Tuesday, June 2, 2015

CANADA MILITARY NEWS- No Pedestrians Matter- puny laws/more killing of our walkers in Canada than our troops at war WTF????/ Some ideas like Hungary/ Pedestrians here's some tips - KNOW PEDESTRIAN RIGHTS - EXAMPLES



NOVA SCOTIA CANADA-

Protecting pedestrians

Posted: Nov 26, 2012 10:35 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 26, 2012 10:35 AM ET
I am a walker.
Ever since my wife and I sold our house in the suburbs two years ago, and moved downtown, I walk everywhere. I walk to work, to get our groceries, to movies and restaurants. So, whenever we report on yet another pedestrian struck in a crosswalk or intersection, it gets my attention.
Over the past week we've reported on several, including one fatality - a 34 year old man struck and killed in a crosswalk in Lower Sackville.
When we report these stories neighbours often demand steps to make the crosswalk safer, install flashing lights, or more enforcement, but there's rarely a discussion about the penalties for the driver of the vehicle.
The charge under the Motor Vehicle Act is "failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk". The maximum penalty is a fine of $687.41
Think about that.
If you're driving and are distracted by checking  your text messages, or fiddling with your Ipod, or yakking with your passenger, or you're simply hellbent on getting to your destination as quickly as possible, and you hit and kill a pedestrian, the price you pay is equivalent to the cost of a middle-of-the-line flat screen TV.
Now compare that to "stunting" - the charge laid for driving more than 50km per hour over the speed limit.
Consider this scenario: A driver is going 161 km per hour on Highway 104. It's a clear day, the pavement is dry, the traffic is light. There is no accident, no one is killed or injured.
As soon as the driver is pulled over they face an immediate suspension of their licence for a minimum of one week and their vehicle is impounded. Upon conviction they face a fine of $2,412.41 and an automatic six points penalty on their driving record.
For some reason, our lawmakers have determined there should be harsher penalties for excessive speeding than for striking a pedestrian in a crosswalk.
So here's some advice from a full-time walker.

When you approach an intersection or crosswalk ALWAYS assume the driver is distracted and doesn't see you. Even if the crosswalk lights are flashing, don't step out until you are sure the driver is paying attention and preparing to stop.
I know pedestrians have the "right of way", but being right is little solace when you are lying in a morgue. 


----------------





CANADA-


Road deaths no pedestrian matter
How many pedestrian deaths in Toronto will there need to be before we recognize there’s a serious problem. Since 2009 there has been well over 200 people killed by cars in Toronto, which is far more than Canadian soldiers who lost their lives during the entire war in Afghanistan.
No one seems to be standing up for pedestrians. For workplace safety we have public advocacy groups and government agencies and yet pedestrians deaths far outnumber workplace deaths.
My impression is that the public, which predominantly consists of car drivers, generally believes the deaths are usually the fault of pedestrians themselves, or at least drivers who were drinking. The blame is never the result of drivers who simply break the basic safety rules of driving.
As a pedestrian I have nearly been hit several times; in one case I had to lift myself on to the hood of a car to escape being run over. In all cases I was crossing the street legally.
I still see numerous drivers texting, I see hazardous U-turns daily, I see cars narrowly missing people at crosswalks when they should not even be entering with people crossing, among many other violations. Police are clearly not giving out tickets for any of this.
Yes, pedestrians break the rules, but when they do they’ll pay the price. When drivers break the rules and kill pedestrians the courts give little or no punishment. Until someone gets serious prison time for killing when their texting or making a U-turn, the courts don’t care.
But we need more than that. We need much harsher penalties for unsafe driving. It isn’t the drunk driver, or sociopathic, reckless driver who is killing. It’s the person texting. Until we stop those people, many more will die.
Douglas Blackwell, Toronto
------------------



Pedestrian accidents

This page discusses assessment of fault in accidents involving pedestrians.

Crosswalks need not be “marked” for the pedestrian to have the right of way
According to the definition of “crosswalk” in the Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996 c. 318 there need not be road markings or pedestrian traffic lights for there to be a cross walk at an intersection:

"crosswalk" means
(a) a portion of the roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface, or
(b) the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway, or within the extension of the lateral lines of the sidewalk on one side of the highway, measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway;
(Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996 c. 318, s. 119(1)).

