Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

It's the Drivers, Stupid

Last night’s Traffic Justice Summit at City Hall—attended by a couple hundred folks, most of them cyclists—provided a grim look at the situation facing cyclists on the road, and a glimpse at the legislative battles ahead for cycling advocates in Olympia.

City attorney Tom Carr and state Sen. Adam Kline (D-37) talked about the prospects for an assault-by-vehicle bill this coming legislative session. The proposal, which failed to make it out of committee last year, would allow cities to treat killing or severely injuring someone with a vehicle as a misdemeanor.

Currently, only drunk or reckless drivers can be charged with a crime; killing or maiming a cyclist because you just weren’t paying attention, or ran a stop light, or failed to yield right-of-way, frequently doesn’t even result in a ticket, much less a license suspension. (Failing to yield right-of-way, incidentally, is the most common cause of severe injury or death in car-cyclist collisions, followed closely by “not paying attention” and other driver distractions like talking on a cell phone or fiddling with the radio.)

Put another way: If you want to murder someone, the best way to do it is with your car.

The proposed legislation would change all that—not, Carr argued, by criminalizing traffic infractions, but by making it a crime, punishable by up to a year in jail, to kill someone while committing a traffic infraction. “The analogy is to assault and manslaughter,” said Carr, who supports the legislation. “If I were to turn and punch Adam [Kline, who was sitting next to him] in the head right now… that would be assault. If I were to hit him in the temple and kill him, even unintentionally, that would be manslaughter.”

Parking Lot Full: Bikes at City Hall

Parking Lot Full: Bikes at City Hall

Somewhat surprisingly, several members of the audience argued that instead of putting drivers who kill cyclists in jail, it might be more effective to suspend their license and subject them to heavy fines and retraining, as Oregon does. “I can’t imagine why you’d want someone who’s just killed someone to get back behind the wheel of a car,” one woman said.

That seems like a common-sense argument to me: Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you kill someone while wielding 2,000 pounds of steel, you should forfeit your right to operate that deadly weapon—just as you would if you killed someone accidentally with a gun. Or as Tessa Greegor, Cascade’s principal planner, put it, “motor vehicle operators are operated, registered, and licensed precisely because of their potential for harm. Motor vehicles are potentially deadly machines. The human body, even on a bike, is not.”

Kline, however, argued that suspending drivers’ licenses would just lead to more people driving without a license. “The fact is, you have to go to work,” he said—a common (and irritating) refrain that ignores the fact that driving without a license, too, is illegal.

Ultimately, Cascade policy director David Hiller says, the solution may be to push for an Oregon-style law that carries heavy consequences, but no jail time.

“I think what we heard last night was that someone should not be able to just take their license back at the scene of a fatal crash and drive away,” Hiller says. “We’re going to try to work with the legislature and the people whose lives have been affected to try to find that point where justice is served.”


  • abc

    “The analogy is to assault and manslaughter,” said Carr, who supports the legislation. “If I were to turn and punch Adam [Kline, who was sitting next to him] in the head right now… that would be assault. If I were to hit him in the temple and kill him, even unintentionally, that would be manslaughter.”

    Ah Tom the difference is that in the case of assault, one is already committing a crime with intent – the guy that took a left and didn’t see the bike isn’t trying to hit the biker.

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    The Rabbi was charged with speeding but Tom bargained it down to inattention to driving which doesn’t even go on your driving record.

  • abc

    “The analogy is to assault and manslaughter,” said Carr, who supports the legislation. “If I were to turn and punch Adam [Kline, who was sitting next to him] in the head right now… that would be assault. If I were to hit him in the temple and kill him, even unintentionally, that would be manslaughter.”

    Ah Tom the difference is that in the case of assault, one is already committing a crime with intent – the guy that took a left and didn’t see the bike isn’t trying to hit the biker.

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    The Rabbi was charged with speeding but Tom bargained it down to inattention to driving which doesn’t even go on your driving record.

  • abc

    “The analogy is to assault and manslaughter,” said Carr, who supports the legislation. “If I were to turn and punch Adam [Kline, who was sitting next to him] in the head right now… that would be assault. If I were to hit him in the temple and kill him, even unintentionally, that would be manslaughter.”

    Ah Tom the difference is that in the case of assault, one is already committing a crime with intent – the guy that took a left and didn’t see the bike isn’t trying to hit the biker.

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    The Rabbi was charged with speeding but Tom bargained it down to inattention to driving which doesn’t even go on your driving record.

  • abc

    “The analogy is to assault and manslaughter,” said Carr, who supports the legislation. “If I were to turn and punch Adam [Kline, who was sitting next to him] in the head right now… that would be assault. If I were to hit him in the temple and kill him, even unintentionally, that would be manslaughter.”

    Ah Tom the difference is that in the case of assault, one is already committing a crime with intent – the guy that took a left and didn’t see the bike isn’t trying to hit the biker.

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    The Rabbi was charged with speeding but Tom bargained it down to inattention to driving which doesn’t even go on your driving record.

  • abc

    “The analogy is to assault and manslaughter,” said Carr, who supports the legislation. “If I were to turn and punch Adam [Kline, who was sitting next to him] in the head right now… that would be assault. If I were to hit him in the temple and kill him, even unintentionally, that would be manslaughter.”

    Ah Tom the difference is that in the case of assault, one is already committing a crime with intent – the guy that took a left and didn’t see the bike isn’t trying to hit the biker.

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    The Rabbi was charged with speeding but Tom bargained it down to inattention to driving which doesn’t even go on your driving record.

  • abc

    “The analogy is to assault and manslaughter,” said Carr, who supports the legislation. “If I were to turn and punch Adam [Kline, who was sitting next to him] in the head right now… that would be assault. If I were to hit him in the temple and kill him, even unintentionally, that would be manslaughter.”

    Ah Tom the difference is that in the case of assault, one is already committing a crime with intent – the guy that took a left and didn’t see the bike isn’t trying to hit the biker.

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    The Rabbi was charged with speeding but Tom bargained it down to inattention to driving which doesn’t even go on your driving record.

  • abc

    “The analogy is to assault and manslaughter,” said Carr, who supports the legislation. “If I were to turn and punch Adam [Kline, who was sitting next to him] in the head right now… that would be assault. If I were to hit him in the temple and kill him, even unintentionally, that would be manslaughter.”

    Ah Tom the difference is that in the case of assault, one is already committing a crime with intent – the guy that took a left and didn’t see the bike isn’t trying to hit the biker.

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    The Rabbi was charged with speeding but Tom bargained it down to inattention to driving which doesn’t even go on your driving record.

  • abc

    “The analogy is to assault and manslaughter,” said Carr, who supports the legislation. “If I were to turn and punch Adam [Kline, who was sitting next to him] in the head right now… that would be assault. If I were to hit him in the temple and kill him, even unintentionally, that would be manslaughter.”

    Ah Tom the difference is that in the case of assault, one is already committing a crime with intent – the guy that took a left and didn’t see the bike isn’t trying to hit the biker.

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    The Rabbi was charged with speeding but Tom bargained it down to inattention to driving which doesn’t even go on your driving record.

  • abc

    “The analogy is to assault and manslaughter,” said Carr, who supports the legislation. “If I were to turn and punch Adam [Kline, who was sitting next to him] in the head right now… that would be assault. If I were to hit him in the temple and kill him, even unintentionally, that would be manslaughter.”

    Ah Tom the difference is that in the case of assault, one is already committing a crime with intent – the guy that took a left and didn’t see the bike isn’t trying to hit the biker.

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    The Rabbi was charged with speeding but Tom bargained it down to inattention to driving which doesn’t even go on your driving record.

  • abc

    “The analogy is to assault and manslaughter,” said Carr, who supports the legislation. “If I were to turn and punch Adam [Kline, who was sitting next to him] in the head right now… that would be assault. If I were to hit him in the temple and kill him, even unintentionally, that would be manslaughter.”

    Ah Tom the difference is that in the case of assault, one is already committing a crime with intent – the guy that took a left and didn’t see the bike isn’t trying to hit the biker.

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    The Rabbi was charged with speeding but Tom bargained it down to inattention to driving which doesn’t even go on your driving record.

  • abc

    “The analogy is to assault and manslaughter,” said Carr, who supports the legislation. “If I were to turn and punch Adam [Kline, who was sitting next to him] in the head right now… that would be assault. If I were to hit him in the temple and kill him, even unintentionally, that would be manslaughter.”

    Ah Tom the difference is that in the case of assault, one is already committing a crime with intent – the guy that took a left and didn’t see the bike isn’t trying to hit the biker.

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    The Rabbi was charged with speeding but Tom bargained it down to inattention to driving which doesn’t even go on your driving record.

  • mensch

    While it would be okay to have a misoperation of heavy machinery misdemeanor, we also do need a suspension of driver’s license esp. for the people with multiple infractions like hitting cylists like that rabbi dude did. the machinery of the ciminal law is really cumbersom….years of appeals…..some kind of license suspension can be done more quickly and with more certainty and yes, it’s precisely because people need it that it would deter the miscreants.

  • mensch

    While it would be okay to have a misoperation of heavy machinery misdemeanor, we also do need a suspension of driver’s license esp. for the people with multiple infractions like hitting cylists like that rabbi dude did. the machinery of the ciminal law is really cumbersom….years of appeals…..some kind of license suspension can be done more quickly and with more certainty and yes, it’s precisely because people need it that it would deter the miscreants.

  • mensch

    While it would be okay to have a misoperation of heavy machinery misdemeanor, we also do need a suspension of driver’s license esp. for the people with multiple infractions like hitting cylists like that rabbi dude did. the machinery of the ciminal law is really cumbersom….years of appeals…..some kind of license suspension can be done more quickly and with more certainty and yes, it’s precisely because people need it that it would deter the miscreants.

  • mensch

    While it would be okay to have a misoperation of heavy machinery misdemeanor, we also do need a suspension of driver’s license esp. for the people with multiple infractions like hitting cylists like that rabbi dude did. the machinery of the ciminal law is really cumbersom….years of appeals…..some kind of license suspension can be done more quickly and with more certainty and yes, it’s precisely because people need it that it would deter the miscreants.

  • mensch

    While it would be okay to have a misoperation of heavy machinery misdemeanor, we also do need a suspension of driver’s license esp. for the people with multiple infractions like hitting cylists like that rabbi dude did. the machinery of the ciminal law is really cumbersom….years of appeals…..some kind of license suspension can be done more quickly and with more certainty and yes, it’s precisely because people need it that it would deter the miscreants.

  • mensch

    While it would be okay to have a misoperation of heavy machinery misdemeanor, we also do need a suspension of driver’s license esp. for the people with multiple infractions like hitting cylists like that rabbi dude did. the machinery of the ciminal law is really cumbersom….years of appeals…..some kind of license suspension can be done more quickly and with more certainty and yes, it’s precisely because people need it that it would deter the miscreants.

  • mensch

    While it would be okay to have a misoperation of heavy machinery misdemeanor, we also do need a suspension of driver’s license esp. for the people with multiple infractions like hitting cylists like that rabbi dude did. the machinery of the ciminal law is really cumbersom….years of appeals…..some kind of license suspension can be done more quickly and with more certainty and yes, it’s precisely because people need it that it would deter the miscreants.

  • mensch

    While it would be okay to have a misoperation of heavy machinery misdemeanor, we also do need a suspension of driver’s license esp. for the people with multiple infractions like hitting cylists like that rabbi dude did. the machinery of the ciminal law is really cumbersom….years of appeals…..some kind of license suspension can be done more quickly and with more certainty and yes, it’s precisely because people need it that it would deter the miscreants.

  • mensch

    While it would be okay to have a misoperation of heavy machinery misdemeanor, we also do need a suspension of driver’s license esp. for the people with multiple infractions like hitting cylists like that rabbi dude did. the machinery of the ciminal law is really cumbersom….years of appeals…..some kind of license suspension can be done more quickly and with more certainty and yes, it’s precisely because people need it that it would deter the miscreants.

  • mensch

    While it would be okay to have a misoperation of heavy machinery misdemeanor, we also do need a suspension of driver’s license esp. for the people with multiple infractions like hitting cylists like that rabbi dude did. the machinery of the ciminal law is really cumbersom….years of appeals…..some kind of license suspension can be done more quickly and with more certainty and yes, it’s precisely because people need it that it would deter the miscreants.

  • mensch

    While it would be okay to have a misoperation of heavy machinery misdemeanor, we also do need a suspension of driver’s license esp. for the people with multiple infractions like hitting cylists like that rabbi dude did. the machinery of the ciminal law is really cumbersom….years of appeals…..some kind of license suspension can be done more quickly and with more certainty and yes, it’s precisely because people need it that it would deter the miscreants.

  • SuperSteve

    “Accidentally” injuring or killing someone with your car should carry the same consequences as accidentally shooting someone while hunting (Dick Cheney notwithstanding). The Legislature did something about irresponsible hunters, and they should do something about irresponsible drivers.

    Unfortunately, many of these auto/cycle “accidents” aren’t…

    Cyclists get injured and even killed by drivers who intentionally fail to yield and then simply say “I didn’t even see him” when the cops show up.

  • SuperSteve

    “Accidentally” injuring or killing someone with your car should carry the same consequences as accidentally shooting someone while hunting (Dick Cheney notwithstanding). The Legislature did something about irresponsible hunters, and they should do something about irresponsible drivers.

    Unfortunately, many of these auto/cycle “accidents” aren’t…

    Cyclists get injured and even killed by drivers who intentionally fail to yield and then simply say “I didn’t even see him” when the cops show up.

  • SuperSteve

    “Accidentally” injuring or killing someone with your car should carry the same consequences as accidentally shooting someone while hunting (Dick Cheney notwithstanding). The Legislature did something about irresponsible hunters, and they should do something about irresponsible drivers.

    Unfortunately, many of these auto/cycle “accidents” aren’t…

    Cyclists get injured and even killed by drivers who intentionally fail to yield and then simply say “I didn’t even see him” when the cops show up.

  • SuperSteve

    “Accidentally” injuring or killing someone with your car should carry the same consequences as accidentally shooting someone while hunting (Dick Cheney notwithstanding). The Legislature did something about irresponsible hunters, and they should do something about irresponsible drivers.

