Deadly car vs. bike accidents: Should they be a crime?
From today's Seattle Post Intelligencer (http://blog.seattlepi.com/transportation/archives/181971.asp) :
Susanne Scaringi died after her bicycle slammed into the side of a van that abruptly pulled in front of her. The driver had failed to yield.
The driver wasn't drunk or using drugs, and didn't commit a crime under state law. But should it be a criminal offense to commit a traffic infraction that results in someone's death?
That's one question the Cascade Bicycle Club wants to ask Wednesday during a Traffic Justice Summit to be held at City Hall. The club is proposing a new state law that would aim to protect bicyclists and pedestrians, and is inviting victims and the public to weigh in during the two-hour discussion.
The advocacy group is pushing for a "Vulnerable User Bill," which would expand Washington's negligent driving law to include traffic infractions that result in death or serious injury to a cyclist or pedestrian, such as a fatal failure to yield. Such infractions then would become gross misdemeanors, punishable by up to a year in jail.
The proposal is the club's top priority for the 2010 legislative session, said David Hill, Cascade's advocacy director.
"This isn't about acts of God or things that are generally unavoidable. This is about when people deliberately ignore the parameters we have established for safe operation of what is a very dangerous appliance and it results in seriously bodily injury or death," he said.
The City of Seattle had a similar ordinance that was overturned by the state Court of Appeals in August. Both City Attorney Tom Carr and City Councilman Tim Burgess are expected to attend Wednesday's summit, scheduled from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at City Hall's Bertha Knight Landes room.
Scaringi, the cyclist, was headed from her West Seattle home to work when she was killed. In the same year, Tatsuo Nakata, a City Council aide, was killed when he was struck while crossing a crosswalk in West Seattle.
Carr, the city attorney, filed charges in both cases under the city's assault-by-vehicle ordinance, which was enacted in 2005 and made it a gross misdemeanor to commit certain traffic infractions when they kill or seriously hurt another person.
Under state law, drivers can be charged with felony vehicular homicide or assault if they're under the influence, or driving recklessly or with disregard for the safety of others. King County prosecutors had declined to file charges.
Clinton Wilson, the driver who hit Scaringi, appealed his Municipal Court conviction. The appellate court overturned the law after ruling that it didn't mesh with a state law that decriminalizes most minor traffic infractions.
"However stated, Wilson's act -- whatever its consequence -- is only a traffic infraction under state law unless accompanied by the additional elements that would make it vehicular assault or vehicular homicide or driving while intoxicated or one of the other criminal offenses recognized in the exceptions under (state law)," the court ruled.
Between 2002 and 2006, Seattle averaged about 485 collisions per year involving pedestrians or bicyclists, with about nine of them fatal. Bicyclists were involved in 289 crashes, according to the 2007 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collision Report.
In bicycle-vehicle crashes, about 35 percent were caused by the driver failing to yield.
Advocates for a new law argue that families of those killed or maimed deserve greater sense of justice than a traffic ticket brings. However, a conviction for negligent driving doesn't carry much steeper punishment. Typically, a first-time offender gets probation or a deferred sentence.
"Do they need an automatic license suspension or do they need driver retraining. These are the questions that we should ask," Hiller said. He noted that people who don't control their vicious dogs face more criminal culpability than drivers for negligence behind the wheel.
Cascade supported similar legislation last year and is working with state Sens. Joe McDermott and Adam Kline, Hiller said.
Susanne Scaringi died after her bicycle slammed into the side of a van that abruptly pulled in front of her. The driver had failed to yield.
The driver wasn't drunk or using drugs, and didn't commit a crime under state law. But should it be a criminal offense to commit a traffic infraction that results in someone's death?
That's one question the Cascade Bicycle Club wants to ask Wednesday during a Traffic Justice Summit to be held at City Hall. The club is proposing a new state law that would aim to protect bicyclists and pedestrians, and is inviting victims and the public to weigh in during the two-hour discussion.
The advocacy group is pushing for a "Vulnerable User Bill," which would expand Washington's negligent driving law to include traffic infractions that result in death or serious injury to a cyclist or pedestrian, such as a fatal failure to yield. Such infractions then would become gross misdemeanors, punishable by up to a year in jail.
The proposal is the club's top priority for the 2010 legislative session, said David Hill, Cascade's advocacy director.
"This isn't about acts of God or things that are generally unavoidable. This is about when people deliberately ignore the parameters we have established for safe operation of what is a very dangerous appliance and it results in seriously bodily injury or death," he said.
The City of Seattle had a similar ordinance that was overturned by the state Court of Appeals in August. Both City Attorney Tom Carr and City Councilman Tim Burgess are expected to attend Wednesday's summit, scheduled from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at City Hall's Bertha Knight Landes room.
