RLJ OT

Off topic I know, but the man has a good point to make.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/R...284955611.html

SEATTLE -- The video is indisputable. You see a car running the light. Two seconds later, a cyclist whizzes through the intersection.

Yet only the driver received a citation in the mail.

Karen Parrish was behind the wheel of that car last month driving along 11th Ave. NE and thinks the whole thing is unfair.

"I want to know why when two people commit the same infraction only one of us receives a red light ticket." she said.

It's Karen's first citation on what she insists is a very clean driving record. She paid the $124 ticket, but can't stop thinking about the issue of fairness. And the cyclist who ran that light.

"It's an unfair application of the law," she said. "If they are supposed to be following the same rules of the road I follow there should be a system in place so they can get an infraction for committing the same offense that I committed."

Seattle's red light cameras do capture still photos and video of cars, bikes and pedestrians. The system reads license plates to identify violators.

Police say since bicycles don't have plates, there's no way to identify cyclists caught running red lights on camera.

Cyclists we talked to think Parrish makes a good point.

"I think cyclists should obey all the same traffic laws as cars. I do," said Gunnar Denton, who peddles from home to his job at Performance Bike Shop on NE 45th Street.

He understands how the discrepancy in photo enforcement could strike drivers as unfair.

"If you get caught, your partner in crime doesn't, you're going to be a little upset with that," he acknowledges. "The shortcoming is when there's no license plate on the back of your head, so there's no way to hold you accountable as a cyclist."

Karen has a suggestion. If cyclists get a pass for running red lights in view of the camera...maybe nobody should get cited by the lens.

"Since we don't have a system in place for cyclists to be identified is it fair to be giving a ticket to a motorist," she said.

On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 15:34:14 -0800 (PST), naazim palan
wrote:

Off topic I know, but the man has a good point to make.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/R...284955611.html

SEATTLE -- The video is indisputable. You see a car running the light. Two seconds later, a cyclist whizzes through the intersection.



Perhaps the cyclists registration plate was not visible

On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 15:34:14 -0800 (PST)
naazim palan wrote:

Off topic I know, but the man has a good point to make.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/R...284955611.html

SEATTLE -- The video is indisputable. You see a car running the
light. Two seconds later, a cyclist whizzes through the intersection.

Yet only the driver received a citation in the mail.

The cyclist is mainly putting himself in danger, the driver is a threat
to every other road user.
Automated policing isn't as effective as manned policing - should no
drivers be prosecuted simply because some license plates can't be read?

On 07/12/2014 10:49, Rob Morley wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 15:34:14 -0800 (PST)
naazim palan wrote:

Off topic I know, but the man has a good point to make.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/R...284955611.html

SEATTLE -- The video is indisputable. You see a car running the
light. Two seconds later, a cyclist whizzes through the intersection.

Yet only the driver received a citation in the mail.

The cyclist is mainly putting himself in danger, the driver is a threat
to every other road user.
Automated policing isn't as effective as manned policing - should no
drivers be prosecuted simply because some license plates can't be read?


The cyclist can easily be putting others in danger, if other vehicles
have to avoid him, their actions may be dangerous.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 07/12/2014 12:52, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 07/12/2014 10:49, Rob Morley wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 15:34:14 -0800 (PST)
naazim palan wrote:

Off topic I know, but the man has a good point to make.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/R...284955611.html


SEATTLE -- The video is indisputable. You see a car running the
light. Two seconds later, a cyclist whizzes through the intersection.

Yet only the driver received a citation in the mail.

The cyclist is mainly putting himself in danger, the driver is a threat
to every other road user.
Automated policing isn't as effective as manned policing - should no
drivers be prosecuted simply because some license plates can't be read?


The cyclist can easily be putting others in danger, if other vehicles
have to avoid him, their actions may be dangerous.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com


Running a red while commanding a ton of steel is considerably more
hazardous to others than running a red on a bike.

The argument that if a driver has to swerve to avoid the cyclist and
therefore put others in danger is a fallacy. Firstly because the driver
should not be traveling so fast that they can only swerve instead of
slowing or performing an emergency stop. Secondly if the cyclist does
get hit by the driver trying to stop the punishment in that alone will
be greater than any fine.

The whole issue in this case was 'it's not fair'. Life isn't fair. Some
people have to go to work in the wind and the rain on a bike and get
harassed by drivers on a daily basis. That's not fair either. You can't
do anything about the weather but people could be nicer to cyclists.

On 07/12/2014 13:50, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 07/12/2014 12:52, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 07/12/2014 10:49, Rob Morley wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 15:34:14 -0800 (PST)
naazim palan wrote:

Off topic I know, but the man has a good point to make.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/R...284955611.html



SEATTLE -- The video is indisputable. You see a car running the
light. Two seconds later, a cyclist whizzes through the intersection.

