WHen I heard that “legal issues in the news” at our public radio station was going to talk about the laws involved in Errol Maul running over Cindy and David on a clear day on an open road, my interest was piqued. I might find out the rationalization/ rationale behind not revoking his license, since, as the law states, if you kill somebody breaking the law it “shall” be revoked.
will get you the podcast — but it’s just another exercise in distraction. Rather than address that issue, he talks about how angry people are, and that Julia Rietz is probably relieved that there’s no negligent homicide law (which she advocated for), because given Errol Maul’s clean traffic record and lack of proof of that rather short list of “mortal sins” of recklessness or “unreasonable” driving, it wouldn’t have applied anyway. He refers to www.smilepolitely.com which is where we brought up that law.
Rather than discuss the laws that do exist, he discussed why a law that doesn’t exist and why wouldn’t apply anyway.
What about the law that does exist?
And yes, he tacitly and strongly reinforced the notion that it is asking TOO MUCH of drivers to be able to avoid large vehicles on an open road on a clear day. The man was “just” looking down at some papers, after all.
Seems they don’t get too many comments on their “legal issues in the news” blurbs. They got mine. I’m a-gonna smack my little fingers and not type the snarky questiosn as to what would motivate this “lawyer”… no, slapping fingers… I asked why he didn’t discuss the laws in effect, since to the best of my knowledge the law says the license *shall* be revoked — not “unless the driver has a reasonably clean record” or “unless it’s just acyclist.” I suggested he might be a distracted lawyer, and that I would be ashamed if I weren’t angry when distractions cost innocent lives.
35,000 people die in this country in car wrecks every year. It could happen to anybody. Hey, good people, it doesn’t *have* to be that way!