Who is at fault?

[kimaki]

 

[jamesbcd]

whilst the old man shouldn't be crossing the road like that, the driver could of easily stopped..

 

[cantremember]

It says the video is not available fo rme,.

 

[jamesbcd]

 

[cantremember]

The driver imo had ample time to react when the old guy committed to crossing the road.

 

[sludgeguts]

No idea what the laws are over there, but in UK, if a pedestrian is on the road, they take priority.
in other words, the 1 ton + vehicle MUST give way to the 10 stone squishy bag of skin, bone and water.

That car had ample time to wait for the old boy & let him cross. the driver deserves to be strung up for hitting the poor old boy.

 

[flank]

Old man is at fault for not using the crosswalk.

 

[kimaki]

This is Hong Kong, and we are still following the UK rule, so the VW driver bare most of the responsibilities.

 

[germany]

I can't watch the video becaus it was deleted.

The law in germany is If there is a pedestrian on the road you have to break and if you hit him no matter how you're always complicit with as a car driver.

 

[cantremember]

I guess there is a difference between a pedestrian who was already on the road, and one who crosses the road into your path? (where there is no crosswalk)
In the example above I can understand the car being at fault. However, seems crazy to me that a car would be responsible for hitting a pedestrian who jumps in front of your car or appears from behind a parked car.

 

[sludgeguts]

I guess there is a difference between a pedestrian who was already on the road, and one who crosses the road into your path? (where there is no crosswalk)
In the example above I can understand the car being at fault. However, seems crazy to me that a car would be responsible for hitting a pedestrian who jumps in front of your car or appears from behind a parked car.

Some years ago a woman was driving on a dual carriageway that rings the town centre - 30mph zone, 4ft barriers either side and in middle. She was driving in lane 2 (which was the correct lane for the right turn at the next roundabout).
I was following (sadly, pre-dashcam days).
Some bloke had already jumped the barrier and crossed the two lanes in the other direction & was standing the other side of the barrier dwon the middle.
As the woman approached, he climbed over the barrier and 'fell' on her bonnet.
Police were called and I hung around as a witness - the woman was in a right state.
Despite the guy being well over the limit, he had no apparrent injuries ( was this "the flop"?) but later claimed substantial compensation from her insurance.
The police deemed that the woman was at fault since she should have been aware of potential hazards - a guy standing beside a very busy main road IS a potential hazard, she should've slowed right down 'just in case' - and the law came down hard on her.
It turned out that the guy was a well-known drunkard, always in trouble and had done this sort of thing before & got compo from it (so deffo "the flop" ?) - but in those days, a previous record wasn't disclosed in court. these days, the judge would be saying 'hang on, I see from your record that you have done exactly the same thing before - you seem to be a con artist'.

You cannot be complacent whilst driving. You cannot sit back & figure that the idiot is completely in the wrong therefore the law will protect me, these days, the criminals have more rights than the victims.

 

[flank]

Drivers are always at fault.

 

[sludgeguts]

Drivers are always at fault.

Indeed!