Laws that make sense!

[Lewkowski]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b03df370d8e858

"Republican lawmakers in Tennessee are pushing for a new law that would protect drivers who injure protesters who block traffic from being sued.

The bill, introduced Thursday, was proposed 10 days after a car ran into people at a Nashville rally against President Donald Trump’s executive order banning refugees. "

Protest is fine but simply declaring yourself a protester does not allow you to ignore other laws. You don't get to impede other people simply because you have a grievance.

[Aimless]

Nor are you allowed to drive recklessly or deliberately injure people by hitting them with your car.

[Timbuk2]

Nor are you allowed to drive recklessly or deliberately injure people by hitting them with your car.

From The Huff article:
The Tennessee bill, SB944, would shield a driver from civil liability as long as the driver exercised “due care.” The language of the proposal does not define what “due care” means but notes drivers could still be found liable if the “actions leading to the injury were willful or wanton.”
__________

"Driving without due care and attention" is clearly defined in UK Law, and I would think it would be too in US law. If this bill has no wording specific to due care then I'd think violations of due care in present law remain unchanged by the bill.

So if you are driving with due care, you won't hit anybody protesting on the street, either willfully or accidentally. If nobody is hit, then there is no case for criminal prosecution or the civil courts (what are you suing for?). If a protester is hit, willfully or accidentally, then the driver has not exercised due care and can still be prosecuted in the criminal courts and sued in the civil courts.

As I see it then, this bill changes absolutely nothing.

I imagine fuzz and other law-geeks could clarify further.

[RandBlade]

Nor are you allowed to drive recklessly or deliberately injure people by hitting them with your car.

Not deliberately, no.

If I'm driving on a motorway [highway] at 70 mph, the speed limit - a road where pedestrians are banned from standing on by law and other cars are expected to also be doing similar speeds unless there's been a warning that congestion is ahead ... then I mount a hill and there's a pedestrian stood on the road at the bottom of it - am I at fault if I hit that pedestrian having been unable to stop in time?

[Aimless]

and it's dark and a raccoon appears out of nowhere and runs in front of my car at the same instant that one of my kids scream from the back seat and

[RandBlade]

Yes stuff happens and circumstances are taken into account.

[Loki]

Why do we need special laws dealing entirely with protesters? Do we really want to join the kind of countries that pass this sort of legislation?

[Ominous Gamer]

Its written as an out for people to drive recklessly and injury protesters. Same way stand your ground laws are written so that turf war shoot outs and duels aren't prosecuted. If the cops don't have evidence of a clear violation this law gives them an out to not do shit about anything. A 3rd of the defendants for stand your ground in Florida either initiated the fight, shot the victim in the back or chased their victim down.

This law gives the Lewks and Rands of the world free pass to do 70 into a protest crowd without using common sense.

[Flixy]

Not deliberately, no.

If I'm driving on a motorway [highway] at 70 mph, the speed limit - a road where pedestrians are banned from standing on by law and other cars are expected to also be doing similar speeds unless there's been a warning that congestion is ahead ... then I mount a hill and there's a pedestrian stood on the road at the bottom of it - am I at fault if I hit that pedestrian having been unable to stop in time?

I think technically you'd be in the wrong. Imagine there's a traffic jam or accident in front of you, you should still be able to stop in time (and adjust your speed according to your vision). That is if the pedestrian is just standing there, of course, if he crosses in front of you there's not much you can do.

[Ominous Gamer]

I think technically you'd be in the wrong. Imagine there's a traffic jam or accident in front of you, you should still be able to stop in time (and adjust your speed according to your vision). That is if the pedestrian is just standing there, of course, if he crosses in front of you there's not much you can do.

Correct. The pedestrian would be ticketed but Rand hitting them would be a separate offense. Speed limits are the upper limit, and operating your vehicle beyond your ability to stop it before hitting a stationary object is still your fault.

Thats one of the abuses a law like this would allow. The "he jumped out at me" defense.

[Lewkowski]

Why do we need special laws dealing entirely with protesters? Do we really want to join the kind of countries that pass this sort of legislation?

In America's tort happy society? Hell yes we do. Alternatively we can start penalizing people for bringing frivolous torts like much of the rest of the civilized world.

[Lewkowski]

I think technically you'd be in the wrong. Imagine there's a traffic jam or accident in front of you, you should still be able to stop in time (and adjust your speed according to your vision). That is if the pedestrian is just standing there, of course, if he crosses in front of you there's not much you can do.

