Comments on: New Bill Would Strengthen Penalties for Dangerous Driving http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/05/22/new-bill-would-strengthen-penalties-for-dangerous-driving/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:01:47 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Nathan H. http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/05/22/new-bill-would-strengthen-penalties-for-dangerous-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-68625 Nathan H. Sat, 23 May 2009 19:16:45 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=6218#comment-68625 Symbolism is fundamental. During the past 60 years of mainstream motoring in the US we've rushed to forgive careless (and unnecessary) driving after fatal crashes. We tell people not to blame themselves and that there's nothing they could have done, even when that is plainly not the case. In many fatal crashes if the driver has been going more slowly—or just walked to buy that milk—the child that ran out into the street would still be alive. And those are just the cases where where the victim is technically 'at fault', a vile concept to use against a child run down at play. But people are run over in our city in crosswalks with walk signals, and still the legal system and society falls over itself to forgive the driver that "had the light" and "didn't see" the victim, to make sure that the rest of that person's life is as guiltless as possible; never mind the victim that doesn't have a rest of a life. To have motorists face a judge that says, "actually, this was your fault" and go through a limited service of redemption is a dramatic psychological and social change from currently, with great potential to affect not just recidivism but 'pre-kill' drivers. Present-day American motorists are deeply conscious that they will get off scot free for carelessly running over a pedestrian. As long as they follow certain informal rules (a subset of actual laws that doesn't include staying below speed limits or yielding the right-of-way), any unprotected human their car crashes into will be blamed for insufficiently looking out for himself. The reckless driving we see every day is a testament to this informal immunity, a reversion to 'nature's law' for all but the most extreme violations. But if drivers knew that their lives would be indelibly tainted for cutting short another's, they would not be so quick to barrel through streets crowded with people. This changing of behavior is the goal, but when the guilt lands where it belongs fair consequences will not be far behind. Symbolism is fundamental. During the past 60 years of mainstream motoring in the US we've rushed to forgive careless (and unnecessary) driving after fatal crashes. We tell people not to blame themselves and that there's nothing they could have done, even when that is plainly not the case. In many fatal crashes if the driver has been going more slowly—or just walked to buy that milk—the child that ran out into the street would still be alive.

And those are just the cases where where the victim is technically 'at fault', a vile concept to use against a child run down at play. But people are run over in our city in crosswalks with walk signals, and still the legal system and society falls over itself to forgive the driver that "had the light" and "didn't see" the victim, to make sure that the rest of that person's life is as guiltless as possible; never mind the victim that doesn't have a rest of a life.

To have motorists face a judge that says, "actually, this was your fault" and go through a limited service of redemption is a dramatic psychological and social change from currently, with great potential to affect not just recidivism but 'pre-kill' drivers. Present-day American motorists are deeply conscious that they will get off scot free for carelessly running over a pedestrian. As long as they follow certain informal rules (a subset of actual laws that doesn't include staying below speed limits or yielding the right-of-way), any unprotected human their car crashes into will be blamed for insufficiently looking out for himself. The reckless driving we see every day is a testament to this informal immunity, a reversion to 'nature's law' for all but the most extreme violations. But if drivers knew that their lives would be indelibly tainted for cutting short another's, they would not be so quick to barrel through streets crowded with people. This changing of behavior is the goal, but when the guilt lands where it belongs fair consequences will not be far behind.

]]> By: Vroomfondel http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/05/22/new-bill-would-strengthen-penalties-for-dangerous-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-68621 Vroomfondel Sat, 23 May 2009 14:35:37 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=6218#comment-68621 Who says that it's unacceptable that district attorneys have to choose between a charge of criminally negligent homicide and no charge at all? Criminally negligent homicide is exactly what most drivers who kill should be charged with. Anything less than that is unacceptable, except in the rare case where the driver had no chance to avoid the crash. Who says that it's unacceptable that district attorneys have to choose between a charge of criminally negligent homicide and no charge at all? Criminally negligent homicide is exactly what most drivers who kill should be charged with. Anything less than that is unacceptable, except in the rare case where the driver had no chance to avoid the crash.

