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 Doug Haynes on
-
So you have never had an accident of any kind?
Have you ever walked into somebody on the street not paying attention? If so you are incompetent and do not understand the consequences your actions; that person could have spilled their coffee and gotten burned!
your duncle said: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.
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Studer 8.0 mi on
-
Well said.
notoriousDUG said: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.
-
-
One thing I want to add to this:
If you REALLY want to make the cyclist/motorist relationship better every single person who drives a car in the city should have to ride a bike on the public streets for a week to give them an appreciation for the danger posed by cars AND, make cyclists drive a car in city traffic for a week so they can have a good appreciation for blind spots and just how hard it is to see a bicycle in a busy urban environment.
-
Permalink Reply by heather s on
-
That's really not an apt comparison. A person walking is not going 35 mph and does not weigh 3000 lbs. Even if you did knock someone's coffee and burn their hand, that person is not likely to die or suffer very serious injuries. The whole point of this legislation is that a person driving a car is supposed to pay more attention to their surroundings because they have the potential to seriously hurt or kill someone else. Plus, it seems clear from the article that the intention is not to punish drivers for situations that were truly unavoidable. I just don't understand the mentality that negligence is an accident.
notoriousDUG said:So you have never had an accident of any kind?
Have you ever walked into somebody on the street not paying attention? If so you are incompetent and do not understand the consequences your actions; that person could have spilled their coffee and gotten burned!
-
-
EVERY accident is an avoidable situation and almost all accidents are caused by negligence on the part of at least one of the participants.
The NHTSA defines an accident as a collision or incident which was avoidable and this, or a similar definition, is pretty much the standard definition of accident. By definition an accident is a bad situation that could have been avoided if one, or more, parties involved could have prevented and many times the way to prevent it would have been to pay more attention or think before acting which is, I think, pretty much the definition of being negligent. The NTSB agrees with me on this, if you look at NTSB accident reports an overwhelming number of them all point to the somebody, somewhere along the line, not paying attention or not making the right choice and causing an accident.
I think it is also worth mentioning that the NTSB very often finds a chain of negligent events at the cause of an accident. Many times you will see reports where one person makes a bad choice or misses something and then another party either misses that action or responds improperly to it.
A single persons error is very rarely the cause of most tragic accidents. I just had one of my guys total a truck. Somebody made a left turn in front of him in the rain as he slid into an intersection at a yellow light because he was going to fast for conditions... who's fault was the accident? Who could have prevented it?
Show me one accident, be it in a car, an airplane, on a bike, an industrial situation or anything that at it's core does not come down to one, or more, person being negligent in their actions.
It is not fair that we place a heavier toll on people who are ignorant and hurt/kill a cyclist vs. people who are ignorant and hurt/kill an other motorist.
heather stratton said:That's really not an apt comparison. A person walking is not going 35 mph and does not weigh 3000 lbs. Even if you did knock someone's coffee and burn their hand, that person is not likely to die or suffer very serious injuries. The whole point of this legislation is that a person driving a car is supposed to pay more attention to their surroundings because they have the potential to seriously hurt or kill someone else. Plus, it seems clear from the article that the intention is not to punish drivers for situations that were truly unavoidable. I just don't understand the mentality that negligence is an accident.
notoriousDUG said:So you have never had an accident of any kind?
Have you ever walked into somebody on the street not paying attention? If so you are incompetent and do not understand the consequences your actions; that person could have spilled their coffee and gotten burned!
-
Permalink Reply by Davo on
-
Yes I think so maybe then people would look out for eachother more and IM not just talking about on the roads. The infraction and fault doesn't matter, service should be done to better the comunity. There should be responcibility for every action. I'd have no problem dealing with that if I was at fault.
Jessica said: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?
-
-
If you pull out in front of a cyclist at night without proper lights you did not see you are OK with jail time?
Davo said:Yes I think so maybe then people would look out for eachother more and IM not just talking about on the roads. The infraction and fault doesn't matter, service should be done to better the comunity. There should be responcibility for every action. I'd have no problem dealing with that if I was at fault.
Jessica said: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?
-
Permalink Reply by dan brown on
-
great thread and good responses.
I am kind of torn on the consequences - but (as I repeatedly told people after watching the movie
about Kenneth Lay (Enron) - I think jail time was inappropriate (he died in jail btw). I thing doing lots
(lots) of hours of community service is better. Jails are expensive, overcrowded and non-rehabilitative.
I did one day of commuinity service recently (in lieu of $250 court costs) and loved it. We swept
viaducts on the south side. It was hard work...but I bonded with 7 guys and feel like I actually did
some good (you would not believe what drivers throw out their car windows).
just my $.02
-
-
By service I meant comunity service. If that was the case and a poilice report was filed I would guess that the cyclist would be determined at fault because of the lack of lights. If that was the case, report filed ect., the cyclist should have to do some kind of comunity service. Maybe something like promoting the use of lights on bikes at a streetfest or public area.
notoriousDUG said:If you pull out in front of a cyclist at night without proper lights you did not see you are OK with jail time?
Davo said:Yes I think so maybe then people would look out for eachother more and IM not just talking about on the roads. The infraction and fault doesn't matter, service should be done to better the comunity. There should be responcibility for every action. I'd have no problem dealing with that if I was at fault.
Jessica said: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?
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Moffitt on
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
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
