NYPD traffic priorities: Protecting you from the deadly bike menace

homeowner wrote: Just because someone isn't charged criminally doesn't mean that they aren't at fault. The person still could be found to be negligent in the operation of the vehicle in a civil case. I'd be interested to see how many of the families of those 146 people are pursuing civil action.

Also, it appears from my quick perusal of the Penal Law (Article 125) that having a suspended license only isn't enough to get one charged with vehicular manslaughter unless that suspension was as a result of a refusal to take a drug test or conviction for operating the vehicle under the influence. If you get suspended because you can't pay your insurance or your child support that seems to be treated differently by the courts.

Yup, guilt and malice remain important things to consider before charging someone with a crime. Civil courts try to look at similar variables before rushing to judgement based on raw statistics.

Overall, its a much better system than one which would paint people with a broad brush (i.e. those against immigrants having a license = bigots, drivers who kill a pedestrian or biker = guilty of a crime, pedestrians and bikers = victims).

Ideally, we could agree upon a price of a human life (a loss) as well as the utility to society from motor vehicle travel (a positive).

Using these figures together, we could decide how much to spend on things like enforcement, training and licensing by determining where they intersected with the value of the lives saved and the gains from motor vehicles.

If we care about avoiding charges of favoritism, we could value all lives and forms of travel the same, regardless of whether they were breaking the law.

Once we are done in NYC, we will trek to India, where pedestrian deaths often out number the number of people murdered

BTW, I wonder if the court system found those 20 drivers guilty. I hope the safeguards in our court system working; I'd hate for drivers to be found guilty of a crime just because they got a jury that assumed a motor vehicle accident should result in a finding of guilt or a civil penalty.

Yes, you would expect more criminal charges to be filed if his stats are correct and that were the only factors involved in determining criminality.

In my experience, one of the biggest factors that influences whether someone is charge with a crime is not whether a crime occurred, but whether a crime can ACTUALLY BE PROVEN to have occurred in court.

Often, accidents don't leave a lot of evidence behind, and never go to criminal court because the officers and the ADA can't get the person indicted. This likely plays a role in the 126 cases (146 - 20) BG is concerned about.

Pursuing a civil remedy is also very unreliable, because the insurance companies are damn good at hiring lawyers and other professionals to protect their interests (i.e. not pay out a dime).

When a driver is uninsured, the situation is often worse. Unless the injured has coverage that will pay out in the event of an uninsured driver, they are forced to pursue a civil case against the individual.

Even if they win their case against the uninsured driver, the victory is usually meaningless: Folks without insurance tend to be quite broke, and (in the US) we don't presently imprison people for merely being in debt.

As a result, many lawyers are unwilling to take these cases, and the injured is unable to use the court system to prove that they are a victim that deserves financial compensation and/or obtain the joy of seeing their opponent behind bars.

I've read the various Voice and Streetsblog articles about their accidents, and reached the conclusion that the police is doing about same level work when it comes to car-bike accidents as it does with car-car accidents, etc. I'd give the NYPD a 5 out of 10, if I was asked.

Obviously, a car-bike accident is much more likely to result in injury than one involving two cars. The police are very aware that a jury will be instructed to look only at the acts of the driver, not the effect on the biker.

http://gothamist.com/2012/02/22/driver_who_fatally_doored_cyclist_f.php

Under our current system Malice and negligence need to be shown, not just injury. I don't think it's reasonable for you to expect the police to act as if that is not the case. The police seem well aware of reality, and I would not want them to allocate more resources to doing investigations until this reality (both in law, and in the biases of jurors and the public) changes.

BG, I think its a balancing act. Making failure to signal before making a turn or unsafe lane changes (two common things that result in bikers getting hit) criminal acts, you may indeed save many lives. But that has to be balanced by the fact aganst the added burden on the court system, the potential number of people that could be subject to arrest, conviction, loss of employment, family separation, etc. Is that the proper result? To date, the legislature has determined that it is not.

Also, in a civil case, the lawyers would not rely solely on a police report or the presence or absence of a criminal disposition to determine fault. Indeed, the fact that a police report says that one party is at fault (or no one is at fault) is not dispositive for determining fault at s civil trial. It is merely one piece of evidence that is submitted.

I think that rather than criminalization, more needs to be done on the licensing side. Why not require drivers to retake their road tests every ten years? People who fail would be required to take a refresher driving class that includes time in a car with an instructor. They could then retake the exam to get their license back.

By the same token, more must be done to explain to bikers what their rights and responsibilities are. For example, every bike that operates from dusk to dawn must have a white headlight a red taillight and a bell in addition to reflectors. I know most bikes I see are not outfitted in such a manner. Bikers shouldn't be running red lights at night or salmoning at any time.

Should citizens expect and demand that the NYPD do better? Absolutely. Are they the only group at fault? Absolutely not.

I'm asking the NYPD to evaluate enforcement of traffic laws, which already exist, based in part on threat to public safety.

But even if the police do this, it doesn't get them to your initial complaint that they are not bringing criminal charges against drivers who are involved with accidents that result in biker or pedestrian fatalities. Spending more resources ticketing drivers that run red lights is fabulous, but that is not going to change whether or not they will be able to charge someone who has been involved in one of these accidents with a crime.

Will it serve as a deterent to bad driving? Possibly, and that may make the streets safer. But the NYPD's ability to charge people after a crime has occurred is limited, and only changes in criminal law and/or the interpretation of that law will result in significantly higher numbers of people who are involved in a fatality being charged with a crime.

sandcastler said:

Aren’t malice and negligence mutually exclusive?

Yup. That should be an "or" instead of an "and". I'd like to hire the awesome attorney who could prove both.

BG-

If our main concern was bikers safety, we would pass laws that stated they could only bike in the parks. I feel pretty confident that most would feel such a policy to be too restrictive, and I would not want to live in such a nannystate.

In response to such concerns, we let bikers go up against MULTI TON TRUCKS. What I would be interested in seeing is the number of such trucks that are able to run red lights and disobey traffic laws, and then compare them to the incidence of bikers doing the same.

From what I understand of the trucking industry, all moving violations must be reported to their supervisors and they lose their jobs after about two such incidences.

Even if the truck is a privately owned commercial vehicle (eg no supervisor), I believe the driver's insurance would increase to the point where it would become cost prohibitive to behave in a such a manner.

Most of the reputable companies (UPS, NYC MTA, JB HUNT, etc) won't hire drivers with two or more moving violations within the past three years.

I think the recent crack down on bikers is an attempt to bring some similar degree of "accountability" to them. As you correctly point out, "Public Safety", is not the primary concern of the police when they ticket.

When I think about it, no concern may be primary, and it may be silly to try to look for a primary concern. To me, it seems like the NYPD is acting not only to protect the bikers from themselves, but also in response to public outcry, and (yes) to generate some revenue.

I've come to believe that the NYC mantra is that there is nothing wrong with taking money from people who should know the risk of losing it, yet do little to protect themselves from the authorities.

I also see no reason that the city should be expected to not act like everyone else: Fools are often parted from their money first.

Our world is complex. The motivations and actions of those on it are similarly complex.

Bike Safely!

This idea seems promising:

According to the rough translation I've found here, an elderly woman in China who lived near a pedestrian crossing that drivers often speed through found a clever way to get motorists to slow down. She tied a sex doll to a tree at the crosswalk. That's her, and her sex doll, above.

http://boingboing.net/2012/08/02/traffic-hacks-elderly-woman-i.html

admittedly, we will need to use a better looking inflatable to get the attention of speeding NY bikers and drivers.

...Might want install a motor, to make her waive, and -um- jiggle.