This Washington

Vulnerable Users Bill Dead for Good in Olympia

By Josh Cohen, Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 4:00 PM
View Comments

Seattle Sen. Joe McDermott’s (D-34) Vulnerable Users bill, which would have increased penalties against inattentive drivers who injure or kill cyclists or pedestrians, was evidently pretty vulnerable itself.

Much to the Cascade Bicycle Club’s chagrin, as well as my own, the Senate bill first died in the Senate Rules Committee last month, waiting for a vote on the Senate floor.

As we reported last week, the bill then got a second life when Sen. McDermott introduced Vulnerable Users as an amendment to Kennewick Rep. Brad Klippert’s (R-8) bicycle and pedestrian safety education bill.

Unfortunately, that bill met the same fate as Sen. McDermott’s original bill and died today in the Rules Committee, where it’s been languishing.

7 Responses to Vulnerable Users Bill Dead for Good in Olympia

  1. morning fizzy says:

    “…drivers who injure or kill cyclists,…”

    I thought it covered all vulnerable people. And, its just for those drivers that were at fault in some way.

  2. Joe Szilagyi says:

    How hard can it be to get a law making enforcement of traffic laws more strident difficult? I mean, honestly… this is like the feel-good sorta legislation that should cruise by on auto-pilot.

  3. Josh Cohen says:

    You are correct. I think some words were lost in the edit, but it is fixed now.

    Thanks.

  4. morning fizzy says:

    It is a problem to criminalize traffic accidents. Many will see this legislation for what it is, a step on the way to criminalizing traffic infractions.

    One example was the guy that took a left turn and a bike ran into him. The rider died and he was charged with assault. A higher court declared the law he was convicted under as unconstitutional. This guy was driving in a crazy manner, he just didn't see the bike streaking down the street. He wasn't drinking. He didn't take an illegal turn. He wasn't texting or calling. He didn't yield right of way. He paid a significant amount to the family. The key element was that he had no intent. Most people think that intent should be part of a crime or gross negligence.

    There are already laws that punish drivers for disregard for another's safety.

  5. morning fizzy says:

    Correction- Not driving in a crazy manner

  6. Ballardwatch says:

    Intent should be part of negligence? You have it exactly wrong. And cutting someone off with your car is illegal, whether you're making a right turn from the left lane or from the left part of the right lane.

    If someone cut you off and you couldn't slam on the brakes, that doesn't mean you “ran into him.” Same thing with a suicidal person who umps in front of a train. The problem with cutting off a bicyclist is that you are endangering them more than yourself.

  7. Warren Bare says:

    Had the Venerable user amendment not been added the original deferral education bill would have passed.

blog comments powered by Disqus