Jaywalking vs Vehicle | GTAMotorcycle.com

Jaywalking vs Vehicle

gptt916

gptt916

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Last night while I was going southbound on Bayview just before Highway 7 there were two malfunctioning street lights, it was really dark. I was going at about 60km/h.

There were two pedestrians jaywalking wearing all black (sweat pants, hoodie, backpack) and it was almost too late for me to see them/make an emergency maneuver.

I was fine, car was fine, jaywalkers were fine.

However I was just curious in such a situation who's fault would it be? If I tried my best to avoid a collision but I still hit them, would I be at fault?

Lets say if I don't hit them but instead was involved in another accident due to avoiding the pedestrian jaywalking, would I be at fault?

Lastly, if I was on my bike (thank god I wasn't, not sure what would have happened if I was on my bike) and made an emergency maneuver and ended up dropping the bike, would my insurance count that as me being at fault?
 
You are at fault in all 3 cases (pedestrians are also at fault in all 3 cases but that is immaterial). Obviously you were outdriving your headlights (which is amazing easy, even high beams on most cars don't give you enough light to exceed 100 km/h). I'm not saying that you are the only person that does this, I expect everybody does it (myself included), but that doesn't mean the charge/at fault incident isn't valid.

Just to give you an idea of how low the bar is to be at fault, if you are on a flat icy road and the wind literally blows you into the ditch, you are at fault. The way the insurance company sees it, you should have realized that conditions were dangerous and stayed home.
 
GreyGhost said:
You are at fault in all 3 cases (pedestrians are also at fault in all 3 cases but that is immaterial). Obviously you were outdriving your headlights (which is amazing easy, even high beams on most cars don't give you enough light to exceed 100 km/h). I'm not saying that you are the only person that does this, I expect everybody does it (myself included), but that doesn't mean the charge/at fault incident isn't valid.

Just to give you an idea of how low the bar is to be at fault, if you are on a flat icy road and the wind literally blows you into the ditch, you are at fault. The way the insurance company sees it, you should have realized that conditions were dangerous and stayed home.
Click to expand...

Wow that sucks, it was amazing how in the blink of an eye there were two people right infront of me. So I am assuming it doesn't matter what situation I am in, if I hit a jaywalker I will be at fault along with them?
 
The jaywalker isn't necessarily 100% at fault; fault will most likely be apportioned by a jury through a civil law suit between the two parties.


Unfortunately, from an insurance POV it's always better to make contact with the other party (vehicle, animal, pedestrian, cyclist, etc) especially if they're at fault. If you make contact with an animal it turns into a comprehensive claim rather than collision.

If you get into a single vehicle collision in order to avoid them, you'll be found 100% at fault. If the other party is untouched, they're not going to wait around and tell the police they caused you to crash. If you do make contact, they'll be forced to investigate.

Ultimately, you should never be in a situation where you're making contact with other parties. It takes two people to tangle, and as Ghostrider pointed out... speed is always a factor with these things.

IMO it may be worth investing in a camera that you can mount on your bike or your chest. In that case, w/e happens you'll have some evidence to support your side.
 
iFly55 said:
The jaywalker isn't necessarily 100% at fault; fault will most likely be apportioned by a jury through a civil law suit between the two parties.


Unfortunately, from an insurance POV it's always better to make contact with the other party (vehicle, animal, pedestrian, cyclist, etc) especially if they're at fault. If you make contact with an animal it turns into a comprehensive claim rather than collision.

If you get into a single vehicle collision in order to avoid them, you'll be found 100% at fault. If the other party is untouched, they're not going to wait around and tell the police they caused you to crash. If you do make contact, they'll be forced to investigate.

Ultimately, you should never be in a situation where you're making contact with other parties. It takes two people to tangle, and as Ghostrider pointed out... speed is always a factor with these things.

IMO it may be worth investing in a camera that you can mount on your bike or your chest. In that case, w/e happens you'll have some evidence to support your side.
Click to expand...

Luckily I did have a dashcam in my car, I will be taking a look at the footage and try to see what exactly happened there.

