« Federal Bike to Work Act reintroduced | Main | King Street bike lanes could be extended as part of complete street process »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I can't see this law working when, with our driviving culture, the prevalent attitude is "but for the grace of God go I".

Probably every driver makes unsafe deviations on a frequent basis so it's no surprise to me that a jury (or even a judge) would hesitate to hypocritically pass a harsh judgement on another driver.

This law has been neutered by jury nullification.

I'm indifferent about jail time, although I think criminally negligent manslaughter should be punishable with the loss of a drivers license for multiple years and include some type of community service for safer streets. I just don't like how quickly motorists can get their license back, if lost at all, for gross negligence on the road.

Bayley, I'm with you, and it is my belief that CNM might make it easier to take away a driver's license. Unfortunately, the penalty doesn't include any points, but maybe - at the margins - prosecutors can use the threat of it to get pleas that include more points. In addition, I expect car insurance companies to look at such convictions as signs of greater risk, and to offer their product accordingly. An inability to get or afford insurance is just as limiting as the inability to get a license.

But a better law would have a lower standard, less jail time and more points (or a loss of one's license).

Washcycle, I think you hit on one of the main issues. Is it worse for insurance companies if more drivers were changed with CNM?

I have the feeling that the insurance companies are manipulating things to make it easier for drivers and harder for peds and cyclists.

A successful prosecution of any kind should help in the eventual civil case. Will it add meaningfully to any judgment amount?

I have no compulsion to single out insurance companies if this law is not working. To quote Pogo - 'We have met the enemy and he is us".

I'll certainly put a lot of blame on insurance lobbyists for adversely influencing common sense laws to ensure they're not on the hook. Thats a primary reason I think they've lobbied for bike helmet laws, so if a helmetless cyclist is hit by a motorist, even if a helmet wouldn't have prevented the injury, the insurance company isn't liable.

Well that's how I've interpreted helmet law legalization. I might be wrong. But I'm concerned about insurance lobbyists influencing on rendering laws like this useless.

Does DMV play a role in policy for suspending licenses?

In GGW today, reported that in fatal car collisions, more people were killed outside cars(58), than inside (51). The focus on protecting drivers needs to change.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader