Blame the Victim

[August]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

And why would he send an insurance man round so soon? got something to hide? wants to nail scandium before scandium can nail him?

At fault or not, the driver has an obligation to report the accident to his insurance company as soon as possible and they take it from there. Far from sending the insurance man, i'd bet the driver wasn't even aware that Scandium had been visited.

I was just about to say the same thing August. Its the insurance company that wants to reduce or eliminate its liability.

[LoBlo]

How fast were they going?

I'm just glad you're alive, and hope you'll recover fully.

It's true that the insurance company will do everything they can to avoid paying, and that means trying to prove that you are in the wrong from the start. Use any legal means you can to keep that from happening, and don't give in!

I think scandium has every right to be discouraged from his point of view.

However, we are only getting one side of the story, which by his own admission brings his liability into question.

Last weekend while crossing the street (walking across) after midnight, I was hit by an SUV on the 4 lane highway I had to cross on my way home. There was almost no traffic, it was a clear night, I thought the street was clear and had not, at any point, seen (or even heard) the SUV that hit me - my only warning was the impact itself.

'it was a clear night' headlights are easily seen by a pedestrian,

'I thought the street was clear ' he made a judgemnent as to the safety of his progress onto a four lane automobile road,

I should add that I'd crossed three of the 4 lanes I needed to cross to get to the sidewalk on the other side before being hit in the 4th lane by the driver who never saw me, and who then stopped and used their cell phone to call a friend/family member but not 9/11 (that was done later and by somebody else). And somehow, at every point along the way, this has been portrayed - from my perception- as my fault

'I should add that I'd crossed three of the 4 lanes I needed to cross to get to the sidewalk on the other side before being hit in the 4th lane'

Was scandium looking for auto traffic during the entire crossing of the four lane road? Crossing three out of four lands a person in hospital.


'who then stopped and used their cell phone to call a friend/family member but not 9/11'

The driver stopped the vehicle and did not leave the scene. I suspect he was under no other legal responsibility. Although we all hope to act in the correct and hreoic manner portrayed on the TV human nature is not always scripted. Also where did scandium get this information, his tale says he was near coherent at best during the incident.

Later, in the ER, while still attached to heart/blood pressure monitoring equipment and hooked up to a respirator, while lying flat on my back and in a neck brace, and after the ultrasound of my internal organs but before the CT scans and X-rays, I'm visited by another police officer. He again asks, (while I can still only barely speak) if I'd had anything to drink or taken any drugs, and then mentions before departing that he'd popped in to let the driver, who he said was "very shaken up about the whole thing", know that I was "ok".

Taken apart from the police checking for intoxication, the driver was concerned for scandium's wll being.

he makes a point of mentioning that I had not crossed at the crosswalk that is much further up the street (and in my opinion more dangerous to cross at night because of the speed people drive at and the limited visibility there to both driver and pedestrian)

' had not crossed at the crosswalk ............in my opinion more dangerous to cross at night because of the speed people drive at and the limited visibility there to both driver and pedestrian'

This statement will get ya wacked by any insurance company. Crosswalks are designed to control both pedestrian and auto traffic in a safe and judicious manner. If one chooses to diregard the designated crosswalk or roadway the liability rests upon the individual who chooses to disobey the legal crossing.

[August]

Well i just hope Scandium is alright. Who else would i have to argue with on the Subsim forum?

[scandium]

I appreciate the well wishes from everyone, and I'll try and answer what I can.

First, here in Canada (or at least this part of it) my understanding of liability in motor vehicle pedestrian accidents is that the greater burden of responsibility is upon the driver; this at least was how I understood it when I used to drive and pay insurance. "Public Liability" is therefore mandantory, not just for pedestrian collisions but also to cover vehicle-vehicle accidents where, once liability is established, its the negligent party whose insurance pays. But I have not driven in a while, have never been involved in a lawsuit, and am a real newb when it comes to this stuff. Many drivers also have optional "colision" coverage which is why, I'd image, a damage assessment was done on the SUV for the insurance company (the driver/owner, I believe, intends to have their insurance company pay for the damage to it under the Colision portion of their policy, if they have it and they probably do).

I have (only very recently) seen the statement from the driver who hit me so though you're only getting it from me, you are getting both sides as well as I can convey them and based upon what she had said to me at the scene and in a statement by her that was shown to me.

