Why the Double Standard on Bike vs. Auto Police Investigations?
Over the past several months there has been a fairly public discussion of bicycle safety following a few accidents and two well-publicized fatalities. One of the topics that has been visible in discussion amongst the cycling community (primarily on bikeportland.org) has been the Portland Police Bureau’s guidelines as to when a collision will be investigated by the police.
Today, Jonathan at BikePortland notes there is a change in the threshold for investigating collisions. Previously, collisions were only investigated if the injuries were severe enough to require entry into the regional trauma system. The new standard is that the threshold is lowered to investigate all accidents requiring medical transport, but only if the injured is considered a “vulnerable road user”.
So, we all pay taxes for policing services, yet because someone chooses to ride a bicycle, which makes them vulnerable to being severely injured from what would be a minor fender-bender in a car, that person will benefit from a greater level of service when they are in an accident? What about moderate-level car accidents, that require an ambulance ride but are not trauma-level? Why is a cyclist’s broken arm more of a public safety concern that an auto driver’s broken arm?
It would seem to me that if the Police Bureau has enough resources to perform more investigations, that’s great, but the standard ought to involve injury level regardless of one’s chosen method of transport.
Posted in Law and Lawlessness, Transportation |
January 11th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Mr. Hockley, your headline is somewhat disingenuous - it applies to everyone covered by the Vulnerable Road Users law, not just cyclists.
You are right, of course that the standard should be injury-based, and mode of transport should be irrelevant. Sadly, bicycle-car accidents until now have been rarely investigated, even in many cases when the injury level has been severe. The police bureau is finally responding to the demands of the community. I agree that the method they’ve chosen sets a double standard, and that should be addressed.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:28 am
It’s good to see rational cyclists such as yourself in agreement that there should be one standard.
January 12th, 2008 at 1:53 am
The Portland Police Bureau for years has failed to comply with Oregon law that requires a police report for crashes that cause any injury (not just trauma) or a certain level of property damage. Most of the beat cops simply facilitate an ‘exchange of information’ even though a report is required. I don’t fault the beat cops - they’re way understaffed. Why is the city not moving toward staffing the PPB at the levels commonly found in larger cities across the country?
Regarding the double standard, which is more to the point of this posting, I think the police should investigate and report all crashes that meet the reporting criteria set by law.
January 12th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Cyclists are extremely vocal because they (and pedestrians) are the most vulnerable.
Pardon the double standard and the time it takes to “fix”, but consider it catch-up every time you see a little cross on the road reminding us what it means.
January 12th, 2008 at 10:08 am
R. James you are incorrect. Oregon law requires a report to be generated by ‘Involved Parties’, not the Police.
Police policy dictates when an Officer takes a report.
January 12th, 2008 at 11:55 am
The squeaky wheel is the one that gets the oil. No pun intended.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
“Living in Vancouver”? Go home if you don’t like it. We don’t need f**king foreigners telling how to live.
January 12th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I find that a large number of bicyclists make a lot of noise about enforcement and “space on the road”. I also see many bicyclists disobey stop signs and traffic signals on a regular basis. It is like they believe they don’t have to stop in obedience to them. Well, they do and that would prevent a lot of the accidents.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:58 am
I’m a cyclist, regularly. One standard is all we need. I hate double standards being created IN LAW. It is absurd.
Then of course the road system IS a system, and should have the respective system’s laws obeyed. The same should be said for emergency scenarios.
I - btw - follow the street signs and laws. I will forwarn, if you cut me off on a bike I WILL bust your window out if you come close enough to endanger me. If I do screw up though, I an geneuinely sorry.
There is however a large part of responsiblity of auto and bicycle user on city streets, as well as pedestrian. Sure Portland is a bicycle and walking friendly city, but that doesn’t remove the fact that whatever the person does in the car, no matter how disrespectful and stupid, they do have the bigger toy and WILL win.
