That's criminal liability, but we were talking about civil.

Still, that seems even crazier. A pedestrian can step out right in front of you even deliberately and if it happens to be broad daylight when they do, you have to somehow prove you were not negligent otherwise you can be convicted of manslaughter.

It's a variant of "with great power comes great responsibility". The driver has taken non-trivial training to get their drives license[1], as they're in command of a vehicle which can inflict great damage to others easily. Thus there is a significant asymmetry between the driver and the pedestrian.

If a pedestrian suddenly steps out right in front of your car in broad daylight, in an area where it's not reasonable to expect them to (ie no crosswalk, not next to a school etc), then, as long as you weren't speeding or using your mobile phone, you'd most likely be fine. However if the pedestrian had for example been acting erratically just before, then the police might argue you should have taken more care.

Note that the paragraph I quoted applies to anyone venturing in traffic, including pedestrians. However, given the mentioned asymmetry, it usually falls down to the driver to be the more responsible party.

[1]: https://www.vegvesen.no/en/driving-licences/driver-training/...

> It's a variant of "with great power comes great responsibility".

It's not. The idea that being innocent until proven guilty frees you of responsibility is wrong. They are on separate axis. People get tried and convicted of criminal negligence causing damage, injury, death / manslaughter etc and for that matter all sorts of other criminal acts quite regularly.

Would you say somewhere like the USA where people are usually quite strongly innocent until proven guilty has a problem incarcerating enough people?

> They are on separate axis.

Maybe I explained myself poorly. Of course the driver is innocent until proven/found[1] guilty. That's separate from the potential charges and punishment. It's the latter where the greater responsibility of the driver comes in.

[1]: If you're "just" fined, you can accept or take it to court to get the police to prove it there.

> In case there's a major accident, the driver at presumed fault will have their license temporarily revoked right away.

> Of course the driver is innocent until proven/found[1] guilty.

those two statements read as incompatible to me, possibly that's where the confusion in this thread is coming from. having your license revoked is itself a serious penalty in the US.

> having your license revoked is itself a serious penalty in the US.

Unless you're relying on the license for work, I'd agree it's probably a more severe action in the US than here in Norway, where most people live in areas with well-functioning public transport.

There's one important detail that I had forgotten, as I have never been exposed to this thankfully. If the police wants to temporarily revoke your license, you have to agree. If you do not agree, it will go to the courts within three weeks[1]. The police, and courts, should weigh the impact of revoking your license against the severity of the incident.

[1]: https://nye.naf.no/trafikksikkerhet/lover-regler/tap-av-fore...

Is that really so crazy? Driving a vehicle means constantly putting others' life at risk. Being a pedestrian does not. Holding people driving vehicles up to (significantly) higher standards seems like the sane thing to do, considering the immense damage they can cause to others.

Having to prove yourself innocent of criminal accusation? Yes I think that is a pretty bad system. That has nothing to do with the standards you have for negligence or competence of operation, it is about a private citizen being compelled by the state to provide proof of their innocence of a criminal accusation.

Having to prove yourself innocent of criminal accusation after killing someone else seems like a pretty reasonable system. The idea that killing other human beings using a car is "expected" and "the norm" seems to me like the bad system.

> Having to prove yourself innocent of criminal accusation after killing someone else seems like a pretty reasonable system.

I think you have it backward. You are being asked to prove yourself innocent after being accused of being the guilty party in an incident in which somebody died.

> The idea that killing other human beings using a car is "expected" and "the norm" seems to me like the bad system.

I don't know where you got that idea from. Seems pretty deluded.