In People v. Sewell (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 690, the court held that a violation of section 2800.2 is an inherently dangerous felony for purposes of second degree felony murder. The court reached this conclusion even though the statute was amended in 1996 to include within the definition of "willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property" any evasion during which the driver commits three or more moving violations. ( 2800.2, subd. (b).) The Sewell court reasoned: "The 1996 amendment did not change the elements of the section 2800.2 offense, in the abstract, or its inherently dangerous nature. The amendment merely described a couple of nonexclusive acts that constitute driving with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. The key elements of the crime remain: the offense is committed by one who, 'while fleeing or attempting to elude a pursuing peace officer,' drives his pursued vehicle in 'a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.'" ( People v. Sewell, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th 690, 694-695.) The Sewell court further explained: "'In viewing the elements of Vehicle Code section 2800.2 our task is not to determine if it is possible (i.e., "conceivable") to violate the statute without great danger. By such a test no statute would be inherently dangerous. Rather the question is: does a violation of the statute involve a high probability of death? If it does, the offense is inherently dangerous.'" ( People v. Sewell, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th 690, 695-696.) Applying this test to Vehicle Code section 2800.2, the Sewell court concluded, "'apart from the "wanton disregard" element, one must also be engaged in the act of fleeing from a pursuing peace officer whose vehicle is displaying lights and sirens. Any high-speed pursuit is inherently dangerous to the lives of the pursuing police officers. In even the most ethereal of abstractions, it is not possible to imagine that the "wanton disregard" of the person fleeing does not encompass disregard for the safety of the pursuing officers.'" ( People v. Sewell, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th 690, 696.)