jeichelberg87

I am asking for the membership here to commence a letter writing campaign to their local representatives, advocating for a vulnerable user law, imposing a 10,000 fine on motorists who strike and kill a pedestrian or cyclist. Post samples of writing here, so we can compile a good final product.

Thanks to @kingston for the idea.

Rollfast

Isn't that what insurance is for, pretty much?


And how does this benefit the cyclist's family? Where does that money go to?


None of this takes into account who was at fault. Do you expect drivers to pay if the ped/cyclist wasn't paying attention, had headphones on or was under the influence?


What you are suggesting is also fully covered in a number of laws.


Not being a spoilsport, just suggesting you look at changes in existing laws first.

CliffordK

$10K fine for a life?

$10K would be more reasonable for a broken bone.

It is hard to put a price on a life... but maybe $100K fine plus damages?

howsteepisit

We have a civil court system to try and make victims or their survivors whole which includes restitution for lifetime earnings, plus losses of companionship, consortium, as well as up to treble damage for gross negligence. Fine are meant as a deterrent, but are not particularly effective as most people don't believe they will be in an incident. Plus the net effect of a huge fine is to place the state in front of the victims for distribution of whatever assets can be recovered from the defendant.

I more simple words, THIS IS A BAD IDEA!

CliffordK

One could distribute the money from the fine however one wishes, so the victim's family could get the compensation first.

However, go for a low fine, and the defendant may well plead guilty.
Go for a huge fine, and the lawyers will take the lions share of the proceeds.

howsteepisit

Since a fine is in the realm of criminal law, it would be paid to the state in this case. I cannot see the state letting go of money they collect, but they possibly could pay some form or restitution to victims, but I doubt that. Don't see much tobacco money actually making it into the hands of cancer victims or their successors.

A far a lawyers getting proceeds, not from fines, only from civil actions. so a huge fine goes (as much is collectable) to the state, to do with as the state decides is proper.

One advantage of fines over civil actions is its much more difficult to dismiss fines through bankruptcy that judgements.

CliffordK

Trials are expensive for the state to conduct. One has the judge (jury?) (grand jury?), plus the prosecuting DA. Also investigating the crime and the legal research team. Multiple documents to be filled out and filed. Appeals?

The money may be going into and coming out of different pots, but in the end, I find it doubtful that the state could conduct more than a half hour trial for under $10K.

AlexCyclistRoch

Yes, with a $10k or $100k fine, you can bet that NOBODY will ever plead guilty. Everybody will get an attorney, threaten to go to trial, and plea-bargain down to something without an onerous fine. I assume you idealists didn't consider reality before you cooked-up this idea, did you?

jeichelberg87

If it is covered, then why not write your rep letting them know it is not being adequately enforced?

Fines and levies for unsafe operation is not covered by insurance.

I expect the same type of accounting that is used in terms of road worker deaths. The same ruler used to gauge responsibility in the death of road workers is to be used in the deaths of pedestrians and cyclists.

jeichelberg87

Increased fines DO appear to be a deterrent.

https://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resou...ats/safety.htm

CliffordK

I've seen those signs... "Fines double in Work Zones".

Perhaps, however, it is all about publicity.

Maybe we need signs:

"Hit a bicycle and lose your house".
"If you don't have a house, work the rest of your life to pay for someone else's house".
"'Want free housing? Live in the slammer if you hit a bicycle"

jeichelberg87

Why don't you examine cases where a road worker was killed and then get back to us about how the case was pled out and the fine reduced, okay?

Do you have one?

jeichelberg87

How about the signs we have now, along with the posted fine if you break the law?

howsteepisit

Although your link does not go to the pages on work zone safety I did a search and discovered much to my surprise the statistics cover all work zone activities, not just the ones where a driver hit a worker or work vehicle. Try reading your research before claiming it proves something it does not. I suspect the double fine may or may not have an effect, but I think its less effect than the big ass signs that proclaim the double fine.

Its been proven time and time again that more severe punishment does not particularly reduce crime, its way more effective to increase the chances of getting caught. Here's a link: https://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx from the National Institute of Justice.

cellery

Maybe just campaign for billboards that say, "Yes, you did see them". And has the shocking image of a mangled up bicycle on the side of the road with police lights in the background or something.

Bikes (and peds) are just not on most driver's radar. Public awareness of that and bicyclists right as legit road users is needed as badly as fine schedule reforms. Those 'bikes may use full lane' signs don't really cut it.

sea coil

What is a "vulnerable user"? Can you point us to an example of such a law?

EDIT: Here in Pennsylvania, we already have Homicide by Vehicle, a 3rd degree felony carrying maximum penalties of 7 years in jail and a $15,000 fine. It requires proof of recklessness or gross negligence, which is more than simple carelessness or inattention.

sea coil

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of a few things.

Fines in criminal cases generally go to the government, not the victim's family. Compensating a family for the loss of a loved one is what civil lawsuits are for.

If a criminal defendant pays a fine, big or small, his lawyer doesn't get any part of "the proceeds", and neither does the prosecutor.

CliffordK

The prosecuting DA may not get a percent, but he certainly gets paid. Some cities and governments have at least some attorneys on full time wages. But, other cities will pay them by the hour.

Nonetheless, whether on salary or hourly, a court case takes time, and thus takes money. The less time spent sitting in trial, the more time to do other stuff.

There are "Crime Victim Funds" which may receive money from fines. And, apparently at least California can have Restitution Fines & Orders

What government or a state does with money collected can be set by law. There is nothing saying that it must simply be dumped into the general fund.

CliffordK

Here in Oregon there is a legal definition of a vulnerable user. Other laws will refer to the definition.

ORS 801.608 - Vulnerable user of a public way - 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes

sea coil

But neither attorney gets "the lion's share of the proceeds", or any share of the proceeds, as you incorrectly stated.

Which is precisely why I said "generally".

CliffordK

A $500 fine. If it costs the city $10K to prosecute, then they're losing money.
A $10K fine. If it costs the city $10K to prosecute, then the lawyer may well be taking home the lion's share of the proceeds.
And a $100K fine. If it costs the city $90K to prosecute... again the lawyer comes out smelling like a rose.

I don't care which pot the money goes into or comes out of, at the end of the day one has money going into the pot and coming out of the pot.

Even defense lawyers take their cut, win or lose. Prosecuting DA's also get paid, win or lose.

The only ones that don't are some civil lawyers that work on 100% pure commission.

Rollfast

Because, as far as I'm concerned, they re adequate per your definitions and liability does cover these issues to some degree.


I had a boy pull out in front of me after coming to a full stop years ago, I'm fully aware of what my auto insurance does and does not do.


I also haven't driven since 2006.


You have UNSAFE and accidental all shaken and stirred. Please refine your metaphor.

howsteepisit

Governments do not nor should they operate on a for profit basis. If that were the case no murder would ever get prosecuted. That's not to say that cost/benefit is not made but its a much more complex case than saying it cost more to prosecute than the fine I may get.

jeichelberg87

Okay. Thanks for generally demonstrating when it comes to ideas advocating safer roads for all users, most of you would still be inclined to relax in your easy chairs don't GAS about making any sort of attempt to improve things.

I appreciate your efforts to post all of your lame brained ideas as to why any sort of letter writing campaign won't work or is not needed. I have read them.

Now, lets hear from those cyclists who think it is worthwhile. And if there are none here, then I will realize this is not a forum worth my time and effort.

CliffordK

Go sit in a traffic court someday.

They're not operating at a loss.