"Brent Hugh" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Whether this is on some philosophical level "right" or not, I think Bob has nailed exactly how
> collisions of this type are generally handled in our part of the country.
>
> Unless some grossly malicious or negligent behavior is evident (dead drunk *and* stoned, stopped
> and ran over the victim 6 extra times in front of a group of witnesses, etc.), no particular
> action is taken. Sometimes the driver isn't even cited for a traffic infraction (how about, in
> this case, "failure to yield" or "unsafe passing", since the vehicle in front always has the right
> of way and the vehicle to the rear is responsible for passing safely).
>
> Instead, the incident is described as an "accident", as though it is unfortunate but completely
> unavoidable and inevitable.
>
> The sad thing about this attitude, is that such "accidents" are not accidental at all--they are
> COMPLETELY preventable. But the attitude that they are inevitable and "accidental" prevents us
> from taken the actions that need to be taken, and changing the attitudes that need to be changed,
> in order to prevent this type of completely preventable collision.
>
> Two quick stories to illustrate typical Midwest attitudes:
>
> * The St. Louis Bike Fed met with area prosecutors to see what could be done about making more
> serious consequences for this type of collision, where the driver isn't malicious, but is
> negligent, breaking traffic law, and this disregard of traffic law leads to someone's death
> (typically, though not exclusively, a pedestrian or cyclist). The prosecutors said that there
> was nothing more they could do than charging them with a traffic infraction.
>
> Couldn't they be charged with involuntary manslaughter?
>
> No, that would require an underlying infraction of some sort.
>
> Well, how about "failure to yield" (or whatever the other traffic infraction) as the underlying
> infraction?
>
> At that point some lights seemed to go in prosecutors' heads and a lot of scribbling on notepads
> was seen. They hadn't ever thought of this, but couldn't seem to think of any reason why it
> wouldn't work.
>
>
> * When the Missouri Bicycle Federation was working with the Missouri General Assembly this past
> year to create legislation to address this very problem, we heard again and again from
> prosecutors and law enforcement, "This provision just isn't necessary. We can handle these
> incidents just fine under current law. All it takes is an underlying infraction that causes
> death--this is an open & shut case for 2nd degree involuntary manslaughter."
>
> See the relevant Missouri code at
>
>
http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C500-599/5650024.HTM
>
> Of course, our response was, "Then why does this NEVER happen in real life?"
>
> No one has had an answer to this.
>
> But they are not completely blowing smoke--here is an actual case where they made a charge of
> involuntary manslaughter based only on a traffic infraction. The circumstances are very similar to
> the case of the Indiana bicyclist we're discussing on this thread, though the victim in this case
> is a tractor driver:
>
>
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/5278961.htm
>
>
>
> The more I think about it, the more I think that, perhaps, the most productive approach to this
> type of thing is to require anyone involved in a collision with a cyclist/pedestrian resulting in
> injuries of any severity to take a driver ed type class focusing on pedestrian & cyclist issues &
> safety, and then require them to re-take the driver license test, including the road portion.
> Ideally, this would be regardless of who was at fault. (This is sort of like the law they have in
> place Washington state, although my proposal adds the driver ed requirement.)
>
> Combine that with serious driving privilege revocation consequences, especially on repeated
> infractions/collisions, and we're making some progress.
>
> My own interest in this is not to have motorists locked up, but rather to have them educated
> and/or (if education fails) prevented from doing it again. That means keeping them from behind the
> wheel of a car--permanently, if necessary.
>
> And also, in having law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts take the issue seriously, because
> that is one way drivers get the message to take it seriously. When motorists negligently kill
> someone and receive, as punishment, a $75 fine and a 3-month license suspension, that definitely
> does NOT send the general public the message that this kind of bad driving is taken seriously.
All points well taken. I agree that it makes no sense to lock people up, or even fine them ruinously
(though there should definately be some punishment, like license suspension). These are not usually
incorrigeable criminals, but otherwise reasonable people who have made serious mistakes. The cure is
rehab and retraining, to keep these things from happening.
> One reason bad and dangerous driving is so prevalent is that it is considered "normal" and any
> lethal results of it are considered "just an accident".
Exactly. We need to work on these attitudes.
I'm a fan of better driver education as well. I think people should have to take the written tests
whenever they renew their licenses -- every 5 years or so. This gives an opportunity to hammer this
information into people's brains. Keep in mind that states with the least driver education and the
highest percentages of unlicensed drivers generally have the worst accident rates.
Matt O.
