Originally Posted by
wahoonc
Yep and gives law enforcement another charge to bring... IMHO you only need about 5 motor vehicle laws. 1) Failure to maintain control resulting in property damage, 2) Failure to maintain control resulting in injury. 3) Failure to maintain control resulting in death. 4) Failure to maintain control period (which would cover swerving, illegal passing, etc, etc. And 5) Driving under influence (which would cover cellphones, oatmeal, alcohol, drugs, makeup, cigarettes, children, irate spouses and anything else used to distract the driver.
Aaron
If a person decides to drive under the influence of anything or any extraneous activity, including lack of sleep, illness, "cellphones, oatmeal, alcohol, drugs, makeup, cigarettes, children, irate spouses", etc. then this is also a case of choosing to drive in circumstances where proper control of the vehicle is likely compromised.
It is very simple if a person passes out, falls asleep, composes a text message, writes a novel, changes a daiper, disciplines a kid, etc. then by definition they are no longer driving (in control of) the car. So your number 5 is actually the same as 1 through 4.
I see no need to distinguish between any of your proposed laws, the outcomes may differ, but otherwise the laws are identical. i.e. There should only be one law that can be broken - failure to maintain control.
I would extend this to include the following types of scenario - if a driver chooses to drive after rain and the temperature falls below the freezing point of water resulting in black ice, then any loss of control driving over the ice that resulted in any collision and damage (to person or property other than the driver and the driver's property including vehicle) would be considered a culpable crime. Ditto loss of control, due to encountering surface water, mud, landslide, etc.
Having said that, how does this answer the scenario in the earlier post of a driver (in control) that pulls out in front of a scooter rider, killing them, and only gets charged with 'failure to yield'?
The notion that heavy or light traffic should have some bearing on rider expectations is nonsense - under no circumstances should a rider expect their safety to be compromised by other road users. If a driver sees a sign that says "Animals crossing", this is not to suggest they get their camera ready because they might get to photograph Bambi, its because animals on the road are known to be vulnerable and larger animals, for example cows, can do considerable damage to the vehicle (and occupants). The sign is telling drivers to slow down and pay more attention and be ready to stop if necessary.
Some states are now recognizing and codifying laws to further protect the class of road users considered vulnerable, this class includes cyclists. This real world activity is the opposite of the
potential threat described by I-Like-To-Vomit-On-Other-Peoples-Threads above:
Anyone who expects/demands that all traffic on heavily traveled roads and streets be required to "slow down" in the presence of a bicyclist, as if the bicyclist were a bewildered lost puppy dog, is an unwitting advocate for getting cyclists removed by law from such roads and streets".
Here is a photo with rule 163 from the UK Highway code, oh look another recognition of a vulnerable road user