    Unfortunately, many of these auto/cycle “accidents” aren’t…

    Cyclists get injured and even killed by drivers who intentionally fail to yield and then simply say “I didn’t even see him” when the cops show up.

  • SuperSteve

    “Accidentally” injuring or killing someone with your car should carry the same consequences as accidentally shooting someone while hunting (Dick Cheney notwithstanding). The Legislature did something about irresponsible hunters, and they should do something about irresponsible drivers.

    Unfortunately, many of these auto/cycle “accidents” aren’t…

    Cyclists get injured and even killed by drivers who intentionally fail to yield and then simply say “I didn’t even see him” when the cops show up.

  • SuperSteve

    “Accidentally” injuring or killing someone with your car should carry the same consequences as accidentally shooting someone while hunting (Dick Cheney notwithstanding). The Legislature did something about irresponsible hunters, and they should do something about irresponsible drivers.

    Unfortunately, many of these auto/cycle “accidents” aren’t…

    Cyclists get injured and even killed by drivers who intentionally fail to yield and then simply say “I didn’t even see him” when the cops show up.

  • SuperSteve

    “Accidentally” injuring or killing someone with your car should carry the same consequences as accidentally shooting someone while hunting (Dick Cheney notwithstanding). The Legislature did something about irresponsible hunters, and they should do something about irresponsible drivers.

    Unfortunately, many of these auto/cycle “accidents” aren’t…

    Cyclists get injured and even killed by drivers who intentionally fail to yield and then simply say “I didn’t even see him” when the cops show up.

  • SuperSteve

    “Accidentally” injuring or killing someone with your car should carry the same consequences as accidentally shooting someone while hunting (Dick Cheney notwithstanding). The Legislature did something about irresponsible hunters, and they should do something about irresponsible drivers.

    Unfortunately, many of these auto/cycle “accidents” aren’t…

    Cyclists get injured and even killed by drivers who intentionally fail to yield and then simply say “I didn’t even see him” when the cops show up.

  • SuperSteve

    “Accidentally” injuring or killing someone with your car should carry the same consequences as accidentally shooting someone while hunting (Dick Cheney notwithstanding). The Legislature did something about irresponsible hunters, and they should do something about irresponsible drivers.

    Unfortunately, many of these auto/cycle “accidents” aren’t…

    Cyclists get injured and even killed by drivers who intentionally fail to yield and then simply say “I didn’t even see him” when the cops show up.

  • SuperSteve

    “Accidentally” injuring or killing someone with your car should carry the same consequences as accidentally shooting someone while hunting (Dick Cheney notwithstanding). The Legislature did something about irresponsible hunters, and they should do something about irresponsible drivers.

    Unfortunately, many of these auto/cycle “accidents” aren’t…

    Cyclists get injured and even killed by drivers who intentionally fail to yield and then simply say “I didn’t even see him” when the cops show up.

  • SuperSteve

    “Accidentally” injuring or killing someone with your car should carry the same consequences as accidentally shooting someone while hunting (Dick Cheney notwithstanding). The Legislature did something about irresponsible hunters, and they should do something about irresponsible drivers.

    Unfortunately, many of these auto/cycle “accidents” aren’t…

    Cyclists get injured and even killed by drivers who intentionally fail to yield and then simply say “I didn’t even see him” when the cops show up.

  • SuperSteve

    “Accidentally” injuring or killing someone with your car should carry the same consequences as accidentally shooting someone while hunting (Dick Cheney notwithstanding). The Legislature did something about irresponsible hunters, and they should do something about irresponsible drivers.

    Unfortunately, many of these auto/cycle “accidents” aren’t…

    Cyclists get injured and even killed by drivers who intentionally fail to yield and then simply say “I didn’t even see him” when the cops show up.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    Right, except that only covers drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol:

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the first degree if he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, and exhibits the effects of having consumed liquor or an illegal drug. — RCW 46.61.5249

    >

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the second degree if, under circumstances not constituting negligent driving in the first degree, he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property. [...] Negligent driving in the second degree is a traffic infraction and is subject to a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars. — RCW 46.61.525

    So the person who’s being negligent by just not paying attention? Worst case for them is a $250 fine.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    Right, except that only covers drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol:

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the first degree if he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, and exhibits the effects of having consumed liquor or an illegal drug. — RCW 46.61.5249

    >

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the second degree if, under circumstances not constituting negligent driving in the first degree, he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property. [...] Negligent driving in the second degree is a traffic infraction and is subject to a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars. — RCW 46.61.525

    So the person who’s being negligent by just not paying attention? Worst case for them is a $250 fine.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    Right, except that only covers drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol:

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the first degree if he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, and exhibits the effects of having consumed liquor or an illegal drug. — RCW 46.61.5249

    >

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the second degree if, under circumstances not constituting negligent driving in the first degree, he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property. [...] Negligent driving in the second degree is a traffic infraction and is subject to a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars. — RCW 46.61.525

    So the person who’s being negligent by just not paying attention? Worst case for them is a $250 fine.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    Right, except that only covers drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol:

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the first degree if he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, and exhibits the effects of having consumed liquor or an illegal drug. — RCW 46.61.5249

    >

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the second degree if, under circumstances not constituting negligent driving in the first degree, he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property. [...] Negligent driving in the second degree is a traffic infraction and is subject to a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars. — RCW 46.61.525

    So the person who’s being negligent by just not paying attention? Worst case for them is a $250 fine.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    Right, except that only covers drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol:

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the first degree if he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, and exhibits the effects of having consumed liquor or an illegal drug. — RCW 46.61.5249

    >

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the second degree if, under circumstances not constituting negligent driving in the first degree, he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property. [...] Negligent driving in the second degree is a traffic infraction and is subject to a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars. — RCW 46.61.525

    So the person who’s being negligent by just not paying attention? Worst case for them is a $250 fine.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    Right, except that only covers drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol:

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the first degree if he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, and exhibits the effects of having consumed liquor or an illegal drug. — RCW 46.61.5249

    >

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the second degree if, under circumstances not constituting negligent driving in the first degree, he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property. [...] Negligent driving in the second degree is a traffic infraction and is subject to a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars. — RCW 46.61.525

    So the person who’s being negligent by just not paying attention? Worst case for them is a $250 fine.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    Right, except that only covers drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol:

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the first degree if he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, and exhibits the effects of having consumed liquor or an illegal drug. — RCW 46.61.5249

    >

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the second degree if, under circumstances not constituting negligent driving in the first degree, he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property. [...] Negligent driving in the second degree is a traffic infraction and is subject to a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars. — RCW 46.61.525

    So the person who’s being negligent by just not paying attention? Worst case for them is a $250 fine.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    Right, except that only covers drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol:

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the first degree if he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, and exhibits the effects of having consumed liquor or an illegal drug. — RCW 46.61.5249

    >

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the second degree if, under circumstances not constituting negligent driving in the first degree, he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property. [...] Negligent driving in the second degree is a traffic infraction and is subject to a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars. — RCW 46.61.525

    So the person who’s being negligent by just not paying attention? Worst case for them is a $250 fine.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    Right, except that only covers drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol:

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the first degree if he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, and exhibits the effects of having consumed liquor or an illegal drug. — RCW 46.61.5249

    >

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the second degree if, under circumstances not constituting negligent driving in the first degree, he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property. [...] Negligent driving in the second degree is a traffic infraction and is subject to a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars. — RCW 46.61.525

    So the person who’s being negligent by just not paying attention? Worst case for them is a $250 fine.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    Right, except that only covers drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol:

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the first degree if he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, and exhibits the effects of having consumed liquor or an illegal drug. — RCW 46.61.5249

    >

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the second degree if, under circumstances not constituting negligent driving in the first degree, he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property. [...] Negligent driving in the second degree is a traffic infraction and is subject to a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars. — RCW 46.61.525

    So the person who’s being negligent by just not paying attention? Worst case for them is a $250 fine.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    Right, except that only covers drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol:

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the first degree if he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, and exhibits the effects of having consumed liquor or an illegal drug. — RCW 46.61.5249

    >

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the second degree if, under circumstances not constituting negligent driving in the first degree, he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property. [...] Negligent driving in the second degree is a traffic infraction and is subject to a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars. — RCW 46.61.525

    So the person who’s being negligent by just not paying attention? Worst case for them is a $250 fine.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    We already have laws that can punish people that drive with disregard for the safety of others including negligent and drunken driving.

    Right, except that only covers drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol:

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the first degree if he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, and exhibits the effects of having consumed liquor or an illegal drug. — RCW 46.61.5249

    >

    A person is guilty of negligent driving in the second degree if, under circumstances not constituting negligent driving in the first degree, he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property. [...] Negligent driving in the second degree is a traffic infraction and is subject to a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars. — RCW 46.61.525

    So the person who’s being negligent by just not paying attention? Worst case for them is a $250 fine.

  • abc

    Josh

    RCW 46.61.520
    Vehicular homicide

    (1) When the death of any person ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person, the driver is guilty of vehicular homicide if the driver was operating a motor vehicle:

    (a) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502; or

    (b) In a reckless manner; or

    (c) With disregard for the safety of others.

    (2) Vehicular homicide is a class A felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW, except that, for a conviction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, an additional two years shall be added to the sentence for each prior offense as defined in RCW 46.61.5055.

  • abc

    Josh

    RCW 46.61.520
    Vehicular homicide

    (1) When the death of any person ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person, the driver is guilty of vehicular homicide if the driver was operating a motor vehicle:

    (a) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502; or

    (b) In a reckless manner; or

    (c) With disregard for the safety of others.

    (2) Vehicular homicide is a class A felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW, except that, for a conviction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, an additional two years shall be added to the sentence for each prior offense as defined in RCW 46.61.5055.

  • abc

    Josh

    RCW 46.61.520
    Vehicular homicide

    (1) When the death of any person ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person, the driver is guilty of vehicular homicide if the driver was operating a motor vehicle:

    (a) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502; or

    (b) In a reckless manner; or

    (c) With disregard for the safety of others.

    (2) Vehicular homicide is a class A felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW, except that, for a conviction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, an additional two years shall be added to the sentence for each prior offense as defined in RCW 46.61.5055.

  • abc

    Josh

    RCW 46.61.520
    Vehicular homicide

    (1) When the death of any person ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person, the driver is guilty of vehicular homicide if the driver was operating a motor vehicle:

    (a) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502; or

    (b) In a reckless manner; or

    (c) With disregard for the safety of others.

    (2) Vehicular homicide is a class A felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW, except that, for a conviction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, an additional two years shall be added to the sentence for each prior offense as defined in RCW 46.61.5055.

  • abc

    Josh

    RCW 46.61.520
    Vehicular homicide

    (1) When the death of any person ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person, the driver is guilty of vehicular homicide if the driver was operating a motor vehicle:

    (a) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502; or

    (b) In a reckless manner; or

    (c) With disregard for the safety of others.

    (2) Vehicular homicide is a class A felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW, except that, for a conviction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, an additional two years shall be added to the sentence for each prior offense as defined in RCW 46.61.5055.

  • abc

    Josh

    RCW 46.61.520
    Vehicular homicide

    (1) When the death of any person ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person, the driver is guilty of vehicular homicide if the driver was operating a motor vehicle:

    (a) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502; or

    (b) In a reckless manner; or

    (c) With disregard for the safety of others.

    (2) Vehicular homicide is a class A felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW, except that, for a conviction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, an additional two years shall be added to the sentence for each prior offense as defined in RCW 46.61.5055.

  • abc

    Josh

    RCW 46.61.520
    Vehicular homicide

    (1) When the death of any person ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person, the driver is guilty of vehicular homicide if the driver was operating a motor vehicle:

    (a) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502; or

    (b) In a reckless manner; or

    (c) With disregard for the safety of others.

    (2) Vehicular homicide is a class A felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW, except that, for a conviction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, an additional two years shall be added to the sentence for each prior offense as defined in RCW 46.61.5055.

  • abc

    Josh

    RCW 46.61.520
    Vehicular homicide

    (1) When the death of any person ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person, the driver is guilty of vehicular homicide if the driver was operating a motor vehicle:

    (a) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502; or

    (b) In a reckless manner; or

    (c) With disregard for the safety of others.

    (2) Vehicular homicide is a class A felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW, except that, for a conviction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, an additional two years shall be added to the sentence for each prior offense as defined in RCW 46.61.5055.

  • abc

    Josh

    RCW 46.61.520
    Vehicular homicide

    (1) When the death of any person ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person, the driver is guilty of vehicular homicide if the driver was operating a motor vehicle:

    (a) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502; or

    (b) In a reckless manner; or

    (c) With disregard for the safety of others.

    (2) Vehicular homicide is a class A felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW, except that, for a conviction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, an additional two years shall be added to the sentence for each prior offense as defined in RCW 46.61.5055.

  • abc

    Josh

    RCW 46.61.520
    Vehicular homicide

    (1) When the death of any person ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person, the driver is guilty of vehicular homicide if the driver was operating a motor vehicle:

    (a) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502; or

    (b) In a reckless manner; or

    (c) With disregard for the safety of others.

    (2) Vehicular homicide is a class A felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW, except that, for a conviction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, an additional two years shall be added to the sentence for each prior offense as defined in RCW 46.61.5055.

  • abc

    Josh

    RCW 46.61.520
    Vehicular homicide

    (1) When the death of any person ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person, the driver is guilty of vehicular homicide if the driver was operating a motor vehicle:

    (a) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502; or

    (b) In a reckless manner; or

    (c) With disregard for the safety of others.

    (2) Vehicular homicide is a class A felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW, except that, for a conviction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, an additional two years shall be added to the sentence for each prior offense as defined in RCW 46.61.5055.

  • abc

    Josh

    RCW 46.61.520
    Vehicular homicide

    (1) When the death of any person ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person, the driver is guilty of vehicular homicide if the driver was operating a motor vehicle:

    (a) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502; or

    (b) In a reckless manner; or

    (c) With disregard for the safety of others.

