Times are tough in New York’s pedicab industry. Drivers and owners of the bicycle taxis usually count on holiday season business to get them through the slow months of winter, but this year the recession and dismally wet weather weakened December business.
To further complicate the picture, new regulations governing the pedicab industry went into effect on Nov. 30, and it remains unclear how deeply these changes have affected business. The rules require that all pedicabs be inspected, insured, registered, and equipped with seatbelts and tail lights and that all pedicab drivers be licensed by the Department of Consumer Affairs.
Considering this is the low season for pedicabs, no one has much hard information on the impact of the new rules. A consensus appears to be merging, however, that things have changed.
David Pollack, executive director of the Committee for Taxi Safety and one of the strongest advocates for regulation, seems pleased with the results. "Pedicabs had been a big problem for the longest time," he said. "Guys running red lights or going the wrong way down one way streets used to be a constant issue." Pollack reported that complaints from taxi drivers abut the bicycle cabs had decreased.
Complaints from pedestrians are down too, according to the office of City Councilmember Daniel Garodnick, who represents several of the neighborhoods most trafficked by pedicabs. Persistent nuisances like pedicabs on sidewalks or in no parking zones, and aggressive drivers harassing passers-by for a fare seem to have dropped off, according to the council member’s office.
Not all are satisfied however. The City Room blog reported in December that the 2009 holiday season was one of the worst on record for the pedicab businesses. "The economic crisis, a series of wet weekends and new regulations requiring licenses for pedicab drivers have created a perfect storm of misery in New York’s pedicab industry," it said.
While the weather and the economy have had an effect, some in the industry think the regulations have made the situation worse -- at least for now. For one thing, the number of people who have applied for pedicab licenses is far lower than the number of pedicabs in the city. According to the city's Department of Consumer Affairs, there are currently 943 registered pedicabs and 490 licensed drivers. For pedicab owners, many of whom own small fleets of the vehicles, this means massive amounts of lost revenue from rentals as their cabs sit idle.
"We’ve seen an 80 percent drop in revenue from December of last year," said Greg Zukowski, owner of Revolution Rickshaws, a company that rents out pedicabs to drivers.
Because the city did not put a cap on the number of licenses that can be awarded it is expected that the number of licensed pedicab drivers will eventually reach or exceed the number of registered pedicabs. When that happens, Zukowski expects things to pick up.
Whether or not some businesses will be able to last that long, though, is uncertain. January to March is the low season for pedicab rentals, and owners depend on a fat holiday to make it through that dry period. This year there were not enough pedicab drivers to fill the seats, and owners have been left struggling to find ways to get by.
When pedicabs began traveling city streets, they were subject to few, if any, regulations. By 2006, though, discussions had begun and the City Council held hearings on what, if any regulations, should govern the estimated 350 pedicabs then operating in the city. In 2007, the council passed legislation, which capped the number of pedicabs allowed to 325. It also required drivers to get licenses and have insurance; set safety standards for the cabs; and required pedicab operators to determine how they calculated fares. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who initially supported the measure, vetoed it, but the council overrodethat veto.
The battle was not over. The pedicab owners sued the city, successfully challenging the system the Department of Consumer Affairs planned to use to award licenses. Last summer, the City Council passed new legislation, which eliminated the cap on the number of pedicabs. Otherwise, much of the original legislation remained, including the driver's license, mandatory safety inspections and required safety features like seatbelts and taillights.
Obtaining a pedicab-driver’s license is relatively simple. The applicant must be a licensed driver, submit a photo ID and fill out several forms including a Child Support Certificate. According to the Department of Consumer Affairs, processing the application averages about five days. However several pedicab drivers did complain of slow turnover, most often because Consumer Affairs sent their license to the wrong address. The cost of the license is $35 a year.
Despite such problems, some drivers praise the new system. "In the past we were discriminated against by customers because the city wasn’t regulating the industry," said Jeff Larson, a pedicab driver for three years. "In general I think the regulations are very positive, especially the safety codes."
Now that they have been recognized by the city, pedicab owners and drivers think they deserve a more pedicab-friendly infrastructure.