Lets say with a dashcam recording everything, I m driving under the speedlimit and two people run right infront of my vehicle, would I still take responsibility? By running right in front of me I mean they left me no time to react.

I guess what I am trying to get to is that is there almost no situation where the vehicle will not be at fault?
 
gptt916 said:
Luckily I did have a dashcam in my car, I will be taking a look at the footage and try to see what exactly happened there.

Lets say with a dashcam recording everything, I m driving under the speedlimit and two people run right infront of my vehicle, would I still take responsibility? By running right in front of me I mean they left me no time to react.

I guess what I am trying to get to is that is there almost no situation where the vehicle will not be at fault?
Click to expand...
What dash cam do you use and where did you buy it. I've been wanting to buy one for a while now but don't know who to go with.
 
It's a no brand dash cam for $50 bucks from eBay. Records in 1080 and it's actually really good.
 
I am considering a dash cam, (brand name DOD), that I saw at the CNET. It not only records the street, but in the frame it records other info such as your actual speed etc etc. A dash cam, like a Gopro isn't much use if you can't show that you were traveling the speed limit.

On the other hand if tour doing something stupid then a camera like this can also get you really screwed...lol.
 
GreyGhost said:
You are at fault in all 3 cases (pedestrians are also at fault in all 3 cases but that is immaterial). Obviously you were outdriving your headlights (which is amazing easy, even high beams on most cars don't give you enough light to exceed 100 km/h). I'm not saying that you are the only person that does this, I expect everybody does it (myself included), but that doesn't mean the charge/at fault incident isn't valid.

Just to give you an idea of how low the bar is to be at fault, if you are on a flat icy road and the wind literally blows you into the ditch, you are at fault. The way the insurance company sees it, you should have realized that conditions were dangerous and stayed home.
Click to expand...

You're right but from an insurance cost standpoint it would be best to run them down. However you must kill them so there are no witnesses. It's going to be hard to explain backing over them several times so you're screwed either way.

Similarly is if you're on a multi-lane and car "A" swerves towards you and you react by swerving and hitting car "B". You are screwed.
 
If someone else is going to cause you to be involved in a collision, always hit them ...
 
Brian P said:
If someone else is going to cause you to be involved in a collision, always hit them ...
Click to expand...

Never bring a bike to a game of chicken. ;)

While you're being rush to hospital with a concussion, or worse,
they're back explaining to the police how it was your fault.

As for the original. You'd be best to lawyer up if they sued.
The insurance company will pay out, if they expect that costs will end up being lots more than your coverage.
They're only in it for the 250,000 - 1,000,000 coverage, and you're responsible for anything over that.
 
Brian P said:
If someone else is going to cause you to be involved in a collision, always hit them ...
Click to expand...

Kid runs out into the street in front of you.. avoiding them will mean you will probably hit some parked cars.... Are you suggesting that we should hit the kid?
 
Common sense would dictate otherwise, of course. But by the rules that the insurance companies set out, if you hit those parked cars while taking avoidance actions, it's your fault. If you hit the child running out onto the street and they weren't in a legal crosswalk and you weren't speeding ...

I'm not saying it's right. But it is what it is.
 
Brian P said:
Common sense would dictate otherwise, of course. But by the rules that the insurance companies set out, if you hit those parked cars while taking avoidance actions, it's your fault. If you hit the child running out onto the street and they weren't in a legal crosswalk and you weren't speeding ...

I'm not saying it's right. But it is what it is.
Click to expand...

Cars are easier and cheaper to fix/replace.
Costs you nothing or a little more for a couple of years, if you don't make a habit of it.
Parents will thank you, papers will run a story, insurance will have pressure to pay out.

Not so, if you hit the kid.
 
Baggsy said:
Cars are easier and cheaper to fix/replace.
Costs you nothing or a little more for a couple of years, if you don't make a habit of it.
Parents will thank you, papers will run a story, insurance will have pressure to pay out.

Not so, if you hit the kid.
Click to expand...

Really? I don't think so. I've never read an article about insurance not charging a operator for hitting stationary objects while dodging a living thing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom