I don't think that driver was from Russia.

Just going by all the other dash cam vids...

>> ^Payback:

I don't think that driver was from Russia.
Just going by all the other dash cam vids...


You just might be right there. "Russia" removed.

This was soooo close to getting an EIA tag.

>> ^Barseps:

>> ^Payback:
I don't think that driver was from Russia.
Just going by all the other dash cam vids...

You just might be right there. "Russia" removed.
He's cursing in Russian, cars are russian, traffic signs are like in Russia. Make your own conclusions.

>> ^Unsung_Hero:

This was soooo close to getting an EIA tag.
It still deserves it. He didn't win an award, but he was a really good contender.

The pedestrian didn't even turn his head in the direction of the oncoming traffic.
Typical of what I hate about pedestrian law in Canada (and the US?) In 99% of cases the pedestrian has the right of way. If the car had hit him or other traffic. The driver would have been at fault.

This is mostly because the pedestrian would be long gone or because pedestrians don't have insurance so there is no one to sue for damages.

>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^Unsung_Hero:
This was soooo close to getting an EIA tag.
It still deserves it. He didn't win an award, but he was a really good contender.


Agreed! *eia

Adding video to channels (Eia) - requested by ant.

>> ^Sagemind:

The pedestrian didn't even turn his head in the direction of the oncoming traffic.
Typical of what I hate about pedestrian law in Canada (and the US?) In 99% of cases the pedestrian has the right of way. If the car had hit him or other traffic. The driver would have been at fault.
This is mostly because the pedestrian would be long gone or because pedestrians don't have insurance so there is no one to sue for damages.


I think it's more likely because the driver is in a big, heavy vehicle that moves really fast. In most cases, the presumption is going to be that the driver owes a duty to take care not to injure anyone due to the potential danger of operating a motor vehicle, and has more ability to avoid incidents due to the speed of the vehicle. After all, you have to get a license to drive. You don't have to get one to walk. Unless you have a dashcam or other documentation to prove that liability is on the pedestrian, or unless the pedestrian admits fault, these other factors are probably going to carry the day.

Many, if not most, pedestrians do have liability insurance that might apply in the case of being found at fault for this kind of thing--homeowner's or renter's insurance. Most policies come with liability coverage that applies whether you're on the property or not--it's mainly used for things like dog bites, people injuring themselves on your property, etc., but depending on the policy it might apply to this sort of incident.

Also, if the pedestrian has insurance on their own automobile, in most states one can get medical coverage or personal injury protection coverage that applies regardless of whether you are in your vehicle or not--it just has to be a car accident of some kind.

>> ^Barseps:

>> ^Payback:
I don't think that driver was from Russia.
Just going by all the other dash cam vids...

You just might be right there. "Russia" removed.


Actually, I was being facetious... dash cam footage + no carnage = not Russian.

Hitting a pedestrian on a crosswalk is generally frowned upon no matter how stupid the pedestrian is.

So is crossing streets that have moving traffic on them. The video clearly shows a GREEN stoplight for the vehicle.

Action starts at 25 seconds

>> ^AeroMechanical:

Hitting a pedestrian on a crosswalk is generally frowned upon no matter how stupid the pedestrian is.

Let me grab my trusty traffic act, ahh..nope. Not here(Ontario). Here, a pedestrian is required to ensure that they are crossing safely, and with due care and consideration for others. And crossing into an intersection, even a marked intersection which where other traffic has the right of way automatically puts you into fault.

>> ^Sagemind:

The pedestrian didn't even turn his head in the direction of the oncoming traffic.
Typical of what I hate about pedestrian law in Canada (and the US?) In 99% of cases the pedestrian has the right of way. If the car had hit him or other traffic. The driver would have been at fault.
This is mostly because the pedestrian would be long gone or because pedestrians don't have insurance so there is no one to sue for damages.

America is the same on pedestrian. There are many instances where morons would not bother to think first and look both ways before crossing the street. I hate the pedestrian law here too because of it. I'm willing to stop for a pedestrian if there is no traffic behind me. But if there is, I'm going to keep moving.

The worst kind of pedestrians are the ones staring at their little devices tapping and txt'ing away without a stupid care in the world. That is followed by the idiots who don't care for oncoming traffic and just walk out anyway.

Missed ME!! has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.