    (2) Vehicular homicide is a class A felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW, except that, for a conviction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, an additional two years shall be added to the sentence for each prior offense as defined in RCW 46.61.5055.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    And yet, it seems like the only people who get charged with vehicular homicide were driving while under the influence, not just “with disregard for the safety of others”.

    I wonder if I can find stats on that, actually? I’m curious to know how charges of vehicular homicide break down, with respect to sections a, b and c, there.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    And yet, it seems like the only people who get charged with vehicular homicide were driving while under the influence, not just “with disregard for the safety of others”.

    I wonder if I can find stats on that, actually? I’m curious to know how charges of vehicular homicide break down, with respect to sections a, b and c, there.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    And yet, it seems like the only people who get charged with vehicular homicide were driving while under the influence, not just “with disregard for the safety of others”.

    I wonder if I can find stats on that, actually? I’m curious to know how charges of vehicular homicide break down, with respect to sections a, b and c, there.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    And yet, it seems like the only people who get charged with vehicular homicide were driving while under the influence, not just “with disregard for the safety of others”.

    I wonder if I can find stats on that, actually? I’m curious to know how charges of vehicular homicide break down, with respect to sections a, b and c, there.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    And yet, it seems like the only people who get charged with vehicular homicide were driving while under the influence, not just “with disregard for the safety of others”.

    I wonder if I can find stats on that, actually? I’m curious to know how charges of vehicular homicide break down, with respect to sections a, b and c, there.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    And yet, it seems like the only people who get charged with vehicular homicide were driving while under the influence, not just “with disregard for the safety of others”.

    I wonder if I can find stats on that, actually? I’m curious to know how charges of vehicular homicide break down, with respect to sections a, b and c, there.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    And yet, it seems like the only people who get charged with vehicular homicide were driving while under the influence, not just “with disregard for the safety of others”.

    I wonder if I can find stats on that, actually? I’m curious to know how charges of vehicular homicide break down, with respect to sections a, b and c, there.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    And yet, it seems like the only people who get charged with vehicular homicide were driving while under the influence, not just “with disregard for the safety of others”.

    I wonder if I can find stats on that, actually? I’m curious to know how charges of vehicular homicide break down, with respect to sections a, b and c, there.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    And yet, it seems like the only people who get charged with vehicular homicide were driving while under the influence, not just “with disregard for the safety of others”.

    I wonder if I can find stats on that, actually? I’m curious to know how charges of vehicular homicide break down, with respect to sections a, b and c, there.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    And yet, it seems like the only people who get charged with vehicular homicide were driving while under the influence, not just “with disregard for the safety of others”.

    I wonder if I can find stats on that, actually? I’m curious to know how charges of vehicular homicide break down, with respect to sections a, b and c, there.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    And yet, it seems like the only people who get charged with vehicular homicide were driving while under the influence, not just “with disregard for the safety of others”.

    I wonder if I can find stats on that, actually? I’m curious to know how charges of vehicular homicide break down, with respect to sections a, b and c, there.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    And yet, it seems like the only people who get charged with vehicular homicide were driving while under the influence, not just “with disregard for the safety of others”.

    I wonder if I can find stats on that, actually? I’m curious to know how charges of vehicular homicide break down, with respect to sections a, b and c, there.

  • abc

    Josh – your good buddy Tom Carr let the Rabbi off without even a ticket that goes on his permanent record. Inattention to driving is not recorded at the state and therefore doesn’t even count against you for insurance purposes.

    This isn’t about making the streets safer this is about hating cars. Let’s require bikes to have bright lights front and rear day and night. Let’s give pedestrians safer infrastructure. In Kirkland after flags were introduced for pedestrians over 60 peds were killed but not one was using a flag.

    This is a little like the death penalty for kidnapping – after that was made the law kidnappers had nothing to lose by killing the victim.

    If people are prosecuted for an accident, they may just leave a scene instead of calling 911 for the injured party.

  • abc

    Josh – your good buddy Tom Carr let the Rabbi off without even a ticket that goes on his permanent record. Inattention to driving is not recorded at the state and therefore doesn’t even count against you for insurance purposes.

    This isn’t about making the streets safer this is about hating cars. Let’s require bikes to have bright lights front and rear day and night. Let’s give pedestrians safer infrastructure. In Kirkland after flags were introduced for pedestrians over 60 peds were killed but not one was using a flag.

    This is a little like the death penalty for kidnapping – after that was made the law kidnappers had nothing to lose by killing the victim.

    If people are prosecuted for an accident, they may just leave a scene instead of calling 911 for the injured party.

  • abc

    Josh – your good buddy Tom Carr let the Rabbi off without even a ticket that goes on his permanent record. Inattention to driving is not recorded at the state and therefore doesn’t even count against you for insurance purposes.

    This isn’t about making the streets safer this is about hating cars. Let’s require bikes to have bright lights front and rear day and night. Let’s give pedestrians safer infrastructure. In Kirkland after flags were introduced for pedestrians over 60 peds were killed but not one was using a flag.

    This is a little like the death penalty for kidnapping – after that was made the law kidnappers had nothing to lose by killing the victim.

    If people are prosecuted for an accident, they may just leave a scene instead of calling 911 for the injured party.

  • abc

    Josh – your good buddy Tom Carr let the Rabbi off without even a ticket that goes on his permanent record. Inattention to driving is not recorded at the state and therefore doesn’t even count against you for insurance purposes.

    This isn’t about making the streets safer this is about hating cars. Let’s require bikes to have bright lights front and rear day and night. Let’s give pedestrians safer infrastructure. In Kirkland after flags were introduced for pedestrians over 60 peds were killed but not one was using a flag.

    This is a little like the death penalty for kidnapping – after that was made the law kidnappers had nothing to lose by killing the victim.

    If people are prosecuted for an accident, they may just leave a scene instead of calling 911 for the injured party.

  • abc

    Josh – your good buddy Tom Carr let the Rabbi off without even a ticket that goes on his permanent record. Inattention to driving is not recorded at the state and therefore doesn’t even count against you for insurance purposes.

    This isn’t about making the streets safer this is about hating cars. Let’s require bikes to have bright lights front and rear day and night. Let’s give pedestrians safer infrastructure. In Kirkland after flags were introduced for pedestrians over 60 peds were killed but not one was using a flag.

    This is a little like the death penalty for kidnapping – after that was made the law kidnappers had nothing to lose by killing the victim.

    If people are prosecuted for an accident, they may just leave a scene instead of calling 911 for the injured party.

  • abc

    Josh – your good buddy Tom Carr let the Rabbi off without even a ticket that goes on his permanent record. Inattention to driving is not recorded at the state and therefore doesn’t even count against you for insurance purposes.

    This isn’t about making the streets safer this is about hating cars. Let’s require bikes to have bright lights front and rear day and night. Let’s give pedestrians safer infrastructure. In Kirkland after flags were introduced for pedestrians over 60 peds were killed but not one was using a flag.

    This is a little like the death penalty for kidnapping – after that was made the law kidnappers had nothing to lose by killing the victim.

    If people are prosecuted for an accident, they may just leave a scene instead of calling 911 for the injured party.

  • abc

    Josh – your good buddy Tom Carr let the Rabbi off without even a ticket that goes on his permanent record. Inattention to driving is not recorded at the state and therefore doesn’t even count against you for insurance purposes.

    This isn’t about making the streets safer this is about hating cars. Let’s require bikes to have bright lights front and rear day and night. Let’s give pedestrians safer infrastructure. In Kirkland after flags were introduced for pedestrians over 60 peds were killed but not one was using a flag.

    This is a little like the death penalty for kidnapping – after that was made the law kidnappers had nothing to lose by killing the victim.

    If people are prosecuted for an accident, they may just leave a scene instead of calling 911 for the injured party.

  • abc

    Josh – your good buddy Tom Carr let the Rabbi off without even a ticket that goes on his permanent record. Inattention to driving is not recorded at the state and therefore doesn’t even count against you for insurance purposes.

    This isn’t about making the streets safer this is about hating cars. Let’s require bikes to have bright lights front and rear day and night. Let’s give pedestrians safer infrastructure. In Kirkland after flags were introduced for pedestrians over 60 peds were killed but not one was using a flag.

    This is a little like the death penalty for kidnapping – after that was made the law kidnappers had nothing to lose by killing the victim.

    If people are prosecuted for an accident, they may just leave a scene instead of calling 911 for the injured party.

  • abc

    Josh – your good buddy Tom Carr let the Rabbi off without even a ticket that goes on his permanent record. Inattention to driving is not recorded at the state and therefore doesn’t even count against you for insurance purposes.

    This isn’t about making the streets safer this is about hating cars. Let’s require bikes to have bright lights front and rear day and night. Let’s give pedestrians safer infrastructure. In Kirkland after flags were introduced for pedestrians over 60 peds were killed but not one was using a flag.

    This is a little like the death penalty for kidnapping – after that was made the law kidnappers had nothing to lose by killing the victim.

    If people are prosecuted for an accident, they may just leave a scene instead of calling 911 for the injured party.

  • abc

    Josh – your good buddy Tom Carr let the Rabbi off without even a ticket that goes on his permanent record. Inattention to driving is not recorded at the state and therefore doesn’t even count against you for insurance purposes.

    This isn’t about making the streets safer this is about hating cars. Let’s require bikes to have bright lights front and rear day and night. Let’s give pedestrians safer infrastructure. In Kirkland after flags were introduced for pedestrians over 60 peds were killed but not one was using a flag.

    This is a little like the death penalty for kidnapping – after that was made the law kidnappers had nothing to lose by killing the victim.

    If people are prosecuted for an accident, they may just leave a scene instead of calling 911 for the injured party.

  • abc

    Josh – your good buddy Tom Carr let the Rabbi off without even a ticket that goes on his permanent record. Inattention to driving is not recorded at the state and therefore doesn’t even count against you for insurance purposes.

    This isn’t about making the streets safer this is about hating cars. Let’s require bikes to have bright lights front and rear day and night. Let’s give pedestrians safer infrastructure. In Kirkland after flags were introduced for pedestrians over 60 peds were killed but not one was using a flag.

    This is a little like the death penalty for kidnapping – after that was made the law kidnappers had nothing to lose by killing the victim.

    If people are prosecuted for an accident, they may just leave a scene instead of calling 911 for the injured party.

  • abc

    Josh – your good buddy Tom Carr let the Rabbi off without even a ticket that goes on his permanent record. Inattention to driving is not recorded at the state and therefore doesn’t even count against you for insurance purposes.

    This isn’t about making the streets safer this is about hating cars. Let’s require bikes to have bright lights front and rear day and night. Let’s give pedestrians safer infrastructure. In Kirkland after flags were introduced for pedestrians over 60 peds were killed but not one was using a flag.

    This is a little like the death penalty for kidnapping – after that was made the law kidnappers had nothing to lose by killing the victim.

    If people are prosecuted for an accident, they may just leave a scene instead of calling 911 for the injured party.

  • Good Grief

    Then again, maybe it’s also partly the idiot cyclist I just saw in downtown on 4th avenue, stupid. No helmet, ran a light on 4th at 4:30 pm, and oh, had her dog in tow attached to the real axle…

  • Good Grief

    Then again, maybe it’s also partly the idiot cyclist I just saw in downtown on 4th avenue, stupid. No helmet, ran a light on 4th at 4:30 pm, and oh, had her dog in tow attached to the real axle…

  • Good Grief

    Then again, maybe it’s also partly the idiot cyclist I just saw in downtown on 4th avenue, stupid. No helmet, ran a light on 4th at 4:30 pm, and oh, had her dog in tow attached to the real axle…

  • Good Grief

    Then again, maybe it’s also partly the idiot cyclist I just saw in downtown on 4th avenue, stupid. No helmet, ran a light on 4th at 4:30 pm, and oh, had her dog in tow attached to the real axle…

  • Good Grief

    Then again, maybe it’s also partly the idiot cyclist I just saw in downtown on 4th avenue, stupid. No helmet, ran a light on 4th at 4:30 pm, and oh, had her dog in tow attached to the real axle…

  • Good Grief

    Then again, maybe it’s also partly the idiot cyclist I just saw in downtown on 4th avenue, stupid. No helmet, ran a light on 4th at 4:30 pm, and oh, had her dog in tow attached to the real axle…

  • Good Grief

    Then again, maybe it’s also partly the idiot cyclist I just saw in downtown on 4th avenue, stupid. No helmet, ran a light on 4th at 4:30 pm, and oh, had her dog in tow attached to the real axle…

  • Good Grief

    Then again, maybe it’s also partly the idiot cyclist I just saw in downtown on 4th avenue, stupid. No helmet, ran a light on 4th at 4:30 pm, and oh, had her dog in tow attached to the real axle…

  • Good Grief

    Then again, maybe it’s also partly the idiot cyclist I just saw in downtown on 4th avenue, stupid. No helmet, ran a light on 4th at 4:30 pm, and oh, had her dog in tow attached to the real axle…

  • Good Grief

    Then again, maybe it’s also partly the idiot cyclist I just saw in downtown on 4th avenue, stupid. No helmet, ran a light on 4th at 4:30 pm, and oh, had her dog in tow attached to the real axle…

  • Good Grief

    Then again, maybe it’s also partly the idiot cyclist I just saw in downtown on 4th avenue, stupid. No helmet, ran a light on 4th at 4:30 pm, and oh, had her dog in tow attached to the real axle…

  • Good Grief

    Then again, maybe it’s also partly the idiot cyclist I just saw in downtown on 4th avenue, stupid. No helmet, ran a light on 4th at 4:30 pm, and oh, had her dog in tow attached to the real axle…

  • kneejerk

    #8 ok, so you saw an idiot cyclist today, and because you saw an idiot cyclist today, there should be no laws protecting cyclists and pedestrians from reckless drivers. uh, thanks for your insight.

  • kneejerk

    #8 ok, so you saw an idiot cyclist today, and because you saw an idiot cyclist today, there should be no laws protecting cyclists and pedestrians from reckless drivers. uh, thanks for your insight.

  • kneejerk

    #8 ok, so you saw an idiot cyclist today, and because you saw an idiot cyclist today, there should be no laws protecting cyclists and pedestrians from reckless drivers. uh, thanks for your insight.

