Comments by AKMomof9
Page 1 of 6 | Next
Posted on May 12 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The monkey stuff.....VERY CHILDISH!!!!
Posted on May 12 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No one has been FORCED into our military for years. So in reality the people that volunteered to be in the military must on at least some level agree with what they are doing. Maybe not every aspect of it but to some degree agree.
Posted on May 12 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom54
Also, I'm not sure 'right-of-way' means what you think it means. According to the AAC definitions [13 AAC 40.010], right-of-way is: "the right of one vehicle or pedestrian to proceed in preference to another vehicle or pedestrian approaching under circumstances of direction, speed and proximity which give rise to danger of collision unless one grants precedence to the other". In other words, in this situation, the car was at fault for pulling into the crosswalk and obstructing another vehicle (the bike).
LOL LOL Yes Tom that is EXACTLY what I know it to mean! We do not have enough information to know exactly where the car was coming from, at what momentum, and the status of their lights. But, if a car was already in the process of coming up to and going through that intersection then they had the right of way over the bike (unless they were running a red light which would change everything, but Grace did not say anything like that). There are many vehicles that CANNOT stop on a dime, mine is one of them. Yes we are supposed to drive defensively and so is the person on the bike.....since they are required to obey the traffic laws and look out for their own best interests....if some biker runs in front of me and I hit them it is more than likely that they are the one that will have the most significant injury. As long as there was no “red light running” or anything like that.....the vehicle had the right of way.....NOT Grace because she was acting as a “vehicle” not a pedestrian.
Grace was not obeying the traffic laws if she was crossing the road while riding her bike and using the pedestrian lights as her guide of when she could go or not. She has a choice to either function as a pedestrian (walk) and receive the protections and rights as such or function as a driver (ride) and receive the protections and rights in that regard. To ride her bike across means she has to wait for the traffic light to change and ride across at the same time as any vehicle. If she wants to be treated as a pedestrian she has to cross the intersection with the walking light and walk her bike across. She can’t have it both ways!!!
Posted on May 12 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BTW....for those that do their job well I too commend, thank, and respect them!!! It is the ones with a "god-like" attitude that I can't stand and those are the ONLY ones I have been referring too. (Yes that is a problem with many law enforcement agencies....but it seems that the airport position seems to attract that type of character with a higher percentile.) Everyone that I have known that were NOT of that type did not stay long.
With much of my family and friends in law enforcement, I do know many officers in many branches of law enforcement that I cannot say enough amazing things about! Not all cops have that “god-like” attitude.
In all fairness I fly on average of 2 – 3 times a month and I have not had any issues with any of the airport police in the last year or so and I do not know anyone that currently works there. I did hear that the new chief is trying to make some changes.....maybe that is why.
Finally......Yes the airport police SHOULD carry guns. I want them in place for when and if we need them......I would just appreciate a different attitude from some of them.
Posted on May 12 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As I said in a previous post sarcoidjeff.....you can't throw the baby out with the bath water, not all the officers at the airport are that way, and they all do get EXCELLENT training! I TOTALLY agree with that!
My point is that the arrogant attitudes and petty things that SOME of them stop people for is a waste of time and their training.
Couple years ago we had once again another “run in” with one of the “wonderful” airport police officers. We have a child in a wheel chair. Had our Handicap Parking permit hung right on the mirror where it belonged. We parked in the Handicapped parking in the short term parking for my husband to help my son and I in and get settled to go to one of his doctor appointments outside. My husband came out of the airport alone and the cop ran right over to him and asked him if he was handicapped. My husband said no. WITHOUT bothering to ask if he had dropped off someone or was picking up someone that might be handicapped, the cop proceeded to lecture him on the law about parking in a handicapped spot. Since most people are dropped off or picked up from the airport and we were parked in the short term parking it would stand to reason that my husband was either dropping off or picking someone up. At the very least the officer should have asked if there was someone either going to or from the vehicle with handicapped status. I just think it is amazing that he had the time to harass my husband about something that he was doing LEGALLY!!! Most people that I know with handicapped plates/permits use them legally. Yes there will be some that are driving a vehicle with a handicapped plate or permit without the handicapped person in the vehicle and they use the handicapped spots but that is rare in my experience. Because we have to live with the need for the handicapped spots we realize the importance of using them only for handicapped people.