Yet only the driver received a citation in the mail.

The cyclist is mainly putting himself in danger, the driver is a threat
to every other road user.
Automated policing isn't as effective as manned policing - should no
drivers be prosecuted simply because some license plates can't be read?


The cyclist can easily be putting others in danger, if other vehicles
have to avoid him, their actions may be dangerous.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com


Running a red while commanding a ton of steel is considerably more
hazardous to others than running a red on a bike.

The argument that if a driver has to swerve to avoid the cyclist and
therefore put others in danger is a fallacy. Firstly because the driver
should not be traveling so fast that they can only swerve instead of
slowing or performing an emergency stop.

Aah, I get it now, the reason the motorist has to avoid the RLJ cyclist
is the motorists fault, not the cyclist.

Secondly if the cyclist does
get hit by the driver trying to stop the punishment in that alone will
be greater than any fine.

If you read my post you would know I was talking about what might happen
to third parties.
Silly me, I forgot it would not be the cyclists fault.


The whole issue in this case was 'it's not fair'. Life isn't fair. Some
people have to go to work in the wind and the rain on a bike and get
harassed by drivers on a daily basis. That's not fair either. You can't
do anything about the weather but people could be nicer to cyclists.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 07/12/2014 13:50, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 07/12/2014 12:52, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 07/12/2014 10:49, Rob Morley wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 15:34:14 -0800 (PST)
naazim palan wrote:

Off topic I know, but the man has a good point to make.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/R...284955611.html



SEATTLE -- The video is indisputable. You see a car running the
light. Two seconds later, a cyclist whizzes through the intersection.

Yet only the driver received a citation in the mail.

The cyclist is mainly putting himself in danger, the driver is a threat
to every other road user.
Automated policing isn't as effective as manned policing - should no
drivers be prosecuted simply because some license plates can't be read?


The cyclist can easily be putting others in danger, if other vehicles
have to avoid him, their actions may be dangerous.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com


Running a red while commanding a ton of steel is considerably more
hazardous to others than running a red on a bike.

Both of them are equally illegal.

The argument that if a driver has to swerve to avoid the cyclist and
therefore put others in danger is a fallacy.

An argument cannot be a fallacy. It might be fallacious because it
contains a fallacy.

Pointing out that danger will/may be caused by a motor vehicle whose
driver is forced to swerve by something unexpected in its path is
patently not fallacious.

HTH.

Firstly because the driver
should not be traveling so fast that they can only swerve instead of
slowing or performing an emergency stop.

An emergency stop can itself cause loss of traction and loss of control
over direction. Try it some time. Preferably where's no-one around and
where there's plenty of space.

Secondly if the cyclist does
get hit by the driver trying to stop the punishment in that alone will
be greater than any fine.

Whatever that means.

The whole issue in this case was 'it's not fair'. Life isn't fair. Some
people have to go to work in the wind and the rain on a bike and get
harassed by drivers on a daily basis. That's not fair either.

No-one has to do that at all.

Some people choose to do it.

On 07/12/2014 16:02, Tony Dragon wrote:


Aah, I get it now, the reason the motorist has to avoid the RLJ cyclist
is the motorists fault, not the cyclist.

This has nothing to do with 'who is at fault'. Much of the problem on
today's roads is that many road users are more concerned about 'who is
at fault' over and above how incidents could be avoided.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 13:50:49 +0000, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:

On 07/12/2014 12:52, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 07/12/2014 10:49, Rob Morley wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 15:34:14 -0800 (PST)
naazim palan wrote:

Off topic I know, but the man has a good point to make.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/R...284955611.html


SEATTLE -- The video is indisputable. You see a car running the
light. Two seconds later, a cyclist whizzes through the intersection.

Yet only the driver received a citation in the mail.

The cyclist is mainly putting himself in danger, the driver is a threat
to every other road user.
Automated policing isn't as effective as manned policing - should no
drivers be prosecuted simply because some license plates can't be read?


The cyclist can easily be putting others in danger, if other vehicles
have to avoid him, their actions may be dangerous.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com


Running a red while commanding a ton of steel is considerably more
hazardous to others than running a red on a bike.

The argument that if a driver has to swerve to avoid the cyclist and
therefore put others in danger is a fallacy.

No.

the argument is, that drivers who run red lights get done for it: cyclists who
run them get off scott free.

On 07/12/2014 18:52, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 07/12/2014 16:02, Tony Dragon wrote:


Aah, I get it now, the reason the motorist has to avoid the RLJ cyclist
is the motorists fault, not the cyclist.

This has nothing to do with 'who is at fault'. Much of the problem on
today's roads is that many road users are more concerned about 'who is
at fault' over and above how incidents could be avoided.

Indeed, and if the cyclist had not jumped a red light then another road
user might not have to avoid him.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com