Part (b) of the above definition indicates that the portion of the roadway that is an extension of the sidewalk will be considered a crosswalk even if there are no markings on the road. In other words, if you are walking parallel to the road and along a sidewalk and come to an intersection, so long as you continue walking straight you will be in a crosswalk as you cross the road.

Note that that in order to be an official sidewalk the walking area on the side of the road must have been specifically constructed for pedestrians. The Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996 c. 318 includes the following definition for “sidewalk”:

"sidewalk" means the area between the curb lines or lateral lines of a roadway and the adjacent property lines improved for the use of pedestrians.
(Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996 c. 318, s. 119(1)).

Pedestrian have the right of way when in a crosswalk

Section 179(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC, 1996, c. 318 states that pedestrians have the right of way when in a crosswalk:

Subject to section 180, the driver of a vehicle must yield the right of way to a pedestrian where traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation when the pedestrian is crossing the highway in a crosswalk and the pedestrian is on the half of the highway on which the vehicle is travelling, or is approaching so closely from the other half of the highway that he or she is in danger.
(Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC, 1996, c. 318, s. 179(1)).

Section 180 provides that pedestrians do not have the right of way when not in a crosswalk:

When a pedestrian is crossing a highway at a point not in a crosswalk, the pedestrian must yield the right of way to a vehicle.
(Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC, 1996, c. 318, s. 180).

However, regardless of whether they are in a crosswalk or not, pedestrians, must not step into the roadway into the path of a vehicle that could not reasonably be expected to stop in time:

A pedestrian must not leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close it is impracticable for the driver to yield the right of way.
(Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC, 1996, c. 318, s. 179(2)).

The Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC, 1996, c. 318 also states that drivers must exercise common sense and take reasonable care to avoid pedestrians:

Despite sections 178, 179 and 180, a driver of a vehicle must:
(a) exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian who is on the highway,
(b) give warning by sounding the horn of the vehicle when necessary, and
(c) observe proper precaution on observing a child or apparently confused or incapacitated person on the highway.
(Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC, 1996, c. 318, s. 818).

Absent unusual behaviour, pedestrians established in a crosswalk will not likely be found contributorily negligent:

[O]nce a pedestrian has safely entered a crosswalk, absent any overt negligence such as running or gesturing that could mislead motorists into thinking they may proceed safely, the pedestrian may assume that the motorists will yield the right-of-way and will share no responsibility if struck in the crosswalk.
(Miksch v. Hambleton, 1990 CanLII 177 (BCSC)).

Cases considering pedestrians in crosswalks
Pedestrians have the right of way when a pedestrian traffic control signal is green:

132(1) When the word "walk" or an outline of a walking person is exhibited at an intersection by a pedestrian traffic control signal, a pedestrian may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal in a marked or unmarked crosswalk and has the right of way over all vehicles in the intersection or any adjacent crosswalk.
(Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996 c. 318, s. 132).

Drivers must look out for pedestrians in the crosswalk regardless of whether or not the walk sign is on:

In dark, rainy situations, especially on streets where there is known to have considerable pedestrian traffic, Mr. Nix turned left onto Thurlow without paying attention to whether there were pedestrians in the crosswalk or not. While Mr. Nix may have been paying more attention to whether the “walk” or the “wait” pedestrian sign was illuminated rather than whether there were pedestrians in the crosswalk, drivers in similar circumstances must make themselves aware of whether there are pedestrians in the crosswalk, whether or not the “wait” or the “walk” pedestrian sign is illuminated.

This is the case because a pedestrian can step into the crosswalk when the “walk” sign is illuminated but still be in the crosswalk while the “wait” pedestrian sign becomes illuminated. As well and although I do not find that to be the case here, it is common for pedestrians to enter crosswalks even though the “wait” pedestrian sign is illuminated. In those circumstances, drivers must be aware of the increased but unfortunate trend of pedestrians to enter crosswalks without regard to whether the “walk” or “wait” pedestrian signs are illuminated. While pedestrians in those circumstances may well be partially to blame for accidents, I find that such is not the case here.

