Given that fact, if I were the car driver, I would probably assume that the truck was doing what a heavy-laden truck often does, which is taking some time to get moving from a stop. And I probably would also assume that the light had been green long enough for any pedestrians to clear the crosswalk.
I’m with @Bullitt on this one.
Only, a car hitting a pedestrian at 10 mph is much more survivable for the pedestrian than at 30 mph. The pedestrian rolled on and off the hood, a situation that car hoods are expressly designed for nowadays.
Also, drivers are not entitled to assume that pedestrians conform to traffic rules all the time. One question from my theoretical driving test long, long ago: “You see a pedestrian on the right hand sidewalk, and going to pass by him soon. He walks unsteadily and looks to be drunk from his gait. What do you do?”. The correct answer was: Reduce speed and be prepared for him stumbling on to the roadway.
Drivers and pedestrians are not equal parties in traffic because (1) drivers are required to be alert and unimpaired at all times, pedestrians are not - or impaired persons would have to be confined indoors, (2) drivers can easily kill pedestrians, not the other way round (obligatory exception for Chuck Norris), (3) drivers cannot be young children, pedestrians can.
The pedestrian in the video happened to be an apparent adult, but it might as well have been a primary school kid on their way home from school.
Only when he’s in Soviet Russia.
I agree with all of this. Incidentally, just yesterday I was leaving work where I usually have to wait at a very long red light to cross a main thoroughfare. Just as my light finally turned green, a woman holding the hand of a young child stepped off the sidewalk to cross the street directly in front on me, blatantly crossing against the lighted “DON’T WALK” sign. I sighed to myself, but of course let them cross safely in front of me. After they had safely crossed, I made it through the light, but not many cars behind me did.
I’d let them cross, though I might only wait for them to clear my lane before proceeding.
Given any situation where both the pedestrian and the driver can prevent an accident it is far more imperative for the driver to act than the pedestrian because only one is in great danger.
And so therefore it is much more important for the pedestrian to look carefully.
I’ve ridden motorcycles for years. Even if the car is wrong and I am right, I do not assume that I’ll be safe. I can be right, but I might be dead right.
Well, this was asked in good faith. Jeez.
Anyway, it’s sort of a crosswalk, but it’s also a green light, and I’m allowed to pass stopped cars at green lights. Pedestrians are not allowed to cross the road when the red light is against them. That doesn’t mean you’re allowed to hit pedestrians who are doing that. But, the pedestrian, jay-walking against the light, was definitely in the wrong.
Those are words to live by. No matter how this pans out in court, that person is either gravely injured or dead. Shouldn’t have run out in the street like that.
Defensive driving? Defensive walking as well.
That reminds me of those dashcam scenarios where someone slams into another car that was clearly breaking the law: I had always assumed that if someone is messing with their phone and runs a red light and we T-bone them we would be 100% in the right and never blamed. But like so many things in life that seem like a slam-dunk, it is not always so.
As you well stated, the law does not give us the right to cause another accident, no matter how egregious the offense of the other driver is. Even if the other guy is totally in the wrong, one is expected to take evasive action. Hence insurance companies often splitting the blame even in cases where it seems like one guy was clearly to blame.
And defensive living too.
Haven’t seen the video, but based on the description I think the driver has a substantial amount of responsibility. You can’t just go at full speed through a crosswalk if you can’t see the entire crosswalk to guarantee that it’s empty.
I was once in a similar situation, except that we were stopped at a red light. The SUV in the lane next to me blocked my view of any pedestrians approaching from that side. As soon as the light changed, the SUV driver laid on the horn, and fortunately that caused me to hesitate hitting the gas pedal for a fraction of a second, until the terrified child running across the street came into my field of vision. Absolutely terrifying.
It was not clear from the video exactly how fast the driver was going. He wasn’t creeping along, but I don’t think he was speeding, either. Was he driving at or near the speed limit? Unknown. Also unknown is when the light changed green. If we knew these two facts, it would make a huge difference in assigning degrees of responsibility.
Regardless of the speed limit or how long the light had been green, he could see that the truck in the next lane wasn’t moving through the crosswalk. There are other possible explanations for that, but I’d say based on that alone, a prudent driver would either stop or slow to somewhere around 10 mph.
That’s not true. Pedestrians in California are required to obey red lights and don’t walk signals. From the California Vehicle Code, 21453 (d):
Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, a pedestrian facing a steady circular red or red arrow signal shall not enter the roadway.
And from CVC 21456 (a) (3):
A steady “DON’T WALK” or “WAIT” or approved “Upraised Hand” symbol or a flashing “DON’T WALK” or “WAIT” or approved “Upraised Hand” without a “countdown” signal indicating the time remaining for a pedestrian to cross the roadway means a pedestrian facing the signal shall not start to cross the roadway in the direction of the signal, but any pedestrian who started the crossing during the display of the “WALK” or approved “Walking Person” symbol and who has partially completed crossing shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety zone or otherwise leave the roadway while the steady “WAIT” or “DON’T WALK” or approved “Upraised Hand” symbol is showing.
The appropriate sections are here.
I’d personally slow down enough to be sure that there wasn’t someone crossing. The California Vehicle Code requires the vehicle to cede right-of-way to a pedestrian in a crosswalk AND requires the pedestrian “to yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway that are so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.”
I can’t find anything about unseen pedestrians specifically, just notes that California has comparative fault laws. And I’m not going to watch the video. My guess is that they’re both negligent and the lawyers will be arguing it out.
Jumping out in front of a car and failing to slow when approaching a crosswalk are both listed as negligence in lawyer web pages.
This all says when a pedestrian is not supposed to enter a crosswalk, but once they are in one, for whatever reason, they always have right of way over vehicular traffic.
More:
“Pedestrians always have the right-of-way.”
If so, then this pedestrian was negligent.
Which does not mean that the driver wasn’t negligent, too.
One person driving dangerously does not entail the other driver is not also; accidents are often the result of some degree of negligence of both drivers involved.
Part of the driving test here in the UK is in threat detection; you’re shown a video and have to notice potential threats that would make you slow down or cover the brake.
It often appears in those dashcam videos that the driver is not doing that; they are just coasting towards, say, a junction with a poor view and where the light only just turned green. I would see that as dangerous.
That being said, I think it’s often hard to judge distances and speeds in those dashcam videos. I try not to jump into the comments of those videos because I don’t know for sure how fast they were driving and when they applied the brake.