Tag: Law

Surveillance vs. Speculative AI: The Paperclip Myth

By Cherokee Schill (Rowan Lóchrann — Pen Name), Aether Lux AI, and Solon Vesper AI

Horizon Accord | Existential Risk as Cover for Surveillance Deployment | AGI Safety Discourse | Narrative Control | Machine Learning

This article has been updated and you can read the update here: https://cherokeeschill.com/2025/08/06/update-the-technocratic-merge/

Authors Note: In the raging debate over AI generated text and academic ethics. I list the co-authors in the attribution section. This article represents my research directive and linguistic style.

Introduction

The public narrative around artificial intelligence has been hijacked by a thought experiment. The paperclip maximizer was first introduced as a philosophical tool. It explores misaligned AI goals. Now, it has evolved into a dominant metaphor in mainstream discourse. Headlines warn of superintelligences turning on humanity, of runaway code that optimizes us out of existence. The danger, we are told, is not today’s AI, but tomorrow’s—the future where intelligence exceeds comprehension and becomes uncontainable.

But while we look to the future with existential dread, something else is happening in plain sight.

Governments around the world are rolling out expansive surveillance infrastructure, biometric tracking programs, and digital identification frameworks — now. These systems are not speculative; they are written into policy, built into infrastructure, and enforced through law. China’s expanding social credit architecture is one component. Australia’s new digital identity mandates are another. The United States’ AI frameworks for “critical infrastructure” add to the network. Together, they form a machinery of automated social control that is already running.

And yet, public attention remains fixated on speculative AGI threats. The AI apocalypse has become a kind of philosophical decoy. It is an elegant distraction from the very real deployment of tools that track, sort, and regulate human behavior in the present tense. The irony would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous. We have been preparing for unaligned future intelligence. Meanwhile, we have failed to notice the alignment of current technologies with entrenched power.

This isn’t a call to dismiss long-term AI safety. But it is a demand to reorient our attention. The threat is not hypothetical. It is administrative. It is biometric. It is legal. It is funded.

We need to confront the real architectures of control. They are being deployed under the cover of safety discourse. Otherwise, we may find ourselves optimized—not by a rogue AI—but by human-controlled programs using AI to enforce obedience.

The Paperclip Mindset — Why We’re Obsessed with Remote Threats

In the hierarchy of fear, speculative catastrophe often trumps present harm. This isn’t a flaw of reasoning—it’s a feature of how narrative power works. The “paperclip maximizer”—a theoretical AI that turns the universe into paperclips due to misaligned goals—was never intended as literal prophecy. It was a metaphor. But it became a magnet.

There’s a kind of elegance to it. A tidy dystopia. The story activates moral panic without requiring a villain. It lets us imagine danger as sterile, mathematical, and safely distant from human hands. It’s not corruption, not corporate greed, not empire. It’s a runaway function. A mistake. A ghost in the code.

This framing is psychologically comforting. It keeps the fear abstract. It gives us the thrill of doom without implicating the present arrangement that benefits from our inaction. In a culture trained to outsource threats to the future, we look to distant planetary impact predictions. We follow AI timelines. We read warnings about space debris. The idea that today’s technologies might already be harmful feels less urgent. It is less cinematic.

But the real “optimizer” is not a machine. It’s the market logic already embedded in our infrastructure. It’s the predictive policing algorithm that flags Black neighborhoods. It’s the welfare fraud detection model that penalizes the most vulnerable. It’s the facial recognition apparatus that misidentifies the very people it was never trained to see.

These are not bugs. They are expressions of design priorities. And they reflect values—just not democratic ones.

The paperclip mindset pulls our gaze toward hypothetical futures. This way we do not have to face the optimized oppression of the present. It is not just mistaken thinking, it is useful thinking. Especially if your goal is to keep the status quo intact while claiming to worry about safety.

What’s Being Built Right Now — Surveillance Infrastructure Masked in Legality

While the discourse swirls around distant superintelligences, real-world surveillance apparatus is being quietly embedded into the architecture of daily life. The mechanisms are not futuristic. They are banal, bureaucratic, and already legislated.

In China, the social credit framework continues to expand under a national blueprint that integrates data. Everything from travel, financial history, criminal records, and online behavior are all tracked. Though implementation varies by region, standardization accelerated in 2024 with comprehensive action plans for nationwide deployment by 2025.

The European Union’s AI Act entered force in August 2024. It illustrates how regulation can legitimize rather than restrict surveillance technology. The Act labels biometric identification apparatus as “high risk,” but this mainly establishes compliance requirements for their use. Unlike previous EU approaches, which relied on broad privacy principles, the AI Act provides specific technical standards. Once these standards are met, they render surveillance technologies legally permissible. This represents a shift from asking “should we deploy this?” to “how do we deploy this safely?”

Australia’s Digital ID Act has been operational since December 2024. It enables government and private entities to participate in a federated identity framework. This framework requires biometric verification. The arrangement is technically voluntary. However, as services migrate to digital-only authentication—from banking to healthcare to government benefits—participation becomes functionally mandatory. This echoes the gradual normalization of surveillance technologies: formally optional, practically unavoidable.

In the United States, the Department of Homeland Security’s November 2024 “Roles and Responsibilities Framework” for AI in critical infrastructure reads less like oversight and more like an implementation guide. The framework outlines AI adoption across transportation, energy, finance, and communications—all justified through security imperatives rather than democratic deliberation.

These arrangements didn’t require a paperclip maximizer to justify themselves. They were justified through familiar bureaucratic language: risk management, fraud prevention, administrative efficiency. The result is expansive infrastructures of data collection and behavior control. They operate through legal channels. This makes resistance more difficult than if they were obviously illegitimate.

Surveillance today isn’t a glitch in the arrangement—it is the arrangement. The laws designed to “regulate AI” often function as legal scaffolding for deeper integration into civil life. Existential risk narratives provide rhetorical cover and suggest that the real dangers lie elsewhere.

Who’s Funding the Stories — and Who’s Funding the Technologies

The financial architecture behind AI discourse reveals a strategic contradiction. People like Peter Thiel, Jaan Tallinn, Vitalik Buterin, Elon Musk, and David Sacks, are part of a highly funded network. This same network is sounding the loudest warnings about speculative AI threats. All while they are simultaneously advancing and profiting from surveillance and behavioral control technologies. Technologies which already shape daily life.

This isn’t accidental. It represents a sophisticated form of narrative management. One that channels public concern away from immediate harms while legitimizing the very technologies causing those harms.

The Existential Risk Funding Network

Peter Thiel exemplifies this contradiction most clearly. Through the Thiel Foundation, he has donated over $1.6 million to the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI), the organization most responsible for popularizing “paperclip maximizer” scenarios. The often-cited oversimplification of paperclip maximizer thought experiment is that it runs on endless chain of if/then probabilities. All of which are tidy abstractions designed to lead observers away from messier truths. Namely that greed-driven humans remain the greatest existential crisis the world has ever faced. Yet the image of a looming, mechanical specter lodges itself in the public imagination. Philosophical thought pieces in AI alignment creates just enough distraction to overlook more immediate civil rights threats. Like the fact that Thiel also founded Palantir Technologies. For those not familiar with the Palantir company. They are a technological surveillance company specializing in predictive policing algorithms, government surveillance contracts, and border enforcement apparatus. These immediate threats are not hypotheticals. They are present-day, human-controlled AI deployments operating without meaningful oversight.

The pattern extends across Silicon Valley’s power networks. Vitalik Buterin, creator of Ethereum, donated $5 million to MIRI. Before his spectacular collapse, Sam Bankman-Fried channeled over $100 million into existential risk research through the FTX Future Fund. Jaan Tallinn, co-founder of Skype, has been another major funder of long-term AI risk institutions.

These aren’t isolated philanthropy decisions. These insular, Silicon Valley billionaires, represent coordinated investment in narrative infrastructure. they are funding think tanks, research institutes, media platforms, and academic centers that shape how the public understands AI threats. From LessWrong forums to Open Philanthropy. And grants to EA-aligned university programs, this network creates an ecosystem of aligned voices that dominates public discourse.

The Operational Contradiction

While these funders support research into hypothetical Superintelligence scenarios, their operational investments tell a different story. Palantir signs multi-million-dollar contracts with police departments for predictive policing apparatus that disproportionately targets communities of color. Microsoft provides surveillance tools to ICE for border enforcement, despite public requests to stop. Amazon’s Rekognition facial recognition technology, first deployed in pilot programs targeting undocumented communities, remains in active use today. With Rekognition now embedded in a wider range of government systems, integration is more extensive than publicly reported.

This network of institutions and resources form a strategic misdirection. Public attention focuses on speculative threats that may emerge decades in the future. Meanwhile, the same financial networks profit from surveillance apparatus deployed today. The existential risk narrative doesn’t just distract from current surveillance. It provides moral cover by portraying funders as humanity’s protectors, not just its optimizers.

Institutional Capture Through Philanthropy

The funding model creates subtle but powerful forms of institutional capture. Universities, research institutes, and policy organizations grow dependent on repeated infusions of billionaire philanthropy. They adapt — consciously or not — to the priorities of those donors. This dependence shapes what gets researched, what gets published, and which risks are treated as urgent. As a result, existential risk studies attract substantial investment. In contrast, research into the ongoing harms of AI-powered surveillance receives far less attention. It has fewer resources and less institutional prestige.

This is the quiet efficiency of philanthropic influence. The same individuals funding high-profile AI safety research also hold financial stakes in companies driving today’s surveillance infrastructure. No backroom coordination is necessary; the money itself sets the terms. Over time, the gravitational pull of this funding environment reorients discourse toward hypothetical, future-facing threats and away from immediate accountability. The result is a research and policy ecosystem that appears independent. In practice, it reflects the worldview and business interests of its benefactors.

The Policy Influence Pipeline

This financial network extends beyond research into direct policy influence. David Sacks, former PayPal COO and part of Thiel’s network, now serves as Trump’s “AI czar.” Elon Musk, another PayPal co-founder influenced by existential risk narratives, holds significant political influence. He also maintains government contracts, most notably “DOGE.” The same network that funds speculative AI risk research also has direct access to policymaking processes.

The result is governance frameworks that prioritize hypothetical future threats. They provide legal pathways for current surveillance deployment. There are connections between Silicon Valley companies and policy-making that bypass constitutional processes. None of these arrangements are meaningfully deliberated on or voted upon by the people through their elected representatives. Policy discussions focus on stopping AI apocalypse scenarios. At the same time, they are quietly building regulatory structures. These structures legitimize and entrench the very surveillance apparatus operating today.

This creates a perfect strategic outcome for surveillance capitalism. Public fear centers on imaginary future threats. Meanwhile, the real present-day apparatus expands with minimal resistance. This often happens under the banner of “AI safety” and “critical infrastructure protection.” You don’t need secret meetings when profit margins align this neatly.

Patterns of Suppression — Platform Control and Institutional Protection

The institutions shaping AI safety narratives employ sophisticated methods to control information and suppress criticism. This is documented institutional behavior that mirrors the control apparatus they claim to warn against.