But as far as the officer at the airport.....he had the attitude that he was the boss and was going to give my hubby “what for.” After he got done with his lecture my husband then told him that he was very aware of the law and told him why he was parked legally. The officer did not know what to say and stuttered something about having a nice day and walked off. No apology or anything. ARROGANT!!!
To N2AK
Am aware of the ride along, and speaking for someone that has been on a couple airport “ride alongs” (not me but someone close) I am quite aware of what the job entails. Most of the people that I personally know that have worked at the airport have left because it is TOO SLOW and BORING.
BTW......I too talk from experience of the many people in my life that are in several areas of law enforcement.
Posted on May 12 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom54
The State of Alaska Driver Manual does state that Bicyclists are required to obey traffic signs, signals, and all other traffic laws. So here I go assuming again but since the law equates bicyclists with motor vehicles as far as following the traffic laws and it is not legal for me to drive my vehicle on a side walk I would assume it is not legal for a bike. As far as the other things like skates, etc, from what I found they are considered a pedestrian. And no....I did not see anything that states that bikers MUST walk their bikes across a crosswalk but it would not surprise me if that was the fact. In Michigan where I am from that was the law although it was rarely enforced.
But the point being made here is that Grace was not walking her bike so she was not a pedestrian. Had she been walking her bike across then she would have had the “right of way” status of a pedestrian. If you are on your bike you have to follow the traffic laws so she basically ran a red light and could have been charged as such.
Posted on May 12 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tipperon a agree with you and if your son was following the rules of the road then that driver of the car should have been charged with a hit and run!
However...so many people on bikes feel that they have the right of way just like a pedestrian does and that is just not the law. Grace from her own description (was riding across the intersection) did not have the right of way. If the driver of the car had a green light and had the cops been called she is the one that would have received the ticket, been forced to pay damages for the car, etc. No different than if another car was ramming through an intersection and hit someone.
Sounds like Grace basically ran a red light. She should be thankful that she did not get hurt or in any legal trouble rather than complaining about the person that did have the right of way!
Posted on May 12 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A pedestrian is a person travelling on foot, whether walking or running. (Taken from Wikipedia.)
Bicyclists are required to obey traffic signs, signals, and all other traffic laws. Always be alert for other traffic. (Taken from the State of Alaska Driver Manual.)
In most if not all states, the bicycle is legally defined as a vehicle. Bicyclists using a public roadway are considered operators of motor vehicles and are responsible for observing traffic laws. Adherence to the law is the foundation of respect.
So, bicyclists are not pedestrians!!! Since they are not pedestrians they do NOT have the right of way! If you were walking your bike across the intersection then you would have had that right of way. As it was, you had no more of a right of way then someone running a red light!!!
Posted on May 11 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry Little_Alaskan
I did go look at their web site and it does say that their PRIMARY training site is Sitka (leaves the assumption available that Sitka is NOT the ONLY training site). That combined with my own experience with airport officers that I and/or my hubby know. So I was sort of wrong and I will admit that. :-) Thanks Chelly in helping to point out my error.
Page 1 of 6 | Next
Posted on May 12 at 7:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah akjak.....lets tell our teenagers that rules and regulations don't matter. What a bright idea!!!! If Grace was breaking the law she should be called on it. It is legal to drive those, what did you say, huge, dangerous hunks of metal......what a joke!!! And…..I will continue to drive my van when I feel it is necessary and I will go the speed limit while doing so. I will not drop my speed down to a crawl in the event that someone on a bike just might dart out in front of me. If they do that then that is their fault and although I may feel compassion for their pain and/or death…..I won’t take on the responsibility for their actions!!!!
Sure if the driver would have run over her he would have felt bad. Even if he was in the right, which I believe from what Grace told us. But.....that still does not change the fact that a car already in motion cannot stop on a dime and for anyone to suggest that is just being ridiculous. If I am going the speed limit and obeying the traffic laws I will NOT feel at fault if some irresponsible biker darts out in front of me and hits my car. Think about it....Grace hit the car, not the other way around. Which means the car was in the process of going through the intersection before Grace. Had she been watching she should have seen it coming and waited…..since that lit white pedestrian sign did not apply to her anyway!
I drive defensively and I do watch out for other people when I drive but I do expect that when I see a biker on the side of the road, that is where they are going to stay. If they choose to dart out in front of me then they will have to suffer the consequences of their actions.
On Bike accident