5 ms·

I don’t know man. I’m sorry I don’t know the language, looks like Russian? Or something closely related? But based on the parent comment translation, and the tr

by 40four 7y ago

I don’t know man. I’m sorry I don’t know the language, looks like Russian? Or something closely related? But based on the parent comment translation, and the translation on the issue page, I’m not sure we should be quick to condemn this person. The court report says he was going 60kph. That’s barley over 35mph, a normal speed limit for city streets. So it appears he was not speeding. If it really was a drunk guy, literally lying down in the road, at night time (!?!), I don’t think anyone could be reasonably expected be able to respond to that in time. We don’t know, but assuming that is actually how it played out, it doesn’t sound like the driver did anything malicious. He’s lucky he wasn’t killed himself. I don’t think it’s fair to say ” Most countries require greater care at pedestrian crossings.” We have no idea what the road or crossing looks like. An awfully unfortunate series of events for both parties it sounds like. Very sad.

sdegutis 7y ago
I don’t think anyone is accusing the defender of malice. But it is reasonable to expect that people can at least try to drive cautiously. Especially at night, near cross walks. I’ve seen far too many reckless drivers even in suburban streets, almost always young adults or teenagers, on streets that have kids playing at the edge of their yards. They’re testing Murphy’s law. This isn’t a necessary condition of life. This is preventable behavior. Granted, the solution to preventing it starts when they are young, it starts by instilling discipline and humility and self control in youth before they are sent out into the world. Trying to apply these after the fact is like putting on safety goggles after getting an eye injury. Edit: To make my main point more simply: when my kids come to me because one hurt the other through carelessness, but they’re defense is that they were reasonably cautious, I would answer them, “it wasn’t reasonably cautious because the outcome was that you hurt someone else in a way I don’t believe I would have because I would be more cautious than you were given the same circumstances.” Driving 35 MPH when it’s marked 35 MPH isn’t as cautious as is reasonable when you add in factors of nighttime, hill, and oncoming headlights (effectively high beams).
- RHSeeger 7y ago
  > But it is reasonable to expect that people can at least try to drive cautiously It is. But the underlying point being made by several people appears to be that they believe he _was_ driving cautiously. And that it just so happens that, even doing so, the situation was such that it was still reasonable for him to not be able to avoid the collision.
bouncycastle 7y ago
I've been driving around Poland a bit, one of the things I always watch out for are drunk guys on.tbe road at night. It could happen that one passed out in the middle while crossing. My uncle told me a story once how he stopped just in front of one, and the only reason why he saw him was because of a reflection from an incoming car didn't look right on the road surface. His intuition is quite good as he's an experienced driver. He just said he slammed on the breaks because it looked funny. I never forget that story and always make sure that I can completely see the surface I'm driving on. I'd imagine it would be the same thing quite common in Russia, or anywhere really... Especially around crossings
PeterisP 7y ago
We have a clear idea of what the crossing looks like, "переходящим проезжую часть по нерегулируемому пешеходному переходу, обозначенному знаками 5.19.1 и 5.19.2, а также дорожной разметкой 1.14.1," means that it was a "zebra crossing" marked on the road and with appropriate street signs before it. In Russia, pedestrians have right of way on such a crossing, and drivers are required to be able to stop so that if a pedestrian starts crossing, they can yield (is that the proper term in English road rules?) to that pedestrian - i.e. even if you can't see any people, the marked crossing is considered as a warning to drivers that there might be pedestrians crossing and they must be able to stop and yield there. So in cases of poor road conditions (e.g. ice) and poor visibility, they would be legally required to choose a speed so that they can do so suddenly if needed. This necessity to drive slower given the street signs and conditions is also explicitly mentioned in the court ruling as part of justification of why the defendant is considered guilty. So it's not really an analogy of a person lying on the road, because that's not a "normal" stretch of road - if someone decides to drunkenly crawl across such a pedestrian crossing, then that would be stupid and reckless and dangerous, but legally they still would have right of way and cars would required to stop and yield as if they had a red light.

by 40four 7y ago

sdegutis 7y ago

I don’t think anyone is accusing the defender of malice. But it is reasonable to expect that people can at least try to drive cautiously. Especially at night, near cross walks. I’ve seen far too many reckless drivers even in suburban streets, almost always young adults or teenagers, on streets that have kids playing at the edge of their yards. They’re testing Murphy’s law. This isn’t a necessary condition of life. This is preventable behavior. Granted, the solution to preventing it starts when they are young, it starts by instilling discipline and humility and self control in youth before they are sent out into the world. Trying to apply these after the fact is like putting on safety goggles after getting an eye injury. Edit: To make my main point more simply: when my kids come to me because one hurt the other through carelessness, but they’re defense is that they were reasonably cautious, I would answer them, “it wasn’t reasonably cautious because the outcome was that you hurt someone else in a way I don’t believe I would have because I would be more cautious than you were given the same circumstances.” Driving 35 MPH when it’s marked 35 MPH isn’t as cautious as is reasonable when you add in factors of nighttime, hill, and oncoming headlights (effectively high beams).

RHSeeger 7y ago
> But it is reasonable to expect that people can at least try to drive cautiously It is. But the underlying point being made by several people appears to be that they believe he _was_ driving cautiously. And that it just so happens that, even doing so, the situation was such that it was still reasonable for him to not be able to avoid the collision.

bouncycastle 7y ago

I've been driving around Poland a bit, one of the things I always watch out for are drunk guys on.tbe road at night. It could happen that one passed out in the middle while crossing. My uncle told me a story once how he stopped just in front of one, and the only reason why he saw him was because of a reflection from an incoming car didn't look right on the road surface. His intuition is quite good as he's an experienced driver. He just said he slammed on the breaks because it looked funny. I never forget that story and always make sure that I can completely see the surface I'm driving on. I'd imagine it would be the same thing quite common in Russia, or anywhere really... Especially around crossings

PeterisP 7y ago

We have a clear idea of what the crossing looks like, "переходящим проезжую часть по нерегулируемому пешеходному переходу, обозначенному знаками 5.19.1 и 5.19.2, а также дорожной разметкой 1.14.1," means that it was a "zebra crossing" marked on the road and with appropriate street signs before it. In Russia, pedestrians have right of way on such a crossing, and drivers are required to be able to stop so that if a pedestrian starts crossing, they can yield (is that the proper term in English road rules?) to that pedestrian - i.e. even if you can't see any people, the marked crossing is considered as a warning to drivers that there might be pedestrians crossing and they must be able to stop and yield there. So in cases of poor road conditions (e.g. ice) and poor visibility, they would be legally required to choose a speed so that they can do so suddenly if needed. This necessity to drive slower given the street signs and conditions is also explicitly mentioned in the court ruling as part of justification of why the defendant is considered guilty. So it's not really an analogy of a person lying on the road, because that's not a "normal" stretch of road - if someone decides to drunkenly crawl across such a pedestrian crossing, then that would be stupid and reckless and dangerous, but legally they still would have right of way and cars would required to stop and yield as if they had a red light.