  • kneejerk

    #8 ok, so you saw an idiot cyclist today, and because you saw an idiot cyclist today, there should be no laws protecting cyclists and pedestrians from reckless drivers. uh, thanks for your insight.

  • kneejerk

    #8 ok, so you saw an idiot cyclist today, and because you saw an idiot cyclist today, there should be no laws protecting cyclists and pedestrians from reckless drivers. uh, thanks for your insight.

  • kneejerk

    #8 ok, so you saw an idiot cyclist today, and because you saw an idiot cyclist today, there should be no laws protecting cyclists and pedestrians from reckless drivers. uh, thanks for your insight.

  • kneejerk

    #8 ok, so you saw an idiot cyclist today, and because you saw an idiot cyclist today, there should be no laws protecting cyclists and pedestrians from reckless drivers. uh, thanks for your insight.

  • kneejerk

    #8 ok, so you saw an idiot cyclist today, and because you saw an idiot cyclist today, there should be no laws protecting cyclists and pedestrians from reckless drivers. uh, thanks for your insight.

  • kneejerk

    #8 ok, so you saw an idiot cyclist today, and because you saw an idiot cyclist today, there should be no laws protecting cyclists and pedestrians from reckless drivers. uh, thanks for your insight.

  • kneejerk

    #8 ok, so you saw an idiot cyclist today, and because you saw an idiot cyclist today, there should be no laws protecting cyclists and pedestrians from reckless drivers. uh, thanks for your insight.

  • kneejerk

    #8 ok, so you saw an idiot cyclist today, and because you saw an idiot cyclist today, there should be no laws protecting cyclists and pedestrians from reckless drivers. uh, thanks for your insight.

  • kneejerk

    #8 ok, so you saw an idiot cyclist today, and because you saw an idiot cyclist today, there should be no laws protecting cyclists and pedestrians from reckless drivers. uh, thanks for your insight.

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    Huh. There’s a thought. If Rabbi Schwartz was convicted under SMC 12A.06.010 (B), which was overturned in August, what does that mean for his sentence? Would he have to file a new motion, or does the law being stricken automatically erase his conviction?

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    Huh. There’s a thought. If Rabbi Schwartz was convicted under SMC 12A.06.010 (B), which was overturned in August, what does that mean for his sentence? Would he have to file a new motion, or does the law being stricken automatically erase his conviction?

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    Huh. There’s a thought. If Rabbi Schwartz was convicted under SMC 12A.06.010 (B), which was overturned in August, what does that mean for his sentence? Would he have to file a new motion, or does the law being stricken automatically erase his conviction?

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    Huh. There’s a thought. If Rabbi Schwartz was convicted under SMC 12A.06.010 (B), which was overturned in August, what does that mean for his sentence? Would he have to file a new motion, or does the law being stricken automatically erase his conviction?

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    Huh. There’s a thought. If Rabbi Schwartz was convicted under SMC 12A.06.010 (B), which was overturned in August, what does that mean for his sentence? Would he have to file a new motion, or does the law being stricken automatically erase his conviction?

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    Huh. There’s a thought. If Rabbi Schwartz was convicted under SMC 12A.06.010 (B), which was overturned in August, what does that mean for his sentence? Would he have to file a new motion, or does the law being stricken automatically erase his conviction?

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    Huh. There’s a thought. If Rabbi Schwartz was convicted under SMC 12A.06.010 (B), which was overturned in August, what does that mean for his sentence? Would he have to file a new motion, or does the law being stricken automatically erase his conviction?

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    Huh. There’s a thought. If Rabbi Schwartz was convicted under SMC 12A.06.010 (B), which was overturned in August, what does that mean for his sentence? Would he have to file a new motion, or does the law being stricken automatically erase his conviction?

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    Huh. There’s a thought. If Rabbi Schwartz was convicted under SMC 12A.06.010 (B), which was overturned in August, what does that mean for his sentence? Would he have to file a new motion, or does the law being stricken automatically erase his conviction?

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    Huh. There’s a thought. If Rabbi Schwartz was convicted under SMC 12A.06.010 (B), which was overturned in August, what does that mean for his sentence? Would he have to file a new motion, or does the law being stricken automatically erase his conviction?

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    Huh. There’s a thought. If Rabbi Schwartz was convicted under SMC 12A.06.010 (B), which was overturned in August, what does that mean for his sentence? Would he have to file a new motion, or does the law being stricken automatically erase his conviction?

  • http://www.elsewhere.org/ Josh

    Huh. There’s a thought. If Rabbi Schwartz was convicted under SMC 12A.06.010 (B), which was overturned in August, what does that mean for his sentence? Would he have to file a new motion, or does the law being stricken automatically erase his conviction?

  • sarah68

    Adam’s right. Lifting licenses does absolutely nothing; people drive without them because they need to (job) or they want to (being an indiot). There need to be laws which don’t allow for pleading down, and which carry a penalty of incarceration for either the person or the vehicle, or both.

    And traffic laws should apply to vehicles and other means of transportation, including bikes and motorbikes. The latter don’t directly kill people like cars do, but they can contribute to or outright cause accidents.

  • sarah68

    Adam’s right. Lifting licenses does absolutely nothing; people drive without them because they need to (job) or they want to (being an indiot). There need to be laws which don’t allow for pleading down, and which carry a penalty of incarceration for either the person or the vehicle, or both.

    And traffic laws should apply to vehicles and other means of transportation, including bikes and motorbikes. The latter don’t directly kill people like cars do, but they can contribute to or outright cause accidents.

  • sarah68

    Adam’s right. Lifting licenses does absolutely nothing; people drive without them because they need to (job) or they want to (being an indiot). There need to be laws which don’t allow for pleading down, and which carry a penalty of incarceration for either the person or the vehicle, or both.

    And traffic laws should apply to vehicles and other means of transportation, including bikes and motorbikes. The latter don’t directly kill people like cars do, but they can contribute to or outright cause accidents.

  • sarah68

    Adam’s right. Lifting licenses does absolutely nothing; people drive without them because they need to (job) or they want to (being an indiot). There need to be laws which don’t allow for pleading down, and which carry a penalty of incarceration for either the person or the vehicle, or both.

    And traffic laws should apply to vehicles and other means of transportation, including bikes and motorbikes. The latter don’t directly kill people like cars do, but they can contribute to or outright cause accidents.

  • sarah68

    Adam’s right. Lifting licenses does absolutely nothing; people drive without them because they need to (job) or they want to (being an indiot). There need to be laws which don’t allow for pleading down, and which carry a penalty of incarceration for either the person or the vehicle, or both.

    And traffic laws should apply to vehicles and other means of transportation, including bikes and motorbikes. The latter don’t directly kill people like cars do, but they can contribute to or outright cause accidents.

  • sarah68

    Adam’s right. Lifting licenses does absolutely nothing; people drive without them because they need to (job) or they want to (being an indiot). There need to be laws which don’t allow for pleading down, and which carry a penalty of incarceration for either the person or the vehicle, or both.

    And traffic laws should apply to vehicles and other means of transportation, including bikes and motorbikes. The latter don’t directly kill people like cars do, but they can contribute to or outright cause accidents.

  • sarah68

    Adam’s right. Lifting licenses does absolutely nothing; people drive without them because they need to (job) or they want to (being an indiot). There need to be laws which don’t allow for pleading down, and which carry a penalty of incarceration for either the person or the vehicle, or both.

    And traffic laws should apply to vehicles and other means of transportation, including bikes and motorbikes. The latter don’t directly kill people like cars do, but they can contribute to or outright cause accidents.

  • sarah68

    Adam’s right. Lifting licenses does absolutely nothing; people drive without them because they need to (job) or they want to (being an indiot). There need to be laws which don’t allow for pleading down, and which carry a penalty of incarceration for either the person or the vehicle, or both.

    And traffic laws should apply to vehicles and other means of transportation, including bikes and motorbikes. The latter don’t directly kill people like cars do, but they can contribute to or outright cause accidents.

  • sarah68

    Adam’s right. Lifting licenses does absolutely nothing; people drive without them because they need to (job) or they want to (being an indiot). There need to be laws which don’t allow for pleading down, and which carry a penalty of incarceration for either the person or the vehicle, or both.

    And traffic laws should apply to vehicles and other means of transportation, including bikes and motorbikes. The latter don’t directly kill people like cars do, but they can contribute to or outright cause accidents.

  • sarah68

    Adam’s right. Lifting licenses does absolutely nothing; people drive without them because they need to (job) or they want to (being an indiot). There need to be laws which don’t allow for pleading down, and which carry a penalty of incarceration for either the person or the vehicle, or both.

    And traffic laws should apply to vehicles and other means of transportation, including bikes and motorbikes. The latter don’t directly kill people like cars do, but they can contribute to or outright cause accidents.

  • sarah68

    Adam’s right. Lifting licenses does absolutely nothing; people drive without them because they need to (job) or they want to (being an indiot). There need to be laws which don’t allow for pleading down, and which carry a penalty of incarceration for either the person or the vehicle, or both.

    And traffic laws should apply to vehicles and other means of transportation, including bikes and motorbikes. The latter don’t directly kill people like cars do, but they can contribute to or outright cause accidents.

  • sarah68

    Adam’s right. Lifting licenses does absolutely nothing; people drive without them because they need to (job) or they want to (being an indiot). There need to be laws which don’t allow for pleading down, and which carry a penalty of incarceration for either the person or the vehicle, or both.

    And traffic laws should apply to vehicles and other means of transportation, including bikes and motorbikes. The latter don’t directly kill people like cars do, but they can contribute to or outright cause accidents.

  • Scott

    Erica, your statement of the law is wrong.

    First: “Currently, only drunk or reckless drivers can be charged with a crime…”

    Not true. You can also be convicted of vehicular assault/homicide by driving a vehicle “[w]ith disregard for the safety of others and causes substantial bodily harm to another.” That’s not recklessness. This is what “disregard for the safety of others” means, according to the jury instructions:

    “Disregard for the safety of others means an aggravated kind of negligence or carelessness, falling short of recklessness but constituting a more serious dereliction than ordinary negligence. Ordinary negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary care. Ordinary negligence is the doing of some act which a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances. Ordinary negligence in operating a motor vehicle does not render a person guilty of vehicular homicide.”

    Next problem:

    “Put another way: If you want to murder someone, the best way to do it is with your car.”

    Again, not true (putting aside the loaded word “murder,” which doesn’t apply unless the killing is intentional). I assume you mean that it’s easier to get away with killing someone with a car than by some other means. But that’s not the case. The language from vehicular homicide above shows that you can be convicted for something less than recklessness. Murder is intentionally killing someone. First degree manslaughter is recklessly killing someone. Second degree manslaughter is killing someone with criminal negligence. In this instance, criminal negligence occurs when a person “fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a death may occur and this failure constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.” This strikes me as a somewhat higher standard than the “disregard” standard for vehicular homicide. As such, putting aside people who are intoxicated (and who are therefore subject to strict liability for vehicular homicide), under current law, you need to be less negligent to be convicted of a felony for negligently killing someone with a car than for killing someone with something other than a car.

  • Scott

    Erica, your statement of the law is wrong.

    First: “Currently, only drunk or reckless drivers can be charged with a crime…”

    Not true. You can also be convicted of vehicular assault/homicide by driving a vehicle “[w]ith disregard for the safety of others and causes substantial bodily harm to another.” That’s not recklessness. This is what “disregard for the safety of others” means, according to the jury instructions:

    “Disregard for the safety of others means an aggravated kind of negligence or carelessness, falling short of recklessness but constituting a more serious dereliction than ordinary negligence. Ordinary negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary care. Ordinary negligence is the doing of some act which a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances. Ordinary negligence in operating a motor vehicle does not render a person guilty of vehicular homicide.”

    Next problem:

    “Put another way: If you want to murder someone, the best way to do it is with your car.”

    Again, not true (putting aside the loaded word “murder,” which doesn’t apply unless the killing is intentional). I assume you mean that it’s easier to get away with killing someone with a car than by some other means. But that’s not the case. The language from vehicular homicide above shows that you can be convicted for something less than recklessness. Murder is intentionally killing someone. First degree manslaughter is recklessly killing someone. Second degree manslaughter is killing someone with criminal negligence. In this instance, criminal negligence occurs when a person “fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a death may occur and this failure constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.” This strikes me as a somewhat higher standard than the “disregard” standard for vehicular homicide. As such, putting aside people who are intoxicated (and who are therefore subject to strict liability for vehicular homicide), under current law, you need to be less negligent to be convicted of a felony for negligently killing someone with a car than for killing someone with something other than a car.

  • Scott

    Erica, your statement of the law is wrong.

    First: “Currently, only drunk or reckless drivers can be charged with a crime…”

    Not true. You can also be convicted of vehicular assault/homicide by driving a vehicle “[w]ith disregard for the safety of others and causes substantial bodily harm to another.” That’s not recklessness. This is what “disregard for the safety of others” means, according to the jury instructions:

    “Disregard for the safety of others means an aggravated kind of negligence or carelessness, falling short of recklessness but constituting a more serious dereliction than ordinary negligence. Ordinary negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary care. Ordinary negligence is the doing of some act which a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances. Ordinary negligence in operating a motor vehicle does not render a person guilty of vehicular homicide.”

    Next problem:

    “Put another way: If you want to murder someone, the best way to do it is with your car.”

    Again, not true (putting aside the loaded word “murder,” which doesn’t apply unless the killing is intentional). I assume you mean that it’s easier to get away with killing someone with a car than by some other means. But that’s not the case. The language from vehicular homicide above shows that you can be convicted for something less than recklessness. Murder is intentionally killing someone. First degree manslaughter is recklessly killing someone. Second degree manslaughter is killing someone with criminal negligence. In this instance, criminal negligence occurs when a person “fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a death may occur and this failure constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.” This strikes me as a somewhat higher standard than the “disregard” standard for vehicular homicide. As such, putting aside people who are intoxicated (and who are therefore subject to strict liability for vehicular homicide), under current law, you need to be less negligent to be convicted of a felony for negligently killing someone with a car than for killing someone with something other than a car.

  • Scott

    Erica, your statement of the law is wrong.

