Red light camera shows driver not at fault for running over mom/child

[thescreensavers]

Maybe you should watch the video. The SUV didn't just slam on it right when the light turned green. The fucktard mom came from out of the SUVs view (behind a van) while illegally crossing the street. And yea, it is OK to slam the gas pedal and go. That's why green means go, not caution. Of course, you don't do it when someone is walking right in front of you at the time, but those dumb shits weren't.

It's too bad the mom didn't die.

Your right, he must of been doing something in the car and then saw that the light was green because the other cars were moving and just hit the gas before he got honked at

 

[LTC8K6]

I think the SUV driver was stunned to see Mom race out in front with a stroller.

 

[Lithium381]

of course she is going to sue. she's a minority and did something stupid, now shes looking to get paid. She's learning how to be american as far as i can see, guatemalan or mexican or whatever! this should be part of the citizenship test/green card applications: "how to sue" and win big

 

[DominionSeraph]

That law would not apply if the woman ran out from behind the other vehicle after the SUV was moving, which is what I see.

Where the hell would you get the idea that you don't have to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk as long as your car is moving? Do you know what "yield" means?

That his line of sight was blocked and so he couldn't yield doesn't mean that, properly, he should not have run them over.

 

[LTC8K6]

Where the hell would you get the idea that you don't have to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk as long as your car is moving? Do you know what "yield" means?

That his line of sight was blocked and so he couldn't yield doesn't mean that, properly, he should not have run them over.

Read the law:

lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time the signal is exhibited.

Lawfully.

I'm not required to yield if you run out in front of me well after the green, and well after I have started moving, as this woman did.

Both parties need to obey the law, not just one party.

The pedestrians clearly enter the crosswalk after the green light. The camper driver does not go on the green, because he can clearly see them step out in front of him. He may even have waved them on.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Wow lady going to sue the SUV driver:
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/regio...-release-video-of-mother,-daughter-hit-by-car

First she has to find a lawyer willing to take the case. I would think that once they see that video she'll be SOL.

Edit - actually, in Arizona I suppose they are allowed to share a portion of the blame, and the SUV could be at least partially at fault in the eyes of the right jury.

Here in Maryland, if the pedestrian is even 1% at fault for anything that happened she's done. And she was clearly mostly to blame for this stupidity.

 

[chusteczka]

Doesn't anyone walk across intersections anymore to know how short the walk signal can be? There are times when I am barely able to walk across an intersection before the light changes and I walk fast. Pedestrians are often still crossing a street when the light changes. Especially in urban areas.

Personally, I would time these lights to ensure sufficient time is allowed for pedestrians to cross the intersection. Especially, for a woman with a stroller.


Here are the facts.

• The author of the article is not qualified to state the driver is not at fault for the accident.
• The pedestrians were "lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time the signal is exhibited".
  Reference: Arizona State Legislature - 28-645. Traffic control signal legend
  
• The pedestrians panicked, were confused, and attempted to quickly cross the intersection once it was clear the traffic signal was changing.
  
• The SUV driver was stopped at a red light.
  
• The SUV driver did not ensure the intersection was clear prior to acceleration. (Lack of attention was displayed.)
  
• The SUV driver was accelerating during the accident. (Negligence is displayed.)
  
• The SUV driver did not stop the vehicle once contact was made by continuing to drive over the stroller containing a child. (Willful negligence is now displayed.)
  
• The SUV driver failed to "exercise due care".
  The SUV driver did not:
  1. "Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway."
  2. "Give warning by sounding the horn when necessary."
  3. "Exercise proper precaution on observing a child or a confused or incapacitated person on a roadway."
  Reference: Arizona State Legislature - 28-794. Drivers to exercise due care

Conclusion
From these facts it is clear the SUV driver was inattentive and willfully negligent.

 

[waggy]

Doesn't anyone walk across intersections anymore to know how short the walk signal can be? There are times when I am barely able to walk across an intersection before the light changes and I walk fast. Pedestrians are often still crossing a street when the light changes. Especially in urban areas.

Personally, I would time these lights to ensure sufficient time is allowed for pedestrians to cross the intersection. Especially, for a woman with a stroller.


Here are the facts.