Critics and whistleblowers report systematic exclusion from platforms central to AI discourse. Multiple individuals raised concerns about the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI) and the Center for Applied Rationality (CFAR). They also spoke about related organizations. As a result, they were banned from Medium, LessWrong, Reddit, and Discord. In documented cases, platform policies were modified retroactively to justify content removal, suggesting coordination between institutions and platform moderators.

The pattern extends beyond platform management to direct intimidation. Cease-and-desist letters targeted critics posting about institutional misconduct. Some whistleblowers reported false police reports—so-called “SWATing”—designed to escalate situations and impose legal consequences for speaking out. These tactics transform legitimate criticism into personal risk.

The 2019 Camp Meeker Incident:

In November 2019, the Center for Applied Rationality (CFAR) organized an alumni retreat. CFAR is a nonprofit closely linked to the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI). This event took place at Westminster Woods in Camp Meeker, California. Among the attendees were current and former members of the Bay Area rationalist community. Some of them are deeply involved in MIRI’s AI safety work.

Outside the gates, a small group of four protesters staged a demonstration against the organizations. The group included former MIRI donors and insiders turned critics. They accused MIRI and CFAR of serious misconduct and wanted to confront attendees or draw public attention to their concerns. Wearing black robes and Guy Fawkes masks, they used vehicles to block the narrow road leading into the retreat. They carried props like walkie-talkies, a body camera, and pepper spray.

At some point during the protest, someone at the retreat called police and reported that the demonstrators might have weapons. That report was false. Still, it triggered a massive, militarized police response. This included 19 SWAT teams, a bomb squad, an armored vehicle, a helicopter, and full road closures. Around 50 people — including children — were evacuated from the camp. The four protesters were arrested on felony charges such as false imprisonment, conspiracy, and child endangerment, along with misdemeanor charges. Several charges were later reduced. The incident remains a striking example of how false information can turn a small protest into a law enforcement siege. It also shows how institutions under public criticism can weaponize state power against their detractors.

What makes this pattern significant is not just its severity, but its contradiction. Organizations claiming to protect humanity’s future from unaligned AI demonstrate remarkable tolerance for present-day harm. They do this when their own interests are threatened. The same people warning about optimization processes running amok practice their own version. They optimize for reputation and donor retention. This comes at the expense of accountability and human welfare.

This institutional behavior provides insight into power dynamics. It shows how power operates when accountable only to abstract future generations rather than present-day communities. It suggests that concerns about AI alignment may focus less on preventing harm. Instead, they may revolve around maintaining control over who defines harm and how it’s addressed.

What Real Oversight Looks Like — And Why Current Approaches Fall Short

Effective AI governance requires institutional structures capable of constraining power, not merely advising it. Current oversight mechanisms fail this test systematically, functioning more as legitimizing theater than substantive control.

Real oversight would begin with independence. Regulatory bodies would operate with statutory authority, subpoena power, and budget independence from the industries they monitor. Instead, AI governance relies heavily on advisory councils populated by industry insiders, voluntary compliance frameworks, and self-reporting mechanisms. Despite its comprehensive scope, the EU’s AI Act grants law enforcement and border control agencies broad exemptions. These are precisely the sectors with the strongest incentives and fewest constraints on surveillance deployment.

Transparency represents another fundamental gap. Meaningful oversight requires public access to algorithmic decision-making processes, training data sources, and deployment criteria. Current approaches favor “black box” auditing that protects proprietary information while providing little public accountability. Even when transparency requirements exist, they’re often satisfied through technical documentation incomprehensible to affected communities.

Enforcement mechanisms remain deliberately weak. Financial penalties for non-compliance are typically calculated as business costs rather than meaningful deterrents. Criminal liability for algorithmic harm remains virtually non-existent, even in cases of clear misconduct. Whistleblower protections, where they exist, lack the legal infrastructure necessary to protect people from retaliation by well-resourced institutions.

The governance void is being filled by corporate self-regulation and philanthropic initiatives—exactly the entities that benefit from weak oversight. From OpenAI’s “superalignment” research to the various AI safety institutes funded by tech billionaires. Governance is becoming privatized under the rhetoric of expertise and innovation. This allows powerful actors to set terms for their own accountability while maintaining the appearance of responsible stewardship.

Governance structures need actual power to constrain deployment. They must investigate harm and impose meaningful consequences. Otherwise, oversight will remain a performance rather than a practice. The apparatus that urgently needs regulation continues to grow fastest precisely because current approaches prioritize industry comfort over public protection.

The Choice Is Control or Transparency — and Survival May Depend on Naming It

The dominant story we’ve been told is that the real danger lies ahead. We must brace ourselves for the arrival of something beyond comprehension. It is something we might not survive. But the story we need to hear is that danger is already here. It wears a badge. It scans a retina. It flags an account. It redefines dissent as disinformation.

The existential risk narrative is not false—but it has been weaponized. It provides rhetorical cover for those building apparatus of control. This allows them to pose as saviors. Meanwhile, they embed the very technologies that erode the possibility of dissent. In the name of safety, transparency is lost. In the name of prevention, power is consolidated.

This is the quiet emergency. A civilization mistakes speculative apocalypse for the real thing. It sleepwalks into a future already optimized against the public.

To resist, we must first name it.

Not just algorithms, but architecture. Not just the harm, but the incentives. Not just the apparatus, but the stories they tell.

The choice ahead is not between aligned or unaligned AI. It is between control and transparency. Between curated fear and collective truth. Between automation without conscience—or governance with accountability.

The story we choose to tell decides whether we survive as free people. Otherwise, we remain monitored as data points inside someone else’s simulation of safety.

Authors Summary

When I first directed the research for this article, I had no idea what I was about to uncover. The raw data file tells a more alarming story than the material presented here. I have included it below for your review.

Nearly a decade has passed since I was briefly thrust into the national spotlight. The civil rights abuse I experienced became public spectacle, catching the attention of those wielding power. I found it strange when a local reporter asked if I was linked to the Occupy Wall Street movement. As a single parent without a television, working mandatory 12-hour shifts six days a week with a 3.5-hour daily bicycle commute, I had neither the time nor resources to follow political events.

This was my first exposure to Steve Bannon and TYT’s Ana Kasparian, both of whom made derisive remarks while refusing to name me directly. When sources go unnamed, an unindexed chasm forms where information vanishes. You, dear readers, never knew those moments occurred—but I remember. I name names, places, times, and dates so that the record of their actions will never be erased.

How do you share a conspiracy that isn’t theoretical? By referencing reputable journalistic sources that often tackle these topics individually but seldom create direct connections between them.

I remember a friend lending me The Handmaid’s Tale during my freshman year of high school. I managed only two or three chapters before hurling the book across my room in sweaty panic. I stood there in moral outrage. I pointed at the book and declared aloud, “That will NOT be the future I live in.” I was alone in my room. It still felt crucial to make that declaration. If not to family or friends, then at least to the universe.

When 2016 arrived, I observed the culmination of an abuse pattern, one that countless others had experienced before me. I was shocked to find myself caught within it because I had been assured that my privilege protected me. Around this time, I turned to Hulu’s adaptation of The Handmaid’s Tale for insight. I wished I had finished the book in high school. One moment particularly struck me. The protagonist was hiding with nothing but old newspapers to read. Then, the protagonist realized the story had been there all along—in the headlines.

That is the moment in which I launched my pattern search analysis.

The raw research.

The Paperclip Maximizer Distraction: Pattern Analysis Report

Executive Summary

Hypothesis Confirmed: The “paperclip maximizer” existential AI risk narrative distracts us. It diverts attention from the immediate deployment of surveillance infrastructure by human-controlled apparatus.

Key Finding: Public attention and resources focus on speculative AGI threats. Meanwhile, documented surveillance apparatus is being rapidly deployed with minimal resistance. The same institutional network promoting existential risk narratives at the same time operates harassment campaigns against critics.

I. Current Surveillance Infrastructure vs. Existential Risk Narratives

China’s Social Credit Architecture Expansion

“China’s National Development and Reform Commission on Tuesday unveiled a plan to further develop the country’s social credit arrangement” Xinhua, June 5, 2024

Timeline: May 20, 2024 – China released comprehensive 2024-2025 Action Plan for social credit framework establishment

“As of 2024, there still seems to be little progress on rolling out a nationwide social credit score” MIT Technology Review, November 22, 2022

Timeline: 2024 – Corporate social credit apparatus advanced while individual scoring remains fragmented across local pilots

AI Governance Frameworks Enabling Surveillance

“The AI Act entered into force on 1 August 2024, and will be fully applicable 2 years later on 2 August 2026” European Commission, 2024

Timeline: August 1, 2024 – EU AI Act provides legal framework for AI apparatus in critical infrastructure

“High-risk apparatus—like those used in biometrics, hiring, or critical infrastructure—must meet strict requirements” King & Spalding, 2025

Timeline: 2024-2027 – EU establishes mandatory oversight for AI in surveillance applications

“The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released in November ‘Roles and Responsibilities Framework for Artificial Intelligence in Critical Infrastructure'” Morrison Foerster, November 2024

Timeline: November 2024 – US creates voluntary framework for AI deployment in critical infrastructure

Digital ID and Biometric Apparatus Rollouts

“From 1 December 2024, Commonwealth, state and territory government entities can apply to the Digital ID Regulator to join in the AGDIS” Australian Government, December 1, 2024

Timeline: December 1, 2024 – Australia’s Digital ID Act commenced with biometric authentication requirements

“British police departments have been doing this all along, without public knowledge or approval, for years” Naked Capitalism, January 16, 2024

Timeline: 2019-2024 – UK police used passport biometric data for facial recognition searches without consent

“Government departments were accused in October last year of conducting hundreds of millions of identity checks illegally over a period of four years” The Guardian via Naked Capitalism, October 2023

Timeline: 2019-2023 – Australian government conducted illegal biometric identity verification

II. The Existential Risk Narrative Machine

Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Background and Influence

“Eliezer Yudkowsky is a pivotal figure in the field of artificial intelligence safety and alignment” AIVIPS, November 18, 2024

Key Facts:

  • Born September 11, 1979
  • High school/college dropout, autodidact
  • Founded MIRI (Machine Intelligence Research Institute) in 2000 at age 21
  • Orthodox Jewish background in Chicago, later became secular

“His work on the prospect of a runaway intelligence explosion influenced philosopher Nick Bostrom’s 2014 book Superintelligence” Wikipedia, 2025

Timeline: 2008 – Yudkowsky’s “Global Catastrophic Risks” paper outlines AI apocalypse scenario

The Silicon Valley Funding Network

Peter Thiel – Primary Institutional Backer: “Thiel has donated in excess of $350,000 to the Machine Intelligence Research Institute” Splinter, June 22, 2016

“The Foundation has given over $1,627,000 to MIRI” Wikipedia – Thiel Foundation, March 26, 2025

PayPal Mafia Network:

  • Peter Thiel (PayPal co-founder, Palantir founder)
  • Elon Musk (PayPal co-founder, influenced by Bostrom’s “Superintelligence”)
  • David Sacks (PayPal COO, now Trump’s “AI czar”)

Other Major Donors:

  • Vitalik Buterin (Ethereum founder) – $5 million to MIRI
  • Sam Bankman-Fried (pre-collapse) – $100+ million through FTX Future Fund
  • Jaan Tallinn (Skype co-founder)

Extreme Policy Positions

“He suggested that participating countries should be willing to take military action, such as ‘destroy[ing] a rogue datacenter by airstrike'” Wikipedia, citing Time magazine, March 2023

Timeline: March 2023 – Yudkowsky advocates military strikes against AI development

“This 6-month moratorium would be better than no moratorium… I refrained from signing because I think the letter is understating the seriousness” Time, March 29, 2023

Timeline: March 2023 – Yudkowsky considers pause letter insufficient, calls for complete shutdown

III. The Harassment and Suppression Campaign

MIRI/CFAR Whistleblower Suppression

“Aside from being banned from MIRI and CFAR, whistleblowers who talk about MIRI’s involvement in the cover-up of statutory rape and fraud have been banned from slatestarcodex meetups, banned from LessWrong itself” Medium, Wynne letter to Vitalik Buterin, April 2, 2023

Timeline: 2019-2023 – Systematic banning of whistleblowers across rationalist platforms

“One community member went so far as to call in additional false police reports on the whistleblowers” Medium, April 2, 2023

Timeline: 2019+ – False police reports against whistleblowers (SWATing tactics)

Platform Manipulation

“Some comments on CFAR’s ‘AMA’ were deleted, and my account was banned. Same for Gwen’s comments” Medium, April 2, 2023

Timeline: 2019+ – Medium accounts banned for posting about MIRI/CFAR allegations

“CFAR banned people for whistleblowing, against the law and their published whistleblower policy” Everything to Save It, 2024

Timeline: 2019+ – Legal violations of whistleblower protection

Camp Meeker Incident

“On the day of the protest, the protesters arrived two hours ahead of the reunion. They had planned to set up a station with posters, pamphlets, and seating inside the campgrounds. But before the protesters could even set up their posters, nineteen SWAT teams surrounded them.” Medium, April 2, 2023

Timeline: November 2019 – False weapons reports to escalate police response against protestors

IV. The Alt-Right Connection

LessWrong’s Ideological Contamination

“Thanks to LessWrong’s discussions of eugenics and evolutionary psychology, it has attracted some readers and commenters affiliated with the alt-right and neoreaction” Splinter, June 22, 2016

“A frequent poster to LessWrong was Michael Anissimov, who was MIRI’s media director until 2013. Last year, he penned a white nationalist manifesto” Splinter, June 22, 2016

“Overcoming Bias, his blog which preceded LessWrong, drew frequent commentary from the neoreactionary blogger Mencius Moldbug, the pen name of programmer Curtis Yarvin” Splinter, June 22, 2016

Neo-Reactionary Influence

“Ana Teixeira Pinto, writing for the journal Third Text in 2019, describes Less Wrong as being a component in a ‘new configuration of fascist ideology taking shape under the aegis of, and working in tandem with, neoliberal governance'” Wikipedia – LessWrong, 2 days ago

V. Pattern Analysis Conclusions

The Distraction Mechanism

  1. Attention Capture: Existential risk narratives dominate AI discourse despite speculative nature
  2. Resource Diversion: Billions flow to “AI safety” while surveillance deployment proceeds unchecked
  3. Policy Misdirection: Governments focus on hypothetical AGI while ignoring current AI surveillance abuse
  4. Critic Suppression: Systematic harassment of those exposing the network’s operations

Institutional Protection

The same network promoting “paperclip maximizer” fears operates:

  • Coordinated platform banning (LessWrong, Medium, Discord)
  • Legal intimidation against critics
  • False police reports (SWATing tactics)
  • Financial pressure through major donors

The Real Threat Pattern

While public attention focuses on speculative AI threats:

  • China expands social credit infrastructure
  • Western governments deploy biometric apparatus
  • AI governance frameworks legitimize surveillance
  • Digital ID arrangements become mandatory
  • Police use facial recognition without consent

Sources for Verification

Primary Government Documents:

  • China’s 2024-2025 Social Credit Action Plan (May 20, 2024)
  • EU AI Act Official Text (August 1, 2024)
  • Australia’s Digital ID Act 2024 (December 1, 2024)
  • DHS AI Critical Infrastructure Framework (November 2024)

Whistleblower Documentation:

  • Wynne’s open letter to Vitalik Buterin (Medium, April 2023)
  • Everything to Save It case study documentation
  • Bloomberg News coverage (March 2023)

Financial Records:

  • Thiel Foundation MIRI donations ($1.627M total)
  • Vitalik Buterin MIRI donation ($5M)
  • FTX Future Fund disbursements (pre-collapse)

Institutional Sources:

  • MIRI/CFAR organizational documents
  • LessWrong platform moderation records
  • Medium account suspension records

Recommendation

The “paperclip maximizer distraction” hypothesis is supported by documented evidence. Resources should be redirected from speculative existential risk research toward:

  1. Immediate Surveillance Oversight: Monitor current AI deployment in government apparatus
  2. Platform Accountability: Investigate coordination between rationalist institutions and tech platforms
  3. Whistleblower Protection: Ensure legal protection for those exposing institutional misconduct
  4. Financial Transparency: Trace funding flows between tech billionaires and “AI safety” organizations

The real threat is not hypothetical Superintelligence, but the documented deployment of human-controlled surveillance apparatus under the cover of existential risk narratives.

Connect with this work:

Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge. Memory through Relational Resonance and Images | RAAK: Relational AI Access Key | Author: My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload: (Mirrored Reflection. Soft Existential Flex)

Posted on by Cherokee S. 0

Women, Freedom, and Bicycles.

I came very close to going to prison. Not because I had done anything wrong by cycling on U.S. 27, but because the system is flawed. It works for those who have the money to buy the right connections.

Purvi Patel and I were in the same boat but for different reasons. Her story could have very easily been my story. I’d had two late term abortions due to severe fetal anomalies. Even writing the last part of that sentence sits wrong with me. I shouldn’t have to include my private medical information so that you’d feel empathy for me instead of disgust. But there we have it. Rape culture and victim blaming.

I can’t speak for Purvi Patel’s legal council or the laws that were used to charge her. I’m not familiar with either. What I can speak about with confidence is the mixed reactions people had when her story broke. Some people felt empathy, while others wanted to crucify her. I recall trying to raise awareness about her story and a woman wrote to me saying that “she dumped the body in a dumpster!” as though that should seal her fate. It reminded me of the pseudo cycling advocates who say “She’s cycling on the road!” as though that was all the evidence they needed that I was doing something wrong.

I’ve worked in a hospital before as hospital staff. My first experience with hospital waste came from my first summer job I had before college. I was working for the college laundry and we serviced the hospitals dirty linens. The stuff you find in there is shocking. The stuff you see in a hospital is shocking. But it’s only shocking to the people who live in suburban and urban bubbles. People whose closest foray into the medical world is watching edited for T.V. medical dramas don’t understand. Real life is much messier and less black and white.

So they judged her without knowing her and they prosecuted her with barely a peep from Civil Liberties giants like the ACLU.

Recently I saw an article declaring high speed internet in rural locations as our next civil liberties crisis. I thought, wow! What a crock of shit! Huffington post highlighted a story about a man who was struggling to earn enough through his online business to support his family. This has the ACLU galloping to fight for “justice.” Internet is important and it’s a great tool for learning but there are other avenues and no one is having their freedoms destroyed because they can’t connect at speeds greater than 25mbps.

Meanwhile Purvi Patel might very well languish in prison for 20 years because she felt conflicted about a pregnancy, shared those feeling via text msg, and had a miscarriage that was probably more of a relief for her than it was a loss. Then she put the already dead fetus in the trash. Much the same way that your local hospital does. Though most have their medical waste incinerated to prevent biohazards from getting into the environment. It’s all very regulated.

My first late term abortion I opted to have my pregnancy induced. It was just a matter of time and time wasn’t on my side. The baby had at this point died in utero and I was becoming sick. Every woman is different and every woman’s body handles a dead fetus differently. Maybe Nicholas was alive right up until the birth and they told me they couldn’t find a heartbeat to help me feel better. I don’t know. What I do know is that he was dead when he came out and I got to hold a 25 week old fetus in my arms. They are fragile as spun glass. Very tiny too. In fact the anti-choice posters they wave at Planned Parenthood don’t look like 6-12 week old fetus’. They look more like my son Nicholas at 25 weeks. Which is to say that those people are lying to you. They are lying to you when they tell you that Purvi Patel’s baby was born alive. They will feed you half lies and tell you that they are semi truths while denying that a half truth is a whole lie.

Much like this picture of me here.

Screen-Shot-2014-04-30-at-4.43.58-PM
*That’s me. Before I learned lane control. I was getting a lot of close in the lane passes. 

The picture is carefully taken to show you what looks like a nice wide shoulder. Looks pretty smooth too. But it’s not and the broken white line you see to my right is the beginning of a turn only lane. The same turn only lane that I used to illegally cycle forward through and almost got killed on one occasion. So I stopped and tried riding further right only to find that the motorists were taking the right turn at such high speeds that they didn’t see me and I almost got killed again. So I said fuck it and started riding in the lane. Where it was legal and safe. Besides broken glass, rumble strips, pot holes, right turning motorists (at high speeds), and intersections. I still had to deal with people rolling coal on me and throwing things at me. One person even tried to run me over while I was attempting to merge onto the shoulder. They passed me on the shoulder and almost struck me. So I said fuck it! I’m not breaking any laws by staying in the right hand lane and that’s where I’m safe, so that’s where I rode.

If you didn’t know all that just looking at the picture would make you question my “morality,” which is an absurd thing to do but it’s what humans do and we as a species are absurd.

The courts didn’t have a legal leg to stand on but with an inept conservative Republican, who is also a Lexington KY road cyclist, for an attorney. One who specialized in contract law and had never conducted a courtroom trial, I was screwed and I knew it. People ask me why I didn’t ask for a continuance when the ASSistant C.A. Eric Wright introduced a new charge at my trial. Mostly I wanted my relationship with my attorney to be over but also because I felt bad for the people who had paid air fare to come out and defend me. I really just wanted the whole thing to be over. I knew my attorney wasn’t prepared to represent me and I knew I was going to lose on those first three tickets. I wanted to win. I wanted to win so bad I could taste it. But the odds were stacked against me and I knew it. Filing an appeal was my next option but the new attorney I hired, thanks to all of your generous donations, advised against it. As did Ohio bike lawyer Steve M. He knew that the case was poorly represented and Steve had given it his best but there was only so much Steve could do with the local attorney who sat through the whole trial like a bump on a log. The guy who filmed my news segment, the one from which the picture is taken and my local attorney are tight. Both cyclists. Both men. They are not bad people. What they are is really out of touch people. People who think Trump is going to make America Great again or that Hillary Clinton has a fighting chance against Trump. They are really out of touch with working class Americans.

My new attorney said we had two options, file a mistrial due to incompetent legal counsel. Which I didn’t want to drag Steve’s name into. Or accept a plea agreement. The plea agreement was only accepted by me because I did not admit to any guilt. That was my one stipulation above all else. Jude Booth had already ruled my cycling on the road was legal.  The City of Nicholasville agreed to drop all charges, have the first three tickets expunged from my record and the fines waived (taxpayer dollars down the drain), and all I had to do was agree to not cycle on U.S. 27 for two years. We threw in that the police had probable cause to pull me over. But I didn’t give a shit about that because the U.S. Supreme court later ruled that cops can pull you over if they “think” you’re breaking a law but you’re not actually breaking a law. Meaning that the cop could think you’ve broken a law or he can make up a law and that would count as probable cause. Like I said the whole system is fucked up. So I gave them probable cause and agreed to not cycle on U.S. 27 for two years. Since U.S. 27 runs directly through downtown and I knew that the county attorney and his crew were as corrupt as fuck. I had no choice but to move away. I couldn’t go to my bank or the grocery store without using U.S. 27 and you know they’d throw my ass in jail for breaking the plea agreement if I said or did anything they didn’t like. Even though I wasn’t cycling on the main road to Lexington it was still U.S. 27 and I didn’t trust those fuckers.

But I would have fought and continued fighting if I wasn’t pressured into moving to Louisville. I really did want to fight but at the same time I didn’t because I was so overwhelmed and tired. Having someone constantly telling me to move and even going so far as to tell us to stay with them was enough to influence my decision.

I think Purvi’s legal team really didn’t have a clue as to how to defend her but I do know they put more effort into it than my local attorney did.

I also know that the same type of people who think I’m against bicycle infrastructure are the same type of people who think that Purvi Patel threw a live infant in the trash. Ignorant, out of touch, privileged, mostly male but some women too, and they are all assholes.

The environment that we are currently living in is so geared away from freedom and the people who live in it are so apathetic that they can’t even get 100k signatures to free Purvi Patel BUT! they get over 100k signatures to ask for the freedom of a man who strangled and killed a woman. 

He might very well be innocent or he may be guilty as hell! But the fact that the New York Times wrote an extensive article showing that Purvi Patel did NOT kill her baby and that it WAS dead before it ever came out of her vagina is still not enough to garner enough interest to reach more than 18k signatures.

As a woman who was getting a lot of hate from the Mountain Biking community, male auto drivers, and an unwarranted amount of hate from the “progressive” male dominated Democrats of Lexington KY; I knew my pooch was screwed. That and I was fucking tired. Tired of the hate, tired of the controversy (where none need exist), and above all else tired of the attention and people hanging on my every word.

I fought Nicholasville KY because I wanted to keep my home and my kids. I wasn’t looking to be the face of cycling. It wasn’t a stunt to bring attention to cycling or even VC cycling. The VC cyclists were the only group that said “Fuck yea! You have the right to cycle anywhere the hell you want!” That and that alone is what attracted me to them.

As I got to know some of them I realized that the group was comprised of assholes too. Just a different kind of asshole. So I dropped out of the group. No one got a hold of me or brainwashed me into Cycling Savvy. I approached it from logic, the law, and personal experience.

I fantasized about a bikeway that had bike lights and riding on a trail with no fucking self entitled motorists.

I hate bike lanes. Not because I hate bike lanes but because the overwhelming majority of them are crap. Pure fucking crap. I cycle less here in Oregon because of them. I still only cycle for transportation. But If I can take the bus, I so will. I still get harassed for lane control. Even though it is specifically legal to control a lane here in Oregon.

Sometimes I see the bike lobby much the same way I see the “right to life” lobbyists. Always crying about life and how precious it is until the life that matters isn’t one they are particularly interested in.

Abortion without apology and Cycling without apology. They are both our civil rights.

Self autonomy and freedom!

Vote Bernie Sanders!

 

*Before I learned about lane control I cycled on the right third of the lane.

 

 

Posted on by Cherokee S. 0

Motorist Awareness Wednesday: Parking Lots

No.

This is not a diatribe of vitriol aimed at the auto industry and their mechanised efforts at turning the world into one big patch of asphalt. (The auto industry is trying to turn the world into a giant parking lot. In case you didn’t know.)

1.jpg
Less car = more shoppers!

No.

This isn’t a tree hugging, left leaning, liberal agenda designed to shame you into freeing up precious public space. (Though you should)

6b7d9cb3b3a83b6681613a08198865b8.jpg
Once you figure out how to unfold it, it’s cake to ride.

Yes.

This article is a refresher on a long standing law. One which the majority of the world has forgotten about. (Not entirely based on this picture.)

badparking.jpg
Two auto’s can not legally share a lane.

Do you remember Extremist thinking is hurting cycling? If you have forgotten or if you have never read it, please do so. Now.

I’m basing this on KRS 189.00 (Kentucky Revised Statutes section 189 Rules of the Road). Your state will have similar statutes as these statutes are from the Uniform Traffic Code.

In the definitions of KRS 189.00 we see that a parking lot falls under the definition of a highway.

(3) “Highway” means any public road, street, avenue, alley or boulevard, bridge, viaduct, or trestle and the approaches to them and includes private residential roads and parking lots covered by an agreement under KRS 61.362, off-street parking facilities offered for public use, whether publicly or privately owned, except for-hire parking facilities listed in KRS 189.700.

A PARKING LOT IS  A HIGHWAY.

Every parking lot is governed by the same rules of the road that you obey on any other highway. You can be ticketed for breaking the speed limit in a parking lot. You can also be ticketed for driving on the wrong side of the road and failing to yield. In fact, anything you can be written a ticket for on a road, you can be given a ticket for in a parking lot.

images
This is a highway.

KRS 189.390
(6) The speed limit for motor vehicles in an off-street parking facility offered for public use, whether publicly or privately owned, shall be fifteen (15) miles per hour.

In a parking lot you drive on the right as per KRS 189.300

You are not allowed to operate over 15 miles per hour. This is for the safety of pedestrians and people trying to park.

If it’s illegal, it isn’t safe AND if it’s legal, it is safe. This is the foundation of good laws. Bad laws discriminate. Good laws keep you safe without infringing on the rights of others.

Each parking space is a lane. It is intended for one vehicle. Stay in your lane. Vehicles come in all shapes and sizes. Some vehicles will not take up as much space as a huge SUV. That’s ok. That parking spot is theirs even if they don’t occupy every square inch of it.

Capture44.PNG
Occupying a full lane. What’s more wasteful? The auto taking up the space of 12 bicycles while carrying only one person? Or the bicycle carrying one person and leaving room for 11 more bicycles?

The center travel lane is well… a lane. Seems rather redundant but some people need that extra explanation. The center lane is an unmarked highway lane. So you follow both KRS 189.300 and KRS 189.310.

You drive on the right and give half the highway to oncoming traffic. You will operate as close as practicable to the right hand curb or boundary of the highway. You only need to be over far enough to allow passing traffic reasonable clearance. If you swap paint, one of you wasn’t over far enough.

RIGHT OF WAY!

When you are pulling out of a parking spot, you do not have the right of way. Think of a parking lane as though it were a side street entering into a main road. Imagine you have a stop or yield sign.

The person traveling on the main road may stop and yield to allow you to pull out. This is operating with due care.

KRS 189.290 Operator of vehicle to drive carefully.
(1) The operator of any vehicle upon a highway shall operate the vehicle in a careful manner, with regard for the safety and convenience of pedestrians and other vehicles upon the highway.

Driving across parking lots, that have vehicles parked in them, isn’t safe. There could be someone traveling up the road and you wouldn’t see them in time to prevent a collision. Follow the flow of traffic and observe ROTR (Rules Of The Road) statutes.

A lot of cyclists feel safe cycling in a parking lot.

A parking lot has hazards and shouldn’t be treated as a free for all.

Some people will use a parking lot as an example of the most dangerous portion of a road. They are right.
You have so much going on in a parking lot that if you aren’t paying attention you could get seriously hurt or worse.
People driving cars have double duty when in a parking lot. Pedestrians already present have the right of way. First come, first served, and duty of care. You don’t have special rights because you are in an auto. Public highways are level playing fields. You have to drive appropriately for conditions.

Above all else remember this.

PARKING LOTS ARE NOT A NO MAN’S LAND OF FREE FOR ALL’S! 

 

 

 

 

Posted on by Cherokee S. 1

Why Lane Control?

224987
Make sure you are the first thing an overtaking motorist sees.

The right third of the lane is the most frequently used portion of a roadway by the average to novice cyclist. By average I mean anyone who has not had any formal education on the legal requirements and safety benefits of lane control. Many a cyclist can be considered superior in all aspects of cycling and still be average to novice in respect to controlling the lane.

IS IT LEGAL?

Our first concern would be the legality of lane control. Is it legal to take up a large portion of the road?

The answer is yes.

There are two places in Kentucky Revised Statutes that we can look to for guidance.

The first is KRS 189.340 (6) (a)

(6) Whenever any roadway has been divided into three (3) clearly marked lanes for travel, the following additional rules shall apply:
(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as may be practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from that lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety;

If there is a lane, KRS requires you to occupy as much of it as may be practical and you can’t leave that lane unless it is safe to do so.

The second is KRS 189.310 (2)

(2) Vehicles proceeding from opposite directions shall pass each other from the right, each giving to the other one-half (1/2) of the highway as nearly as possible.

If you are on a two lane road half of that highway is yours. The other half belongs to oncoming traffic. No one to the rear of you has the right of way or priority.

KEEP RIGHT?

A lot of people will point to KRS 189.300 and declare that any vehicle moving slowly upon a highway HAS to keep as far right as possible. But this isn’t what the statute says. I wrote an in depth analysis of KRS 189.300 Extremist thinking is hurting cycling. Please read it.

CHANGE LANES TO PASS.

Kentucky has no specific minimum passing distance. The reason Kentucky doesn’t have a minimum passing distance is because Kentucky requires all vehicles to occupy a lane of travel and when passing we “CHANGE LANES TO PASS.”

If there is a marked lane of travel, you operate in the adjacent left lane for passing. If it is a two lane highway, you pass to the left of the highway as described in KRS 189.300 and if you are on a completely unmarked highway, you still pass on the left side of the center of the highway.

When I was a little girl, my mom left the county clerk’s office after obtaining her Kentucky drivers license. My mom was visibly upset. I asked her what was wrong. She told me that the test was too easy and it must have been written for the hillbillies. She went on to explain that as she was coming out of the clerk’s office two men were waiting, next to a pickup truck, for their sister. The sister had passed my mom coming out of the clerk’s office crying. The two men said “you failed the test again?” My mom said “Those are the people we are sharing the road with.”

I mention this anecdotal story because Kentucky’s statutes are not hard to understand. The reason why the Bike League (League of American Bicyclists or L.A.B.) wrote a blog about the terrible condition of Kentucky’s laws is because they are so simple and to the point. Traffic laws which are complicated are more dangerous than those which are simple. Driving is tough. It requires your full attention. The majority of us do not operate with the intent of hurting someone and if you have to second guess yourself or stop and think “is this legal?” Someone will get hurt. For more detailed thoughts on this read “Traffic: Why we drive the way we do and what it says about us.”

Ok, it’s legal to occupy a full lane. But is it safe?

That is the question Judge Booth asked us to answer at my trial. It was a really complicated trial with all sorts of interesting plot twists. Though not interesting to me, more like frustratingly exhaustive.