Scaringi, the cyclist, was headed from her West Seattle home to work when she was killed. In the same year, Tatsuo Nakata, a City Council aide, was killed when he was struck while crossing a crosswalk in West Seattle.
Carr, the city attorney, filed charges in both cases under the city's assault-by-vehicle ordinance, which was enacted in 2005 and made it a gross misdemeanor to commit certain traffic infractions when they kill or seriously hurt another person.
Under state law, drivers can be charged with felony vehicular homicide or assault if they're under the influence, or driving recklessly or with disregard for the safety of others. King County prosecutors had declined to file charges.
Clinton Wilson, the driver who hit Scaringi, appealed his Municipal Court conviction. The appellate court overturned the law after ruling that it didn't mesh with a state law that decriminalizes most minor traffic infractions.
"However stated, Wilson's act -- whatever its consequence -- is only a traffic infraction under state law unless accompanied by the additional elements that would make it vehicular assault or vehicular homicide or driving while intoxicated or one of the other criminal offenses recognized in the exceptions under (state law)," the court ruled.
Between 2002 and 2006, Seattle averaged about 485 collisions per year involving pedestrians or bicyclists, with about nine of them fatal. Bicyclists were involved in 289 crashes, according to the 2007 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collision Report.
In bicycle-vehicle crashes, about 35 percent were caused by the driver failing to yield.
Advocates for a new law argue that families of those killed or maimed deserve greater sense of justice than a traffic ticket brings. However, a conviction for negligent driving doesn't carry much steeper punishment. Typically, a first-time offender gets probation or a deferred sentence.
"Do they need an automatic license suspension or do they need driver retraining. These are the questions that we should ask," Hiller said. He noted that people who don't control their vicious dogs face more criminal culpability than drivers for negligence behind the wheel.
Cascade supported similar legislation last year and is working with state Sens. Joe McDermott and Adam Kline, Hiller said.
Views: 60
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jessica on
-
I don't think so. Unless the guy has malicious intent, it was an accident. I'm sure if he/she had the option of going back, they would fix it all.
Bicycles are considered 'vehicles.' If you kill someone in a car-car wreck, you don't (necessarily) face criminal charges. So because people on bikes are like a zillion times easier to kill with a car, it's a worse accident? I don't think so. It actually could have been a more minor driving mistake... but at the wrong time, with an opposing party that is exposed.
If you wanted to be treated fairly, don't expect favors when accidents come your way. This guy didn't maliciously pull his van out in front of this lady. He made a mistake, with fatal consequences. I'm sure he's going to feel terrible for it for a long time. He didn't go home cheering. Cut motorists a little slack here.
-
Permalink Reply by heather s on
-
Expecting people to be held accountable for their actions is not pleading for special favors. I'm sure no one thinks that the driver meant to kill someone--but regardless, failing to yield is actually a choice. Collisions such as this one are almost always referred to as "accidents," but in most cases they occur because of an active decision that a driver made. A bad one, obviously. But we all have to live with the consequences of our actions. When someone unintentionally shoots someone else, they still face punishment, because they should have been more careful when handling a deadly weapon.
-
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on
-
It briefs well but this is, in my opinion, a slippery slope.
It's a terrible tragedy that somebody lost their life but is messing jamming up another person up for what, when it comes right down to it, is an accident is not a good precedent. Pulling out in front of somebody could kill or seriously injure an occupant in a car as well, should every traffic accident have the potential to be a serious criminal case.
Things like this get passed and 5 years from now a fender bender becomes assault and battery.
-
-
Keep in mind that we cyclists *choose* to ride our bikes, which makes us less visible, and more vulnerable. No matter how slow this guy in the van went to pull out, he probably still couldn't see her until it was too late.
Davo, should there be a fine and community service for every fatal collision? Every bike-car collision? What about when the cyclist is at fault? Do they have to do community service too, even though no lives were lost? What about a fender bender where someone got some whiplash?
Where do you draw the line?
-
-
@notoriousDUG-- "Things like this get passed and 5 years from now a fender bender becomes assault and battery." Uh... no. That is not likely at all. The "slippery slope" is a fallacious argument.
@Jessica, of course cyclists make choices too. Some cyclists make really bad choices and pay for it with their lives. Some drivers make really bad choices, and the cyclist (or other vulnerable road user) still pays with his/her life. It's not a level playing field.
I looked at the article to see if there was more information, and one person commented: "The driver turned left into her path of travel. He failed to yield her very clear right of way, which is a traffic violation. He turned his van directly in front of her, which is how she collided with it." Unverifed, obviously, but from that description it seems pretty clear that the driver was at fault.
I'm not arguing for extended jail sentences. But I do think that people who cause collisions such as this one should lose their drivers' licenses. It is a responsibility, not a right, and some people are just not careful enough to handle that responsibility.
