Not so, everyone who has played GTA Vice City will tell you that an overturned car will burst into flames and explode in about 10-15 seconds. the pedestrian would be mad to approach the car. 
I can’t find a citation online, but this is called the “Mad Chauffeur Problem”. I’ve seen it analyzed in one of the Martin Gardner recreational math books. Which one wins depends on a fairly simple mathematical relationship of stuff like frictional coefficient of the surface, maximum speeds of car and person, minimum turning radius, etc. Maybe someone recalls which Gardner book it is?
Superb thread. I like smam’s ‘run away at a right-angle’ idea. But eventually I think the driver would win. All that leaping and side-stepping is bound to leave the pedestrain with sore ankles
I thought about this some more after posting last night.
In a way this is very similar to what happens in football with a running back aproaching a single linebacker.
The running back can fake right or left, cut right or left or go straight ahead. The linebacker has to watch his moves and counter them.
We all can agree that even the best running back can’t fake a linebacker out his shorts every time.
Same thing here. Sooner or later the guy driving is gonna get it right.
Close. In game theory it’s known as the Homicidal Chauffeur game. You will find links with that search term. This, for example: http://msl.cs.uiuc.edu/~pcheng1/report.pdf
Wow, people actually give the pedestrian a chance?
My first run would be a speed, say, 50 mph. I would pull my hand brake and slide wide to maximize my area to hit.
After that pass I would swing around and charge. Since I know the guy will guess which way to jump, I’d make the next 5 passes with random guesses as to where he’s going to go. If he happens to guess right, I take another run. One wrong guess and he’s gonna be splashed.
On this, at least, there’s no question. If I’m in a parking lot and there’s a homocidal chauffer trying to run me down continually, I’m gonna consider the day ruined even if he does keep missing.
whuckfistle, wouldn’t those large gonadal units get in the way when the guy tries to run, and thus be a liability?
hawthorne: Homicidal Chauffeur game
Ah, thanks! I knew it was a classic and well-analyzed problem, but it helps to remember the name correctly…
Yep, each and every day a homicidal motorist tries to run ME down, I invariably put that day in the “ruined” category.
It seems to me that the smaller the lot is, the better the odds for the pedestrian. A small enough playing field and the pedestrian can win just about every time, especially if the driver isn’t skilled enough to do e-brake skids, bootlegger reverses, etc.
I disagree. If a fruitcake seriously tried to run me down, and I was sharp and quick enough to survive it, I would feel GREAT!
Admittedly, the joy would fade quickly if it happened repeatedly. 
I’ve also seen a discussion of this problem in one of Jon Elster’s books on rationality. As has been noted, the nub of the problem is that the car is much faster than the human, but has a much larger turning radius. Elster’s answer (which is in service of a larger point, which I’ll get to shortly) is that the driver should (1) drive away from the human, say 500 yards (In Elster’s formulation, the runner and the car are on a large plane, like a huge parking lot or something), and then (2) turn around toward the human at top speed. Neither Carl Lewis nor Wilie Gault in his prime could evade a car coming at him at 80 miles an hour.
For Elster the significance of this is that the “rational” solution to the problem (if one can describe this bizarre scenario as having a “rational” solution) is for the driver to first drive AWAY FROM his goal.
When being run down by a homicidal chauffeur, I just do what I always do: pull my Bazooka out of my purse and blast him to smithereens.
constantine has the right ideas:
-
Unlike a bull, which will irrationally try to change direction while at full speed after a miss and thus create a large enough turning radius in which the clowns can easily cavort; a smart homicidal driver will drive far enough away and then turn for another straight run.
-
Many surmised that high speed is bad for the driver, because it creates large turning radii, thus making the driver unable to compensate for the target suddenly ducking to the side. However, as speed increases, the target’s time to move laterally decreases. A car going nearly light speed would be certainly unduckable. How many think they can duck a car going 120 mph?
Peace.
How far do you have to throw an atomic grenade?
no tricks pedestrian can pull can work if the driver’s reaction time is reasonably good. you can ignore the forward/backward component of movement and only consider lateral. if the car manages to move sideways as fast as the pedestrian - he is toast. both car and pedestrian are rubber on asphalt so friction coefficient is roughly the same, of course its not just friction coefficient but also the size of tires and suspension design but i would say the car is AT LEAST as good at it as the pedestrian.
assuming that lateral accel will be roughly same it will boil down to driver reaction time and car width.