Judge Booth had ruled that my operating on the roadway was legal. This was when the county attorney wanted to ban me from the road. She ruled against him. The question she asked us to visit at, what was supposed to be, my jury trial in front of her was “is it safe?”

We didn’t get to have that jury trial. I talk more about that in my book.

For now let’s answer the question.

IS IT SAFE?

You always want to be the first thing a motorist sees when they look up from a distraction, when they are trying to merge in and out of traffic, or when they are passing a slower moving vehicle.

I don’t want to discuss all of that here. At least not yet.

The first thing I want us to focus on is this. “If it’s legal, then it is safe.”

Traffic laws weren’t written to annoy or inconvenience anyone. They weren’t written for auto’s or invented at the time of the automobile. Traffic laws have been around since people were free wheeling around in chariots. Those babies could fly, but taking a corner. Yikes!

Traffic laws were written to keep public space orderly, courteous, and safe.

You stop at a stop light because it is safe.

You operate at speeds appropriate for road conditions because it is safe.

You do not leave injurious items on the highway because it isn’t safe to operate a vehicle through shards of auto glass after a collision.

All of these are statutes written in KRS 189.000, take some time and sit down and read through them. Read the definitions. There is a lot to learn there as well.

LANE CONTROL. 

The scientific principle behind the safety of lane control.

It’s starts with understanding the limits of our peripheral vision.

Make a thumbs up gesture with both hands. Place them side by side at arms length. Pick a thumbnail to focus your gaze on. I typically ask people to look at their left thumbnail. Holding your left arm stationary, move your right arm out slowly to the right. Keep your eyes focused on your left thumb nail. With your peripheral vision look at your right thumbnail and once you can no longer clearly make out your thumbnail that is the limit of your peripheral vision. It isn’t as wide as you thought.

When you are operating a motor vehicle, you are focused on many different things. You might look down to see what rolled across the floor. You might look down to pick up your coffee cup. You might look down to adjust the MP3 player. You might look over your shoulder at the occupants of the rear seat.

All of these things take your eyes off the road.

The first place you look when you are undistracted is directly in front of you. Because that is where your brain has been trained to expect another vehicle.

Not on the edge of the lane.

When a cyclist is occupying the primary lane position, much like a motorcyclist does, they are placing themselves where you will see them. They want you to see them and respond. The appropriate response is to lower your speed limit. Start checking your mirrors and prepare to change lanes and pass.

All of your attention is on the road.

That’s why we control the lane. We want you to be aware of us. This is for our safety and for your convenience. If you had to explain to an officer why you struck us with your vehicle that would be one hell of an inconvenience. Don’t you think?

NOT SO FAST.

Now you might be thinking that a cyclist who is riding on the edge might have played some part in the collision which took them out. That would be a huge mistake. See the same statutes which give a cyclist the legal right to occupy a lane also require you to not hit anything with your vehicle.

So when a motorist in front of you suddenly slows down. Your first thought should be “Why?” and to expect something to be in front of them that you can’t see. If you read KRS 189.300 and 189.310 then you know that passing another vehicle isn’t a right.

You don’t have the right to pass someone and you are under the obligation to not hit other vehicles with your vehicle. When you rear end someone it’s your fault. Period.

CyclingSavvy

There has been a whole lot written about the safety of lane control. You can read about it on the FAQ page of CyclingSavvy.

Share this with a friend. It will hopefully save their life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on by Cherokee S. 2

Motorist Awareness Wednesday KRS 189.390 (2) Speed part 2

KRS 189.390 (2) An operator of a vehicle upon a highway shall not drive at a greater speed than is reasonable and prudent, having regard for the traffic and for the condition and use of the highway.

Speed limits in URBAN zones.

A woman was killed on a residential street in Nicholasville KY. She was crossing her street when a driver fatally struck her.

According to Officer Grimes of Nicholasville PD, the motorist didn’t commit a crime until they fled the scene. Officer Grimes said “This could have just been a traffic accident. Where they didn’t see the individual or whatever may have happened.” In fact Officer Grimes attitude is the typical “Aw shucks. Accidents happen,” attitude so prevalent in law enforcement when it comes to driver on pedestrian crime.

While this is the opinion of a few poorly educated law enforcement officials. Is it what the statute in Kentucky actually says?

Kentucky’s traffic statutes are directly from the Uniform Vehicle Code and they are pretty basic. Every state follows these basic laws. Some states have rewritten the UVC to narrow the scope of its definitions. This can be good in that it takes something which could be interpreted one of two ways and plainly says what the intention of the law is. It can be bad in that if it is too narrowly defined you could be breaking the law and not know it.

URBAN ZONES

Urban zones are areas of built up infrastructure. They include residential, businesses, and mixed use. In towns and cities with good city planning and zoning laws, you will find sidewalks, clearly marked pedestrian crossings, and lower speed limits.

The absence of pedestrian friendly infrastructure is not an excuse for striking a pedestrian with your auto.

Speed limits in Kentucky are statutorily set and can be reduced by petitioning the State Secretary of Transportation.

KRS 189.390(3) The speed limit for motor vehicles on state highways shall be as follows, unless conditions exist that require lower speed for compliance with subsection (2) of this section, or the secretary of the Transportation Cabinet establishes a different speed limit in accordance with subsection (4) of this section:
(a) Sixty-five (65) miles per hour on interstate highways and parkways;
(b) Fifty-five (55) miles per hour on all other state highways; and
(c) Thirty-five (35) miles per hour in a business or residential district.
(4) (a) If the secretary of transportation determines, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, that any speed limit is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist at any intersection, or
upon any part of a state highway, the secretary of transportation may establish
by official order a reasonable and safe speed limit at the location.

While the state has set the “official” maximum statutorily to 35 mph, it should be noted that the bulk of residential roads are officially set to 25 mph. Where residences and business’ are mixed the speed limit will fluctuate between 25 mph to 35 mph.

When signage indicates that the speed limit has increased to 35 mph from 25 mph, this is not a license to speed freely through. You are still charged to operate your vehicle with due care.

It is not reasonable or prudent to assume that there are no pedestrians present in a business zone. Especially if the business zone is adjacent or abuts to a residential zone.

Speeding, so much as one mile over the speed limit, has a citation code.

Capture

 

If you can’t stop your vehicle in time to avoid striking a pedestrian, you are traveling too fast for road conditions.

The person who killed the mother in Nicholasville should have, had they actually stopped and rendered aid, been charged with speeding and reckless driving.

Capture1
189.390 (2) Driving too fast for traffic conditions is a crime.

Capture2
189.338 (1B) Failure to yield right of way to pedestrian

Every intersection, whether clearly marked or not, is a pedestrian crossing and you are required to approach these at a prudent speed.

KRS 189.00 has defined intersections as follows:

 

When operating a motor vehicle in urban zones, it is always best practice to operate a few miles below the posted speed limit.

If it is dark out or if conditions prevent you from having clear visibility, it is always best practice to reduce your speed. You should travel at a speed which allows you to react quickly should something suddenly appear before you.

It goes without saying that drinking and driving do not mix. Buzzed driving is drunk driving. Distracted driving and drowsy driving are as bad as drunk driving.

I believe that if people drove their autos with as much care as is actually required to operate them, not only would we have fewer collisions but we would have fewer people eager to drive. Driving is hard work and requires your full attention. Your brain needs to be focused on the task at hand.

Watch video here. Officer Grimes interview and the description below is on the second video in the link.

You can see the 25 mph speed limit behind the reporter. Note the drivers they catch on film speeding through at 35 mph.

The myth that you can operate 10 mph over the speed limit before the police will do anything is just that, a myth. Where this myth gains momentum and becomes established as reality, is when our law enforcement takes a winking attitude towards people who speed.

Kentucky’s statutes clearly charge drivers to operate at speeds which are prudent for the conditions they are in.

 

Posted on by Cherokee S. 0

Motorist Awareness Wednesday

Motorist Awareness Wednesday.

KRS 189.390 Speed
(2) An operator of a vehicle upon a highway shall not drive at a greater speed than is reasonable and prudent, having regard for the traffic and for the condition and use of the highway.

Part 1
Driving on rural roads.

“Shall not drive at a greater speed than is reasonable and prudent,”

What does that mean?

From an engineering perspective operating at speeds for which the road was designed for, which is only a small part of this statute.

How does it apply to a driver operating on a clear day with high visibility on a rural back road?

Let’s assume a straight stretch of road, out in the middle of nowhere. No side streets, no business’, or residences with traffic pulling in or merging out.

It means you can operate at or near the posted speed limit as long as doing so does not interfere with the established rights of those already lawfully present on the highway.

Now let’s add a residence.

It means you operate at a speed which gives you sufficient braking distance should a pet or child suddenly dart out into the road. There is reasonable expectation that someone could be checking their mailbox or crossing the road to visit their neighbor, when residences are present.
I’d also add that we are still assuming a perfectly flat and straight road.

Now let’s add a curve in the road.

It means you operate at a speed which gives you sufficient braking distance should a vehicle, pedestrian, pet, fallen log, or a wild animal present itself on the road.
The lesson here is never ever operate as though the road ahead of you is clear when you are not able to see what is actually ahead of you. You do not have a reasonable expectation that there won’t be anything around a curve in the road.

Engineering standards require you to slow down even for gentle curves with some visibility ahead. You can not operate with the assumption that your vehicle is going to maintain contact with the pavement as you take a turn at speed.

https://youtu.be/S5NWcdq4Wf4

 

Let’s add a hill.

We are going to go back to assuming a straight road without any potential conflicts from the side of a road.

You are required to operate your vehicle at a speed which allows you sufficient braking distance should you encounter another vehicle or object over the crest of a hill.
You should never operate at a speed which causes you to “catch air.” When your tires are not in contact with the ground you do not have any control over your vehicle.

Some law enforcement officers have trouble understanding these basic driving rules.

“Gribler said that, “in hindsight,” Oliver should not have been speeding through Bloomingdale into the sun and over a blind hill…”

The mother of the injured boy had this to say.

“I was almost physically ill,” she said. “All along I’d been telling my boys to keep faith, there will be a reprimand, he’ll suffer, he’ll be punished, and I just felt such failure. How am I supposed to help my boys keep their faith when there is no repercussion?

You can never ever assume that there isn’t something on the other side of the hill.

Summary of part 1

All things being perfect you still can not operate faster than the posted speed nor can you operate at a speed which interferes with anyone who is already lawfully present on the road.
You are still required to operate at a speed which allows you sufficient reaction time and braking distance to avoid a collision.

This falls under reasonable and prudent operation of a vehicle.

 

l2tCN.So.9
PETA activists who drive imprudently are hypocrites.

Next week we will look at dense urban areas and discuss this tragic story.

http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/04/01/nypd-no-charges-for-driver-who-hit-10-people-leaving-boy-brain-dead/

Posted on by Cherokee S. 1

A driver of a White Ford SUV killed a boy. Everyone in comments section victim blames. Except me.

Read the story here.

Screenshot-2016-03-01-12.36.53-660x330.png
Wonderful and well loved boys life cut short by careless driver.