"On the ground it's challenging," said Zukowski, who also is the head of the http://www.nycpedicabassociation.org/ Pedicab Owners Association. "City infrastructure hasn't really accounted for pedicabs yet." He pointed to the lack of taxi-stands for pedicabs, rules forbidding pedicabs from riding across any of the city's bridges or in bike lanes, and a continuing dispute with the Department of Parks and Recreation over how and where pedicabs can give tours through Central Park.
Any kind of regulations and improvements to tackle these issues will probably be put on the back burner for now, while those concerned about pedicabs see if the new regulations have made a difference. "Things always get better in the winter," said Wally Rubin, manager of Commmunity Board 5 which represents some of the most heavily trafficked pedicab routes in the city). "So if changes are made in November, as they were this year, the time to test them is spring and summer, not January."
Are the drastic service cuts adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board yesterday a bow to reality or simply a tool to goose the state legislature into giving it more money?
Earlier this month the MTA revealed that it faced a budget gap of around $400 million. The gap arose from a combination of factors, according to the agency. The state legislature reduced MTA funding by $143 million in its end-of-the-year deficit reduction plan, a payroll tax enacted by the legislature has brought in around $100 million less than expected and a State Supreme Court judge ruled that the MTA must make good on an 11.5 percent pay hike to transit workers over the next few years. All this put the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in a place no one wanted it to be again -- facing a major funding shortfall and promising drastic cuts if something isn't done.
On Wednesday morning, the MTA board voted unanimously to accept a budget that will eliminate two dozen bus routes and the W and Z subway lines, shorten the G and M lines, cut door-to-door paratransit service, and eliminate free rides for school students. Over 700 workers are expected to be laid off, and MTA administration will take a 10 percent pay cut. The MTA board will have to hold a round of public hearings and another vote before the cuts go into effect next year. A number of board members who voted for the plan voiced their hope that the cuts can be avoided.
Service cuts won't begin until July. Students would have to start paying half fare in the fall and finally full price in 2011.
Now, as advocates and straphangers and parents rage against the cuts, a game that played out last spring will start all over again -- with the legislature blaming the MTA for being alarmist and for not being forthright about its financing and the MTA accusing the state of being unwilling to come up with a sustainable funding mechanism for the authority.
Again straphangers will be left in the lurch, wondering if the state will act fast enough to make sure they aren't stuck holding the bill.
"They're the ones that put a deal together and said, 'You're fine for two years," board member Jeff Kay has said, referring to the legislature. "It's their deal that fell apart."
Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer told the board New Yorkers are tired of the MTA's constant cash crises. Their "budget dance is quickly becoming known as the hustle," Stringer said.
Austin Shafran, spokesman for the Senate majority, took a more conciliatory approach. "We don't blame the MTA for the fiscal crisis," he said. "They didn't cause the financial problems, but more can be done to avoid these cuts."
Shafran attributed the $100 million shortfall in payroll tax collections to a lack of compliance, something typically seen with new tax collections. Despite that, he said, "The MTA has to tighten their belt and do more with less, like most New Yorkers."
"I am pretty ticked we are right back where we started," said Gene Russianoff of New York Public Interest Research Group's Straphanger's Campaign. The scenario played out for months last year as the MTA and advocates pressed the legislature to pass a bailout plan. Transportation activists pushed for a plan that would put tolls on bridges into the city -- making drivers part of the plan, as they put it. But recalcitrant senators balked at proposed tolls, mocked the MTA's bookkeeping.
Eventually, under mounting public pressure, the legislature passed a plan that did not include tolls on bridges, but also avoided significant service cuts and raised fares less than originally proposed. It did include the payroll tax. The package was largely seen as a stopgap.
Now, seven months later, with the state, too, facing financial crisis, there was no rush to plug the MTA's funding gap.
Some say the MTA's proposed cuts, specifically eliminating free rides for students, are designed to shock politicians into action- -- perhaps even to get them to consider congestion pricing next year.
"Last spring, we worked very hard with a number of other organizations to create a mechanism that would get the MTA through not just the thin times but the long haul," said Wiley Norvell of Transportation Alternatives. "But instead what we got puts the burden on straphangers and businesses. Drivers were left out of it. Now we have severe cuts laid on straphangers. And advocates are forced to make a Sophie's choice between funding capital projects or just keeping what we have running."
