The penalty should only be applied if the cyclist was clearly obeying traffic laws.

Motorcycles always have headlights on - maybe we should require cyclists to use bright daytime lights and bright clothing to help drivers see them.

And in tandem we need a minimum speed limit adherence ordinance. Anyone transporting inside the roadway - irrespective of vehicle - should be required to move at speeds proximate to the posted speed limit.

I agree. Let's make sure the people on bikes are also being safe and reasonable. It is not unusual to see someone on a bike clip or otherwise mow over someone walking - there are speed racers out there who are irresponsible. People on bikes don't always to a good job of making themselves visible.

It remains to be seen whether Seattle's new Mayor will have much luck getting anything enacted in Olympia. The bike lobby could help itself by treating other interests with more respect and toning down the self righteousness, if possible.

I'm a cyclist with more than my share of war stories from riding Seattle's streets.

But it is horribly horribly wrong to criminalize someone for making an honest mistake. The driver who didn't see the cyclist could have been any of us, including the author of this article. The only thing that separates him from us is dumb luck.

It's fair to criminalize someone who knowingly and intentionally engages in risky behavior behind the wheel - e.g., drinking alcohol, text messaging, etc. But criminalizing them because their brain (like all of our brains) is an imperfect processor of information is vengeful and inhumane.

If this is justice, then we should also criminalize the following scofflaws:
- the skier who loses control and crashes into someone
- the dad who accidentally drops his infant
- the frazzled single-mom who forgets to turn off the stove and burns down the apartment complex

The presumption of this article is that the bicycle rider is always non negligent and that the motorist is automatically negligent. WRONG. THE LAW IS FULL OF PRESUMPTIONS; SOME REBUTABLE AND SOME NOT. Constitutional issues prevail over cyclyist wish lists and desires. Stay on the Burke-Gilman trail or in your driveway if you are a scofflaw bicyclist.

Since Seattle is unwilling to invest in the safety of bicycle users, by creating safe bike lanes and bike signalization, it should not allow bicycles on its streets. That's how it's done with pedestrians who are given sidewalks, barriers and bollards to ensure their safety and are not allowed in heavy or fast traffic areas where no protection exists. Bicyclists deserve no less safety and protection than pedestrians. Bicycling should not be promoted as a healthy and environmental alternative to cars by the government if the City (and County and State) are not willing to significantly investment in an infrastructure that would protect those vulnerable riders. As a cyclist and an environmentalist, I would hate to see less bikes on the road, but as a parent, spouse, and friend to many bicycle commuters, I shudder every time I hear of another bicycle accident in Seattle.

@Jan - "The bike lobby could help itself by treating other interests with more respect and toning down the self righteousness, if possible."

Absolutely correct.

If the "vulnerable user" campaign is about justice and safety, why does it focus only on accident victims who happened to be on a bike or on foot? If I mistakenly kill someone with my car, why would the decision to treat the accident as a crime depend on the victim's mode of transportation? Apparently, the proponents of this law believe the lives of motorists are somehow less valuable than those of cyclists or pedestrians.

This is just another round in the ridiculous fight between Seattle's motorists and cyclists. Having been on the receiving end unprovoked car-on-bike road rage, I can say that anything that fans these flames only puts cyclists at greater risk.

"A superior court overturned his conviction, ruling that the Seattle ordinance violated a state law that decriminalized traffic offenses unless they fell under a long list of specific exceptions. The appeals court agreed."

Included in the long list of traffic infractions that can be criminal is:

RCW 46.61.520
Vehicular homicide — Penalty.

(1) When the death of any person ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury proximately caused by the driving of any vehicle by any person, the driver is guilty of vehicular homicide if the driver was operating a motor vehicle:

(a) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502; or

(b) In a reckless manner; or

(c) With disregard for the safety of others.

It therefore is the case that one can already be charged with V.H. if one operates the vehicle with "disregard for the safety of others."

Interesting and well-reasoned arguments on both sides of the argument for new legal penalties. For my part -speaking as both cyclist and motorist in downtown Seattle - I don't see how criminalizing the action of the driver in the West Seattle collision will do anything to prevent future incidents. What is clear to me is that metro Seattle needs to do more engineering to accomodate bicycle travel - the 'sharrows' are clearly a failure as solution ( has anyone seen how SDOT has botched the lane striping up Fourth Avenue? - the parking lane on the left is so narrow that the average parked car or truck is actually IN the left lane of travel, which incredibly is marked with the 'sharrow;'use at your own risk, cyclists AND motorists ). Under-used streets like Seventh Ave. could be given a devoted cycle lane, for example. Bicycle advocates need to acknowledge, however, the wide-spread disregard for traffic laws among cyclists; some enforcement by SPD for a change would discourage risky behavior. My high-school drivers-ed training included the Smith System, which teaches accident avoidance; one of the commandments is 'Make sure they see you.'In other words, don't assume that a cocoon of laws and penalties will guarantee safety - lights and bright clothing would go a long way to ensuring that 'they see you.'

This proposed law seems assume the larger vehicle always is at fault. What happens if the cyclist is clearly violating traffic laws at the time of the accident? How would this law have affected the recent case of the cyclist running over a child crossing the street near the Market? Take this another step. Do we apply this law to semis and other trucks in accidents with small cars? This is unnecessary because the responsibility should belong to everyone on the street equally.

Instead, there needs to be more emphasis on education and caution from drivers, riders and pedestrians. Drivers, remember what you learned in Drivers ED: Stop thinking about how to pass the next car or make the light and start proactively looking for possible hazards ahead. Cyclists, think about making yourself as visible as possible at night and don't run the light just because you're a bike.

An outcome I like about this policy effort is that the auto insurance industry would find added interest in bicycle safety and thus bike infrastructure.

As an aged out former regular bicyclist, I strongly support changes that both increase safety for bikers and create better infrastructure to encourage more to bike instead of drive. At the same time, I am skeptical that passage of a punative law would help much. By definition, careless people are unlikely to think about increased exposure to lawsuits or fines.

If Cascade does pursue a vulnerable user law, it would find more support if it also included legal requirements for bikes to use adquate safety lighting at night. Most bikers do but too many are nearly invisible.

I'm a crusty 60-yr-old bike commuter. I figure I've been riding longer than most of these bicycle advocates have been alive. Touch wood, I've never been hit by a motor vehicle. For me, the key to staying safe is to be highly visible (clothing, lights), to keep your wits about you, and to remember that--whatever you do--you will remain "invisible" to some other road users. And oh, nearly forgot, I obey the traffic rules, something that seems beyond the ken of so many other cyclists I see on our roads. Why some cyclists would think they'll get "respect" from motorists when they are blant scofflaws themselves is a mystery to me. By the way, I always give a thank-you wave to motorists who yield to me. I think a little courtesy goes a long way.

Wow! Great comments all. I bike to commute and for exercise. I also drive a lot among other cyclists. Let's all take personal responsibility for our own safety and the safety of all users of public roads and highways. Let's not try to transfer that responsibility to the greater society by passing more laws.