]]> By: Cap'n Transit http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/05/22/new-bill-would-strengthen-penalties-for-dangerous-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-68610 Cap'n Transit Fri, 22 May 2009 23:58:51 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=6218#comment-68610 <blockquote>Thinking as a human here, we need to assume that anyone who hits a pedestrian with an auto and hurts or kills someone is going to regret it, and adjust their driving habits accordingly.</blockquote> No, I'm not going to assume any such thing. The world is full of callous fucks who will run over someone, rationalize away any responsibility for their actions, and then keep driving. Without actual proof, I'm just not going to believe that everyone who's killed someone else behind the wheel is going to drive super-careful for the rest of their lives.

Thinking as a human here, we need to assume that anyone who hits a pedestrian with an auto and hurts or kills someone is going to regret it, and adjust their driving habits accordingly.

No, I'm not going to assume any such thing. The world is full of callous fucks who will run over someone, rationalize away any responsibility for their actions, and then keep driving. Without actual proof, I'm just not going to believe that everyone who's killed someone else behind the wheel is going to drive super-careful for the rest of their lives.

]]> By: GRR http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/05/22/new-bill-would-strengthen-penalties-for-dangerous-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-68608 GRR Fri, 22 May 2009 22:45:04 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=6218#comment-68608 This is great, but symbolic, ultimately. Thinking as a human here, we need to assume that anyone who hits a pedestrian with an auto and hurts or kills someone is going to regret it, and adjust their driving habits accordingly. So in that sense, they won't be dangerous anymore. That isn't to say they shouldn't be punished, just that the overall effect of the legislation won't change the number of people that get hit every year. It will give victims some sens of justice, though, which is valuable of course. Its the drivers who have NOT hit anyone yet we need to worry about. They haven't yet learned the hard way what can happen as a result of careless or dangerous actions. To that end (and I HATE to get all NRA here) more effective enforcement of the laws we have might be a better deterrent. Reckless Driving, speeding, rolling stops, not checking behind you before backing up (part of the CDL test, btw)... drivers who do these things are who we need to worry about most. Before they hit someone. This is great, but symbolic, ultimately. Thinking as a human here, we need to assume that anyone who hits a pedestrian with an auto and hurts or kills someone is going to regret it, and adjust their driving habits accordingly. So in that sense, they won't be dangerous anymore. That isn't to say they shouldn't be punished, just that the overall effect of the legislation won't change the number of people that get hit every year. It will give victims some sens of justice, though, which is valuable of course.

Its the drivers who have NOT hit anyone yet we need to worry about. They haven't yet learned the hard way what can happen as a result of careless or dangerous actions. To that end (and I HATE to get all NRA here) more effective enforcement of the laws we have might be a better deterrent. Reckless Driving, speeding, rolling stops, not checking behind you before backing up (part of the CDL test, btw)... drivers who do these things are who we need to worry about most. Before they hit someone.

]]> By: Mark Walker http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/05/22/new-bill-would-strengthen-penalties-for-dangerous-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-68606 Mark Walker Fri, 22 May 2009 20:16:06 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=6218#comment-68606 Thanks, Peter! Thanks, Peter!

]]> By: Peter G http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/05/22/new-bill-would-strengthen-penalties-for-dangerous-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-68598 Peter G Fri, 22 May 2009 17:24:59 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=6218#comment-68598 Full Disclosure: I work for TA and specifically on this legislation. In response to Mark, I have to say that I truly believe the consequences attached with the law are more than just a gesture, despite not being penal in nature. From our work with victim families and our conversations with advocates in Oregon who have passed a similar law, time and time again they say that requiring defendants to personally appear in court is very important to them. The other penalties associated with the law, driver safety education and specific community service related to safer driving techniques, also has an important part to play in, as you say, "raising the consciousness among potentially dangerous drivers." Every opportunity we have to better formalize and discuss the problem of carelessness and driving is key. Now, per Gantt, you are right--we have our work cut out for us again. Best, P Full Disclosure: I work for TA and specifically on this legislation. In response to Mark, I have to say that I truly believe the consequences attached with the law are more than just a gesture, despite not being penal in nature. From our work with victim families and our conversations with advocates in Oregon who have passed a similar law, time and time again they say that requiring defendants to personally appear in court is very important to them. The other penalties associated with the law, driver safety education and specific community service related to safer driving techniques, also has an important part to play in, as you say, "raising the consciousness among potentially dangerous drivers." Every opportunity we have to better formalize and discuss the problem of carelessness and driving is key. Now, per Gantt, you are right--we have our work cut out for us again.