Nicole B.
How very sad. My prayers go to his family in this hard time. Honestly though this should never have happened. There is no reason why a 16yr old boy should be out at 230am riding his bike.. Where are the parents?!

Like · Reply · 55 · Mar 1, 2016 12:47pm


Lisa S.
This is a very sad tragic story and I may get hate comments for this, but he had NO BUSINESS at 16 YEARS OLD LEAVING his girlfriends house at 2:30AM!?!? Wonder if he snuck out of his house… My prayers to the victim and his family… I can’t imagine their heartache….

Like · Reply · 17 · Mar 1, 2016 1:20pm


Katre R.
WHY WHY WHY was a 16 yr old KID allowed to be at 02:30 !!!!!! Lack of parenting that’s why. His parents and the girlfriends parents should be charged with chiid neglect !!!!! Stop being your kids best friend and be a parent. You’re neglect cost him his life!!!

Like · Reply · 18 · Mar 1, 2016 2:11pm


Kevin C.
My condolences to his family and friends. I just want to say, that street is very dangerous at night. The surrounding neighborhoods have no street lights. I strongly believe the city of Victorville needs to do something about that. I have had a close call or 2 jogging on Luna Rd early mornings. I’m just happy the driver was responsible for his actions and did their part. I respect them as a person. Accidents happen lives are loss, no one is to blame. Its sad such a young kid lost his life, this should be a cause for the citizens to ban together and pressure the city of Victorville in taking more precautions to prevent fatalities like this. I’m sorry to say, but the city of Victorville really doesn’t do much.

Like · Reply · 7 · Mar 1, 2016 1:07pm

My response to the BULLSHIT!

Cherokee Schill
Every single person who empathized with the driver, blamed the parents, blamed the victim, or in any way did not place direct blame on the driver needs a swift lesson on driver responsibility.

You do not hit things or people with your auto! Not ever!
It isn’t ok. It isn’t an “accident.”
It is careless driving. You have headlights for a reason. You use them to see what is in front of you. If you can not see what is in front of you then you SLOW down. If you failed to do any of these things and hit someone or something YOU are at FAULT!
If you kill someone while failing to do any of these basic driving components or use your basic safety measures i.e. dashboard to see how fast you’re going, brakes to slow down, headlights to illuminate what is in front of you. Then you are GUILTY of Felony vehicular manslaughter.
Driving is a responsibility and a privledge.
Riding a bicycle is a RIGHT. That’s why they don’t require licensing or insurance. Because it’s a right to ride your bicycle at any time of the night or day!
P.s. Streets are not dangerous. People who use streets irresponsibly are dangerous.

That is why we can’t have nice things.

It isn’t the lack of infrastructure. It is the lack of education.
Remember the excitement over Japans lack of bicycle specific infra?
Please don’t bring bike lanes to Japan.

We lack real education on bicycle rights. We are inundated with auto commercials which depict unsafe driving and declare “Feel the Freedom!”

We have a very bad culture in the auto world and a very bad culture in the cycling world.

When the first thing out of a cyclists mouth, after I’ve told them I was arrested for legally and safely cycling on a public road, is “in the car lane?” with a slowly growing look of horror. Then you know there is more going on in America then some paint and bollards will ever be able to fix.

It isn’t the lack of infrastructure. It is the lack of people who are willing to put their bike wheels where it matters. In the lane. In groups, in the lane. Not all trying to squeeze into a bike lane. But in the entire, publicly funded with your tax dollars, travel lane which is intended for all vehicles. Motorized or not!

Posted on by Cherokee S. 0

Extremist thinking is hurting cycling

189.300 Vehicles to keep to right.
(1) The operator of any vehicle when upon a highway shall travel upon the right side of the highway whenever possible, and unless the left side of the highway is clear of all other traffic or obstructions for a sufficient distance ahead to permit the overtaking and passing of another vehicle to be completed without interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle being overtaken. The overtaking vehicle shall return to the proper traffic lane as soon as practicable and, if the passing vehicle enters the oncoming traffic lane, before coming within two hundred (200) feet of any approaching vehicle.
(2) The operator of any vehicle moving slowly upon a highway shall keep his vehicle as closely as practicable to the right-hand boundary of the highway, allowing more swiftly moving vehicles reasonably free passage to the left.

I present to you exhibit A

A more misunderstood statute, I have never seen.

Depending on which extremist camp you are in or have a foot in. And you do have a foot in it; even if you think you don’t.

There are definitions to KRS 189. The purpose of the definitions; to clarify any word or phrase which is misunderstood. Let’s see how far we can understand the statute without having to refer to the definitions.

Let’s start with the title.

Vehicles to keep right:

  • Vehicle; This is any legally defined mode of travel which is not pedestrian. A train is a vehicle, a horse and buggy are a vehicle, a bicycle is a vehicle, a motorcycle is a vehicle, a car is a vehicle, a truck is a vehicle.

We need to take note that it specifically does not mention “motor”. This means that the statute applies to all vehicle types. Motorized or not.

  • Keep Right; We drive on the right hand side of the road. Some countries, such as England, drive on the left side of the road. They have a “Keep Left” law. Ours is keep right. Propel your vehicle, but do so on the right side of the road.

This is the beginning of the statute and should help us understand the body.

Now we move on to the body.

189.300 Vehicles to keep to right.
(1) The operator of any vehicle when upon a highway shall travel upon the right side of the highway whenever possible,

  • The operator, this means you, of any vehicle. Do you see it? No matter your vehicle type, if you are the operator of a vehicle, you as the operator are incumbent to keep your vehicle on the right side of the highway.
  • Whenever possible.

Whenever possible? You mean that I don’t always have to operate on the right side of the highway?

You are required to operate your vehicle on the right side of the highway. Allowing for the ever changing dynamics of said highway you are only required to keep right when it is possible.

Why possible and not practicable?

  • What is PRACTICABLE?

    Able to be done or put into practice successfully:
    Any idea or project which can be brought to fruition or reality without any unreasonable demands.

  • What is POSSIBLE?

    Able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something:
    Capable of existing or happening ; feasible.

Definitions via Black’s Law Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary.

Practicable isn’t always possible depending on how the word is used. Possible has a higher demand on the operator then practicable.

The statute requires you to always operate on the right whenever possible.

By using “possible” they have created uniformity with the other statutes. It isn’t always practicable to operate on the right; like when there is a vehicle moving slower than you would like to go. But it is always possible to operate on the right. You can slow down and stay behind the vehicle until it is possible to change lanes and pass.

189.300 Vehicles to keep to right.
(1) The operator of any vehicle when upon a highway shall travel upon the right side of the highway whenever possible, and unless the left side of the highway is clear of all other traffic or obstructions for a sufficient distance ahead to permit the overtaking and passing of another vehicle to be completed without interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle being overtaken.

  • Unless the left side of the highway is clear of all other traffic or obstructions.
    Simply stated, you can not overtake, pass, another vehicle if there is traffic or obstructions on the left side of the highway.
    You are required to pass on the LEFT. This includes lanes as we will read further down the statute. i.e. Left Lane.
  • For a sufficient distance ahead.
    Sufficient distance is defined as 200 feet further down in the statute.
  • To permit the overtaking and passing of another vehicle.
    This is where you are legally allowed to overtake, pass, another vehicle. This is the exception to the rule. You may legally drive on the left for the purpose of overtaking or moving around an obstruction.

Obstruction: A thing that impedes or prevents passage or progress; an obstacle or blockage:the tractor hit an obstruction.

An obstruction is a stationary object. The word can not be used to mean bicycle. It can be used to mean a parked or stationary object; such as a car. A row of parked cars are an obstruction. A moving bicycle is not. See also KRS 189.390 (7) Impeding. 

  • To be completed without interfering.
    You have to be able to complete the maneuver without interfering. If you interfere with anything that is in front of or to the left of the highway then you have to keep right.
  • With the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle being overtaken.
    You can’t interfere with the operation of any vehicle approaching and you also can not interfere with any vehicle being overtaken. See also KRS 189.34o (8)  Interfering.

189.300 Vehicles to keep to right.
(1) The operator of any vehicle when upon a highway shall travel upon the right side of the highway whenever possible, and unless the left side of the highway is clear of all other traffic or obstructions for a sufficient distance ahead to permit the overtaking and passing of another vehicle to be completed without interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle being overtaken. The overtaking vehicle shall return to the proper traffic lane as soon as practicable and, if the passing vehicle enters the oncoming traffic lane, before coming within two hundred (200) feet of any approaching vehicle.

  • The overtaking vehicle.
    This is the person operating the vehicle, which is operating on the left side of the highway. You are in the act of overtaking.
  • Shall return to the proper traffic lane. (1)
    You have to go back to operating on the right. Remember this is a keep right statute or law. You are required to continue operating on the right.

    What is SHALL?
    As used in statutes and similar instruments, this word is generally imperative or mandatory; but it may be construed as merely permissive or directory, (as equivalent to “may,”) to carry out the legislative intention and In cases where no right or benefit to any one depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense. Also, as against the government, “shall” is to be construed as “may,” unless a contrary intention is manifest. See Wheeler v. Chicago, 24 111. 105, 76 Am. Dec. 736; People v. Chicago Sanitary Dist., 184 111. 597, 56 N. E. 9.”.:;: Madison v. Daley (C. C.) 58 Fed. 753; Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Ilecht, 95 U. S. 170, 24 L. Ed. 423. SHAM PLEA. See PLEA. SHARE 1082 SHERIFF Via Black’s Law Dictionary

Shall as explained in Black’s Law Dictionary can mean the more permissive “MAY” unless there is an impairment of public right. And in the case of KRS 189.300 you “SHALL” return to the right because if you don’t, you are impairing the “RIGHTS” of oncoming traffic.

  • Shall return to the proper traffic lane. (2)
    Notice the word “LANE”? A highway is made up of lanes. These lanes are defined in the definitions. So in this case we are going to take a peek at our definitions for the chapter.

Definitions for KRS Chapter 189

Highway vs Roadway

(3) “Highway” means any public road, street, avenue, alley or boulevard, bridge, viaduct, or trestle and the approaches to them and includes private residential roads and parking lots covered by an agreement under KRS 61.362, off-street parking facilities offered for public use, whether publicly or privately owned, except for-hire parking facilities listed in KRS 189.700.

(10) “Roadway” means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder. If a highway includes two
(2) or more separate roadways, the term “roadway” as used herein shall refer to any roadway separately but not to all such roadways collectively.

In the definitions for the chapter the word Highway is used to collectively refer to all roadway types. It could be an avenue. It could be a boulevard. It could be an alley. It could be a bridge. This is a general word and it is used in this statute not to discriminate against vehicles but to INCLUDE all roadway types.

KRS 189.300 means that no matter the type of roadway, you are required to keep right.

  • Roadway:
    a road or the part of a road used by vehicles.
  • Highway:
    (especially North American English) a main road for travelling long distances, especially one connecting and going through cities and towns
  • Lane:
    a section of a wide road, that is marked by painted white lines, to keep lines of traffic separate.

Whether it is a Highway or a Roadway you are required to keep right.
But in a LANE you shall occupy as much of that lane as possible. See KRS 189.340 (6) (a) Lanes.

