There is nothing. no law or nor concrete structure, that can prevent stupidity,
negligence, careless, or thoughtlessness. Likewise there is nothing to prevent
intentional willfulness to challenge the laws of physics, momentum and the
state. But what the vulnerable law will do is provide prosecutors a legal
statute to bring a fair and just legal restitution for the victims of acts of
stupidity, carelessness, and criminal disregard to the laws. The act that
causes
death or injury has already been committed. It's the prosecution and sentencing
in the courtroom is what this law defines beyond a nebulous slap on the wrist.
________________________________
From: Matt Logan <[email protected]>
To: Bikies <[email protected]>
Sent: Sat, December 8, 2012 3:27:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Bikies] Need for vulnerable user law
I agree we need to work toward minimizing the safety risk (both real and
perceived) to bicyclists in this state. But I’m not sure a vulnerable user law
would be the cause (versus an effect) of that improvement. You can go to
channel3000 today and read the story about the teen driver who was
intentionally
speeding on a hilly road in order to take air, but ended up crashing and
killing
one of the passengers. If you check the comment section, it is obvious there
is
a strong resistance to prosecuting the driver criminally. The refrain is “the
driver will have to live with this for the rest of their life, isn’t that
enough
of a punishment?” Of course if that was enough of a punishment to change
behavior the driver would not have been speeding on that hilly rural road in
the
first place.
I think the conclusion you have to come to about this is that at a fundamental
level most people do not want to do what it takes to be aware of all the risks
and avoidance techniques required to drive as safely as we would like them
to. We already have a negligence law, but because of the public’s desire to
not be burdened with thinking comprehensively about safety, a jury is unlikely
to vote to convict someone of essentially sharing their attitudes about how
much
effort is worth putting into safety. Why is adding a new law going to change
people’s attitudes about this? And if those attitudes don’t change, why would
a
jury be willing to convict a driver with BFW’s proposed bill? The attitudes
have to change first before a law is going to make a difference in behavior!
And by the way, the vulnerable user bill that failed in Texas also covered
motorcyclists, farm equipment drivers, etc.:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/SB00488I.htm
From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Robbie Webber
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 8:19 AM
To: Bikies
Subject: [Bikies] Need for vulnerable user law
[snip]
until we make criminal driving a more serious offense - and begin to prosecute
it as such - we will continue to be at more risk than necessary
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
