Tim240z Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 In Santa Monica' date=' CA, the pedestrians have the right of way the minute they step off the curb---regardless of other factors....[/quote']I think that CA has some comprehensive motor vehicle laws, so Tim's statement seems a little confusing, compared to a more common sense law, requiring to to be in a crosswalk to have the right-of-way. Confusing is right, but then, Santa Monica is a Effed up place......as far left wing as I've ever seen any place. Not stopping for pedestrians as soon as they step off the curb is a great revenue generator for the city...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strotter Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 I was talking to a friend of mine who's a cop about this thread. He had some excellent stories about retards - er - pedestrians, though most of them ended badly. The point he made to me, relating to this thread, was that pedestrians have the right-of-way everywhere, all the time, mostly as a safety thing. A car moving at normal speed is dangerous, a person moving at normal speeds is not. Therefore, the burden is on the driver to exercise greater care in its normal operation. Greater care in this case means to yield. With a jaywalker, just because someone is breaking the law doesn't mean that someone else is allowed to commit a greater crime upon them as a result. So, if Nick had chosen to hit the pedestrians, and told the investigating officer "I chose to kill the pedestrians because they were breaking the law and the people in the other cars didn't do anything wrong," he would have likely been arrested on the spot and charged with "vehicular manslaughter", which basically means murder by car. Much more serious than "Involuntary vehicular manslaughter". He did the right thing. If he had had to run into another car, he would have been right in doing that, too. The pedestrians would have (theoretically) been charged with jaywalking, and possibly "contributory negligence" (which means "dangerously stupid" in cop-talk), which would have mostly been about getting some liability on them. In practice, if the worst happens the cops and the D.A. look to see if the driver behaved in a "reasonable" manner. A person is expected to not kill or injure if it's at all possible. "I didn't want to bend my car" is not a considered reasonable, because a car is considered expendable compared to a person's life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomoHawk Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 If you can hold a ped liable for a car collision, then the ped should have "Ped Insurance" meaning that you gotta have insurance if you want to cross the street (jaywalk), and be wearing a special nametag with your 'proof of Insurance,' otherwise get a citation for about $300. Or fine his employer. You could offer a commission to collect the citations for this, then there would be LOADS of volunteers to do that duty! LOL Cut down on jaywalkers, too. Or just shoot them with paintballs that STAIN. LOL Just yell at them the next time you see one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dpiatkin Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 no one said California laws were right or correct (logicaly speaking) but that is the law in Cal.. THE PED ALWAYS HAS RIGHT OF WAY !!!! RESIDENTIAL, BUSINESS AREA OR WHERE EVER THEY CHOOSE TO BE AN IDIOT.........with the exception of the freeways, I believe....? I work with CHP and Cal-Trans all day everyday in the center of Interstate 5, and I am pretty sure the freeway thing is correct.... but I maybe wrong..? I also spent several years working in San Francisco, CA..... and you want to talk about moron pedestrians !!! someone should give them all a basic lesson in physics(spell check ?!)..... you know 3000 lbs. vs. 185 lbs !! gee wonder who wins that one ???? Watch out for dummies and take care !! I think I have vented enough for now (lol). Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dpiatkin Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 we call Jay walking "the poor mans California lotto" around my area...... they dont even look before stepping into the street, I swear!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest goldraven Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 you know, all through my life i've always wondered why people get charged with involuntary manslaughter. i just cant see how the state can ethically pin someone with a couple years in jail if they got caught in a wrong place at the wrong time situation. it sounds like an oxymoron to me. involuntary = not trying to do it. when you get your driver's license it doesnt say...if some moron jumps infront of you to kill himself, you will be responsible for his death. I just dont understand the involuntary manslaughter law...can anyone please bring some insight to a life-long confusion with this law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nic-Rebel450CA Posted March 21, 2004 Share Posted March 21, 2004 In practice, if the worst happens the cops and the D.A. look to see if the driver behaved in a "reasonable" manner. A person is expected to not kill or injure if it's at all possible. "I didn't want to bend my car" is not a considered reasonable, because a car is considered expendable compared to a person's life. I hope you arent assuming that I didnt choose to hit a vehicle because I didnt want to crunch my truck... Basically, the way I saw it, that truck being loaded and at 40 MPH could have killed anyone I hit, whether they were in a car or not. The liklihood of someone in a car being killed wasnt quite as likely as the pedestrians, but it was still a very real possibility. Goldraven, I think the problem with the involuntary manslaughter charge is that they had to make "involuntary manslaughter" something that exists because of situations like when someone is beating the crap out of someone and accidentally kills them. They didnt originally plan to kill them, but that ended up being the result. Then, since that is a charge that exists, it can be put into situations where it just barely fits the definition and blammo, someone gets thrown in prison. I think what we all need to do is just carry around a mangled bicycle in our cars. Then, if we hit a ped that is being stupid, we can throw the bicycle on the ground and instantly remove their right-of-way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudge Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 he does not have the right of way... In the Californian drivers handbooks they have the right of way no matter what, in fact it is one of their trick questions. Is it stupid? Maybe, but if you can hit a car at 15 MPH versus hitting a person, they are going to prefer you hit the car than hit a ped, hence peds have the right of way in California. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudge Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 we call Jay walking "the poor mans California lotto"[/i'] around my area...... they dont even look before stepping into the street, I swear!!!!!! I dont recall for certain but I think SFs death toll for peds last year was 17 (?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudge Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 you know, all through my life i've always wondered why people get charged with involuntary manslaughter. i just cant see how the state can ethically pin someone with a couple years in jail if they got caught in a wrong place at the wrong time situation. Even if you get caught in a bad situation it can show lack of judgement etc, so they could be punishing you for "not taking the right course of action" aka not using your brain. Think before you act yada yada, it sounds goofy but law is just so damn complicating that it is something I come to expect from the law, lots of confusion and differences in interpretational viewpoints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomoHawk Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 they could be punishing you for interpretational viewpoints. They would have to really prove you were not using your head, which isn't easy, especially if you are a "careful" driver. You have to have been doing some really questionably stuff at the time, like driving fast in a crowded road, with a truck heavy with furniture... Oops... j/k, but you get the point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudge Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 There was a member here from Oregon I believe who was in a little trouble over gun laws. The law in general if it comes down on you may come down hard, even if you think you are totally in the right. Its a shame but I dont think everyone gets a fair shake these days, I try to stay as far out of trouble if possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.