The flaw in our our bill - it does not treat hiting a person the same as a car
#1
-=Barry=-
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
The flaw in our our bill - it does not treat hiting a person the same as a car
https://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news...h_inititi.html
Bicycle activists push tougher negligence law
With the opening of the General Assembly session today, Maryland's bicycling advocates are renewing their effort to pass legislation addressing a gap in the law between simple negligent driving and the criminal offense of negligent manslaughter by automobile.
Concerned that drivers in fatal crashes are getting off too easily under the negligent driving statute -- a ticket-able offense that can be resolved without trial by paying a fine -- the advocates are trying to create an intermediate charge of "manslaughter by motor vehicle -- criminal negligence."
That charge, which would apply when a sober driver kills someone through gross negligence not related to intoxication, would be a serious misdemeanor carrying a potential term of three years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
The current criminal manslaughter by motor vehicle charge carries a potential 10-year, $5,000 penalty. In practice, it is very difficult for prosecutors to reach the level of proof necessary to win a conviction on that charge.
Bicyclists are especially sensitive on that point after a series of crashes in which bike riders have been killed through driver error and the motorist faced no charge more serious than negligent driving. Bike Maryland is leading the charge to change the law.
There's a lot of merit to the idea of creating an enhanced version of negligent driving to cover cases that are grossly negligent but not willful. But the proposal being advanced by the advocates carries the flaw of many such laws: It punishes the result and not the conduct. It would make more sense to create a misdemeanor charge of "grossly negligent driving contributing to a crash" that could be applied whether or not a victim died. One year should suffice as a penalty; three strikes me as overkill unless there was actual intent to cause harm.
For reasons of fairness, and despite the fact such instances are uncommon, the statute should be applied to bicyclists whose gross negligence contributes to a crash. There have been cases in the United States where misbehaving bicyclists have killed or seriously injured pedestrians. There's no reason the charge shouldn't apply in those cases as well. [Who said it doesn't?] Supporting such an amendment would be a show of good faith on the part of advocates showing that they too recognize that Maryland has a problem with a minority if bicyclists who are as reckless as any driver.
Posted by Michael Dresser
https://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news...h_inititi.html
***************************************************
BACKGROUND
Manslaughter by Vehicle or Vessel- Criminal Negligence
Support this bill to close a significant loophole that currently exists in Maryland law
Do you know that:
* Under current law, drivers who, when sober, flagrantly violate the rules of the road, deviate from the standard of care used by any reasonable person and cause fatalities, pay no more than$1000 in traffic court.
* When enacted, this law would establish a misdemeanor option for those who cause fatalities by driving in a criminally negligent manner
Myths & Facts
* Maryland has existing legislation that covers this offense - Myth
FACT: This bill establishes a standard of negligence that falls between gross negligence (for conviction of manslaughter by vehicle) and of simple negligence
* The definition of criminal negligence is vague - Myth
FACT: Courts have found that the Model Penal Code’s definition of negligence is not unconstitutionally vague
* This bill does not establish a standard that is meaningfully different from existing law - Myth
FACT: Criminal Law Article §2-209 requires proof of gross negligence for conviction. This is defined as “wanton or reckless disregard for human life. This bill does not require that conduct be “extraordinary or outrageous”.
* This bill will impose penalties on drivers when there is a fatality as a result of simple negligence. - Myth
FACT: This bill requires that both the risk created by the person’s action and a deviation from the standard of care involved in the failure to perceive the risk be substantial. Thus, it requires more than simple negligence
Why is this important for you as a legislator and citizen of Maryland?
* This will bring Maryland in line with the Model Penal Code approach used in more than 20 states
* Inherently, this will make Maryland roads safer
* It will help reduce fatalities on Maryland’s roads
* It will hold people accountable for criminally negligent behaviors
From: Bike Maryland's Myths and Facts Manslaughter by Vehicle or Vessel
Related: Greater Greater Washington's - Prosecuting negligent driving is tough; time for new laws?
***************************************************
The current fine for negligent driving (resulting in death) $313
Bicycle activists push tougher negligence law
With the opening of the General Assembly session today, Maryland's bicycling advocates are renewing their effort to pass legislation addressing a gap in the law between simple negligent driving and the criminal offense of negligent manslaughter by automobile.
Concerned that drivers in fatal crashes are getting off too easily under the negligent driving statute -- a ticket-able offense that can be resolved without trial by paying a fine -- the advocates are trying to create an intermediate charge of "manslaughter by motor vehicle -- criminal negligence."