(Achilleos v. Nix & Vancouver Taxi, 2000 BCSC 1422 at paras. 18 - 19).

Pedestrians in a crosswalk on a green light are not required to wear bright clothing, even on a dark and rainy night:

Mr. Nix is 100% liable for the accident which occurred. Ms. Achilleos in no way contributed to causing the accident by wearing dark clothes on that dark January evening. Pedestrians in crosswalks who are proceeding when the “walk” pedestrian sign is illuminated are free to wear whatever colour clothes they feel are appropriate. This is not a case where the lack of lighting and bad weather conditions created a situation where the wearing of dark clothes in any way contributed to causing the accident.
(Achilleos v. Nix & Vancouver Taxi, 2000 BCSC 1422 at para. 20).

Pedestrians have the right of way once they are established in a crosswalk:

The Supreme Court of Canada has held in two decisions, Petijevich v. Law (1968) 1 D.L.R. (3d) 690, and Coso v. Poulos, (1969) 69 W.W.R. 38, on facts close to those in the case at bar and upon a construction of the same relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, s-ss. 181 (1) and (2), that once a pedestrian has safely entered a crosswalk, absent any overt negligence such as running or gesturing that could mislead motorists into thinking they may proceed safely, the pedestrian may assume that the motorists will yield the right-of-way and will share no responsibility if struck in the crosswalk.
(Miksch v. Hambleton, 1990 CanLII 177 (BCSC)).

Similarly:

As I appreciate the result of those cases, it is that where, as here, a pedestrian has lawfully entered a cross-walk, giving him or her the right-of-way, then while that pedestrian is not entitled to make a sudden stop, or accelerate and run, so as to create an unexpected and unavoidable hazard, nevertheless if the pedestrian proceeds at a normal and proper pace, in circumstances where the driver has or should have ample opportunity to see him or her and avoid a collision, then the pedestrian proceeding in that manner, even although he or she may see or ought to have seen approaching traffic, is entitled to assume that such traffic will observe its duty to yield the right-of-way, and the pedestrian is not negligent in proceeding accordingly.
(Cerra v. Bragg, [1980] BCJ No 536 (SC)).

Pedestrians NOT in a crosswalk
As noted above, a pedestrian does not have the right of way if crossing a road NOT in a crosswalk. In such circumstances a driver’s obligation to take evasive action arises only when he or she becomes aware or ought to have become aware that the pedestrian is not going to obey the law: Ibaraki v. Bamford, 1996 CanLII 1814 (BCSC).

In Addison v. Nelles, 2004 BCCA 623 the defendant driver struck a pedestrian who was not in a crosswalk. The plaintiff was wearing a grey sweatshirt, black track pants and white running shoes. The conditions were cloudy and dark with intermittent light rain and the plaintiff and defendant did not see each other until the moment of impact. The trial judge held that since the plaintiff was not in a crosswalk she did not have the right of way, and that the driver could not reasonably have been expected to see the plaintiff in the circumstances. The plaintiff’s relatively dark clothing was one of several factors that the trial judge considered in concluding that the defendant had not failed to keep a proper lookout. The court found that the plaintiff was moving quickly, that the defendant was not speeding, and that the defendant driver could not be faulted for not seeing the plaintiff earlier.

Duty on pedestrians to look out for their own safety
Pedestrians must not step into the roadway into the path of a vehicle that could not reasonably be expected to stop in time:

A pedestrian must not leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close it is impracticable for the driver to yield the right of way.
(Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC, 1996, c. 318, s. 179(2)).

Pedestrians will generally be entirely at fault for an accident if they are not in a crosswalk and step into the roadway in front of a vehicle

There is no obligation on a driver to travel below the speed limit to meet unforeseeable emergencies such as a pedestrian who is so careless as to step off a curb directly in front of an oncoming car. Ms. Ibaraki did not present evidence to establish what speed would have avoided the accident. The law does not cast is burden on a driver to travel at the slower speed merely because the road conditions are wet. Ms. Bamford had her vehicle under sufficient control to bring it to a stop quickly after she struck Ms. Ibaraki.
(Ibaraki v. Bamford, 1996 CanLII 1814 at para. 13 (BCSC)).

