PDA

View Full Version : It's no accident when drivers kill.


FordFasteRR
06-29-2006, 09:39 PM
SOURCE (http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/index.php?ntid=89431&ntpid=0)


Chuck Strawser: It's no accident when drivers kill
By Chuck Strawser

Friday, June 30, is the one-year anniversary of the crash that killed local bicycle advocate Jessica Bullen.

Stephen Eisenberg, the lawyer defending the driver in the crash that killed Jess while she was bicycling on Hope Road, was recently quoted saying, "It's called an accident the last time I checked." Apparently Mr. Eisenberg hasn't checked in a long while.

The Wisconsin DOT hasn't called car crashes accidents since the 1989 Wisconsin Traffic Accident Facts report, which included this statement on page one: "Traffic crashes are not accidents, but avoidable events caused by a single variable or chain of variables. We are dedicated to reducing traffic injuries and fatalities by addressing the factors that cause them ... Future editions will ... be called Crash Facts."

Federal Highway Administration research cites driver error as the principal cause in most automobile crashes. "Driver error" encompasses things like running stop signs and red lights, driving too fast for conditions, and not paying attention to the road, among other things. A crash resulting from those behaviors is very predictable, and, more importantly, preventable.

We should hold careless drivers accountable, just as we impose consequences for the negligence of those who wield other deadly weapons, especially when that carelessness results in the injury or death of others. A car is a deadly weapon: Pedestrians hit by cars traveling 20 mph have a 5 percent likelihood of being killed. At 30 mph, a pedestrian fatality is a 55 percent probability; pedestrians hit by cars driven at 40 mph have an 85 percent chance to end up dead.

For motorists to safely share the road with bicyclists specifically, we all need to recognize: 1) bicycles are legal vehicles; 2) bicyclists have all the same rights and responsibilities as operators of any other vehicle; 3) motorists are required to give three feet of clearance when passing any vehicle, including bicycles; and 4) motorists need to yield to bicyclists just as they would yield to any other vehicle.

Bicycle/car crashes are often caused because a left-turning motorist fails to yield to an oncoming bicyclist, or because a motorist pulls out of a driveway or side street in front of a cyclist. Simply treating bicyclists just like drivers of other vehicles would make our streets a lot safer for everyone.

Everyone who exercises the privilege (it is not a right) to drive a car ought to be expected to operate the vehicle as if others' lives depend upon it. At the very least, there ought to be consequences for homicide by the negligent operation of a vehicle. That's the charge against Tracy Sorum, the man on trial in the death of Jessica Bullen, and it's appropriate, because the crash that killed Jess was no accident.

More than seven years ago, a 12-year-old Louis Payne shot and killed a friend, Shaina Davenport. Payne said the shooting was unintentional. Shaina's mother has stated that she believes Payne did not mean to shoot Shaina. Yet Payne is still behind bars, despite being barely old enough to qualify as an adult. The DA who prosecuted Payne said, "Kids do stupid things. But we do have to set standards."

By all means, we should set standards. It's time for our standards to include the expectation that anyone who exercises the privilege (it is not a right) to drive a vehicle will drive as if other people's lives depend upon it.

Crashes are not accidents, and no one else has to die because of a careless driver.

Chuck Strawser works for the Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin, which is headquartered in Madison.


Published: June 29, 2006

ghrpdx
06-29-2006, 10:24 PM
I agree that most "accidents" are not accidents. If you are paying attention, you can usually avoid a collision even when it is the fault of someone else's carelessness ... aka defensive driving. Although, experience plays a large part in the ability to drive defensively.

One point I disagree on is as follow ... I am half a car length behind another vehicle waiting at a stop light. Another motorist rearends me at speed and forces me into the vehicle in front of me. Is that REALLY my fault I struck the vehicle in front of me when it was a direct result of the vehicle which collided with mine? I don't think so and I think that needs to be changed.

Does anybody have an argument for or against?

FordFasteRR
06-29-2006, 10:36 PM
if that happens, the originator of the accident is mostly at fault... of course, some lawyer will find a way to break down the blame into percentages and then demand payment in the corresponding amount from each member of the wreck ! LOL

suppose that what you described happens, and a lawyer say, the driver who hit you is 100% responsible for the damage caused to YOUR car, and 50% responsible for the damaged that you caused to the driver in front of you, but you are 50% responsible for the damage caused to the car that you hit as a result of the wreck ... and so on ....

lol

Doohickie
06-29-2006, 11:13 PM
Laws vary by state in that regard. My mom was rear-ended and pushed into the car in front of her (who was stopped to make a left hand turn). The guy that rear-ended her, was rear-ended by someone who was rear-ended (5 cars in all). The driver at the back of the line who initiated the whole thing was found 100% responsible for *all* damages in that accident (in NY state).

The first guy who was rear-ended had to be cut out of his car but suffered only superficial injuries, thank goodness.

RedScorp
06-30-2006, 12:00 AM
I don't consider any vehicle incident an accident at all EVER! It' snot an accident, it's all driver negligence. Period...because after all one driver or the other was negligent, whether it wasn't paying attention to traffic, speeding and unable to stop in time, etc.

toymachine566
06-30-2006, 10:42 AM
I don't consider any vehicle incident an accident at all EVER! It' snot an accident, it's all driver negligence. Period...because after all one driver or the other was negligent, whether it wasn't paying attention to traffic, speeding and unable to stop in time, etc.
what about a blow-out, an ice patch, or an animal running across the road :confused:

other than these (probably more) instances i would agree that most "accidents" are drivers negligence.

BlackElantraGT
06-30-2006, 11:21 AM
Apparently the Wisconson DOT doesn't even know the definition of accident:

Main Entry: acˇciˇdent
Pronunciation: 'ak-s&-d&nt, -"dent; 'aks-d&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin accident-, accidens nonessential quality, chance, from present participle of accidere to happen, from ad- + cadere to fall -- more at CHANCE
1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE <met by accident rather than by design>
2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought
3 : a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance <the accident of nationality>

The Wisconsin DOT also must have slept through some law school courses:

Main Entry: manˇslaughˇter
Pronunciation: 'man-"slo-t&r
Function: noun
: the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice

I'm no lawyer so I don't know the history of law, but incidents like these are probably covered from the very beginning of law school. Trying to change these laws is like taking a perfectly round wheel, and reinventing a square one.

Is the judicial system and the DOT in Wisconsin THAT stupid? If they were really concerned about public safety, there's many other options they have such as focusing more on pedestrian/bicycle/motorcycle laws in driving schools, putting up bike lanes, creating proper flashing cross walks, etc etc.

All that effort into changing the definition of accident is such a big f*cking waste of time and taxpayer's monies.

BTW: These are Webster's definition. Don't tell me next Wisconsin is coming out with their own dictionary with all new meanings for common words in the English vocabulary.

RedScorp
06-30-2006, 12:49 PM
what about a blow-out, an ice patch, or an animal running across the road :confused:

other than these (probably more) instances i would agree that most "accidents" are drivers negligence.

Yes those are accidents. Perhaps I shouldn't have been so absolute in my other post but ya know what I mean. =P

ba_feitl
06-30-2006, 01:31 PM
Webster and Legal definitions are not one in the same... You might also notice that "accident" is not a legally defined term. I would say there's a reason for that... I'm with Chuck Strawser on this one. All road-legal vehicles share the same rights and responsibilities.

That means...
- You must accept the bicyclist as your equal on the road
AND
- The bicyclist must obey all traffic laws just as other motorists

There are very few accidents in the world, most are unfortunate but avoidable negligence.

Brad

FordFasteRR
06-30-2006, 04:55 PM
One of the biggest arguments that drivers have against bicycles is that bicycles generally travel slower than normal traffic.

This is mostly true. In most cases, bicycles will travel below the posted speed limit however,

Just because a bicycle is a slow vehicle does not mean that it does not belong on the road (not to mention that it is legal to ride a bicycle on the road in all 50 states), there are dozens of slow vehicles on the road at any time.

Drivers must share the road with slower traffic and take all necessary precautions to cohabitate with them.

What other types of slow traffic are on the road at any given time?

1. School busses.
2. mail man.
3. garbage man
4. public transportation busses
5. horses ( rare but not unheard of ).
6. road cleaning machines.
7. etc...

What do you do when encountering one of these slow moving vehicles?

Do you think that you have more right to share the roadway than these vehicles? Do you attempt to push them off of the road, or do you think they should be on the sidewalk instead?

LOL