Shocking as it is, only one state—Oregon—has a law that makes it a crime punishable by jail to hit and kill or injure a pedestrian, cyclist, or any other “vulnerable user” in a crosswalk. In San Francisco, reports StreetsBlog, two pedestrians have been killed by drivers in the last two months; one, an 81-year-old woman, was struck and killed in a unsignalized crosswalk last night. Oregon’s law creates an enhanced penalty for drivers who kill or seriously injure another person who isn’t in an “enclosed vehicle” and who are convicted of careless driving. (Vehicular assault is a different category of crime that is much harder to prove). A similar proposal in the Washington State legislature, which would make it a crime to kill or seriously injure someone while violating a traffic law, has not yet been introduced, although state Sen. Joe McDermott’s office says he is taking it under consideration. Proposals to criminalize assault by vehicle gained momentum with the death of city council aide Tatsuo Nakata, who was struck and killed at the crosswalk 47th and Admiral Way by a driver who was talking on his cell phone.
Eat shit. Have you ever noticed all the whacked out druggies who step out in the street without even looking up, let alone to the left or right to see if cars are coming? No wonder pedestrians get run over in Seattle all the time – druggie losers walking and druggie losers driving. I will not be held criminally responsible for running over a druggie drunk bum with shit in its pants who steps right in front of my car without even looking, my lawyers will eat your face for breakfast. Fuck Seattle, I hope an earthquake entirely destroys it today.
my soul is enclosed in an “enclosed vehicle.”
Hopefully with a Critical Mass or gearless bike hipster exclusion. Those guys are fair game.
This post seems a bit misleading. One might conclude that only in Oregon could you be put in jail for hitting and killing a pedestrian or cyclist in a crosswalk. In fact, I think this is the unambiguous implication of the post. But that’s not true at all – people go to prison for manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. all the time, and not just in Oregon.
Erica’s point is that it should be easier to put people in jail in cases in which intent or recklessness can’t be proven. Maybe.
This sounds like another law that will not impact people with means and which will be leveraged against those that can’t afford good legal representation. I oppose it.
@4 – I agree wholeheartedly. Obviously if someone comes darting out in front of your car while you are obeying all traffic laws and they are impaired, your killing them would be a horrible accident. But if you’re speeding, talking on a cell phone, drunk, driving with a suspended license, or otherwise causing a hazard by disregarding traffic laws, and that negligence causes someone’s death, I think you should be held responsible for that.
I’m in favor of this, so long that fixies aren’t included.
They deserve to be run over …
the 81 year-old woman being hit is a senseless tragedy. why should the driver go to jail if no crime was committed? someone should be held accountable simply because “someone’s loved one was killed?”
it appears to have been an unfortunate accident that was the result of a poorly designed intersection, not of any wrong-doing on the part of the driver. no speeding, no drinking, no running red lights. an accident.
I hate people who enter the cross walk when there is a giant red hand that signals – do not enter cross walk. The fuckers do it anyway… Blows my goddamn mind.
This post is highly misleading. RCW 46.61.520 Vehicular homicide states:
(1) When the death of any person ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person, the driver is guilty of vehicular homicide if the driver was operating a motor vehicle:
(a) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502; or
(b) In a reckless manner; or
(c) With disregard for the safety of others.
(2) Vehicular homicide is a class A felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW, except that, for a conviction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, an additional two years shall be added to the sentence for each prior offense as defined in RCW 46.61.5055.
More nanny state bullshit advocacy from someone who supposedly values “liberty”… eat it ECB.
driving without a license but otherwise legally and responsibly wouldn’t make my list for felony charges. reckless endangerment is already on the books and could be used against someone for most of the examples given above.
i don’t think without intent it should be a murder charge and without premeditation it wouldn’t be murder 1.
“Proposals to criminalize assault by vehicle gained momentum”…
Wow, what a poor choice of words. Is there an editor in the house?
@11,
Nanny state doesn’t mean what you think it means, dipshit. You have no right to behave recklessly, kill or hurt others, and get away with it.
One thing I’d like to see changed is all of the crosswalks in this city that have no stoplight or stop sign. SDOT throws up unenforced crosswalks and expects drivers to stop for them. What a fucking joke. No one stops for them. SDOT is as responsible for Nakata’s death as that asshole rabbi.
How about when people are killed by trains? Should the train engineer receive an enhanced penalty? What if the person who gets run over is old?
@ 14 enjoy your Nanny State you delusional tard. Look out for all the druggie “pedestrians” who don’t look up from their shoes while suddenly walking right in front of your car… you committed a crime by not giving right of way in the 0.005th of a second that you had to react. Enjoy your new criminal record and jail time too. Eat shit and die after that, thanks.
As a friend of Tatsuo’s I am too biased to comment on this. I am shocked that the person who crashed into him and killed him isn’t being held responsible for his actions. Of course, the driver didn’t do it on purpose. That’s what involuntary manslaughter is. He should be charged with a crime and brought to court.
Thanks, ECB. This is an important issue. Drivers feel entitled to anything these days, even murder.