• The author of the article is not qualified to state the driver is not at fault for the accident.
• The pedestrians were "lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time the signal is exhibited".
  Reference: Arizona State Legislature - 28-645. Traffic control signal legend
  
• The pedestrians panicked, were confused, and attempted to quickly cross the intersection once it was clear the traffic signal was changing.
  
• The SUV driver was stopped at a red light.
  
• The SUV driver did not ensure the intersection was clear prior to acceleration. (Lack of attention was displayed.)
  
• The SUV driver was accelerating during the accident. (Negligence is displayed.)
  
• The SUV driver did not stop the vehicle once contact was made by continuing to drive over the stroller containing a child. (Willful negligence is now displayed.)
  
• The SUV driver failed to "exercise due care".
  The SUV driver did not:
  1. "Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway."
  2. "Give warning by sounding the horn when necessary."
  3. "Exercise proper precaution on observing a child or a confused or incapacitated person on a roadway."
  Reference: Arizona State Legislature - 28-794. Drivers to exercise due care

Conclusion
From these facts it is clear the SUV driver was inattentive and willfully negligent.

lol

 

[eelw]

I'm not sure what is worse, people here defending the crazy lady or the number 2.

 

[Wordplay]

All the more reason to take her kid away from her.

Fuck that. The mother and kid should be deported.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Conclusion
From these facts it is clear the SUV driver was inattentive and willfully negligent.

Since you only want to post one side of the story:

HERE ARE THE OTHER FACTS:

State Pedestrian Laws


Arizona Revised Statutes


28-791. Pedestrians subject to traffic rules
A. Pedestrians are subject to traffic control signals at intersections as provided in section 28-645 unless required by local ordinance to comply strictly with the signals. At all places other than intersections, pedestrians are accorded the privileges and are subject to the restrictions stated in this article.
B. A local authority may require by ordinance that pedestrians strictly comply with the directions of an official traffic control signal and may prohibit by ordinance pedestrians from crossing a roadway in a business district or crossing a designated highway except in a crosswalk.

28-792. Right-of-way at crosswalk
A. Except as provided in section 28-793, subsection B, if traffic control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be in order to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave any curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

Conclusion:

The stupid bitch darted into traffic from her place of safety WITH HER BABY. The baby should be taken by child protective services and the dumb bitch sterilized and imprisoned.

 

[Cogman]

Doesn't anyone walk across intersections anymore to know how short the walk signal can be? There are times when I am barely able to walk across an intersection before the light changes and I walk fast. Pedestrians are often still crossing a street when the light changes. Especially in urban areas.

Personally, I would time these lights to ensure sufficient time is allowed for pedestrians to cross the intersection. Especially, for a woman with a stroller.


Here are the facts.

• The author of the article is not qualified to state the driver is not at fault for the accident.

• 
  And neither are you. However, the police officers that reviewed this video are moving to have the citation they initially gave to the driver removed. When a COP that gives you a citation turns around and says "my bad, he was right" you know you are good.
  
  

  [*]The pedestrians were "lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time the signal is exhibited".
  Reference: Arizona State Legislature - 28-645. Traffic control signal legend

  Again, The police officer that gave the citation is petitioning that it be removed.
  
  

  [*]The pedestrians panicked, were confused, and attempted to quickly cross the intersection once it was clear the traffic signal was changing.

  And? The pedestrian is still retarded. In the article it says that the pedestrian never pushed the cross walk button.
  
  What probably happened? the pedestrian came up to the street, saw a flashing red hand (which means don't cross now and those that are crossing need to hurry. Heck, it may have been solid red, she just saw stopped cars) and darted across the road.
  
  

  [*]The SUV driver was stopped at a red light.

  true
  
  

  [*]The SUV driver did not ensure the intersection was clear prior to acceleration. (Lack of attention was displayed.)

  Lack of attention? The SUV driver didn't leave until after most everyone else. How do you know he wasn't PAYING attention and making sure things were clear? Had he gone at the same time as everyone else, this dumbass lady would have been stuck in the middle of traffic anyways.
  
  

  [*]The SUV driver was accelerating during the accident. (Negligence is displayed.)

  The lady JUMPED OUT IN FRONT OF HIM. Your surprised that someone that is at a intersection that just starts moving would have their foot on the gas?
  
  

  [*]The SUV driver did not stop the vehicle once contact was made by continuing to drive over the stroller containing a child. (Willful negligence is now displayed.)

