I live in NYC and it’s become a bit routine to hear about car accidents that claim the lives of pedestrians, and I’m always a bit shocked to hear that the burden of proof lies with the authorities to PROVE that the driver was responsible (either “negligent” or drunk or etc.)
I think our system lets drivers off too easy. The way I see it, the driver is almost always responsible, regardless of intent, when an accident happens and a pedestrian is struck.
You’re responsible for example if:
You were careless, or going to too fast and could not brake in time.
What if they run out in front of the car? Jaywalking isn’t that rare. If some foolish guy wearing dark clothes jogs across a road in the middle of the night, is the driver of the car who hits him automatically at fault?
That’s pretty much a bedrock principle of our entire legal system. Why do you think it’s a bad way for the system to work? Do you think it also shouldn’t apply to other criminal cases, or just driving offenses? Why should driving be treated differently than, say, burglary?
You say you live in NYC. Do you drive in NYC? I have to drive in San Francisco quite often, and while I’m a pretty careful driver, I can’t count the number of times I’ve almost hit a pedestrian, because the pedestrian was doing something incredibly stupid. The capper was the time I almost hit a guy who was crossing the street illegally, late at night, in a driving rain, while wearing dark clothes, and holding a black umbrella at an angle that completely obscured his upper torso from oncoming traffic. The guy was effectively invisible at a distance of more than fifteen or twenty feet. I was obeying the speed limit, paying attention, and my car was in good repair. If I had reacted just a hair slower, I’d’ve killed the guy, and I don’t think there’s any conceivable way it could have been my fault.
More generally, at least in SF, I’m far, far more likely to see a pedestrian walking where he shouldn’t (crossing a street in the middle of a block, say), than a car driving where it shouldn’t (such as running a red light or stop sign). In my estimation, in the event of a car v. pedestrian accident, the pedestrian is more likely to be at fault. By an order of magnitude, I’d suspect.
But, much like you, I have no facts or numbers to back up my assumptions.
What is that view based on? Statistics? Law? Something you pulled out of the air?
Yes, and as things stand, that is also what the law says. So what changes do you actually intend to make? Are you suggesting that driver should be assumed to be guilty of these things with no evidence?
There have been a few times when I have almost hit pedestrians and avoided it only due to good luck and the fact that I have better-than-average reaction time.
In one instance two people were trying to cross in the middle of the road, not jaywalking because it isn’t a crime in that jurisdiction. Another car stopped in the middle of the traffic lane to let them cross in front of him. I assumed he had engine trouble and overtook him, a perfectly legal manoeuvre, and almost hit the pedestrians who stepped out in front of his car.
In another instance the street turned a nearly 90o corner, no intersection. Two pedestrians wearing dark clothes at 11pm were either walking in the road, or crossing the road at the corner.
Another time a pedestrian was walking a between the parked cars and the traffic lane in a very narrow street. A parked car opened the door, I moved over far enough to avoid the opening door and the pedestrian stepped *around *the door into my lane. I avoided that one only be swerving partially into the other lane. There was physically not enough room for the car door, the pedestrian and my vehicle in that lane. If there had been a vehicle coming the other way, my split second decision would have seen me hit the pedestrian and simultaneously crush him against the open door. I figure a guaranteed, messy fatality was avoided by about a quarter of a second and some good luck.
There have been numerous other cases. most of them I don’t even remember. In none of these cases was I going to fast. In none of these cases was I careless. In my experience these make up the vast majority of instances where pedestrians get hit. The fault lies 90% with the pedestrian and maybe 10% with the driver. So why should the driver be held accountable?
Pedestrians being hit on designated crossings, or due to mechanically unsafe cars are already considered to be the driver’s fault. What evidence do you have that drivers at at fault the rest of the time?
So you want do away with a system in which the authorities have to prove that the driver was negligent in favor of one where they have to prove that the driver was careless?
You’re shocked that one of our most basic legal concepts applies to drivers of automobiles? For any suspected crime, the burden is on the state to prove that the individual charged with the crime was responsible.
And if the pedestrian walked out into the middle of the street without looking both ways?
What amazes me is how many people will walk in the street when there is a perfectly sidewalk right there. I don’t have a clue what their thought process is on that one.
Frankly, I think pedestrians would benefit from a lot more paranoia. They don’t seem to comprehend that the universe is dangerous and you need to be paying attention. I never walk with both earbuds in even walking around the lake. Someone walking with both earbuds in on a busy city street or for gods sake, bicycling is just a Darwin award waiting to happen.
What jurisdiction was that? I’ve lived in a few different cities, states, and countries, and every one of them has an ordinance against jaywalking. Even California, where many people I know are firmly convinced “the pedestrian always has the right of way,” has an ordinance against jaywalking. And, no, the pedestrian in California does not always have the right of way.
