5 ms·

One of the biggest dangers in Manhattan these days is running over and killing people with cars. In 2013 333 people were murdered in New York, while 286 people

One of the biggest dangers in Manhattan these days is running over and killing people with cars. In 2013 333 people were murdered in New York, while 286 people were killed by car crashes. Vance steadfastly refuses to prosecute motor vehicle violent crime. As long as this blind spot persists he cannot claim to be taking a scientific or quantitative approach to reducing crime. http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/11/26/vance-serves-up-excuses-for-failure-to-prosecute-motorists-who-kill/ http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/11/26/vance-serves-up-excuse...

mikeyouse 12y ago
The vast majority of those 286 crash deaths aren't criminal though..
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  You concluded that how?
  - edias 12y ago
    Because the vast majority of vehicle accident aren't criminal? Why would this be any different. If you've ever driven in Manhattan you'd know how easy it is for a mistake to happen, and it would be a mess to prove who's at fault since traffic laws and J walking are hardly enforced.
    - revelation 12y ago
      What is that even supposed to mean? Just because people don't intend to run over others doesn't mean it's not criminal when they do so through negligence. The phrase "if you've ever driven in Manhattan" seems to suggest you're well aware that plenty of drivers don't exactly reach to the level of competence we would expect from someone manuevering tons of steel in a dense city where the number of pedestrians frequently exceeds that of cars. This line of thinking is exactly why we now have 300 deaths from traffic, or as many as murder cases. People think negligence in driving, be it speeding, fiddling with your phone, accelerating for that yellow and dodging instead of yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks are somehow excusable. They're not when you are driving a car.
    - andrewla 12y ago
      Although I agree that this is certainly true, I cannot vouch for its historic truth. It is possible that the vast reduction in the murder rate is primarily due to the fact that vehicle accidents are (no longer) considered murder, rather than any actual reduction in violent crime. Not stating this as fact -- I haven't even done my homework to look at vehicle-related deaths over time -- but as motivation for the possible blind spot pointed out by thrownaway2424. Historical crime data is notorious for this because statistics are gathered by law enforcement and have a subjective aspect based on the time that they are gathered.
      - mikeyouse 12y ago
        Motor vehicle deaths, especially when corrected for miles driven or total population, have dropped precipitously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year#Motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in... Murder, aggravated assault, rape, robbery, etc. are all down across the board, in some cases by more than 50% in 20 years: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/c... There are always some subjective decisions on data reporting, but that's much more prevalent in data comparisons between countries rather than over time within a single country. The FBI has been very consistent in their reporting.
    - thrownaway2424 12y ago
      Civilized countries have long since settled this question with a simple formula: if you are in a car and you hurt or kill someone, it's your fault.
      - bsder 12y ago
        Really? So the child who ran out chasing after a ball is your fault? The bicyclist wearing black, at night, in the rain, with no reflectors or lights is your fault? We are human. We have moments of inattention ALL THE TIME. This is proven by many, many, many psychological studies. You don't convict someone of a crime because they committed an accidental error. If you want to cut down on this, fund self-driving cars.