Pedestrians are required to look out for their own safety even when crossing in a crosswalk. In Bell v. Thorner, 2009 BCSC 44 a pedestrian who did not look out for his own safety was found 50% at fault when struck while crossing in an unmarked crosswalk:

The plaintiff has not satisfactorily explained why he did not see an approaching vehicle with its headlights illuminated that was there to be seen. It was a dark rainy night. He was dressed in dark clothing. He was crossing a through street at an unmarked uncontrolled intersection. A bus had just passed in front of him, indicating the presence of traffic. Mr. Bell left a place of safety and stepped out into the unmarked crosswalk at the intersection, wearing dark clothing on a dark rainy night, without checking adequately or at all to see that there was no oncoming traffic from his left. There is no other available conclusion, given that the Thorner vehicle, headlights on, was there to be seen, approaching on the roadway. Mr. Bell should have been aware that it would be difficult for a driver on such a night to see a person dressed in dark clothing. It seems obvious that he did not take reasonable care for his own safety. I find that Mr. Bell was contributorily negligent.
(Bell v. Thorner, 2009 BCSC 44 at para. 36).

Other cases support the imposition of some duty on a pedestrian even when in a cross-walk:

There is a general duty on a pedestrian to act constantly and consistently with due care for his or her own safety when crossing a busy highway, even in a marked crosswalk.
(Loewen v. Bernardi, 1994 CanLII 1147 at para. 15 (BCCA)).

Similarly:

The reason he gave for not [yielding the right of way] was because he did not see her soon enough and he did not see her sooner because the lighting conditions at the intersection in question were such that the crosswalk area was a blind area to him as he came from the north. His duty in those circumstances was to enter the intersection at such a speed and keeping such a look-out that if a pedestrian should be in the crosswalk he would be able to yield the right-of-way to that pedestrian.
(Petijevich v. Law, [1969] SCR 257 at 264).

Young or elderly pedestrians are less likely to be found contributorily negligent:

[W]ith respect to the pedestrian, there is authority for the proposition that very young and very old pedestrians are naturally inclined to be more oblivious to the dangers and risks of traffic and when caught in it are predisposed to act impulsively and in some confusion and panic. This predisposition of the young and the elderly is not in itself to be treated as answerable fault and allowance ought to be made for it. In this case the pedestrian is elderly and this characteristic ought to temper the degree of his contributory fault.
(Loewen v. Bernardi, 1994 CanLII 1147 at para. 17 (BCCA))

However, in Krause v. McFall, 1997 CanLII 1834 (BCSC) an 84 year old woman struck by a bus was found 50% liable for not keeping a better lookout. The pedestrian left the curb when the “walk” sign was displayed and had her head down as she proceeded with her “quad” walker. The bus had stopped to wait for pedestrians to cross, but then proceeded at 4 miles per hour after thinking that all pedestrians had passed. The plaintiff struck the side of the bus 2-3 ft. behind the front wheel. The driver was not aware of striking the plaintiff until he heard another person banging on the side of the bus, and conceded that he may have been paying more attention to whether the rear of the bus was clearing the curb as he proceeded. The court found the driver and the plaintiff each 50% liable:

As she entered the crosswalk on the "Walk" signal, s. 132(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996, c. 318 grants her the right of way over all vehicles.

Having that right of way, however, did not relieve the plaintiff from the obligation of exercising a degree of care for her own safety. In my opinion she did not exercise the degree of care which she should have in the circumstances.

Even though her infirmity in walking necessitated her looking down as she proceeded, it still was incumbent upon her to look up and observe the general traffic situation to ensure that she could proceed safely. She was aware, I find, that the bus from which she had alighted would be making a right hand turn onto Douglas Street since the fact that the bus was going to proceed in a southerly direction was what required her to alight from it and to cross eastward across Douglas Street to catch a bus proceeding in that direction. Had she looked up, as I find she should have done, she would have seen the McFall bus and been able to take steps to avoid walking into the side of it, as I find she did; in failing to do so she was negligent.

As to the defendant McFall, as the plaintiff had entered the crosswalk on the "Walk" sign it was incumbent upon him to yield the right of way to her. He failed to do so and hence was also negligent.