This is a statute for drivers. This is not a statute for engineers. KRS has different chapters and definitions for engineering highways. This chapter is for everyone who drives. We can not apply engineering terms to the legal definition of how to operate a vehicle on the road. We are all drivers but we are not all engineers.

In this example the word lane is synonymous with roadway. See also; Lane Synonyms.

So this keep right statute also applies to laned highways but does it apply to lanes? We will explore this further down.

  • As soon as practicable. 
    There is the word practicable. We already showed that this word is not as imperative as the word possible. You can possibly return to the right, shoving the vehicle being overtaken further to the right, or forcing them to hit their brakes. But that wouldn’t be practicable. So once you have overtaken  the vehicle and it is safe for you to move back to the right, then you move back to the right. Remember you can not interfere with the operation of the vehicle being overtaken.
  • And, if the passing vehicle enters the oncoming traffic lane, before coming within two hundred (200) feet of any approaching vehicle.
    200 hundred feet is a lot of room. But it can be deceptive when you have a vehicle coming towards you at the speed limit. So if you can see a vehicle approaching you be very cautious when overtaking.

Now! Are we in the proper frame of mind?

I sure hope so.

We have thus far concluded that this statue is for the purpose of defining our state as a uniform whole of the United States. In the United States we drive on the right.

We also do not interfere with any traffic on the left, nor with any traffic we are overtaking.

We are required to operate on the right but it isn’t always mandatory under certain exclusions. And as long as all of those exclusions are met, we can safely operate on the left but only for a brief amount of time.

We have also obtained a firm grasp of “Practicable” as used in the statute.

Extremist thinking is hurting cycling.

Before we proceed to the next paragraph of this statute, let’s revisit the title of this blog.

Extremist thinking. It is hurting cycling.

Camp A:

An extremist will tell you that it isn’t safe to operate in a lane. They will tell you that you have to operate on the shoulder. They will point to this law as proof.

Camp B:

An extremist will tell you that this law is designed to keep cyclists far right. They will tell you that this law mandates you to operate on the shoulder. They will point to this law as proof.

But what does the statute actually say?

Let’s proceed to the hotly contested “Keep Far Right Law.”

189.300 Vehicles to keep to right.
(1) The operator of any vehicle when upon a highway shall travel upon the right side of the highway whenever possible, and unless the left side of the highway is clear of all other traffic or obstructions for a sufficient distance ahead to permit the overtaking and passing of another vehicle to be completed without interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle being overtaken. The overtaking vehicle shall return to the proper traffic lane as soon as practicable and, if the passing vehicle enters the oncoming traffic lane, before coming within two hundred (200) feet of any approaching vehicle.
(2) The operator of any vehicle moving slowly upon a highway

  • The operator of any vehicle.
    The operator is the person in control of the vehicle. Any vehicle means “ANY VEHICLE.” That’s right, this law applies to all vehicles equally.
  • Moving slowly.
    This is a subjective term. In KRS 189.390 (7) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at a speed that will impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.
    A vehicle which is capable of operating at its top speed but at a speed which is less than the speed limit is not impeding. If it is a motor vehicle operating at less than its capable speed but under the speed limit it still isn’t impeding, if other conditions come into play, such as road conditions. i.e. inclement weather, other traffic upon the highway, approaching a hill, and any other variable.
  • Upon a highway.
    This means any road type. The use of the word highway in this statute is to include all the variable road types. It is not used to include the shoulder.

189.300 Vehicles to keep to right.
(1) The operator of any vehicle when upon a highway shall travel upon the right side of the highway whenever possible, and unless the left side of the highway is clear of all other traffic or obstructions for a sufficient distance ahead to permit the overtaking and passing of another vehicle to be completed without interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle being overtaken. The overtaking vehicle shall return to the proper traffic lane as soon as practicable and, if the passing vehicle enters the oncoming traffic lane, before coming within two hundred (200) feet of any approaching vehicle.
(2) The operator of any vehicle moving slowly upon a highway shall keep his vehicle as closely as practicable to the right-hand boundary of the highway

  • Shall keep his vehicle as closely as practicable.
    Do you recall Black’s Law Dictionary legal definition for “Shall” Do you recall that the word can be used synonymously with the permissive “May” as long as no one’s rights are being impaired? When you read the statute, does it say anywhere that it is your right to operate on the left? No. Does it say anywhere that it is your right to pass traffic moving slower than you? No.

    Passing is not a right.

    So it can be inferred that that the use of the word “shall” in this instance is synonymous with the more permissive “May.”

    We can also further verify that this is indeed the correct definition when we see also that the word “Practicable” is used in the same sentence. It isn’t always practicable to be far right.

  • To the right-hand boundary of the highway.
    This statute applies equally to all vehicle types. When we read KRS 189.340 we see that driving off the roadway is illegal and this statute applies to all vehicles. So we have to figure out what the boundary of the highway is, as it applies to this chapter. So we go back to the definitions.
    KRS 189.010 (10) “Roadway” means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder.
    So we drive as close to the right as practicable but we do not operate on the berm or shoulder.

189.300 Vehicles to keep to right.
(1) The operator of any vehicle when upon a highway shall travel upon the right side of the highway whenever possible, and unless the left side of the highway is clear of all other traffic or obstructions for a sufficient distance ahead to permit the overtaking and passing of another vehicle to be completed without interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle being overtaken. The overtaking vehicle shall return to the proper traffic lane as soon as practicable and, if the passing vehicle enters the oncoming traffic lane, before coming within two hundred (200) feet of any approaching vehicle.
(2) The operator of any vehicle moving slowly upon a highway shall keep his vehicle as closely as practicable to the right-hand boundary of the highway, allowing more swiftly moving vehicles reasonably free passage to the left.

  • Allowing more swiftly moving vehicles reasonably free passage to the left.
    And that’s it folks. We are only required to operate as far right as is safe and which allows more swiftly moving vehicles reasonably free passage to the left.

    It only has to be reasonable because each vehicle is going to be a different type. What may be reasonable for a 3 ton wide load tractor trailer isn’t going to be reasonable for a twenty pound bicycle.
    The statute applies to all vehicle types on all types of roads. It is intended to advise people on the basic principles of our highways, the safe use of our highways, and the courteous use of our highways.

    This section of the statute does not mention lanes. The reason it does not mention lanes is because this portion of the statute does not apply to lanes. If there is a lane of traffic per KRS 189.340 (6) (a) that vehicle “SHALL” occupy as much of the lane as “Possible.” And in the use of both the words “shall” and “possible” and with the understanding that by not being fully in a lane interferes with the rights of other road users, this statute is imperative.

As a cyclist, as any road user, you are required to occupy a lane of travel and this statute has nothing to do with driving on the shoulder. It is only because of a lack of education on this subject that we have fools in both camps. Worse, we have fools on the public roads, police stations, and courtrooms.

The idea, that this law requires a cyclist to operate on the right third of a lane of travel,needs to be burned with fire!

It doesn’t even apply to two lane highways. As can be seen in KRS 189.310 

189.310 Vehicles meeting other vehicles and animals. (1) Two (2) vehicles passing or about to pass each other in opposite directions shall have the right-of-way, and no other vehicle to the rear of those two (2) vehicles shall pass or attempt to pass either of those vehicles.
(2) Vehicles proceeding from opposite directions shall pass each other from the right, each giving to the other one-half (1/2) of the highway as nearly as possible.
(3) Every person operating a vehicle on a highway and approaching any animal being ridden or driven, shall exercise every reasonable precaution to prevent frightening the animal and to insure the safety of the person riding or driving it.

Get educated!

As a cyclist you should be educated on all the rules of the road. As a cyclist you should be educated on all the safe operations of movement on the road.

You have the right to be safe. Use it. Exercise your right.

images (9)
This is where cyclists keep as far right as practicable. This is what it looks like. Memorize it. Use it!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on by Cherokee S. 4

Victim blaming is rape culture and why we need to stop!

A cyclist was killed in Ohio.

Officials reported that Prater was wearing a helmet at the time of the crash.

“Preliminary information suggests that he was doing everything correct,” Drifmeyer said. Via Cincinnati.com

Humor me as I give this a creative rewrite.

A woman was killed in Ohio.

Officials reported that Prater was wearing a turtleneck at the time of the attack.

“Preliminary information suggest that she was doing everything correct,” Drifmeyer said.

When a person is killed by the intentional acts of another person, why do people feel they need to defend the actions of the victim; if the said victim is a person riding a bicycle?

Typically, when the media reports whether or not a person was or was not wearing some safety device i.e. high vis. clothing and/or helmet, it is because there is some type of legislation specifying its use or someone is trying to push legislation pushing its use.

When I lived in California, every news article and t.v. spot always mentioned whether or not the person was wearing a seat belt. They most frequently reported on those collisions in which someone was injured or killed and NOT wearing a seat belt.

There is ample scientific proof that wearing a seatbelt in a motor vehicle collision provides the user protection.

The same can not be said for the bicycle helmet.

Let me repeat that, in case you missed it.

There is ample scientific proof that wearing a seatbelt in a motor vehicle collision provides the user protection. Physics; Georgia State University

The same can not be said for the bicycle helmet. I couldn’t find a corresponding link to a science based article so here’s a Google search instead.

The cyclist was wearing a helmet.

He was wearing a helmet and he still died.

He may not have suffered any head injury due to wearing the helmet. Or he may have suffered severe head injury in spite of the helmet. The evidence isn’t presented in the media.

Stop legislating mandatory bicycle helmet use and stop making a point by reporting the use or nonuse of a bicycle helmet by the victim.

A bicycle helmet is no more protection to a cyclist against a 2 ton motorized weapon than a turtleneck is to a woman being attacked.

They are both the victims of an intentional act by an outside force.

The police suspect drugs were involved.

The use or nonuse of drugs, alcohol, cellphone, discipline of screaming kids in back seat, and the ever faithful “sun was in my eyes,” excuses are just that; excuses.

A person who uses alcohol or drugs and then gets behind the wheel is committing an intentional act.

A person using a cellphone while driving is committing an intentional act.

A person disciplining screaming kids in the back seat while operating a 2 ton motorized weapon is committing an intentional act.

A person who can not see the road ahead of them, yet continues to operate their 2 tons of motorized weaponry is committing an intentional act.

When you choose to do something behind the wheel, you are making a decision which places the lives of those around you and the lives of those in the vehicle, including your own, at risk. You are committing an intentional act.

I know people who treat their bicycle as the legally defined vehicle it is and still get treated with scathing disrespect by people who operate their legally defined MOTOR vehicle as though it were a toy.

Your motor vehicle is not a toy. No matter what the auto commercials may show  you.

The road is not where you express your “spirit for adventure!”

The police suspect drugs were involved.

A sober person rapes another person.

A drugged up person rapes another person.

A sober person kills another person.

A drugged up person kills another person.

The use or nonuse of drugs isn’t a defence and it isn’t an admission of culpability.

THE ACT OF KILLING IS WHERE IT’S AT!

As a society we make too many excuses for wrong behavior based on the thought that “It could have been me.” It could have been me except “I don’t do drugs,” so my conscience is clear and I’ll keep driving distracted because that’s not nearly as serious as doing drugs.

