Hacker News Reader

Comment by resoluteteeth | Hacker News Reader

Drivers are often not found liable for hitting pedestrians in the US even when it is clear that an error on the part of the driver caused the accident, so liability insurance is not actually capturing those externalities.

However, laws automatically holding drivers liable by default for accidents with pedestrians unless there were clear extenuating circumstances, as some other countries, might be another way to change this situation so that this risk could be better captured by liability insurance.

View on HN

I remember there was a talk at Defcon that hypothesized: if you want to murder someone and get away with it, hit them with your car.

> Drivers are often not found liable for hitting pedestrians in the US even when it is clear that an error on the part of the driver caused the accident, so liability insurance is not actually capturing those externalities.

Do you have a source for this?

> However, laws automatically holding drivers liable by default for accidents with pedestrians unless there were clear extenuating circumstances, as some other countries, might be another way to change this situation so that this risk could be better captured by liability insurance.

What countries have those laws, and how have they worked out? Why not just do something sane like treating it like any other civil case where people who cause damage to others are liable for it?

the problem with this is the same as the problem when police shoot people. when there's only one side left, justice tends not to occur.

justice tends not to occur

I think you're being a little disingenuous. Most police are shooting people in self-defense (https://www.statista.com/statistics/585140/people-shot-to-de...). A minority of victims are actually innocent, and justice still does tend to occur in those specific situations. For instance, George Floyd's killer received a (presumably) just punishment.

there are several problems with these figures. first of all, the unknown category. this data comes from police departments. if they "don't know", it means the person was unarmed. otherwise they would have said. secondly, the vehicle category includes anyone who was in a car. while a car theoretically can be used as a weapon, that also is a category the police can put anyone they shoot after pulling over because "I was afraid they were doing to drive at me". thirdly, caring a weapon isn't illegal. this chart doesn't break down by whether the person with the weapon was actually threatening the officers with it, just whether there was a weapon on them when they were killed. in the most egregious cases like George Floyd, the police sometimes get charged but it's rare. Floyd's case was exceptional because it room place over 9 minutes in broad daylight with dozens of witnesses and multiple camera angles. there are hundreds of unarmed people killed by the police every year, and the vast majority see no charges.

I think non-fatal in injuries are significantly higher than fatal injuries. I don't have a source for that for USA at hand but it's certainly true globally by a factor of 15-40 https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffi...

Also, anecdotally, I hear quite a lot about family of deceased in wrongful police shootings suing police. Although I don't think the difficulty that a private citizen has getting justice after being wronged by a police department is really at all the same as most road accident situations.

My guess is most insurances settle and it never goes to court, at least criminally.

Well the OP was indicating that it didn't even go to insurance.

Japan has percentage-based liability, and generally speaking there is a large onus on the driver of cars to do the safe thing when close to smaller groups.

For example, you have to slow down to under 10km/h in theory if there are small children on the sidewalk next to you. Up until recently, a bike collision with a driver was considered 100% the driver's fault even if the bike was riding against traffic (That was changed so that the liability is 100% if the bike is riding on the right side of the road).

The point of all this is that there is such a thing as mixed liability, and the idea that it's either one or the other person's fault is just completely unworkable. And because there's this percentage-based system, you can ratchet up the liability based on who is more likely to cause major damage, without having binary results for really tough things.

I know there is such a thing as mixed liability, that's pretty common in civil court systems isn't it? I don't see what point you're trying to make with it.

You didn't really answer the questions I was asking OP for either. Japan puts a large onus on drivers but appears to have backed off from some of it? That is actually interesting though, why did they change?

Well my point is that there's a lot of mixed liability things baked in, so there are many many many many things that can make a driver liable, because there's not this fear of "what about in this extenuating circumstance X???"

The change is mostly around making rules more strict for cyclists, as cyclists... well, they also pose a danger to pedestrians! There is a pretty famous case of a cyclist hitting an old lady and killing her.

Some people moving here get annoyed because a lot of times the liability split ends up being 90% driver/10% victim, because there are technicalities, but generally speaking even for pretty "egregious" behavior from pedestrians the driver is ultimately expected to be doing their best. Things like "but there was a blind corner, how could I know somebody was going to ride from that corner" hold no water because drivers are supposed to slow down in those cases, for example. I don't know the state of liability in the US but I imagine it's a bit less victim-friendly.

> What countries have those laws, and how have they worked out?

Here in Norway the driver is assumed to be at fault, mainly due to the following paragraph:

§ 3. Basic rules for traffic.

