This is just wrong...

[taylor192]

Our court system is messed up when the driver has to share blame for a jay walker walking out illegally behind an obstruction into traffic. The drive was going below the posted limit, which should have showed reasonable care in looking out for the surroundings.

The judge's ruling that "she should know people jay walk there" is ridiculous. I know people jay walk all over Vancouver, yet am I going to slow down to walking speed anytime I see someone on a sidewalk cause they may potentially decide to jay walk without looking... fuck.

Jaywalker should not be fully liable for being hit by motorcycle, B.C. court rules

[muteki]

It's okay, it was always messed up. It needs to be revised, since it tends to side with those that are lacking in common sense.

[gars]

This is absolutely ridiculous. What if the driver was from out of town, does this clear them of all liability then?

[XplicitLuder]

i almost hit a jaywalker like 2 days ago. I was going down Canada Way at roughly 60km and this brown old man is on my side. He looks at the other side to see if there was any cars coming and since there was no cars he walks, yet he didnt look MY way and i had to slam my breaks n swerve to not hit the guy...luckily no one on my other lane. But seriously, like wtf >.<

[gdoh]

when you start to jaywalk it should be your own responsibility for your safety since your breaking the law

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by gdoh

when you start to jaywalk it should be your own responsibility for your safety since your breaking the law

That's not how the BC courts see it, so I will now just start walking across streets anywhere without looking, as the court agrees I am not 100% to blame for my actions.

[Energy]

I read the actual appeal and it does make sense for her to be partly at fault.

1. It was a very busy day at around 3pm when kids are out and there is heavy traffic
2. There are two schools in that area
3. The women riding the bike worked for a long time at the school nearby and was aware of the increased chance of kids being there.

If she was from out of town then she'd have no problem but the fact that she knew that there could be kids around and still went on despite having a blind spot because of a truck meant she didn't exercise due care. Witnesses who were locals were interviewed and said that they'd always be more careful around that area too especially at that time of day and in the traffic conditions.

We have to take a look at the whole picture instead of just the headline..

[gars]

I think this displays the wrong message to the kids though. The driver could have been going 30 or 20, and still have hit him if he stepped out at the wrong moment.

This is basically like saying that if you go to a tourist area, and you didn't secure your personal belongings 100%, and you end up getting pickpocketed - but the thief is not completely at fault because you didn't secure your stuff properly, knowing there are thieves in the area.

[Oleophobic]

Originally Posted by taylor192

The judge's ruling that "she should know people jay walk there" is ridiculous. I know people jay walk all over Vancouver, yet am I going to slow down to walking speed anytime I see someone on a sidewalk cause they may potentially decide to jay walk without looking... fuck.

Doesn't really make sense.

On any normal street there is no need to be paranoid about jaywalkers. It's the areas around schools or shopping areas with lots of people where you should be worried and should be exercising due care. That's the point the judges are making. In these areas you "should know people jay walk there."

I mean I do not drive the same way through Chinatown as I do down Knight because I know Chinatown is a total gongshow during busy hours with people jaywalking left and right.

Originally Posted by Energy

I read the actual appeal and it does make sense for her to be partly at fault.

1. It was a very busy day at around 3pm when kids are out and there is heavy traffic
2. There are two schools in that area
3. The women riding the bike worked for a long time at the school nearby and was aware of the increased chance of kids being there.

If she was from out of town then she'd have no problem but the fact that she knew that there could be kids around and still went on despite having a blind spot because of a truck meant she didn't exercise due care. Witnesses who were locals were interviewed and said that they'd always be more careful around that area too especially at that time of day and in the traffic conditions.

We have to take a look at the whole picture instead of just the headline..

Well said.

[TheNewGirl]

Pedestrians always have right of way. That's the first thing that you should have learned when you learned to drive.

I can't think of any instance where you could hit a person and not be held partially to blame unless maybe they were shoved out in front of you or something.

It does suck though and I wish that the police would do something to penalize jaywalkers.

[jlenko]

Originally Posted by TheNewGirl

Pedestrians always have right of way. That's the first thing that you should have learned when you learned to drive.

I can't think of any instance where you could hit a person and not be held partially to blame unless maybe they were shoved out in front of you or something.

It does suck though and I wish that the police would do something to penalize jaywalkers.

WRONG NewGirl... from the MVA..

