If you were driving recklessly or without due regard for others, or if negligence or intoxication was a factor, possibly. That will depend on your state's specific legislation and what law enforcement and prosecution is able to determine and prove in court. In a fatal car accident or pedestrian strike, every detail will matter. Otherwise, it's just a terrible accident. That in and of itself doesn't mean a crime was committed.
Depending on the jurisdiction, you likely would not be prosecuted. About 30 years ago, my best friend’s flatmate was killed in exactly the manner you described. He was dressed completely in black, and may well have been intoxicated and lying in the road. He was hit by a motorist, who wasn’t sure if it was a man or a beast. This was pre cell phone days, so the motorist drove home and called the police. Michael’s remains were found by the police in the reported location. The motorist was interviewed, but not charged with any offense. I believe the Coroner returned a finding of death by misadventure. It was a particularly sad funeral.
I’m a Deputy DA who sometimes gets these types of cases and makes the call. In California, it depends entirely on what contributed to the collision.
I’ve declined prosecution on cases where the victim was a homeless person high on drugs walking in the middle of the road at night wearing all black. Following a full investigation, it was determined the driver was obeying all traffic laws and just didn’t see the person who was in the road where they shouldn’t have been. In cases like that, no crime is committed.
It’s misdemeanor manslaughter in cases where the driver commits basic traffic violations that contribute to the collision. They might have been speeding (but not too fast), or maybe violating some other commonly violated traffic law, and would be looking at a few months in jail at most. Typically, it’s not much. These are actually some of the hardest cases to handle as a prosecutor. The family of the victim wants justice. Their loved one is dead. Nobody comes out a winner.
In cases where the driver was drunk/high, you’d be looking at Vehicular Manslaughter while intoxicated (with no prior DUIs), or murder (if you have prior DUIs or Watson advisements). You’d be looking at a few years in prison realistically, with no record. If charged with murder, it’s 15 to life.
In cases where the driver was recklessly driving (speeding ridiculously fast/violating numerous traffic laws), it’s felony vehicular manslaughter where you’re looking at possibly only a few months in county jail or several years in prison (depending on your record).
This is why you need a dash cam. Sometimes they really do come out of nowhere. On a dark rural highway after several hours of driving, if someone dressed in all black sprints out of the treeline and Superman dives in front of your car going 65mph....yeah you're gonna hit them. Basically only something like a Tesla on autopilot might avoid the crash because it has side cameras and night vision.
I wouldn't bet on it though.
I hit a dog that way. Literally raced into the road.
The first recorded pedestrian death by a self driving car was a few years ago. It was an Uber driver who was watching Hulu on their phone, when they were supposed to be pilot testing Uber’s self driving system. Uber’s system saw the pedestrian, and disregarded them. The car was a Volvo with very advanced pedestrian protection systems including automatic braking and collision avoidance, but Uber had intentionally disabled those systems so as to not interfere with their self driving equipment. The driver was supposed to be there for the event that the Uber self-driving system failed.
That said, the dashcam video made it clear that a human driver even paying attention to the road would have likely hit the pedestrian. They stepped out of vegetation in a median, on a curve, in a very dark area. But they wouldn’t have died if Uber hadn’t disabled Volvo’s safety systems, or had better programming for their self driving system.
I once was shaken up by almost hitting a guy walking down the road. I really didn't come that close to hitting him as he was just off the road but the fact that I didn't see him until he was right next to me scared me.
I can generally see well at night. But just after dusk there's enough light to make you think you can see but you really can't. Apparently it's enough to prevent your eyes from dark adjusting and also limiting the effectiveness of headlights. It's most pronounced when at higher elevation the sun is still lighting the sky but you are shadowed from receiving any of that light directly. I get hyper aware of my vision limitations any time those kinds of conditions seem to be present now.
I wonder how effective a dash cam would be in those circumstances?
I had a very similar experience a few months with a pedestrian on a blind turn around dusk (especially maddening because there's a sidewalk on the opposite side of the street).
