Why are pedestrians rarely at fault in a collision with a...

Post Reply New Topic

Driver: Single purpose, open windshield, free of auditory interference, assuming the responsibility for wielding a one-ton hammer at speeds ranging from a crawl to over 100mph.

Pedestrian: Multiple points of focus, multiple possible points of engagement, auditory and visual distractions, not choosing to encase themselves in steel and hurl themselves through space.

The responsibility remains with the person choosing to engage in the activity, not the general public. It is NOT common sense that a pedestrian would see a vehicle first, and I still await you providing anything other than your personal opinion on the matter. Now, the State of Oregon does provide some information on nighttime visual ranges:

At 20 mph, a driver needs at least 64' to stop.
In dark clothing, a pedestrian is visible at only 55' away.
In white clothing, a pedestrian is often visible at 180' away.
In reflective clothing, the pedestrian should be visible from 500' away.
At typical road conditions and speeds, the necessary stopping distance will be ~350' from the point of braking.

I might hear a vehicle approaching from a football field's distance; I might not. And as a pedestrian, I am responsible for following the rules governing my behavior and responsibilities. But the driver, being the individual who is handling a weapon, as it would have to be considered in this case, poses the greater threat and therefore has the greater responsibility. That does not remove responsibility from the pedestrian as you seem to infer, but supercedes it... at least in my opinion, and in part from a legal standpoint as well.


M.

Most vehicles these days are well over one ton, but if a person is crossing somewhere those vehicles are regularly hitting 100 mph, it is they that are at fault (previously discussed). Cars rarely go over 50 on city streets. There are grade crossings on some higher speed roads, but if a person is crossing those against the signal they have a death wish.

If a pedestrian is crossing a street, their eyes had BETTER be on traffic *only* and not a god d*** thing else. It would also be nice if, for extra measure, they would take off their ear buds. Sorry if this sounds like too much to ask, but I don't care. This is for that person's own preservation, and if they don't want to do it, they are going to lose. If you're choosing to engage in crossing the street, your ass is in your hands.

Re: who sees who first, a car is bigger. It usually makes more noise. If that's not enough for you, you have a common sense deficit. You said yourself that in ideal conditions (short of reflective clothing), a pedestrian is only really visible at 180 feet away (in reality, less if they are jaywalking from between two cars, it's night, they're wearing dark clothing etc). In ideal conditions (a straight road in the desert), you should be able to see a car at least 10,000 feet away. I'm aware that in a real city this never happens and the point at which the two see each other is closely tied to when whatever obstruction is between them is removed. The principle still applies to a lesser degree.

Re: stopping distance, a 1 second driver reaction time seems excessive. I'm pretty sure an able-bodied and minded 20- or 30-something should be closer to 0.5 seconds. I'm at 0.4. A person who takes 1 second to react should probably not be behind the wheel. That makes a world of difference in stopping time, especially at 20 mph, a speed at which once the brakes are applied a well-maintained car will be at a dead stop in almost no time (1-2 car lengths) on a dry, warm road. 60-0 and bad weather are a bit different (60 being the highest speed I've seen on city streets and probably a little reckless). Well I've seen much higher but that was a special case.


You still haven't explained why being the person who is going to physically win in a collision contributes to making you more responsible than the person who is going to lose, you're only asserting that it is true.

I believe that the driver and the pedestrian both have a EQUAL responsibility. The pedestrian is responsible for there actions of crossing the street safely, and the driver is responsible for driving there car safely, and doing everything they can to avoid mowing down pedestrians. If everyone followed that, then there would be very little accidents between cars and pedestrians (you still have to account for the ocasional freak accidents).

I ride/train around 60 miles a day. Riding a bicycle on the road for 60 miles each day, if I once thought it is ALL the drivers responsibility to avoid me, then I would have been killed a long time ago! I have my responsibility to ride safe with respect for people driving, and people driving have a responsibility to watch were there going, and pass me safely.

Sadly, there are to many drivers that think that they own the road, and that pedestrians should have no right to be on it, and drive acordingly. Then there are pedestrians that feel they have a right to be on the road, and that it is all the drivers responsibility to not hit them. Those type of people are just as bad as the dangerous drivers.

I feel, if everyone shared the responsibility equally, then there really wouldnt be much of a problem

A couple issues with your assertions:

Where I live, the town runs down the spine of the highway. Traffic there runs over 50mph.
In Phoenix, AZ, I have twenty years of experience that vehicles on the surface roads regularly exceed 60mph.
I have repeatedly said that pedestrians do have a responsibility, but that the greater one resides with the driver.

You're the one choosing to drive the car; it is a choice. By making that choice, you are choosing the responsibilities that go with it. What you're suggesting is that because you've purchased a gun and bullets, I should watch where I'm going because you might shoot me. You're welcome to live by that logic; I won't. Size becomes less relevant with speed; the body at speed has the responsibility for its course. You choose to insult my common sense; I've provided you figures where you've provided nothing substantial. Until you're willing to oblige that request, I consider that part of our conversation closed. But I must say - 10,000 away? No, the desert you aren't going to see a car two miles away hurtling towards you, and you won't hear it until it is much, much closer. I suggest some executable exercises to explore your ideas further, as the numbers you propose are simply impractical.

Again, until you provide something better than "I think that's excessive" versus the established standards for state law enforcement, there is no point in continuing this part of the conversation with you.

