Returning from a little trip for some food, there was an old man crossing the middle of the street with his chihuahua. I slowed to a crawl, but it gave me the time to think, "Even though I wouldn't do it, would it be legal to run them over since they're jay-walking (AKA committing a crime)?" Of course there are places where it's legal just because they're a pedestrian and they simply don't have the right of way (I believe Mexico is one of those places), but what about others? Also, while I am naturally particularly interested in the US rulings, it would be neat to hear about other places too. :)

I guess it's as legal as shooting someone since they happened to walk over your firing line. Well, not technically, but the idea's about the same.

In Finland at least, you're going to get into very serious problems with if you run over, say, a man dressed in completely dark suit in a pitch-black, misty night in a highway. No amount of "But I didn't see him!" will help.

Personally, though, I find the whole idea of driving over someone since they're jay-walking morbid, to say at least.
This is not to imply you would somehow like it, just my opinion.

There are cases of suicide-by-vehicle, but they are rare. The police basically decide whether the driver could have avoided the pedestrian, which is almost always the case -- if they decide the accident could have been avoided then it's vehicular manslaughter. Perhaps dmc could shed more light on the legal issues.

People are hard, cars are soft. You have to make a very convincing case that it was impossible for you to avoid running a person over to not be held accountable. What I was taught was that the car is in the wrong unless proven otherwise.

In Sweden, you have no rights as a driver, only obligations to follow. So even if someone jaywalks or something like that, you don't have the right to ignore him and carry on as you should have had he not done it, but you have an obligation not to run over people.

In US, the pedestrian has the right of way, no matter if they were Jay-Walking, having a cult meeting in the road, or laying mines in the road. If Sadaam was in the road and you ran over him, you'd still go to jail.

Not that I have any evidence besides Driver's Ed of course.

Unless your life is in immediate danger from the person you run over, I would think never.

I mean, running someone over because they are jaywalking? Since when A) is that not cruel and unusual and B) do law enforcement agents do that?

What if you're being attacked by muggers? If one of them stood in the front of my car with some sort of a weapon, besides a gun, trying to get me to open the door so they could mug me, I'd release the brake, and slowly creep forward. If the idiot is dumb enough to just stand there, I'm going to hit the gas...hard. :evil:

I've heard a local news story where a group of teenagers pulled up behind a guy, and then surrounded his car demanding that he open his door... The idiot actually obeyed, and the teens pulled him from his car, beat him half to death; stole his wallet and his car. :bad:

If some a**hole tried that on me, they would be pinned under my front tire before I would ever consider opening my door. :bad: Dog eat dog...kill or be killed.

In Fel's case, the worst I would do is pass by really close and lean out of the car to give the guy a good slap. :evil: :rolling:

In Canada it is pretty much the same as the U.S. I personally think that the pedestrians should carry at least some responsibility for their own well being but apparently I am in the minority around here.

In downtown Toronto the pedestrians will just jaywalk out across the road without even looking - it makes it damned scary to drive there.

Someone in Germany told me that jaywalkers are usually held responsible if they are hit there but he could very well have been trying to scare the tourists.

I have a high level of confidence in the common sense of my country's judical system that has proven to me time and time again that they value common sense over the hard lines of the law. I would say that in New Zealand if you hit somebody and the situation was one that would have been very difficult to avoid or even impossible I very much doubt you'd be convicted. I would even say the person you hit could be responsiable for paying for the damages done to your car.

Of course you would have to prove this was the case and that the pedestrian was at fault or at least that nobody was at fault.

Hitting someone on purpose with a car is not causing a traffic accident or manslaughter or anything, it's proper murder.

But if you make sure you're drunk when doing that and can show that it wasn't premeditated you'll get away with manslaugher. At least in Finland.

I think it's ridiculous. If you go driving when you're drunk and cause somebody's death, the sentence should almost equal with what you get from murder.

how do you prove it was on puropse?

a police officer once told me that you are only guilty if you slow down, thus showing that you are aware of the pedestrian. otherwise, he said it is an unfortunate 'accident'

I personally think that the pedestrians should carry at least some responsibility for their own well being but apparently I am in the minority around here. I agree with you there. The high school I went to is very close to my house, and pretty much at the crossroads of two major streets. But I see dumbass kids running across them all the time, sometimes as little as ten feet away from the corner. That there isn't at least one accident a year is astounding. And even adults seem to have this sense of "Having the right of way means that cars can't touch me." All it would take is one inattentive driver, and suddenly their kids are orphans.

Pedestrians have the right of way to prevent malicious acts, but that can't do a damn thing against accidents and people really need to wake up and recognize that. On the very rare occasions I jaywalk, I make sure I can see NO cars on the road before I step onto the asphalt. Now I'm not sure if the old guy just didn't see me (on the same low-traffic road that is the only one I jaywalk on), but he really should have been more careful. And though I can only hope having a car pretty much sitting there waiting for him to pass will make him a little more cautious considering the slow speed he's able to walk at, I doubt common sense will be able to make a dent.

In US, the pedestrian has the right of way, no matter if they were Jay-Walking, having a cult meeting in the road, or laying mines in the road. If Sadaam was in the road and you ran over him, you'd still go to jail.

Not that I have any evidence besides Driver's Ed of course. That's something I recall quite clearly from Driver's Ed. Unless of course it's self-defence, I'm sure you'd be within the bounds of legality there.

It is never legal to run someone over, period.

There may be something in the situation that offers you a defense, but that is not the same thing as saying it is legal.

Its legal if you are Vince Neil of Motley Crue... well close enough anyway.

