7 ms·

Is it? The driver was the one who decided to make the situation dangerous. A walker on their own would find it impossible to harm someone by walking. If you are

Is it? The driver was the one who decided to make the situation dangerous. A walker on their own would find it impossible to harm someone by walking. If you are driving in a place where people are walking (Anywhere not a highway) you must be driving at a speed where you could stop very quickly (30-40km/h). If you were driving at 30km/h it would be almost impossible to seriously hurt someone even if they stepped out in front of you.

emj 7y ago
Of those that are driven over by a car speeding at 30km/h 10% die, at 50km/h 80% die. (Source: drivers education Sweden). Reducing your speed just a little helps a lot.
- baroffoos 7y ago
  Also the fact that at 30km moving speed you will come to a total stop if you braked before impact
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
chrishynes 7y ago
In this case, however, it was a posted 56 km/h - 72 km/h zone on a 4 lane road. At that speed you can't react to a person that steps out in front of you. Particularly at night. Regardless of speed, a pedestrian who "stepped out in front" of a car is pretty clearly the one with a better view and much more manuverable -- that's the action that made the situation dangerous. Not a car driving within the posted speed.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > At that speed you can't react to a person that steps out in front of you. So why are you going that fast where there are pedestrians?
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Because ALL road user (pedestrians and bikes included) have an unspoken understanding that they will not behave in ways that deviate too far from the norms. We do not (yet) live in a zero trust society. Pedestrians do not wait for far off cross traffic to come to a complete stop before crossing and drivers do not assume any pedestrian is going to dart out without some sort of body language warning. This allows both groups to accomplish their goals faster than if they had to verify the other wasn't going to do something dumb. It mostly works out as long as at least one party holds up their side of the bargain.
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      Well ok, but that point of view leads to 4x more dead people per capita than our way of doing things. If that works for you, then good for you. That’s a big pile of dead bodies, but ok.
      - chrishynes 7y ago
        Are you suggesting we set the max speed limit everywhere to 30km/hr so that in the event a pedestrian chooses to jump in front of a car, the car has time to react? Or what exactly are you advocating?
        chrisseaton 7y ago
        How do you think the UK manages to do it? People drive more carefully because they know people could want to cross anywhere. Sometimes 40 or 60 works depending on the terrain and visibility and design of the road, but you need to know people can cross so you keep that in mind, instead of thinking ‘only a criminal would try to cross my path and if they do it's not my fault.’
        chrishynes 7y ago
        Not being from the UK, I'm not sure of the exact details of the law over there, but from a quick read it appears that pedestrians don't have the right of way except at marked pedestrian crossings. And certainly on a 4 lane 70km/hr posted road they would be expected to exercise good judgement and not step out in front of a car that they could clearly see coming. https://travel.stackexchange.com/a/123110 https://travel.stackexchange.com/a/123110 is the closest I could find from a UK native. You clearly can't just barrel through a pedestrian that has stepped into the roadway without trying to stop, but there's also no expectation that a car must drive slower than posted on the off chance that somebody jumps out. A car should try to stop if somebody steps in front, but a pedestrian also should be aware of their surroundings and shouldn't step in front. Unless you can show a UK LAW reference that peds have right of way on a 4 lane road without a pedestrian crossing? Do you have local knowledge or are you just making assumptions about a foreign country?

emj 7y ago

Of those that are driven over by a car speeding at 30km/h 10% die, at 50km/h 80% die. (Source: drivers education Sweden). Reducing your speed just a little helps a lot.

baroffoos 7y ago
Also the fact that at 30km moving speed you will come to a total stop if you braked before impact

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

chrishynes 7y ago

In this case, however, it was a posted 56 km/h - 72 km/h zone on a 4 lane road. At that speed you can't react to a person that steps out in front of you. Particularly at night. Regardless of speed, a pedestrian who "stepped out in front" of a car is pretty clearly the one with a better view and much more manuverable -- that's the action that made the situation dangerous. Not a car driving within the posted speed.

chrisseaton 7y ago
> At that speed you can't react to a person that steps out in front of you. So why are you going that fast where there are pedestrians?
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Because ALL road user (pedestrians and bikes included) have an unspoken understanding that they will not behave in ways that deviate too far from the norms. We do not (yet) live in a zero trust society. Pedestrians do not wait for far off cross traffic to come to a complete stop before crossing and drivers do not assume any pedestrian is going to dart out without some sort of body language warning. This allows both groups to accomplish their goals faster than if they had to verify the other wasn't going to do something dumb. It mostly works out as long as at least one party holds up their side of the bargain.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    Well ok, but that point of view leads to 4x more dead people per capita than our way of doing things. If that works for you, then good for you. That’s a big pile of dead bodies, but ok.
    - chrishynes 7y ago
      Are you suggesting we set the max speed limit everywhere to 30km/hr so that in the event a pedestrian chooses to jump in front of a car, the car has time to react? Or what exactly are you advocating?
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        How do you think the UK manages to do it? People drive more carefully because they know people could want to cross anywhere. Sometimes 40 or 60 works depending on the terrain and visibility and design of the road, but you need to know people can cross so you keep that in mind, instead of thinking ‘only a criminal would try to cross my path and if they do it's not my fault.’
        chrishynes 7y ago
        Not being from the UK, I'm not sure of the exact details of the law over there, but from a quick read it appears that pedestrians don't have the right of way except at marked pedestrian crossings. And certainly on a 4 lane 70km/hr posted road they would be expected to exercise good judgement and not step out in front of a car that they could clearly see coming. https://travel.stackexchange.com/a/123110 https://travel.stackexchange.com/a/123110 is the closest I could find from a UK native. You clearly can't just barrel through a pedestrian that has stepped into the roadway without trying to stop, but there's also no expectation that a car must drive slower than posted on the off chance that somebody jumps out. A car should try to stop if somebody steps in front, but a pedestrian also should be aware of their surroundings and shouldn't step in front. Unless you can show a UK LAW reference that peds have right of way on a 4 lane road without a pedestrian crossing? Do you have local knowledge or are you just making assumptions about a foreign country?