Erica,
I am not so sure that Oregon’s law is a good idea. There’s a difference between intent, negligence and just flat out horrible/unfortunate circumstances.
As one who has the dubious distinction of being hit by a motor vehicle twice (once on a bike and once as a pedestrian), I believe ALL circumstances must be fairly investigated. Seems to me, there are as many careless cyclists & pedestrians as there are careless motorists but the burden is always on the motorists. Ever have a clueless pedestrian cross the middle of street (not the crosswalk) oblivious to oncoming traffic? It’s almost as if they are begging you to hit them. On the other hand, I am of the opinion that confirmed drunk drivers should have their licenses revoked (permanently, as in Finland?) after a first offense.
BTW, I believe I was responsible for the 1st accident (I was 15 y/o at the time, on my bike coming out of an alley and didn’t look both ways) but not the second time which happened about 2 years ago (I was in a crosswalk abiding the “walk” signal and got struck by an elderly woman driving & turning left who could barely see above the steering wheel). With the former, I was hospitalized and the latter I was able to walk away. Thankfully, I’m all right.
Dar·win·ism (där’wĭ-nĭz’əm) Pronunciation Key
n. A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.
Dar’win·ist n., Dar’win·is’tic adj.
Have I called you a liar lately, Erica? Have I mentioned that you think your readers are stupid and think they deserve to be cynically manipulated? Well you do.
Why do you do it when it obviously fails? I can see what tempted you to become like this, but since you’re not fooling anyone, why not try the old honesty and integrity thing? That still works for lots of us.
Oh, and Paul In Ballard?
When Charles Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton suggested interpreting Darwin’s theories in the manner you are implying, Darwin specifically rejected any such notion. So you and many, many others are absolutely entitled to hold those sorts of opinions but please leave Darwin’s good name out of it. I mean if you’re going to be thinking you’re all superior to people who get themselves killed, at least be superior enough to get your facts straight.
@21, tut tut elenchos, Erica also thinks of Slog as her own personal place to talk about herself by proxy of emails sent to her, and her personal spats like Mr. Connelly.
She really is the only one besides Dan that posts stuff of this nature where as even Charles, arguably the most predictable and ridiculous person here, posts stuff to make you think, and it is rarely about himself.
I have always believed that ECB believes Slog to be a vanity project for herself and her output on it reflects that view.
Agree with #19. Each case should be investigated on it’s own. Negligence should be punished, but I don’t see a law that simply seems to lower the burden of proof as doing much besides encouraging more drivers to flee the scene.
I’d like to see more, stricter traffic enforcement in general; and more importantly, more pedestrian friendly infrastructure, and not more people in jail for accidents.
Too often, pedestrians think crosswalk = “invulnerability force field”. Yes, they have the right of way, but just a touch of a self-preservation instinct would save countless lives. In many ways, jay-walking is safer, because the pedestrian is more inclined to have a clue before stepping off of the curb.
One of the primary lessons in defensive driving is “don’t insist on the right of way”. In other words, “yes, that person shouldn’t be doing that, but be smart, back off, and save both of your lives”. In the case of pedestrian vs vehicle, only the pedestrian will be injured or killed so they have a vested interest in paying fucking attention to their surroundings before stepping into the street.
The point is, pedestrians and bike riders can be difficult to see by law-abiding drivers, especially at night or in the rain. Accidents happen. “I didn’t see you” is a reasonable excuse, assuming the driver isn’t also drunk or driving recklessly.
Crossing the street is dangerous and should be treated accordingly. As a pedestrian, I make sure everyone has stopped at red lights before I walk in front of them. At 4-way stops and uncontrolled crosswalks, I make eye-contact with drivers before I proceed. Guess what? I’m not going to be hit by a car (and if I am, you have permission to dance on my grave and say, “I told you so”).
Is it lawful for a cyclist to ride their bike in a cross “walk”? And, if they’re walking their bike in a crosswalk, then they’re just pedestrians right? Seems like that should be clarified in the proposal.
@24 – Good point … with laws like this on the books, “hit and run” might actually be a smart legal move!
@16,
You are a fucking moron. Do us all a favor and kill yourself. Thanks.
I consider that the more I am insulted by Nanny Staters like keshmeshi, the more it means that my opinion must be correct.
@20 Paul, if you think natural selection means that hitting pedestrians is an evolutionary strategy, go ahead. Then get raped in the prison shower and see how well you propagate some offspring.
“I didn’t see you” isn’t an excuse, it’s another way of saying “I wasn’t paying attention” and/or “I was driving faster than I could react.” In other words, the driver was driving recklessly.
If it’s dark, slow down. If it’s raining, slow down. If it’s dark and raining, SLOW DOWN. If you’re in downtown Seattle, whipping around corners at 30 mph at midnight during a rainstorm, then you’re at fault when something bad happens. “I didn’t see you” isn’t a magic “Avoid Blame” incantation.
@26 Jeff, is it legal to “drive” on a “park” way and “park” in a “drive” way?