The law, at the end of any incident, doesn’t matter one damn bit.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Many cyclists in Portland are self-important jerks. They seem to think they’re special for riding a bike, and that doing so is somehow changing the world.
Guess what. It’s not. And you’re not special either.
I used to commute by bike, both in my hometown of Boston and here in Portland for a couple of years. Never thought I was special for doing so. And I rode with self-preservation in mind, not with an agenda of getting in drivers’ faces.
When you select a mode of transportation that has inherently more risk than others, it’s YOUR responsibility to keep safe, not everyone else’s responsibility to baby you.
And the cycling laws here in Oregon are getting stupider because of their incessant whining. Letting a cyclist pass on the right is just inviting disaster. Even before that law went into effect, I saw many cyclists ignore drivers making right turns, causing many a near miss. Now with that dopey law on the books, the bike Nazis will pass on the right with impunity, regardless of the circumstances. And it will be the driver’s fault if they get hurt, regardless of how cautious they’re trying to be or how reckless the cyclist was.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:59 am
It doesn’t matter if you select a mode with “inherently more risk” - it’s your responsibility to keep safe, period. Whether by car, bike, whatever. Unfortunately for motorists, keeping safe means taking extra care around the vulnerable users, because in many cases, *you* can be legally liable if you hit them.
Chris, if you don’t like the laws, DO something about it. Bike laws get passed because cyclists get out there and talk to elected officials, and the BTA advocates for them. Find a group that fits your position, and volunteer - or testify at a City Council meeting. People really *do* affect the process - the so-called “bike lobby” is proof of that.
Adron - if you bust out someone’s window, you are not following the laws. Kind of a logical hole in your statement. Yes, the situation is frustrating, yes, we need a vehicular homicide law like Washington, yes, motorists don’t pay attention when driving a 2-3 ton chunk of metal and plastic. Breaking their window for scaring you and infringing on your right-of-way is not an appropriate response. Neither cars nor bikes are going away anytime soon, we need to be able to coexist on the road or the problem gets worse. Do what you need to to be safe, but destroying / damaging other people’s property isn’t going to make you any safer.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Oh, for the benefit of the motorists out there, yes - I realize that many cyclists, like mototrists do not follow the law, do not pay attention to their surroundings, and ride unsafely. I am just as frustrated about it as you are, and I’m not trying to say that cyclists should be above the law. I don’t believe cyclists should get special treatment, only equal access to the road. I’d love to see everyone out there using signals, stopping for stop signs and signals, etc. I’d also love to see education and training for both sides - I wish there were money for it.
Safe riding & driving!
January 15th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Matt - If I had the time to organize people to change the law back the way it was, I would. I don’t, so I’m just EXTRA careful when I make right turns.
Adron - If you ride too close to a pedestrian, is it OK for them to respond by clothes lining you off of your bike and kicking your ass? Or is the fact that you’re “…geneuinely sorry.” sufficient? Also, breaking out someone’s window because you FEEL endangered is retarded and ultimately bad for the “biking community”. You smash out the wrong guy’s window and he might just run you over. And if he can’t get you, then he might just wait until he’s driving on some dark and deserted road and run over some lonely cyclist just to even up the score, so to speak. See where the violence leads?
January 15th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Chris - as a cyclist, thanks. I will continue to respect cars as much as possible when cycling.
BTW, there’s never enough time. If you feel that strongly about it, there are things you can do that don’t require a large time commitment. I encourage you to do whatever you can to put your beliefs into practice.
I don’t think the enemy is the people who believe the opposite of what I believe - the enemy is the people who never *do* anything, but merely complain about it. Any realistic solution is going to involve compromise on all sides, because no matter what, you can never make anyone happy.
Apologies for the mini-sermon. If it inspires *anyone*, I’ll consider it worth the risk of offending everyone else. Peace.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:29 am
sorry, should have read “you can never make EVERYONE happy”. (Always re-read before hitting “submit” - argh)