Car Owners, Vehicular Assault, and the Law
Posted by: EvanMar 08 2006, 3:41 pm
The BTA has been tracking the case of a November 18th, 2005 vehicular assault in Portland as it works its way through the system.
According to witnesses, three people in a car followed and harrassed a cyclist for at least three blocks before forcing the cyclist into a parked car at SE 20th and Ankeny. The cyclist left the scene shaken up, but eventually upright, and went to the hospital. I believe he has somewhat recovered.
As this was intentional assault rather than "accidental" crash, it is not a Traffic Division case, but a criminal case. I've been checking in with the Portland detective in charge of the case, who recently sent it to the DA's office.
Because there were witnesses, we thought we had a decent case, but the DA's office is wanting more definitive evidence linking the car with the driver — that is, witnesses can confirm which car was involved, but a positive ID on the driver is the hold up, and the DA's office has asked the police bureau to try to find more evidence.
This whole thing makes me incensed, and made me wonder: should we change the law, so that the owner of a car is at least partially reponsible for crimes the car is used for? Are there parallels with gun ownership or other laws? Should we just limit this to a set of crimes (vehicular assault), or all crimes, such as red-light running where there are cameras? Are there constitutional problems with innocent until proven guilty, 0r are there other legal hurdles?
I own and use a car, and at first blush think it would be reasonable for me to have to either identify the driver at the time of the crime or take responsibility for the crime myself. This is how car tickets work in the Netherlands for driving infractions.
We'll continue to monitor the case. For now, send in your ideas.
No way, I don't own a car, I'm a 100% bike and transit commuter. But I think holding a car owner responsible for everything that's done in their car seems really over-the-top. What happens if the owner legitamately doesn't know? Is he liable for 100% of the ticket/criminal case?
This is a fascinating concept for changing the direction of traffic safety discourse. I don't know the precedents in other liability arenas, although I have a vague memory of parents/gun owners being prosecuted for the awful effects of a child finding an unlocked gun and discharging it.
At present our culture tends to encourage drivers to think of their cars as mobile living rooms, designed for their comfort with audio systems, drink holders, heated and massaging seats, phones, TeeVees even. Comfort tends to lull the mind and dull the senses.
If you had the pleasure of riding through today's snow storm you probably experienced the inverse of this – sensation that sharpens one's perceptions and encourages care in using the road.
A legal tack such as you describe would have the effect of moving our concept of a vehicle towards that of a weapon, or perhaps of a noxious choice like cigarettes – you're free to make this choice, but you are constrained in a number of ways in how your choice will affect (afflict) others. Certainly motor vehicles appear to be a weapon to those the outside of the windshield.
I don't imagine that this strategy would be easy, nor successful in the short-run. But over the long-haul it could have an impact on making drivers (car owners) prioritize safety above speed or comfort.