I don't believe you will ever be able to convince the driving majority to
change their attitudes about their own behavior.  For the past year or so, I
have been engaging commenters on the channel3000.com comments section on
stories involving crashes.  Generally, I point out how the stories are
written in a way that deflects responsibility for the crash to the vehicles
rather than the operators  (unless the operator is a bicyclist, pedestrian,
or substance abuser).  I point out that out Secretary of Transportation is
on record saying that the vast majority of serious crashes are the result of
poor driver behavior, and I point out what drivers can do to reduce the
possibility of similar incidents occurring the future.  

 

The result is that commenters perceive me as an outspoken advocate for
always blaming drivers.  No matter how frequently I state that my intention
is to help prevent similar future crashes, commenters tend to prefer to see
me as a blamer, and sympathize with the drivers in the stories.  It is the
Jessica Bullen scenario over, and over, and over, and over, and over.
Recently, channel3000 changed their commenting policy, and won't even allow
comments on serious traffic crash stories because they feel their viewers
will perceive C3K badly if they see comments on their site that are critical
of driver behavior when drivers maim or kill.  To be fair, stories involving
serious bicycle crashes also get (10 times the number of ) negative
comments, so it is not entirely a pro-driver policy.

 

I have pointed out to Channel3000 staff that because of the need to publish
stories in a timely fashion, there is a no-fault bias in their reporting
because the police generally have not completed enough of an investigation
to assign fault at the time of their story deadline.  Channel3000 doesn't
seem to care, and would rather keep themselves in high esteem with their
viewers than tackle this issue.


At this point, I am wondering how effective it would be to encourage law
enforcement to use more active language when describing the actions of
drivers during an interview about a crash.  The problem is that police
generally regurgitate the information found on the MV4000 form that they are
required to fill out, and so the biases of that form end up influencing what
gets in the news.

 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of STRAWSER, Charles
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:48 AM
To: Michael Rewey; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Bikies] FYI - Motorist charged for 2012 death of bicyclist

 

It really shouldn't matter whether a driver was texting or sleeping. If he
could not or would not pay enough attention to the road that his operation
(or lack of operation) of a motor vehicle resulted in the death of another
road user, the driver should suffer the consequences.

 

I'm sick of seeing drivers kill other road users and facing little or no
consequences so long as they are not proven inebriated. Paying adequate
attention to what you are doing when you are operating a motor vehicle, like
most of life, requires more than mere sobriety.

 

If it's true that "falling asleep" is the best form of defense against
serious traffic charges, as you attest, that just shows how far we have to
go before we take seriously everyone's constitutionally protected right to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Rewey
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:36 AM
To: Bikies
Subject: Re: [Bikies] FYI - Motorist charged for 2012 death of bicyclist

 

I'm sticking with "alleged".  "Falling asleep" is the best form of defense
against serious traffic charges.  Texting, among other things, can cause the
same sort of drifting that occurred. And really did he fall asleep within a
mile or so of his home on Woodland? 

 

Mike 

 

 

On 17 Apr 2014 at 15:04, STRAWSER, Charles wrote: 

 

> 

> I'm not a lawyer, Mike, but since the article quoted the driver as telling
law enforcement 

> that he fell asleep, I'd guess "confessed" is a more appropriate term than
"alleged." 

> 

> "Grulke told Dane County Sheriff's Detective Mary Butler that he had
worked from 9:30 

> p.m. the night before until 6 a.m., went home and ate breakfast and then
went to a gym 

> to work out. 

> 

> Grulke said he left his workout because he felt tired, stopped at home,
then went out to 

> get crickets for his lizard to eat. He said as he drove on Highway M he
fell asleep and 

> was awakened by a loud "clunk." He said he saw a bicycle fly through the
air and it took 

> a couple of seconds for it to "sink in" that he had hit a bike." 

> 

> http://bit.ly/1iqGu9K 

> 

> 

> chuck 

> 

> From: Michael Rewey 

> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:41 PM 

> To: Bikies 

> Subject: Re: [Bikies] FYI - Motorist charged for 2012 death of bicyclist 

> 

> 

> 

> Allegedly fell asleep,,, 

> 

> 

> 

> On 16 Apr 2014 at 17:15, Robbie Webber wrote: 

> 

> > 

> > see link below. This is the crash from Hwy M on the north side of Lake
Mendota where the 

> > motorist fell asleep. 

> > ---- 

> >
http://host.madison.com/news/local/crime_and_courts/college-students-targete
d-in-rent- 

> > scam/article_7da05b2e-2b12-5232-875a-25cb9a7cfcf4.html 

> > ---- 

> > Shared via my feedly reader 

> 

> 

> 

 

 

_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org

Reply via email to