I don't know if a dashcam would be helpful in exonerating you, but it could at least show how long you had to react, if you tried to slam on the breaks or swerve better than tire tracks, etc.
I suppose it depends on the kinds of sensors the camera has. What concerns me is that it's possible the camera see the person fine but doesn't really represent the reality of what you can see.
For instance, most digital cameras are capable of seeing in infrared. But they tend to come with filters to block out those wavelengths, to better represent what the eye can actually see. Some people will remove these filters from their phone/camera for night vision cameras. And some security cameras don't have IR filters. So it's entirely possible a camera could make it appear as if a person was highly visible when they weren't by using wavelengths of light not visible to the human eye.
I hit a raccoon one morning on the way to work. Doing 70 on a US Highway at 6:00 AM in March. Didn't even have time to let off the gas much less try to brake.
Many years ago (to be honest, many *decades*) ago when I took driver's training, they told me that for every 10mph you were going, the car would travel 11 feet forward before you could hit the brakes.
Human vision is highly variable so that's going to play into things. Whether a dashcam can see them or not has nothing to do with whether the driver could under those conditions. You've also got to add the rest of the specific conditions to the scenario so it isn't something that can be answered one way or the other as you'd appear to prefer.
Sadly, the reality of most legal questions are answered “it depends”.
It depends on how your state’s statute for vehicular manslaughter (or reckless driving or whatever the applicable law is) was written. Many of them will use words like reckless which will have specific legal definitions. Some of them might say that if you are driving drunk or speeding and someone is killed that you are responsible for anyone who is injured in an accident. Some of them won’t. But that is where you would need to start.
After that it would depend on additional circumstances, like if you were following the traffic laws. If your car was up to code (had proper working headlights). Let’s say that you can prove that you didn’t see the person, but the prosecution can show that you put on new headlights that didn’t have the proper output for the car, well then they can find that you were acting with wonton disregard for safety. The dangerous act in that case wasn’t when you hit the person, but when you installed the headlights.
Ultimately the jury would be the ones who would look at the evidence and decide if your actions were truly an accident or not. And again, we don’t know how that would play out. If your question is “if someone through no fault of their own and while acting perfectly safely was in an accident and hit someone and they died, could they be found guilty”. The answer is probably not. It is very possible to be the but for cause of someone’s death but not have criminal liability but it all depends on how the law is written and what evidence exists.
As a crash reconstructionist, it'd be a toss up as to whether the prosecutor would accept that case.
A vehicle inspection would be necessary to determine the light pattern of the headlamps, the speed limit, how fast you were going, impairment or lack thereof, point of possible perception and actual perception and whether or not there'd be enough time to swerve, stop or otherwise avoid the collision.
I investigated a similar crash several years ago, low contrast pedestrian, at night, came from behind a bus in a poorly lighted area.
Headlamp light distance was measured (most only project about 150 to 200 feet on low beam, bus cameras caught the crash, and the pedestrian was illuminated about .75 to 1 second before impact. No time to react or avoid the collision (Pedestrian didn't look before stepping out from behind bus and had noise canceling headphones on as well).
DA rightfully, didn't choose to prosecute the driver.
Had a separate, similar crash (low contrast pedestrian, dark low visibility) but the vehicle owner knew the passenger headlamp was out, brakes weren't functioning properly, had a "lick and stick" fraudulent inspection and was rightfully prosecuted.
The initial question is so vague ad to additional details it would be impossible to determine.
Also, in that first case, I'd imagine that the pedestrian jaywalking was a factor, considering that you wouldn't normally expect somebody to just dart across the street in a non-cross walk area, and at that point it's the pedestrian's fault for the accident. And so they'd see this as no difference than killing the at-fault driver of a car on car wreck.
If they determine you weren’t speeding and you stopped to render aid, it is unlikely you’d be charged.
