Freakonomics Episode on Vehicular Manslaughter

[talllguy]

The Freakonomics podcast episode on vehicular manslaughter may be of interest to the community here.

http://freakonomics.com/2014/05/01/the-perfect-crime-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

According to the numbers, just 5% of NYC drivers are charged with a crime when they kill a pedestrian. Also interesting that 15% of automobile related deaths are pedestrian deaths nationwide, yet that number is over 50% in NYC.

Listen and discuss.

[Brandon]

Quite frankly, a good number of them are the fault of the pedestrian.

- The pedestrian decides to dart out at the last minute when a vehicle cannot stop.

- The pedestrian decides to lie down in the road - I've seen teens do this on US-30 in town.  There's no way a truck could stop for them if they do this down the hill and around the corner by Plainfield Road and Center Street, where I've encountered them before.

- A child runs into the street at the last minute chasing a ball.  Even at 20 mph, you still might not be able to stop.

- The pedestrian decides the traffic signals do not apply to them and they cross anyway.

There's a lot of reasons why pedestrians can be at fault, just as vehicle operators can be at fault (including a failure to yield while turning off the street).

[Duke87]

According to the numbers, just 5% of NYC drivers are charged with a crime when they kill a pedestrian. Also interesting that 15% of automobile related deaths are pedestrian deaths nationwide, yet that number is over 50% in NYC.

I don't think these two statistics are particularly related. There is a simple reason for the number of pedestrian deaths to be skewed compared to the national average: because the number of pedestrians is skewed compared to the national average. A lot of people walk places in New York City. I myself walk somewhere more often than I drive somewhere. I'm not counting but I wouldn't be surprised if, in terms of number of times I traverse an intersection within the 5 boroughs, there are statistically more opportunities for me to be the one getting hit than to be the one hitting someone else.

That said, it is no secret that New Yorkers are aggressive. Both on foot and behind the wheel. This naturally raises the danger level but at the same time congestion makes it tough to avoid. New Yorkers are aggressive as a survival skill - if we were all courteous and patient in our travels, it would take us a lot longer to get where we're going and make necessary trips impractical to take.

For this reason, I completely understand the laissez-faire attitude the city has historically had towards pedestrian collisions. To penalize a driver for one is to assume the driver did something negligent - which is usually not the case. Usually the driver who caused such an accident did the same thing lots of other people would have done in the same situation and just happened to be the one who got unlucky.

It will be interesting to see if the number of prosecutions go up over the next few years, though: our latest mayor has decided to make a big issue out of pedestrian and bicycle safety, complete with a huge campaign that has a rather dystopian sounding name: Vision Zero.

[jeffandnicole]

At that point, one can say NYC has a lot more accidents involving taxis than, say, the entire state of Wyoming.  Thus, taxis are unsafe in NYC.

just 5% of NYC drivers are charged with a crime when they kill a pedestrian.

Maybe because if one hits and kills someone, it's not necessarily a crime, even if the driver is at fault.  If that person was simply going thru a red light, it's a tragic accident.  If that person was going thru a red light while chugging a beer, or high on drugs, or speeding away from a bank robbery, then it's a crime.

It would be better to know first off the percentage of accidents where the pedestrian is at fault, which is a figure that never appears to be published.  And there's probably good reason for that...I'm sure if the number of peds at fault was anywhere near 50%, much less over 50%, it would really impact the efforts of the bike/pedestrian groups that try to claim how unsafe it is for pedestrians.

[Duke87]

Maybe because if one hits and kills someone, it's not necessarily a crime, even if the driver is at fault.

I'm pretty sure the law explicitly says that if you accidentally cause someone's death through your actions, you can be convicted of some form of manslaughter, with no other conditions necessary to be met. Being at fault for an accident in which someone dies certainly meets this description.

But in order for that to happen, the city has to decide to prosecute. Which they usually won't do unless you were doing something grossly reckless, or are showing no remorse.

I think this is perfectly fair - why ruin the life of a good person who would never intentionally harm anyone with a felony conviction?
But you do hear a lot of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit advocates insist that to increase safety we need to start making examples out of drivers who cause deadly accidents so that others will be more careful. Of course, they don't drive and will thus never be at risk of being on the receiving end of that felony charge.

[mrsman]

Maybe because if one hits and kills someone, it's not necessarily a crime, even if the driver is at fault.

I'm pretty sure the law explicitly says that if you accidentally cause someone's death through your actions, you can be convicted of some form of manslaughter, with no other conditions necessary to be met. Being at fault for an accident in which someone dies certainly meets this description.

But in order for that to happen, the city has to decide to prosecute. Which they usually won't do unless you were doing something grossly reckless, or are showing no remorse.

I think this is perfectly fair - why ruin the life of a good person who would never intentionally harm anyone with a felony conviction?
But you do hear a lot of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit advocates insist that to increase safety we need to start making examples out of drivers who cause deadly accidents so that others will be more careful. Of course, they don't drive and will thus never be at risk of being on the receiving end of that felony charge.

I think that the totality of the circumstances needs to be looked at.  There should generally be a felony for negligent vehicular homicide.  If the driver ran a red light, that's usually grossly negligent and should be treated as such.  If the driver was driving significantly over the speed limit, that should be grossly negligent.  If the driver simply didn't see the pedestrian when making a legal turn or when the pedestrian crosses at an unsignalized crosswalk and gets mowed down that's a non-criminal tragic accident, even when the deceased pedestrian had the right of way, and should not warrant any adverse reaction.  That driver is not going to be the same afterward and there is no need for prison or even a significant license revocation.