That charge, which would apply when a sober driver kills someone through gross negligence not related to intoxication, would be a serious misdemeanor carrying a potential term of three years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
The current criminal manslaughter by motor vehicle charge carries a potential 10-year, $5,000 penalty. In practice, it is very difficult for prosecutors to reach the level of proof necessary to win a conviction on that charge.
Bicyclists are especially sensitive on that point after a series of crashes in which bike riders have been killed through driver error and the motorist faced no charge more serious than negligent driving. Bike Maryland is leading the charge to change the law.
There's a lot of merit to the idea of creating an enhanced version of negligent driving to cover cases that are grossly negligent but not willful. But the proposal being advanced by the advocates carries the flaw of many such laws: It punishes the result and not the conduct. It would make more sense to create a misdemeanor charge of "grossly negligent driving contributing to a crash" that could be applied whether or not a victim died. One year should suffice as a penalty; three strikes me as overkill unless there was actual intent to cause harm.
For reasons of fairness, and despite the fact such instances are uncommon, the statute should be applied to bicyclists whose gross negligence contributes to a crash. There have been cases in the United States where misbehaving bicyclists have killed or seriously injured pedestrians. There's no reason the charge shouldn't apply in those cases as well. [Who said it doesn't?] Supporting such an amendment would be a show of good faith on the part of advocates showing that they too recognize that Maryland has a problem with a minority if bicyclists who are as reckless as any driver.
Posted by Michael Dresser
https://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news...h_inititi.html
***************************************************
BACKGROUND
Manslaughter by Vehicle or Vessel- Criminal Negligence
Support this bill to close a significant loophole that currently exists in Maryland law
Do you know that:
* Under current law, drivers who, when sober, flagrantly violate the rules of the road, deviate from the standard of care used by any reasonable person and cause fatalities, pay no more than$1000 in traffic court.
* When enacted, this law would establish a misdemeanor option for those who cause fatalities by driving in a criminally negligent manner
Myths & Facts
* Maryland has existing legislation that covers this offense - Myth
FACT: This bill establishes a standard of negligence that falls between gross negligence (for conviction of manslaughter by vehicle) and of simple negligence
* The definition of criminal negligence is vague - Myth
FACT: Courts have found that the Model Penal Code’s definition of negligence is not unconstitutionally vague
* This bill does not establish a standard that is meaningfully different from existing law - Myth
FACT: Criminal Law Article §2-209 requires proof of gross negligence for conviction. This is defined as “wanton or reckless disregard for human life. This bill does not require that conduct be “extraordinary or outrageous”.
* This bill will impose penalties on drivers when there is a fatality as a result of simple negligence. - Myth
FACT: This bill requires that both the risk created by the person’s action and a deviation from the standard of care involved in the failure to perceive the risk be substantial. Thus, it requires more than simple negligence
Why is this important for you as a legislator and citizen of Maryland?
* This will bring Maryland in line with the Model Penal Code approach used in more than 20 states
* Inherently, this will make Maryland roads safer
* It will help reduce fatalities on Maryland’s roads
* It will hold people accountable for criminally negligent behaviors
From: Bike Maryland's Myths and Facts Manslaughter by Vehicle or Vessel
Related: Greater Greater Washington's - Prosecuting negligent driving is tough; time for new laws?
***************************************************
The current fine for negligent driving (resulting in death) $313
#2
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,531 Times
in
3,157 Posts
Why is it that someone always drags out this incredibly rare event: "misbehaving bicyclists have killed or seriously injured pedestrians" when fighting laws that are meant to deal with the 10s of thousands of deaths caused by motorists?
To the best of my knowledge, cyclists killing pedestrian incidents, per year, amount to less than a handful... motorists killing cyclists and pedestrians AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT (nothing more than minor punishment, if any) amounts to thousands of incidents. We are talking several orders of magnitude here.
SIGH.
To the best of my knowledge, cyclists killing pedestrian incidents, per year, amount to less than a handful... motorists killing cyclists and pedestrians AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT (nothing more than minor punishment, if any) amounts to thousands of incidents. We are talking several orders of magnitude here.
SIGH.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Leeds UK
Posts: 2,085
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
This sounds very much like the arguments we've had on our side of the pond.
Since criminal intent to cause a specific result is not present in cases of careless driving (UK term), it was always argued that the court could not take into account the result of the carelessness. When this was combined with a reduction of a third of charges of [I]dangerous driving[I] in recent years this led to a number of pretty obvious cases of injustice.