    First: “Currently, only drunk or reckless drivers can be charged with a crime…”

    Not true. You can also be convicted of vehicular assault/homicide by driving a vehicle “[w]ith disregard for the safety of others and causes substantial bodily harm to another.” That’s not recklessness. This is what “disregard for the safety of others” means, according to the jury instructions:

    “Disregard for the safety of others means an aggravated kind of negligence or carelessness, falling short of recklessness but constituting a more serious dereliction than ordinary negligence. Ordinary negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary care. Ordinary negligence is the doing of some act which a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances. Ordinary negligence in operating a motor vehicle does not render a person guilty of vehicular homicide.”

    Next problem:

    “Put another way: If you want to murder someone, the best way to do it is with your car.”

    Again, not true (putting aside the loaded word “murder,” which doesn’t apply unless the killing is intentional). I assume you mean that it’s easier to get away with killing someone with a car than by some other means. But that’s not the case. The language from vehicular homicide above shows that you can be convicted for something less than recklessness. Murder is intentionally killing someone. First degree manslaughter is recklessly killing someone. Second degree manslaughter is killing someone with criminal negligence. In this instance, criminal negligence occurs when a person “fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a death may occur and this failure constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.” This strikes me as a somewhat higher standard than the “disregard” standard for vehicular homicide. As such, putting aside people who are intoxicated (and who are therefore subject to strict liability for vehicular homicide), under current law, you need to be less negligent to be convicted of a felony for negligently killing someone with a car than for killing someone with something other than a car.

  • Scott

    Erica, your statement of the law is wrong.

    First: “Currently, only drunk or reckless drivers can be charged with a crime…”

    Not true. You can also be convicted of vehicular assault/homicide by driving a vehicle “[w]ith disregard for the safety of others and causes substantial bodily harm to another.” That’s not recklessness. This is what “disregard for the safety of others” means, according to the jury instructions:

    “Disregard for the safety of others means an aggravated kind of negligence or carelessness, falling short of recklessness but constituting a more serious dereliction than ordinary negligence. Ordinary negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary care. Ordinary negligence is the doing of some act which a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances. Ordinary negligence in operating a motor vehicle does not render a person guilty of vehicular homicide.”

    Next problem:

    “Put another way: If you want to murder someone, the best way to do it is with your car.”

    Again, not true (putting aside the loaded word “murder,” which doesn’t apply unless the killing is intentional). I assume you mean that it’s easier to get away with killing someone with a car than by some other means. But that’s not the case. The language from vehicular homicide above shows that you can be convicted for something less than recklessness. Murder is intentionally killing someone. First degree manslaughter is recklessly killing someone. Second degree manslaughter is killing someone with criminal negligence. In this instance, criminal negligence occurs when a person “fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a death may occur and this failure constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.” This strikes me as a somewhat higher standard than the “disregard” standard for vehicular homicide. As such, putting aside people who are intoxicated (and who are therefore subject to strict liability for vehicular homicide), under current law, you need to be less negligent to be convicted of a felony for negligently killing someone with a car than for killing someone with something other than a car.

  • Scott

    Erica, your statement of the law is wrong.

    First: “Currently, only drunk or reckless drivers can be charged with a crime…”

    Not true. You can also be convicted of vehicular assault/homicide by driving a vehicle “[w]ith disregard for the safety of others and causes substantial bodily harm to another.” That’s not recklessness. This is what “disregard for the safety of others” means, according to the jury instructions:

    “Disregard for the safety of others means an aggravated kind of negligence or carelessness, falling short of recklessness but constituting a more serious dereliction than ordinary negligence. Ordinary negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary care. Ordinary negligence is the doing of some act which a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances. Ordinary negligence in operating a motor vehicle does not render a person guilty of vehicular homicide.”

    Next problem:

    “Put another way: If you want to murder someone, the best way to do it is with your car.”

    Again, not true (putting aside the loaded word “murder,” which doesn’t apply unless the killing is intentional). I assume you mean that it’s easier to get away with killing someone with a car than by some other means. But that’s not the case. The language from vehicular homicide above shows that you can be convicted for something less than recklessness. Murder is intentionally killing someone. First degree manslaughter is recklessly killing someone. Second degree manslaughter is killing someone with criminal negligence. In this instance, criminal negligence occurs when a person “fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a death may occur and this failure constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.” This strikes me as a somewhat higher standard than the “disregard” standard for vehicular homicide. As such, putting aside people who are intoxicated (and who are therefore subject to strict liability for vehicular homicide), under current law, you need to be less negligent to be convicted of a felony for negligently killing someone with a car than for killing someone with something other than a car.

  • Scott

    Erica, your statement of the law is wrong.

    First: “Currently, only drunk or reckless drivers can be charged with a crime…”

    Not true. You can also be convicted of vehicular assault/homicide by driving a vehicle “[w]ith disregard for the safety of others and causes substantial bodily harm to another.” That’s not recklessness. This is what “disregard for the safety of others” means, according to the jury instructions:

    “Disregard for the safety of others means an aggravated kind of negligence or carelessness, falling short of recklessness but constituting a more serious dereliction than ordinary negligence. Ordinary negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary care. Ordinary negligence is the doing of some act which a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances. Ordinary negligence in operating a motor vehicle does not render a person guilty of vehicular homicide.”

    Next problem:

    “Put another way: If you want to murder someone, the best way to do it is with your car.”

    Again, not true (putting aside the loaded word “murder,” which doesn’t apply unless the killing is intentional). I assume you mean that it’s easier to get away with killing someone with a car than by some other means. But that’s not the case. The language from vehicular homicide above shows that you can be convicted for something less than recklessness. Murder is intentionally killing someone. First degree manslaughter is recklessly killing someone. Second degree manslaughter is killing someone with criminal negligence. In this instance, criminal negligence occurs when a person “fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a death may occur and this failure constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.” This strikes me as a somewhat higher standard than the “disregard” standard for vehicular homicide. As such, putting aside people who are intoxicated (and who are therefore subject to strict liability for vehicular homicide), under current law, you need to be less negligent to be convicted of a felony for negligently killing someone with a car than for killing someone with something other than a car.

  • Scott

    Erica, your statement of the law is wrong.

    First: “Currently, only drunk or reckless drivers can be charged with a crime…”

    Not true. You can also be convicted of vehicular assault/homicide by driving a vehicle “[w]ith disregard for the safety of others and causes substantial bodily harm to another.” That’s not recklessness. This is what “disregard for the safety of others” means, according to the jury instructions:

    “Disregard for the safety of others means an aggravated kind of negligence or carelessness, falling short of recklessness but constituting a more serious dereliction than ordinary negligence. Ordinary negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary care. Ordinary negligence is the doing of some act which a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances. Ordinary negligence in operating a motor vehicle does not render a person guilty of vehicular homicide.”

    Next problem:

    “Put another way: If you want to murder someone, the best way to do it is with your car.”

    Again, not true (putting aside the loaded word “murder,” which doesn’t apply unless the killing is intentional). I assume you mean that it’s easier to get away with killing someone with a car than by some other means. But that’s not the case. The language from vehicular homicide above shows that you can be convicted for something less than recklessness. Murder is intentionally killing someone. First degree manslaughter is recklessly killing someone. Second degree manslaughter is killing someone with criminal negligence. In this instance, criminal negligence occurs when a person “fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a death may occur and this failure constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.” This strikes me as a somewhat higher standard than the “disregard” standard for vehicular homicide. As such, putting aside people who are intoxicated (and who are therefore subject to strict liability for vehicular homicide), under current law, you need to be less negligent to be convicted of a felony for negligently killing someone with a car than for killing someone with something other than a car.

  • Scott

    Erica, your statement of the law is wrong.

    First: “Currently, only drunk or reckless drivers can be charged with a crime…”

    Not true. You can also be convicted of vehicular assault/homicide by driving a vehicle “[w]ith disregard for the safety of others and causes substantial bodily harm to another.” That’s not recklessness. This is what “disregard for the safety of others” means, according to the jury instructions:

    “Disregard for the safety of others means an aggravated kind of negligence or carelessness, falling short of recklessness but constituting a more serious dereliction than ordinary negligence. Ordinary negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary care. Ordinary negligence is the doing of some act which a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances. Ordinary negligence in operating a motor vehicle does not render a person guilty of vehicular homicide.”

    Next problem:

    “Put another way: If you want to murder someone, the best way to do it is with your car.”

    Again, not true (putting aside the loaded word “murder,” which doesn’t apply unless the killing is intentional). I assume you mean that it’s easier to get away with killing someone with a car than by some other means. But that’s not the case. The language from vehicular homicide above shows that you can be convicted for something less than recklessness. Murder is intentionally killing someone. First degree manslaughter is recklessly killing someone. Second degree manslaughter is killing someone with criminal negligence. In this instance, criminal negligence occurs when a person “fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a death may occur and this failure constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.” This strikes me as a somewhat higher standard than the “disregard” standard for vehicular homicide. As such, putting aside people who are intoxicated (and who are therefore subject to strict liability for vehicular homicide), under current law, you need to be less negligent to be convicted of a felony for negligently killing someone with a car than for killing someone with something other than a car.

  • Scott

    Erica, your statement of the law is wrong.

    First: “Currently, only drunk or reckless drivers can be charged with a crime…”

    Not true. You can also be convicted of vehicular assault/homicide by driving a vehicle “[w]ith disregard for the safety of others and causes substantial bodily harm to another.” That’s not recklessness. This is what “disregard for the safety of others” means, according to the jury instructions:

    “Disregard for the safety of others means an aggravated kind of negligence or carelessness, falling short of recklessness but constituting a more serious dereliction than ordinary negligence. Ordinary negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary care. Ordinary negligence is the doing of some act which a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances. Ordinary negligence in operating a motor vehicle does not render a person guilty of vehicular homicide.”

    Next problem:

    “Put another way: If you want to murder someone, the best way to do it is with your car.”

    Again, not true (putting aside the loaded word “murder,” which doesn’t apply unless the killing is intentional). I assume you mean that it’s easier to get away with killing someone with a car than by some other means. But that’s not the case. The language from vehicular homicide above shows that you can be convicted for something less than recklessness. Murder is intentionally killing someone. First degree manslaughter is recklessly killing someone. Second degree manslaughter is killing someone with criminal negligence. In this instance, criminal negligence occurs when a person “fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a death may occur and this failure constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.” This strikes me as a somewhat higher standard than the “disregard” standard for vehicular homicide. As such, putting aside people who are intoxicated (and who are therefore subject to strict liability for vehicular homicide), under current law, you need to be less negligent to be convicted of a felony for negligently killing someone with a car than for killing someone with something other than a car.

  • Scott

    Erica, your statement of the law is wrong.

    First: “Currently, only drunk or reckless drivers can be charged with a crime…”

    Not true. You can also be convicted of vehicular assault/homicide by driving a vehicle “[w]ith disregard for the safety of others and causes substantial bodily harm to another.” That’s not recklessness. This is what “disregard for the safety of others” means, according to the jury instructions:

    “Disregard for the safety of others means an aggravated kind of negligence or carelessness, falling short of recklessness but constituting a more serious dereliction than ordinary negligence. Ordinary negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary care. Ordinary negligence is the doing of some act which a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances. Ordinary negligence in operating a motor vehicle does not render a person guilty of vehicular homicide.”

    Next problem:

    “Put another way: If you want to murder someone, the best way to do it is with your car.”

    Again, not true (putting aside the loaded word “murder,” which doesn’t apply unless the killing is intentional). I assume you mean that it’s easier to get away with killing someone with a car than by some other means. But that’s not the case. The language from vehicular homicide above shows that you can be convicted for something less than recklessness. Murder is intentionally killing someone. First degree manslaughter is recklessly killing someone. Second degree manslaughter is killing someone with criminal negligence. In this instance, criminal negligence occurs when a person “fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a death may occur and this failure constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.” This strikes me as a somewhat higher standard than the “disregard” standard for vehicular homicide. As such, putting aside people who are intoxicated (and who are therefore subject to strict liability for vehicular homicide), under current law, you need to be less negligent to be convicted of a felony for negligently killing someone with a car than for killing someone with something other than a car.

  • Scott

    Erica, your statement of the law is wrong.

    First: “Currently, only drunk or reckless drivers can be charged with a crime…”

    Not true. You can also be convicted of vehicular assault/homicide by driving a vehicle “[w]ith disregard for the safety of others and causes substantial bodily harm to another.” That’s not recklessness. This is what “disregard for the safety of others” means, according to the jury instructions:

    “Disregard for the safety of others means an aggravated kind of negligence or carelessness, falling short of recklessness but constituting a more serious dereliction than ordinary negligence. Ordinary negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary care. Ordinary negligence is the doing of some act which a reasonably careful person would not do under the same or similar circumstances or the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would have done under the same or similar circumstances. Ordinary negligence in operating a motor vehicle does not render a person guilty of vehicular homicide.”

    Next problem:

    “Put another way: If you want to murder someone, the best way to do it is with your car.”

    Again, not true (putting aside the loaded word “murder,” which doesn’t apply unless the killing is intentional). I assume you mean that it’s easier to get away with killing someone with a car than by some other means. But that’s not the case. The language from vehicular homicide above shows that you can be convicted for something less than recklessness. Murder is intentionally killing someone. First degree manslaughter is recklessly killing someone. Second degree manslaughter is killing someone with criminal negligence. In this instance, criminal negligence occurs when a person “fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a death may occur and this failure constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.” This strikes me as a somewhat higher standard than the “disregard” standard for vehicular homicide. As such, putting aside people who are intoxicated (and who are therefore subject to strict liability for vehicular homicide), under current law, you need to be less negligent to be convicted of a felony for negligently killing someone with a car than for killing someone with something other than a car.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    I think cycling activists can be cranks (which coincides with the title of this column yuk yuk yuk) but I totally agree that hitting and injuring/killing a pedestrian or cyclist with a vehicle while violating traffic laws should be grounds for severe legal penalties, and it surprises me that WA allows you to drive away if you do this to people. “Whoopsie!”

