3 ms·

If the statement is that "a human would not have been able to stop in time either", then yes, by the letter of the law, a human would have been at fault. If yo

by lutorm 9y ago

If the statement is that "a human would not have been able to stop in time either", then yes, by the letter of the law, a human would have been at fault. If you can't see where you're going, you need to slow down. Does that seem so unreasonable?

gowld 9y ago
You're simply wrong. Drivers aren't required to drive slow enough to avoid every possible illegal or unexpected natural obstruction. http://www.zacharlawblog.com/2015/11/whos-at-fault-in-an-accident-involving-a-jay-walker-.html http://www.zacharlawblog.com/2015/11/whos-at-fault-in-an-acc... > So, should an accident occur between a jaywalker and a car---if shown that the driver could have/should have seen the person and could have/should have been able to avoid, then without question the driver can be held responsible. https://www.nicoletlaw.com/blog/2015/07/what-happens-if-a-jaywalker-is-hit-by-a-car.shtml https://www.nicoletlaw.com/blog/2015/07/what-happens-if-a-ja... > To a large degree, it comes down to the driver's ability to avoid the accident. If a jaywalker steps right out into the car's path and is instantly hit, the driver will usually not be held responsible. It will be determined that the pedestrian caused the accident. > However, if the jaywalker strolls into the street a few hundred yards ahead of the car and the driver does not slow down or swerve, the driver could be held responsible. Even though jaywalking is illegal, drivers are expected to take reasonable action to avoid crashes when they can, even if they feel they have the right of way. > Negligence also comes into play if the driver should have seen the pedestrian but did not. For instance, a driver who is texting and driving may look away from the road and not see someone step into the street, hitting them with the car. The driver could argue that the road was clear and that the person shouldn't have been there. While that may be true, he or she could still face charges.
- lutorm 9y ago
  I never said "every possible illegal or unexpected obstruction". What I said was "if you drive so fast you can't avoid something blocking your lane by the time you see it, you're going too fast." Your quote, in fact, confirms what I said: However, if the jaywalker strolls into the street a few hundred yards ahead of the car and the driver does not slow down or swerve, the driver could be held responsible. This was clearly not a case of "someone stepping out right in front of the car", since they were more than halfway across the rightmost lane, walking a bicycle. Edit: This rule is merely a variation on the universally accepted one that says that if you rear-end someone in another vehicle, you're almost universally at fault (unless it can be proven that they acted in such a way that the collision was unavoidable.) The logic being that if you could not avoid a collision, you were going too fast for the distance you had to the vehicles in front of you. Are you suggesting that drivers should be less liable for running into stationary objects than they are for running into other vehicles? That seems absurd to me.

by lutorm 9y ago

gowld 9y ago

You're simply wrong. Drivers aren't required to drive slow enough to avoid every possible illegal or unexpected natural obstruction. http://www.zacharlawblog.com/2015/11/whos-at-fault-in-an-accident-involving-a-jay-walker-.html http://www.zacharlawblog.com/2015/11/whos-at-fault-in-an-acc... > So, should an accident occur between a jaywalker and a car---if shown that the driver could have/should have seen the person and could have/should have been able to avoid, then without question the driver can be held responsible. https://www.nicoletlaw.com/blog/2015/07/what-happens-if-a-jaywalker-is-hit-by-a-car.shtml https://www.nicoletlaw.com/blog/2015/07/what-happens-if-a-ja... > To a large degree, it comes down to the driver's ability to avoid the accident. If a jaywalker steps right out into the car's path and is instantly hit, the driver will usually not be held responsible. It will be determined that the pedestrian caused the accident. > However, if the jaywalker strolls into the street a few hundred yards ahead of the car and the driver does not slow down or swerve, the driver could be held responsible. Even though jaywalking is illegal, drivers are expected to take reasonable action to avoid crashes when they can, even if they feel they have the right of way. > Negligence also comes into play if the driver should have seen the pedestrian but did not. For instance, a driver who is texting and driving may look away from the road and not see someone step into the street, hitting them with the car. The driver could argue that the road was clear and that the person shouldn't have been there. While that may be true, he or she could still face charges.

lutorm 9y ago
I never said "every possible illegal or unexpected obstruction". What I said was "if you drive so fast you can't avoid something blocking your lane by the time you see it, you're going too fast." Your quote, in fact, confirms what I said: However, if the jaywalker strolls into the street a few hundred yards ahead of the car and the driver does not slow down or swerve, the driver could be held responsible. This was clearly not a case of "someone stepping out right in front of the car", since they were more than halfway across the rightmost lane, walking a bicycle. Edit: This rule is merely a variation on the universally accepted one that says that if you rear-end someone in another vehicle, you're almost universally at fault (unless it can be proven that they acted in such a way that the collision was unavoidable.) The logic being that if you could not avoid a collision, you were going too fast for the distance you had to the vehicles in front of you. Are you suggesting that drivers should be less liable for running into stationary objects than they are for running into other vehicles? That seems absurd to me.