Police using dashcam video of a fail to remain 4 a Ped Hit & run

[Rajagra]

There are 1001 ways to run down pedestrians !

But there's only one way for a pedestrian to get run down on the road. And that's to be on the road when it isn't safe to be there. It really isn't asking too much to expect them not to do that - at least the adults. Despite the simplicity of this one responsibility, too many think they cannot be held accountable for the consequences of being reckless.

In the UK the pedestrian would have right of way

Technically, the motorist would be required to yield. A pedestrian who has started crossing at a junction has priority. That doesn't mean a pedestrian has a right to recklessly cross. There are very, very few situations where people genuinely have right of way in advance. The way I think of it, you have right of way after everyone else has yielded to you and you have started your action. Until then, you can only have priority. And even once you have right of way you still have to act safely.

It's a dangerous attitude thinking that only one party is ever in the wrong (especially for those who believe motorists are always to blame.)

 

[Gibson99]

In the UK it wouldn't matter since the car driver clearly had time to avoid the "accident" or at least reduce the impact. They managed to turn the corner normally so where clearly in control of the car but didn't even slow down to avoid the collision.

The pedestrian was walking across a marked crossing so even if they didn't have right of way at the time, the car driver should have been driving so that he/she could avoid an accident with any pedestrians that were already on the crossing or vehicles that were already using that road.

In the UK the pedestrian would have right of way since they were already using that road before the car driver turned into the road and started using it.

However, this was in America where it appears that people live by different rules and if someone breaks a rule then it appears to be OK to kill them?

I agree that the Lexus had plenty of time to stop or swerve, but didn't.

However, this didn't happen in America. Ok well it is NORTH America, but it was in Canada. And everyone's nice there, right?

 

[Nigel]

Technically, the motorist would be required to yield. A pedestrian who has started crossing at a junction has priority. That doesn't mean a pedestrian has a right to recklessly cross. There are very, very few situations where people genuinely have right of way in advance. The way I think of it, you have right of way after everyone else has yielded to you and you have started your action. Until then, you can only have priority. And even once you have right of way you still have to act safely.

It's a dangerous attitude thinking that only one party is ever in the wrong (especially for those who believe motorists are always to blame.)

Highway code, Rule 8 (for pedestrians)
"8. At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning into the road,
especially from behind you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into
the road, you have priority and they should give way (see Rule 170)."

Highway code, Rule 170 (for vehicles)
"170 Watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they
have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

Clearly the vehicles have to give way, so you have right of way, if you have already started to cross the road as in the OP. As far as I am aware there are no exceptions, even at a light controlled crossing.

 

[Nigel]

However, this didn't happen in America.

Canada and Argentina are in America aren't they?

The Americas (also collectively called America) comprise the totality of the continents of North and South America. Together, they make up most of the land in Earth's western hemisphere and comprise the New World.

Along with their associated islands, they cover 8% of Earth's total surface area and 28.4% of its land area.

America derives from Americus, the Latin version of Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci's first name.

 

[Rajagra]

Highway code, Rule 8 (for pedestrians)
"8. At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning into the road,
especially from behind you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into
the road, you have priority and they should give way (see Rule 170)."

Highway code, Rule 170 (for vehicles)
"170 Watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they
have started to cross they have priority, so give way"

Clearly the vehicles have to give way, so you have right of way, if you have already started to cross the road as in the OP. As far as I am aware there are no exceptions, even at a light controlled crossing.

1) I could have sworn the word "must" was in the rules, meaning cars have to stop by law. Perhaps it is elsewhere. But if it isn't, that makes these rules pointless. You can never run down a pedestrian deliberately, these rules add nothing to that without a specific law backing them.

2) A key word in those rules is "started". The pedestrian only has priority after they have started to cross. And they should not cross until they have checked it is safe. They do not have the right to walk out regardless of the conditions.

Several times I've seen cars nearly get rear-ended because they were turning and had to stop for pedestrians arrogantly stepping out when it was unsafe. The drivers were denied any safe option (except maybe missing their turn). They had to stop in the main road, and had no control over the vehicles behind them. Why should they be put in that situation because a pedestrian thinks he has the right to walk out whenever he feels like it? Answer: no reason at all, nothing says they can.

 

[Nigel]

1) I could have sworn the word "must" was in the rules, meaning cars have to stop by law. Perhaps it is elsewhere. But if it isn't, that makes these rules pointless. You can never run down a pedestrian deliberately, these rules add nothing to that without a specific law backing them.

2) A key word in those rules is "started". The pedestrian only has priority after they have started to cross. And they should not cross until they have checked it is safe. They do not have the right to walk out regardless of the conditions.

The word "must" is not there because very often the pedestrian will give way when they realise a car is coming and then it normally makes far more sense for the car to continue rather than stopping and insisting that the pedestrian must go first even if doing so seems dangerous to the pedestrian!

The fact that the word "must" is not there does not mean that the court will ignore the rules, they will use the rules to apportion blame and every rule you break moves a little more blame in your direction, so don't break the rules unless you are certain it wont cause an "accident".

