[giantg2]

"lenient criminal charges."

"face no criminal charges or loss of driving privileges as long as they stop and dial 911."

I don't think this is necessarily true. Criminal charges generally require some form of intent. That could be recklessness. Most driving doesn't constitute reckless driving (per case law and customary enforcement). The police do investigate. I would imagine that many of the fatalities include drivers following the law and exercising reasonable care (as based on society's expectations), as well as pedestrians and cyclists not following the law. I would love to see the data to show the breakdown one way or the other.

[lamontcg]

> I would imagine that many of the fatalities include drivers following the law and exercising reasonable care (as based on society's expectations)

We've got extremely low expectations.

[giantg2]

Possibly. I feel split on this. I believe we need stronger testing. But I also wonder, if someone is following the law (which is vast), what would be the other steps for reasonable care?

[lamontcg]

They're generally not following the law. But they do something like turn right on red without stopping and we consider that a "mistake". Or they do stop but they have 1,000 yard stare off to their left and they hit a pedestrian legally in the crosswalk. Or they're just speeding and we consider 15 over to try to beat the light perfectly reasonable because everyone does it. Being distracted and driving a bit too fast will also be viewed as "accidental" because again it is so common.

We actually have a very high tolerance for vehicles breaking the law (but then whine endlessly about that bike we saw blowing a red light).

I'd argue that if you wind up killing anyone that you were necessarily negligent in your driving and someone killing someone else when they were actually taking due care is extraordinarily unlikely. Pedestrian deaths should really be automatic negligent homicide charges unless it can be proven that the pedestrian just ran out in the road and got hit or something through their own negligence.

[giantg2]

"Pedestrian deaths should really be automatic negligent homicide charges unless it can be proven that the pedestrian just ran out in the road and got hit or something through their own negligence."

This I why I'd like to see the stats/breakdown. There are more laws that apply to pedestrians than many realize. Like walking on the left side of the road, jay walking, not obeying traffic signals. This could be seen as negligence or recklessness.

There are a ton of irresponsible or unknowledgeable drivers, and those same people are also likely to be pedestrians at some point and exhibit similar actions.

[lamontcg]

Pedestrians inherently move a lot slower and are more predictable even when they're not perfectly following the law.

Since vehicles are moving so much faster, with more limited reaction speed and with massively higher kinetic energy they should be held to a higher standard.

And I've been driving for near 35 years and never once come close to hitting a pedestrian, no matter what kinds of mistakes the pedestrians have made.

Walking is a necessity, driving is a privilege.

[giantg2]

"Since vehicles are moving so much faster, with more limited reaction speed and with massively higher kinetic energy they should be held to a higher standard."

And the laws show that (cars are obligated to try to avoid it even if they have the right of way). The question is what qualifies as negligence or recklessness. In civil law there is the idea of contributory negligence. Meaning if the pedestrian breaking the law by being there then they contributed to the situation through their negligence. This may be enough to prove that the driver wasn't at fault through negligent or reckless behavior if they were following the law.

"Walking is a necessity, driving is a privilege."

Driving is a privilege. Walking may be a necessity. However, performing illegal acts is not a necessity. This is crucial in the discussion of negligence and recklessness. Especially if the activity is reckless, as they know the risks of their illegal activity and accept them by doing it anyways.

"Pedestrians inherently move a lot slower and are more predictable"

Slower, yes. More predictable, no. People can change direction more quickly and erratically (no turning radius, etc). Cars can be very predictable because of the constraints their mechanical nature provide. You also have to see them to be able to predict, which could be difficult if they throw open a car door from a heavily tinted (illegal in my state) car parked on the side.

So, to get back to the original topic... we could assume that the act of hitting a pedestrian is de facto negligent unless proven otherwise. But what would 'proving otherwise' mean? Here I'm saying that if the pedestrian was negligent or reckless, then that could provide evidence that the accident was the fault of the pedestrian. This could absolve the driver if they were following the law.

And let's not forget that there are people who will throw themselves on cars for the payout. Upsetting the current balance could exacerbate this issue.