  BS. You have no idea what happened. The guy was probably in shock because some dumbass just jumped out in front of him. This whole incidence was what, 1 second long at most? The average human reaction time is about 200ms and that is in a situation they are expecting. Having a dumbass jump in front of you is not something everyone is expecting.
  
  

  [*]The SUV driver failed to "exercise due care".
  The SUV driver did not:
  

  1. "Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian on any roadway."

  1. 
     They jumped in front of the car.
     
     

     [*]"Give warning by sounding the horn when necessary."

     They jumped in front of the car.
     
     

     [*]"Exercise proper precaution on observing a child or a confused or incapacitated person on a roadway."

     They jumped in front of the car.
  
  Reference: Arizona State Legislature - 28-794. Drivers to exercise due care

Oh, and something you didn't quote

Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter every driver of a vehicle shall:

In otherwords, there are situations where that law does NOT apply, and guess what one of them listed is.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00792.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS

A. Except as provided in section 28-793, subsection B, if traffic control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be in order to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave any curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

Conclusion
From these facts it is clear the SUV driver was inattentive and willfully negligent.

Conclusion
The driver was in the clear and this lady is a dumbass.

 

[M0RPH]

People cross intersections late all the time... that does not give you the right to run them over. Even given the fact that the truck was blocking his view, the driver of the SUV should have been able to see the lady and stop... at the very least he should have hit the brakes after he sees himself crashing into her. I'm pretty sure that he was in a big hurry and/or not paying proper attention to his surroundings. I hope the lady gets a nice chunk of cash.

You only need to look at this frame of the video, which is right at the top of that article. Clearly he should be able to see the lady is walking across, IF he was paying attention.

 

[Jeeebus]

Am I the only one questioning why a four year old is in a stroller?

 

[LTC8K6]

People cross intersections late all the time... that does not give you the right to run them over. Even given the fact that the truck was blocking his view, the driver of the SUV should have been able to see the lady and stop... at the very least he should have hit the brakes after hearing his vehicle crash into something. I'm pretty sure that he was in a big hurry and/or not paying proper attention to his surroundings, possibly listening to loud music or something. I hope the lady gets a nice chunk of cash.

You only need to look at this frame of the video, which is right at the top of that article. Clearly he should be able to see the lady is walking across, IF he was paying attention.

How did, "It wasn't the driver's fault." become "The right to run them over?"

The more I watch the video, the more it looks like a suicide attempt...

 

[Kanalua]

That law would not apply if the woman ran out from behind the other vehicle after the SUV was moving, which is what I see.

It doesn't.

 

[dainthomas]

People cross intersections late all the time... that does not give you the right to run them over. Even given the fact that the truck was blocking his view, the driver of the SUV should have been able to see the lady and stop... at the very least he should have hit the brakes after he sees himself crashing into her. I'm pretty sure that he was in a big hurry and/or not paying proper attention to his surroundings. I hope the lady gets a nice chunk of cash.

You only need to look at this frame of the video, which is right at the top of that article. Clearly he should be able to see the lady is walking across, IF he was paying attention.

Do you think no one reading your post has seen the video? If the SUV was stopped and the people were walking, you be right. Of course you can't tell from your screenshot. Both were accelerating (and only the SUV had the right to be there.)

Fail.

 

[ProfJohn]

My guess is that the drive wasn't paying enough attention.

How else do you explain them not stopping the second they hit the lady and kid? Probably listening to music, or on the phone or texting etc etc.

 

[1sikbITCH]

People cross intersections late all the time... that does not give you the right to run them over. Even given the fact that the truck was blocking his view, the driver of the SUV should have been able to see the lady and stop... at the very least he should have hit the brakes after he sees himself crashing into her. I'm pretty sure that he was in a big hurry and/or not paying proper attention to his surroundings. I hope the lady gets a nice chunk of cash.

You only need to look at this frame of the video, which is right at the top of that article. Clearly he should be able to see the lady is walking across, IF he was paying attention.

BS. The cars you see were SECOND IN LINE. The light was already green and traffic moving. The pedestrians had an obligation to retreat back to the curb:

 

[JulesMaximus]

Not a red light camera and driver would be at fault in California as pedestrians in a cross walk always have the right of way.