The driver that hit me was very young and an inexperienced driver. Her position is that she had not seen me. On the side of the road that she hit me was a bright street light adjacent to the sidewalk and which would have been directly above me (had I made it to the sidewalk I'd have been standing right next to it). I had walked across 3 lanes before she hit me. I don't know how she could not have seen me, but at the same time I don't know how it was that I didn't see/hear her either (it was a female driver who hit me). I have crossed that street, at that point, hundreds of times in all different kinds of weather - rain, snow, fog, etc.

I don't know the driver, and I have no reason to believe there was any ill will or "intent" on their part - most likely she was distracted from watching the road and really didn't see me. Though that doesn't erase the experience, damage, or bitterness.

It is too early to know if there will be any permanent damage anywhere - it was all of the "soft tissue" type so I suppose it'll depend on how well things mend in the critical points around the joints and such. Mostly I am still sore, though taking prescribed pain killers, and I probably won't be too bad off no matter how well I heal, in the sense that I can walk, talk, think, and type; but there's a lot of grey area between that and 100% pre-accident and I'm still healing. In the hospital I was given morphine for pain and two anti-inflammatory drugs every 4 hours, day and night. So the pain was "managed", and still is though with different prescriptions now, but the experience has been a downer (to put it mildly). Sleep is difficult and I find myself still pre-occupied a lot by the accident.

Ultimately it could have been a lot worse. My entire thigh muscle, which bore the brunt of the impact by the SUV, was turned to hamburger but the bone didn't break. And though various other parts of my body, including my head and face, had impacted I don't know what - SUV, road or both, again nothing broke.

[Edit] as to the speed she was driving at, I have no idea. The speed limit on it is somewhere around 70 km/h but drivers routinely exceed that by 10-20 km/h, particularly late at night.

[Iceman]

This is always how I understood the definition of Jaywalking ...

State law allows individual communities to decide what is or isn't jaywalking, but most communities follow this simple standard: If you are within 300 feet of a crosswalk, you must use it. If you're not, you can legally cross the street.
The bad news for drivers, of course, is that pedestrians maintain the right of way even when they walk against the light or dash anywhere across an open road.
``Yeah, the pedestrian is at fault," says Sergeant Larry Fitzgerald of the Brookline Police Department, which hasn't issued a jaywalking ticket in years. ``But if you run over the pedestrian, the judge is going to say shame on you. And that person's family is going to be living in your house."

You are not liable even if you were not in a crosswalk...Sue Them.

[August]

I once read something about bright street lights making it harder for drivers to see objects in the darkness adjacient to the pool. Something about the eyes having difficulty in making the transition from light to dark quickly enough.

I dunno the situation but could this have happened?

[Yahoshua]

That very well could be. And it also depends on the type of bulb used to light the street.

The standard bright yellow bulbs blind me when I drive at night sometimes, so I drive slower to make sure I'm even in the right lane. The newer more red-lights are brighter and aren't as hard on my eyes at all.

It's possible that the streetlight could've blinded her or, if Scandium were on the edges of the light placement, she couldn't have seen Scandium due to a "Gray Zone" where the transition between night/light vision balance for the eyes is present and prevents the eye from picking out details in that area.

To give an example, if you're next to a yellow-bulb streetlamp and you try to look at things in the dark from the light, you can't because your eyes are light acclimated. Conversely, when you look from the dark to the light, you can percieve most of the surrounding area (no real visible details other than broad shapes depending on the moonlight), and you can see objects clearly illuminated from the light. But how well are you able to spot a moving object only on the fringes of the light? Or for that matter, clothes that will absorb yellow light will actually help to conceal a person, because the clothes take on the look of the street light on the pavement.

This is the "Gray area" of nightvision vs yellow-bulb streetlights.

Now time to complicate things: Move from one light to another (light to dark), and try to pick out a vague object on the fringe of the light before you arrive to the light itself (dark to light tansition). Depending on how bright the light is, and how fast you are moving, you will pick up a moving object when moving slowly. But if you're moving really fast, then the constant strain on your eyes of light to dark to light again transition will only allow you to see the extremes of the spectrum. Either you see it or you don't.

So most likely, the girl was driving too fast, and the light transitions blinded her to seeing objects on the fringe of the light. And by the time she starts noticing a moving object, this nearly camouflaged persons' clothing is complicating the sight picture she has. Then she hears a *thump* from the vehicle. And that my friend, is more than likely what happened.

