Did you know that starting January 1st it is illegal to kill a pedestrian with your car? Hopefully when you read that you thought, “You mean it wasn’t illegal already?” Okay, I admit I’m being a bit sensationalist with that opening sentence. We already have a vehicular homicide law. But we did have a significant gap in our traffic laws – one that left pedestrian, cyclist and other vulnerable road user deaths surprisingly unpunished.
Right out of the gate we’re going to get nerdy on legal terms here, so stick with me a minute. We know reckless and negligent driving is dangerous, but those terms mean different things when determining a driver’s culpability (how responsible they are for what they did). Reckless driving is when a person drives “in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.” The culpability is high here: you knew it was wrong and you did it anyway. Negligent driving is “the failure to exercise ordinary care.” It’s also explained as doing something a reasonably careful person wouldn’t do, or not doing something they would do. Whereas with recklessness you know it’s wrong, with negligence you didn’t give it the thought to consider that it was wrong. Still not great, but lower legal culpability.
If a driver kills another person while they drive impaired, recklessly, or with disregard for the safety of others, they’re guilty of vehicular homicide, a felony. You might think that “disregard for the safety of others” sounds a lot like negligence. I did too when I first read it. But if you were a juror on a vehicular homicide case, you’d be given instructions that it’s “a more serious dereliction than ordinary negligence,” and that negligence “does not render a person guilty of vehicular homicide.”
Under the law prior to 2025, the legal consequence for a negligent driver who killed a vulnerable road user was a traffic infraction with a $5000 fine (that can be reduced to as low as $250 with traffic school and a little community service) and a short license suspension. You might interpret that as saying the life of a pedestrian is worth one traffic ticket and some inconvenience. If you’re at all empathetic, you probably agree that the moral math on that doesn’t pencil out.
Steeper consequences can’t undo the harm, but our laws should reflect the value of human life. In 2023, 177 pedestrians and cyclists were killed in traffic crashes in Washington. That’s more than double from a decade earlier. And this isn’t just data; it’s our neighbors, friends, and family. By making negligent driving that kills a vulnerable person a gross misdemeanor and increasing the penalties to include steeper fines, a suspended license, and up to a year in jail, the new negligent driving law moves the needle closer to justice.
Just in case you’re worried that this law could potentially turn anyone who makes a driving mistake into a criminal, let me allay your fears. The standard for negligence is failing to exercise ordinary care. The law doesn’t demand exceptional care or remarkable care; just ordinary, reasonably careful driving. According to its own text, this law is for drivers who don’t meet that standard. If you can evaluate your driving and honestly say you exercise ordinary care, you’re not the target audience for this law.
Will these new laws reduce deaths from negligent driving? I hope so, but I can’t predict the future. However, I want to believe that we’re all willing to be reasonably careful drivers once we understand the costs of the alternative. Please prove me right.
I don’t share your opinion on this topic. Mere negligence should never be criminal.
This legislation is undoubtedly the result of some lobbying by some biased group. Followed by the legislators in Olympia buying into the narrative hook, line and sinker as they often do, without understanding even the basics of the law (as is often the case). And this lobbying goes way back over 15 years, starting in Seattle when they tried to make mere negligence while driving criminal. The Court of Appeals found it to be conflicting with state law and said:
“The Seattle ordinance appears to be an effort to lower the priority that motor vehicles presently enjoy in the competition for use of the public streets. By enhancing the risk of criminal liability a driver faces for merely getting behind the wheel, the city perhaps anticipates a future day in which an automobile is regarded as a dangerous instrumentality justifying the imposition of strict liability. ” State v. Wilson.
This is not just some minor change in the law. It is a huge change in the law where the mere act of driving could place you in jail. And the chance of ending up in jail will likely not turn on how negligent you were, but who you injured and whether the press takes notice. Also note, often both sides are negligent to some extent, but AFAIK, this legislation doesn’t place any limits on that, say for example requiring the driver be more than 50% at fault.
The only saving grace is self-driving cars will soon be available, and there is always the alternative of Uber.
Hi Kary, I appreciate the dissenting opinion. I took a look at Seattle vs. Wilson, and I agree that the court made the right decision when they invalidated Seattle’s law. But I think there are enough differences between Seattle’s law and this new law that the conclusions in Seattle vs. Wilson wouldn’t apply here. Here are a couple I think are relevant as I read it: Seattle was criminalizing violations that were infractions in state law, which is prohibited in RCW 46. But RCW 46 does have quite a few violations that are crimes, and by passing this law at the state level, it adds it to that list. Also, unlike this law that requires negligence, the Seattle law didn’t require any frame of mind (like negligence or recklessness); any traffic infraction that resulted in death or great bodily harm became a crime.
Regarding the criminalizing of negligence, we do have some non-traffic laws where the standard is negligence, and in traffic law we have Negligent Driving – First Degree, which is a misdemeanor. That law does require negligence plus evidence of the effects of an impairing substance, so this new law does have a lower bar in that it doesn’t include anything about impairing substances. But prior to 1996, negligent driving was a crime (we didn’t have 1st and 2nd degree then).
I don’t share your belief that the mere act of driving could place you in jail, but maybe I have an overly optimistic view of the justice system.
Of course, this is all my take on it and I’m not the one making court decisions. If someone charged with this appeals and a court rules in their favor, I’ll look forward to a reply from you here that says, “Told you so.”
And on a related tangent: after pondering your sentence about lobbying, I think most any legislation is the result of lobbying by a biased group. It’s whether I think the bias is reasonable or not where it can become problematic. Like many others, and maybe you, I’ve often thought of ‘lobbyist’ as a borderline curse word, and it got me thinking. When I agree with someone that’s pushing for a new law, they’re an advocate. When I disagree, they’re a lobbyist. And in case it doesn’t translate in print, that’s supposed to be mildly humorous.
I don’t think there’s any doubt Seattle v. Wilson was correct on the law, but the part I quoted didn’t really address the ordinance itself, but rather the direction the law was being driven. By referencing “strict liability” they were hypothesizing some absurd future ordinance, which clearly indicated what they thought of Seattle’s ordinance as a matter of policy (notwithstanding their denial). It’s reminiscent of a sci-fi short story I read decades ago where virtually any activity was made criminal resulting in virtually all the population becoming prisoners, including the guards who would eventually commit some violation.
As to your existing negligence example, that isn’t mere negligence, it’s negligence plus an impairing substance. Much different in that a violation would require more than the mere act of deciding to drive to the store.
On the lobbying issue, my take isn’t so much against lobbying, but more that the Legislature (or Seattle City Council) will frequently pass whatever is proposed, without amendment, and without understanding what they’re passing. Oddly, I’m suggesting that in Olympia Democrats and Republicans get along too well. There’s too little critical thought, too little analysis, too little give and take.
It’s a reminder to be more careful while driving, but should also incourage pedestrians and bycyclists to be more careful while near vehicles. And for those of us who usually have trouble defending ourselves the consequences are the greatest.
As a pedestrian I don’t like to push the walk button at intersections, because that wastes drivers time. When I walk along a roadway I get off the road when a car comes by, because I don’t want the car to move out, or slow down.