6 responses to “Vulnerable Legislation”

• 

  MichaelSF February 8th, 2010 at 10:01

  A recent case in San Francisco of a pedestrian fatality with the District Attorney deciding to not press charges against motorist, but also finding the “fault was joint.” Gray areas in determination of what happened in this case.

  http://ibikenopa.blogspot.com/2010/02/no-criminal-charges-in-fell-street.html

• 

  azbikelaw April 19th, 2011 at 18:45

  Maybe this is a better approach to get across the seriousness of the situation:
  A newish law that became effective in Illinois in January 2011 stipulates automatic revocation of the driver’s license of anyone convicted of a traffic offense that results in the death of another person. This law was preexisting but the part about any-old traffic violation that causes death triggering the mandatory revocation is new.

  I like the “mandatory” part; I would worry about wiggle room in what is a hardship? “I can’t drive my car, boo hoo, this is hard”.

  Here is maybe the first invocation of this new section: Driver enters plea in fatal bicycle collision | News-Gazette.com

  Public Act 096-1305
  HB4580 Enrolled LRB096 04110 AJT 26824 b
  (625 ILCS 5/6-205) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 6-205)
  Sec. 6-205. Mandatory revocation of license or permit; Hardship cases.
  (a) Except as provided in this Section, the Secretary of State shall immediately revoke the license, permit, or driving privileges of any driver upon receiving a report of the
  driver’s conviction of any of the following offenses: . . .
  16. Any offense against any provision in the Illinois Vehicle Code, or any local ordinance, regulating the movement of traffic, when that offense was the proximate cause of the death of any person. Any person whose driving privileges have been revoked pursuant to this paragraph may seek to have the revocation terminated or to have the length of revocation reduced, by requesting an administrative hearing with the Secretary of State prior to the projected driver’s license application eligibility date.

• 

  azbikelaw August 7th, 2011 at 21:27

  Maryland action: HB363 becomes law, effective Oct 2011. (HB363 on MD legislature website)

  from bikemd.org

  Thanks to your great work, we won! House Bill 363 – the Manslaughter by Vehicle – Criminal Negligence bill was signed into law on 5-10-11 by Governor O’Malley.

  Bike Maryland gives thanks to the many dedicated and the advocates that worked together to bring this legislation to fruition. HB 363 increases justice and safety for all vulnerable groups, including bicyclists and pedestrians, by sending a clear message to motorists to obey the law – now just punishment exists. There have been far too many bicycle and pedestrian fatalities, caused by motorists, on Maryland roads. HB363 fills an important loophole in the law and prosecutors will now be able to seek higher penalties for those who cause the fatality of a bicyclist. The bill will become law on October 1, 2011!

  Bike Maryland’s Top Legislative Priority

  Bike Maryland’s #1 legislative priority is to increase penalties for drivers who cause fatalities when sober because they are driving in a negligent manner, flagrantly violating the rules of the road, and going far beyond what a reasonable driver deems prudent.

  Manslaughter by Vehicle or Vessel – Criminal Negligence
  House Bill 363 – Sponsored By: Delegates Simmons, Dumais, Kramer, and Lee

  Listen to the HB363 testimony: Go to http://mgahouse.maryland.gov/House/Catalog/catalogs/default.aspx
  and click on Judiciary in the left navigation bar and scroll down to 2/23/11 either one of the versions – Since it was a 4 hour session — you can move the bar forward to 1 hour and 58 minutes which is when Delegate Simmons begins the presentation.

  Manslaughter by Vehicle or Vessel – Criminal Negligence provides a misdemeanor option for those who cause fatalities by driving in a criminally negligent manner- when sober. The bill follows the Modern Penal Code used in the majority of other states. It is a misdemeanor —upon conviction, the person would be subject to imprisonment not to exceed 3 years and/or a fine not to exceed $5000.
  There is a big loophole in Maryland’s Law. Please call your Delegate today!

  View the bill talking points here and the myths and facts here.

• 

  azbikelaw April 16th, 2012 at 13:59

  General audiences reading this will clearly get the message that bicycling is very dangerous (which is of course, sometimes true); they are likely to draw the conclusion, subconcously or otherwise, that motoring is safe (which is of course not true).
  There are far more motorists hurt/killed in traffic collisions than bicyclists — mainly because there are far more motorists. (We would all like to know the relative RATE but as you know that’s somewhat elusive.)

  To quantify it, last year (2010) in AZ there were 106,000 MV collisions in AZ (of all types, MV’s, peds, bikes…)
  There were 50,110 injuries + 762 fatalities (= 50,872 killed or injured) — of which 1,588 (1,569+19; 3%) were bicyclists and 1333 (1178+155; something under 3%) were peds — the rest were, of course, motorists (the remaining 94%).

  So i think you ought to always point out, either directly or indirectly, that 1) driving is dangerous to everyone involved, not the least of which is motorists, and 2) drivers should want to driver more safely not to help bicyclists or peds, but simply to increase motorist’s safety (including themselves).

  You probably can’t go wrong appealing to people’s self-interest.

  —-

  On a related topic; this (the 94%) is why i don’t follow the logic of a “vulnerable user” law. The large majority of injuries don’t involve a vulnerable user.

• 

  M. Sanders April 19th, 2012 at 10:57

  But let me reiterate my post in the “ADOT 2010 Crash Facts” blog:

  “pedestrian traffic over 20% of all fatalities” http://azbikelaw.org/blog/adot-2010-crash-facts/#comment-10042. Yet, “according to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), walking trips accounted for 10.9 percent of all trips reported” (see USDOT, FHWA, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, The National Bicycling and Walking Study: 15–Year Status Report, May 2010 at , p. 6)

  And you covered some of the reasons in your “Final 2010 U.S. Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities released” blog: “Speed matters and need to redefine mobility – ‘Everyone should be familiar with the chart that shows that a pedestrian hit by a car traveling at 20 miles per hour (mph) percent survivability rate. That same collision with a car going twice as fast, 40 mph, will lower the survivability likelihood to 15 percent’” (Laplante and McCann, Complete Streets: We Can Get There from Here, ITE journal, May 2008).”

• 

  azbikelaw March 29th, 2013 at 22:52

  LAB weighs in in support of VRU (Vulnerable Roadway User) laws.
  http://blog.bikeleague.org/blog/2013/03/bike-law-university-vulnerable-road-user-laws-2/

  I would like to see increased penalties for drivers who negligently maim and kill — but i don’t see why these penalties should only apply to when bicyclists or peds are killed.

  In any event, I wonder about the effectiveness –
  In the 6 or so years that the law has been on the book in OR, there have been several hundred ped + cyclist fatalities and (rule of thumb) several thousand serious injuries — certainly the motorist was at fault in some fraction of these cases, perhaps half. What has become of the law in these thousands of cases?