A preventable and tragic death: Some Lessons

Google maps view. 
Black line is the route of a cyclist riding the 
rail-trail, south to north. Ms. LeBeau was riding
 north and crossed the tracks 
at the crossing just S. of Zia.

On Saturday morning, April 19th, Suzanne LeBeau, an avid cyclist, was killed when she rode her bicycle directly into the path of the southbound Rail Runner train at the point where the Santa Fe Rail Trail crosses the tracks just south of the Zia Road rail crossing. According to discussions with a Journal reporter, she was travelling northbound on the rail trail, which jogs briefly east to cross the tracks and then continues north on the west side of South St. Francis.

Commenters to a local TV outlet claim she was wearing some sort of headphones or earphones. This has not been confirmed by the ongoing police investigation. Presumably if earphones were present, they will be discovered.

Also relevant is that rail trail runs parallel to S. St. Francis at that location and approaches from behind the train station. A cyclist riding north at that point will be screened for a while and then looking at the sides of the lights and crossing arms in a large and busy intersection. The cyclist will also be looking directly towards the southbound train. Although we are told "...the (Santa Fe Police) department stated that the railroad barrier arms, safety lights, warning sirens and the train’s horn were all activated and working properly..." readers must note that there are in fact no barriers or safety lights whatsoever at the actual rail trail crossing used by cyclists!

We will never know everything that happened on Saturday to cause this tragedy, as Suzanne is not here to explain it. My condolences go out to her family and to the train engineer, who was powerless to stop events.

Are there lessons here for cyclists, municipal planners, and facility designers?

First, the cyclist must always maintain his or her situational awareness and anticipate hazards. We must constantly be asking "what can happen at this intersection or crossing and what will I do about it". Whether the cyclist was wearing headphones is less relevant than how a cyclist compensates for the loss of critical sensory information under potentially adverse conditions. Darkness, cold (requiring headgear), high winds, and other inclement situations can compromise one's sensory safety envelope and require adjustment. Distracted riding, or riding with a lot on your mind can be perilous as it takes away your ability to sense and evaluate danger.

Secondly, the design standards we require for trails should be comparable to those for an immediately adjacent roadway -- if there are barriers and lights for a busy roadway, why not for a key rail trail crossing at that very busy intersection and for the same reasons: we anticipate people will need advance warning of conditions at a busy intersection or crossing. Indeed, this is not just any trail, but a major part of Santa Fe's offroad bicycle network, made necessary because many of its major roads (and especially its state-managed highways such as St. Francis Drive) are decidedly bicyclist-unfriendly, thus requiring off road workarounds. In this context, it is not clear to me why a cyclist should fail to benefit from some sort of warning light or barrier system similar to that enjoyed by motorists. This is especially true because a cyclist arriving via the Rail Trail is riding at right angles to the barriers and warning lights. Is it possible that this reduced visibility coupled with background visual clutter did not give the warning that the designers assumed?

Some of this discussion goes to the very heart of defining the roles of the cyclist and the government in maintaining roadway safety. We have to balance personal responsibility with an appropriate government role in building safe, well-engineered facilities. Let's reexamine these roles today, and not let Suzanne LeBeau die in vain.

The author, me, has been heavily involved in cycling advocacy for a quarter century. I am a League Cycling Instructor, board member of the Bicycle Coalition of New Mexico, a member of the Los Alamos County Transportation Board and while a member have contributed to the 2005 Los Alamos Bike Plan and 2010 Complete Streets ordinance. I am currently chair of the LANL Traffic Safety Committee, While president of the Hawaii Bicycling League, I assisted in the creation of the Honolulu Bicycle Master Plan (1999).  Having said that, the comments above are mine alone and are not endorsed or blessed by any of those entities. 

Creating Jobs: Is It Really Business vs. Government?

43rd District GOP candidate Vincent Chiravalle and others, one here have recently batted back and forth the idea of job creation and whether Government is involved in a constructive or negative way. I think both sides miss the point a little, or perhaps their letters are not long enough to elaborate.