    Really, WA just has some painfully lax licensing regs and needs to toughen them up. I can’t believe I didn’t have to pass a driving test to get a license here. All I had to do when I moved here was answer some stupid easy questions on a test and read two lines on an eye chart. Ridiculous.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    I think cycling activists can be cranks (which coincides with the title of this column yuk yuk yuk) but I totally agree that hitting and injuring/killing a pedestrian or cyclist with a vehicle while violating traffic laws should be grounds for severe legal penalties, and it surprises me that WA allows you to drive away if you do this to people. “Whoopsie!”

    Really, WA just has some painfully lax licensing regs and needs to toughen them up. I can’t believe I didn’t have to pass a driving test to get a license here. All I had to do when I moved here was answer some stupid easy questions on a test and read two lines on an eye chart. Ridiculous.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    I think cycling activists can be cranks (which coincides with the title of this column yuk yuk yuk) but I totally agree that hitting and injuring/killing a pedestrian or cyclist with a vehicle while violating traffic laws should be grounds for severe legal penalties, and it surprises me that WA allows you to drive away if you do this to people. “Whoopsie!”

    Really, WA just has some painfully lax licensing regs and needs to toughen them up. I can’t believe I didn’t have to pass a driving test to get a license here. All I had to do when I moved here was answer some stupid easy questions on a test and read two lines on an eye chart. Ridiculous.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    I think cycling activists can be cranks (which coincides with the title of this column yuk yuk yuk) but I totally agree that hitting and injuring/killing a pedestrian or cyclist with a vehicle while violating traffic laws should be grounds for severe legal penalties, and it surprises me that WA allows you to drive away if you do this to people. “Whoopsie!”

    Really, WA just has some painfully lax licensing regs and needs to toughen them up. I can’t believe I didn’t have to pass a driving test to get a license here. All I had to do when I moved here was answer some stupid easy questions on a test and read two lines on an eye chart. Ridiculous.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    I think cycling activists can be cranks (which coincides with the title of this column yuk yuk yuk) but I totally agree that hitting and injuring/killing a pedestrian or cyclist with a vehicle while violating traffic laws should be grounds for severe legal penalties, and it surprises me that WA allows you to drive away if you do this to people. “Whoopsie!”

    Really, WA just has some painfully lax licensing regs and needs to toughen them up. I can’t believe I didn’t have to pass a driving test to get a license here. All I had to do when I moved here was answer some stupid easy questions on a test and read two lines on an eye chart. Ridiculous.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    I think cycling activists can be cranks (which coincides with the title of this column yuk yuk yuk) but I totally agree that hitting and injuring/killing a pedestrian or cyclist with a vehicle while violating traffic laws should be grounds for severe legal penalties, and it surprises me that WA allows you to drive away if you do this to people. “Whoopsie!”

    Really, WA just has some painfully lax licensing regs and needs to toughen them up. I can’t believe I didn’t have to pass a driving test to get a license here. All I had to do when I moved here was answer some stupid easy questions on a test and read two lines on an eye chart. Ridiculous.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    I think cycling activists can be cranks (which coincides with the title of this column yuk yuk yuk) but I totally agree that hitting and injuring/killing a pedestrian or cyclist with a vehicle while violating traffic laws should be grounds for severe legal penalties, and it surprises me that WA allows you to drive away if you do this to people. “Whoopsie!”

    Really, WA just has some painfully lax licensing regs and needs to toughen them up. I can’t believe I didn’t have to pass a driving test to get a license here. All I had to do when I moved here was answer some stupid easy questions on a test and read two lines on an eye chart. Ridiculous.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    I think cycling activists can be cranks (which coincides with the title of this column yuk yuk yuk) but I totally agree that hitting and injuring/killing a pedestrian or cyclist with a vehicle while violating traffic laws should be grounds for severe legal penalties, and it surprises me that WA allows you to drive away if you do this to people. “Whoopsie!”

    Really, WA just has some painfully lax licensing regs and needs to toughen them up. I can’t believe I didn’t have to pass a driving test to get a license here. All I had to do when I moved here was answer some stupid easy questions on a test and read two lines on an eye chart. Ridiculous.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    I think cycling activists can be cranks (which coincides with the title of this column yuk yuk yuk) but I totally agree that hitting and injuring/killing a pedestrian or cyclist with a vehicle while violating traffic laws should be grounds for severe legal penalties, and it surprises me that WA allows you to drive away if you do this to people. “Whoopsie!”

    Really, WA just has some painfully lax licensing regs and needs to toughen them up. I can’t believe I didn’t have to pass a driving test to get a license here. All I had to do when I moved here was answer some stupid easy questions on a test and read two lines on an eye chart. Ridiculous.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    I think cycling activists can be cranks (which coincides with the title of this column yuk yuk yuk) but I totally agree that hitting and injuring/killing a pedestrian or cyclist with a vehicle while violating traffic laws should be grounds for severe legal penalties, and it surprises me that WA allows you to drive away if you do this to people. “Whoopsie!”

    Really, WA just has some painfully lax licensing regs and needs to toughen them up. I can’t believe I didn’t have to pass a driving test to get a license here. All I had to do when I moved here was answer some stupid easy questions on a test and read two lines on an eye chart. Ridiculous.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    I think cycling activists can be cranks (which coincides with the title of this column yuk yuk yuk) but I totally agree that hitting and injuring/killing a pedestrian or cyclist with a vehicle while violating traffic laws should be grounds for severe legal penalties, and it surprises me that WA allows you to drive away if you do this to people. “Whoopsie!”

    Really, WA just has some painfully lax licensing regs and needs to toughen them up. I can’t believe I didn’t have to pass a driving test to get a license here. All I had to do when I moved here was answer some stupid easy questions on a test and read two lines on an eye chart. Ridiculous.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    I think cycling activists can be cranks (which coincides with the title of this column yuk yuk yuk) but I totally agree that hitting and injuring/killing a pedestrian or cyclist with a vehicle while violating traffic laws should be grounds for severe legal penalties, and it surprises me that WA allows you to drive away if you do this to people. “Whoopsie!”

    Really, WA just has some painfully lax licensing regs and needs to toughen them up. I can’t believe I didn’t have to pass a driving test to get a license here. All I had to do when I moved here was answer some stupid easy questions on a test and read two lines on an eye chart. Ridiculous.

  • Mahtli69

    The problem with a law like this is that it won’t actually protect any cyclists. There is already a felony on the books, vehicular manslaughter. If that doesn’t deter motorists from running over cyclists, then what makes anyone think that a misdemeanor charge will? Is anyone out there making the argument that drivers disregard cyclists because vehicular manslaughter is rarely charged?

    If you want to protect cyclists, give us more places to ride that are separated from car traffic. Cars aren’t safe, with or without these laws.

  • Mahtli69

    The problem with a law like this is that it won’t actually protect any cyclists. There is already a felony on the books, vehicular manslaughter. If that doesn’t deter motorists from running over cyclists, then what makes anyone think that a misdemeanor charge will? Is anyone out there making the argument that drivers disregard cyclists because vehicular manslaughter is rarely charged?

    If you want to protect cyclists, give us more places to ride that are separated from car traffic. Cars aren’t safe, with or without these laws.

  • Mahtli69

    The problem with a law like this is that it won’t actually protect any cyclists. There is already a felony on the books, vehicular manslaughter. If that doesn’t deter motorists from running over cyclists, then what makes anyone think that a misdemeanor charge will? Is anyone out there making the argument that drivers disregard cyclists because vehicular manslaughter is rarely charged?

    If you want to protect cyclists, give us more places to ride that are separated from car traffic. Cars aren’t safe, with or without these laws.

  • Mahtli69

    The problem with a law like this is that it won’t actually protect any cyclists. There is already a felony on the books, vehicular manslaughter. If that doesn’t deter motorists from running over cyclists, then what makes anyone think that a misdemeanor charge will? Is anyone out there making the argument that drivers disregard cyclists because vehicular manslaughter is rarely charged?

    If you want to protect cyclists, give us more places to ride that are separated from car traffic. Cars aren’t safe, with or without these laws.

  • Mahtli69

    The problem with a law like this is that it won’t actually protect any cyclists. There is already a felony on the books, vehicular manslaughter. If that doesn’t deter motorists from running over cyclists, then what makes anyone think that a misdemeanor charge will? Is anyone out there making the argument that drivers disregard cyclists because vehicular manslaughter is rarely charged?

    If you want to protect cyclists, give us more places to ride that are separated from car traffic. Cars aren’t safe, with or without these laws.

  • Mahtli69

    The problem with a law like this is that it won’t actually protect any cyclists. There is already a felony on the books, vehicular manslaughter. If that doesn’t deter motorists from running over cyclists, then what makes anyone think that a misdemeanor charge will? Is anyone out there making the argument that drivers disregard cyclists because vehicular manslaughter is rarely charged?

    If you want to protect cyclists, give us more places to ride that are separated from car traffic. Cars aren’t safe, with or without these laws.

  • Mahtli69

    The problem with a law like this is that it won’t actually protect any cyclists. There is already a felony on the books, vehicular manslaughter. If that doesn’t deter motorists from running over cyclists, then what makes anyone think that a misdemeanor charge will? Is anyone out there making the argument that drivers disregard cyclists because vehicular manslaughter is rarely charged?

    If you want to protect cyclists, give us more places to ride that are separated from car traffic. Cars aren’t safe, with or without these laws.

  • Mahtli69

    The problem with a law like this is that it won’t actually protect any cyclists. There is already a felony on the books, vehicular manslaughter. If that doesn’t deter motorists from running over cyclists, then what makes anyone think that a misdemeanor charge will? Is anyone out there making the argument that drivers disregard cyclists because vehicular manslaughter is rarely charged?

    If you want to protect cyclists, give us more places to ride that are separated from car traffic. Cars aren’t safe, with or without these laws.

  • Mahtli69

    The problem with a law like this is that it won’t actually protect any cyclists. There is already a felony on the books, vehicular manslaughter. If that doesn’t deter motorists from running over cyclists, then what makes anyone think that a misdemeanor charge will? Is anyone out there making the argument that drivers disregard cyclists because vehicular manslaughter is rarely charged?

    If you want to protect cyclists, give us more places to ride that are separated from car traffic. Cars aren’t safe, with or without these laws.

  • Mahtli69

    The problem with a law like this is that it won’t actually protect any cyclists. There is already a felony on the books, vehicular manslaughter. If that doesn’t deter motorists from running over cyclists, then what makes anyone think that a misdemeanor charge will? Is anyone out there making the argument that drivers disregard cyclists because vehicular manslaughter is rarely charged?

    If you want to protect cyclists, give us more places to ride that are separated from car traffic. Cars aren’t safe, with or without these laws.

  • Mahtli69

    The problem with a law like this is that it won’t actually protect any cyclists. There is already a felony on the books, vehicular manslaughter. If that doesn’t deter motorists from running over cyclists, then what makes anyone think that a misdemeanor charge will? Is anyone out there making the argument that drivers disregard cyclists because vehicular manslaughter is rarely charged?

    If you want to protect cyclists, give us more places to ride that are separated from car traffic. Cars aren’t safe, with or without these laws.

  • Mahtli69

    The problem with a law like this is that it won’t actually protect any cyclists. There is already a felony on the books, vehicular manslaughter. If that doesn’t deter motorists from running over cyclists, then what makes anyone think that a misdemeanor charge will? Is anyone out there making the argument that drivers disregard cyclists because vehicular manslaughter is rarely charged?

    If you want to protect cyclists, give us more places to ride that are separated from car traffic. Cars aren’t safe, with or without these laws.

  • abc

    And make bicycles have lights and clothing on riders that makes them easy to see.

    Or why don’t we make every traffic violation for both bikes and cars punishable by a year in jail? Now that would make the streets really safe and empty.

  • abc

    And make bicycles have lights and clothing on riders that makes them easy to see.

    Or why don’t we make every traffic violation for both bikes and cars punishable by a year in jail? Now that would make the streets really safe and empty.

  • abc

    And make bicycles have lights and clothing on riders that makes them easy to see.

    Or why don’t we make every traffic violation for both bikes and cars punishable by a year in jail? Now that would make the streets really safe and empty.

  • abc

    And make bicycles have lights and clothing on riders that makes them easy to see.

    Or why don’t we make every traffic violation for both bikes and cars punishable by a year in jail? Now that would make the streets really safe and empty.

  • abc

    And make bicycles have lights and clothing on riders that makes them easy to see.

    Or why don’t we make every traffic violation for both bikes and cars punishable by a year in jail? Now that would make the streets really safe and empty.

  • abc

    And make bicycles have lights and clothing on riders that makes them easy to see.

    Or why don’t we make every traffic violation for both bikes and cars punishable by a year in jail? Now that would make the streets really safe and empty.

  • abc

    And make bicycles have lights and clothing on riders that makes them easy to see.

    Or why don’t we make every traffic violation for both bikes and cars punishable by a year in jail? Now that would make the streets really safe and empty.

  • abc

    And make bicycles have lights and clothing on riders that makes them easy to see.

    Or why don’t we make every traffic violation for both bikes and cars punishable by a year in jail? Now that would make the streets really safe and empty.

  • abc

    And make bicycles have lights and clothing on riders that makes them easy to see.

    Or why don’t we make every traffic violation for both bikes and cars punishable by a year in jail? Now that would make the streets really safe and empty.

  • abc

    And make bicycles have lights and clothing on riders that makes them easy to see.

    Or why don’t we make every traffic violation for both bikes and cars punishable by a year in jail? Now that would make the streets really safe and empty.

  • abc

    And make bicycles have lights and clothing on riders that makes them easy to see.

    Or why don’t we make every traffic violation for both bikes and cars punishable by a year in jail? Now that would make the streets really safe and empty.

  • abc

    And make bicycles have lights and clothing on riders that makes them easy to see.

    Or why don’t we make every traffic violation for both bikes and cars punishable by a year in jail? Now that would make the streets really safe and empty.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    14. Except they don’t throw down the vehicular manslaughter charge. They give you a ticket and let you go after hitting a cyclist, because making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver… and cops aren’t willing to put forth the effort to file such a charge.

    I’m also not sure accident laws so much are the problem as their enforcement and the licensing regs.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    14. Except they don’t throw down the vehicular manslaughter charge. They give you a ticket and let you go after hitting a cyclist, because making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver… and cops aren’t willing to put forth the effort to file such a charge.

