Good to meet a bunch of you at the ferry dock yesterday.
You might want to know that we've working with Tom Carr, the Seattle City Attorney, to get state legislation passed to make injuring/killing bicyclists a crime, rather than having drivers who shouldn't be on the road get off with a traffic ticket. There have been challenges finding language that does not find opposition from defense attorneys, but it looks like we’ve found a compromise.
Tomorrow at 10 am, there will be a hearing on very short notice down in Olympia in the Senate Judiciary. The bill being discussed would classify negligent driving that harms a bicyclist or pedestrian along the likes of a DUI. I am hoping to get the word out to some interested friends and family of victims, policy experts and others who would like to sign their names in support of the bill and possibly testify. I know what a challenge it is to get down there on a weekday, but it could make all the difference.
Hopefully we will see this bill passed next month!
_________________ Chris Rule
Organizer for Cascade Bicycle Club
tehschkott
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:18 pm
daywalkerJoined: 09 Nov 2007Posts: 6108Location: Hatertown
how about manslaughter - or vehicular manslaughter.
_________________ GREAT UNITER / ORACLE / ELDER
MOOAAR DONGS
pete jr
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:30 pm
Joined: 13 Dec 2005Posts: 1930Location: balls deepx
i really don't mean to come off as adversarial, as something needs to be done about the fact that people on bikes are getting creamed and drivers are shrugging their shoulders.
but!
as far as i know, the whole problem with things as they currently are is the standard of negligence, i.e. the idea that failing to yield is just a whoopsie-daisy that, because anyone could fuck up like that (and many do) shouldn't be criminal. is this addressed at all?
and!
has anyone ever asked the question about driver re-training/testing, like making people take the written again on renewal? obv. not going to be popular with our moderate republican gov's "no new taxes" policy at the moment, but i'm curious if anyone's tried to push for it in the past.
zuvembi
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:52 am
Joined: 24 Jul 2005Posts: 942Location: Little Addis Ababa
pete jr wrote:
has anyone ever asked the question about driver re-training/testing, like making people take the written again on renewal? obv. not going to be popular with our moderate republican gov's "no new taxes" policy at the moment, but i'm curious if anyone's tried to push for it in the past.
YES. I am a huge fan of this idea. As for no new taxes, why not make it fund itself? Honestly, if driving is important to you, you can pay the real cost of the exam when you renew your license. Testing should be harder and more expensive.
Hell, I like the idea of making the BMV of WA a profit center for the government. Anything that makes driving harder will increase cycling, transit and pedestrians.
_________________ When the revolution comes, we're going to need a longer wall
langston
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:09 pm
Joined: 25 Jul 2005Posts: 5547Location: Columbia City
zuvembi wrote:
Hell, I like the idea of making the BMV of WA a profit center for the government. Anything that makes driving harder will increase cycling, transit and pedestrians.
This and legalized marijuana. I doubt I'll live long enough to see either, though.
henry
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:37 pm
somewhat piggishJoined: 05 Aug 2005Posts: 5415Location: on porch with shotgun
zuvembi wrote:
Hell, I like the idea of making the BMV of WA a profit center for the government. Anything that makes driving harder will increase cycling, transit and pedestrians.
Word. I can never believe how cheap it is to get/renew a license. Make that shit cost $200 or $1000.
has anyone ever asked the question about driver re-training/testing, like making people take the written again on renewal?
Not just the written. I want drivers to take the driving test on renewal as well.
It's also ridiculous that they gave me a driver's license with less than 10 hours of practice and less than 2 weeks after I got my learner's permit. It's far too easy to get a license here.
The problem is that the US has spent 70ish years making driving a right (not quite legally, but practically), not a benefit. Turning that around is going to take time.
alex
tehschkott
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:59 pm
daywalkerJoined: 09 Nov 2007Posts: 6108Location: Hatertown
Fuck it. They need to start cutting off fingers and toes for this shit. Hit a cyclist, lose a toe. WHACK. I bet everyone starts paying attention quickly.
