Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee rejects bill changing presumptions for left-turn crashes after insurer opposition
Summary
The committee failed to advance first substitute House Bill 164 (vehicle accident liability amendments), which would have given officers discretion to cite either party in many left-turn crashes; supporters said it corrects an unfair outcome, while insurers warned it could reduce driver incentives to yield and increase crashes.
The committee voted against advancing first substitute House Bill 164, Vehicle Accident Liability Amendments, after hearing testimony for and against changing how officers and traffic law treat crashes that occur when a vehicle makes a left turn.
Representative Stoddard, the sponsor, said the bill was designed to give law-enforcement officers discretion to issue citations to the at-fault party in left-turn crashes rather than automatically assigning fault to the left-turning driver. "The bill...allows the law enforcement officer discretion to issue a citation to either party or to both of them if they are both at fault," Stoddard told the committee. He said prosecutors and defense attorneys have long seen cases where a legally positioned left-turning vehicle is cited despite being struck by a driver who ran a red light.
Public comment included a civil-practice attorney, Kirk London, who described frequent cases where left-turning drivers lawfully in the intersection nonetheless receive citations under current statute. Mike Sontag of the Property and Casualty Insurance Association opposed the change, arguing it could reduce the duty of care for left-turning drivers and increase crashes, pointing to driver-handbook guidance about defensive driving and last-chance avoidance.
After discussion, the committee voted 2–4 against forwarding the bill. Senators Kwan and Reby voted in favor; Senators Harper, Milner, Winderton and Ibsen voted no. The chair ruled the motion failed.
Votes at a glance: First substitute House Bill 164 — failed in committee (2–4).
Sponsor supporters said they will continue to discuss language and enforcement discretion outside the committee.
