Let me give you an analogy. Suppose gold-plating of cars became the thing to do for really rich people. Now suppose that when you got in a fender-bender with one of those cars, it'd cost $150,000 to fix. If enough people started gold-plating their cars, insurance rates would skyrocket, because what had been a $3,000 repair job would now be a $150,000 repair job. Speed limits would also probably be reduced.
How is a helmetless motorcycle any different? Yes, I know drivers have to exercise caution and there's a personal responsibility issue, but right now, if I get in a wreck with another normal car, the chance of injury is much much lower than if I get in a wreck with a motorcycle. And since no one is perfect, wrecks do happen. But if someone gets in a wreck with another car, their insurance rates go up a few hundred bucks per year, the drivers get rental cars for a few weeks, but the chances of injury or death are much less than with a motorcycle. There's no manslaughter charges brought in a normal wreck, but there is if you do the exact same thing against a motorcycle.
I feel the same way about really expensive cars as I do about motorcycles or really tiny cars that are unsafe: I don't really care if you go off and hit a tree, I care that some other normal motorist has a normal wreck and therefore has his life ruined because of it. If some CEO of a tech company is driving a McLaren to work, doesn't that sort of put everyone who might hit him at the risk of losing their house and all their assets because the repair bill will certainly be larger than what their insurance covers? With a motorcycle, not only are you puting your life on the line (and hey, that's your business), but you are also putting other drivers' livelihood on the line by there mere fact that by being on the road, you can subject them to much more liability than normal. If your brake light goes out, and a motorcycle rear-ends you and the guy wasn't wearing a helmet and he dies, are you really guilty of manslaughter?
A few years ago in Massachusetts, there was an old really frail lady in a car at a round-a-bout. Someone rear-ended that car going about 10 mph. The old lady died, and the driver was charged with manslaughter. I'm sorry, but even if the driver was at fault, those actions normally wouldn't result in manslaughter, and I thought that that case was very similar to the way motorcycles are.
Ijust think that roads are a shared entity, and you have the potential to subject people to massive liability.
The reason I care if people like Britney Spears drives her car with the baby on her lap isn't only for the baby, but also for the other drivers on the road who could cause serious injury from a minor accident. That's why I think car-seat laws are a good idea.
the flaw in the argument is that in no fault states, motorcycles are not part of the auto insurance system.
In other states they are not part of the auto insurance pool.
Keep in mind also that there has been an explosion of motorcycle ownership in the last decade.
There are two solid dominating factors in people involved in motorcycle caused accidents. 1. The person was riding for LESS than six months without any motorcycle training course. (iow they just obtained a license via test) and/or 2. the do not have a motorcycle endorsement at all and have had their motorcycle for less than six months. (which means they were driving with no license, a criminal violation)
I think the question of intent really answers your hypotheticals. If the tail light just burned out, no manslaughter. If the tail light burned out last week and there is a citiation from a cop for no tail light then there is an argument for manslaughter.
it is the old eggshell skull theory. The defendant finds the plaintiff as is. You don’t get to choose who sues you.