Someone in Germany told me that jaywalkers are usually held responsible if they are hit there but he could very well have been trying to scare the tourists.That might actually be true. My buddy was over there once, and when he jaywalked, people started looking at him weirdly.

In denmark its never legal, its allways the car drivers fault.

I think it's ridiculous. If you go driving when you're drunk and cause somebody's death, the sentence should almost equal with what you get from murder. In a drunken state one's common sense can diminish quite a bit and they often don't view themselves being all that drunk, so I can't really see how it can even be compared to murderd. Invoulentary manslaughter would be the correct sentence.

In Finland you are basically at fault if you hit anything. In driving school tehy teach that your speed should never exceed such a limit that you are not prepared for the unexpected. Technically if you crash with an elk you are committing a crime and they can come out of the dark forest a lot more unexpectedly than any human. These cases are usually left unprosecuted since since elk crashes are often fatal.

A few years ago, here in Brazil, we've passed new traffic's regulations, and it was so full of discrepancies, that if someone, accidentally, ran over a pedestrian with a vehicle he would get a harder penalty than if he had just shot the pedestrian in cold blood.

From a legal perspective any time you do something that results in the death of someone else, it's a homicide, plain and simple. The only thing to decide is what *kind* of homicide it was. It's actually pretty funny, because my wife and I saw a fictionalized crime show (CSI) in which this very topic was discussed this week. (It didn't actually involve jay-walking, but a suspected criminal was hit and killed by a police vehicle, and they had a hearing to determine if charges should be brought against the officer.) While the show is fictional, they are usually pretty accurate with their legal terminology.

Basically, a homicide can be considered justifiable, excusable, or criminal. If you deliberately run over someone just for the hell of it, or if you could have avoided it, it's going to be criminal. If you run over someone who was jaywalking wearing all black clothes in the middle of a dark country road on a starless night, it's going to be an excusable homicide. If you run someone over who is trying to kill you by firing a gun at your car, it's justifiable because you were acting in self-defense - it legal to defend yourself with deadly force if you own life is in peril.

Here, it is legal if you are the son of a mayor( the son of old mayor of Istanbul, it means our recent prime minister, did such a thing in the past). Generally in my country, no one cares about traffic rules but in my university, you have to wait the pedestrians to finish their crossing until the end of your life, if they want to make it that long. In my uni, traffic rules are very strict.

logically, a car has right of way on the road just as a pedestrian has right of way on a pavement, if a car is parked on a pavement and a pedestrian walks into it then it is the motorists fault - the car shouldnt have been there, if you hit a person on the road then it should be their fault - they shouldnt have been there.

if you hit a person on the road then it should be their fault - they shouldnt have been there. :confused: Um... How do you propose someone gets to the other side of the street, other than by walking on the road? The example logically works in reverse because there's no need for a car to ever drive on the sidewalk. However since sidewalks to do not cross streets in unreasonable to say you should never walk on the road. By your logic, once you parked your car on a road, you'd only be able to walk around the block you parked on, as going anywhere else would require you to cross a street.

Well I don't have a driver's licence, so basically I don't know about the legislation concerning driving over people in Finland. Good thing if the driver's held responsible in most cases, but I know it's a bad thing if the situation is the pedestrians fault.

I'm still just a bit incenced of this one guy who killed a girl child with his Mercedes or whatever it was and when it was in the papers he showed bigger concern for the media getting his car model wrong. I hope he went to jail for a long time.

@Aldeth:
Crosswalks. It's effectively an extension of the sidewalk AND the road.

However since sidewalks to do not cross streets in unreasonable to say you should never walk on the road then you could say its the councils responsibility for not providing crossings, subways or bridges.
also, i guess you could try to argue that the council is responsible for the accident because the accident took place on public property - they were outside your car at the time of the accident, or that it is the councils responsiblity place barriers to prevent pedestrians from being on the road should a pedestrian cross that then any accident would be their fault... i dont see train drivers being prosecuted when people climb over 7ft fences to stray onto the line.

then you could say its the councils responsibility for not providing crossings, subways or bridges. That would be quite a lot of subways or briges, you would not mind the tax rises that would follow? Also most accidents occur withing cities where it's practically impossible to build bridges or subways. Also on smaller streets there is no pavement so it would be impossible for anyone to get out without a car or breaking the law. In anycase I find your view on this just impractical and I'm fairly convinced that it is not law anywhere and not going to be either.

@Shoshino:

If you're OK with people using crosswalks, then I have no problem with it. I interpreted your original message to mean that no pedestrian should ever set foot on a street where cars drive, which is why I thought it was impractical. It's not unreasonable to ask someone to walk to a street corner before crossing.

That would be quite a lot of subways or briges, you would not mind the tax rises that would follow? Also most accidents occur withing cities where it's practically impossible to build bridges or subways. Also on smaller streets there is no pavement so it would be impossible for anyone to get out without a car or breaking the law. In anycase I find your view on this just impractical and I'm fairly convinced that it is not law anywhere and not going to be either. where's liability theres a claimant waiting to soak it up, anyone can win anything these days, just look at the british press this week, the lags who won compensation for arguing that prisons violated their human rights making them go cold turkey from drugs - if they can win that, you can win anything.

What if you're being attacked by muggers? If one of them stood in the front of my car with some sort of a weapon, besides a gun, trying to get me to open the door so they could mug me, I'd release the brake, and slowly creep forward. If the idiot is dumb enough to just stand there, I'm going to hit the gas...hard.Don't know about that but you can get flamethrowers attached to your alarm system in South Africa to toast prospective thieves and IIRC they are legal there :evil: