Baltimore Spokes
Biking in Baltimore
Sign Up!
Welcome to Baltimore Spokes
Friday, September 22 2017 @ 12:47 AM UTC

The flaw in our our proposed bill - it does not treat damaging a person the same as damaging a car

Bike LawsIn this story by Michael Dresser he states:

"There's a lot of merit to the idea of creating an enhanced version of negligent driving to cover cases that are grossly negligent but not willful. But the proposal being advanced by the advocates carries the flaw of many such laws: It punishes the result and not the conduct. It would make more sense to create a misdemeanor charge of "grossly negligent driving contributing to a crash" that could be applied whether or not a victim died. One year should suffice as a penalty; three strikes me as overkill unless there was actual intent to cause harm."

Since when has the law turned a blind eye to the extent of damage done? Since when has the law been restricted to treating bodily harm the same as property damage?

Speeding fines increase as the chance of more severe damage goes up (the faster you go the higher the fines.) Increase fines in work and school zones, both are related to the increase potential of harming people and not just "the cause."

Lets take an extreme example: someone takes a baseball bat and hits the corner of your brick house to do damage and all they end up doing is breaking their bat. Now if the baseball bat was applied to a person the charge should be exactly the same as above? After all the intent is the same.

&quot;Actual intent to cause harm&quot; for negligence??? Seriously look up the concept we are talking about. <a href=""></a>;

If someone is negligent and ends up wrapping their car around a telephone pole, that is sort of self serving justice, the telephone pole can be replaced but people cannot be replaced or fixed up in the same way as a telephone pole.

***Edit***: I should point out that we do have &quot;grossly negligent driving contributing to a crash&quot; that 's basically DUI, as very few other things will qualify for &quot;grossly negligent &quot;. Causing a crash or killing people while under the influence may help to get the maximum penalties for DUI but you could get maximum penalties without causing a crash or hurting someone. There is nothing &quot;extra&quot; legally required for DUI for crashing or killing.

Michael concludes with a red herring that bicyclists are exempt from this purposed new law and somehow one death a year nation wide (if that on average) is more tragic then 35,000 to 43,000 deaths a year by automobiles and the fact that the automobile is the leading cause of death of our next generation of Marylanders (and that is mostly kids INSIDE the automobile.) Sorry Michael but bicycles are vehicles by Maryland law and this will apply to cyclists as well as drivers. I am very disappointed that Michael is perpetuating the myth that bicyclists conciser themselves above the law when all we are asking for is that killing a person whether in a car or not should not be looked at as just collateral damage of a system that puts more emphasis on fast travel over safe travel. IMHO this is a very shameful detractor put forth by Michael and has no bases in the facts.

If people could write Michael in a less inflammatory manner then what I have done here, please do so.

<a href=""></a>;

Story Options


Trackback URL for this entry:

No trackback comments for this entry.


My Account

Sign up as a New User
Lost your password?


Site Map


There are no upcoming events

Older Stories

Monday 28-Aug

Sunday 20-Aug

Wednesday 16-Aug

Saturday 12-Aug

Sunday 06-Aug

Saturday 05-Aug

Friday 28-Jul