but they are admissible for sentencing considerations

Something that hasn’t been commented on, is the other law where driving unlicensed or disqualified (revoked license, I assume) is equated with driving uninsured. Since when did having insurance make you a better driver? What is the proximate cause between being uninsured and running somebody down due to your own negligence. I drove a car for 1 1/2 years without insurance and was probably a better driver for it, because I couldn’t afford to get in an accident or get pulled over. Not having insurance doesn’t make you a bad driver. Maybe irresponsible, but not a bad driver. Generally speaking, people who can’t get a license or have their license revoked are very bad drivers.

Why should your liability decrease because the victim was himself in violation of the law?

Because there’s an obvious difference between running someone down because you weren’t paying attention, and running someone down because they stepped out from behind a parked truck.

I’ll agree that drivers need to be attentive, but there’s a reasonable expectation. You may as well say you’re liable in a car/car accident because someone ran a red and struck you.

Why is it not part of your responsibility of owning a car to make sure it is in good repair at all times?

I’ll grant you this point because I wasn’t clear, but my original line of reasoning here was that you can’t really be held responsible if your car fails due to an unforeseen defect. If you were driving an unsafe vehicle to start with, that’s different and covered by existing laws.

The difference between the position Mr. Farago is condemning and mine is this:
* What the council is doing is a duplication of existing legislation. It’s akin to having a law for Fraud and Fraud Committed with a Computer. It’s a legislative redundancy.
* Mine is dealing with the concept of extenuating circumstances, which isn’t a legislative action at all, but judicial one.

It is the function of a court to interpret circumstances and how they relate to the law. It’s bloody stupid for a government body to muddy the legal waters for what amounts to an advertising campaign.

Why should your liability decrease because the victim was himself in violation of the law?

and your car hasn’t suffered mechanical failure,

Why is it not part of your responsibility of owning a car to make sure it is in good repair at all times?

you’re at fault.

You have just created two specific exceptions to being held at fault. Why are yours any different from specific “texting” provisions?

I agree with what I understand to be Mr. Farago’s position: there is no need for a new law. Period.

Texting, drinking, sleeping, f…anything. If the pedestrian isn’t jaywalking and your car hasn’t suffered mechanical failure, you’re at fault. No ifs, ands or buts. You’ve proven you cannot handle the responsibility.

My wife was run down a few years ago by a guy who just flat out was not paying attention (he just blew through a left hand turn without so much as looking). It netted him a $105 fine for failing to yield to a pedestrian.

Now that said, while I have very little sympathy for inattentive drivers, having a specific law for texting is just “Think of the Children!” syndrome. The law isn’t there to “send messages”, it’s designed to, depending on your viewpoint, balance society’s freedom against it’s collective responsbilities.

You want to “send a message”? Do an ad campaign, don’t pollute the law.