Sheriff Candidate's Field Test

[XLFD]

Very early this morning, I sent a couple of E-mails to the two sheriff's candidates concerning two different topics that have recently come up here in the City of Ludington.  One of these, I sent to Sergeant Kim Cole, because he apparently exacerbated the problem.  It had to deal with a safety issue:

Monday, July 23, 2012  12:45 AM

Sergeant Cole,   

I was recently told (on 7-21-2012) by the daytime gate attendant at Epworth Heights that you had said it is appropriate to put a steel bar with concrete moorings across the entrance/exit of the pathway that is just across from the entrance to Epworth (see attachment).

Consequently, in the multiple times I have moved it off the pathway, it has been moved back by whomever so that it is once again across the pathway. I understand the rationale for someone thinking that it is needed there to keep motorists from using the pathway because some do not heed the sign there that says "No Motorized Vehicles.

The impediment, however, has the inherent property of making the legal use of that path by bicycles unsafe, may violate the law, and definitely sets the City of Ludington up for liability issues if a bicyclist (or even a motorist) runs into it and suffers damage.

It makes such passage unsafe, since the bicyclist either has to go on the grass to get around it or go on sandy shoulders of that path to get around it (which you can see in the attached picture). I have clipped it with a pedal as I have tried to get around it, and have turned onto that path from the road and bumped into it when it has shown up in the past. I have seen another rider wipe out in the sand going around it.

It may violate the law since by definition this pathway is a "bicycle path", the MI Uniform Traffic Code defines as "a portion of a street or highway that is separated from the roadway by an open,unpaved space or by a barrier and that is established for the use of persons riding bicycles." MCL 257.676b says one cannot "block, obstruct, impede, or otherwise interfere with the normal flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic upon a public street or highway in this state, by means of a barricade, object, or device, or with his or her person"
As a bicycle path is a portion of a street, blocking it would seem to be a violation of this law. How would it be received by the law if someone put this concrete and iron barrier out onto M-116?

Most importantly it's a big liability issue for the City. If someone rides their bike or walks into this barrier and hurts themselves by that or by the fall, you have a lawsuit. If someone ill-advisedly takes a motorcycle or vehicle up this path and hits this barrier, which can be likely during periods of low visibility, you may have another lawsuit. If someone falls trying to ride around this barrier or slips on the sand which always is there for many days after a rainfall, a possible lawsuit. As a taxpayer in this City and County who would be paying for these lawsuits, I don't like the officials saying this barrier, placed contrary to the law and safety of the path users, needs to be there as a supplementary (but illegal) traffic control device so that motorists don't use the pathway.

So either tell me this gatesman was in error or tell me why exactly you feel this dangerous, unlawful liability should be allowed to continue to exist as a nuisance to the public?

Tom Rotta
The Ludington Torch

 

If and when he resolves this issue one way or the other, I will publish what that is, and give my analysis of it; as always, other Ludington Torchers can comment on it as well.  But I did not just give Kim a problem to solve where he may likely have to discuss things with Ludington officials, I also gave Jeff a problem that may involve that, dealing with the recently discussed invasion of privacy issue that was noticed at the Ludington City Marina.  Here is Sheriff Fiers' problem to resolve:

 

Monday, July 23, 2012 12:45 AM  (same time)

Sheriff Fiers,

I know you're busy running a campaign, and handling the day to day problems of the County, but can I ask you to look into the problem at the marina described in this thread: http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/chief-mark-barnett-hi....
It deals with the positioning of one of the cameras at the municipal marina. I would hope you can find out why the camera, which records 24/7, is pointed at boat slips when it should be pointed at valid security spots, like entrances and perimeters, of the marina.
The current positioning only views boat slips, I was in Chief Barnett's office looking at what this camera recorded for the night when Lingyan Zou drowned there, and was appalled at the lack of thought for having a camera mounted and positioned there since last year, recording the personal lives of people who pay lots of money for those boat slips and who expect a modicum of privacy. When it could easily have been trained on the perimeter and could have recorded what actually happened with Lingyan Zou.

