Originally Posted by
indyfabz
Too simplistic. YOU are driving along lawfully. A deer jumps out of the woods, flies through your windshield and bashes in your face, knocking you unconscious and causing you to lose control and strike a cyclist who is riding lawfully on a shoulder and who is otherwise in compliance with all applicable laws. Or YOU have a sudden heart attack, stroke or other debilitating medical emergency, having no previous signs of any such event happening. Same result: Dead cyclist. YOU are negligent? What should be YOUR criminal sentence? How much should YOUR insurance premium rise because of YOUR negligence?
Both parties can be exercising reasonable care under the circumstance (which is what the law of negligence requires) and "it" can still (and does) happen.
I guess if you don't drive it's attractive and easy to suggest a liability framework like you propose. But everyone who does better think about the potential consequences to themselves before they back something like that.
Dude, dispense with the wild ideas. It's called extenuating circumstances for a reason.
If there isn't a deer or medical issue.........mandatory minimums for any motor vehicle injury or death. Car on car. Car on walker/jogger. Car on bike. It's got to stop.
The US is in a time of infinitely safer cars so people drive infinitely worse. Any phone usage resulting in a collision of any kind should be no license for a year. Hurt someone? 6 months. Killed someone? 5 years.
Again, it's because the minivan mom down the street doesn't steal televisions that the crime of road incidents isn't punished more. It's "any man's crime". A few people rob TV's or break into a few people's houses...........huge penalty. A person from the majority of society kills on the road..............crickets.