"The operator of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of a person..."

The new wording is this:

  "The operator of a vehicle involved in an accident that results or is reasonably likely to result in injury to or death of a person..."

Yes, there's still room for interpretation, but it's a big improvement over the old wording.

Nestande was was found not guilty of failure to stop and render aid.  Her main defense was she said she didn't know it was a person that she struck.  You would think a caved-in windshield with hair & skin tissue in the cracks would be evidence enough, but I guess prosecutors could not convince the jury.  Others have used the same defense successfully. 

So, sadly, there will be cases where the increased penalty won't help anything.

(of course there's always one other incentive to running: you might get away with it!)

Before the change, there was an incentive for intoxicated drivers to leave the scene and get sobered up before getting caught, because the penalty for intoxicated manslaughter was higher than for hit-and-run fatalities.  Now they're both the same, so there's no more incentive for drivers to flee.

So, this closes what is called the "Nestande Loophole".

As always, the text of the law is on Bicycle Austin's traffic laws page.

And it's still not over...Nestande just got assaulted in jail.

Well, looking at it that way ... it won't be over until she's done with her jail and probation time, and even then it will never really be over as she now has a felony on her record which will haunt her for the rest of her life.  (Unless the governor pardons her or something, which should be unlikely -- she was well connected, but not that well connected.)

That said, here's some headline win -- "Nestande mistaken for a deer by fellow inmate".

Don in Austin

To stop her from drinking and driving, the courts are focusing on the drinking part.  It never occurs to them to focus on the driving part.  Taking away someone's right to drive must seem unconstitutional as it would be Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/217850 … ys-in-jail

Don in Austin

Here's something I read in one of the articles that I believe needs more air time: whereas jurors can see themselves in that driver's position, they cannot see themselves as that pedestrian or cyclist, because they do not generally walk or cycle. For this reason, jurors hand out lenient sentences to someone who "accidentally" hit and killed a person and feels remorse. The only solution to this is for more people to walk and cycle more often. Then they will be able to see things from the cyclists'/walkers' perspective, rather than from the drivers', and then they will be more likely to side with the victim and hand out a tougher sentence (license revocation should be available).

People don't see driving as an inherently dangerous activity that carries with it the responsibility to take enormous care of everything around you. People see walking and cycling as inherently dangerous activities during which you need to protect yourself in every way possible. This perverse mindset is what has to change. I think the wheels are slowly turning. When we educate more children to walk and cycle (by using Safe Routes to School and cycle tracks), we are training a generation of people to love active transportation. They will be the ones to demand infrastructure and stricter legal protection.

Exactly. Our car headed culture needs more cycling and pedestrian experiences so that they have sympathy and empathy for others using different means. A common belief is that in places such as the Netherlands and Portland, they have experienced decreed auto/cycling accidents because most drivers are also cyclists, at some level of involvement. They are able to relate to the different perspectives of pedestrian, cyclist, motorist and everyone is safer because of this. Cycling as viable transportation is also an accepted and a common part of their cultures.
We should continue to ask for, create, and live walkable, bikeable community here in Austin.

And well put on the view of driving as inherently dangerous and the perverse twist our culture has taken.
And hope for the future via our younger Austinites.

Indeed, agreed.