Loosely the presumption of guilt lands on the car driver for failing to stop in time, just as it would if you ran into the back of someone, or hit a cyclist.

There are of course circumstances where a driver has little chance, like a kid running from between parked cars after their ball, someone not looking, or a cyclist running a light.

The police generally investigate the scene and assess what happened, measure out distances, skid distances to assess driver speed, and seek witnesses etc if there's reason to think circumstances aren't straightforward or there's serious injury or death.

There's also some degree of marshalling on busiest roads by putting up railings in some places to encourage crossing at safer spots, or the crossing a few yards away.

Super interesting. I have to admit my bias is to say that it seems difficult to assess when the pedestrian became visible to the driver (which would affect whether they could've stopped in time), but I'm also totally willing to admit that I might be nitpicking and it's a fine system.

Thanks for the response!

The point here, though, is that it doesn't matter whether the driver could've seen them, because culpability rests with the driver by default (except, as mentioned, in situations such as motorways, where pedestrians aren't allowed).

In very general terms, as a pedestrian in the UK, you have no particular right to step into the road other than at marked crossings, but as soon as you do, you have total right of way, no matter how stupid it was of you to step into the road.

There are various crimes in the vein of 'obstructing a public highway' and so forth, so you aren't completely free to be an asshole, but even if you are, it's still on drivers to avoid hitting you; in my experience, this tends to make drivers more careful and aware of nearby pedestrians, so I'm fully in favour of the status quo.

I'm sure it works fine in practice, but it's still not ideal if you can put one foot into the street and oblige cars to slam on their brakes.

If you're driving a car and someone walks in front of the car you'll slam on the brakes.

This is independent of legality. I'd hope that it'd be the case even if laws were passed that explicitly punished braking in such a scenario.

Anyway, in the UK, it's illegal to walk down the side of a motorway. But basically anywhere else is free reign for pedestrians.

People don't generally walk out in front of (fast moving) cars because they're not suicidal.

In a place like London it's fun to watch (and take part in) the stand-off between cars and pedestrians though.

I womble through crossings all the time. The lights are advisory for pedestrians. They're designed that way; the green man exists for the elderly and children.

When I said "can", I meant by the rules, not the laws of physics. The car is morally obligated to try not to hit anyone no matter what, but that's not what I'm talking about.

And the picture I have in mind isn't someone suicidally leaping in front of a car, it's someone taking one step to order the cars to stop. This would be fine if there was a "reasonable stopping rate" clause, but it doesn't sound like there is.

So what? People don't do this deliberately very often because there's always the risk that the driver doesn't stop. If you try edging into the road you'll get honked at.

The concept of jaywalking has never made any sense to me as a Brit; it's like that joke sign meme of "Danger of death and £20 fine".

If your response to "this works but is not ideal" is "people don't abuse it very often" then I think we agree. I'm not arguing for any particular change.

There's quite strong evolutionary pressure on people not to abuse it. The ones that do often don't last very long.

That's pressure not to jump in front of cars. You don't have to jump in front of a car to trigger this rule, you just have to put one foot into the road.

It's unclear to me what the problem is, here.

Are you picturing bored teenagers doing this as a joke or something? In practice this is incredibly rare.

Such 'feral children' will be causing way worse problems elsewhere anyway.

If you're driving in London and someone gets a bit close to the edge of the footpath and looks like they might walk out, yes, you slow down and get ready to stop. If you actually think they're walking out, you brake hard.

Because you don't want to hit them.

But on a very basic level pedestrians have right of way in old world cities anyway.

There are junctions in Central London whereby cars often struggle to pass even when the light is green (Kings Cross station is a good one, taxi drivers like to "push" people out of the way by edging closer)

> In practice this is incredibly rare.

That's why I said I'm sure it's fine in practice in my first post.

>If you're driving in London and someone gets a bit close to the edge of the footpath and looks like they might walk out, yes, you slow down and get ready to stop. If you actually think they're walking out, you brake hard.

>Because you don't want to hit them.

You don't want to hit them.

Entirely separately from that, if they force you to slam on your brakes, when you are not being reckless, they should be chastised.

> It's unclear to me what the problem is, here.

Giving someone right of way when they're going to cross the road is fine. But it should not be absolute and instant, forcing cars to brake at 100% power.

Someone on a footpath, giving no signs of wanting to enter the road, could do so in one second. It takes longer than that for a car to stop.

To solve the problem, give cars enough slack to stop at medium braking intensity before the right of way kicks in. That's all. Lack of right of way isn't permission to hit them. It just means they're wrong to be sprinting across the street.

> it's someone taking one step to order the cars to stop. This would be fine if there was a "reasonable stopping rate" clause, but it doesn't sound like there is.

Rest assured, no car driver ever stops in this situation unless the pedestrian is at a zebra crossing.

If as a driver, you aren't willing to slam on the brakes, to avoid killing someone, because you feel you have right of way...

You shouldn't be driving.

Your first goal, as a driver, should be avoiding accidents. Your second goal should be following the rules of the road.

A human life is more important then enforcing your claim to the right of way.

"Aha, you fool! You have obstructed my right of way and now you must die."

"These mortal fools with their ignorant and mislead readings of traffic code!"

No, that wouldn't be ideal - but that's also not how it is.

Well you're the expert here, can you please tell me why I'm wrong? I'm just trying to go by your earlier explanation. I'd like to be wrong here!

>What happens when a driver hits a pedestrian? Is there an investigation into whether the driver could've stopped in time?

The driver would be more guilty as they should have been going with a suitable speed and pay attention to the road when driving inside the city.

Living in a major city myself, I can think of several intersections where one could be traveling the speed limit and paying attention but be completely unable to stop in time for a pedestrian crossing unexpectedly.

There are numerous streets and corners that are really poorly lit because of scaffolding/debris/etc.

If there was poor visibility for the driver, there's almost certainly poor visibility for the pedestrian too. Most are sensible enough to walk a little further to where they can get a bit better look at what traffic is coming.

If I did hit someone at a visibility blind spot I'd expect to be shouted at by the cop too for not slowing down to a speed suitable for the visibility, and that the speed limit is a maximum sir. In that special sarcastic voice, common to all British cops. That might be later reflected in my fine or penalty. :)

Hah, fair enough!

For some reason I'm imagining the worst-case scenario of a pedestrian completely oblivious to what's going on around them and just crossing without looking on a busy street, which I realize is pretty unlikely.

Yeah, that's not how it goes. If it does go that way (some people for example might have mental issues and go into the street, or be disoriented etc), it's not usually held up to the driver if they are hit, except if it's shown that they could have realistically prevented it.

Then you need to go slower than hhe limit.

At least in my country, there are two forbidden concepts in traffic law of "excessive speed": one is driving over the defined limit, another is driving at an inadequate speed for the conditions. If you get into an accident because you couldn't stop, but could have if you had been going slower, you're guilty of the latter (that's the gist, exceptions apply).

The speed limit is called a limit for a reason. If prevailing conditions make it unsafe to drive at this speed then you're supposed to slow down.

Basic Rule Of Speed: Only go so fast you can stop within visible distance. If there is not enough room for oncoming traffic, make it half the visible distance.

>There are numerous streets and corners that are really poorly lit because of scaffolding/debris/etc.

Well, the city should light them properly and clean them up then?

From my original post:

> It could work, but I think it would involve re-designing countless intersections to provide higher visibility of pedestrians for drivers--not a bad goal, but I think a pretty unfeasible one.