Crossing at other than crosswalk

180 When a pedestrian is crossing a highway at a point not in a crosswalk, the pedestrian must yield the right of way to a vehicle.

Maybe you should have learned that when you learned to walk..? But right or wrong, the pedestrian is the likely loser when it comes to getting hit by a vehicle.

[skidmark]

This also took place at an intersection, an area where one might reasonably expect pedestrians to be crossing...

[Rich Sandor]

Originally Posted by TheNewGirl

Pedestrians always have right of way. That's the first thing that you should have learned when you learned to drive.

I can't think of any instance where you could hit a person and not be held partially to blame unless maybe they were shoved out in front of you or something.

It does suck though and I wish that the police would do something to penalize jaywalkers.

Pedestrians ONLY have right of way when they are ALREADY in the path of a vehicle.

A Pedstrian MUST NOT step out in front of a vehicle if the vehicle cannot safely stop in time.

If a Pedestrian DOES step out in front of a moving vehicle which cannot safely stop in time, the pedestrian shall be found PRIMARILY at fault. A portion of the blame may be put on the driver, in certain circumstances, such as the case quoted in this thread.

I have been witness to a few cases where pedestrians ran out into traffic trying to cross and got hit by traffic unable to stop in time. In one case the pedestrian died and the driver was not found at fault, and in the other case the pedestrian was also found 100% at fault AND was ordered to pay for all the damages to the vehicle!!!

[Spidey]

Whether it is the fault of the driver or pedestrian is secondary to whether the IDIOTIC pedestrian thinks getting from point a to point b, illegally, is worth risking his/her life. I have seen so many moronic people trying to catch the bus, where they run across the street because they missed their "walk sign" only to have cars come inches from ending their life. Sorry... But jaywalkers REALLLY REALLY tick me off.

[zulutango]

What it comes down to is all of the actual evidence in this case...not just a compressed line or two quoted in a news story. Yes I'm a biker, some 48 years now, yes pedestrians do walk out into traffic at times and yes the MVA says that drivers/riders have to be ready to react to them and make allowances. As a driving instructor I also say that active scanning at least 12-15 seconds ahead and an intellegent analysis of what is observed, and what is not able to be seen, can make a real difference in how you ride/drive. Based solely on th eheadlines and a few attached words, it seems unfair. That is how the story was written. Being in the courtroom and hearing all the evidence obviously made the judge think that the rider was partially responsible.

This is what the judge had to keep in mind..

Duty of driver
181 Despite sections 178, 179 and 180, a driver of a vehicle must

(a) exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian who is on the highway,

(b) give warning by sounding the horn of the vehicle when necessary, and

(c) observe proper precaution on observing a child or apparently confused or incapacitated person on the highway.

The evidence said that...

a large tractor-trailer truck to her left that had stopped, but the truck blocked her view of the lane in front of the truck.

Had I been the rider, I would have honked my horn and slowly passed the stopped truck, anticipating problems resulting from my blocked view. This is what I teach my students to do. During the 2 seconds reaction time needed to spot the problem and begin to brake, you were doing 11 metres a second. Not much distance to see the pedestrian, realize they were running out in front, slow down, swerve or stop. I would believe that the judge would have also considered this fact as well. Just so nobody gets me wrong on this...I am not condoning the actions of the pedestrian who jaywalked, I am saying that if the rider had done things differently, the outcome would likely have been different...and the same applies to the pedestrian...which, essentially is what the court decided.

[sebberry]

I think this undermines our right of way rules and holds the wrong person responsible.

The pedestrian was somewhere where he shouldn't have been, and disobeying instruction from a traffic control device (don't walk sign).

Replace the pedestrian with a car that was running a red light - would the motorcyclist be held 40% at fault?

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by sebberry

I think this undermines our right of way rules and holds the wrong person responsible.

Originally Posted by sebberry

Section 181 says we have to be prepared to yield to pedestrians, in fact it is our duty to do so.

The pedestrian was somewhere where he shouldn't have been, and disobeying instruction from a traffic control device (don't walk sign).

Nothing in the story Ii read above said that, it just said that it way "jaywalking". That could mean not crossing at the designated place.

Replace the pedestrian with a car that was running a red light - would the motorcyclist be held 40% at fault?

There is no duty in law in BC to require the rider to yield to vehicles. You have to realize that we are talking the legal requirements and safe driving practices, not what is "fair". The deal is that you get home safely at the end of your ride and you take actions that make that goal attainable.