Ben, you've got a credit of +1.
_________________ GREAT UNITER / ORACLE / ELDER
MOOAAR DONGS
chunts
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:13 pm
Joined: 18 May 2007Posts: 85Location: Cappy
henry wrote:
zuvembi wrote:
Hell, I like the idea of making the BMV of WA a profit center for the government. Anything that makes driving harder will increase cycling, transit and pedestrians.
Word. I can never believe how cheap it is to get/renew a license. Make that shit cost $200 or $1000.
this would be really effective at getting people to drive without renewing their license, which circumvents any testing to weed-out the stupids.
zuvembi
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:41 pm
Joined: 24 Jul 2005Posts: 942Location: Little Addis Ababa
chunts wrote:
henry wrote:
zuvembi wrote:
Hell, I like the idea of making the BMV of WA a profit center for the government. Anything that makes driving harder will increase cycling, transit and pedestrians.
Word. I can never believe how cheap it is to get/renew a license. Make that shit cost $200 or $1000.
this would be really effective at getting people to drive without renewing their license, which circumvents any testing to weed-out the stupids.
Which is why intentionally driving without a license should be an automatic "We take your car away and you don't get it back" offense. I think that would put a dent in that rather nicely.
_________________ When the revolution comes, we're going to need a longer wall
tehschkott
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:51 pm
daywalkerJoined: 09 Nov 2007Posts: 6108Location: Hatertown
_________________ GREAT UNITER / ORACLE / ELDER
MOOAAR DONGS
SeditiousCanary
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:03 pm
sorry, can't make it!Joined: 26 Jan 2006Posts: 2315Location: Fremont Troll
zuvembi wrote:
Which is why intentionally driving without a license should be an automatic "We take your car away and you don't get it back" offense. I think that would put a dent in that rather nicely.
To quote Nintendo's marketing campaign, "Gotta catch 'em all!"
chunts
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:09 pm
Joined: 18 May 2007Posts: 85Location: Cappy
zuvembi wrote:
Which is why intentionally driving without a license should be an automatic "We take your car away and you don't get it back" offense. I think that would put a dent in that rather nicely.
in a perfect world, sure. problem is poor people are both less likely to pay it and less affected by the consequence. the guy who loses a lexus is gonna learn his lesson, the guy with a $200 car is just gonna go buy another. it's cheaper than the license.
laura
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:16 pm
Joined: 22 Jun 2007Posts: 1050Location: wherever the dance party is
tehschkott wrote:
Fuck it. They need to start cutting off fingers and toes for this shit. Hit a cyclist, lose a toe. WHACK. I bet everyone starts paying attention quickly.
Fantastic! I love this. Old Testament style.
Eric_s
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:07 pm
Joined: 07 Mar 2007Posts: 1691Location: the dirty south
I've seen several arguments on this thread which I have a problem with.
1) driving a car is expensive, even if you drive a cheap car. Driving a car is not a right. requiring vigorous license exams and regular re-tests which a prospective driver must pay for out of pocket has more benefit to society as a whole in reduced collisions and other non-intentional property and physical damage, even if it marginalizes a very small number of people who might otherwise drive.
2) Sure, some people are going to break the law, but there's already a mechanism to deal with that. People already drive without a license, so I don't see how making it more difficult to get a license is going to change the small percentage of people who already don't care/feel entitled to endanger others. It will have quite an effect on those who do care about the consequences of their actions, but you're only considering those people already.
3) Driving while intoxicated should have a instant and severe penalty, such as loss of a license until you can pass the license test, and automatic vehicle impoundment. Yes, the DUI laws are already severe, but even the message that you can drive at 0.08% gives the impression that you can drive while intoxicated. It should be "drive with shit in your system and you get fucked."
