This Week in the Mercury

Up & Coming

Music

Up & Coming

Highlights in Music the Week of February 9-15


Film Shorts

Film

Film Shorts

In Which We Hit It and Quit It



  |  

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Politics Jules Kopel-Bailey is a Motherfucking Genius (Episode One of 1,000)

Posted by Sarah Mirk on Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:09 PM

When Jules Kopel-Bailey, State Rep for House District 42 (which is SE Portland), came in to the Mercury offices for an endorsement interview during the election, I basically stopped taking notes. This guy is so whip-smart, so intimidatingly on-the-ball that there was no question he would utilize the power and position of representing the state's most safely liberal district. So now Jules is in office and, lo and behold, he's crafting some really innovative progressive policy.

I ran into Jules last Monday night outside a community meeting on a piece of legislation he's working on which will create living wage green jobs in Oregon. Jules commented on my blue Univega bike and mentioned another legislation idea he had recently — linking traffic fines to vehicle weight so people running a stop sign with a Hummer would get a more expensive ticket than someone running a stop sign with a bike. The idea intrigued me, so I mentioned it to Matt Davis who, of course, said the idea was shit.

"If two people break the same law, they should receive the same punishment!" shouted Matt, gnashing a crumpet between his teeth and knocking it back with some Earl Grey. "Isn't that fair and equal?"

I called Jules to get his response. "With all due respect to my friend Matt Davis, his idea violates the laws of physics," says Kopel-Bailey. "If a Hummer runs a stop sign and runs into a Camry, it will cause way more damage than if a scooter runs a stop sign and runs into a Camry. If you choose to drive a larger vehicle, you should pay a little bit of a price for the fact that you're driving a vehicle which is more dangerous to others." Kopel-Bailey compared the scheme to speeding tickets. Speeding fines increase exponentially based on speed, because if you're going faster, you're more dangerous.

"The idea is that everyone should have to follow the rules of the road, but some people cause more damage than others and we should take that into account with the fines," continues Jules. His legislative team actually submitted an idea for a bill linking traffic fines to vehicle weight to the House's bill-drafting committee a few weeks ago. But Kopel-Bailey wasn't happy like the resulting draft and decided to just drop the issue for this session. Instead, Kopel-Bailey's now focusing on getting the Idaho Stop Sign law passed. See what I mean? BRILLIANT.

b258/1235600621-jules_kopel_bailey.jpg

Jules Kopel-Bailey: manna from heaven.

"Did you drop the weight fines bill because you only want to push one edgy bike bill a session?" I asked.
Jules laughed. "To be honest, that wasn't part of the calculation. I'm more than happy to do many edgy bike bills a session. At the end of the day, we have a transportation system that was built for cars that bikes have been shoehorned into. We need to take a step back and look at our transportation system overall."

 

Comments (10) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
He's going by "Jules Bailey" now
Posted by _z_ on February 25, 2009 at 5:38 PM · Report
2
It's bikes versus cars, right? In an accident, a car is sure to cause more damage than a bike. Jules thinks there should be a price? There is a price: motorists are legally required to have liability insurance precisely because their vehicles have the potential to do damage. Jules thinks that further economic sanctions should be imposed as the probability of causing damage increases? That is why people who run stop signs are given citations: it is less safe to not stop than it is to stop (unless you are on a bike in Idaho).

The assertion that speeding fines increase based on the notion that if you are going faster, then you are more dangerous is accurate, but misleading. Speeding fines increase primarily because the likelihood of having an accident increases, the consideration for the amount of potential damage associated with increased speed can only be seen as secondary, at best. There is no corollary in the case of stop signs; you are more likely to have an accident if you don't stop than if you do, regardless of vehicle weight (unless you are on a bike in Idaho).
Posted by spudboy on February 25, 2009 at 10:05 PM · Report
3
Yes! Make these people pay for their engines of death! Make them pay! Squeeeeeeze every last drop out of them!
Posted by Will Radik on February 25, 2009 at 10:32 PM · Report
4
spudboy, breaking distance is related to mass. it takes longer to stop a car than a bike. if a bicyclist blows a stop sign (i still want them to stop, personally) and then sees an object in their path, they may have a greater chance of stopping short than would a driver. so yeah, there should be a causal relationship between vehicle weight and probability of an accident after crossing an intersection.
Posted by microrapture on February 26, 2009 at 6:55 AM · Report
5
Microrapture, breaking distance is related to speed much more so than mass. A car traveling 10 mph can stop in just as short or shorter a distance than a bike.