First off, its rather hilarious to think that in little Los Alamos County, government does not create jobs. Without that 900 pound Federal gorilla in town redistributing other people's tax dollars (Vince and I both work there), "...the woman who does your nails, the local organic farmer, artists and musicians, your landscaper and the restaurant owner..." would not even be here. Perhaps a feed store and a general store, and if it had not been moved, a small private school would be all that would exist on the Hill. Indeed, New Mexico's economy is quite dependent on public sector, i.e., government jobs and indeed there are legions of stories about overregulation and public sector faceplants to be found.

But in the bigger picture, it has to be a fruitful collaboration of good government and good business practice that creates an advantageous environment for an economy to grow. Reliable and state of the art public services and utilities, high quality public education, fair taxation to provide essential services, and laws that provide a good regulatory roadmap to guide the private sector while ensuring the pubic and its land are protected against short-sighted goals that create long term costly side effects, are all essential ingredients for a robust and sustainable economy. Business, in turn, has to provide a good product and act in a way that instills the trust of the public and its work force, both in its products and business practices. It also has to make enough money and endure a tolerable amount of red tape if we want Joe's Business to want to stay in business rather than voting its feet! The purpose of elections is to air out the competing public interests that inevitably arise in these discussions, let the competition of ideas give us better solutions, and let the voter decide on priorities.

Let's stop putting black and white hats on people and institutions. There is too much to do in the 21st Century for us to be arguing over cardboard-cutout adversaries. Meanwhile, I thank Vince, Geoff Rogers, Stephanie Garcia-Richards, and any other candidates I've forgotten, for giving us good people to choose from in the coming 43rd District election. Plus, I thank all the local businesspeople for providing us the services that make Los Alamos a great place to live and work.

Bring On the Essay Contests!

My initial thoughts on reading in the Daily Post that the local Right to Life organization was sponsoring an essay contest among LA Schools students to see who could write the most compelling anti-abortion essay were decidedly sour. But, I think we might be on to something useful. Not that we need to have local special interest groups encourage young people to circumvent meaningful thought, but perhaps we need a real, live opportunity for our students to have a public essay contest writing about current affairs, but from a more neutral, thoughtful perspective. Good writing demonstrates good thinking and both are important to good citizenship. So here are some ideas for topics, starting with the obvious:

1. I just discovered that I/my LA Schools girlfriend am/is pregnant out of wedlock. We have both been accepted to top ranked universities. Once we get over the initial panic, what will our thinking be as we decide what to do about it? Who will we talk to? What values will help us decide what to do next?

2. Holy Pueblo Complex Gun Show, Batman! What does the 2nd Amendment REALLY say about our right to bear arms? What original source documents can we read and understand to figure out the context of the Founders' text? Did the Supreme Court get it right in Heller vs. D.C.?

3. Mom and Dad's paychecks aside, what is/are the role(s) of nuclear weapons in the 21st Century world?

4. Now that Mom and Dad bought yet another SUV, how serious is the problem of human-induced climate change and what if anything, should individuals and government do about it?

5. How can we sustain ourselves in an increasingly water-limited Southwest? What government and individual decisions need to be made and implemented?

6. How shall we manage illegal immigration?

7. What should economic development look like in Los Alamos?

8. First Amendment vs. First Amendment. As a for profit business owner with strong religious beliefs, can I withdraw health coverage from my employees if the coverage compels me to pay for procedures that violate my conscience?

Students would be limited to essays of roughly 1000 words or less, depending on what the Schools English teaching staff tells us is reasonable for a given grade level. A relatively unbiased (if there is such a thing) panel would judge the essays on the basis of lucid and grammatically correct writing, persuasiveness, and the documentation and credibility of any factual assertions. Points of view that are offered with the previous qualities intact will be judged without bias.   The winners and first runners up would receive a check and would read their essays at a public forum. Perhaps the two local newspapers could sponsor this, and round up volunteers as judges.

Let's make lemonade out of this lemon.

