> "When you hit a pedestrian with a car, you're in the wrong", it doesn't become more unambiguous than that.
Such a general principle would be unreasonable. I'm all for putting pedestrians' safety first, but a driver who is following all rules and safety principles can still hit a pedestrian without any fault - the extreme (but not only) example is somebody who decides to suicide right when you're driving by.
In Russia at least for awhile there was a thriving business of insurance fraud where pedestrians try really hard to get cars to hit them. Dashcams became essential safety equipment. Throws a lot of mud in that water.
I agree with your reasoning. There are plenty of situations where you can do everything in your power to avoid hitting someone, and still hit them.
n of 1 anecdote:
While driving down a 40mph road with tall hedges on the side of the lane I was in, at night, a homeless man darted out of the hedges directly in front of me. I jammed the breaks, but still hit him going about 10mph. He got off the ground and ran off before I could even get my hazards lights on. If I'd swerved right, I would've gone through the hedges off a steep embankment into a river, left would've taken me into an oncoming vehicle. I had maybe 25 feet to stop. He was at fault, and I did the best I could possibly do. The law proposed by craigsmansion is insane in this scenario.
Just a small correction. It's not something proposed by me. It's a description of how things are at the moment, at least in the north of Europe.
The difference lies exactly in the details you describe. If an accident happens, you're not in the clear because you had "right of way", but because you, having good control of your vehicle, exhausted all possibilities to avoid the calamity.
Oh my, I had no idea that it was as such in Europe (EU?). In my particular case, there was so little time to "exhaust all possibilities". In fact, I only had the opportunity to attempt a single action, and that is without knowing what the outcome would be. To make matters worse, it wasn't even really a calculated action; I've taken a few combat driving courses in the Marine Corps that contributed to me reflexively making the correct decision. I just acted from the gut, based on my mental state. No matter what the outcome had been, I would've felt like I had no time to decide to react differently.
In the case of an unavoidable suicide, it gets mitigated up to a point where any course of action is pointless because it would not serve road safety. The outcome would be the same.
The difference here is that even if the pedestrian or cyclist was in the wrong, you're not automatically in the right. Your own behaviour as a motorist stands on itself, and you're supposed to take the difference in size and weight into account.
Although it may not appeal to everyone's sense of fairness and just punishment(although, in fairness, only one of the parties can realistically be mauled or even killed), but from a road safety perspective it leads to more careful driving.
Such a general principle would be unreasonable. I'm all for putting pedestrians' safety first, but a driver who is following all rules and safety principles can still hit a pedestrian without any fault - the extreme (but not only) example is somebody who decides to suicide right when you're driving by.