Home  Maps  About

Home > BusChat

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread | Next in Thread ]


view flat

Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter.

Posted by BusMgr on Fri Jan 13 01:27:54 2017, in response to Re: Pedestrians aren't the only ones who matter., posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jan 11 12:09:34 2017.

If a pedestrian purposefully intends to cause a collision, and does so, then absent valid excuse (e.g., legal necessity), it is the pedestrian is to be faulted. And the opposite where the automobilist purposefully intends to cause a collision. But we're talking the middle ground, largely composed of two ideas.

First, where both the pedestrian and automobilist have taken all reasonable precautions, and neither is affirmatively at fault. Who should bear the cost of the collision. I believe it is the pedestrian because it was the voluntary choice of the automobilist to engage in an inherently dangerous activity; the pedestrian made no such choice, and instead simply exercised his or her Constitutionally-protected right to travel. The automobilist assumed the risk by choosing to drive, even where the automobilist was not negligent, or otherwise breached his or her duty of care to the pedestrian. (And as a matter of public policy, holding otherwise would encourage everyone to always drive, and to use the bigger, heaviest, and most dangerous vehicles available, so as better ensure that such person is the one who survives a collision. Neither fair nor good public policy.)

Second, where there is a question of fact as to whether or not the pedestrian and the motorist each exercised the appropriate and reasonable standard of care necessary for traveling. I believe that driving a motor vehicles requires a very high standard of care, and the government enforces that high standard by prohibiting people from driving motor vehicles unless they are examined as to their knowledge and skill, and are then licensed to do so. I believe that walking requires a very low standard of care as a fundamental human right, which by itself imposes little risk of hazard, and therefore has never required examination, testing, or licensing to perform. Nonetheless, I will acknowledge that the lines here, as to the duties imposed on each, are grey, not bright.


 Thread is locked Responses disabled

[ Return to the Message Index ]