5 ms·

Loosely the presumption of guilt lands on the car driver for failing to stop in time, just as it would if you ran into the back of someone, or hit a cyclist. T

Loosely the presumption of guilt lands on the car driver for failing to stop in time, just as it would if you ran into the back of someone, or hit a cyclist. There are of course circumstances where a driver has little chance, like a kid running from between parked cars after their ball, someone not looking, or a cyclist running a light. The police generally investigate the scene and assess what happened, measure out distances, skid distances to assess driver speed, and seek witnesses etc if there's reason to think circumstances aren't straightforward or there's serious injury or death. There's also some degree of marshalling on busiest roads by putting up railings in some places to encourage crossing at safer spots, or the crossing a few yards away.

wgerard 8y ago
Super interesting. I have to admit my bias is to say that it seems difficult to assess when the pedestrian became visible to the driver (which would affect whether they could've stopped in time), but I'm also totally willing to admit that I might be nitpicking and it's a fine system. Thanks for the response!
- eponeponepon 8y ago
  The point here, though, is that it doesn't matter whether the driver could've seen them, because culpability rests with the driver by default (except, as mentioned, in situations such as motorways, where pedestrians aren't allowed). In very general terms, as a pedestrian in the UK, you have no particular right to step into the road other than at marked crossings, but as soon as you do, you have total right of way, no matter how stupid it was of you to step into the road. There are various crimes in the vein of 'obstructing a public highway' and so forth, so you aren't completely free to be an asshole, but even if you are, it's still on drivers to avoid hitting you; in my experience, this tends to make drivers more careful and aware of nearby pedestrians, so I'm fully in favour of the status quo.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    I'm sure it works fine in practice, but it's still not ideal if you can put one foot into the street and oblige cars to slam on their brakes.
    - eponeponepon 8y ago
      No, that wouldn't be ideal - but that's also not how it is.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        Well you're the expert here, can you please tell me why I'm wrong? I'm just trying to go by your earlier explanation. I'd like to be wrong here!
    - esotericn 8y ago
      If you're driving a car and someone walks in front of the car you'll slam on the brakes. This is independent of legality. I'd hope that it'd be the case even if laws were passed that explicitly punished braking in such a scenario. Anyway, in the UK, it's illegal to walk down the side of a motorway. But basically anywhere else is free reign for pedestrians. People don't generally walk out in front of (fast moving) cars because they're not suicidal. In a place like London it's fun to watch (and take part in) the stand-off between cars and pedestrians though. I womble through crossings all the time. The lights are advisory for pedestrians. They're designed that way; the green man exists for the elderly and children.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        When I said "can", I meant by the rules, not the laws of physics. The car is morally obligated to try not to hit anyone no matter what, but that's not what I'm talking about. And the picture I have in mind isn't someone suicidally leaping in front of a car, it's someone taking one step to order the cars to stop. This would be fine if there was a "reasonable stopping rate" clause, but it doesn't sound like there is.

wgerard 8y ago

Super interesting. I have to admit my bias is to say that it seems difficult to assess when the pedestrian became visible to the driver (which would affect whether they could've stopped in time), but I'm also totally willing to admit that I might be nitpicking and it's a fine system. Thanks for the response!

eponeponepon 8y ago
The point here, though, is that it doesn't matter whether the driver could've seen them, because culpability rests with the driver by default (except, as mentioned, in situations such as motorways, where pedestrians aren't allowed). In very general terms, as a pedestrian in the UK, you have no particular right to step into the road other than at marked crossings, but as soon as you do, you have total right of way, no matter how stupid it was of you to step into the road. There are various crimes in the vein of 'obstructing a public highway' and so forth, so you aren't completely free to be an asshole, but even if you are, it's still on drivers to avoid hitting you; in my experience, this tends to make drivers more careful and aware of nearby pedestrians, so I'm fully in favour of the status quo.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  I'm sure it works fine in practice, but it's still not ideal if you can put one foot into the street and oblige cars to slam on their brakes.
  - eponeponepon 8y ago
    No, that wouldn't be ideal - but that's also not how it is.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      Well you're the expert here, can you please tell me why I'm wrong? I'm just trying to go by your earlier explanation. I'd like to be wrong here!
  - esotericn 8y ago
    If you're driving a car and someone walks in front of the car you'll slam on the brakes. This is independent of legality. I'd hope that it'd be the case even if laws were passed that explicitly punished braking in such a scenario. Anyway, in the UK, it's illegal to walk down the side of a motorway. But basically anywhere else is free reign for pedestrians. People don't generally walk out in front of (fast moving) cars because they're not suicidal. In a place like London it's fun to watch (and take part in) the stand-off between cars and pedestrians though. I womble through crossings all the time. The lights are advisory for pedestrians. They're designed that way; the green man exists for the elderly and children.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      When I said "can", I meant by the rules, not the laws of physics. The car is morally obligated to try not to hit anyone no matter what, but that's not what I'm talking about. And the picture I have in mind isn't someone suicidally leaping in front of a car, it's someone taking one step to order the cars to stop. This would be fine if there was a "reasonable stopping rate" clause, but it doesn't sound like there is.