I suspect that this reduction resulted from the Crown Prosecution Service, using the 50% likelihood of conviction rule, began to go for the easier option of careless driving. This, in turn, resulted in (I suspect):
1. a greater number of pretty obvious cases of injustice
2. a raising of the bar in the definition of dangerous driving, since those more serious cases could be used by smart defence lawyers to argue for the lesser charge
As a result of much pressure from cyclists, Parliament introduced a charge of causing death by careless driving which sounds pretty much like the approach being proposed in Maryland.
Since criminal intent to cause a specific result is not present in cases of careless driving (UK term), it was always argued that the court could not take into account the result of the carelessness. When this was combined with a reduction of a third of charges of [I]dangerous driving[I] in recent years this led to a number of pretty obvious cases of injustice.
I suspect that this reduction resulted from the Crown Prosecution Service, using the 50% likelihood of conviction rule, began to go for the easier option of careless driving. This, in turn, resulted in (I suspect):
1. a greater number of pretty obvious cases of injustice
2. a raising of the bar in the definition of dangerous driving, since those more serious cases could be used by smart defence lawyers to argue for the lesser charge
As a result of much pressure from cyclists, Parliament introduced a charge of causing death by careless driving which sounds pretty much like the approach being proposed in Maryland.
#4
-=Barry=-
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Keep in mind the "easier" offense of just negligent driving is a fine of $300ish in MD. And applies equally to a fender bender, crippling a 12 year old boy or killing someone. This is our harshest punishment we can inflict unless the person was under the influence.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
If I ride around with a grenade launcher attached to my bike in such a way that it fires in random directions whenever I roll over a rough patch of road, then I do not have any specific intent to harm people, even though any reasonable person would realize that someone is likely to be harmed eventually. That's about the same as people who are in the habit of yakking on the phone, texting, speeding, running lights/stop signs and driving out of their lane. They are not intending to harm the specific person they harm, but they know they will eventually harm someone.
It is frustrating how hard it is to bring some accountability to the motoring public for the mayhem they cause. You would think the right-wingers would be all over the "personal responsibility" and law-and-order aspects and that the left-wingers would like to afford some protection for vulnerable users doing their part for the environment.
It is frustrating how hard it is to bring some accountability to the motoring public for the mayhem they cause. You would think the right-wingers would be all over the "personal responsibility" and law-and-order aspects and that the left-wingers would like to afford some protection for vulnerable users doing their part for the environment.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I appreciate your ability to absorb stereotypes but really, your conceptions of "right" and "left" are about 20 years out of date.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
I have been living in a place that is well behind the times for the past decade, so maybe my impressions of where the folks who call themselves "conservative" and "progressive" are is a bit dated. Are the right-wing folks of the larger world no longer concerned with law-and-order? I know it is not as important as tax cuts for billionaires and cutting all public benefit programs are to them, but I believe it was the underlying basis for the partial reading of the U.S. Constitution in Congress last week. And although it was Nixon who signed the Clean Air Act into law, I believe the impetus for environmental protection laws has always been and continues to come from the left wing. Has there been some push for environmental protection from the right in N. America that I missed? I admit that I miss a lot, and I know there are people on the right who are passionate about protecting the environment, but they seem to me to be a much smaller minority on their wing than their counterparts on the left.
#8
-=Barry=-
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
If I ride around with a grenade launcher attached to my bike in such a way that it fires in random directions whenever I roll over a rough patch of road, then I do not have any specific intent to harm people, even though any reasonable person would realize that someone is likely to be harmed eventually. That's about the same as people who are in the habit of yakking on the phone, texting, speeding, running lights/stop signs and driving out of their lane. They are not intending to harm the specific person they harm, but they know they will eventually harm someone.
I will still speculate that there has been a shift in our society what used to be "I am a good driver so I will wait till I pass that cyclists before I change the channel on the radio." has changed to: "Because I am a good driver I can fiddle with the radio and pass a cyclists at the same time." Essentially caution is becoming a rarity on the roadway.
#9
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,531 Times
in
3,157 Posts
This is good, though I always liked baseball bats in parks analogies. You can get into a lot of trouble practicing your swing [a legitimate use of a bat in a park] and then walking into a crowded area without regard to other people. [Acting irresponsibly and harming someone carries a punishment, granted not as severe as having intent to harm someone but in general acting irresponsibly not tolerated in our society unless we are talking about automobile drivers.
I will still speculate that there has been a shift in our society what used to be "I am a good driver so I will wait till I pass that cyclists before I change the channel on the radio." has changed to: "Because I am a good driver I can fiddle with the radio and pass a cyclists at the same time." Essentially caution is becoming a rarity on the roadway.
