Revising Washington State’s Negligent Driving Laws

To: Washington State Legislators

Imagine a cyclist trying to make a turn when a driver suddenly pulls in front of him and causes a side collision at 40 mph. This causes the cyclist to be killed as he crashes into the car, while the driver pays no attention, just talking on the cell phone. The penalty, nothing whatsoever. The driver wasn’t driving under the influence, and was not even committing a traffic violation. While aggressive driving under the influence has been highlighted through the use of Washington State’s Driving Laws, as well as other state’s laws, highlighting the negligent driving half of the issue has taken a backseat many times. Even now, the State’s current Negligent Driving Laws fail to cover those who are using cell phones while driving in an increasingly digital age. A recent investigation by the National highway Transportation Safety Agency finds that over eighty-five percent of drivers are using their cell phones while driving, be it answering a call or texting. (Glazer) This could mean that more drivers have the chance of paying too much attention to their texts than the road ahead, thus causes numerous amounts of traffic accidents and accidental crashes waiting to just happen. Senator Kline, as well as Reps Santos and Pettigrew, should revise the Negligent Driving Laws to include other negligent drivers who commit everyday violations, because it will ensure the safety of all cyclists and pedestrians within Washington State.

In order to revise the state’s Negligent Driving Laws, you must first consider what negligent driving is defined as. The issue is not to distinguish between intentional actions that affect one’s driving (such as drinking and intoxication) and unintentional actions, but also to distinguish between different criminal unintentional actions that can cause one to temporarily lose control of his/her car and seriously injure/ kill a cyclist or pedestrian, or noncriminal actions like picking up a cell phone while driving. One definition of negligent driving that has no penalty, whatsoever, yet can endanger lives in a reckless manner are everyday actions, such as texting or answering a call while driving, which can distract a person for a while. But how has this degraded the safety that Seattle must offer to its citizens, its pedestrian and cyclist commuters?

The changes in the Negligent Driving Laws will offer the cyclists and pedestrians within the state greater protection and safety through several different ways. One way that this will offer pedestrians and cyclists greater safety, is by highlighting for the younger drivers the similarities between criminal traffic violations and noncriminal actions, like taking out a cell phone to answer it or text while driving, so that the beginning driver can pay more attention to avoiding even these things. Texting isn’t really banned or forbidden, yet it is more of an inferred action that one must stop from being distracted while driving. However, it is still equally as important as prosecuting for negligent driving if it is through a traffic violation because of the effect it can have if the driver loses control of the vehicle. For older drivers, who for the most part are the ones doing these actions through long-time habit, this will force them to look at their driving habits and consider what needs to be changed. Yet, if the state leaves the current laws without revising them and including these approaches to negligent driving, dire consequences may result from too many people finding that driving with a cell phone/ texting is commonly accepted without concern.

            Though I realize that the state is currently facing other problems, like keeping companies in state and the work that they bring in the region as well, or the many disasters that are waiting to happen/ have already happened (such as the Howard Hansen Dam breaking or the rock slide in the Natchez Pass); but this problem although it may not seem a big issue, is like every other disaster, one that is waiting to happen. Within the last couple of months there has been an increased interest focus on many different instances of negligence, not only driving but also through other forms of transportation. A pilot actually overshot the airport he was supposed to land at because of negligence in watching the current location and the controls in the cockpit. A little closer to home, there have actually been deaths in Seattle because of driver negligence. One was of a UW scientist, Kevin Black, who was killed in Ballard earlier this year, just because a driver has turned in front of his bike as he rode to work. (Gutierrez) Another driver pulled abruptly in front of Susanne Scaringi. (Gutierrez) While keeping jobs in state would be as important as saving lives, what if that life you saved is the one that is the future of the state. What if the UW scientist wasn’t killed and instead ended up saving lives due to discovering something revolutionary. By saving the lives of future leaders, scientists, and other professions, you can do more than just giving jobs to the current generation.

            Looking at the current Negligent Driving Laws stated in the Negligent Driving – First Degree RCW 46.61.5249, one would see that they need changes. The current state Negligent Driving Laws in the first degree define negligence as “if he or she operates a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, and exhibits the effects of having consumed liquor or an illegal drug.” (Washington State Legislature) This can be interpreted as that negligent driving is only a criminal offense and can be prosecutable when a driver is found to be intoxicated and has thus operated a vehicle, in this case, a car. Since this only covers an intoxicated person though, any other person not under the influence, even though he or she has either committed a serious traffic violation or is driving while talking, cannot be criminally persecuted for killing a person under these circumstances; though there still is a certain punishment for those people who do kill/seriously injure a person without being intoxicated covered under the second degree Negligent Driving Law. This law includes “circumstances not constituting negligent driving in the first degree”, and “is subject to a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars.” (Washington State Legislature) The second degree law can thus be interpreted to include anything else that constitutes a traffic violation, but isn’t done in manner involving alcohol or drugs. Furthermore, the second degree law takes into account “Any act prohibited by this section that also constitutes a crime under any other law of this state may be the basis of prosecution under such other law”. (Washington State Legislature) This takes into account if the driver killed/ seriously injured someone in the process of committing the traffic violation. However, even though an offender does not have anything to do with traffic infractions, they can still be a chronic offender in that they still can endanger the lives of anyone through just talking or texting while driving and not have to do anything or pay any penalty.

