vehicular manslaughter is already a crime, and these trucks have been regulated INTO existence, not out of consumer desire and a lack of regulation. Consumers preferred small trucks until they disappeared due to CAFE standards.
If you want the government to intervene, their first step should be to remove the regulations that encourage this growth in vehicle size to begin with, rather than going after consumers who have very little choice in trucks
The average American truck buyer picked it as a lifestyle accessory - it’s not like there was a huge shift in the percentage of trades jobs over the last few decades! Liability would be one way to encourage expressing that fashion aesthetic in other ways.
No, not effectively. Drivers are given extreme deference by law enforcement and in lawsuits where it’s usually assumed that the victim was at fault unless video evidence exists and is immediately available, and concepts like contributory negligence are often used to reduce legal responsibility without regard for the relative damage levels. Insurance is required, but the coverage levels are low so it’s common for the people who do successfully sue often get less than they need for ongoing treatment and support.
We can’t change everything all at once but requiring more comprehensive coverage in general and especially for the most dangerous vehicles would be a good start.
> But contributory negligence should never depend on the relative damage level.
The angle I’m thinking about is that the person operating heavy equipment should be expected to exercise greater caution. If a pedestrian sets foot out of a painted crosswalk, it seems harsh to say that means the SUV driver who plowed into them is off the hook for 30% of the damages when the situation would almost certainly have avoided any injury had everyone been on foot/bike/scooter or substantially less lethal if the driver had been in a normal sedan.
Basically when I drive I’m cognizant of the fact that it’s the most dangerous thing most of us do on a regular basis. I’d like that attitude to be the default.
In the Norwegian traffic law, it specifically says that you are to slow down in areas with children. So "the child ran into the street chasing a ball right in front of my truck" isn't a valid excuse, as that's something "to be expected" when driving in a residential area.
At least in theory. Unfortunately the cops here almost never wants to prosecute cars hitting kids or pedestrians. There's always an excuse. "The sun was in their eye", "kid didn't wear high vis (it was daytime)".
I agree that there is an ammount of reasonable care drivers should have. However, I think the contribution of pedestrians is generally understated.
AT least in the US, 33% of pedestrians involved in fatal accidents were drunk.
16% were on freeways. 59% were on non-freeway arterials, while 22% were on local streets. [1]
I found it surprising that fatalities are far more likely to involve Pedestrians being drunk or jaywalking on high-speed throughfare than drunk drivers.