I will still speculate that there has been a shift in our society what used to be "I am a good driver so I will wait till I pass that cyclists before I change the channel on the radio." has changed to: "Because I am a good driver I can fiddle with the radio and pass a cyclists at the same time." Essentially caution is becoming a rarity on the roadway.
I am speculating that this is due to two reasons.
1. Cars are resembling living rooms more and more... the average car has at least a radio inside, perhaps a CD player, and likely much more... from DVD players to GPS to cell phones, all of which add distractions, couple this with comfortable seating, plenty of cup holders, power brakes and power steering, and road noise reduction, and it is easy for motorists to lose touch with the fact that they are "piloting" a heavy, fast, powerful machine.
2. The density of cities and thus urban roadways has increased to proportions that now have motorists waiting in crushing traffic congestion for longer and longer periods... this rising frustration pushes motorists to "speak with their feet" and make rash decisions in traffic, leading to marginal situations. Motorists are protected in their vehicles by countless systems from air bags to crumple zones, and are lead to feel safe even while in the aforementioned "marginal situations." We actually have more collisions today than in years past, but fewer injuries and deaths... indicating that motorists are taking more chances, and are being protected by their vehicles.
The result of the two situations above is that traffic engineers surveys show that traffic is moving faster, so speed limits are increased. Motorists tend to not only speed up, but are following closer these days, (when was the last time you saw folks actually using the "two second rule"), thus gaps for merging traffic are more difficult to find and enter... leading to the frustration mentioned above, and making it difficult for cyclists to flow with that traffic. (a side "benefit" for cyclists)
#10
Cycle Year Round
I will still speculate that there has been a shift in our society what used to be "I am a good driver so I will wait till I pass that cyclists before I change the channel on the radio." has changed to: "Because I am a good driver I can fiddle with the radio and pass a cyclists at the same time." Essentially caution is becoming a rarity on the roadway.
These days, I see drivers take their hands off the wheel for fairly long times without the quick swerve occurring. This makes drivers much more comfortable with less attention being payed to their driving.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
#11
Sputnik - beep beep beep
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 481
Bikes: '12 Jamis Coda Elite '09 Jamis Sputnik, '07 Jamis Eclipse, '13 Brompton M6R.
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
... and the "improvement" in safety equipment that allows a driver to totally destroy the exterior of the auto, but leave the "cage" intact with them inside, held tight by belts and the impact softened by airbags. Considering the existence of insurance that will replace the whole mess, there is very little consequence to crashing in an auto.
#12
Cycle Year Round
... and sound isolation such that they drive faster without even knowing it.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
... and the "improvement" in safety equipment that allows a driver to totally destroy the exterior of the auto, but leave the "cage" intact with them inside, held tight by belts and the impact softened by airbags. Considering the existence of insurance that will replace the whole mess, there is very little consequence to crashing in an auto.
I better go chill. This thread is bringing out my blood-lust. Fortunately, it's keyboard expression only; I really don't wish harm on the carcissists. I'm just frustrated that we give them a license to kill with impunity.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,040
Bikes: Bacchetta Giro, Strada
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
But beyond that, bicycles are different from cars. I'll bet millions of pedestrians are struck by bicycles every year, and only a handful are seriously injured or die. Most are just a bump and maybe somebody yells "hey!".
Compare to cars -- perhaps a million pedestrians are struck by cars as well -- mostly in parking lots and the like and nobody is hurt. But if the car is really moving, the pedestrian is likely to be seriously injured or killed. Roughly 4000 pedestrians are killed by people driving cars each year in the US -- anybody have statistics for pedestrians killed by cyclists? (I think the UK averages about 3 per year, not sure about the US.)
Another difference -- if a cyclist hits a pedestrian hard enough to kill them, the cyclist is not likely to be able to ride away. If a driver of a car kills a pedestrian -- the driver is likely unharmed and the car is likely drivable, though somewhat damaged.
But I do agree, in a way -- I see no reason why such a bill should limit itself to motor vehicles, though I would expect that getting a conviction against a cyclist should be harder than getting it against a driver.
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,644 Times
in
6,053 Posts
For reasons of fairness, and despite the fact such instances are uncommon, the statute should be applied to bicyclists whose gross negligence contributes to a crash. There have been cases in the United States where misbehaving bicyclists have killed or seriously injured pedestrians. There's no reason the charge shouldn't apply in those cases as well. [Who said it doesn't?] Supporting such an amendment would be a show of good faith on the part of advocates showing that they too recognize that Maryland has a problem with a minority if bicyclists who are as reckless as any driver.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
canyoneagle
Advocacy & Safety
0
01-08-13 12:33 PM