Pedestrian killed by a Harley
#41
01-01-2009, 01:25 PM
Yeah, buddha, although our driver's manual (Minnesota) states:
Yield the right-of-way to pedestrians crossing at intersections and
crosswalks.
Another page says:
Yield to pedestrians and bicyclists
crossing the roadway.
That page doesn't say anything about them having to be in a crosswalk.
The law you quoted (I assume you're from MN, also?) has this exclusion:
(d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section every driver of a vehicle shall (1) exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle or pedestrian upon any roadway and (2) give an audible signal when necessary and exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway.
Sounds like it could be a judgement call by the officer on the scene.
Thanks for posting the statute number.
Yield the right-of-way to pedestrians crossing at intersections and
crosswalks.
Another page says:
Yield to pedestrians and bicyclists
crossing the roadway.
That page doesn't say anything about them having to be in a crosswalk.
The law you quoted (I assume you're from MN, also?) has this exclusion:
(d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section every driver of a vehicle shall (1) exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle or pedestrian upon any roadway and (2) give an audible signal when necessary and exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway.
Sounds like it could be a judgement call by the officer on the scene.
Thanks for posting the statute number.
Last edited by MNPGRider; 01-01-2009 at 01:45 PM.
#42
01-01-2009, 02:23 PM
Or a DMV worker. 
In CA the law states that a "crosswalk" is at EVERY intersection, whether it's marked or not. AND the pedestrian can be so many feet outside the crosswalk. Sorry I don't remember what that measurement is exactly, but I think it's like 100 feet.
So basically, if a person is crossing the street within 100 feet of an intersection or a marked crosswalk, that person is crossing legally and has the right of way.
I bet in this situation, or I'll say from the infor that we were provided, the rider will NOT be charged. But the family may still file a civil suit again him.
Here in Las Vegas, if you hit a pedestrian, it's NOT your fault. Vehicles have the right of way except IN a crosswalk. It's a great law, keep most idiots from running out in front of you.
In CA the law states that a "crosswalk" is at EVERY intersection, whether it's marked or not. AND the pedestrian can be so many feet outside the crosswalk. Sorry I don't remember what that measurement is exactly, but I think it's like 100 feet.
So basically, if a person is crossing the street within 100 feet of an intersection or a marked crosswalk, that person is crossing legally and has the right of way.
I bet in this situation, or I'll say from the infor that we were provided, the rider will NOT be charged. But the family may still file a civil suit again him.
Here in Las Vegas, if you hit a pedestrian, it's NOT your fault. Vehicles have the right of way except IN a crosswalk. It's a great law, keep most idiots from running out in front of you.
Last edited by frankjake; 01-01-2009 at 02:29 PM.
#43
01-02-2009, 08:14 AM
The article made it sound like the pedestrian was crossing a MAJOR road where most drivers wouldn't think that a person would try to cross. similar situation to a parking lot or a reisdential neighborhood. The last two places you could always get a person to dart out in the pathway.
#45
01-02-2009, 08:17 AM
Or a DMV worker.
In CA the law states that a "crosswalk" is at EVERY intersection, whether it's marked or not. AND the pedestrian can be so many feet outside the crosswalk. Sorry I don't remember what that measurement is exactly, but I think it's like 100 feet.
So basically, if a person is crossing the street within 100 feet of an intersection or a marked crosswalk, that person is crossing legally and has the right of way.
I bet in this situation, or I'll say from the infor that we were provided, the rider will NOT be charged. But the family may still file a civil suit again him.
Here in Las Vegas, if you hit a pedestrian, it's NOT your fault. Vehicles have the right of way except IN a crosswalk. It's a great law, keep most idiots from running out in front of you.
In CA the law states that a "crosswalk" is at EVERY intersection, whether it's marked or not. AND the pedestrian can be so many feet outside the crosswalk. Sorry I don't remember what that measurement is exactly, but I think it's like 100 feet.
So basically, if a person is crossing the street within 100 feet of an intersection or a marked crosswalk, that person is crossing legally and has the right of way.
I bet in this situation, or I'll say from the infor that we were provided, the rider will NOT be charged. But the family may still file a civil suit again him.
Here in Las Vegas, if you hit a pedestrian, it's NOT your fault. Vehicles have the right of way except IN a crosswalk. It's a great law, keep most idiots from running out in front of you.
#47
01-02-2009, 08:33 AM
Road Captain
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Heart Break Hotel
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK by reading the rest of that page it looks like peeps were being killing by every kind of transportation, MAN!
Main question is, was the Harley rider talking on his cell phone at the time?
Sorry I had to.
What really is interesting to me is why did the writer feel the need to put in the make of the bike that hit the person???
More Harley hate in the press?
Main question is, was the Harley rider talking on his cell phone at the time?
Sorry I had to.What really is interesting to me is why did the writer feel the need to put in the make of the bike that hit the person???
More Harley hate in the press?
#48
01-02-2009, 08:34 AM
#49
01-02-2009, 08:38 AM
Road Captain
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Heart Break Hotel
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i must be the only one that is disgusted the way the news reports that a motorcycle, train, suv, et. Al., "killed" someone.
Folks, those are inanimate objects incapable of doing anything on their own. Each accident is by caused a person, not a "thing". In the case above it can be argued who is the perp and who is the victim but the harley is blameless.
Conditioning the reader to blame the object rather than the person is how we become desensitized to ridiculous legislation that attempts to make our lives "safer" while taking away our individual freedoms.
People become sheeple.
Folks, those are inanimate objects incapable of doing anything on their own. Each accident is by caused a person, not a "thing". In the case above it can be argued who is the perp and who is the victim but the harley is blameless.
Conditioning the reader to blame the object rather than the person is how we become desensitized to ridiculous legislation that attempts to make our lives "safer" while taking away our individual freedoms.
People become sheeple.
#50
01-03-2009, 07:22 AM
Extreme HDF Member
OK by reading the rest of that page it looks like peeps were being killing by every kind of transportation, MAN!
Main question is, was the Harley rider talking on his cell phone at the time? Sorry I had to.
What really is interesting to me is why did the writer feel the need to put in the make of the bike that hit the person??? More Harley hate in the press?
Main question is, was the Harley rider talking on his cell phone at the time?
Sorry I had to.What really is interesting to me is why did the writer feel the need to put in the make of the bike that hit the person???
More Harley hate in the press?