Guns, School Boards and Trojan Horses

Dear Los Alamos School Board

Copy, E. Schmidt, LA Monitor, LA Daily Post

Although the front page article in the Sunday, 9 March LA Monitor indicates a proper level of skepticism by the School Board to Mr. Langenbrunner's broad anti-gun proposals, I would like to state that as a taxpayer and voter, I do not think that the School Board is the proper venue for setting public policy that goes far beyond the school board's legitimate areas of expertise or governance, i.e., the controls on and accessibility to firearms within our schools.

The proper place for a discussion about gun control, including ideas on background checks and the role of semiautomatic weapons in public hands, lies with our State and Federal legislatures, not school boards. Should the Board, speaking for our schools, take an overly broad stand on such subjects, one can probably surmise that future school board elections will be contested not on the basis of good education policy, but instead be contested on the basis of gun control platforms.  I don't think I need to remind anyone what a potentially polarizing issue this could be, especially if handled badly. Indeed, using student safety as a Trojan Horse for an attack on firearms rights is not only bad politics, but blatantly dishonest. This is, after all, Los Alamos, not Inner City Chicago.

I also suspect this is another tired attempt to move the annual gun show out of Pueblo Complex. Do we really need to fight that battle of style over substance yet again?

Individual Board members, to be sure, are entitled to state their opinions on the subject of gun control as individual citizens. Indeed, I hope you do so.

Lecture: The Truth About Gun Violence and Mental Illness

At the Center for Contemporary Arts, Santa Fe, Cinamatheque, Weds, 26 February, 6 p.m.

The Truth About Gun Violence and Mental Illness

A presentation by Dr. Jeffrey Swanson
Can we predict public shootings before they happen? Is there a correlation between gun violence and mental illness? How do we balance individual rights and public safety? The UNM Dept. of Psychiatry IDEAS program presents Dr. Jeffrey Swanson, a national expert on mental health law and policy studies from Duke University, to discuss his research on these important questions. Dr. Swanson, is a popular speaker and expert resource for the media and policy makers, is a medical sociologist with additional expertise in psychiatric epidemiology and mental health services effectiveness research.
6:00p Wednesday, February 26 - FREE public presentation, to register or for more information: http://IDEASinPsychiatry.unm.edu or call 505.272.3592. Seating is open, first come first served.

More in the Albuquerque Journal

Location
1050 Old Pecos Trail, Santa Fe

Call

Send SMS

Add to Skype

You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype

Catch and Release: The Saga of Judge Raphaelson, Aaron Nguyen, and Public Safety

Consult The Court for Details

Somewhat incomprehensibly, District Court Judge Sheri Raphaelson has once again given  convicted burglar Aaron Nguyen a get out of jail free pass. This is in spite of her telling him at his initial sentencing hearing, on multiple felonies, that if he violated any of the terms of his probation, he would go to jail for the full term of his sentence. Mr. Nguyen promptly violated those terms and it would seem he called Her Honor's bluff. Indeed, Judge Raphaelson is now saying ""A prison sentence for a 100-pound, 19-year-old boy is grossly inappropriate...I do not hesitate to send people to prison who deserve to be in prison ... I am not sending Mr. Nguyen to prison." So much for having a stick to go along with that judicial carrot.

It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to recognize that a "100 pound, 19 year old boy" is quite capable of wielding a gun and using it to destructive effects equal to that of someone larger and older using the same weapon; indeed, that's why the old saying goes that God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal.. For those who need examples, one only has to think of Columbine or Newtown.  Presumably there is some measurable risk to society when a young man who, according to the Daily Post is reportedly bipolar, is a felon convicted on firearms charges, who was caught with a whole bedroom of stolen guns, and who unlawfully entered a public school in violation of his sentencing restrictions is now in residence at one of our state universities.  That he is residing at a college after being banned from a school should give Judge Raphaelson pause.

