6 ms·

Even if they do cross, they have the right of way. Outside of maybe the autobahn, you should never be driving a car fast enough to where you cannot see a pedest

Even if they do cross, they have the right of way. Outside of maybe the autobahn, you should never be driving a car fast enough to where you cannot see a pedestrian in time to stop for them. It's pretty unlikely that the pedestrian is ever found at fault for an accident in Germany.

Xylakant 9y ago
No, that’s entirely not true. See http://www.iww.de/va/archiv/unfallschadensregulierung-der-fussgaengerunfall-in-der-aktuellen-rspr-f45770 http://www.iww.de/va/archiv/unfallschadensregulierung-der-fu... for a summary in German with citations of relevant cases. It’s unlikely that the pedestrian is found to be entirely at fault, though. Tables with with cases and the resulting distribution are at the end.
closeparen 9y ago
You have the right of way when crossing against a signal? Why bother with signals then?
- Symbiote 9y ago
  What is the alternative? That vehicles have no obligation to stop when a pedestrian is in the road? I think your reasoning belongs with whatever lies behind the need for the "State law: Yield to Pedestrians in Crosswalk" signs[1] which I find confusing in the USA. In which states am I not supposed to yield? [1] https://images.roadtrafficsigns.com/img/lg/K/Yield-To-In-Crosswalk-Sign-K-6642.gif https://images.roadtrafficsigns.com/img/lg/K/Yield-To-In-Cro...
  - closeparen 9y ago
    That when you disobey an explicit traffic signal, you’re responsible for your own fate? Everyone has a duty to try and prevent an accident if possible, but you do generally get to trust that a green signal means no pedestrians are going to dart out. Giving a green light when pedestrians actually have right of way is incredibly dangerous. Why not a 4-way stop or uncontrolled to avoid a false sense of security?
    - Symbiote 9y ago
      > That when you disobey an explicit traffic signal, you’re responsible for your own fate? No. That is unreasonable for children, the blind, the intoxicated, the mentally ill, the distracted and the reckless. It's fine for the driver to be annoyed by having to slow or stop, but they absolutely must do that whenever it's necessary. > "GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear." [1] The second part very important. You must always be able to stop the car within a visible distance, and green traffic lights don't change that. [1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/light-signals-controlling-traffic https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/light-signals-c...
- buckminster 9y ago
  Where I live the signals are compulsory for drivers and advisory for pedestrians. It is not unreasonable for the regulation to apply only to the people who choose to create the risk.
- lmm 9y ago
  As a way for cars to coordinate with each other, and to ensure there's a phase when cars stop.

Xylakant 9y ago

No, that’s entirely not true. See http://www.iww.de/va/archiv/unfallschadensregulierung-der-fussgaengerunfall-in-der-aktuellen-rspr-f45770 http://www.iww.de/va/archiv/unfallschadensregulierung-der-fu... for a summary in German with citations of relevant cases. It’s unlikely that the pedestrian is found to be entirely at fault, though. Tables with with cases and the resulting distribution are at the end.

closeparen 9y ago

You have the right of way when crossing against a signal? Why bother with signals then?

Symbiote 9y ago
What is the alternative? That vehicles have no obligation to stop when a pedestrian is in the road? I think your reasoning belongs with whatever lies behind the need for the "State law: Yield to Pedestrians in Crosswalk" signs[1] which I find confusing in the USA. In which states am I not supposed to yield? [1] https://images.roadtrafficsigns.com/img/lg/K/Yield-To-In-Crosswalk-Sign-K-6642.gif https://images.roadtrafficsigns.com/img/lg/K/Yield-To-In-Cro...
- closeparen 9y ago
  That when you disobey an explicit traffic signal, you’re responsible for your own fate? Everyone has a duty to try and prevent an accident if possible, but you do generally get to trust that a green signal means no pedestrians are going to dart out. Giving a green light when pedestrians actually have right of way is incredibly dangerous. Why not a 4-way stop or uncontrolled to avoid a false sense of security?
  - Symbiote 9y ago
    > That when you disobey an explicit traffic signal, you’re responsible for your own fate? No. That is unreasonable for children, the blind, the intoxicated, the mentally ill, the distracted and the reckless. It's fine for the driver to be annoyed by having to slow or stop, but they absolutely must do that whenever it's necessary. > "GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear." [1] The second part very important. You must always be able to stop the car within a visible distance, and green traffic lights don't change that. [1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/light-signals-controlling-traffic https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/light-signals-c...
buckminster 9y ago
Where I live the signals are compulsory for drivers and advisory for pedestrians. It is not unreasonable for the regulation to apply only to the people who choose to create the risk.
lmm 9y ago
As a way for cars to coordinate with each other, and to ensure there's a phase when cars stop.