        thrownaway2424 12y ago
        Yes, really. This is the law in Belgium for example.
        mikeyouse 12y ago
        I would love to see a source for the claim that accidents are criminally prosecuted in Belgium.. The data I've found looks like ~5% of trips in Belgium are by drunk drivers, ~35% of Belgians drive over the speed limit, drivers only wear seat belts ~80% of the time and they aren't liable for their passengers' seat belt use.. It sounds like there should be thousands of Belgians in jail for traffic crimes, but extrapolating from their population / imprisonment rate (11.2M & 108/100k), it looks like they only have 12k total people in jail. Their annual violent crime rate is ~50/100k and if you assume even an average of a 2-year sentence for violent crimes, there is no room left in jail for these traffic criminals... [http://archive.etsc.eu/documents/Final_Traffic_Law_Enforcement_in_the_EU.pdf http://archive.etsc.eu/documents/Final_Traffic_Law_Enforceme...]
pyre 12y ago
My armchair opinion is that most of the people that are driving in the city are towards the wealthy end of the spectrum (or tourists that don't know any better), which makes going after them political suicide. [Note: I'm ignoring taxis / buses here. I imagine that killing someone with your taxi affects you significantly enough for you to try and avoid it, even without jail time or criminal charges.]
- billmalarky 12y ago
  The wealthy don't personally drive in Manhattan. People pay good money not to have to drive in Manhattan.
ohsnap 12y ago
The link you sent says Vance does prosecute 'motor crime' (DUIs, fleeing the scene,etc..) Also you forgot to add that it is inherently difficult to prosecute because a jury doesn't see negligent drivers as criminals. You already know about the clement case that Vance lost. I intend to agree that car crashes is one of society's biggest and underrated problems, but your really laying out a big strawman here
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  If you define killing people with cars to be out of scope then you're just drawing the system boundaries incorrectly. Let me ask you this: if it's not a crime to kill someone with a car, as long as you're sober and you don't flee the scene, why does anyone murder someone else in New York with a knife or a gun? Wouldn't running them down with a car be the rational choice? After all, they aren't prosecuting the guy who ran over and killed a 3-year-old in a crosswalk, even though there's a video recording of the act. You can be captured on video running down and killing someone and not be prosecuted. Only a fool would choose another weapon.
  - gamblor956 12y ago
    Because crime in the US is a matter of intent. If you intend to kill someone, and then do, the exact means of killing are largely irrelevant; you have committed some sort of homicide crime. (The exact means of killing may determine what particular homicide crime has been committed, such as manslaughter vs murder.) That is why people above have been saying that most accidents are not criminal--the driver does not intend to hit the cyclist/pedestrian/whatever. Negligence is generally not a crime in the US except in exceptional circumstances (i.e., negligent homicide, in which the driver's gross negligence while driving--such as texting while the car is moving--results in accident in which someone else dies).
- bsder 12y ago
  > a jury doesn't see negligent drivers as criminals That's a little harsh. They probably do see them as criminals. However, they can also see themselves being in the defendant's chair for this "crime". Nobody is perfect, and everybody has a story of how they screwed up while driving. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

mikeyouse 12y ago

The vast majority of those 286 crash deaths aren't criminal though..

thrownaway2424 12y ago
You concluded that how?
- edias 12y ago
  Because the vast majority of vehicle accident aren't criminal? Why would this be any different. If you've ever driven in Manhattan you'd know how easy it is for a mistake to happen, and it would be a mess to prove who's at fault since traffic laws and J walking are hardly enforced.
  - revelation 12y ago
    What is that even supposed to mean? Just because people don't intend to run over others doesn't mean it's not criminal when they do so through negligence. The phrase "if you've ever driven in Manhattan" seems to suggest you're well aware that plenty of drivers don't exactly reach to the level of competence we would expect from someone manuevering tons of steel in a dense city where the number of pedestrians frequently exceeds that of cars. This line of thinking is exactly why we now have 300 deaths from traffic, or as many as murder cases. People think negligence in driving, be it speeding, fiddling with your phone, accelerating for that yellow and dodging instead of yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks are somehow excusable. They're not when you are driving a car.
  - andrewla 12y ago
    Although I agree that this is certainly true, I cannot vouch for its historic truth. It is possible that the vast reduction in the murder rate is primarily due to the fact that vehicle accidents are (no longer) considered murder, rather than any actual reduction in violent crime. Not stating this as fact -- I haven't even done my homework to look at vehicle-related deaths over time -- but as motivation for the possible blind spot pointed out by thrownaway2424. Historical crime data is notorious for this because statistics are gathered by law enforcement and have a subjective aspect based on the time that they are gathered.
    - mikeyouse 12y ago
      Motor vehicle deaths, especially when corrected for miles driven or total population, have dropped precipitously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year#Motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in... Murder, aggravated assault, rape, robbery, etc. are all down across the board, in some cases by more than 50% in 20 years: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/c... There are always some subjective decisions on data reporting, but that's much more prevalent in data comparisons between countries rather than over time within a single country. The FBI has been very consistent in their reporting.
  - thrownaway2424 12y ago
    Civilized countries have long since settled this question with a simple formula: if you are in a car and you hurt or kill someone, it's your fault.
    - bsder 12y ago
      Really? So the child who ran out chasing after a ball is your fault? The bicyclist wearing black, at night, in the rain, with no reflectors or lights is your fault? We are human. We have moments of inattention ALL THE TIME. This is proven by many, many, many psychological studies. You don't convict someone of a crime because they committed an accidental error. If you want to cut down on this, fund self-driving cars.
      - thrownaway2424 12y ago
        Yes, really. This is the law in Belgium for example.
        mikeyouse 12y ago
        I would love to see a source for the claim that accidents are criminally prosecuted in Belgium.. The data I've found looks like ~5% of trips in Belgium are by drunk drivers, ~35% of Belgians drive over the speed limit, drivers only wear seat belts ~80% of the time and they aren't liable for their passengers' seat belt use.. It sounds like there should be thousands of Belgians in jail for traffic crimes, but extrapolating from their population / imprisonment rate (11.2M & 108/100k), it looks like they only have 12k total people in jail. Their annual violent crime rate is ~50/100k and if you assume even an average of a 2-year sentence for violent crimes, there is no room left in jail for these traffic criminals... [http://archive.etsc.eu/documents/Final_Traffic_Law_Enforcement_in_the_EU.pdf http://archive.etsc.eu/documents/Final_Traffic_Law_Enforceme...]

pyre 12y ago

My armchair opinion is that most of the people that are driving in the city are towards the wealthy end of the spectrum (or tourists that don't know any better), which makes going after them political suicide. [Note: I'm ignoring taxis / buses here. I imagine that killing someone with your taxi affects you significantly enough for you to try and avoid it, even without jail time or criminal charges.]

billmalarky 12y ago
The wealthy don't personally drive in Manhattan. People pay good money not to have to drive in Manhattan.

ohsnap 12y ago

The link you sent says Vance does prosecute 'motor crime' (DUIs, fleeing the scene,etc..) Also you forgot to add that it is inherently difficult to prosecute because a jury doesn't see negligent drivers as criminals. You already know about the clement case that Vance lost. I intend to agree that car crashes is one of society's biggest and underrated problems, but your really laying out a big strawman here

thrownaway2424 12y ago
If you define killing people with cars to be out of scope then you're just drawing the system boundaries incorrectly. Let me ask you this: if it's not a crime to kill someone with a car, as long as you're sober and you don't flee the scene, why does anyone murder someone else in New York with a knife or a gun? Wouldn't running them down with a car be the rational choice? After all, they aren't prosecuting the guy who ran over and killed a 3-year-old in a crosswalk, even though there's a video recording of the act. You can be captured on video running down and killing someone and not be prosecuted. Only a fool would choose another weapon.
- gamblor956 12y ago
  Because crime in the US is a matter of intent. If you intend to kill someone, and then do, the exact means of killing are largely irrelevant; you have committed some sort of homicide crime. (The exact means of killing may determine what particular homicide crime has been committed, such as manslaughter vs murder.) That is why people above have been saying that most accidents are not criminal--the driver does not intend to hit the cyclist/pedestrian/whatever. Negligence is generally not a crime in the US except in exceptional circumstances (i.e., negligent homicide, in which the driver's gross negligence while driving--such as texting while the car is moving--results in accident in which someone else dies).
bsder 12y ago
> a jury doesn't see negligent drivers as criminals That's a little harsh. They probably do see them as criminals. However, they can also see themselves being in the defendant's chair for this "crime". Nobody is perfect, and everybody has a story of how they screwed up while driving. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.