4 ms·
> Sure, it's possible for a pedestrian to be at fault, but even if they step out from behind an occluded object, if a driver is fast enough to kill them, then t
by lelanthran 6mo ago
> Sure, it's possible for a pedestrian to be at fault, but even if they step out from behind an occluded object, if a driver is fast enough to kill them, then the driver is almost certainly already at fault because they were driving faster than conditions warranted.
That's not true: 30km/h is enough to kill, and that's a very sedate speed.
Whether we like it or not, pedestrians and cyclists have to also follow the rules.
If you want change the rules, well that's a different argument to the one you appearing to make which is that certain entities should not be bound by any rules.
- ohnei 6mo agoWhat sounds sedate to you is not encoded in any rules and certainly wasn't considered sedate when the laws were written in most jurisdictions.
- lelanthran 6mo agoYou contradict yourself, the laws you refer to are the rules you say don't exist.
- ohnei 6mo agoThe laws are the rules I refer to that I say do not mention you or your idea of reasonable speed at all. Going through town at 30 km/h was considered reckless. Killing someone in a cross walk it doesn't matter if they are an adult capable of liability.