@25
So, what do you do when you have done all of the above and some asshole still nearly takes you out?
Recently, I made eye contact with a driver who then stopped for me at an intersection. As I crossed the street, the asshole behind him decided, to hell with that, and drove around the stopped car and nearly hit me. This is the thinking that pedestrians here deal with on a daily basis. If you are walking you are in THEIR way.
Oh, and this was on a residential street that drivers use as a shortcut. It was at one of those non stop sign intersections that people are supposed to treat as a 4 way stop (but of course they don’t). Some mornings the traffic on the street is a non stop parade of cars, none of which even slows let alone stops at the intersection. What I really love is on the occasion that traffic does back up. When I cross at the intersection between the stopped car there is always that occasional asshole who will honk at me for walking in front of their stopped car. You know I got in “their” way, heaven forbid they miss the chance to move forward 2 or 3 feet. So much for making Seattle a walking & biking friendly city.
Thank you ECB. More people need to know that it’s possible to kill someone in WA with your car while not under the influence and not even be arrested and booked into jail (let alone be convicted of a crime and serve time in the state pen), and that’s wrong. How is the car any different than a gun here? If you shoot someone, you will most likely be arrested on suspicion of a crime and will have to post bail. Car drivers shouldn’t get a free-pass when death results from their acts.
@29
You know if you have to constantly change your posting name then your opinion is not worth very much.
<@26 Jeff, is it legal to “drive” on a “park” way and “park” in a “drive” way?>
I believe both are legal, yes. But, I don’t think it’s legal for a cyclist to ride their bike in a cross”walk” Pretty sure they could get a ticket for that. I could be wrong though…
Okay, nevermind. I found the Washington state provision that says it’s legal. In other states, it’s illegal. There is this one clarification in the Washington one though, “No person operating a bicycle shall suddenly enter a crosswalk into the path of a vehicle which is so close that the driver cannot yield safely.”
@36, It’s legal for cyclists to ride in a crosswalk or ride on the sidewalk or ride in the street. Cyclists are like car-pedestrian hybrids, except unlike cars, they aren’t the #1 cause of death for people under 45.
@35 like yr name is really Dead Reagan… hypocrite.
WATCH OUT FOR CARS PEOPLE! THEY’RE BIGGER THAN YOU!
I come from the jaywalking capitol of the US, and no one gets hit there. Since they LOOK OUT FOR CARS.
Seattle people are too drugged up and stupid to watch out for cars… plus they are too busy pondering the overarching all-importance of buttsex over everything while simultaneously thinking about some pussywimp protest they are going to go to or just came from. No wonder so many people get hit by cars in this shithole.
Son of a bitch! All this while, I’ve been refraining from running over assholes who jaywalk right in front of me because I thought it was illegal to flatten them! Dammit, all those wasted opportunities…
@35
At least I am consistent with my name posting but as I said if ya don’t have the balls and can’t stand behind what you say then why should anyone care what you say.
@33 – That sounds like a poorly designed intersection to me (or, at least, that street is carrying far more capacity than it was designed for).
If there aren’t any stop signs, then it sounds like there should be. There’s no such thing as an implied 4-way stop. If there’s no stop sign, then people don’t need to stop. Speed bumps would also slow people down and discourage people cutting through. The city should do something about this street. Have you complained about it? Or talked to people who live in the neighborhood?
As for the idiot who passed the car who yielded to you, THAT is reckless driving and already covered by existing laws.
And, for the asshole and his/her horn, I would attempt to insult them until they apologized, cried, or both. But that’s just me.
I’m a bit astonished at this idea. Don’t you people have vehicular manslaughter in this state?
@37 is there a link you can post to this law?
Mahtli69 @ 25 – thanks, I share those sentiments. I’m being careful, pedestrian. You be careful, too, please.
#45 Like I said, turns out I was wrong about the Washington law, but here is what I found. Interesting note: it’s legal to ride your bike DRUNK too:
http://www.washingtonbikelaw.com/amicus_…
“but as I said if ya don’t have the balls and can’t stand behind what you say “
What the fuck does that even mean?
@44
I have been very puzzled by the lack of stop signs at residential intersections since moving to Seattle. I have live all over the country and it is the 1st time that I have seen this. I was told that if there are no stop signs at an intersection that it is to be treated as if it were a 4 way stop. But as you said most people seem to think it means they have the right of way no matter which direction they are traveling. Unfortunately, on occasion drivers attempt to defy physics and run into each other.
As far as the city, I was told put together a petition and then they would “consider” a traffic circle at the intersection. My neighbors don’t seem very receptive to the idea. I was told by one of them that he was afraid that we would lose parking if a circle was installed. One of the reasons this is a popular cut through is because parking is only allowed on one side of the street, for some unknown reason. And I’ll admit parking in my neighborhood is pretty tight. So, I take my chances.
@48
Wow, you are dumber than I thought. Post again when ya figure it out. Don’t worry I’ll be able to pick ya out from the moronic string of word which you use for your post name.
See ya.