Originally Posted by
noimagination
It's always interesting to hear how a lawyer thinks about the law. Obviously, it is different from how we non-lawyers think, so we often (always?) misinterpret the meaning of a law.
I would be very extremely surprised to see a strict liability law such as you describe enacted for drivers of personal vehicles in any state, in the foreseeable future. Not even California. The concept seems to directly contradict the current political climate where "freedom" means "I can do whatever the heck I want without consequences, no matter who it affects, or how". The majority of voters seem to have little to no inclination to place limits on the actions of individuals, or to hold them responsible for those actions, "for the common good". (With the notable exceptions of laws against abortion, and restricting voter access, of course.)
(BTW, good job in refusing to allow ILTB to shift the argument so he can ride his favorite hobby horse.)
Actually very few lawyers think about the issue in these terms, this is really more of an economic argument, but thanks, I find your perspective interesting as well..
I don't disagree with your political analysis, I doubt seriously we will see this in the U.S. any time soon as drivers and automobile interests generally predominate in our political system so thoroughly. I do think this being an issue of individual rights vs. being held responsible for the imposed external costs of your activities is probably a rhetorical spin that will resonate, but it's one that conveniently ignores the extent that the over-reliance on driving in big cities is impinging on people's ability to navigate the city outside of a motor vehicle safely.