The issue comes in when an illegal protest is blocking a street. They start throwing rocks and shit and banging on your windows. What do you do? You drive forward and get the hell out of there, if you run over people that's on them for being stupid shitheads. Most of the time law enforcement and the DA office is going to give you a pass and rightfully so. However the civil system you could get into a dicey territory and could end up getting forced into bankruptcy by bull shit law suits from the people conducting the illegal behavior. Especially if you get a jury as dumb as the OJ criminal one who are out to 'send a message.'

[Lewkowski]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GfL0fb8ERo

Never get tired of seeing crowds think they have power and learning they don't. Little bitches then CALL the police after they were the ones protesting the police? Hah.

Honestly whenever a protest gets violent the police should do extra warrant roundups in the community EVERY time. And explain WHY they are doing it. Pretty soon you'll have communities using peer pressure to stop people from doing stupid illegal protests like this.

[RandBlade]

I think technically you'd be in the wrong. Imagine there's a traffic jam or accident in front of you, you should still be able to stop in time (and adjust your speed according to your vision). That is if the pedestrian is just standing there, of course, if he crosses in front of you there's not much you can do.

Actually no, in the motorway there are not supposed to be stationary objects which is why pedestrians and cyclists are forbidden by law from being on the road, driving too slowly is not allowed and if there is a traffic jam then there is a warning well signposted before then to slow down. It's also why if there is an accident it isn't unusual to have follow-up accidents because cars are travelling too fast to stop without warning.

[Aimless]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GfL0fb8ERo

Never get tired of seeing crowds think they have power and learning they don't. Little bitches then CALL the police after they were the ones protesting the police? Hah.

Honestly whenever a protest gets violent the police should do extra warrant roundups in the community EVERY time. And explain WHY they are doing it. Pretty soon you'll have communities using peer pressure to stop people from doing stupid illegal protests like this.

Yup, that's exactly how it would work. Mhmm

[Flixy]

Actually no, in the motorway there are not supposed to be stationary objects which is why pedestrians and cyclists are forbidden by law from being on the road, driving too slowly is not allowed and if there is a traffic jam then there is a warning well signposted before then to slow down. It's also why if there is an accident it isn't unusual to have follow-up accidents because cars are travelling too fast to stop without warning.

It's not unusual because people don't keep enough distance but that's also why in general if you hit someone from behind it's your fault not theirs.

[Ominous Gamer]

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code

Rule 125

The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous.

Rule 126

Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.

Rule 254

Traffic on motorways usually travels faster than on other roads, so you have less time to react. It is especially important to use your mirrors earlier and look much further ahead than you would on other roads.

Motorways rule 260 references rule 126

[RandBlade]

None of that contradicts what I said. Especially because you can't always see pedestrians from the safe distance, especially in the dark. You can see cars which have lights on, another legal requirement.

Rule 253

Prohibited vehicles. Motorways MUST NOT be used by pedestrians, holders of provisional motorcycle or car licences, riders of motorcycles under 50 cc, cyclists, horse riders, certain slow-moving vehicles and those carrying oversized loads (except by special permission), agricultural vehicles, and powered wheelchairs/powered mobility scooters (see Rules 36 to 46 inclusive)

Rule 270

You MUST NOT stop on the carriageway, hard shoulder, slip road, central reservation or verge except in an emergency, or when told to do so by the police, traffic officers in uniform, an emergency sign or by flashing red light signals. Do not stop on the hard shoulder to either make or receive mobile phone calls.

Rule 271

You MUST NOT pick up or set down anyone, or walk on a motorway, except in an emergency.

Tragically the other day there was a news article about a woman who died chasing her dog onto the M4 when she was hit by a van killing her instantly. A tragedy for all concerned but I bet you the van driver will not face prosecution as the woman should not have been on the road to be hit. http://www.itv.com/news/2017-04-08/w...after-her-dog/

[Ominous Gamer]

You completely ignored the earlier point that both parties would be in the wrong. People don't belong on the motorway and drivers shouldn't operate their vehicles beyond their abilities. Your country isn't some special shit hole that rear end collisions don't have repercussions.

When accidents do occur, even when the person wasn't visible and even when they broke one of the rules to put themselves in the situation, your island has a long history of assigning at least 50% blame on the driver when they themselves are also breaking a motoring rule at the same time.

