I almost hit pedestrian on a zebra crossing

[fakej]

I could have paid more attention and be more focused, on the other hand what this young lady did was kind of crazy. I was also 4km/h over the speed limit.
In Poland from about 1.5y we have a regulation similar to most of EU countries that drivers are obliged to observe area around the crosswalk and slow down or stop even if pedestrian is not yet on the street but it looks like may have intention to enter the crosswalk. On the other hand pedestrians still don't have unconditional right to enter the street without making sure it's safe and also can't do it if would cause a rapid, emergency vehicle braking.
I'm wondering who would be found guilty in case of a hit. Luckily this is just a theoretical question.

I also wanted to check my reaction time based on accelerometer/GPS data to verify how quickly I started braking since the pedestrian was visible to me, unfortunately it looks like the camera records that kind of data every 1s. That's a bummer. When it comes to a disk size it's almost nothing comparing to video data. I don't know how accurately GPS/accelerometer could do it in terms of their technical limitations (so would there be any difference if such data was recorded for every frame) but 1s is definitely not granular enough.

 

[Nigel]

I'm wondering who would be found guilty in case of a hit. Luckily this is just a theoretical question.

Since there was an island in the centre of the road where she should have stopped and waited for you to give way, I think a lot of the blame would go on her, assuming your law is written to include the island as somewhere she should have waited for you to give way, however you were supposed to give way, and you had plenty of opportunity to do so since it was clear that the car coming the other way had stopped and given way, and you should have easily seen her passing in front of their headlights, and you were above the speed limit, and the conditions were bad so you should have been going slower. So it will depend on your countries exact law, but here in UK, I think the blame would go at about 30% on her and 70% on you, which would be bad news for you if she had been seriously injured or worse.

Learn the lesson, treat crossings more seriously and slow down a bit in bad weather when you can't see properly. She should have waited for you to give way, but it would still have been you that hit her, not her that hit you, and on a marked and signposted crossing you don't have any good excuse for that.

 

[fakej]

I'm not trying to excuse myself too much, I agree my behaviour on the road was not ideal but when it comes to

it was clear that the car coming the other way had stopped and given way, and you should have easily seen her passing in front of their headlights

I would say it was not that clear. In this light conditions I only saw approaching lights from the other way and and whether the car was stopped or was moving was not that obvious. Also to be honest it was not so easy to spot her in front of the other car's headlights. I just saw the lights, not her. Obviously If I don't have a perfect view on the crosswalk I should always assume someone may show up.
Other than that I agree with you.
Yes, according the local law there are technically two separate crosswalks if there is an island in the centre of the road.

 

[Nigel]

If you couldn't see clearly because of the rain, or the dark, or any reason, then you have to slow down to a safe speed, and your calculation of what a safe speed is needs to take into account that you are driving through an area with pedestrians, and pedestrian crossings. So I think if you were in court, the judge would not be happy with your argument that you could not see clearly, and would use your argument as an admission that you were driving dangerously - you do not want to use that argument in court!

Of course many people drive like you were, we all take risks, and the pedestrian should have taken that into account, but you did ask who who would be found guilty, and I would expect that you would get most, but not all, of the blame.

Just use it as a lesson, we all learn from our mistakes, everybody makes mistakes, the important thing is to learn, and not worry about it.
Even if you think it was 100% not your fault, you can still learn from it, we don't want to kill pedestrians even when it is 100% their fault.

 

[DT MI]

...if you were in court, the judge would not be happy with your argument that you could not see clearly, and would use your argument as an admission that you were driving dangerously...

I'm not current on EU law(s) but pretty much have to agree with this.

In most states in the US the standard is 'reasonable and prudent for current conditions'. The posted speed limit is the maximum speed under ideal conditions so based on that alone the driver would be found at least partially at fault for driving over that limit. Given the conditions, dark and rain, there's little doubt in my mind a majority of the fault would fall on the driver.

 

[fakej]

So I think if you were in court, the judge would not be happy with your argument that you could not see clearly, and would use your argument as an admission that you were driving dangerously - you do not want to use that argument in court!

Well, I have to admit this is a fair point. The defence line "I did not have a perfect view but I was driving like I had assuming there is no one around the crosswalk" vs "I did see the pedestrian but I didn't slow down" is basically crap vs crap.

 

[Nigel]

"I did see the pedestrian but I didn't slow down"

That is actually a better argument, since it suggests you were in control and made the decision not to stop, and it was the pedestrian that didn't follow the rules. You can have good reason not to stop at a crossing, such as the road being too slippery to stop safely in the space available. It is clear that the pedestrian crossed without taking reasonable care. I still don't think the judge would be impressed, but the penalty might be less.