            However, these Negligent Driving Laws can be changed to reflect a much safer and more precautionary tone against negligent driving, whether it is by chronic or one time offenders. First off, the set of laws should be expanded to include a third degree that covers unintentional and even a more subtle side of the Driving laws, one that covers no traffic violations, yet talking on or texting while driving on a cellular phone. This will require all different types of offenders to get varying degrees of penalties based upon their own actions. While people may argue that you cannot charge a one time offender, or even a repeat offender who just picks up their cell phone, with a criminal charge for something unintentional, you can require them to take traffic classes, or even impound a repeat offender’s car for a short period of time along with a fine of $250. These actions, while having no impact on a person’s criminal record, will allow the person to reflect on his/her actions, while of course holding them still responsible for their actions. Since most of the people are first time offenders who are just picking up cell phone, they can be allowed the shorter and less severe penalties than a regular second degree person. Secondly, a repeat offender who commits consistently a second degree violation under the Negligent Driving Laws should have the same penalties as anyone with a DUI/ violation under the first degree, with penalties ranging from vehicle impounding to a suspension of his/her driver’s license. But even with half the battle done and the legal part over, the question of not only how to enforce it, but also how to fund the new additions comes to mind.

            Finally, while looking at the additions, one must figure out how will the state’s law enforcement and justice department be funding the entire operation of issuing citations and then enforcing the penalties of new Negligent Driving Laws put in place. With the current budget crisis in place, there is less money to go around allowing police officers the resources and time to track down and keep track of offenders. Plus, there is also less police officers and prosecutors that can be used for such a large operation that would also require more citations being handed out. However, I believe that the money gained through other citations, as well as possible federal grant money, can be used for this purpose. The time of officers can also be minimized through random sting operations where officers can, at large, target people who are violating the new laws at the same time that they are issuing citations for other traffic violations, like speeding. Since most people end up slowing down immediately once they see an officer to the side of the road, it is no use trying to catch these people. However if someone is also talking on a cell phone/ texting, then the officers won’t just be sitting in their patrol cars waiting for a speeder. Their time and energy, for which they are paid for, will be put to more efficient use trying to keep track of more than just issuing citations for speeding. Furthermore, if you only use those officers who are looking for speeders to write citations, then this will not take away any resources from other hard crimes, such as investigations into murder cases or vandalism. Though if this isn’t enough, there could be an hour in one set day that police officers crackdown hard on motorists, but looking for mostly people who are violating the new laws. There will not be any added jail time to the Negligent Driving Laws, so there will be no need to allocate money for jails to keep new inmates, as opposed to the ones that they already receive. The revenue from these citations can also be used to fund more sting operations for the individual, local police departments and justice departments.

             So then, why should you or any other state legislator care about the State’s Negligent Driving Laws? Why should you care if they are amended or not? Well, for one thing, you are representing the people of Seattle, as well as King County. The function of a state senator or representative is to represent his/her district in the state legislature. If a citizen comes to you with a concern that affects a wide population, you should try to act on it. Even though it doesn’t seem that negligent driving in the form of answering a call/ texting is a problem, if the driver doesn’t pay attention and loses control, people can still be affected by that driver’s decision. Furthermore, what if that cyclist or pedestrian is you or someone who is close to you? Wouldn’t you be angry and want something to be done to prevent it from happening to anyone else in the future? That is exactly why the State’s Negligent Driving Laws need to be revised to include every day, common sense violations, so that the State can ensure further the safety of all of its cyclists and pedestrians on the streets. This can occur through the cooperation of both you, as a senator and representative of the citizens of Washington State, and the people, who can communicate the urgent need for this to come about.

Works Cited

Glazer, Sarah. “Cell Phone Safety: Do they cause cancer and car accidents?”. CQ Researcher (2001): n. page. Web. 1 Nov 2009.

Gilmore, Susan. “Tougher laws sought for drivers that seriously injure bicyclists or pedestrians.” Seattle Times 15 Oct 2009, Print.

Gutierrez, Scott. “Deadly car vs. bike accidents: Should they be a crime.” Seattle Transportation Watch. Seattle PI, 13 Oct 2009. Web. 1 Nov 2009. .

Gutierrez, Scott. “More from bicyclist club’s traffic justice summit.” Seattle Transportation Watch. Seattle PI, 15 Oct 2009. Web. 1 Nov 2009. .

RCW 46.61.5249: Negligent Driving – First Degree.” Washington State Legislature. 1997. Washington State Legislature. 2 Nov 2009 .