You wield a weapon in a fight, you are responsible for the damage you cause with it. The car is a weapon in this instance; just like carrying a gun, when you choose to invoke the privilege you also automatically assume the responsibility that comes with it. With the potential for causing damage comes the liability for that damage when it occurs. I've repeated this now at least three different times; if you don't understand what I am saying or how I am saying it, then ask instead of ignoring the answer given. And if you disagree with the responsibility that comes with either a vehicle or a firearm, I personally hope you never have either in your possession or use.


M.

As a pedestrian, I have to watch for traffic and make sure they stop at the light before crossing, I also have to make sure they stop at the cross walk here in Oregon. This state has a law about pedestrians and when you see someone wants to cross, you have to stop to let them cross. As a pedestrian when I wish to cross the street, I do not assume the car that is coming is going to stop. I have to make sure I have enough time to cross and that the car is stopping if it's close. Same goes for intersections when the light turns red, made sure all the cars have stopped before crossing. I call that defensive walking.

Also in this state, when a blind person is crossing, you have to wait till they are on the sidewalk before you go. Even if the light had turned green and they are still not on the sidewalk, you have to wait.

Speaking of drivers, there are also bicyclists that think they own the road or feel superior and think just because they are saving the environment, they don't move out of the way to let cars by or they try and beat the cars to the crosswalk. They start going right when the car has the right of way. That's why as a driver, you need to watch that bicyclist and make sure they stop.
It just pisses me off when I am driving, there is a bicyclist and they don't move to the side to let me by. I do drive around them but when there are too many cars, I can't go over the center line. Then there are cars parked on the side of the road and I don't have room to drive by the person. So there are a row of cars behind me and the bicyclist never moves aside when there is a open space on the side of the road. But luckily this only happened once. Since then no problem. It was just a bad day I was having so I came here and ranted about it. I can't remember if I did that as likedcalico or as SG.

If I purchase a gun and bullets, go to the gallery and start shooting targets, you had better be completely sure the coast is clear before you walk out into the target zone. Because there's shooting going on.

LOOK WHERE YOU'RE GOING.

We're not going to agree here, so I'm finished.

Thats just common sense. What else are you gonna do? Crash into the blind person? That rule goes with anyone or anything blocking the road.

Go around them. When is the last time you saw a car wait until a pedestrian was fully on the sidewalk before proceeding? I think their reasoning is that a blind person might randomly turn around and walk back into the path of your car without knowing it.

When anyone crosses, I just wait till they are out of the way before I turn. I do this when I have a green light. But with a blind person, you have to wait till they are on the sidewalk.

I wouldn't expect a blind person to turn around. They won't know a car is turning or going around them. When you are at the red light and it turns green and you are turning, the pedestrians are going to have the walk sign so they are going to cross. So all you can do is wait till the person is out of your way before you turn.

You don't seem to be fit to be driving and shooting to be honest. If you are shooting targets and a person is coming, you are going to keep shooting targets even if that person keeps walking and gets in front of you? Instead of waiting and making sure he isn't in the way, you are going to shoot anyway?

I agree with the MyFutureSelfnMe. I've often lamented the fact that the law favors pedestrians because people are so self-important. They will walk right out in front of you in a parking lot because they think to themselves "he won't hit me" sometimes I *want* to hit a few pedestrians just to remove that pomous attitude and put the "fear of god", as it were, back in them. Hello???? I'm driving a big powerful machine that can easily KILL YOU. Freaking look where you're going, don't stand in the middle of the driving area, and don't jump out in front of me! They wouldn't do that if they thought there was any chance they might get hurt. They pompously think to themselves that they're more important than the car even though the car is more powerful than them.

It's pure arrogance.

When I'm walking, I get the frick out of the way and wait until there are no cars in the lot before crossing. Ironically, this attitude seems to confuse people. When I stand to the side and wait for the car to pass, the drivers give me weird looks and brake hesitantly as if I'm *supposed* to be jumping out in front of them and they think it's a trick. Is common sense non-existant????


I agree that you hold responsibility for the way you weild your "weapon." I also think that people should have a healthy respect for said weapon and act accordingly.


*edit* On second thought, I think Roadracer put it best. I completely agree with that. I made a rant about the padestrians who think they own the road but there are certainly some drivers who have that attitude too.

I think they are just letting you cross and they honk at you to let you know to go ahead. Depending on what state you're in, pedestrians have the right of way. It's like that here in Oregon. Like if you stop at a stop sign and there is a person waiting to cross, you have to let them. same as when you get to a crosswalk and you see a pedestrian wanting to cross, you have to stop. But of course at intersections, when you have a green light you don't need to stop even if there is a pedestrian waiting to cross. Even they have a red and green light, it's the Don't Walk and Walk signs.

Clearly I'm not going to keep shooting at targets if I see someone walk in. The point is the responsibility is shared equally. Possibly with a slight emphasis on the person walking, since it's his ass that is going to get hosed, and he would have to be highly negligent to walk into the path of a bullet.

I think sometimes it should be the pedestrian's fault.

One time in Rockford Il, I saw the following:
A black lady, wearing ALL black, crossed the street against the light, at night, while trafic is already crossing the intersection both ways, she made it 3 lanes of traffic across before she got hit. She couldn't understand why the car hit her!

HUH?

she crossed against the light at night while wearing all black and being black and can't understand why she was hit? The driver did not even see her before he hit her. She was lucky she only suffered a broken ankle.

This is endemic in Rockford.

I was always taught 2 legs bad 4 wheels good. I.e. you will lose if you get hit with a car. I have even seen a squirrel that knew enough to look both ways before crossing the street. What is the problem with people doing that? Are they dumber than a squirrel?

Did they make the pedestrian at fault?