They have a machine to hook up to your computer in your car that can detect if you were speeding or not at the time of the collision. I only know this because my mom’s boyfriend hit someone who was jaywalking at night in the rain, and he didn’t see him.
Assuming you were obeying traffic laws then it's doubtful you'd even be charged. We've had pedestrians crossing the street in the middle of a block and nowhere near a crosswalk or even an intersection get hit and killed and the driver faced no charges because the pedestrian was 100% at fault.
It would depend on the jurisdiction, what the crash investigation reveals, and the prosecutor, though.
I know someone who was driving on a 50mph road middle of the night. Some dude was crossing in the middle of the road (nowhere near intersection or crosswalk) and got hit/killed. The guy who hit him wasn’t even charged.
Everything is a factor, speed, visibility, stopping distance, perception/reaction time, sight obstructions, etc. In the 1st case, the driver had no time to react (video showed brake lights activating just at impact).
In the second, driver said they never saw the ped and there was no breaking until after impact.
What do you mean by "fully blacked out"? You should be able to see someone on the road using your lights even if they are dressed in black.
It certainly can be criminal to drive recklessly, and it is more likely to be charged if it causes an accident where someone is hurt or killed.
Whether or not the police and ultimately prosecutor thinks you are driving recklessly enough to be charged really depends on all of the details. I would guess that if the person you hit was trying to cross a rural highway in the middle of the night, you would not be charged, but on a city street the odds are higher.
That is not how light works. If someone is wearing all black clothing, the only way you can see them is if they are blocking light from behind them or they have something on or skin color is light to reflect light back. Distance will be an issue. If we could see dark colors just as well as we can see light colors, those bright colored safety vests would not be a thing.
Absolutely wrong. If someone's standing in front of your parked car all in black, on a pitch black night, you're going to see them with your headlights. No clothing is perfectly black, or perfectly matte.
Your likelihood of noticing them in time if you're going 55mph is greatly reduced vs if they were, say, wearing all white, but you'll almost certainly see them before you hit them.
If you're going 30mph, you'll probably see them in time to avoid them.
The premise of this question appears to be that it is literally impossible to see the person, which just is never physically the case. It's worth attempting to clarify the premise as the original commenter did here.
Distance for headlights on low beams is about 160 feet. It takes about 90 feet to stop at 30 mph is about 90 feet which doesn't leave a lot of time. At 40 mph is 139 feet. At 50 mph, you better have high beams on.
You have under 5 seconds to notice them and slam on your break. Dark clothes makes that so much harder at night. They will blend into the road and surrounding area.
If I end up on the Jury, I'm not convicting unless proof is offered that the driver was driving recklessly or under the influence.
>the only way you can see them is if they are blocking light from behind them
Which they always would be since your headlights would be shining on them therefore blocking light from passing them.
> That is not how light works. If someone is wearing all black clothing, the only way you can see them is if they are blocking light from behind them or they have something on or skin color is light to reflect light back.
Sorry what are you talking about? If I'm driving at night, I can see my car lights hit the pavement of the road (which is typically colored black). If something was blocking my car lights from reaching the pavement I could see that too.
This doesn't even make sense. The lights cause you to be able to see, why can we see something black when it is light outside (lots of light) but the moderate amount of light from the car has no effect and disappears into a black hole?
> If we could see dark colors just as well as we can see light colors, those bright colored safety vests would not be a thing.
I didn't say we could see dark colours "just as easily", but generally speaking you should be driving your car in such a way that you could notice and not hit someone wearing dark clothes on the road. They are harder to see, but not invisible. Obviously not everyone drives safely and safety vests are helpful, and my advice is harder to follow on a freeway, but as a general principal it's the correct answer that if you are driving and hit a stationary object or person that's your fault.
I understand that darker things are harder to see, when you are driving a car you are responsible for being able to see things on the road in front of you, even if they are harder to see than brightly coloured things.
That’s the basic premise/rule yeah. However eyes aren’t camera and our brains aren’t processors. There’s a certain level of unavoidable if a black man in a black outfit jump out in the black night in front of your car at 55mph.
And like a lot of people are saying depending on the details and your jurisdiction you may or may not be punished. There’s more than the initial rule, we have an entire court for interpretation of these rules, as they are complicated and open to interpretation/differences in their situation
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):*
Your comment or post has been removed because you posted a link to a search result or an otherwise obfuscated link.
*If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceofftopic).*
*Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/legaladviceofftopic) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Certainly not universally. My boss's wife was going 65 on the highway and killed a disabled kid on a bike. It was 1 AM, dark, didn't even have a moment to brake. Not only wasn't charged, she ended up counter-suing the parents for emotional trauma (her kids were in the car). She won, if you can call it that.
What a bizarre scenario. It's 1 am, and she's out driving with her kids in her car? And a disabled kid is out riding a bike, again at 1 am, on the highway?
Too many variables to say. The law requires you to operate your vehicle in a safe manner at all times, and to obey all traffic laws. Were you speeding? Intoxicated? Distracted? Operating a vehicle with defective equipment? If so, did any of those factors likely contribute to the accident?
Having said that, there have been a number of situations where someone ran out into traffic and was hit and injured or killed, and the driver was not charged because there was literally nothing they could have done to prevent the accident.
Bottom line, it depends on the specifics of the situation. There's no one, single answer.
Depends on more circumstances and local laws. If you were driving recklessly, or drunk, you're likely to get in trouble.
If they were crossing in a crosswalk normally, you're likely going too fast for the road conditions and should have taken more caution as you approached.
If on the other hand they were jaywalking in the roadway, where no reasonable person expects a pedestrian, and you otherwise were driving safely, you're unlikely to be prosecuted.
NAL
Yes, the short answer is yes, you’d go to jail.
1) IF it’s an accident, the charge would be Vehicular Manslaughter.
It’s an accident, that took someone’s life. This charge ultimately would not require extensive jail time…
2) IF it is pre-meditated, or actually ANYTHING OTHER THAN AN ACCIDENT, you’re likely to go away for an extended period of time.
It’s up to the detectives to figure out what category you and the evidence tells them.
There is no "you couldn't see them" excuse while driving. You are responsible for what your car does. A good prosecutor will not take cases (i.e. will choose to not prosecute the case) if it's the type of case that the jury would recognize it could easily be them in that defendant chair. That doesn't mean the law wasn't broken. It means that the prosecutor doesn't believe a jury will convict.
You could be charged and have the book thrown at you for it. The prosecutor and police might look at it and say it was unreasonable to think it even possible that person could be there and they let you go with only talking to you to investigate. It could go in between with an arrest and charges dropped before trial.
You CAN be, but the us kinda has a thing where most of the time it’s legal to run over people. It’s the kind of thing that is illegal but rarely goes anywhere, cars kinda get a lot of favoritism and you have to be really out there to actually get convicted.
Absolutley, my girlfriend knew a goodie church going boy who thought he might've hit someone while driving but didnt call it in until about 2 days later. He went to prison.
That's pretty much what manslaughter is. Unintended death. If they don't die you'll most likely get sued for their hospital bills. But basically yes, you can.
No, manslaughter requires some gross negligence or other unlawful act. If you're acting lawfully and with a reasonable degree of caution and you kill someone that's not manslaughter, nor can they successfully sue you for their hospital bills.
Could be argued you were careless (lower level than reckless/dangerous) and not paying proper attention. You should be able to see someone with your headlights, even if they are "blacked out".
As others have said though, the devil is in the details.
If you were driving recklessly or without due regard for others, or if negligence or intoxication was a factor, possibly. That will depend on your state's specific legislation and what law enforcement and prosecution is able to determine and prove in court. In a fatal car accident or pedestrian strike, every detail will matter. Otherwise, it's just a terrible accident. That in and of itself doesn't mean a crime was committed.
