Comment 87447

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted March 21, 2013 at 19:39:18 in reply to Comment 87443

This is an important point since one would think the current laws would be sufficient to convict a motorist for running down and killing a pedestrian legally crossing in a designated crosswalk, but they are not. Judges apparently insist on a higher standard of recklessness than they would in other cases of recklessness (e.g. a hunter accidentally shooting someone).

A google search suggests that hunters are very commonly charged with criminal negligence causing death in such cases, e.g. the local example:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/former-nhl-...

I don't understand why running someone down in a cross-walk is less negligent than firing a gun across a field without being sure no humans might be hit, but traffic fatalities do seem to be considered differently!

However, many countries have shifted the burden of proof to the motorist in such cases, just as it seems to be for hunters:

Sweden has stricter liability rules for drivers involved in collisions with pedestrians, and it has also adopted a special policy that specifically states that serious injuries and deaths are never acceptable: http://www.visionzeroinitiative.com/

"Vision Zero is conceived from the ethical base that it can never be acceptable that people are killed or seriously injured when moving within the road transport system"

"It involves altering the emphasis away from enhancing the ability of the individual road user to negotiate the system to concentrating on how the whole system can operate safely."

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/res...

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-03-21 19:41:49

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds