This makes me angry... when does it become a crime?

[Mr. Bloom]

I recall Geonz's post and particularly appreciate this one because of all the detail it provides.

This week, our club passed a resolution endorsing a Vulnerable Road User ordinance that I wrote and intend to lobby for both locally and at the state level beginning in two weeks.

To have a real world example to apply this to is both sad, but useful.

Key observations:
- the driver admitted his guilt and recklessness in the accident report. I don't get why there is any concern about the "burden of proof"!
- the cyclists were operating in the realm of the law, in the proper place on the road! They can't be deemed at fault!
- the citations didn't refer to the on scene fatality!

I think many law enforcement personnel are inclined to want to chalk things like this up to a "terrible, unfortunate event"...when in reality, it was AVOIDABLE (and apparently RESPONSIBILITY is also AVOIDABLE) thereby making SOMEONE NEGLIGENT.

My proposed law also mandates:
- three feet clearance (six ft for trucks),
- automatic yielding to a VRU (which is not just defined as bikes) regardless,
- exit of the lane occupied by a VRU if two or more lanes exist
- protection from a VRU being "cut off" or harassed verbally or physically.

If a cyclists (or any VRU) is operating outside the law or being reckless, then I don't believe that a driver should be treated more onerously, but if the VRU is in the right, I believe they warrant well defined protections and a driver injuring them should be held to a higher standard of punishment.

I'll get off my soap box now.

Thanks for posting this Pax