Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JackG
[
I was stating what could happen. You sure that'll always be the case? Right now it can't be proven easily or at all if the car having the right-of-way was speeding, but once it can be, things may change. Besides your example, as colorful as it was, is surely not correct. If the law doesn't cite that guy for the accident, we've got bigger problems than black boxes, eh?
After all, the "boulevard rule" fails when the driver in the right fails the sobriety test, right? Is it such a far reach from drinking to speeding? Maybe 4mph over is OK, but 5mph over earns you vehicular manslaughter. Even when it is truly unavoidable no matter if the speed is 55 or 60, and the other person is totally at fault.
Point is, it is a slippery slope, and once we've started down it, there's no going back. Also, you seem to be on the enforcement side of things... is that tainting your opinion? Anything is OK as long as your job is easier?
We still have the right to be judged by our peers... not by some black box without the ability to think or reason. I'll hack or disable it any way I can. I'm sure the big brother "do-gooders" will pass a law against that as well.
|
Certainly, I haven't exhausted the case law on the Boulevard Rule because there's
a lot of it, but as colorful as my example was, it appears to be correct. Though the driver of the backwards jet car would surely get a bunch of tickets, he would not be faulted for the accident. The boulevard rule dates back to 1937. The only thing I've ever read is a 1971 case that says that the favored driver is responsible for the well-being of
his passenger. I haven't found anything that says the favored driver has to look out for anyone else. It appears that if you're driving alone, you can drive on your roof if you want, as long as you have the right of way. The courts have consistently rejected the argument that the favored driver being reckless, drunk, speeding, whatever, contributed to the accident. Had the driver of the non-favored vehicle not pulled into the path of the favored vehicle, the accident would not have occurred...so far anyway.
I wouldn't say that anything is O.K. as long as my job is easier. I would warn however, that we shouldn't endeavor to hamstring law enforcement when the bad guys are using every technical advancement available to victimize us. I'm not talking about speeding drivers and at fault accidents, but about real stuff. You can't banish your law enforcement agencies to the dark ages and expect them to successfully battle today's criminals. Law enforcement is at a disadvantage from the outset because they are bound by a set of rules that the bad guys don't live by. We certainly shouldn't make it any harder for them than it already is.
I agree with you about disconnecting the black box. I suspect it will carry a stiff penalty, like removing your emissions equipment. Someone will certainly come up with a disabling device and make a whole bunch of cheese...and on some screen somewhere, we'll all look like we're going to church at 30mph.
