Slog
News & ArtsFriday, January 30, 2009
Olympia Assault By Vehicle Legislation to be Introduced on Tuesday
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:08 PM
State Sen. Joe McDermott (D-34), says he will introduce legislation next Tuesday that would allow cities to make it a crime to kill or seriously injure someone while violating a traffic law. Currently, killing someone with your car is either a civil infraction (punishable by a traffic ticket) or, in rare cases, a felony; felony vehicular assault or homicide requires "reckless driving," intoxication, or reckless disregard, all of which are much harder to prove than that someone was, for example, barreling into a crosswalk without looking. "It gives municipalities a more reasonable option" than merely issuing a ticket or trying to prove felony assault, McDermott says.
1
Besides just pedestrians, I hope this covers bicycles, motorcycles and even people in other cars.
Way too many idiots seriously injure people in their "accidents" because of their fucking negligence and stupidity.
Way too many idiots seriously injure people in their "accidents" because of their fucking negligence and stupidity.
2
what are you talking about? if i hit somebody, they deserve it because:
A) I am in a car.
B) They are a pedestrian who is,
a)a fucking idiot
b)who is high on drugs.
right? right? right?
A) I am in a car.
B) They are a pedestrian who is,
a)a fucking idiot
b)who is high on drugs.
right? right? right?
3
RCW 46.61.520 already states that a driver can be guilty of vehicular homicide if they operate a motor vehicle "with disregard for the safety of others." Wouldn't "barreling into a crosswalk without looking" qualify as such?
6
Why would you need to make a separate law for this? Isn't the law kind of like "don't behave like an asshole and kill somebody accidentally or you'll go to jail, end of story"? I mean did they write the legislation "Don't behave like an asshole and kill somebody accidentally or you'll go to jail..." and then slip in the clause, "....except if you're in a car, then you're totally golden!"? Otherwise, how would this loop hole exist?
7
Dumb dumb dumb. The LAST thing pedestrians need is the government convincing them that crosswalks are safe. Crosswalks are, and will always be, a hazardous place to be, regardless of the law. Any law which further empowers pedestrians to insist on their right of way will lead to more deaths, not less.
If the government wants to be proactive about pedestrian safety (which is what this is all about), then they should do more to keep pedestrians out of traffic at the most dangerous locations (via pedestrian overpasses, tunnels, etc).
Everything involving a moving car is a dangerous business, whether you're driving one, or walking/riding near one. No amount of legislation will change this, other than eliminating cars altogether.
If the government wants to be proactive about pedestrian safety (which is what this is all about), then they should do more to keep pedestrians out of traffic at the most dangerous locations (via pedestrian overpasses, tunnels, etc).
Everything involving a moving car is a dangerous business, whether you're driving one, or walking/riding near one. No amount of legislation will change this, other than eliminating cars altogether.
8
In Seattle the pedestrians are such fucking pretentious self-righteous sanctimonious snobs about being pedestrians, and they are usually totally whacked on drugs. They step right out into the street without even lifting their gaze from its focus on the sidewalk. No wonder so many people get run over in Seattle. What a shithole full of shitty people.
10
@3 Apparently defense lawyers find too many ways around it. I think to be driving "recklessly" is something like 20 over, whereas this law would apply if you were going over the speed limit. Much easier to prove infractions than felony & intent.
12
I thought about playing the self-righteous noncar commuter game, but instead I'll suggest a more effective approach. How about requiring frequent re-tests of senior citizens for vision, reaction time, and driving skill? And how about raising driving age just ONE year, and making it significantly more difficult to get a license (skill wise)
13
Y.F.,
In fact, you have described the current situation perfectly. You can kill someone with a car without consequences. It's the one exception to the general rule that there are serious consequences for murder. That's the reason this new law is needed.
In fact, you have described the current situation perfectly. You can kill someone with a car without consequences. It's the one exception to the general rule that there are serious consequences for murder. That's the reason this new law is needed.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (13) RSS