 

[Nigel]

I also wanted to check my reaction time based on accelerometer/GPS data to verify how quickly I started braking since the pedestrian was visible to me, unfortunately it looks like the camera records that kind of data every 1s. That's a bummer. When it comes to a disk size it's almost nothing comparing to video data. I don't know how accurately GPS/accelerometer could do it in terms of their technical limitations (so would there be any difference if such data was recorded for every frame) but 1s is definitely not granular enough.

No dashcams collect good enough data for this, except from the video image, the GPS is always 1 second behind, even when it has good reception, which it normally doesn't when there are lots of buildings around. With it being dark it is hard to analyse the video image.

But it is irrelevant anyway, you should have been driving carefully, so that you did not need to react super fast.

Maybe more interesting is what you did with the brakes and steering when you did react. Using the steering always reduces the braking, so normally it is better to brake as hard as possible, using the ABS, and then only steer when you have thought about what is best. It appears in this case you probably did about the best possible, except you could have released the brakes as soon as you didn't need them any more, to reduce the chance of someone behind you running into your rear, and to improve your steering to reduce the chance of ending up in the opposite lane.

 

[speedingcheetah]

Pedestrians should be wearing brighter more reflective clothing in such conditions. Intersection could also have crossing warning lights. Person presses button on poll to trigger them before crossing. They have them here in many places around higher traffic areas and small shopping areas.

To me that person is at fault for darting out into the road, not even bothering to look both ways, something u are taught as a child to do. That area also look very poorly lit, so it is very hard to even see people crossing. Should u have hit them, one avenue of action would be to sue the city for inadequate/unsafe lighting at a crosswalk.

Also, lol, only 4 over the speed limit... baaa... most drivers here, even on small roads, 10 to 15 over is the norm.

Though, here in the USA, the powers that be always blame the driver of a motor vehicle as at fault.
Person throws them self in front of a big rig semi driving down a major interstate hwy, intentionally trying to end themsleves, yup, that the legal fault of the truck driver who failed to stop their fully loaded rig in time, and driver goes to prison for manslaughter.
Pedestrian have 99.9% of the power and sway in any situation of vehicle vs person.

 

[Michael23]

Hi,
Well, The first thing that I noticed was the person was wearing all dark, black clothing which makes it very difficult to make out, especially on such a
rainy night when visibility is much reduced & objects blend into the back ground.
Maybe carry a torch or place some red flashing LEDS on your body?

Question?
It did not appear that the pedestrian crossing was illuminated in any way....How the hell is anyone supposed to see them in those conditions?
Should have flashing lights or similar to fully illuminate them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any oncoming vehicles would make it much more difficult to see anything....Your vision is automatically attracted to those bright lights.
Hence, your/every ones vision is reduced significantly.

Just my HPO after nearly 60 years of driving.

Take care & as noted.....Always drive to the conditions & slow down in adverse conditions.

Regards, L..
From Oz.

 

[speedingcheetah]

Have seen cases of vehicle vs pedestrian end with judge rule in favor of pedestrian, stating to the driver of vehicle, you should have bought a vehicle with better headlights... or, you should go to the eye doctor and get your vision checked. (cause a eye doctor can make you be able to see a pedestrian wearing all black in the dark)

Right, so judge tell you to go out buy a much more expensive vehicle that has better headlights, that often blind other drivers all the time... i have this happen too much todays cars have laser LED lights or whatever many higher end cars have.
I have been blinded by on coming headlights many times, being totaly oblivious to what is in front of me for at least several seconds after the car passes me.
My older 2007 vehicle, even with its brights on, is half the brightness and throw of modern vehicles. And, its illegal to modify a vehicles headlights here, to install brighter/differing ones than manufacture installed. (but people still do it...)

 

[Michael23]

SpeedingCheetah,

You said...

(cause a eye doctor can make you be able to see a pedestrian wearing all black in the dark)

I think this was just a "tongue in cheek" & not meant to be taken seriously.


Anyway, it reminded me of a story that was pushed during the 2nd world war.
The Germans were curious as to why the English bomber pilots were so accurate. (Not really, though.)
It was stated that all the bomber crews that were flying missions over Germany were
eating lots of carrots.

This was supposed to improve your night vision.
Absolute non sense of course.

 

[Panzer Platform]

This is one of those never ending debate posts so I will just leave a short rant, and go away. lol
1.) Lawful operation of a motor vehicle requires testing, and licensure.
There is no dress code, equipment, or licensing requirement to be a pedestrian.
Usually the burden of responsibility is on the driver, (unless there are extenuating circumstances).
2.) Basic Speed Law: Do not travel faster than road conditions safely permit, (darkness, inclement weather, blind corners, visibility, etc).
3.) Once an incident gets to civil / criminal court, and lawyers get involved all this goes out the window, and anything is open to “interpretation” by a judge, jury, etc.
Ok, bye. lol

 

[mentadent]

Slow down

 

[kamkar]

Here you are supposed to give way to pedestrians in a zebra crossing, many will not do that.
So when i was younger and a little more crazy i would walk out in front of cars and let these people run me down, for me to be able to put a dent in their hood or a crack in the window, most times though they barely hit me so i had to dive onto their car.
Other times i went flying and a few times i went all the way to the roof
Mind you i was always looking out the corner of my eye so i could time my stuntman tendencies, otherwise it would have cost me a broken leg and cracked skull several times i am sure.