I think the problem is that people are generally convinced that “pedestrians always have the right of way”, which isn’t true in itself, but also ignores the fact that “right” and “dead” can be concurrent conditions.
Yes, pedestrians often have the right of way. But it’s only good sense to BE CAREFUL when you’re walking or biking, because even if you’re legally right, that won’t protect you from a couple of tons of steel and fiberglass going 30-40 mph or more.
As a driver and a pedestrian in NYC, it is simply a extremely bad assumption to blame the driver automatically. Careless pedestrians seem just as likely to cause an accident involving themselves, or a driver trying to avoid the pedestrian, as a careless driver is. That is why each case needs to be looked at individually.
Aren’t these cases looked at individually? The driver is not automatically blamed for accidents that involve pedestrians.
Here are some factors to look at:
**Pedestrian **
[ul]
[li]Was the pedestrian in the middle of the street when there was a sidewalk? [/li]
[li]Was the pedestrian wearing dark clothing?[/li]
[li]Was the pedestrian making eye contact with the driver? [/li]
[li]Was the pedestrian being predictable or unpredictable? [/li]
[li]Was the pedestrian intoxicated? [/li]
[li]Was the pedestrian within a crosswalk?[/li][/ul]
**Driver **
[ul]
[li]Did the driver have the right of way? [/li]
[li]Was the driver making eye contact with the pedestrian? [/li]
[li]Was the driver driving safely or recklessly? [/li]
[li]Was the driver intoxicated? [/li]
[li]Was the car working properly? [/li]
[/ul]
There are probably more factors.
That situation exists in the Netherlands. If you need a testcase how well or bad the principle works.
The Netherlands are densely populated and have far more pedestrians and bicycles then the USA. So the situation here could be compared to traditionally pedestian cities like New York.
Anyway, we have a law that if there’s a bicycle or pedestrian versus car incident, the onus is on the driver to prove that he wasn’t wrong. Usually the driver ends up paying the damage, even if he feels that that was unjust. However, as everyone has medical insurance and no-one sues, the damage the driver has to pay is just the cost of the bike repairs and the repairs to his own car.
In Michigan we have “no fault”. That actually means no pay. My son was hit headon by by kid racing in his mothers car. He went on the wrong side of the road. Since my sons car was old, he did not have it covered. The kid who caused the accident walked away with paying his damages on his mother’s car via his insurance. He had no financial liability to make my son whole. My son was out a car. It was an old car that ran very well. But the insurance would cost more than the car was worth, blue book.
Of course there are many factors to consider, many ways that a driver may not be at fault, or where fault may be shared.
The part that amazes me is that even if a driver is found to be at fault, the penalties are so light. If you wanted to kill someone, running them down with a car and claiming that it was an accident seems to be a pretty good way to go.
I’m still curious what I’m supposed to do at an intersection that has a crosswalk and a light. If I’m driving and see a green light, I figure I have the right of way. If I stop for a pedestrian (who would be crossing the street on, to him, a red light), I stand an excellent chance of being rear-ended by another vehicle who sees the green light but not the pedestrian.
Driving has the dubious distinction of being the only area of our life where it is exceedingly easy to accidentally murder your fellow man. A mere flick of your wrist on the highway can ruin a dozen families. It is quite absurd that we expect the average citizen to control 2,000 pound machines going at 70 miles per hour perfectly at all times.
Having said that, I really see no reason to legally or financially destroy the driver’s life in an accident. They were participating in a flawed transportation system where the smallest mistake can be punished with life or death. It’s not as if harsher punishments create better drivers.
There are lots of potential reasons for a vehicle to slow down suddenly (even in the absence of a pedestrian crossing or intersection). If a following driver can’t avoid a collision, he was going too fast and/or following too closely. Of course in many places that kind of driving is the norm, but that doesn’t make it right or wise.
I think harsher punishments can induce more people to pay more attention to driving and assign more importance to the goal of being a better driver.
That’s very simple: a pedestrian who crosses against a red light does not have right of way, but you are always required to drive with due regard for the safety of others, especially pedestrians (in California, this is emphasized in the code dealing with pedestrians). You are not required to yield, but if he’s already in your way, you have to let him get out of your way before you proceed. If you hit him because – despite your driving legally and with due diligence – you couldn’t avoid it, you are blameless. If you hit him while speeding, fiddling with the radio, or looking at something besides what’s in front of you, the law will (most likely) presume that you are at fault unless you can show that a person driving more cautiously would still have hit him. If you hit a pedestrian whom you spotted across the intersection, claiming that you were afraid the driver behind you might not stop in time is not likely to pass this test.