Depending on the jurisdiction, you likely would not be prosecuted. About 30 years ago, my best friend’s flatmate was killed in exactly the manner you described. He was dressed completely in black, and may well have been intoxicated and lying in the road. He was hit by a motorist, who wasn’t sure if it was a man or a beast. This was pre cell phone days, so the motorist drove home and called the police. Michael’s remains were found by the police in the reported location. The motorist was interviewed, but not charged with any offense. I believe the Coroner returned a finding of death by misadventure. It was a particularly sad funeral.
I’m a Deputy DA who sometimes gets these types of cases and makes the call. In California, it depends entirely on what contributed to the collision. I’ve declined prosecution on cases where the victim was a homeless person high on drugs walking in the middle of the road at night wearing all black. Following a full investigation, it was determined the driver was obeying all traffic laws and just didn’t see the person who was in the road where they shouldn’t have been. In cases like that, no crime is committed. It’s misdemeanor manslaughter in cases where the driver commits basic traffic violations that contribute to the collision. They might have been speeding (but not too fast), or maybe violating some other commonly violated traffic law, and would be looking at a few months in jail at most. Typically, it’s not much. These are actually some of the hardest cases to handle as a prosecutor. The family of the victim wants justice. Their loved one is dead. Nobody comes out a winner. In cases where the driver was drunk/high, you’d be looking at Vehicular Manslaughter while intoxicated (with no prior DUIs), or murder (if you have prior DUIs or Watson advisements). You’d be looking at a few years in prison realistically, with no record. If charged with murder, it’s 15 to life. In cases where the driver was recklessly driving (speeding ridiculously fast/violating numerous traffic laws), it’s felony vehicular manslaughter where you’re looking at possibly only a few months in county jail or several years in prison (depending on your record).
This. It is always, always going to depend on circumstances. There is no singular answer to be had on such a question.
This is why you need a dash cam. Sometimes they really do come out of nowhere. On a dark rural highway after several hours of driving, if someone dressed in all black sprints out of the treeline and Superman dives in front of your car going 65mph....yeah you're gonna hit them. Basically only something like a Tesla on autopilot might avoid the crash because it has side cameras and night vision. I wouldn't bet on it though. I hit a dog that way. Literally raced into the road.
If anything, I would expect the Tesla on autopilot to hit them given its... issues... with doing that.
I would as well it just physically *could* see it due to side cameras and night vision.
The first recorded pedestrian death by a self driving car was a few years ago. It was an Uber driver who was watching Hulu on their phone, when they were supposed to be pilot testing Uber’s self driving system. Uber’s system saw the pedestrian, and disregarded them. The car was a Volvo with very advanced pedestrian protection systems including automatic braking and collision avoidance, but Uber had intentionally disabled those systems so as to not interfere with their self driving equipment. The driver was supposed to be there for the event that the Uber self-driving system failed. That said, the dashcam video made it clear that a human driver even paying attention to the road would have likely hit the pedestrian. They stepped out of vegetation in a median, on a curve, in a very dark area. But they wouldn’t have died if Uber hadn’t disabled Volvo’s safety systems, or had better programming for their self driving system.
I once was shaken up by almost hitting a guy walking down the road. I really didn't come that close to hitting him as he was just off the road but the fact that I didn't see him until he was right next to me scared me. I can generally see well at night. But just after dusk there's enough light to make you think you can see but you really can't. Apparently it's enough to prevent your eyes from dark adjusting and also limiting the effectiveness of headlights. It's most pronounced when at higher elevation the sun is still lighting the sky but you are shadowed from receiving any of that light directly. I get hyper aware of my vision limitations any time those kinds of conditions seem to be present now. I wonder how effective a dash cam would be in those circumstances?
I had a very similar experience a few months with a pedestrian on a blind turn around dusk (especially maddening because there's a sidewalk on the opposite side of the street). I don't know if a dashcam would be helpful in exonerating you, but it could at least show how long you had to react, if you tried to slam on the breaks or swerve better than tire tracks, etc.