    I’m also not sure accident laws so much are the problem as their enforcement and the licensing regs.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    14. Except they don’t throw down the vehicular manslaughter charge. They give you a ticket and let you go after hitting a cyclist, because making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver… and cops aren’t willing to put forth the effort to file such a charge.

    I’m also not sure accident laws so much are the problem as their enforcement and the licensing regs.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    14. Except they don’t throw down the vehicular manslaughter charge. They give you a ticket and let you go after hitting a cyclist, because making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver… and cops aren’t willing to put forth the effort to file such a charge.

    I’m also not sure accident laws so much are the problem as their enforcement and the licensing regs.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    14. Except they don’t throw down the vehicular manslaughter charge. They give you a ticket and let you go after hitting a cyclist, because making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver… and cops aren’t willing to put forth the effort to file such a charge.

    I’m also not sure accident laws so much are the problem as their enforcement and the licensing regs.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    14. Except they don’t throw down the vehicular manslaughter charge. They give you a ticket and let you go after hitting a cyclist, because making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver… and cops aren’t willing to put forth the effort to file such a charge.

    I’m also not sure accident laws so much are the problem as their enforcement and the licensing regs.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    14. Except they don’t throw down the vehicular manslaughter charge. They give you a ticket and let you go after hitting a cyclist, because making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver… and cops aren’t willing to put forth the effort to file such a charge.

    I’m also not sure accident laws so much are the problem as their enforcement and the licensing regs.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    14. Except they don’t throw down the vehicular manslaughter charge. They give you a ticket and let you go after hitting a cyclist, because making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver… and cops aren’t willing to put forth the effort to file such a charge.

    I’m also not sure accident laws so much are the problem as their enforcement and the licensing regs.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    14. Except they don’t throw down the vehicular manslaughter charge. They give you a ticket and let you go after hitting a cyclist, because making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver… and cops aren’t willing to put forth the effort to file such a charge.

    I’m also not sure accident laws so much are the problem as their enforcement and the licensing regs.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    14. Except they don’t throw down the vehicular manslaughter charge. They give you a ticket and let you go after hitting a cyclist, because making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver… and cops aren’t willing to put forth the effort to file such a charge.

    I’m also not sure accident laws so much are the problem as their enforcement and the licensing regs.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    14. Except they don’t throw down the vehicular manslaughter charge. They give you a ticket and let you go after hitting a cyclist, because making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver… and cops aren’t willing to put forth the effort to file such a charge.

    I’m also not sure accident laws so much are the problem as their enforcement and the licensing regs.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    14. Except they don’t throw down the vehicular manslaughter charge. They give you a ticket and let you go after hitting a cyclist, because making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver… and cops aren’t willing to put forth the effort to file such a charge.

    I’m also not sure accident laws so much are the problem as their enforcement and the licensing regs.

  • Scott

    Gomez says: “making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver.” That is not true. Read the statute and my earlier comment @#12. The law explicitly allows vehicular manslaughter/assault charges in non-alcohol cases where there is “aggravated negligence,” but not recklessness (let along “malicious or gross reckless activity”). If prosecutors don’t charge that enough, you’ll have to take that issue up with Dan Satterberg.

  • Scott

    Gomez says: “making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver.” That is not true. Read the statute and my earlier comment @#12. The law explicitly allows vehicular manslaughter/assault charges in non-alcohol cases where there is “aggravated negligence,” but not recklessness (let along “malicious or gross reckless activity”). If prosecutors don’t charge that enough, you’ll have to take that issue up with Dan Satterberg.

  • Scott

    Gomez says: “making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver.” That is not true. Read the statute and my earlier comment @#12. The law explicitly allows vehicular manslaughter/assault charges in non-alcohol cases where there is “aggravated negligence,” but not recklessness (let along “malicious or gross reckless activity”). If prosecutors don’t charge that enough, you’ll have to take that issue up with Dan Satterberg.

  • Scott

    Gomez says: “making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver.” That is not true. Read the statute and my earlier comment @#12. The law explicitly allows vehicular manslaughter/assault charges in non-alcohol cases where there is “aggravated negligence,” but not recklessness (let along “malicious or gross reckless activity”). If prosecutors don’t charge that enough, you’ll have to take that issue up with Dan Satterberg.

  • Scott

    Gomez says: “making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver.” That is not true. Read the statute and my earlier comment @#12. The law explicitly allows vehicular manslaughter/assault charges in non-alcohol cases where there is “aggravated negligence,” but not recklessness (let along “malicious or gross reckless activity”). If prosecutors don’t charge that enough, you’ll have to take that issue up with Dan Satterberg.

  • Scott

    Gomez says: “making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver.” That is not true. Read the statute and my earlier comment @#12. The law explicitly allows vehicular manslaughter/assault charges in non-alcohol cases where there is “aggravated negligence,” but not recklessness (let along “malicious or gross reckless activity”). If prosecutors don’t charge that enough, you’ll have to take that issue up with Dan Satterberg.

  • Scott

    Gomez says: “making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver.” That is not true. Read the statute and my earlier comment @#12. The law explicitly allows vehicular manslaughter/assault charges in non-alcohol cases where there is “aggravated negligence,” but not recklessness (let along “malicious or gross reckless activity”). If prosecutors don’t charge that enough, you’ll have to take that issue up with Dan Satterberg.

  • Scott

    Gomez says: “making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver.” That is not true. Read the statute and my earlier comment @#12. The law explicitly allows vehicular manslaughter/assault charges in non-alcohol cases where there is “aggravated negligence,” but not recklessness (let along “malicious or gross reckless activity”). If prosecutors don’t charge that enough, you’ll have to take that issue up with Dan Satterberg.

  • Scott

    Gomez says: “making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver.” That is not true. Read the statute and my earlier comment @#12. The law explicitly allows vehicular manslaughter/assault charges in non-alcohol cases where there is “aggravated negligence,” but not recklessness (let along “malicious or gross reckless activity”). If prosecutors don’t charge that enough, you’ll have to take that issue up with Dan Satterberg.

  • Scott

    Gomez says: “making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver.” That is not true. Read the statute and my earlier comment @#12. The law explicitly allows vehicular manslaughter/assault charges in non-alcohol cases where there is “aggravated negligence,” but not recklessness (let along “malicious or gross reckless activity”). If prosecutors don’t charge that enough, you’ll have to take that issue up with Dan Satterberg.

  • Scott

    Gomez says: “making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver.” That is not true. Read the statute and my earlier comment @#12. The law explicitly allows vehicular manslaughter/assault charges in non-alcohol cases where there is “aggravated negligence,” but not recklessness (let along “malicious or gross reckless activity”). If prosecutors don’t charge that enough, you’ll have to take that issue up with Dan Satterberg.

  • Scott

    Gomez says: “making a vehicular manslaughter charge stick requires malicious or gross reckless activity (like drunk driving) on the part of the driver.” That is not true. Read the statute and my earlier comment @#12. The law explicitly allows vehicular manslaughter/assault charges in non-alcohol cases where there is “aggravated negligence,” but not recklessness (let along “malicious or gross reckless activity”). If prosecutors don’t charge that enough, you’ll have to take that issue up with Dan Satterberg.

  • Mahtli69

    @16 – The law isn’t the problem. Period. Not how it’s written. Not how it’s enforced.

    The problem is that having bikes and cars in the same thoroughfare is inherently dangerous.

    This law would save ZERO lives, and possibly ruin the lives of those who are charged with it. Proponents think that they will get some satisfaction if a driver that kills a cyclist gets charged with a misdemeanor, but I guarantee you that will not be the case.

  • Mahtli69

    @16 – The law isn’t the problem. Period. Not how it’s written. Not how it’s enforced.

    The problem is that having bikes and cars in the same thoroughfare is inherently dangerous.

    This law would save ZERO lives, and possibly ruin the lives of those who are charged with it. Proponents think that they will get some satisfaction if a driver that kills a cyclist gets charged with a misdemeanor, but I guarantee you that will not be the case.

  • Mahtli69

    @16 – The law isn’t the problem. Period. Not how it’s written. Not how it’s enforced.

    The problem is that having bikes and cars in the same thoroughfare is inherently dangerous.

    This law would save ZERO lives, and possibly ruin the lives of those who are charged with it. Proponents think that they will get some satisfaction if a driver that kills a cyclist gets charged with a misdemeanor, but I guarantee you that will not be the case.

  • Mahtli69

    @16 – The law isn’t the problem. Period. Not how it’s written. Not how it’s enforced.

    The problem is that having bikes and cars in the same thoroughfare is inherently dangerous.

    This law would save ZERO lives, and possibly ruin the lives of those who are charged with it. Proponents think that they will get some satisfaction if a driver that kills a cyclist gets charged with a misdemeanor, but I guarantee you that will not be the case.

  • Mahtli69

    @16 – The law isn’t the problem. Period. Not how it’s written. Not how it’s enforced.

    The problem is that having bikes and cars in the same thoroughfare is inherently dangerous.

    This law would save ZERO lives, and possibly ruin the lives of those who are charged with it. Proponents think that they will get some satisfaction if a driver that kills a cyclist gets charged with a misdemeanor, but I guarantee you that will not be the case.

  • Mahtli69

    @16 – The law isn’t the problem. Period. Not how it’s written. Not how it’s enforced.

    The problem is that having bikes and cars in the same thoroughfare is inherently dangerous.

    This law would save ZERO lives, and possibly ruin the lives of those who are charged with it. Proponents think that they will get some satisfaction if a driver that kills a cyclist gets charged with a misdemeanor, but I guarantee you that will not be the case.

  • Mahtli69

    @16 – The law isn’t the problem. Period. Not how it’s written. Not how it’s enforced.

    The problem is that having bikes and cars in the same thoroughfare is inherently dangerous.

    This law would save ZERO lives, and possibly ruin the lives of those who are charged with it. Proponents think that they will get some satisfaction if a driver that kills a cyclist gets charged with a misdemeanor, but I guarantee you that will not be the case.

  • Mahtli69

    @16 – The law isn’t the problem. Period. Not how it’s written. Not how it’s enforced.

    The problem is that having bikes and cars in the same thoroughfare is inherently dangerous.

    This law would save ZERO lives, and possibly ruin the lives of those who are charged with it. Proponents think that they will get some satisfaction if a driver that kills a cyclist gets charged with a misdemeanor, but I guarantee you that will not be the case.

  • Mahtli69

    @16 – The law isn’t the problem. Period. Not how it’s written. Not how it’s enforced.

    The problem is that having bikes and cars in the same thoroughfare is inherently dangerous.

    This law would save ZERO lives, and possibly ruin the lives of those who are charged with it. Proponents think that they will get some satisfaction if a driver that kills a cyclist gets charged with a misdemeanor, but I guarantee you that will not be the case.

  • Mahtli69

    @16 – The law isn’t the problem. Period. Not how it’s written. Not how it’s enforced.

    The problem is that having bikes and cars in the same thoroughfare is inherently dangerous.

    This law would save ZERO lives, and possibly ruin the lives of those who are charged with it. Proponents think that they will get some satisfaction if a driver that kills a cyclist gets charged with a misdemeanor, but I guarantee you that will not be the case.

  • Mahtli69

    @16 – The law isn’t the problem. Period. Not how it’s written. Not how it’s enforced.

    The problem is that having bikes and cars in the same thoroughfare is inherently dangerous.

    This law would save ZERO lives, and possibly ruin the lives of those who are charged with it. Proponents think that they will get some satisfaction if a driver that kills a cyclist gets charged with a misdemeanor, but I guarantee you that will not be the case.

  • Mahtli69

    @16 – The law isn’t the problem. Period. Not how it’s written. Not how it’s enforced.

    The problem is that having bikes and cars in the same thoroughfare is inherently dangerous.

    This law would save ZERO lives, and possibly ruin the lives of those who are charged with it. Proponents think that they will get some satisfaction if a driver that kills a cyclist gets charged with a misdemeanor, but I guarantee you that will not be the case.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    If there are indeed laws on the books making it a criminal offense to hit a cyclist, then I agree they need to be enforced. That was my point all along. But I don’t agree that enforcing it will not produce anything. One reason it happens so much is that drivers don’t really care and there’s no leverage for them to do so, since it’s not really an enforced crime to accidentally hit a cyclist or a pedestrian (even though it’s on the books).

    Leverage is the idea here with refining existing law. Being afraid to ruin a motorist’s life with a manslaughter charge is sympathetic and all, but that threat of having your life thrown asunder is leverage for you not to commit such an offense if you can help it. If leeway is granted for truly accidental cases, then that’s okay. But leeway’s also being granted for the malicious and grossly negligent cases, and therein lies a problem.

    I’m sure the cranks will argue otherwise, but I think most would agree that there’s no need to file seriously charges against people who genuinely hit someone accidentally and incidentally. But Seattle has a love affair with the benefit of the doubt, and this is a case where the present enforcement of the law needs more teeth. Should this group go to Satterberg? I suppose, but what if other elements of the incumbent law hamstring KC into siding with the benefit of the doubt every time in these cases.

    But ultimately, what’s the point of having a law citing manslaughter charges for malicious and negligent accidents (and referencing it as a rebuttal to the original topic) if it’s not enforced? But then again, I suppose having laws on the books that don’t get enforced is nothing new to Seattle (helloooo, I-75).

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    If there are indeed laws on the books making it a criminal offense to hit a cyclist, then I agree they need to be enforced. That was my point all along. But I don’t agree that enforcing it will not produce anything. One reason it happens so much is that drivers don’t really care and there’s no leverage for them to do so, since it’s not really an enforced crime to accidentally hit a cyclist or a pedestrian (even though it’s on the books).

    Leverage is the idea here with refining existing law. Being afraid to ruin a motorist’s life with a manslaughter charge is sympathetic and all, but that threat of having your life thrown asunder is leverage for you not to commit such an offense if you can help it. If leeway is granted for truly accidental cases, then that’s okay. But leeway’s also being granted for the malicious and grossly negligent cases, and therein lies a problem.

