how not to filter and make friends with pedestrians

Originally Posted by Neeja

Are you saying that someone controlling a large, heavy object is automatically not at fault......................if they kill a pedestrian while not looking where they're going?

Absolutely no reasoning with such a statement.

Mind boglin[sic]!!! Seriously!!!!

Would you like to set up another straw-man argument now?

If the motorist does everything they can do to avoid an accident but fails due to the circumstances of a pedestrian throwing themselves infront of said vehicle then no the motorist is not at fault.
In your opinion then;
Motorist:
"Oh hi there.....I just hit a old tart commiting suicide, done all I could within my power to avoid the accident but she just appeared quickly and with no warning"

Police;
"You should have stayed in bed mate and not gone to work. You now up for murder!"

But if a pedestrian get hit on a motorway and dies.....im pretty sure no motorist can be at fault then. Pedestrians are not supposed to be there. But the drivers (in your opinion) are still at fault?

Thousands every year is spent on pedestrian crossings and traffic calming measures to make it safer for pedestrians to cross roads. From a child people are taught to "stop look listen".
If at the age of this dinosaur you still cant get it right....then maybe its her time!

The genepool is getting shallower by the day. Health and safety and silly laws allow people to live longer when natural selection would have killed them off ages ago.
Helmets should be optional. Seat belts should be optional. Looking before crossing the road is clearly optional as in your opinion its still the motorist fault.
Lets do away with laws that comon sense cover. And see how well our economy does in a few years time.

[NTECUK]

In most motoring situations it's guilty until proven otherwise.

[ophic]

Originally Posted by NTECUK

In most motoring situations it's guilty until proven otherwise.

Damages cases aren't criminal cases, they're covered by civil law, so in this case you're not "guilty" as such, but you can be found "at fault", and it doesn't have to be beyond reasonable doubt either, just on balance of probabilities.

It does sometimes seem like you're better off making sure you kill whoever you hit, and then getting criminally charged and getting off through lack of evidence, than ending up in a civil court where you'll be at least partially blamed for something, and you have to pay for your legal counsel as well.

[NTECUK]

Originally Posted by ophic

It does sometimes seem like you're better off making sure you kill whoever you hit, and then getting criminally charged and getting off through lack of evidence, than ending up in a civil court where you'll be at least partially blamed for something, and you have to pay for your legal counsel as well.

HARSH,
Do you think you could actually do that?

[ophic]

Originally Posted by NTECUK

HARSH,
Do you think you could actually do that?

Of course not. I'd never get away with it. My exhaust is too loud

[NTECUK]

Well that collision may have been avoided if the guy had a louder exhaust

[ophic]

It doesn't work in London

[NTECUK]

No but they are a different lot in "The Smoke ".

Originally Posted by NTECUK

HARSH,
Do you think you could actually do that?

This does actually happen, or sometimes the reverse. For example a lot of fraud cases and the cases against the big financial institutions, as the evidence is so complicated.

It is an unfortunate side effect of the fact that you cannot be tried twice for the same actions/evidence, so they can on pursue a criminal OR a civil case.