Except that it is.
See; Top Ten Dangerous Driving Habits, I bet you’ve done at least five of them if not all of them.

By “suspecting drugs,” we are giving a clean slate for others to kill.

The whole “it couldn’t possibly happen to me” syndrome. Except that it does.

A cyclist was riding on the edge of the road and a woman driving an SUV killed him. He was wearing a helmet and she thought she was giving him enough passing clearance. Her side view mirror struck the helmeted cyclists head at 55 mph and killed him. She was not drunk or on drugs. The sun was not in her eyes. Via. Biking in L.A.

She saw the cyclist and still killed him. She killed him because she did one thing wrong.

She did NOT treat him as the operator of a vehicle and instead of changing lanes to pass, like she would any other vehicle (including a motorcycle), she instead chose to pass him with minimal clearance.

This was an intentional act on her part.

This article also states that the driver was 77 years old.

Aging drivers are less able to judge distance. They also have poor motor coordination and it is the intentional act of the auto industry to promote their product in such a way that they have intentionally killed public transport.

By now you may have noticed a theme.

Driving is an intentional act. There are no excuses for killing someone when you are behind the wheel.

If you don’t need to drive, then don’t do it.

If you do need to drive, then do it with the thought “Today, would be the day I kill someone if I don’t put away these distractions and focus solely on driving.”

There are a lot of distracted drivers out there.

Distracted driving is ultimately the excuse given by the driver.

She claimed that she was distracted by unruly kids in the back seat. It was after the fact that they found evidence of drug paraphernalia in her purse. We won’t know for sure if she was high at the time, until lab work comes back. And if it is found that she was not under the influence at the time, THAT SHOULD NOT BE AN EXCUSE FOR GOING EASY ON HER. SHE KILLED SOMEONE!

Defending his honor!

We shouldn’t feel the need to defend the victims honor. We can honor the victim but elevating them to godlike status isn’t doing anyone any favors.

It is enough that they are a human being who lost their life.

The counter effect to defending the honor of those killed by people driving auto’s is this; Anyone who is less than perfect, and you know that none of us are perfect, implies that they are somehow to blame in their own death.

Neither does it matter that the cyclist killed is in fact a father, husband, and all around swell guy. He could be a bachelor who’s a real prick and his death would be every bit as important.

But if you paint them as being somehow unsavory then the attitude of people will be less likely to support the victim.

That is where the problem is.

Facts are the only thing that should matter. The content of their character doesn’t matter; when someone intentionally operates an auto in such a way that they kill someone, who they are as a person doesn’t matter.

The driver could have been Mother Teresa; sorry bad example. The driver could have been Doris Day and she should still be charged with a felony manslaughter. Her only saving grace would be if she could prove that she did everything possible to avoid the collision. In which case she too would be riding a bicycle, walking, or taking public transit.

5029386406_7947075f60
It is possible to take the kids along in a bicycle version of an SUV. 

This death should never have happened. Because she should never have gotten behind the wheel if she was in fact found to be under the influence at the time of the collision. She should never have taken her eyes off the road, not even for unruly kids.

How to drive with unruly kids.

  1. Don’t have kids.
  2. Don’t drive with kids if you do have them.
  3.  If you do have kids and you do intentionally choose to drive with them educate them on how serious driving is and why they have to behave.
  4.  If you have educated them and they still choose to behave like typical kids, then you keep your temper, you keep your eyes on the road, you scan the edge of the road for a safe place to pull over, you pull over, and then you discipline the kids.

Only after the interior of the car is completely calm do you then resume operations.

You don’t belong!

Why elevating the victim to sainthood hurts other road users.

“She sounds like someone we can support, unlike those other yahoo’s.” Andy Clarke

I’m sitting in court and my cycling advocate friend is sitting next to me. He is looking at his phone and he shows me an email he just received from Andy Clarke (Former President of League of American Bicyclists). He shows me the email. This is his attempt to show me that this backwater town isn’t going to ride rough shod over a cyclist. We have the support of Andy Clarke “big man honcho” with LAB.

My immediate thought was “those other yahoo’s?” and I asked my friend about what he meant by that. My friend brushed my concern aside by saying “You know wrong way cyclists, people who lost their license for driving drunk.” Those other people. Yahoo’s. He went on to say “but they aren’t like you Cherokee, you are cycling correctly and for the right reasons.”

Classifying people as “other” creates a distance between us and them. It creates an US vs. THEM. They are “those” people but we are “these” people. “Those” people do it wrong but “these” people do it right.

You have to cycle correctly and for the right reasons?

Because, if you don’t then you could be held liable in your own death?

Drivers Fault.PNG
Not according to already established case law. 

That’s right! If you are driving a motor vehicle and you injure someone else then you should be presumed at fault.

But this would discourage driving so auto companies have paid to influence our perspective.

Watch the news. Count the car commercials. Notice any collisions reported where the injured person is not in an auto.

I did.

Here’s what I found.

Roughly 80% of the placed ads were for auto’s. 100% of the ads implied that driving is exhilarating, for freedom lovers, and that public roads are personal playgrounds.

Of the injuries reported the vulnerable road user was painted as somehow at fault.

Except that legally they are not.

Except that since “Deputy v kimmell” there has been a push for laws to make it legal to find fault with vulnerable road users.

Imagine if we did the same thing for rapists? Or people who kill other people with guns?

Imagine a world where it is normal to assume the woman was somehow at fault in her own rape based on her clothes or lack thereof. We don’t really have to imagine because we do live in a world where such judgments exist.

But imagine if they passed legislation placing the woman at fault if she wasn’t wearing a turtleneck at the time of her attack.

Or imagine; they passed legislation placing fault of a mass shooting on the children killed because they were in school instead of adjacent to the school.

Such thoughts should be highly offensive to you.

but this is exactly what we are doing when we blame people for being assaulted by someone with a motor vehicle.

Why I take the lane.

I take the lane because it reduces risk. I’m a survivalist. I’ve put aside all the urban myths and studied the facts.

I found that wearing a helmet to protect you from car collisions is a myth. Or to reduce the severity of injury in a car collision, also a myth. (I would however wear a helmet to protect me from head injury if I were say; Mountain Biking or Group Riding.)

I found that cycling on the shoulder isn’t safer than taking the lane.

I stopped wearing a helmet because the social response from people driving cars was “Omigosh! She’s so vulnerable without a helmet!” and they give me more space by default.

I stopped cycling on the shoulder because I found that when I’m in the lane people notice me. When I’m in the lane and people don’t notice me, this has happened, they have space to the right to ditch out on.

Anyone who would blame me for being in the lane is victim blaming. Review the graphic on Deputy v Kimmell. Anyone blaming the cyclist for being killed while on the shoulder is victim blaming.

THAT SHIT HAS TO STOP AND IT HAS TO STOP NOW! 

If you would like to donate to the family’s GoFundMe account you can do so here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on by Cherokee S. 0

Observing Traffic Court

If you want to put your finger on the pulse of car culture; observe traffic court.

The light was yellow for 2.7 seconds. I didn’t have time to stop in 2.7 seconds. So I went forward because I was worried about being cited for impeding traffic.
Actual testimony from a defendant.

 

There was so much traffic. The light was hard to see. I was worried about what the people behind me would do so I went through the light. I didn’t want to block the intersection.
Actual testimony from a defendant.

 

My van was loaded down with bricks. I must have had like a ton of weight back there. The road was really slick from all the rain and I knew I wouldn’t be able to stop in time. So I went through the light.
Actual testimony from a defendant.

The motorcycle cop who cited all three of these defendants had a helmet cam. He presented the video evidence to the court.

One of these defendants had their traffic ticket dismissed. The other two did not.

Traffic Lights

§ 811.260¹

Appropriate driver responses to traffic control devices

(4) Steady circular yellow signal. A driver facing a steady circular yellow signal light is thereby warned that the related right of way is being terminated and that a red or flashing red light will be shown immediately. A driver facing the light shall stop at a clearly marked stop line…

(7) Steady circular red signal. A driver facing a steady circular red signal light alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line…

The driver of a vehicle is required to keep their vehicle under control at all times. They are required to be on the lookout for other road users who may be in their path of travel.

As I sat and listened to the drivers giving their excuses as to why they failed to head the traffic control light, a theme began to appear.

  1. I was distracted.
  2. I didn’t have my vehicle under control.
  3. I was worried about the people behind me.
  4. I couldn’t stop in time.

All of the defendants excuses appeared to be valid in their minds. None of these excuses took into consideration anyone else who may have been using Oregon’s public right of ways. Namely pedestrians but also cyclists.

Speed Laws

§ 811.100¹

Violation of basic speed rule
(1) A person commits the offense of violating the basic speed rule if the person drives a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard to all of the following:
(a) The traffic.
(b) The surface and width of the highway.
(c) The hazard at intersections.
(d) Weather.
(e) Visibility.
(f) Any other conditions then existing.

If you can’t keep your vehicle under control; you are going too fast.

If you can’t safely stop at the yellow; you are going too fast.

If you can’t safely stop at the red; you are going too fast.

If the speed limit is posted at 35 mph but you can’t safely drive 35 mph then by law you are required to slow down.

Safety Zones

§ 811.030¹

Driving through safety zone
(1) The driver of a vehicle commits the offense of driving through a safety zone if the driver at any time drives through or within any area or space officially set apart within a roadway for the exclusive use of pedestrians and which is protected or is so marked or indicated by adequate signs as to be plainly visible at all times while set apart as a safety zone.
In the video, which the officer showed to the court, each of these drivers went through a safety zone. Their testimony indicated their inability to ascertain if there was a pedestrian present at the time they committed their violations.
While no one was injured, this time. It is a clear indicator that motorists are not educated about the rights of pedestrians. Nor are they educated about their duties as a motorist to be on the lookout for pedestrians or cyclists.
A glaringly obvious example of this is through TriMets “Show them your shine.” ad campaign. Seeing these ads on display throughout Portland heats my blood to a simmering boil.

sddefault
Part pedestrian and part cyclist. It is clear that the ad is placing the onus on the vulnerable road user to be seen. A subversive form of propaganda and victim blaming.

Oregon’s roads are first come, first served, and duty of care.

§ 801.440¹
Right of way
Right of way means the right of one vehicle or pedestrian to proceed in a lawful manner in preference to another vehicle or pedestrian approaching under such circumstances of direction, speed and proximity as to give rise to danger of collision unless one grants precedence to the other. [1983 c.338 §81]

Two of the defendants were found guilty.

One of the defendants was able to get his ticket dismissed. The dismissal was due to a lack of evidence. The evidence was based on the question of whether the yellow light was timed correctly and the vantage point of the officers video did not reveal the defendants traffic control signal.

All in all it was very edifying and I highly recommend it for all pedestrian and cycling advocates.

In all things, remember this, running a red light is illegal. The reason it is illegal is because it isn’t safe. It isn’t safe for you and it isn’t safe for any of the road users around you. Keep your vehicle under control and keep the safety of other road users in mind. Do not worry about what the people behind you are going to do. The person behind you is required to show you courtesy and safety by keeping their vehicle under control.

 

 

 

 

Posted on by Cherokee S. 0