There has to be a balance between sending someone who can be rehabilitated to jail (or some other form of involuntary confinement) and ensuring the safety of the community.  Judges and parole boards make those calls. Many in the community, perhaps not the direct victims, might have supported the initial judicial decision had the trust not been broken last November.  Perhaps many still do, but it would be interesting to find out. I think we all hope that anyone in such a difficult position is able to reform and rehabilitate without further legal turmoil or community jitters--but few of us want to be buying deadbolts for our doors or guns for our bedstands in peaceful Los Alamos. Therefore, I think its time that the public had a discussion about that balance between lenient treatment vs. public safety in more general terms.

According to a web search, Judge Raphaelson ran unopposed in the last general election to which she stood for her office. Hopefully, next time she will have an opponent and the public will have the opportunity to weigh in on not only how we pass judgement on the defendant in the docket, but on how we ensure the safety of our community.

Finally, this whole episode calls into question the notion of passing more gun control laws. When judges run catch and release programs out of their courtrooms, its not likely that more laws would do much good because the ones we have on the books are not being enforced effectively. The message this story sends is that there is less in the way of accountability for those who are guilty of society's most serious offenses, felonies, than I'd like to see. Let's examine that problem at the next judicial election cycle.

"...The real problem here is the way in which the law looks at the crime of burglary, particularly residential burglary. It is, in most every state, considered a “property crime.” But ask anyone who has been victimized in this manner, and he or she will tell you it is, in reality, a “crime of violence.” Perhaps not a direct assault on the victim’s person but a violent assault on one’s sense of safety, security and comfort. The psychological damage can be enormous. "

--Former Sheriff's Deputy MacKenzie Allen, in a Santa Fe New Mexican Reader's View

Purpose of 2nd Amendment?

Whose Rights?

In what's apparently been an ongoing Second Amendment discussion in the Daily Post, Chick Keller asks "A careful reading shows that the (2nd) amendment uses for its justification of personal possession of guns, the necessity for a "well-armed militia.” Since we no longer have (or need) such a militia, hasn't that reasoning gone away, and haven't we returned to a state where individual possession is no longer necessary?" Mr. Keller further opines "This might not mean that people can't have guns, but it would mean that their right to "bear arms" is no longer supported by the Constitution."

Interesting question. I'm not convinced the "well regulated militia" (actual Constitutional wording) doesn't exist, as it has morphed into a National Guard. The Guard itself draws on the general population, as the Founders desired. The Federal Government established the Civilian Marksmanship Program in 1903 in the hopes that we could ensure new recruits or conscripts could shoot straight and know the muzzle from the breech of a 1903 Springfield rifle. This program has more recently been redefined by Public Law 104-106, (10 February 1996) which created the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety.

The Second Amendment has far less to do with defending one's self against crooks, blue helmets, or black helicopters, as some would assert, and more to do with the separation of powers. Some have suggested that self defense and putting food on the table are such basic human rights that the Founders would not have considered these as needing protection. The 2nd's basis was in a broadly disseminated militia to be called on in defense of the nation or state in support of a limited standing army. Its never been considered an unlimited right to own any gun for any reason, even by the current conservative Supreme Court.

So, if some folks don't think that the Constitutional context for private gun ownership is relevant due to our large standing army, military industrial complex, and drone warfare, does that mean the public's right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment is no longer supported by the Constitution?

I'm not sure I buy into the idea that we can casually dispense with portions of the Bill of Rights merely because they don't seem relevant to some of us. If the public no longer values the 2nd Amendment, it can do what is right and proper: repeal or modify it. That has been done with the 18th Amendment (Prohibition), which was repealed with the 21st. Such a mechanism is far less ambiguous to the public, the courts, Congress, or the Executive Branch.

That said, the 2nd Amendment is not only clear in its statement that the people own the right to keep and bear arms as the underpinnings of a well regulated militia, but it is symbolic of a distribution of power away from a central Federal authority. Many Conservatives value it for not only its literal empowerment of the citizen owning a gun, but in its distrust of a Federal authority owning all the guns. I don't think that notion is going to go away any time soon, and indeed, may be inflamed by thoughts of removing 2nd Amendment protections. Perhaps we need to find a less polarizing way to solve our gun violence problem than by scrubbing the Bill of Rights of one of its ten guarantees of freedom.