And if your reason for charging higher fines for larger vehicles is because they are 'more dangerous to others', then I would argue that anyone driving a Civic or a Yugo with a passenger should have to pay a higher fine as well because of the danger they are subjecting their passenger to if they run a stop sign and get plowed into by a Hummer. The proposed law is dumb.
Posted by buch on February 26, 2009 at 8:58 AM · Report
6
Microrapture, breaking distance is related to speed much more so than mass. A car traveling 10 mph can stop in just as short or shorter a distance than a bike.

And if your reason for charging higher fines for larger vehicles is because they are 'more dangerous to others', then I would argue that anyone driving a Civic or a Yugo with a passenger should have to pay a higher fine as well because of the danger they are subjecting their passenger to if they run a stop sign and get plowed into by a Hummer. The proposed law is dumb.
Posted by buch on February 26, 2009 at 8:59 AM · Report
7
You make a stronger argument than the one posited in the original post, but it is, of course, a completely different argument. Jules is suggesting that heavier vehicles should be assessed larger fines because they cause "more damage" when in an accident, while you are saying that they have a greater likelihood of being in an accident at all. As I mentioned before, both of these are factored into the cost of liability insurance, the very same liability insurance that motorists are required to have under oregon law.

You are correct, microrapture, mass is one of the variables in braking distance, as are speed, the type and quality of the vehicles brakes, and the driver's reaction time. The driver's reaction time is related to their age, gender, level of fatigue, mental acuity, etc.. Unfortunately, stopping distance isn't even hinted at in the original post, and more importantly, it is completely irrelevant if one actually stops at the stop sign. I have no data to back it up, of course, but I'm going to go out on a limb and contend that in the vast majority of accidents related to blown stop signs, mass was much less significant factor than speed. Still, microrapture, a much, much better argument than the one described in the original post, and with yours, the speeding ticket comparison almost works.

See, the thing with the speeding fines is that they are based on a mountain of research that indicates an increase in accident probability caused by variations from the median speed. This is why the fines are based on the number of miles per hour above the speed limit and, with very few exceptions, not on absolute and consistent values. In the case of stop signs, there is no way of not stopping that isn't infinitely more likely to result in an accident than stopping. There are ways of not stopping (not looking, not slowing down) that are more dangerous than other ways of not stopping (drastically reducing speed and looking in all directions), but they are both so much more likely to cause an accident than not stopping that they needn't be distinguished from each other, merely from not stopping.
More...
Posted by spudboy on February 26, 2009 at 10:20 AM · Report
8
This does seem kind of lacking in logic. However, it's certainly true that heavier vehicles do more damage to roads than lighter ones, so I'd be all in favor of having vehicle tax based on weight. Same net result, but more logically sound.

I'd love to also see higher taxes for vehicles with studded tires, since they do so much damage to the roads, but I suspect that with the number of exceptions that would have to be made for people who actually need to get out to the mountain for work, it would be an impractical mess.
Posted by Stu on February 26, 2009 at 10:56 AM · Report
9
Along the same lines, speeding ticket fines should be calibrated to the performance level of the vehicle. Thus, if you are speeding 1970 wrestling van, you get a much higher ticket at the same speed as if you do it in a performance sports cars. In fact, raise the speed limit for those of us who drive performance cars. My car is safer at higher speed than yours, so there.
Posted by Demondog on February 26, 2009 at 11:06 AM · Report
10
@ Stu: I just looked it up, and it looks like vehicles weighing over 26000 pounds are taxed differently than vehicles under that weight. Operators of light vehicles pay their tax when they buy gas, operators of heavy vehicles pay a tax based on the ratio of vehicle weight to the number of axles, but no tax on fuel (called a "weight-mile" tax).

In the case of the 26000 lb and under cars, it is almost universally the case that lighter vehicles get better mileage, therefore pay less, per mile, in fuel taxes. So, they're pretty much doing what you suggest, and rightly so, because it is the product of good critical thinking.
Posted by spudboy on February 26, 2009 at 11:37 AM · Report

Add a comment

Our Friends

Our Enemies

/images/adoftheweek.gif

ad of the day

The Handyman Pro - Your Honey-Do Specialist
Don’t let our name fool you. The Handyman Pro, LLC is a repair and remodel service provider with over 25-years experience. We cover all aspects of construction and repairs for residential and commercial clients.go


post an ad

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC

115 SW Ash St. Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204

Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Production Guidelines | Terms of Use