 

[chusteczka]

At the time the light changed, the pedestrian was in the middle of the intersection. There was no "curb or other place of safety" to provide a safe place for the pedestrian. A previous poster mentioned that google maps shows a very thin median.

We do not see enough at the start of the video to know if the pedestrian was "darting across" the whole intersection or was walking across, noticed the signal change, and started running in the expectation that traffic would wait for her.

Vehicles must yield to pedestrians.

There is no reason the driver should not have seen the pedestrians. The vehicle was not moving that fast. It is important for people to use their peripheral vision and it is clear the driver was not paying attention.


Those of you blaming the pedestrian seem not to have much experience with driving.

It takes very little time to shift a foot from the gas pedal to the brake. The driver drove completely over the stroller and child with no braking action and kept going.

There have been several times in my own experience where a vehicle has continued across the intersection after the light turns red. Those times I have been in the first car with the light turning from red to green, I have always stopped in time since my car had little momentum and I looked both ways before acceleration. I never cross an intersection if there is a large vehicle blocking my view. If a large vehicle blocks my view to my left, and that vehicle slows down or stops, then so do I. This instinctive action has saved me from a handful of accidents. It is not that difficult of a concept to ensure the path is clear and cross-traffic has stopped before starting to accelerate.

The driver of that SUV did not ensure the path was clear before accelerating. After impact, the driver did not slow down either.

The pedestrian should not have been in the road at that time. The missing video at the beginning has the answers we need for proper judgment of the situation. At the very least; the driver was inattentive and did not yield.

 

[M0RPH]

Do you think no one reading your post has seen the video? If the SUV was stopped and the people were walking, you be right. Of course you can't tell from your screenshot. Both were accelerating (and only the SUV had the right to be there.)

Fail.

I know you've all seen the video but I question your interpretation of it. At the time of the freeze frame I showed, the SUV was accelerating, yes, but was still moving pretty slowly. At that point in time anyone paying attention to the road would have seen her and hit the brakes.

I'm not saying he's blatantly at fault, and I can see how the police didn't find ENOUGH fault in the video to charge him... but I still say that he was partly at fault.

 

[luv2liv]

i see this all the time in philly! ghetto people thinking they own the street, both drivers and pedestrians.

 

[CRXican]

In the youtube video linked, the SUV didn't take off right away. Look at the car just to the right of it, it started moving before the SUV and was well into the intersection by the time the SUV moved. I bet the driver of the SUV was texting, noticed the light turned green and stomped on the gas.

sounds like a good guess

 

[LTC8K6]

At the time the light changed, the pedestrian was in the middle of the intersection. There was no "curb or other place of safety" to provide a safe place for the pedestrian. A previous poster mentioned that google maps shows a very thin median.

We do not see enough at the start of the video to know if the pedestrian was "darting across" the whole intersection or was walking across, noticed the signal change, and started running in the expectation that traffic would wait for her.

Vehicles must yield to pedestrians.

There is no reason the driver should not have seen the pedestrians. The vehicle was not moving that fast. It is important for people to use their peripheral vision and it is clear the driver was not paying attention.


Those of you blaming the pedestrian seem not to have much experience with driving.

It takes very little time to shift a foot from the gas pedal to the brake. The driver drove completely over the stroller and child with no braking action and kept going.

There have been several times in my own experience where a vehicle has continued across the intersection after the light turns red. Those times I have been in the first car with the light turning from red to green, I have always stopped in time since my car had little momentum and I looked both ways before acceleration. I never cross an intersection if there is a large vehicle blocking my view. If a large vehicle blocks my view to my left, and that vehicle slows down or stops, then so do I. This instinctive action has saved me from a handful of accidents. It is not that difficult of a concept to ensure the path is clear and cross-traffic has stopped before starting to accelerate.

The driver of that SUV did not ensure the path was clear before accelerating. After impact, the driver did not slow down either.

The pedestrian should not have been in the road at that time. The missing video at the beginning has the answers we need for proper judgment of the situation. At the very least; the driver was inattentive and did not yield.

No, the light changed way before they entered the crosswalk. The 2 cars on the right are already past the crosswalk and in the intersection, because the light turned green a while ago. The camper driver never moved when the light changed, because he could see the peds were crossing illegally in front of him. The SUV driver doesn't move until well after he has the green light. He's actually quite late in reacting to the green light.