Jackson v Murray 50% driver
Paramasivan v Wicks 75%
McCreery v Letson 50%
Snow v Giddins 75%
Spiller v Brown 50%

and so on and so on


Your own example has the police quoted as looking for witnesses, meaning they did not immediately write the incident off. Now it has been more than a week and the police could very well have discovered that the driver was following all laws and that the woman darted in front of him. Which would be neither here or there concerning the current discussion.

[RandBlade]

Did you read Jackson v Murray? Do you think prohibited pedestrian being on the motorway is the same thing as a school child crossing a road they're allowed to be on where the brightly coloured and clearly visible school bus was parked?

Did you read Paramasivan v Wicks? Do you think a prohibited pedestrian being on the motorway is the same thing as a teenager crossing the road in a residential area outside shops? Incidentally the pedestrian was deemed 75% responsible not the driver, the driver was deemed 25% responsible as after seeing a group of children it was judged he should have been travelling slowed to 25mph (not 70mph as a motorway driver is doing).

Did you read McCreery v Letson? Do you think a prohibited pedestrian being on the motorway is the same thing as a pedestrian stepping out from a parked bus on a stretch of road with a warning sign telling drivers to slow because of disabled pedestrians crossing?

Did you read Snow v Giddins? Do you think a prohibited pedestrian being on the motorway is the same thing as a motorcyclist overtaking stationary vehicles at a junction and hitting a stationary pedestrian on the junction while doing so?

Did you read Spiller v Brown? Do you think a prohibited pedestrian being on the motorway is the same thing as a bus passenger crossing from a stationary bus (again)?

Funny how you've found many cases of how on residential roads hitting a bus passenger who's crossing the road where the bus [a known hazard] is parked might be partially the drivers fault, but you've not found a single relevant case of a pedestrian being on the motorway is the drivers fault. Hint: pedestrians are prohibited by law from being on the motorway, they're not prohibited from riding a bus! FFS.

[Ominous Gamer]

I did switch the figures on the one case, my bad. There are plenty others still if you're this god damn dense that you haven't found the trend yet that that 2 wrongs don't make a right. That one person being in violation of a rule/law doesn't clear another of wrong doing when they intersect.

you've not found a single relevant case of a pedestrian being on the motorway is the drivers fault.

How many people do you have standing on the motorway to make this feasible?
We also have laws that restrict nondrivers from being on our highways, yet we've sent drivers to prison for hitting those people. We also have laws that require drivers to pull over when approaching people on the highway.

But nice to see you completely dropped the charade about rear end collisions being unavoidable and blameless

[RandBlade]

Find me a single comparable case please where a driver in the UK is deemed responsible for hitting a pedestrian on a motorway? I've never heard of a single successful conviction or prosecution brought for that and since you felt it appropriate to find a list of unrelated cases, primarily Scottish and primarily about buses, lets see a relevant English case about a motorway.

I never said rear end collisions are unavoidable and blameless. I did say they're at higher risk in certain circumstances. Cars are both more visible and better designed than pedestrians to absorb a rear end collision and fixing a car hit at [70mph minus however much you've hit the brakes by the time of the crash] is easier than fixing a person in the same circumstances which is again why the person is forbidden from being there by law.

[Steely Glint]

If you hit a pedestrian on a motorway, I think you'd have to have been more or less trying to hit them to get convicted. Maybe if you were driving well over the speed limit?

Like, if you're driving how you're supposed to drive on a motorway vs how people actually drive on motorways, I don't think it much difference in how likely you are to hit someone out there. So you'd have to have been a massive asshole to get convicted, I think.

Of course, it's never been tested in court AFAIK so we don't actually know.

[Ominous Gamer]

So far I've only seen Jason Norman, guilty of "causing death by driving dangerously" when he killed a man who was changing his tire on the M4.
Handful of DUI related ones too, but I didn't want to create such an easy distraction.


inb4 the foaming not a pedestrian response

[RandBlade]

He was on the slip road, not the motorway itself, had pulled off the side, had put his hazard lights on and put a cone out. He was not simply stood on the motorway.

[Loki]

In America's tort happy society? Hell yes we do. Alternatively we can start penalizing people for bringing frivolous torts like much of the rest of the civilized world.

Right, it's just a coincidence that your quest for tort reform starts with protesters.

[Lewkowski]

Right, it's just a coincidence that your quest for tort reform starts with protesters.

Pretty sure my position on tort reform started with the healthcare debate.