Harsh or what?

[mistermack]

Witnesses say it was red. She claims it was amber. Every dickhead that goes through a red light claims it was amber - so the jury believed the witnesses.

Nothing to see here. No miscarriage. Move along...

I still think it's harsh, and the witness seems a bit suspect to me.
But even if it's true, presumably she was done for causing death by dangerous driving.

I would say that the overwhelmingly main cause of his death, was him not looking when he crossed the road.
It's perfectly simple for an adult. You just have to look, and if a car's coming, don't step in front of it.

I would say he was 90% the cause, and she was 10.
I still think it's very harsh.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Witnesses say it was red. She claims it was amber. Every dickhead that goes through a red light claims it was amber - so the jury believed the witnesses.

Nothing to see here. No miscarriage. Move along...

I still think it's harsh, and the witness seems a bit suspect to me.
But even if it's true, presumably she was done for causing death by dangerous driving.

I would say that the overwhelmingly main cause of his death, was him not looking when he crossed the road.
It's perfectly simple for an adult. You just have to look, and if a car's coming, don't step in front of it.

I would say he was 90% the cause, and she was 10.
I still think it's very harsh.

You would.

[mistermack]

I'd be interested to know if he was wearing headphones.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I'd be interested to know if he was wearing headphones.

...or if she was changing the channel on her radio, or head-banging to the Wayne's World bit in Bohemian Rhapsody?

Fact is, she was the one in charge of a potentially lethal machine so the onus was on her to pay attention and to look out for dangerous situations. Try reading the highway Code sometime.

He was crossing a road at a junction with the lights on red but she drove through those lights on red. He was careless in a situation where it shouldn't have mattered if she was driving responsibly but she broke the law. He paid with his life and she got her toy taken away for a few years. Boohoo for her.

[Mr.Samsa]

If she wasn't paying attention, then it was her fault. Whether the guy saw her or not is irrelevant. She's the one in charge of a 1 tonne piece of speeding metal.

Yeah, seems like a pretty open and shut case. The lights, by her own admission, said that she should stop. She didn't stop. That action caused the death of another person. What is there to disagree with?

Sure, maybe the guy should have looked where he was going and it would have the best thing he could have done for himself but legally he had the right of way. If she had followed the laws, she would have been stopped at the lights, he would have run by, and then everyone would have gotten on with their lives. She didn't stop, she's the cause of all the consequences (legal and otherwise) that followed.

[mistermack]

People go through on amber all the time. Every pedestrian knows that. Or should know that.
I do it myself, fairly often. Once in a blue moon, they might click onto red before you're through. Only by a fraction of a second, but it happens.

It's never safe to walk out into the road, without looking. Every pedestrian should know that. Having the right of way won't bring you back to life.
He wouldn't have known if the lights were red or amber anyway. If it had been a controlled crossing, they would have said.

If people insisted on their right of way, and ignored any hazard, there would be tens of thousands of deaths every day. If I'm on my bike, and a fucking great lorry is blocking my right of way, I don't plough on regardless.

I find the original story confusing, because the police don't seem to have challenged her account that the light was amber.
It's only on another site that they report a witness saying it was red. And that witness seems a bit prone to exaggeration, from her account. The witness estimates of her speed were seventy MPH, whereas police calculations made it less than forty, and within the limit.

My guess as to what happened is that as the lights changed, the inside lane stopped on amber, they might have been going slow anyway, and she was in the outside lane doing forty, and decided to go through, ( either on red or amber ).
The pedestrian sees the inside lane stop, and assumes that it's safe, and doesn't check the outside lane as he jogs across.
You see people do it all the time. They usually stop at the last minute. He didn't, for some reason.

[rainbow]

This is the grave of Mike O’Day,
who died maintaining his right of way.
His right was clear,
his will was strong,
but he’s just as dead as if he’d been wrong.

http://www.just-one-liners.com/epitaphs/39119

[Hermit]

I would say he was 90% the cause, and she was 10.

Woman drives through amber or red light. Kills jogger. Jogger 90% at fault? Of course. Well, in MM's universe that does make sense.