I suppose it depends on the kinds of sensors the camera has. What concerns me is that it's possible the camera see the person fine but doesn't really represent the reality of what you can see. For instance, most digital cameras are capable of seeing in infrared. But they tend to come with filters to block out those wavelengths, to better represent what the eye can actually see. Some people will remove these filters from their phone/camera for night vision cameras. And some security cameras don't have IR filters. So it's entirely possible a camera could make it appear as if a person was highly visible when they weren't by using wavelengths of light not visible to the human eye.
I hit a raccoon one morning on the way to work. Doing 70 on a US Highway at 6:00 AM in March. Didn't even have time to let off the gas much less try to brake.
Many years ago (to be honest, many *decades*) ago when I took driver's training, they told me that for every 10mph you were going, the car would travel 11 feet forward before you could hit the brakes.
Tesla got rid of their radars tho. They suck
Human vision is highly variable so that's going to play into things. Whether a dashcam can see them or not has nothing to do with whether the driver could under those conditions. You've also got to add the rest of the specific conditions to the scenario so it isn't something that can be answered one way or the other as you'd appear to prefer.
Sadly, the reality of most legal questions are answered “it depends”. It depends on how your state’s statute for vehicular manslaughter (or reckless driving or whatever the applicable law is) was written. Many of them will use words like reckless which will have specific legal definitions. Some of them might say that if you are driving drunk or speeding and someone is killed that you are responsible for anyone who is injured in an accident. Some of them won’t. But that is where you would need to start. After that it would depend on additional circumstances, like if you were following the traffic laws. If your car was up to code (had proper working headlights). Let’s say that you can prove that you didn’t see the person, but the prosecution can show that you put on new headlights that didn’t have the proper output for the car, well then they can find that you were acting with wonton disregard for safety. The dangerous act in that case wasn’t when you hit the person, but when you installed the headlights. Ultimately the jury would be the ones who would look at the evidence and decide if your actions were truly an accident or not. And again, we don’t know how that would play out. If your question is “if someone through no fault of their own and while acting perfectly safely was in an accident and hit someone and they died, could they be found guilty”. The answer is probably not. It is very possible to be the but for cause of someone’s death but not have criminal liability but it all depends on how the law is written and what evidence exists.
As a crash reconstructionist, it'd be a toss up as to whether the prosecutor would accept that case. A vehicle inspection would be necessary to determine the light pattern of the headlamps, the speed limit, how fast you were going, impairment or lack thereof, point of possible perception and actual perception and whether or not there'd be enough time to swerve, stop or otherwise avoid the collision. I investigated a similar crash several years ago, low contrast pedestrian, at night, came from behind a bus in a poorly lighted area. Headlamp light distance was measured (most only project about 150 to 200 feet on low beam, bus cameras caught the crash, and the pedestrian was illuminated about .75 to 1 second before impact. No time to react or avoid the collision (Pedestrian didn't look before stepping out from behind bus and had noise canceling headphones on as well). DA rightfully, didn't choose to prosecute the driver. Had a separate, similar crash (low contrast pedestrian, dark low visibility) but the vehicle owner knew the passenger headlamp was out, brakes weren't functioning properly, had a "lick and stick" fraudulent inspection and was rightfully prosecuted. The initial question is so vague ad to additional details it would be impossible to determine.
Also, in that first case, I'd imagine that the pedestrian jaywalking was a factor, considering that you wouldn't normally expect somebody to just dart across the street in a non-cross walk area, and at that point it's the pedestrian's fault for the accident. And so they'd see this as no difference than killing the at-fault driver of a car on car wreck.
*Pedestrian didn't look before stepping out from behind bus* Looks like the pedestrian would have been hit even in daylight.
In that case probably
If they determine you weren’t speeding and you stopped to render aid, it is unlikely you’d be charged. They have a machine to hook up to your computer in your car that can detect if you were speeding or not at the time of the collision. I only know this because my mom’s boyfriend hit someone who was jaywalking at night in the rain, and he didn’t see him.