-
-
I am pretty sure no one makes a choice to willfully not yield and cause a collision with a bike, car or anything else. Accidents happen because somebody is not paying attention; do you honestly believe the cyclist got hit because the van driver thought 'Fuck this bike, I'm making this turn that bitch can stop!'
No.
He was not paying attention and something terrible happened but it is not like he had some kind of malicious intent, it did not happen because he was anymore negligent then every single other person who has been in an accident be it in a car, on a bike or just walking into somebody on the side walk because you aren't paint attention.
What happened there was a traffic accident and nothing more, a tragic one, but still just an accident. Unless you are going to push that every fatality accident be deemed a crime then you are singling one group out for special treatment and extra protection over another.
Laws like this are not going to save lives either; if anyone thinks a law like that on the books is going to make people pay more attention on the roads you are living in a dream. People, as a whole, pay very little attention to the world around them and all the laws in the world are not going to change that.
-
Permalink Reply by Bikefreeek on
-
I think that there needs to be laws that carry far greater responsibility on the use of motor vehicles. I really think that the laws should be written so the greater the liability to others of the vehicle used the greater the responsibility and consequences for the user.
I don't suscribe to the notion of "same road, same rules". This puts cyclists at a huge disadvantage. Cyclists are little if any more of a liabilty to others than they are to themselves. It's not like tens of thousands of Americans are being killed in bike crashes. This is not the case for motor vehicles. Over 40,000 Americans are killed each year in crashes and changes in law, enforcement and infrastructure could greatly reduce the number of deaths.
It seems like most advancements in auto safety have been made for the driver and occupants of motor vehicles. I think it would be a great thing if steps were taken to improve the safety of those outside of cars. How to do this? Well, I think that conditioning people with serious consequences for what is a routine and potentially deadly activity would be one of many ways to make this happen. Perhaps people would take driving a bit more seriously.
As cyclists we often chastise each other for behaviour such as listening to music, talking on the phone and the like while riding. These activities along with others such as eating, reading, texting, applying make-up and more are commonplace amongst drivers. If activities like these result in failing to yield and causing the death or injury of a cyclist or a pedestrian then yes there certainly should be serious consequences for it.
If an individual was performing nearly any other potentially deadly activity other than driving, would there be serious liability and consequence attached? Most definately. The fact that we're all implicant in car use seems to blind us from the misery that is wreaked upon us from it. Who here doesn't know someone close to them that has been severly injured or killed from a car crash? Where is the justice? Are these events simply dismissed because the vehicle of destruction was a car?
Perhaps if there were more serious consequences for driving a car people would be more serious when doing so. Driving is a previlage, not a right. It's no privilage that tens of thousands are killed each year, hundreds of thousands are severely injured, our air is poluted, we wage war for resources and we live amongst more asphalt than trees. I don't think that taking a little more responsibilty is going to hurt anyone.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Bullis 5.5-6.5 miles on
-
I believe that there should be greater consequences for a motorists' actions that cause injuries or death. Calling it an accident when negligence is involved on the drivers' part is a crock. There is a duty of care that is part and parcel when a drivers license is issued. That same duty of care is the drivers responsibility each time they get behind the wheel. Unfortunately, many, feel that the their drivers license is their right, not a privilege, and screw everyone else on the road who isn't in a cage.
-
Permalink Reply by Brendan Kevenides on
-
I personally like what is being proposed in Illinois Senate Bill 1916. Criminal penalties would be imposed only if the driver's conduct rises to the level of being "reckless", rather than merely negligent.
-
-
Here is the thing; there are repercussions for accidents, both involving car/car and car/bike or car/pedestrian. You get in an accident you are responsible for the property damage, injury, and pain and suffering; this is why there is insurance and if falls short of covering the damages things move on to civil court.
I'm not going to disagree that we need to get drivers to pay more attention or that a vast majority of them are impatient, selfish louts with tunnel vision who are looking out only for themselves and that we should find a way to make people have more respect for the complex task that operating a motor vehicle actually is but laws like this are not going to do it...
You can not legislate awareness.
More then laws to put people in jail for driving like morons why not put that effort into reforming drivers education and licensing to produce people who are competent drivers with a respect for the privilege?
As somebody who does a ton of driving, and is a pretty competent driver, I think that the vast majority of people on the road are terrible drivers and not because of any flaw with them beyond the fact that they do not have a healthy respect for the difficulty and responsibility involved with operating a motor vehicle.
-
Permalink Reply by your duncle on
-
Why not just suspend the driver's license and plates for a year minimum. In most cases, the driver has just proven that they are incompetent and do not understand the consequences of their actions. Make it automatic. Let them appeal and fight to get the privilege reinstated.
Anyone who thinks that the guilt is enough punishment should consider if Dahmer felt guilty about all those extra calories. People do not all think the same.
Groups
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Chicago Ride of Silence
118 members
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
