REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

zulutango · 08-11-2011, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Culverin

Actually, I do drive more cautiously when I'm out late at night. When it's 2am, the streets are clear and everybody has a tendency to speed just a little. Mix that in with people being tired from the late hour, and that a likely cause was they were out partying and a higher chance of drunks on the road, something rushing to make a red light. I always triple check at an intersection at night. Cause you never know when some retarded drunk 17 N driver might be gunning 85km/h+ to impress some girl he just met riding shotgun.

That's a situation where it's more dangerous, and I'm more careful.

Zulutango, are you a driving instructor as well?

Yes,I teach in-car for Young Drivers and also run my own motorcycle riding school.

- kT · 08-13-2011, 09:35 PM

my parents have always said that anytime you hit a pedestrian, you're pretty much at fault, no matter what the circumstances

to this day i still believe them, and they're pretty much right. a guy could be trying to jump in front of a car to kill themselves or something and the driver would probably be at fault

goo3 · 08-14-2011, 02:05 AM

So does she have to pay?

sebberry · 08-14-2011, 11:58 AM

While I fully agree that drivers need to be more aware of their surroundings, giving this more thought I think the rider shouldn't be at fault.

If this took place at an uncontrolled intersection, or a mid-block crosswalk then yes, I would hold the rider responsible. I regularly see people fail to slow down/stop at mid-block crosswalks when their view of the other side is obstructed by another vehicle. Any time I can't see one side of the crosswalk due to another vehicle, I slow down to make sure nobody is crossing.

But this didn't. The jaywalker's view of traffic was obstructed. The jaywalker didn't have the right of way. The jaywalker is legally required to not step out unless he can see that the way is clear.

While it is important for the driver/rider to act defensively if vision is limited, there is no legal requirement that I can see in the MVA for the driver to drive in such a way that they can stop in xx seconds/xx feet should someone illegally run out from behind a truck.

zulutango · 08-14-2011, 05:54 PM

While I fully agree that drivers need to be more aware of their surroundings, giving this more thought I think the rider shouldn't be at fault.

It seems that the Judge, based on law and the total evidence given in court, disagrees with you

In addition to my earlier posts concerning the responsibility of drivers ( section 181) to look out for stupid pedestrians, he also would consider this...

[/I]Careless driving prohibited
144 (1) A person must not drive a motor vehicle on a highway

(a) without due care and attention,

(b) without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway, or

(c) at a speed that is excessive relative to the road, traffic, visibility or weather conditions.

MWR34 · 08-15-2011, 02:49 AM

This is one of my fears driving. this exact blind scenario. and I was just talking about this yesterday. creepy....

Soundy · 08-15-2011, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zulutango

While I fully agree that drivers need to be more aware of their surroundings, giving this more thought I think the rider shouldn't be at fault.

It seems that the Judge, based on law and the total evidence given in court, disagrees with you

In addition to my earlier posts concerning the responsibility of drivers ( section 181) to look out for stupid pedestrians, he also would consider this...

[/I]Careless driving prohibited
144 (1) A person must not drive a motor vehicle on a highway

(a) without due care and attention,

(b) without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway, or

(c) at a speed that is excessive relative to the road, traffic, visibility or weather conditions.

I'd think that "reasonable consideration" would include REASONABLY expecting nobody is going to randomly step out in front of you... otherwise we'd all be going 10km/h all the time... "just in case".

Nlkko · 08-15-2011, 02:28 PM

I can't help but think all this fiasco of jaywalking accidents, reducing speed limits to an unreasonable point is the fruit of poor traffic-related education in school.

I'm not familiar with Canadian curriculum but is there some type of course teaching the basics of sharing the road? Maybe they should also consider adding strict regulations on mandatory driving test to put really competent drivers on the road, not giving out license to the people who can make a left turn into traffic that can't even parallel park. Also have cab drivers (the worst drivers out there), young drivers, old drivers retaking the test more occasionally.

That would also help with the tree hugging mentality of the mayor since it would reduce traffic and making everybody happy, wouldn't it?

sebberry · 08-15-2011, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundy

I'd think that "reasonable consideration" would include REASONABLY expecting nobody is going to randomly step out in front of you... otherwise we'd all be going 10km/h all the time... "just in case".

I was going to say.. it doesn't matter how slow you go, there's always the chance that someone will step out too close for you to stop.

sebberry · 08-15-2011, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nlkko

I can't help but think all this fiasco of jaywalking accidents, reducing speed limits to an unreasonable point is the fruit of poor traffic-related education in school.

I remember learning the "Green cross code" in primary school. Had to modify the order of which way to look when I got here but the concept is the same.

Think, stop, look, listen, run out into traffic from behind a parked truck and expect the driver to be at fault for hitting you. Or something like that.

SumAznGuy · 08-15-2011, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebberry

I was going to say.. it doesn't matter how slow you go, there's always the chance that someone will step out too close for you to stop.

I can be in a parking lot with the reverse lights on and partially backed into a spot and I still have people walking behind my car. And I drive a CRV where the lights are up higher than a normal car.

Nlkko · 08-15-2011, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SumAznGuy

I can be in a parking lot with the reverse lights on and partially backed into a spot and I still have people walking behind my car. And I drive a CRV where the lights are up higher than a normal car.

That's so normal, see it everyday. If I see a car even non moving but have lights on, I stay the hell away. No not those people. They have to walk really close to your car, to show you who's the boss or something like that. People see a backing up car and they walk their kids, their dogs right in the back...

Soundy · 08-15-2011, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SumAznGuy

I can be in a parking lot with the reverse lights on and partially backed into a spot and I still have people walking behind my car. And I drive a CRV where the lights are up higher than a normal car.

Future Darwin Award nominees!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nlkko

That's so normal, see it everyday. If I see a car even non moving but have lights on, I stay the hell away. No not those people. They have to walk really close to your car, to show you who's the boss or something like that. People see a backing up car and they walk their kids, their dogs right in the back...

There should be a law requiring drivers to accelerate in those circumstances...

Bainne · 08-17-2011, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundy

Future Darwin Award nominees!

Reminds me of a time a lady walk into my rear quarter& bumper as I backed out and had the audacity to go on a tirade (Half surprised she didn't start holding her neck and claiming injury). Here I am thinking, "Lady, you walked into ME! honestly how thick would you have to be?"

Talk about pedestrians feeling entitled.

What concerns me most, is when I see parents putting their kids on the inside and then proceed to just walk blindly behind vehicles on their way into the stores. If they want win a darwin that's fine by me, but don't do it at the expense of your kid

I'm a firm believer of walking in the middle/third portion of a parking lot lane. If vehicles want to use the lane, you move off to the side then behind an unoccupied vehicle and then return.

As someone mentioned earlier, sure there may be concessions for pedestrians & jaywalkers that absolve them of (partial) blame, however clearly the concept of 900lbs+ of metal vs 150lbs of malleable flesh = death is a concept being lost on many many people. Sure you may win the lawsuit, but its not much good when your dead now is it?

How many times have we heard kids saying "Well if they hit me it's their fault". Sadly I suspect this kind of ignorance plays a hand in many of these tragedies.

Same goes for many bikers (pedal, though motor sometimes) as well - I've got into the habit of treating every biker I encounter as if they were as thick as posts and always prepare for the absolutely worst possible scenarios they could put me in; its probably saved a few of their lives <.<