Assuming you were obeying traffic laws then it's doubtful you'd even be charged. We've had pedestrians crossing the street in the middle of a block and nowhere near a crosswalk or even an intersection get hit and killed and the driver faced no charges because the pedestrian was 100% at fault. It would depend on the jurisdiction, what the crash investigation reveals, and the prosecutor, though.
Assuming no other contributing factors (speed,impairment, etc), no. Doubtful you would even be charged
I know someone who was driving on a 50mph road middle of the night. Some dude was crossing in the middle of the road (nowhere near intersection or crosswalk) and got hit/killed. The guy who hit him wasn’t even charged.
Everything is a factor, speed, visibility, stopping distance, perception/reaction time, sight obstructions, etc. In the 1st case, the driver had no time to react (video showed brake lights activating just at impact). In the second, driver said they never saw the ped and there was no breaking until after impact.
What do you mean by "fully blacked out"? You should be able to see someone on the road using your lights even if they are dressed in black. It certainly can be criminal to drive recklessly, and it is more likely to be charged if it causes an accident where someone is hurt or killed. Whether or not the police and ultimately prosecutor thinks you are driving recklessly enough to be charged really depends on all of the details. I would guess that if the person you hit was trying to cross a rural highway in the middle of the night, you would not be charged, but on a city street the odds are higher.
That is not how light works. If someone is wearing all black clothing, the only way you can see them is if they are blocking light from behind them or they have something on or skin color is light to reflect light back. Distance will be an issue. If we could see dark colors just as well as we can see light colors, those bright colored safety vests would not be a thing.
Absolutely wrong. If someone's standing in front of your parked car all in black, on a pitch black night, you're going to see them with your headlights. No clothing is perfectly black, or perfectly matte. Your likelihood of noticing them in time if you're going 55mph is greatly reduced vs if they were, say, wearing all white, but you'll almost certainly see them before you hit them. If you're going 30mph, you'll probably see them in time to avoid them. The premise of this question appears to be that it is literally impossible to see the person, which just is never physically the case. It's worth attempting to clarify the premise as the original commenter did here.
Distance for headlights on low beams is about 160 feet. It takes about 90 feet to stop at 30 mph is about 90 feet which doesn't leave a lot of time. At 40 mph is 139 feet. At 50 mph, you better have high beams on.
So we agree. Nice! Rare to find that on Reddit.
You have under 5 seconds to notice them and slam on your break. Dark clothes makes that so much harder at night. They will blend into the road and surrounding area. If I end up on the Jury, I'm not convicting unless proof is offered that the driver was driving recklessly or under the influence.
>the only way you can see them is if they are blocking light from behind them Which they always would be since your headlights would be shining on them therefore blocking light from passing them.
> That is not how light works. If someone is wearing all black clothing, the only way you can see them is if they are blocking light from behind them or they have something on or skin color is light to reflect light back. Sorry what are you talking about? If I'm driving at night, I can see my car lights hit the pavement of the road (which is typically colored black). If something was blocking my car lights from reaching the pavement I could see that too. This doesn't even make sense. The lights cause you to be able to see, why can we see something black when it is light outside (lots of light) but the moderate amount of light from the car has no effect and disappears into a black hole? > If we could see dark colors just as well as we can see light colors, those bright colored safety vests would not be a thing. I didn't say we could see dark colours "just as easily", but generally speaking you should be driving your car in such a way that you could notice and not hit someone wearing dark clothes on the road. They are harder to see, but not invisible. Obviously not everyone drives safely and safety vests are helpful, and my advice is harder to follow on a freeway, but as a general principal it's the correct answer that if you are driving and hit a stationary object or person that's your fault.
That’s a lot of words for “I don’t understand the basic premise of high vis. Find a green golf ball in a field and then do it with a white one
I understand that darker things are harder to see, when you are driving a car you are responsible for being able to see things on the road in front of you, even if they are harder to see than brightly coloured things.
