You are hereKXAN Story on APD red light runners, plus my rant FO' FREE!
KXAN Story on APD red light runners, plus my rant FO' FREE!
Last night KXAN did a special report on APD red light runners. Here's the news story in its' entirety:
In the past year over three dozen officers have been caught on video running red lights, yet not a single one has been ticketed. Instead Police Chief Art Acevedo said that they were using "progressive discipline" to deal with the offending custodians of the law. According to the story, when city employees run a red light, they get cited and have to pay the fine, just like regular folks. Why are the cops any different? That's right, they're COPS, they AREN'T regular folks. In the words of Sylvester Stallone: "I AM THE LAW!" This attitude is getting old, officers. What was supposed to be "protect and serve" is actually "protect our own and serve our interests." Why are the police above the law, and who can we appeal this to? For one, I'm calling the Office of Police Monitor Police Chief's Office at 512-974-5030, and complaining about this bullshit, and would recommend that y'all do the same. Their flagrant disregard of the law and uneven application of its' statutes cannot continue. We need to hold these scumbags accountable, since it's obvious that their boss (Chief Acevedo) isn't going to do it for us. Plus, if these red light runnings were caught on camera, how many hundreds or thousands of times have the cops done it in the many many intersections that aren't watched over by the all-seeing eye?
Gah this pisses me off. The intersection they keep referencing holds special significance for a couple friends of mine, since that's where an Austin Police Department officer struck Adam while he was part of a group ride, wearing flashing lights and riding with the crowd. In that instance the cyclist was lucky that the officer was only pulling out of a parking lot, but can you imagine if an officer blazed through that light and struck a lone cyclist that wasn't part of a group or as well lit as Adam was at the time? The fact that the officers KNOW that they can continue this behavior without real, legal repercussions just sickens me. As an aside note, the police completely shirked all responsibility in Adam's accident, even though he was legally riding with traffic, wearing flashing lights, and in the right of way. Are you really surprised?
Now take a moment and compare the police chief's line about "progressive discipline" and "education" to the following statement made by police officer Jason Mistric (#4856) regarding a similar offense amongst the non-Law Enforcement Officer population (aka. the rest of us):
It's very apparent whose interests the boys in blue look out for. THEIRS. Does any of this infuriate any of y'all as much as it does me?
An important thing to mention concerning my collision with the police that you mentioned. Texas Transportation Code basically says that if you are riding on a street, bike path, or highway when it is dark that you need a front white light mounted to your bike and either a red rear reflector or red light mounted to your bike. This is the main argument the city has used to refuse payment for the damages to my bike, that my helmet mounted light in the front was not to regulation.
551.104. SAFETY EQUIPMENT. (a) A person may not operate a bicycle unless the bicycle is equipped with a brake capable of making a braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement.
(b) A person may not operate a bicycle at nighttime unless the bicycle is equipped with:
(1) a lamp on the front of the bicycle that emits a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet in front of the bicycle; and
(2) on the rear of the bicycle:
(A) a red reflector that is:
(i) of a type approved by the department;
and
(ii) visible when directly in front of lawful upper beams of motor vehicle headlamps from all distances from 50 to 300 feet to the rear of the bicycle; or
(B) a lamp that emits a red light visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear of the bicycle.
...
Read literally, the lamp was on the front of the rider, not the bicycle, so I guess technically the police were right. Maybe.
HOWEVER, this doesn't have much to do with who was at fault in the accident. Just because they found a law you may have violated, that doesn't mean they're not at fault. What they should have done is 1) given you a ticket, and then 2) paid to fix your bike.
And then you should have contested the ticket, saying that the rider of the bike was equipped with a light, and the bike was equipped with a rider, and therefore the bike was equipped with a light as required by the law. Might work, should work, but might not -- it depends on the judge, I guess. Certainly, having lights on you satisfies the spirit of the law, and possibly the letter of the law as well.
Of course, this would all be a big pain in the neck, so if the damage wasn't very severe it's probably easier to just let it be. Still, if the police are looking to improve their image, this isn't a very good way of going about it.
You said main argument ... were there others?
Oh hell yeah it infuriates me. I'd like to believe things can be solved in a peaceful, thoughtful way- but now I really just want to go ride some critical mass.
Cops have always broken traffic laws (and to a lesser degree other laws) when it suited them, with almost zero chance of getting in trouble for it.
In this case, a big deal was made of it, and the evidence on film is pretty damning, so I imagine Acevedo will make some token effort to appease the masses -- perhaps a few cops might get a slap on the wrist, cops will be re-reminded of the policy regarding running red lights ... and then things will go back to normal. Though perhaps the cops will be more careful about running red lights at the intersections with cameras.
Though do keep in mind that if you get caught by one of these cameras, it's a bit different than a standard ticket from an officer. It's only $75, not $217. It's also a civil thing, not a criminal thing -- it doesn't go on your record, you don't get points on your license, no defensive driving, etc.