Several times I've seen cars nearly get rear-ended because they were turning and had to stop for pedestrians arrogantly stepping out when it was unsafe. The drivers were denied any safe option (except maybe missing their turn). They had to stop in the main road, and had no control over the vehicles behind them. Why should they be put in that situation because a pedestrian thinks he has the right to walk out whenever he feels like it? Answer: no reason at all, nothing says they can.

I guess those cars were going too fast to be able to safely deal with the unexpected, even though they were in a situation where pedestrians stepping into the road was an expected possibility. They did have control over the vehicles behind them, the closer someone follows me the slower I go, and if they don't get the message and get even closer then we end up either going very slowly or with them in front!

 

[Rajagra]

I guess those cars were going too fast to be able to safely deal with the unexpected

No, they were traveling at normal speeds in normal traffic density, and slowed down in good time to take the turn, and were willing and able to stop if necessary, even though the side road was clear and should have stayed clear. But the vehicles behind them did not account for pedestrians stepping out, bringing traffic on the main road to a complete stop. The only innocent party was the person making the turn.
It is not practical to slow down to take a turn a hundred yards before the turn, and it isn't reasonable to demand someone do so to pander to the irresponsible behaviour of pedestrians.

 

[Dashmellow]

Canada and Argentina are in America aren't they?

You are confusing continents with countries, apparently gratuitously so.

 

[Nigel]

You are confusing continents with countries, apparently gratuitously so.

Map of North and South America, Canada is the big country up the top next to Greenland, Argentina is the big country down the bottom next to Chile, North and South America are the two continents, and under your name above it says United States which is the country just underneath Canada and above Mexico.

What is confusing about that

 

[Dashmellow]

Map of North and South America, Canada is the big country up the top next to Greenland, Argentina is the big country down the bottom next to Chile, North and South America are the two continents, and under your name above it says United States which is the country just underneath Canada and above Mexico.

What is confusing about that

Still playing grade school level games I see.

 

[Error7]

Canada and Argentina are in America aren't they?

That's like saying Wales is in England

 

[Deleted member 24437]

Scary,,,, cuz how the hell can you not see those pedestrians

I bet it is some stupid phone junkie, cuz the person cant have been looking ahead at all.

Like the moron texting and stumbling into a shopping mall fountain?

 

[Nigel]

That's like saying Wales is in England

Well legally the Principality of Wales is:

The Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542 were parliamentary measures by which Wales became a full and equal part of the Kingdom of England...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_in_Wales_Acts_1535_and_1542

 

[Gibson99]

Map of North and South America, Canada is the big country up the top next to Greenland, Argentina is the big country down the bottom next to Chile, North and South America are the two continents, and under your name above it says United States which is the country just underneath Canada and above Mexico.

What is confusing about that

I'm confused about @kamkar1's country being listed below Greenland.

 

[Deleted member 24437]

In some places it's apparently illegal for pedestrians to cross anywhere other than in a crosswalk. You'd think it would be common sense to yield to vehicles but as has been said too many times already, "common sense ain't so common anymore"

Yeah ,in NewYork City ,the police would write you a ticket for jaywalking, but that was many years ago before I enlisted, today anything goes, right?

 

[Rajagra]

That's like saying Wales is in England

As in it's a great way to wind them up?

 

[kamkar]

Well we are far below Greenland, i think the most northern part of Denmark are a couple of 100 Km further south on the globe than the most southern parts of Greenland.

BUT from my door to the southern part of Greenland i would have to swim 3000 KM / 1900 miles to the west by north.
https://www.google.dk/maps/@56.7668896,-21.4552295,4.75z?hl=da
And nobody have done that since the viking age when Halfdan the leather-skinned swam to Newfoundland to settle it around year 900

The Greenlanders are our native indians, ours to screw over until the ice melts then all the good stuff pop up and they say " thanks for the decades of oppression,,, but byyyeeee"

O and to help the non maritime people to no which way west by north is i have this link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Points_of_the_compass

 

[Deleted member 24437]

Cams struggle with seeing in low sun too, just like us Complacency is the real culprit here. Almost everyone gets that way once driving becomes more a habit than a job which must be performed correctly every time without fail And unless you're playing a part in a Russian video on YouTube , you don't go where you can't see

A legal oddity on pedestrians here in SC USA. If a pedestrian is crossing on a designated crosswalk or at an intersection, vehicles must yield to them, but if they are crossing a road anywhere else pedestrians must yield to the vehicles:

SC Code Of Laws SECTION 56-5-3150. Crossing at other than crosswalks.
(a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

Phil

Pedestrian paying attention or not we have to give them the benefit of avoidance: 5000lbs. v. 200 lbs!

 

[Deleted member 24437]

Or as Aussies would say " its a bodger camera"

Que? What is that?

 

[kamkar]

Bodger is a Uk term what i meant to type was bodgie camera

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bodger

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bodgie

I think its a term the Aussies use widely about bad things / unpopular things, objects or persons, if its bodgie its bad

Also see bodge job which i do think are a term used in the US
( A job that is completed quickly and carelessly, possibly with one's mind on other things, or without using the correct tools. )

In the years after ww2 Aussies was not allowed to dance the evil rock & roll, at least not when standing so they had to sit at concerts and shuffle their fees,,,, poor bastards.

Well in the end there was a riot in Brisbane in 1956 and ever since the Aussies have rocked hard


http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/79271195