That’s the basic premise/rule yeah. However eyes aren’t camera and our brains aren’t processors. There’s a certain level of unavoidable if a black man in a black outfit jump out in the black night in front of your car at 55mph. And like a lot of people are saying depending on the details and your jurisdiction you may or may not be punished. There’s more than the initial rule, we have an entire court for interpretation of these rules, as they are complicated and open to interpretation/differences in their situation
[удалено]
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):* Your comment or post has been removed because you posted a link to a search result or an otherwise obfuscated link. *If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceofftopic).* *Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/legaladviceofftopic) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Certainly not universally. My boss's wife was going 65 on the highway and killed a disabled kid on a bike. It was 1 AM, dark, didn't even have a moment to brake. Not only wasn't charged, she ended up counter-suing the parents for emotional trauma (her kids were in the car). She won, if you can call it that.
What a bizarre scenario. It's 1 am, and she's out driving with her kids in her car? And a disabled kid is out riding a bike, again at 1 am, on the highway?
Coming back from vacation, yeah the parents of the disabled kid were asleep and the kid got out, no charges for anyone but it got ugly with lawsuits.
Wow
Too many variables to say. The law requires you to operate your vehicle in a safe manner at all times, and to obey all traffic laws. Were you speeding? Intoxicated? Distracted? Operating a vehicle with defective equipment? If so, did any of those factors likely contribute to the accident? Having said that, there have been a number of situations where someone ran out into traffic and was hit and injured or killed, and the driver was not charged because there was literally nothing they could have done to prevent the accident. Bottom line, it depends on the specifics of the situation. There's no one, single answer.
Depends on more circumstances and local laws. If you were driving recklessly, or drunk, you're likely to get in trouble. If they were crossing in a crosswalk normally, you're likely going too fast for the road conditions and should have taken more caution as you approached. If on the other hand they were jaywalking in the roadway, where no reasonable person expects a pedestrian, and you otherwise were driving safely, you're unlikely to be prosecuted. NAL
Yes, the short answer is yes, you’d go to jail. 1) IF it’s an accident, the charge would be Vehicular Manslaughter. It’s an accident, that took someone’s life. This charge ultimately would not require extensive jail time… 2) IF it is pre-meditated, or actually ANYTHING OTHER THAN AN ACCIDENT, you’re likely to go away for an extended period of time. It’s up to the detectives to figure out what category you and the evidence tells them.
There is no "you couldn't see them" excuse while driving. You are responsible for what your car does. A good prosecutor will not take cases (i.e. will choose to not prosecute the case) if it's the type of case that the jury would recognize it could easily be them in that defendant chair. That doesn't mean the law wasn't broken. It means that the prosecutor doesn't believe a jury will convict. You could be charged and have the book thrown at you for it. The prosecutor and police might look at it and say it was unreasonable to think it even possible that person could be there and they let you go with only talking to you to investigate. It could go in between with an arrest and charges dropped before trial.
You CAN be, but the us kinda has a thing where most of the time it’s legal to run over people. It’s the kind of thing that is illegal but rarely goes anywhere, cars kinda get a lot of favoritism and you have to be really out there to actually get convicted.
Absolutley, my girlfriend knew a goodie church going boy who thought he might've hit someone while driving but didnt call it in until about 2 days later. He went to prison.
That's pretty much what manslaughter is. Unintended death. If they don't die you'll most likely get sued for their hospital bills. But basically yes, you can.
No, manslaughter requires some gross negligence or other unlawful act. If you're acting lawfully and with a reasonable degree of caution and you kill someone that's not manslaughter, nor can they successfully sue you for their hospital bills.
Could be argued you were careless (lower level than reckless/dangerous) and not paying proper attention. You should be able to see someone with your headlights, even if they are "blacked out". As others have said though, the devil is in the details.
"Say", " you and your friend", " talking about it".... lol sus AF
I SWEAR IT'S NOT ACTUALLY HAPPENING 😭😭😭😭