I think if you scan me, you might well see some chipped bone on my hip, CUZ where wipers fix to the car, well that do not move, or at least not with a teenager build like a skeleton in a skin sack.

I will say what you can not see you can not give way to, this go for pedestrians as well as the damn cyclists.
I dont think a judge here would go as crazy as mentioned, CUZ the lights on my car are approved, and subject to biannual inspections, so assuming they are both on, there is not really much i or anyone can do.

This is also why this time of the years there will be PSAs on TV, telling people to think about what they are doing in traffic in regard to being seen.

In this particular case, with a sign telling there is a crossing and a car going the other way stopping, it should be grounds for concern or reflection as to why its is like that.

Me for instance i am very tuned into brake lights, which often cause some anger as people here use their brakes way too much, often just activating the brake light but not really braking for anything.
If i am lucky with the color of 1 traffic light and traffic in 2 round about i can drive the 40 minutes drive to my mothers place and not touch my brakes one single time, and this is highway with turns in it many will needless brak for / in, and so on.
Me i use my gearbox to slow down like entering a town and so speed limit drop from 80 kmh to 50 kmh, so 200 M or so before town sign i start to gently downshift and slowly drop speed without using brake.

Many other motorists driving the same route would probably be on the brake for over a minute in total.
I do not brake for a small turn in the road, i barely drop speed for turns in the road that might have a recommended MAX speed sign before them, and people braking a little before a small crest in the road,,,,, WHY ????? just drive and keep in your lane.

Not long ago on my way home from visiting my mother i was almost run off the road by a oncoming truck.

 

[Nigel]

That area also look very poorly lit, so it is very hard to even see people crossing. Should u have hit them, one avenue of action would be to sue the city for inadequate/unsafe lighting at a crosswalk.

That might work in USA, but it looked like perfectly adequate lighting for an EU country, and if the lighting is inadequate then you should turn your headlamps on!

I think the rather dark image is more due to the camera than the lighting. You are used to Viofo cameras that make things easy to see at night, but make it less easy to claim that you couldn't see something. Reminds me of when Tesla released some video from their test car that killed a pedestrian, proving that it was almost impossible to see the pedestrian given the poor lighting on that piece of road, but then when someone with a decent dashcam posted their footage of the same road at night, the lighting was excellent and it was clear that the Tesla should have seen the pedestrian!

 

[kamkar]

I suppose you have the " fix it all " wording in the traffic code too, saying something like no matter what and where, you always have to adjust your speed to the conditions.
Meaning if its a snowstorm and you pile into a pile of traffic on the highway, well its your fault as you then drive too fast for the conditions.
I think that also apply for black ice, which you cant really see, in that case your best bet is to listen to the weather and road forecast and drive accordingly. ( say the guy that will gladly pass any and all on a snowy motorway doing 90 kmh while all others keep right and do 45 - 50 kmh )

Something like that here also apply for a 4 way stop here, meaning no matter what happen in such a place, blame are shared 50/50, CUZ in that case either you did not give way to the preson on the right, or you did not make sure the guy on your left did that, meaning ether way you are screwed.

If i was the dictator in Denmark, there are a few changes i would make to the traffic code.

 

[fakej]

I think the rather dark image is more due to the camera than the lighting. You are used to Viofo cameras that make things easy to see at night

I agree this video doesn't look very decent. Maybe it's partly due to dirty glass. Anyway Mio MiVue 812 has Sony Starvis sensor, it shoudn't be that bad. I had viofo in the past but the battery (or even super capacitor if I remember correctly) was in such a bad condition after roughly 3y, that it had problems with turning on and I replaced it. In this specific car my previous camera was mini 806 but it had exactly the same issue with battery/capacitor after 3y or so.

 

[Nigel]

I agree this video doesn't look very decent. Maybe it's partly due to dirty glass.

It was the rain that makes it not decent, when it can see clearly through the rain/condensation/dirt on the glass it looks pretty good.

But it is also very dark in the shadows, while the better more recent dashcams can see quite a lot of detail in the shadows, that doesn't mean it is poor quality, just that it has more contrast than some of us are used to.

 

[Nigel]

If i was the dictator in Denmark, there are a few changes i would make to the traffic code.

I thought you always have a coalition government in Denmark, and your dictator is the EU?