Norvell said he is heartened by recent comments from Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. David Paterson to the effect that implementing congestion pricing or bridge tolls would have headed off this financial mess. "Hopefully, what is on the table sets things back in motion to put the fourth leg back in place- -- congestion pricing," said Norvell.
But skepticism about charging people to drive into Manhattan persists. Sen. Kevin Parker said he would need more details. "Congestion pricing is not a silver bullet," he said. "The last plan that was before us would have cost the state more money in the first two years before it actually made money because of spending on infrastructure. So it would not solve an immediate cash crisis."
While the route cuts are severe, the idea of charging students, many of whom now get three free rides a day, to go to school has sparked the most outrage. "I have two daughters and I can't believe they would get rid of rides for students," said Russianoff. He estimates it would cost him around $900 to provide his daughters with Metrocards for most of the year.
Council Speaker Christine Quinn and Councilmember James Vacca proposed that the MTA use $90 million in unspent stimulus funds and $50 million in operating funds that are currently going to supplement the MTA's capital budget to avoid major cuts. But some advocates note that doing this would take away the urgency and make it harder for the MTA to force the legislature to consider congestion pricing -- or at least increasing its funding.
Paterson and Senate Democrats have responded to massive parent and student outcry and say they will act quickly in next year's budget to restore funding to the program.
In most other cities, the school system or city or state government -- not the transportation authority -- funds student ride programs, according to Russianoff. Here, he said, city funding for the program has "flatlined" while costs have increased, and "the state's support is down to an astonishing $6 million.
While Bloomberg said, "We are not going to stand for" elimination of the free student rides, he has apparently not offered to increase the city subsidy.
In general, the relationship between the legislature and the MTA remains tepid at best. "The MTA's credibility with the legislature is very low," said Russianoff. "They were told the bailout was enough. Then the MTA turned on a dime and all of a sudden, out of nowhere, they have this gap, and the legislature was shocked by the turn of events."
The rift between the MTA and the legislature is probably what stands in the way of instituting a steady source of MTA funding -- a source such as congestion pricing. A lot of legislators simply think the agency cannot be trusted. They see this budget crisis as "manufactured" and "alarmist."
Republican Assemblyman Joel Miller, who represents Dutchess County, does not mince words. "You can't trust these guys," he said. Miller went on to compare MTA officials to former Federal Emergency Management Agency head Michael "Brownie" Brown, saying the agency was headed by political appointees without any real experience.
He is supporting legislation that would actually phase out the MTA's payroll tax by the end of next year but conceded his bill has as much chance of moving as "you and I do of flying without an airplane." And so, Miller said, he expects "the rest of the state will just be used to make New York City happy until the three men in a room aren't all Democrats from New York City."
As for the service cuts, Miller did not express much concern. "So now New York City has to face service cuts. Boo hoo," he said.
Senate Democrat Brian Foley has proposed a bill that would reduce the payroll tax in Suffolk and Nassau counties.
The two members' action undercut the threadbare relationship between the MTA and suburban legislators.
Meanwhile, Democratic senators and Assembly members who represent the outer boroughs and opposed tolling the bridges last spring have remained fairly silent as the MTA's fiscal crisis has played out. A number did not return calls for this article.
Sen. Martin Dilan, head of the Senate Transportation Committee, said he was shocked by the MTA's shortfall announcement, specifically about the lower than expected returns on the payroll tax. He wrote Walder to share his displeasure.
"It is an affront to our burgeoning partnership, often discussed in previous months, to exclude us from this critical information," Dilan wrote, adding: "Additionally, it is difficult to think that our exclusion was simply a matter of being overlooked. One can only conclude that by going to the press first, your organization was in fact using the media to once again stir the bees' nest, rallying fears of insufficient funding and potential fare increases and service cuts."
Senate Finance Committee Chair Carl Kruger had also issued a statement blaming on the MTA for its fiscal projections. "Our ability to budget is only as good as our ability to forecast," he said.