    I’m sure the cranks will argue otherwise, but I think most would agree that there’s no need to file seriously charges against people who genuinely hit someone accidentally and incidentally. But Seattle has a love affair with the benefit of the doubt, and this is a case where the present enforcement of the law needs more teeth. Should this group go to Satterberg? I suppose, but what if other elements of the incumbent law hamstring KC into siding with the benefit of the doubt every time in these cases.

    But ultimately, what’s the point of having a law citing manslaughter charges for malicious and negligent accidents (and referencing it as a rebuttal to the original topic) if it’s not enforced? But then again, I suppose having laws on the books that don’t get enforced is nothing new to Seattle (helloooo, I-75).

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    If there are indeed laws on the books making it a criminal offense to hit a cyclist, then I agree they need to be enforced. That was my point all along. But I don’t agree that enforcing it will not produce anything. One reason it happens so much is that drivers don’t really care and there’s no leverage for them to do so, since it’s not really an enforced crime to accidentally hit a cyclist or a pedestrian (even though it’s on the books).

    Leverage is the idea here with refining existing law. Being afraid to ruin a motorist’s life with a manslaughter charge is sympathetic and all, but that threat of having your life thrown asunder is leverage for you not to commit such an offense if you can help it. If leeway is granted for truly accidental cases, then that’s okay. But leeway’s also being granted for the malicious and grossly negligent cases, and therein lies a problem.

    I’m sure the cranks will argue otherwise, but I think most would agree that there’s no need to file seriously charges against people who genuinely hit someone accidentally and incidentally. But Seattle has a love affair with the benefit of the doubt, and this is a case where the present enforcement of the law needs more teeth. Should this group go to Satterberg? I suppose, but what if other elements of the incumbent law hamstring KC into siding with the benefit of the doubt every time in these cases.

    But ultimately, what’s the point of having a law citing manslaughter charges for malicious and negligent accidents (and referencing it as a rebuttal to the original topic) if it’s not enforced? But then again, I suppose having laws on the books that don’t get enforced is nothing new to Seattle (helloooo, I-75).

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    If there are indeed laws on the books making it a criminal offense to hit a cyclist, then I agree they need to be enforced. That was my point all along. But I don’t agree that enforcing it will not produce anything. One reason it happens so much is that drivers don’t really care and there’s no leverage for them to do so, since it’s not really an enforced crime to accidentally hit a cyclist or a pedestrian (even though it’s on the books).

    Leverage is the idea here with refining existing law. Being afraid to ruin a motorist’s life with a manslaughter charge is sympathetic and all, but that threat of having your life thrown asunder is leverage for you not to commit such an offense if you can help it. If leeway is granted for truly accidental cases, then that’s okay. But leeway’s also being granted for the malicious and grossly negligent cases, and therein lies a problem.

    I’m sure the cranks will argue otherwise, but I think most would agree that there’s no need to file seriously charges against people who genuinely hit someone accidentally and incidentally. But Seattle has a love affair with the benefit of the doubt, and this is a case where the present enforcement of the law needs more teeth. Should this group go to Satterberg? I suppose, but what if other elements of the incumbent law hamstring KC into siding with the benefit of the doubt every time in these cases.

    But ultimately, what’s the point of having a law citing manslaughter charges for malicious and negligent accidents (and referencing it as a rebuttal to the original topic) if it’s not enforced? But then again, I suppose having laws on the books that don’t get enforced is nothing new to Seattle (helloooo, I-75).

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    If there are indeed laws on the books making it a criminal offense to hit a cyclist, then I agree they need to be enforced. That was my point all along. But I don’t agree that enforcing it will not produce anything. One reason it happens so much is that drivers don’t really care and there’s no leverage for them to do so, since it’s not really an enforced crime to accidentally hit a cyclist or a pedestrian (even though it’s on the books).

    Leverage is the idea here with refining existing law. Being afraid to ruin a motorist’s life with a manslaughter charge is sympathetic and all, but that threat of having your life thrown asunder is leverage for you not to commit such an offense if you can help it. If leeway is granted for truly accidental cases, then that’s okay. But leeway’s also being granted for the malicious and grossly negligent cases, and therein lies a problem.

    I’m sure the cranks will argue otherwise, but I think most would agree that there’s no need to file seriously charges against people who genuinely hit someone accidentally and incidentally. But Seattle has a love affair with the benefit of the doubt, and this is a case where the present enforcement of the law needs more teeth. Should this group go to Satterberg? I suppose, but what if other elements of the incumbent law hamstring KC into siding with the benefit of the doubt every time in these cases.

    But ultimately, what’s the point of having a law citing manslaughter charges for malicious and negligent accidents (and referencing it as a rebuttal to the original topic) if it’s not enforced? But then again, I suppose having laws on the books that don’t get enforced is nothing new to Seattle (helloooo, I-75).

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    If there are indeed laws on the books making it a criminal offense to hit a cyclist, then I agree they need to be enforced. That was my point all along. But I don’t agree that enforcing it will not produce anything. One reason it happens so much is that drivers don’t really care and there’s no leverage for them to do so, since it’s not really an enforced crime to accidentally hit a cyclist or a pedestrian (even though it’s on the books).

    Leverage is the idea here with refining existing law. Being afraid to ruin a motorist’s life with a manslaughter charge is sympathetic and all, but that threat of having your life thrown asunder is leverage for you not to commit such an offense if you can help it. If leeway is granted for truly accidental cases, then that’s okay. But leeway’s also being granted for the malicious and grossly negligent cases, and therein lies a problem.

    I’m sure the cranks will argue otherwise, but I think most would agree that there’s no need to file seriously charges against people who genuinely hit someone accidentally and incidentally. But Seattle has a love affair with the benefit of the doubt, and this is a case where the present enforcement of the law needs more teeth. Should this group go to Satterberg? I suppose, but what if other elements of the incumbent law hamstring KC into siding with the benefit of the doubt every time in these cases.

    But ultimately, what’s the point of having a law citing manslaughter charges for malicious and negligent accidents (and referencing it as a rebuttal to the original topic) if it’s not enforced? But then again, I suppose having laws on the books that don’t get enforced is nothing new to Seattle (helloooo, I-75).

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    If there are indeed laws on the books making it a criminal offense to hit a cyclist, then I agree they need to be enforced. That was my point all along. But I don’t agree that enforcing it will not produce anything. One reason it happens so much is that drivers don’t really care and there’s no leverage for them to do so, since it’s not really an enforced crime to accidentally hit a cyclist or a pedestrian (even though it’s on the books).

    Leverage is the idea here with refining existing law. Being afraid to ruin a motorist’s life with a manslaughter charge is sympathetic and all, but that threat of having your life thrown asunder is leverage for you not to commit such an offense if you can help it. If leeway is granted for truly accidental cases, then that’s okay. But leeway’s also being granted for the malicious and grossly negligent cases, and therein lies a problem.

    I’m sure the cranks will argue otherwise, but I think most would agree that there’s no need to file seriously charges against people who genuinely hit someone accidentally and incidentally. But Seattle has a love affair with the benefit of the doubt, and this is a case where the present enforcement of the law needs more teeth. Should this group go to Satterberg? I suppose, but what if other elements of the incumbent law hamstring KC into siding with the benefit of the doubt every time in these cases.

    But ultimately, what’s the point of having a law citing manslaughter charges for malicious and negligent accidents (and referencing it as a rebuttal to the original topic) if it’s not enforced? But then again, I suppose having laws on the books that don’t get enforced is nothing new to Seattle (helloooo, I-75).

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    If there are indeed laws on the books making it a criminal offense to hit a cyclist, then I agree they need to be enforced. That was my point all along. But I don’t agree that enforcing it will not produce anything. One reason it happens so much is that drivers don’t really care and there’s no leverage for them to do so, since it’s not really an enforced crime to accidentally hit a cyclist or a pedestrian (even though it’s on the books).

    Leverage is the idea here with refining existing law. Being afraid to ruin a motorist’s life with a manslaughter charge is sympathetic and all, but that threat of having your life thrown asunder is leverage for you not to commit such an offense if you can help it. If leeway is granted for truly accidental cases, then that’s okay. But leeway’s also being granted for the malicious and grossly negligent cases, and therein lies a problem.

    I’m sure the cranks will argue otherwise, but I think most would agree that there’s no need to file seriously charges against people who genuinely hit someone accidentally and incidentally. But Seattle has a love affair with the benefit of the doubt, and this is a case where the present enforcement of the law needs more teeth. Should this group go to Satterberg? I suppose, but what if other elements of the incumbent law hamstring KC into siding with the benefit of the doubt every time in these cases.

    But ultimately, what’s the point of having a law citing manslaughter charges for malicious and negligent accidents (and referencing it as a rebuttal to the original topic) if it’s not enforced? But then again, I suppose having laws on the books that don’t get enforced is nothing new to Seattle (helloooo, I-75).

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    If there are indeed laws on the books making it a criminal offense to hit a cyclist, then I agree they need to be enforced. That was my point all along. But I don’t agree that enforcing it will not produce anything. One reason it happens so much is that drivers don’t really care and there’s no leverage for them to do so, since it’s not really an enforced crime to accidentally hit a cyclist or a pedestrian (even though it’s on the books).

    Leverage is the idea here with refining existing law. Being afraid to ruin a motorist’s life with a manslaughter charge is sympathetic and all, but that threat of having your life thrown asunder is leverage for you not to commit such an offense if you can help it. If leeway is granted for truly accidental cases, then that’s okay. But leeway’s also being granted for the malicious and grossly negligent cases, and therein lies a problem.

    I’m sure the cranks will argue otherwise, but I think most would agree that there’s no need to file seriously charges against people who genuinely hit someone accidentally and incidentally. But Seattle has a love affair with the benefit of the doubt, and this is a case where the present enforcement of the law needs more teeth. Should this group go to Satterberg? I suppose, but what if other elements of the incumbent law hamstring KC into siding with the benefit of the doubt every time in these cases.

    But ultimately, what’s the point of having a law citing manslaughter charges for malicious and negligent accidents (and referencing it as a rebuttal to the original topic) if it’s not enforced? But then again, I suppose having laws on the books that don’t get enforced is nothing new to Seattle (helloooo, I-75).

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    If there are indeed laws on the books making it a criminal offense to hit a cyclist, then I agree they need to be enforced. That was my point all along. But I don’t agree that enforcing it will not produce anything. One reason it happens so much is that drivers don’t really care and there’s no leverage for them to do so, since it’s not really an enforced crime to accidentally hit a cyclist or a pedestrian (even though it’s on the books).

    Leverage is the idea here with refining existing law. Being afraid to ruin a motorist’s life with a manslaughter charge is sympathetic and all, but that threat of having your life thrown asunder is leverage for you not to commit such an offense if you can help it. If leeway is granted for truly accidental cases, then that’s okay. But leeway’s also being granted for the malicious and grossly negligent cases, and therein lies a problem.

    I’m sure the cranks will argue otherwise, but I think most would agree that there’s no need to file seriously charges against people who genuinely hit someone accidentally and incidentally. But Seattle has a love affair with the benefit of the doubt, and this is a case where the present enforcement of the law needs more teeth. Should this group go to Satterberg? I suppose, but what if other elements of the incumbent law hamstring KC into siding with the benefit of the doubt every time in these cases.

    But ultimately, what’s the point of having a law citing manslaughter charges for malicious and negligent accidents (and referencing it as a rebuttal to the original topic) if it’s not enforced? But then again, I suppose having laws on the books that don’t get enforced is nothing new to Seattle (helloooo, I-75).

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    If there are indeed laws on the books making it a criminal offense to hit a cyclist, then I agree they need to be enforced. That was my point all along. But I don’t agree that enforcing it will not produce anything. One reason it happens so much is that drivers don’t really care and there’s no leverage for them to do so, since it’s not really an enforced crime to accidentally hit a cyclist or a pedestrian (even though it’s on the books).

    Leverage is the idea here with refining existing law. Being afraid to ruin a motorist’s life with a manslaughter charge is sympathetic and all, but that threat of having your life thrown asunder is leverage for you not to commit such an offense if you can help it. If leeway is granted for truly accidental cases, then that’s okay. But leeway’s also being granted for the malicious and grossly negligent cases, and therein lies a problem.

    I’m sure the cranks will argue otherwise, but I think most would agree that there’s no need to file seriously charges against people who genuinely hit someone accidentally and incidentally. But Seattle has a love affair with the benefit of the doubt, and this is a case where the present enforcement of the law needs more teeth. Should this group go to Satterberg? I suppose, but what if other elements of the incumbent law hamstring KC into siding with the benefit of the doubt every time in these cases.

    But ultimately, what’s the point of having a law citing manslaughter charges for malicious and negligent accidents (and referencing it as a rebuttal to the original topic) if it’s not enforced? But then again, I suppose having laws on the books that don’t get enforced is nothing new to Seattle (helloooo, I-75).

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/1522367.html Gomez

    If there are indeed laws on the books making it a criminal offense to hit a cyclist, then I agree they need to be enforced. That was my point all along. But I don’t agree that enforcing it will not produce anything. One reason it happens so much is that drivers don’t really care and there’s no leverage for them to do so, since it’s not really an enforced crime to accidentally hit a cyclist or a pedestrian (even though it’s on the books).

    Leverage is the idea here with refining existing law. Being afraid to ruin a motorist’s life with a manslaughter charge is sympathetic and all, but that threat of having your life thrown asunder is leverage for you not to commit such an offense if you can help it. If leeway is granted for truly accidental cases, then that’s okay. But leeway’s also being granted for the malicious and grossly negligent cases, and therein lies a problem.

    I’m sure the cranks will argue otherwise, but I think most would agree that there’s no need to file seriously charges against people who genuinely hit someone accidentally and incidentally. But Seattle has a love affair with the benefit of the doubt, and this is a case where the present enforcement of the law needs more teeth. Should this group go to Satterberg? I suppose, but what if other elements of the incumbent law hamstring KC into siding with the benefit of the doubt every time in these cases.

    But ultimately, what’s the point of having a law citing manslaughter charges for malicious and negligent accidents (and referencing it as a rebuttal to the original topic) if it’s not enforced? But then again, I suppose having laws on the books that don’t get enforced is nothing new to Seattle (helloooo, I-75).