Incident at/outside Maury?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When a driver hits a pedestrian, the driver is ALWAYS at fault, full stop. A driver needs to be able to stop at any moment in time for anything to come walking, rolling, or flying in his/her visor. That's the law. There is no reason, ever, for a body to be struck by an attentive automotive driver, hitting the breaks when they need to be hit.

I have no idea who was at fault in this case, but this is just clearly untrue. It is also certainly not the law. If a kid jumps out from behind a parked car, the driver may literally be unable to stop in time not to hit the kid even if s/he was doing everything right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When a driver hits a pedestrian, the driver is ALWAYS at fault, full stop. A driver needs to be able to stop at any moment in time for anything to come walking, rolling, or flying in his/her visor. That's the law. There is no reason, ever, for a body to be struck by an attentive automotive driver, hitting the breaks when they need to be hit.

Completely untrue. Accidents happen all the time where a pedestrian is struck and the driver is not "at fault."

[Anonymous]

Cars are not at fault if obeying posted rules. Maybe PP is confusing hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk without having explicit right of way (ie always driver's fault unless pedestrian violating 'Don't Walk' light). I know this intersection well, and cars often drive above speed limit. Doesn't mean that occurred here but it's entirely possible. It's also unfortunate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When a driver hits a pedestrian, the driver is ALWAYS at fault, full stop. A driver needs to be able to stop at any moment in time for anything to come walking, rolling, or flying in his/her visor. That's the law. There is no reason, ever, for a body to be struck by an attentive automotive driver, hitting the breaks when they need to be hit.

First this isn't even the law and second you have no idea what happened here.

[Anonymous]

My father used to tell me (in the interest of getting me to take crossing the street seriously) "You can be right and still be dead."

Whether or not the driver is at fault (and if the driver is at fault, that must be proven), the pedestrian is still injured. Protect your children by teaching them caution.

[Anonymous]

How about drivers protect children by slowing the hell down?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about drivers protect children by slowing the hell down?

Without speed bumps, traffic signals, and cameras that won't happen.

[Anonymous]

It costs £11.50 to drive through central London.

The sooner we institute congestion pricing, the better. In the meantime, that's not going to happen if WMATA remains a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about drivers protect children by slowing the hell down?

They're Maryland assholes. They don't care about DC children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It costs £11.50 to drive through central London.

The sooner we institute congestion pricing, the better. In the meantime, that's not going to happen if WMATA remains a joke.

Let's do it now. They can park at Minnesota Ave or Benning Road and take the metro in. Probably faster anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When a driver hits a pedestrian, the driver is ALWAYS at fault, full stop. A driver needs to be able to stop at any moment in time for anything to come walking, rolling, or flying in his/her visor. That's the law. There is no reason, ever, for a body to be struck by an attentive automotive driver, hitting the breaks when they need to be hit.

And how do you know all of this.? One person on the scene said that the driver had the light, and another said that the driver was not speeding. But amazingly, you are able to assign blame. Many other possibilities exist. For example, it is possible that the little girl darted out into the street from between two parked cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When a driver hits a pedestrian, the driver is ALWAYS at fault, full stop. A driver needs to be able to stop at any moment in time for anything to come walking, rolling, or flying in his/her visor. That's the law. There is no reason, ever, for a body to be struck by an attentive automotive driver, hitting the breaks when they need to be hit.

Thanks for checking in. But shouldn't you be slurping David Albert over at GGW?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When a driver hits a pedestrian, the driver is ALWAYS at fault, full stop. A driver needs to be able to stop at any moment in time for anything to come walking, rolling, or flying in his/her visor. That's the law. There is no reason, ever, for a body to be struck by an attentive automotive driver, hitting the breaks when they need to be hit.

First this isn't even the law and second you have no idea what happened here.

Okay, then let's make that "USUALLY". Here is the link to enlighten the matter: http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/auto-accident/driver-at-fault-pedestrian-car.html
If you read my statement as carefully as you should, I by no means claim to have seen the accident and very clearly make a general statement about these kinds of situations. Even turning "always" into "usually", you'll see that my claim stands because "reasonably cautious" means pretty much all the things I state above, including a kid or a ball rolling or darting out from between two parked cars. The driver's attention - especially near schools (this one is marked in all directions!) - and speed needs to be focused on and adjusted to such eventualities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When a driver hits a pedestrian, the driver is ALWAYS at fault, full stop. A driver needs to be able to stop at any moment in time for anything to come walking, rolling, or flying in his/her visor. That's the law. There is no reason, ever, for a body to be struck by an attentive automotive driver, hitting the breaks when they need to be hit.

First this isn't even the law and second you have no idea what happened here.

Okay, then let's make that "USUALLY". Here is the link to enlighten the matter: http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/auto-accident/driver-at-fault-pedestrian-car.html
If you read my statement as carefully as you should, I by no means claim to have seen the accident and very clearly make a general statement about these kinds of situations. Even turning "always" into "usually", you'll see that my claim stands because "reasonably cautious" means pretty much all the things I state above, including a kid or a ball rolling or darting out from between two parked cars. The driver's attention - especially near schools (this one is marked in all directions!) - and speed needs to be focused on and adjusted to such eventualities.

What are you talking about? Yes, a driver should be attentive to their surroundings. But no, it doesn't mean that in every-- or even most-- accidents, the driver is at fault. That is simply not true.

[Anonymous]

You can be right and still be dead.