Frosh says no to HB 363

This is one of those frustrating things about democracy as it is practiced. The Maryland house passes a bill unanimously, and the Senate would probably pass it and the governor will surely sign it, but one person - a single member of the Senate - is able to kill the bill. Bike Maryland reports

HB 363 passed in the House Chamber and the bill is now in the hands of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. We have strong support from many members of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.  However, Bike Maryland, along with other advocates, met with Senator Frosh, Chair of the Judicial Proceedings Committee, who informed us that he does NOT plan to let the bill out of Committee which means that the bill will NOT become law. If you live in Senator Frosh's District (Montgomery County) it is crucial that you please call his office and state that you are a constituent and want him to let this bill out of committee. Senator Frosh - [email protected]; 1-800-492-7122, ext. 3124.

Here's a roundup of coverage of the bill.  

Update: Kate Ryan has some audio on this story at her blog, including this story below where Frosh says he doesn't know if he'll kill the bill or not. He hopes we can "do something to improve the safety of everybody on the road."

Ryan adds

Frosh suggested that prosecutors simply weren't pursuing those cases aggressively enough. That kind of talk irritates prosecutors. Years ago, when I interviewed then-Montgomery County State's Attorney Doug Gansler, who now serves as Attorney General for Maryland, we talked about the issue, he rolled his eyes when he repeated that argument--that prosecutors were somehow dropping the ball.

And

Frosh is quick to point out he's a cyclist; he's been biking to his Bethesda office for years, so he's not insensitive to the need to keep cyclists and pedestrians safe. But Frosh argues that under the proposed legislation, any of the things that drivers commonly do: drinking a cup of coffee, trying to eat on the run, even turning to reprimand a child in a back seat, could result in a crash, and that could land the driver in jail.

But that concern has been well addressed by advocates of the change. And, frankly, we wouldn't put up with any of those excuses from anyone else. Can you imagine the air traffic controller who lost a plane and his excuse was that he was trying to eat on the run? The kinds of cases they're talking about prosecuting with this law do not involve someone drinking coffee. It's a ridiculous concern.

The target of the bill is someone who kills another as a result of behavior that is a substantial deviation from the standard of care expected. In other words, it is aimed at those who do not just deviate from the duty to drive like a reasonably prudent person, but those who deviate a great deal. Someone guilty of simple negligence would not be charged under the law.

Frosh should trust in the reasonableness of his colleagues. It's possible that he's the only one who sees the inherent danger in this law, but how likely is it? When you find yourself to be the only person advocating a position in the face of many other reasonable people opposing it, you owe it to yourself to reevaluate it.

Comments

[think a little]

"Frosh should trust in the reasonableness of his colleagues."

It took 10 years to get a bill that legally allowed self-defense in your own house past him (and then only with lots of embarrasing testimony).

The man is a tool, the only way you are going to make this work is line up every single family of a crash victim, get the news on your side and have a lot of crying people testify before the committee

[think a little]

Also of note he is a tort lawyer....he'd much rather have the business and $$$ in winning a lawsuit than actually sending someone to jail.