He went on to say that he expected the payroll tax to "kick in" in the coming months. "It is my hope," he wrote, "that the MTA will not create an atmosphere of confusion or a needless sense of unrest over what appears to be self-adjusting bookkeeping issues. We all recognize that shortfalls are real and that expenditures are exceeding revenues. That is why we're addressing the situation in this manner."
Calling the MTA "the Grinch that stole education," Parker condemned the authority for suddenly announcing a $400 million deficit and then voting on a plan before anyone had time to take action. "I have no idea what's going on with the MTA's books," he said. "We still haven't received the forensic audit we asked for earlier this year."
Despite such suspicions of the MTA, Norvell hopes that the current brouhaha over drastic service cuts will lead to real discussion about congestion pricing. He said he thinks the public won't let legislators off the hook.
"This spring, something unique happened," said Norvell. The public and the media didn't allow legislators to use the MTA as a wooden shield. That didn't fly last spring and legislators were forced to come up with a decent compromise. Beating up on the MTA for months doesn't create new revenues."
Even if they don't know Diane Schuler by name probably every sentient New Yorker knows what she didand the horror she created. On July 26, Schuler, apparently under the influence of vodka and marijuana, drove the wrong way on the Taconic Parkway, only stopping when her minivan collided with another vehicle, killing herself, her daughter, her three nieces and three people in the other car.
But what about Isaac Chehebar? In 2001, Chehebar raced his Porsche at twice the speed limit down Brooklyn's Ocean Parkway, colliding with two teenage sisters walking along that boulevard's median strip He killed both of them and seriously injured their mother. Chehebar apparently was a reckless driver -- but, at least in this instance, apparently a sober one.
Last week the New York State legislature, after some debate and disagreement, agreed to take another move to crack down on drunk drivers, particularly those, like Schuler, who have children in their vehicles. The vote won widespread praise as one of the few worthwhile things the legislature has managed to accomplish this year.
The action continues what has been the practice in New York and much of the nation: getting tough on drunk drivers and the accidents they cause while doing little to combat the many death and injuries caused by people who, while unimpaired, still drive badly and even recklessly.
The bill passed by the legislature last week, Leandra's Law, makes it a felony for anyone to drive with a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher while transporting a child under age 15. It also requires interlocks in the vehicles of anyone convicted of driving while intoxicated in New York State. Interlocks periodically measure the blood alcohol content of the driver's breath and incapacitate the vehicle if the alcohol level is too high. Experts have estimated the devices could prevent between 35 and 65 percent of potential recurrences of drunk driving.
The new law is considered to be among the toughest on drunk driving in the country. Only one other state, Arizona, makes it a felony to drive under the influence with a minor in the car, and while over 40 states utilize interlocks, most of them require it only in extreme cases of multiple offenses or extremely high alcohol levels. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed a bill mandating the use of interlocks for those convicted of driving while intoxicated.
A sense of pride and purpose seemed to sweep over legislators as supporters of the bill learned they would pass the legislation. Gov. David Paterson and legislators declared that the bill might not have been signed into law had it not been for Lenny Rosado, the father of Leandra, an 11-year-old girl who was killed when the car in which she was riding flipped on the Henry Hudson Parkway in Manhattan. The driver, the mother of one of her friends, apparently was under the influence of alcohol and marijuana.
In his effort to pass the bill, Rosado became omnipresent in the capitol, handing out pictures of his daughter, doing interviews and talking about the plans Leandra had before her untimely death. Mothers Against Drunk Driving weighed in in support.
Rosado said that, for a moment, he was overwhelmed by Albany. "I went home and said, 'Wow, politics! This is just insane!'" Rosado admitted moments after the Senate passed the bill. "But today, for these people to come together and all be on the same page and pass the bill was really something."
According to Assembly and Senate sources it took a perfect storm to allow the bill to make it into law. The storm started this summer with the Schuler tragedy.
In August, Paterson and Republican Charles Fuschillo introducednearly identical proposals to stiffen the punishment for those who drive under the influence of alcohol with minors in the car.
The death of Leandra Rosado followed in October. And Rosado started a petition drive to toughen the laws. Soon the Daily News and other papers were covering Rosado's every move. He even appeared on Oprah. But that was not enough to get the bill passed.