Best,
P

]]> By: Streetsman http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/05/22/new-bill-would-strengthen-penalties-for-dangerous-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-68597 Streetsman Fri, 22 May 2009 17:22:40 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=6218#comment-68597 I think this goes without saying, but if there's a traffic safety course about avoiding crashes with vulnerable street users that actually has any effect, shouldn't this be mandatory to get a driver's license in the first place? I think this goes without saying, but if there's a traffic safety course about avoiding crashes with vulnerable street users that actually has any effect, shouldn't this be mandatory to get a driver's license in the first place?

]]> By: Mark Walker http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/05/22/new-bill-would-strengthen-penalties-for-dangerous-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-68596 Mark Walker Fri, 22 May 2009 17:06:42 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=6218#comment-68596 This is little more than a gesture, but a very good one, and it may even help raise consciousness among potentially dangerous drivers. Now, will it get past David Gantt? And if he balks, will Sheldon Silver put his foot down? Or will this become yet another useful piece of legislation that dies for lack of a vote? This is little more than a gesture, but a very good one, and it may even help raise consciousness among potentially dangerous drivers. Now, will it get past David Gantt? And if he balks, will Sheldon Silver put his foot down? Or will this become yet another useful piece of legislation that dies for lack of a vote?

]]> By: rex http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/05/22/new-bill-would-strengthen-penalties-for-dangerous-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-68584 rex Fri, 22 May 2009 15:39:08 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=6218#comment-68584 The real loop hole is what constitutes "serious injury". Comb through the BikePortland site and you will see that you can get pretty busted up and it is not considered serious. Like any law, it depends on the police to enforce, and the DA to prosecute. You cannot legislate attitudes. The real loop hole is what constitutes "serious injury". Comb through the BikePortland site and you will see that you can get pretty busted up and it is not considered serious.

Like any law, it depends on the police to enforce, and the DA to prosecute. You cannot legislate attitudes.

]]> By: Michael Konrad http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/05/22/new-bill-would-strengthen-penalties-for-dangerous-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-68583 Michael Konrad Fri, 22 May 2009 15:36:20 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=6218#comment-68583 ahh...sounded like a legal loophole to me. good to know that there's a legit definition. ahh...sounded like a legal loophole to me. good to know that there's a legit definition.

]]> By: Peter G http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/05/22/new-bill-would-strengthen-penalties-for-dangerous-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-68582 Peter G Fri, 22 May 2009 15:33:51 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=6218#comment-68582 Michael, a vulnerable user as defined in the law includes all pedestrians, regardless of age or physical ability. A link to more information on the specifics of the bill can be found here: http://www.transalt.org/takeaction/legislation/3235 Michael, a vulnerable user as defined in the law includes all pedestrians, regardless of age or physical ability. A link to more information on the specifics of the bill can be found here: http://www.transalt.org/takeaction/legislation/3235

]]> By: Michael Konrad http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/05/22/new-bill-would-strengthen-penalties-for-dangerous-driving/comment-page-1/#comment-68580 Michael Konrad Fri, 22 May 2009 15:29:19 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=6218#comment-68580 While it's a step in the right direction, this is weak. What constitutes a vulnerable user? I'm a healthy, physically able, 30 year old man. Despite that, aren't I still vulnerable when it's me vs Two Tons of Metal (on wheels!). If I were to get severly injured or killed by a car as a law-abiding pedestrian, I have a feeling that the driver would walk off under this law because I'm not considered a "vulnerable user." While it's a step in the right direction, this is weak.

What constitutes a vulnerable user? I'm a healthy, physically able, 30 year old man. Despite that, aren't I still vulnerable when it's me vs Two Tons of Metal (on wheels!). If I were to get severly injured or killed by a car as a law-abiding pedestrian, I have a feeling that the driver would walk off under this law because I'm not considered a "vulnerable user."

]]>