Tom Rotta
The Ludington Torch

 

This should be an excellent one question field test on their leadership skills, problem solving capability, temperament for the job, and law interpretive skills.  Good luck, gentlemen; remember you are being evaluated.

[Sweater Cows!]

Can COL residents vote for County sheriff(since the city has its own dept)?

[XLFD]

Yes, we can; but that seeming advantage is overshadowed by the fact that we can't vote for our own police chief, and so we wind up getting  stuck with any sort of stooge they decide to put in that post. 

[Willy]

 I always thought that barrier was to keep cyclists and walkers who were not paying attention or who were not aware of the road from walking/riding onto the roadway. A sort of safety barrier to prevent someone from accidentially wandering into traffic.

[XLFD]

According to my knowledgable gatesman, it was solely to keep motorists from going up there.  And peds and cyclists, except the ones that may need to be weeded out by evolutionary controls anyhow, should know there is a major road coming up there, but I agree it should be more emphasized somehow.  Tourists seeing the Epworth gate across the way might just avoid checking for traffic because of the solid barrier of spruce trees alongside.

There really should, however, be pavement markings and/or signs warning that the upcoming shoulder is not safe to just hop onto (when coming out onto M-116) as cars turning into the main road in Cartier (Slagle?) may be on the shoulders.  If the Cartier people were safety conscious, I think they would also clear out every other spruce tree lining the road for visibility's sake.  

 

[AQUAMAN]

Just my 2 cents, but, I believe that barrier serves two purposes, at least as I saw it last year. If you are biking/walking west on it, the end for you is entering Lakeshore Drive, speed limit there is 45-55mph, depending on the spot. Don't want to run into that kind of force from a hidden 90 degree angle, right? If you are driving a car on Lakeshore N or S, ppl going slow or having missed Cartier Park may turn there in error, thinking it's another driveway to enter into, making for another fiasco. To me, I believe the end of the bike path should have perhaps been circular in nature, set back about 50'-100' from Lakeshore, cautioning the highway ahead with signage appropriate, and making the path a dead end to cruise back in reverse, or make another path way for the easterly traffic. Ain't rocket science, just common sense for all concerned imho. Heck, regarding the end of the pathway, why not get a bit fancy, have several stations where bikers can get water/pop, rest, picnic, air for tires, make it better, improvise COL.

[XLFD]

The first result is in.  Phil was right, I was talking amicably with Sgt. Cole, and it was about this very topic.  At about 3:34 PM he sent me this E-mail:  "Tom,

First, thanks for contacting me about this instead of simply reporting it to others. I honestly do thank you for that.

Let me address your concerns: I never told anyone anything about the barrier. The only contact I have had with the staff at Epworth was at a recent rollover crash they had inside the complex a couple weeks back at 4:00 AM. That contact was about the crash and the crash alone.

You know me (somewhat) and I hope you know I'm not alot of things I have been reported to be. I am, however, a police officer who feels safety has to be first. As a crash re-constructionist, I would be failing my own conscious if I remotely said that was a good idea.

Sorry I can't help you,

Kim"

Oops, I kind of did report it to others, but not as fact, just the rantings of a confused and lonely Epworth Heights' gatesman.  I could see that old fella at Epworth namedropping to prove his obscure point.  I will take Kim at his word, but he does lose some points by saying how important safety is to him, and then saying that he can't help me with this safety problem he admittedly says is not a good idea.  Is this how a Sheriff Cole would respond to a safety complaint even if it is half out of his jurisdiction?

Though he does gain some by his promptness, and his denial of having condoned such a dangerous practice.

Our chat before the forum was amicable and we sat across the picnic table from him.  I would have talked more with him, but I'm sure he needed to concentrate on his topics and his delivery in front of the crowd.   

[AQUAMAN]

Sorry, I can't comment on that? That's the speech and analysis of a "guy to go to"" for accident prevention"? Sorry, I don't buy into that, and neither should you, cause that's going to be the standard version of explanation for the next four years if elected, don't you think? Yeah, concentrate on delivery of promises, not actions of the Sheriff needing to make critical/impartial differences in the final analysis.