When the legislature returned this month, the Assembly wanted to weaken the legislation by raising the blood alcohol level required for a felony to .18, more than twice the legal limit. As one staffer put it, "It's pretty much the Assembly policy not to increase penalties." Paterson was said to be looking to broker a deal to make the blood alcohol limit for a felony .13. Rosado and senators, including Fuschillo and Democrat Martin Dilan, pressed the Assembly not to make any alterations.
As Albany stewed, waiting for a budget deal, Rosado got more attention for his cause. Finally Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver agreed to the legislation. "I give the father full credit for shaming Shelly," said Sen. Frank Padavan. Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg, the bill's sponsor in the Assembly, said it wasn't shame that brought Silver around but lively debate. "They say it's three men in the room, but in the Assembly there are 108 people, and we all get our opportunity to speak. It’s sort of like group therapy. I told them there is no reason to change the law from what is real!" Weisenberg said.
Some Assembly members worry the penalty might be too harsh and that the bill did not receive enough scrutiny. Assemblymember Vito Lopez told the New York Times, "I believe there are a lot of voices who would like to be heard. They will never be heard, and the reason they will never be heard is because there's too much emotionalism."
On the Senate floor, a number of senators who supported the legislation acknowledged that the bill will not necessarily stop drunk people from driving with children in the car. Revealing that her parents were alcoholics, Sen. Diane Savino said that the bill will not fix everything because alcoholics "are incapable of rational thought." She said she hoped the bill would raise awareness and make people more cautious of who children get into the car with.
Critics also have raised concerns about the efficacy of the interlocks. They say the devices aren't sensitive enough to always properly recognize the amount of alcohol in a person's system and can sometimes mistake other substances for alcohol. Drivers can use an alternative vehicle to avoid the interlock, and there are also privacy issues.
A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found interlocks can help prevent repeat offenses, but most fatal alcohol-related crashes do not involve someone who had been convicted of drunk driving within the past three years. That has spurred some advocates to call for the use of interlocks in all vehicles.
Whatever the bill's shortcomings might be, Kate Hogan, director of the District Attorney's Association of the State of New York, said she didn't "dare to dream" that a bill that would both up the penalty for drinking and driving with a child in the car and require the use of interlocks in the vehicles of those convicted of driving while intoxicated could actually be passed during the current special session.
Advocates say there is much more to do.
"Making it a felony will go a long way to deterring people from driving while they are drunk," said Sen. Hiram Monserrate, a former police officer. But he noted that New York City has had problems prosecuting suspected cases of drunk driving and pointed to recent cases in which police officers refused breathalyzer tests after killing people with their cars. "It's harder to get the evidence you need for a prosecution than you might think," said Monserrate.
In September at 1 o'clock on a Sunday morning, officer Andrew Kelly of the 68th precinct struck and killed Vionique Valnord as she tried to hail a cab in Brooklyn. A sergeant at the scene reportedly saw alcoholic beverages in Kelly's vehicle, smelled alcohol and reported that Kelly's speech was slurred. Kelly initially refused a breath test. It took seven hours for police to secure a warrant to force Kelly to submit to a test, and when he did he tested clean.
Only a month later, Detective Kevin Spellman struck and killed 67-year-old Drana Nikac in the Bronx. Responding officers reported that Spellman appeared intoxicated, but Spellman refused a breath test at the scene. He eventually submitted to one at a hospital, five hours later. Even, then, officials have said Spellman had a blood alcohol level of .21, more than two and a half times the legal limits.
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly has created a panel to consider how to handle instances when someone refused a test. Currently police generally take a person who won't take a test at the scene to the precinct. If the driver refuses the test there, police must obtain a warrant to allow blood to be drawn at a hospital. That can take hours.
Some advocates would like the legislature to remove the warrant requirement for Breathalyzer use in cases where someone has died or been seriously injured. Hogan, Fuschillo and Weisenberg say they see one particular piece of legislation as being paramount: Jack Shea's law, which would remove the state requirement that a doctor supervise a blood draw. Shea, a 91-year-old former Olympian, was killed in upstate New York by a driver who was charged with driving while intoxicated, vehicular manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. The charges were eventually dropped over a technicality. The driver wound up in a rural clinic where a technician drew a blood sample to check alcohol levels without the supervision of a doctor.