Everyone must travel with consideration and be alert and careful so that no danger can arise or damage be caused and so that other traffic is not unnecessarily obstructed or disturbed.

In case there's a major accident, the driver at presumed fault will have their license temporarily revoked right away. However if the investigation showed the driver drove with reasonable care and caution, the driver will usually be exonerated (and thus get their license back).

There's been a few notable cases regarding this, for example one case where a pedestrian crossed the road at night during winter in a poorly lit area, got hit by a a car and died. The driver was found not guilty as the pedestrian had not worn a retroreflectors or similar, thus the driver had no chance to see the pedestrian until it was too late.

However, due to the above, the driver will often get some blame. There's been cases where the driver does not get an involuntary manslaughter charge, but does get punished due to paragraph 3 above. A recent one I recall is this one[2].

[1]: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1965-06-18-4/KAPITTEL_2#%...

[2]: https://www.nrk.no/osloogviken/broytesjafor-frikjent-for-uak...

That's criminal liability, but we were talking about civil.

Still, that seems even crazier. A pedestrian can step out right in front of you even deliberately and if it happens to be broad daylight when they do, you have to somehow prove you were not negligent otherwise you can be convicted of manslaughter.

Is that really so crazy? Driving a vehicle means constantly putting others' life at risk. Being a pedestrian does not. Holding people driving vehicles up to (significantly) higher standards seems like the sane thing to do, considering the immense damage they can cause to others.

Having to prove yourself innocent of criminal accusation? Yes I think that is a pretty bad system. That has nothing to do with the standards you have for negligence or competence of operation, it is about a private citizen being compelled by the state to provide proof of their innocence of a criminal accusation.

Having to prove yourself innocent of criminal accusation after killing someone else seems like a pretty reasonable system. The idea that killing other human beings using a car is "expected" and "the norm" seems to me like the bad system.

> Having to prove yourself innocent of criminal accusation after killing someone else seems like a pretty reasonable system.

I think you have it backward. You are being asked to prove yourself innocent after being accused of being the guilty party in an incident in which somebody died.

> The idea that killing other human beings using a car is "expected" and "the norm" seems to me like the bad system.

I don't know where you got that idea from. Seems pretty deluded.

It's a variant of "with great power comes great responsibility". The driver has taken non-trivial training to get their drives license[1], as they're in command of a vehicle which can inflict great damage to others easily. Thus there is a significant asymmetry between the driver and the pedestrian.

If a pedestrian suddenly steps out right in front of your car in broad daylight, in an area where it's not reasonable to expect them to (ie no crosswalk, not next to a school etc), then, as long as you weren't speeding or using your mobile phone, you'd most likely be fine. However if the pedestrian had for example been acting erratically just before, then the police might argue you should have taken more care.

Note that the paragraph I quoted applies to anyone venturing in traffic, including pedestrians. However, given the mentioned asymmetry, it usually falls down to the driver to be the more responsible party.

[1]: https://www.vegvesen.no/en/driving-licences/driver-training/...

> It's a variant of "with great power comes great responsibility".

It's not. The idea that being innocent until proven guilty frees you of responsibility is wrong. They are on separate axis. People get tried and convicted of criminal negligence causing damage, injury, death / manslaughter etc and for that matter all sorts of other criminal acts quite regularly.

Would you say somewhere like the USA where people are usually quite strongly innocent until proven guilty has a problem incarcerating enough people?

> They are on separate axis.

Maybe I explained myself poorly. Of course the driver is innocent until proven/found[1] guilty. That's separate from the potential charges and punishment. It's the latter where the greater responsibility of the driver comes in.

[1]: If you're "just" fined, you can accept or take it to court to get the police to prove it there.

> In case there's a major accident, the driver at presumed fault will have their license temporarily revoked right away.

> Of course the driver is innocent until proven/found[1] guilty.

those two statements read as incompatible to me, possibly that's where the confusion in this thread is coming from. having your license revoked is itself a serious penalty in the US.

> having your license revoked is itself a serious penalty in the US.

Unless you're relying on the license for work, I'd agree it's probably a more severe action in the US than here in Norway, where most people live in areas with well-functioning public transport.

There's one important detail that I had forgotten, as I have never been exposed to this thankfully. If the police wants to temporarily revoke your license, you have to agree. If you do not agree, it will go to the courts within three weeks[1]. The police, and courts, should weigh the impact of revoking your license against the severity of the incident.

[1]: https://nye.naf.no/trafikksikkerhet/lover-regler/tap-av-fore...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com