[scandium]

Ice, your understanding of the rules of the road regarding pedestrians and jaywalking pretty much mirrors my own.

As to August's and Yahoshua's light theory, I have no idea. Physics was never my strongsuit and most of the little bit of stuff I've encountered before on light and optics was way over my head.

My alternative theory, though I'll never know whether its correct or not, was that she was momentarily distracted by one of the many things that can distract a motorist: the buttons on the radio, a ringing cell phone (or one she may have been talking on), something else she may have been reaching for, or perhaps she was even applying lipstick in her rearview mirror. Or maybe none of the above, maybe I was in her blindspot and she had simply not caught the motion of me walking across the street. Any are plausible, maybe some more than others.

I'm as clueless as to how she didn't see me as I am to how I could not have seen or heard her. Anyway, so it goes. She is probably asking herself the same questions.

[Dan D]

Originally Posted by scandium

First, here in Canada (or at least this part of it) my understanding of liability in motor vehicle pedestrian accidents is that the greater burden of responsibility is upon the driver;

As a general rule this is the same over here.
The reason behind is the operational risk of a car in movement, a thing that weighs 1 ton or more. Because of that operational risk, you need to have a transport and traffic insurance if you want to drive a car. It can't be that the victims of a car accident don't get compensation, because there is no money around. With a car you can cause terrible losses.
I recall, when I rented a car in Montreal/Canada some years ago ( I made 3000 miles , no accidents), I had to sign such an insurcance.

In car-car accidents, you come up with a 50:50 quote if there was a "bang" and everything else remains unclear (both tell opposed stories), because of the op.risk of each car.
This is different in car-pedestrian accidents. Over here, the general tendency is a 50:50 quote even when the pedestrian was jay walking and was also careless ("I did not see the car coming"). A different quote is possible, e.g. if the traffic regulations say that it is strictly forbidden to enter a 4 lane highway as a pedestrian. Then you can't say, a driver has to reckon that negligent pedestrians do that (cross a 4 lane highway). At least, if you cross an interstate, it has a different quality then if you cross a side street to buy some milk, that is what I mean.
Btw, I think the police is investigating for bodiliy injury because of negligence against the driver, probably the reason why they questioned you. Such accidents are taken very seriously.

Because you were not driving a car, the question arouses, if you have a private liabilty, because the traffic liabilty does not apply here. If the damage on the car is high and your compensation for pain and sufferung is low compared to that, this depending on the actual quote might be not good.

Out of curiosity, I would be very interested to hear what the whole thing turned out in the end. So please pm me, if you think it is okay.

[XabbaRus]

Originally Posted by STEED

Scandium, if you was hit here in the U.K. the driver would had pressed charges of you damaging his car and won the court case.

Glad to here your OK.

I think that's a bit overboard.

Glad to hear you are well. I don't think we have jay walking laws in the UK so the onus is on the driver of the vehicle to be aware fo his environment.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by scandium

My alternative theory, though I'll never know whether its correct or not, was that she was momentarily distracted by one of the many things that can distract a motorist: the buttons on the radio, a ringing cell phone (or one she may have been talking on), something else she may have been reaching for, or perhaps she was even applying lipstick in her rearview mirror. Or maybe none of the above, maybe I was in her blindspot and she had simply not caught the motion of me walking across the street. Any are plausible, maybe some more than others.

I'm as clueless as to how she didn't see me as I am to how I could not have seen or heard her. Anyway, so it goes. She is probably asking herself the same questions.

Glad you weren't hurt too badly, mate. Really strange, how you missed seeing a big car coming at you while you were crossing the road. You must have been lost in deep thought, thinking of a rebuttal for a forum topic :hmm:

[scandium]

Dan, nothing much to add at this point as its still an ongoing affair ... though it was neither quite a residential street, nor an interstate. Its one of the more major traffic routes but it also has apartment complexes adjacent to it, some of which have entrances and walkways leading to the sidewalk there with some of these entrances within about 25 feet of this street and I was struck not far from one of these apartment buildings.


Neal, I don't know how I could not have seen it either. I was aware of every other part of my surroundings - other (minimal) traffic, pedestrians - and was able to describe where they were in relation to me as I crossed the road, so I don't think I was distracted or lost in thought; yet I somehow missed the elephant in the desert.