Fuschillo said he had assurances from Paterson that he wants to move on that bill. Paterson's office did not return calls for comment.
Rosado isn't giving up the fight, either. He announced at the signing of the bill named for his daughter that he intends to try to take his campaign to make driving under the influence with a minor in the vehicle national. "This is not going to be our last stop," Rosado promised. Later, he added, "I guarantee you that my daughter's death will not be in vain. She is here now to protect all our children, and anyone else who is a victim of DWI."
Not all children who die on the streets are killed by drunk drivers. The parents of Hayley Ng, age 4, and Diego Martinez, 3, know that all too well. Their children died on a Chinatown sidewalk in January when an unoccupied delivery van plowed into a group of children on a school outing. The driver, Chao Fu, left the van idling without realizing it was in reverse. He did not face any criminal charges.
Some 292 people -- including people in cars, on bicycles and on foot -- died in traffic fatalities in 2008, an increase from 2007, which saw a record low 274 such deaths.
Bad or reckless driving causes many of these deaths and many more injuries. Speeding and inattentiveness are the leading causes, according to Wiley Norvell of Transportation Alternatives, an advocacy group.
"Notwithstanding the outrageous and tragic death of Leandra, and the egregious and tragic 'Taconic Mom' incident, the number of people killed and maimed as a result of adults driving drunk with minors is dwarfed by the numbers killed and maimed by more mundane but often lethal behaviors such as turning into pedestrians in crosswalks (the documented number one 'mode' of pedestrian fatality in NYC), aggressive passing of bicyclists (the documented number one 'mode' of cyclist fatality in NYC), and of course the run-of-the-mill speeding, red-light running, distracted driving, aggressive driving, etc.," Charles Komanoff, a long-time transportation activist, wrote in an email.
The number of these cases that result in criminal, let alone felony, charges remain minuscule. Examples abound. Chehebar reached a plea agreement and served only four months in jail.
Alexander Aponte was driving a campaign bus for a candidate for City Council -- even though his license had been suspended. He ran a red light and killed 9-year-old Ibrahim Ahmed. Aponte got off with a misdemeanor charge: driving with a suspended license.
Attorney Robert Fader said he handled one case where a driver and a bicyclist had a dispute on the road, prompting the driver to deliberately back up and run down the cyclist. The driver's only penalty was a ticket for leaving the scene of a crime.
"If somebody is drunk, they'll be prosecuted, but if someone is driving without a license they'll get a ticket," Fader said. "You can't arrest people who are negligent."
In New York, people whose bad, but sober, driving kills someone can face a charge of criminally negligent homicide. But courts, law enforcement and relatives of victims rarely concur on when a traffic death becomes a criminal act.
Reckless behavior is not generally viewed as criminally negligent, according to attorney Barton Slavin. "I don't know where the line is drawn," he said. Earlier this fall, a jury in Manhattan convicted Auvryn Scarlett, a garbage truck driver, of second-degree murder. Scarlett struck and killed two British tourists last winter after he apparently neglected to take his epilepsy medicine. At the time, Komanoff said he could not recall any other instance when a driver who was not intoxicated was convicted of murder.
Why here? A police spokesman said, "Apparently, he stopped taking his medication. it was a conscious decision, so he's being charged."
But Paul Steely White, executive director of Transportation Alternatives, failed to see the distinction. "Don't people make a conscious decision to speed or a conscious decision to turn without yielding?" he said in Streetsblog. "Are we saying that people are somehow unconscious when they're breaking the law? … Scarlett's actions were no more deliberate than the majority of negligent motorists who routinely get off scot-free."
A variety of factors -- public attitudes, prosecutorial and police practices and judicial rulings -- have combined to create leniency. Deaths caused by reckless drivers -- not drunk ones -- "have not receive the grassroots consciousness raising" that alcohol related accidents have gotten, said Maureen McCormick, chief of Vehicular Crimes in Nassau County. While the public has become increasingly aware of the risks posed by dangerous drivers, the criminal justice system lags behind, she said: "It's like turning around a battleship."