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by sebberry

I think this undermines our right of way rules and holds the wrong person responsible.

The pedestrian was somewhere where he shouldn't have been, and disobeying instruction from a traffic control device (don't walk sign).

Replace the pedestrian with a car that was running a red light - would the motorcyclist be held 40% at fault?

It has been said and taught to new drivers all the time... drive defensively... you never know what is going to happen.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by BlueG2

It has been said and taught to new drivers all the time... drive defensively... you never know what is going to happen.

I agree, but let's say you get hit by a drunk running a red light on New Years Eve...

There's an expectation that there will be more drunks on the road because of the occasion and thus you should drive even more cautiously than you might normally drive.

Should you be partly at fault when someone else blew a red light causing you to collide with the other car?

[Nlkko]

Yep, it's always the motorists's fault in BC. What else is new? Great spin columnist. I like the fact that all "evidence" and "witnesses" are stressed against the woman. Maybe many more jaywalkers gotta be killed before they realize jaywalking without looking is retarded and actually do something about it. but then it's gonna be too late, like some woman in the States in this story.

I do agree the woman is somewhat at fault. But 40% is a joke.

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by sebberry

I agree, but let's say you get hit by a drunk running a red light on New Years Eve...

There's an expectation that there will be more drunks on the road because of the occasion and thus you should drive even more cautiously than you might normally drive.

Should you be partly at fault when someone else blew a red light causing you to collide with the other car?

I agree with you and it totally blames someone who usually isn't at fault, and those who are at fault get some leniancy. Just because it is a motorist vs a pedestrian, the motorist will never be 100% free of fault. I mean, wouldn't it be common sense/logic to say "pedestrians should watch out for cars and NOt cross when it is not a designated cross walk", rather than "motorist needs to watch out for crazy stupid fail at life people who want to jaywalk and risk their lives to save 1 min of their time".?

Maybe the next date rapist will only get 60% fault as he was intoxicated while 40% fault will go to the girl because she dressed provocatively... give me a break. Common sense does not serve in courts I guess.

[Oleophobic]

Yeah 40% seems like a lot but keep in mind the judges made their decision after reviewing all the evidence.

IMO 30-40% seems fair to me in this particular situation given the fact that she didn't slow down when driving past the stopped truck blocking her view on the left. If there is an obstruction on your left (or right!) like a vehicle that stopped for whatever reason, you do not just drive past it without slowing down. I hate it when people do that. I've seen people narrowly missing pedestrians at crosswalks because the first car stops, and the car in the adjacent lane just blows past without slowing down.

[Culverin]

Originally Posted by sebberry

I agree, but let's say you get hit by a drunk running a red light on New Years Eve...

There's an expectation that there will be more drunks on the road because of the occasion and thus you should drive even more cautiously than you might normally drive.

Should you be partly at fault when someone else blew a red light causing you to collide with the other car?

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?

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Energy

I read the actual appeal and it does make sense for her to be partly at fault.

1. It was a very busy day at around 3pm when kids are out and there is heavy traffic
2. There are two schools in that area
3. The women riding the bike worked for a long time at the school nearby and was aware of the increased chance of kids being there.

If she was from out of town then she'd have no problem but the fact that she knew that there could be kids around and still went on despite having a blind spot because of a truck meant she didn't exercise due care. Witnesses who were locals were interviewed and said that they'd always be more careful around that area too especially at that time of day and in the traffic conditions.

We have to take a look at the whole picture instead of just the headline..

If you want to look at the whole picture, then you need to consider:

Family anger as Mountie cleared after killing teen in Surrey street

Why does the RCMP officer get 0% blame in virtually the same situation: known area of jaywalking.

The court system needs to take this 2 cases and decide which way they want to go. If the woman is 40% responsible, than the RCMP officer is too and should be charged criminally. At least the motorcycle verdict may give the family an opportunity to sue the RCMP in civil court for damages.

[mtnrat]

Sorry, anyone who walks out onto a street has to take full responsibility for making sure they do not get hit by a car, truck or whatever. Jaywalking, using a crosswalk, with or without pedestrian light. Same thing. My parents taught me to never trust any sign, light, driver... nothing, when I make the decision to cross the street. I was taught it was up to me to keep myself alive.