4) driving while distracted should be an instant very large fine, with a % going to a bonus for the officer who makes the bust on camera. While inviting abuse, this will also invite enforcement. The very large fine is so that when biffy lexus goes to court to argue that that cell phone needs to be in use while driving and the judge cuts it in half because she showed up it's still a large fine.
5) we should eliminate helmet laws, since they simply depress the number of cyclists out there, and are a tool for the cops to harass the drunks with DUI bars who have lost their licenses and cars because they can't afford a license. Not going to argue the effectiveness of helmets in injury prevention, just going to say that the more bikes on the road the safer we all are, and that helmet laws have been shown to depress the number of bikes on the road.
sorry, can't make it!Joined: 26 Jan 2006Posts: 2315Location: Fremont Troll
Eric_s wrote:
Not going to argue the effectiveness of helmets in injury prevention, just going to say that the more bikes on the road the safer we all are, and that helmet laws have been shown to depress the number of bikes on the road.
Kind of like safety glasses when using a drill press. It may help, in the right circumstances, but it doesn't help the vast majority of the time. Granted, it doesn't hurt to be safe either. Besides, it is class based discrimination to require helmets, and issue tickets which cost more than a helmet does to buy. It's still an unreasonable financial bourdon for what is effectively a pretty safe activity in the first place, and should be a personal choice. It's not like the park rangers are out ticketing free climbers.
Finn
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:40 am
AlabamaJoined: 15 Sep 2006Posts: 303Location: Central District
This thread has moments of alarming stupidity.
I've been injured by a car while riding.
If you killed or maimed someone on the road, odds are good that you'd feel pretty horrible about it. You may never want to drive again. Also, you will face a variety of legal difficulties and a massive spike in your insurance premiums.
But, it's important to remember two things: 1. Accidents are accidents. By and large, no one gets on the road to hurt people. and 2. As we've learned from capital punishment, severe penalties are not a deterrent to killing people.
Prevention and training are key. Also, wear a damn helmet- your hair is not that cool.
key lime
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:23 am
it never happenedJoined: 13 Mar 2008Posts: 1142Location: Wallenfjord
Finn wrote:
Also, wear a damn helmet- your hair is not that cool.
Eyyyy
Speak for y'self
jimmythefly
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:55 pm
Joined: 10 Jan 2007Posts: 1491
Finn wrote:
This thread has moments of alarming stupidity.
I've been injured by a car while riding.
If you killed or maimed someone on the road, odds are good that you'd feel pretty horrible about it. You may never want to drive again. Also, you will face a variety of legal difficulties and a massive spike in your insurance premiums.
But, it's important to remember two things: 1. Accidents are accidents. By and large, no one gets on the road to hurt people. and 2. As we've learned from capital punishment, severe penalties are not a deterrent to killing people.
Prevention and training are key. Also, wear a damn helmet- your hair is not that cool.
1. While no one intends to hurt people, people do choose what they pay attention to and how they drive. If a person's choices mean they didn't see the cyclist they hit, that's not an accident, it's negligent disregard. It should be punished.
2. I'm not sure how you're linking these points to each other. You were just talking about accidents, yet capital punishment for a murder has everything to do with intentional killing, not accidental.
I don't think what's being talked about is even "severe". It sounds to me like it's more like the punishment finally fitting the crime.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours
The time now is Sat Aug 12, 2023 12:45 pm
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
daywalker
Joined: 09 Nov 2007
Posts: 6108
Location: Hatertown
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 1930
Location: balls deepx
Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 942
Location: Little Addis Ababa
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 5547
Location: Columbia City
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 3128
Location: Roosevelt
Joined: 18 May 2007
Posts: 85
Location: Cappy
sorry, can't make it!
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 2315
Location: Fremont Troll
Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 1050
Location: wherever the dance party is
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 1691
Location: the dirty south
Alabama
Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 303
Location: Central District
it never happened
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 1142
Location: Wallenfjord
Joined: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 1491
