitable "accident" to happen.

Dollar short and a day late

As usual I am kind of slow catching on to these new fangled things like the world wild web and the whole blogosphere, aka, nattering away into the void. I have been mostly a lurker and a commenter on other people's missives, but was inspired today to get this going by stumbling upon this delightful and new blog.

I have been solely self-propelled for a lifetime; the elegance and simplicity, the beauty and the reliability of the bicycle capturing my soul from the start. I don't mind to walk, but most walks of any length will usually result in my comment: "We should've rode our bikes."

Back in the day when we were kids, when gas was cheap and smog was plentiful, when the post-war dream was still in rem stage, when we had seemed to indeed achieve "better living through chemistry," the parentals dragged us back and forth across the country from Ontario to California, a number of times. Back then I seemed to be enjoying the scenery and the "freedom of the open road" that would soon become only a marketing slogan, as the realities of the first oil crisis took hold of the nation, gas lines formed, and a strange new, ominous 'word' appeared on everyone's lips: "OPEC."

I was too young to really be effected by any of this, and perhaps it had left no real impression, as I dutifully played with my hot wheels cars and GI Joe's. My family was no different than any other in our neighbourhood--two cars in the driveway that were relied upon for 100% of the journeys made that were more than a block away. A distant "Uncle" owned a classic car, which we appreciated and were appropriately thrilled to get a ride in such a beautiful old touring car. I enjoyed building the model cars in my basement, and I knew who "Big Daddy" Don Garlits was.

In short, my automobile indoctrination was proceeding apace.

So, what went wrong? Where did the indoctrination fail? Today, I hold no driver's license, and go about my daily business quite capably on two wheels.

Still,  this is a question I don't ponder much, as the bicycle is my first love and preferred conveyance. 

I 'm not "super-fit" or "super-brave" or even "really stupid", as I have been called in the past. If anything, I became more and more conscious of the superior lifestyle that the committed cyclist enjoys. Upon some of these virtues I hope to extol in the coming pages.