Surprise! The Post Editorial board came out in opposition to passing Grosso's bill that would change the standard of negligence in cases involving bike/ped traffic collisions with motorists. They believe that instead the bill should be deferred to the next session.
Instead, it should undertake a more comprehensive review of the law. In the meantime, debate over the legislation has pointed to problems that could be fixed without legislation as the city strives to be friendly to cars, bikes and pedestrians. These include how accidents involving cyclists are investigated and the need to educate both drivers and bikers about roadway safety.
In part they take the intellectually flawed position that if this is a good policy change then it should be applied across the board (OK so far) and if not applied across the board it should not be applied at all.
Any change should be across the board, and it should come only after careful study.
This is like saying that if life preservers are good for people on a sinking boat, then either everyone should get one, or no one should.
They may be right about the need for change, but the D.C. Council should not carve a special exception in the law for one class of citizens.
Really? Because we carve out exceptions ot the law for one class of citizens all the time. For one example, of many, isn't that what the ADA does? And as WABA has noted, DC law already has a carve out on this very policy for railroad workers. I don't recall the Post coming out against that.
The Post actually takes no position on whether contributory negligence is a bad policy, which is telling in and of itself.
If so, why apply it piecemeal, advantaging a special class of citizens?
Because they're the citizens most being harmed by this. Who else is having a problem with it? And because politics is the art of the possible. This is possible. An across the board change probably is not. WABA went down that path and no one would even introduce that bill.
Some people argue, meanwhile, that a switch would have unintended consequences and hidden costs. Trial lawyers, for example, are concerned that it would hamper the ability of plaintiffs to be fully compensated when multiple defendants are at fault but some have more resources than others. Other considerations include a possible impact on insurance rates and the fact that neighboring Maryland and Virginia are two of the four states that use contributory negligence.
Those people are wrong. The law still works in 46 other states, insurance rates do not go up much if any at all and we often have non-uniform laws across the region. The Post again takes no position on these claims.
In the meantime, debate over the legislation has pointed to problems that could be fixed without legislation as the city strives to be friendly to cars, bikes and pedestrians. These include how accidents involving cyclists are investigated and the need to educate both drivers and bikers about roadway safety.
Those are good ideas, but they do nothing to help the cyclist who was injured and can not get a settlement from the at-fault drivers insurance or find a lawyer willing to take their case out of fear of contributory negligence's high standard.
On the upside, at least people are talking about this issue.
Why do we have special laws for children? Because they are vulnerable and not the same as adults, and we hold adults to the higher standard in order to protect children.
Posted by: SJE | November 12, 2014 at 03:18 PM
My view of the Washington Post gets dimmer and dimmer. This leaves me wondering...
- Does repeated publication of comment-trolling stories about a particular minority group foster contempt for that group?
- Is it time for WABA to begin encouraging its members to live a WaPo-free lifestyle? Or maybe an Amazon-free lifestyle?
That first question might make a pretty good sociology Ph.D. thesis. As for the second, I'm hesitant to give up my $1.85/week Sunday-only subscription, but giving less money to Amazon is worth a shot.
Posted by: Jonathan Krall | November 13, 2014 at 01:31 PM
Shorter Washington Post:
We have a stupid law, but we can't even start to fix it until we agree to fix the entire system. Thats like saying you can't change your business model until you are bought out by a Tech billionaire...oh, wait
Posted by: SJE | November 13, 2014 at 06:15 PM
The Post seems to have one editorial foot in reflexive, liberal, politics, another in the neoconservative, security state cesspool, and another in this kind of local, reactionary, nonsense. That's too many feet!
Posted by: Smedley Burkhart | November 14, 2014 at 10:13 AM