[XLFD]

Prior to this field test, I had contacted Sheriff Fiers about two separate non-FOIA issues dealing with safety, and came off feeling better when I read his replies.  Sgt. Cole does not look to be following up on the safety problem nor does he direct me to contact anyone else with my concern.  But he does give me some ammo once the Heights' gatesman gets on my case again for moving the barrier, LOL. 

[AQUAMAN]

Anybody know what the Epworth accident situation was for a rollover? So long as this was brought up, what were the outcomes and recommendations for safety so it won't happen again? Lastly, if you really are serious about running and getting elected Sheriff, isn't this the worst time to casually go on vacation? I mean the primary that decides this is only a few weeks away. Surely a vacation could be more in line after the primary I would think. People really won't have to get any responses from either candidate after the primary, the only reason to vacation now is either you want to evade more specific answers that need addressing, or you feel confident that you have already won. So Phil, which do you think? Or does the State Union decide vacation times for these officers?

[XLFD]

Well, Phil, when he ends with "Sorry I can't help you.", I don't think I'm the one having a hard time letting him help me!  IMHO.

[Marty Redman]

I don't know a lot about either Fiers or Coles, but if I could vote in Mason County I would go for Coles.  I know someone that he helped rescue from a car accident a few years back when he was off duty.  And I seen him in action as a passenger in a car that once got stopped by him.  Nice guy, seemed fair enuff.  Hope he wins this contest at least.

[XLFD]

House or horse cleaning?  True, any off-duty police or fire officer worth a lick would have done the same, but here's the story, let's give him some credit:

Monday, October 25, 2010 By Jennifer Linn Hartley Daily News Staff Writer

Shortly after a fiery accident on M-55 in Missaukee County Sunday night, a Mason County man — also a local sergeant at the sheriff’s office — pulled a crash victim away from a burning vehicle.

Kim Cole and his wife, Gina, were traveling home from their son’s hockey game in Alpena about 7:30 p.m. Sunday, when they came around a curve in the road and came across the accident.

“There was just a huge fire ball in front of me and the whole road was on fire,” Cole said about the accident scene.

“My very first thought was that a plane had crashed.”

According to the Michigan State Police, Cadillac post, the crash occurred about 7:25 p.m. Sunday on M-55 just west of Lachance Road when a vehicle driven by Jeffrey Roger Bauer, of Grand Rapids, crossed the center line and collided head-on with a semi-truck driven by David John VanNord of Lowell.

When Cole got closer to the accident he saw the semi-truck burning in the ditch, and the driver of the semi stumbling near the ditch.

The semi driver was concerned about Bauer, the driver of the other vehicle involved, fearing the he had died. Cole said he didn’t realize there was another vehicle involved in the accident until then.

“So I ran up to the car and the driver was lying behind the car, right under the gas tank area,” Cole said after locating the sport utility vehicle upside down in a nearby ditch. “Myself and another guy decided we needed to get the guy out of there.”

Cole said the other man told him Bauer had a pulse and steadied his head while Cole dragged Bauer by his feet away from the burning vehicle.

He thought the man had been ejected from the vehicle and was lying about two or three feet from the vehicle near the gas tank.

“He had bad, bad injuries, parts of his body were burned,” Cole said of the victim.

Bauer was taken to Munson Medical Center and was listed in critical condition this morning. VanNord was treated for minor injuries and released from Cadillac Mercy Hospital.

“I just prayed there was no one else in the car,” Cole said, knowing that if there was they likely hadn’t survived.

Cole, who is also an accident reconstructionist, was amazed by the crash.

“It was absolutely … it was amazing the amount of fire,” he said. “I’ve been doing this 25 years and I don’t know if I’ve ever seen that much fire come from a crash scene.”

He said there were car parts burning on both sides of the highway.

About four or five people ended up stopping to help at the accident scene. Cole’s wife, Gina, is a registered nurse and helped tend to Bauer.

The driver of the semi told Cole the truck carried milk. The first explosions were probably the diesel fuel, he said.

“It’s unfortunate,” Cole said this morning. He said he hopes the victim is doing well and hopes the truck driver realizes he did everything he could have in the incident — appearing to have swerved off the road to avoid the collision.