[pcCoder]

If it was amber/yellow/whatever for the driver, wouldn't any walk signals for the walker be red/stop in the perpendicular direction?

[mistermack]

If it was amber/yellow/whatever for the driver, wouldn't any walk signals for the walker be red/stop in the perpendicular direction?

We don't have that on every set of traffic lights. Just a few designated crossings.

That's why it's wise to look before you cross. I can't imagine anyone having the mindset that you don't need to look. If you went out jogging with that as an attitude, you wouldn't live long.

I think this guy got undone by the inside lane stopping. If that happens to me, I'm automatically really wary that something might be coming in the outside lane. If the inside stream of traffic blocks my view, I crane my head around, expecting something to be there.

Joggers can be very dodgy though. Often, they are wearing headphones, which is crazy in traffic. Also, they tend to have a regular route, and time themselves, which has the potential to make them impatient at a crossing, if they are trying to finish within a target time.

[laklak]

Well, joggers should be fair game. And people on bicycles. Fuck, what are you, 10 years old? Grow up. Old ladies on Zimmer frames are worth bonus points if they see you coming and try to get out of your way. We don't have ice floes to stick 'em on (thanks, Climate Change), so you gotta do something with them before the suck up the entire budget with their adult nappies and all those pills.

[mistermack]

Well, joggers should be fair game. And people on bicycles. Fuck, what are you, 10 years old? Grow up. Old ladies on Zimmer frames are worth bonus points if they see you coming and try to get out of your way. We don't have ice floes to stick 'em on (thanks, Climate Change), so you gotta do something with them before the suck up the entire budget with their adult nappies and all those pills.

You need a nice lie-down.

[Brian Peacock]

People go through on amber all the time. Every pedestrian knows that. Or should know that.

People used to stop on amber but now it seems that when the lights go red it onky mean "Four more cars allowed through". Likewise, going from red to amber mean "Eat my dust!"

[laklak]

Well, joggers should be fair game. And people on bicycles. Fuck, what are you, 10 years old? Grow up. Old ladies on Zimmer frames are worth bonus points if they see you coming and try to get out of your way. We don't have ice floes to stick 'em on (thanks, Climate Change), so you gotta do something with them before the suck up the entire budget with their adult nappies and all those pills.

You need a nice lie-down.

I do, I honestly do. You'd think that after you retire you could have a lie down or a lie in whenever you wanted. S'not true. I got more sleep in the office.

[Mr.Samsa]

People go through on amber all the time. Every pedestrian knows that. Or should know that.
I do it myself, fairly often. Once in a blue moon, they might click onto red before you're through. Only by a fraction of a second, but it happens.

Lots of people go through on red. If a pedestrian gets hit whilst the cars have a red light obviously must mean that it's the pedestrians fault.

It's never safe to walk out into the road, without looking. Every pedestrian should know that. Having the right of way won't bring you back to life.
He wouldn't have known if the lights were red or amber anyway. If it had been a controlled crossing, they would have said.

Absolutely they should look. But so should the driver. Since the pedestrian did everything morally and legally correct then he can't be at fault.

If people insisted on their right of way, and ignored any hazard, there would be tens of thousands of deaths every day. If I'm on my bike, and a fucking great lorry is blocking my right of way, I don't plough on regardless.

Sure but that's ridiculous, who the hell would say or do that?

I find the original story confusing, because the police don't seem to have challenged her account that the light was amber.
It's only on another site that they report a witness saying it was red. And that witness seems a bit prone to exaggeration, from her account. The witness estimates of her speed were seventy MPH, whereas police calculations made it less than forty, and within the limit.

I imagine they didn't challenge it because the distinction is irrelevant. If she admits it was orange then that's the same as being red.

My guess as to what happened is that as the lights changed, the inside lane stopped on amber, they might have been going slow anyway, and she was in the outside lane doing forty, and decided to go through, ( either on red or amber ).
The pedestrian sees the inside lane stop, and assumes that it's safe, and doesn't check the outside lane as he jogs across.
You see people do it all the time. They usually stop at the last minute. He didn't, for some reason.

Sounds plausible, so the driver is 100% at fault there.