Should Oregon Traffic Law be Changed?
Yesterday another cyclist was struck and killed in Washington County. The driver turned into the path of the cyclist, who struck the car and was killed. The driver indicated that she couldn’t see the cyclist because the sun was in her eyes.
This makes four cyclists killed in Washington county this summer. None of the drivers involved in the previous accidents will be subject to criminal charges. One will be cited for careless driving, while the other will be cited for failing to yield the right-of-way to a bicyclist in a bike lane. Chances are the driver in this most recent collision will also not be criminally charged.
This is partly because Oregon has no vehicular homicide law. In order to obtain a criminal conviction in a traffic death, a person must be found reckless or grossly negligent. Even if someone dies, that does not necessarily create a situation where a driver must take a greater responsibility for their actions.
Would it make a difference, if Oregon had a vehicular manslaughter law? Maybe. Washington has such a law in place, and Washington state has experienced 1.13 cyclist deaths per million residents. That’s just over half of Oregon’s rate of 2.0 cyclist deaths per million residents.
It seems to me that if you are fiddling with your radio, or eating your dinner, or applying makeup, and as a result of your inattention a cyclist is struck and killed, there ought to be a greater consequence than a traffic ticket. But perhaps I’m biased, since I spend some of my time on two wheels.
What do you think? Should Oregon have a vehicular homicide law?
Related posts:
I don’t know. Is 2.0 vs 1.3 deaths per MILLION statistically significant in a state with only, what? 4 million for Oregon and 6 million for Washington? Unlikely.
Second, I don’t know about you, but when I gun it to run a yellow light and it turns red, I don’t need the possibility of me going to jail to change my mind. The negative consequences of an accident or even a ticket are enough. I assumed a) that I wouldn’t get caught, and b) that nothing would happen.
Third, there are civil actions. These people could be sued for their negligence. Going to court, losing their insurance, having to pay a big sum above what their insurance paid, etc, is a pretty damn strong punishment. I don’t see why sending them to jail would be useful. They didn’t INTEND to do something wrong. We don’t truly need protection from them — at least, not more than taking away their license.
2.0 deaths per million residents in Oregon (population estimate 3,641,056 as of 2005) equals 7.28.
I bet more people die by falling in their bathtubs. You want to pass a bathtubular homicide law too? Convict the guy who built my house for not putting flowered stickers in my tub!
As the person mentioned above, there are more than enough remedies currently available in the event an accident (and that’s all it is - an *accident*) happens.
This is really interesting. Of course my knee-jerk response is that driving should just be made illegal, ESPECIALLY in Washington County.
But after some considered thought I find myself wondering why it is that we need to enumerate every bad thing one can do into law and then assign the applicable punishment to each offense? It would seem like there has to be a better way.
Yes, another commenter mentions civil liability, but aren’t what you really asking for is the state to take over deciding what actions are bad then assigning a cost to them as a form of punishment? Waiting for the bereaved family to seek such somewhat smacks of vigilante-ism and we don’t do that for littering, stealing or even jaywalking. We ask the justice system to do that because we are a civilized society based on the rule of law.
So if Oregon currently lacks a way to punish someone who does something very terrible while operating a car, yes, I agree there is a problem that needs to be solved. But what if I hit and kill someone with my bike? My wheelchair? My lawnmower? Shouldn’t I also face the same punishment? Does it really matter that a vehicle was used in the taking of a life? How is this different from someone cleaning a loaded gun, having it discharge, and killing an innocent bystander? Or someone dropping a plugged in curling iron into a bathtub and killing the bather?
Or could it be that there is no ticket and no fine that redress the problem created here? I think not.
Or does it indicate that the prosecutor responsible for filing charges against the accused has the ability to review the facts of the case, decide their merit, and make the reasoned decision that there isn’t a pressing public need to drag the bad driver before the court only to have a couple lawyers reach a ‘compromise’? I don’t know the answer to this question having never studied Oregon Legal Theory. While I agree with your point, I have to say that I hope I don’t see this coming up as a ballot initiative any time in the near future.
If the current legal system can’t punish the taking of life, then we have much bigger problems in Oregon than worrying about a vehicular manslaughter statute. I would very much like to read what someone who understands the law has to say about that…
And let’s not forget that Oregon (Portland especially) has a disproportionate number of cyclists that a) don’t wear helmets, b)race through traffic, and c) lack common sense. YES, drivers should be more aware of all cyclists, but I’ve seen too many cyclists here that are cavalier about their “right of way.” “Right of way” will surely help them sleep better while they are recovering in their wheelchairs after a gross, disfiguring accident that DIDN’T actually kill them. Just a thought.
What I don’t understand is why people think it’s ok to talk on the cellphone, eat, apply makeup, turn around to talk to passengers while driving, reach down to grab a CD, basically do anything while driving but drive. Then when they get into a collision with anyone or anything due to their lack of attention to their driving, somehow it’s just an unfortunate accident. Portland also has a disproportionate number of motorists who lack common sense. The problem is that they’re handling a deadly weapon while exercising that lack of common sense. It’s not just cyclists I’ve seen them put at risk - they endanger pedestrians, other motorists, their precious little children they have their heads turned back to speak with while driving.
Motorists are mentioned here, but bear in mind that a cyclist who kills someone while comitting a traffic infraction could be charged under such a law. I welcome it. When people are so morally bankrupt that they no longer wish to take responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make - and it’s clear to me that no one wants to take ownership of their poor driving decisions - the legal system needs to step in and make them.
The notion of liability insurance was created by an ethical dilemma, but also complicates that same dilemma.
Human life cannot be quantified,…unless, of course, you are a professional hitman, mercenary, or bounty hunter.
Killing a cyclist while driving an automobile can be as remorseful as accidentally shooting a comrade in the heat of combat, or it can be as troublesome as figuring out how to lie to the stockholders about embezzlement, or it can be as much fun as playing Grand Theft Auto.
Personally, I regard all war as murder, and I regard the taking of a human life as more painful than losing my own life. That doesn’t mean I don’t value my own life. It means I value life more than my “right of way” as the operator of a motor vehicle.
Any driver who is operating an automobile must have that vehicle fully under control at all times. When I took driver education class in high school the example was, “A baby is falling off the seat and the mother, who is the driver, reaches for the baby, thereby losing control of the vehicle.” The driver is guilty beyond any question whatsoever. If that same standard of liability is applied to each of the cyclist fatalities in Washigton County, not one of the drivers involved in those accidents should be allowed to operate a motor vehicle under any circumstances for a minimum of 10 years in my judgement. Since I am not a judge in Washington County, and since those judges will either be reviewed for reelection or for reappointment, the voters of Washington Country have the blood of those dead cyclists on their hands until those motorists’ licenses are revoked. Of course, I also believe that the George W Bush should be impeached and tried for teason and for crimes against humanity. If convicted, he should be hanged in public, …televised for all the world to see.
The issue is accountability. The president of the United States doesn’t have the maturity to fathom the meaning of that word. Because I do, in a democratic society, I am responsible for his crimes until I succeed in removing him from office, unless he manipulated the election process, and is only pretending to be the President anyhow. In the case of vehicular manslaughter, the same issues of accountability apply. If the drivers don’t hold themselves morally responsible for life, they should not have been licensed in the first place.