Prosecutors, according to Slavin, may be reluctant to bring cases in traffic deaths because the likelihood of getting a felony conviction is slim. Unless an officer saw the accident proving it involved, for example, going 60 in a 30 mile per hour zone may be difficult.
Then there is the so-called "rule of two." Although not actually a law, this rule --more a kind of practice or belief, really -- holds that drivers who are not drunk cannot be prosecuted for criminally negligent homicide unless they did two things wrong: speeding and running a red light, for example, rather than committing just one of those offenses.
Two recent Court Ruling in New York have raised the bar even higher, according to McCormick. In one, the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, overturned the conviction of Brett Cabrera, a 17-year-old with a junior license who had killed three passengers in his car. The court found he had been speeding and violating the terms of his junior license. Despite that, it threw out his conviction.
"Our decisions have uniformly looked for some kind of morally blameworthy component to excessive speed in determining criminal negligence," the court said. That, it continued, did not appear in Cabrera's case.
Proponents of tougher penalties hoped the court had given Cabrera a break because of his age, McCormicksaid. Then came a second ruling involving limousine driver James McGrantham. After realizing he had entered the Belt Parkway via an exit ramp and so was headed the wrong way, McGrantham decided to make a three-point turn in the middle of the highway. As he performed this maneuver, his car stretched across traffic creating a kind of wall. A motorcyclist, unable to stop, crashed into that barrier and died.
The Court of Appeals threw out that homicide conviction, McCormick said, because the limo driver had not acted with malevolence. Or as a the court phrased it, "Driver was sober, not speeding, and the decision to extricate himself from a dangerous situation while unwise was not morally blameworthy so as to support criminally negligent homicide."
McCormick believes such interpretations have gone beyond what the legislature intended. To correct that, she said, the legislature may have to step in and clarify its laws.
Some advocates have endorsed another piece of legislation, this one proposed by Assemblymember Robert Sweeney, that would make vehicular assault and manslaughter felonies if the driver involved had a suspended or revoked license. Sweeney proposed his bill after the death of Ibrahim Ahmed.
Whether prosecutors would use harsher laws remains unclear. And would juries be wiling to convict a generally law-abiding person for the mistake of running a red light -- even if that mistake had horrible consequences. As McCormick puts it, these kinds of crimes "are committed by average Joes."
Undoubtedly, though, average Joes commit such offenses very frequently. Anyone who drives -- or walks -- in New York City knows how often drivers shoot red lights or fail to yield to pedestrians. Some 30 percent of drivers exceed the 30 mile per hour speed limit in Manhattan, according to a Transportation Alternatives study released earlier this year. While most were going 40 miles per hour or less, the study found people driving "in excess of 60 mph in school zones and other areas with heavy pedestrian traffic."
"It's New York and everyone wants to get there in a hurry," said Slavin. "If people would just slow down and act less crazed and come to a stop at a stop sign," fewer people would be injured on accidents.
Transportation Alteratives has looked at some of New York's most dangerous intersections and urged the police to focus on them. Norvell likens this to the way the city has reduced crime.
Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer has called for installing speeding and red light enforcement cameras.
The incoming Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance, has said he would establish a Vehicular Crime Unit that would, among other things, pay special attention to dangerous intersections or stretches of road. It also would focus on traffic assaults, reckless driving and other roadway offenses. He has also said his office would work with the police to reduce speeding Manhattan.
"There is no second chance on the road -- when a car crashes and someone is killed – no apology, no claim that it was strictly an accident, will ever bring that loved one back," Vance said in response to a questionnaire during the campaign. As a result, he continued, "strong preventative measures must be taken by police and prosecutors with the ultimate goal of reducing incidents of dangerous driving."
All of this assumes that people are ready to take bad driving seriously. Norvell and McCormick think that can happen.
"A generation ago, somebody who was caught drinking and driving was sent home with a wink," Norvell said. Leandra's law provides evidence of just how much that has changed. Now, said Norvell, "the way we tolerate and encourage dangerous and reckless driving on our streets is in need of a similar cultural shift."