At the Traffic Justice Summit, Senator Adam Kline gave an insightful explanation of what cyclists are up against as we push for a vulnerable user law and of what is possible.
There is some precident for an outcome based penalty.
If I punch you in the face with my fist, that is assault.
If I punch you in the face and you die, that is homicide.
The same act can have two different concequences under the law.
The distinction is a legal technicality, but a technicality that we have all grown acustomed to. We don’t normally going around punching people so we aren’t worried. We don’t even normally go around throwing our fist randomly in the air.
What we do normally go around doing is driving unsafely. Well, maybe not normally, but at some level we realize that we have all driven while distracted or not been in complete control of our vehicles at some point and only by the roll of the dice or the grace of God have we avoided killing someone. That is why there is such a viceral reaction to the idea of a vulnerable user law. As Senator Kline described it, we don’t want to think of ourselves as criminals and we hear this proposal and think “this could be used to prosecute me”.
As the judge said about one very bad driver who hit one cyclist and then later killed someone: This isn’t a bad person, just a very bad driver.
For the safety of everyone, some people need to stop driving.
If you don’t know your state representatives, find out who they are and start talking to them today. Help them to understand that this isn’t a legal technicality for you, that it is a life and safety issue. Be polite, but help them understand.
Tags: Vulnerable User Law
Traffic Justice…
After reading a number of posts about the recent “Traffic Justice Summit” 1, 2, 3, 4, I got to wondering–what, realistically, could a non-drunk driver who kills or injures a pedestrian or cyclist be charged with? I’m not a lawy…