In the circumstances of this case I consider that the provisions of s. 1(2) of the Negligence Act, RSBC 1996, c. 333 apply and that fault should be apportioned 50 percent to each party.

(Krause v. McFall, 1997 CanLII 1834 at paras. 20 – 24 (BCSC)).
-------------

General principles that apply to the assessment of fault

This portion of the website discusses basic principles regarding assessment of fault that apply in most accident situations.

Navigate this portion of the website by clicking on a menu item in the expanding menu on the left side of this page, or select a link below.




-------------------
“Everyone is born a pedestrian” campaign in Hungary
ARCHIVED
By Editor / Updated: 22 May 2015

A recent campaign in Hungary promotes co-operation on the roads – mostly in favour of walkers. The promotional activities, including posters, stickers and online surveys, reaches as many people as possible.
Background & Objectives

Resources for infrastructure developments are restricted, so alternative solutions must be sought – preferably ones that ease activities of daily life the most. Transport is a game played by millions every day. We can enjoy this game, but if the rules are not respected, it can turn into a “Run for your life!” nightmare.
Police figures indicate that 23% of walking accidents happen on road crossings. A police spokesperson emphasised that social co-operation is needed, and also that shared responsibility amongst all who have a role in the improvement of road safety is essential.
The initiative started in Veszprém City in 2011, where car drivers were encouraged to pay more attention at pedestrian crossings. The success of that initiative motivated the Ministry to enlarge the campaign to a national level.


Implementation

In March 2012 a comprehensive campaign was launched by the Hungarian Ministry of Public Administration and Justice for enhancing partnership between car drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.
The police were involved as they have a vested interest in road safety. Budapest Transport Centre (Budapesti Közlekedési Központ, BKK) also joined, as one of their aims is to return the junctions of the capital to pedestrians. In the 1970s a transport policy evolved which made transport "automotive". Junctions were redesigned so that only cars could pass safely. Now Budapest Transport Centre aims to bring back zebra crossings.

When the campaign was launched, a common press conference was organised, at which the president of the Hungarian Biker’s Club emphasised the importance of partnership among all stakeholders in transport. As he argued, partnership on its own is not enough, proper infrastructure is also needed - and vice versa.

The main hub of the campaign is the homepage where on an interactive map people can indicate places that car drivers, pedestrians or cyclists feel unsafe. The results will be analysed by the Budapest Transport Centre.
Another aspect of the campaign is the sticker game. The "Everyone is a pedestrian" sticker has to be displayed and photographed. The photo which subsequently gains the most "likes" on Facebook wins one of many valuable prizes, including an adventure trip to the Alps. Stickers are available at Agip petrol stations, cafés and shops.


Conclusions

The campaign cost about 190,000 euros. Interestingly, Budapest Municipality pays about ten times this amount for road reconstructions annually. From now on, the interests of all modes will be examined and suggestions from residents will also be taken into consideration. The posters, which not only refer to the co-operation of the different modes of transport but also to the three colours of the traffic lights, are displayed in high numbers around the country – vivid colours are particularly visible in the late winter landscape.

Professionals know that the effects of preventive campaigns are hard to calculate. However this campaign was hailed by all stakeholders – maybe because the co-operation among transport actors is reflected in the co-operation of the organisers of the campaign. The homepage is extremely popular; during the first week of the campaign alone some 8000 dangerous road crossings were identified.

The campaign involves Police, Budapest Transport Centre, Hungarian Biker’s Club, National Committee for Accident Prevention, the civil organization “Critical Mothers”, the National Institute for the Blind, the School of the Blind, and the Budapest Association of Disabled People. Agip petrol stations, and certain cafés and shops (listed on the homepage) also participated in the distribution of the "Everyone is a pedestrian" stickers. The executive sponsor of the game is Volvo.


Topic:
Mobility management
Contact:
Miklos Marton
Contact:
Miklós Marton
Country:
Hungary
City:
Budapest
Author:
Miklos Marton
Keywords:
measures - awareness raising
First published: 10 Jul 2012
Latest revision: 22 May 2015


--------------------




BLOGSPOT:
CANADA MILITARY NEWS-Wheelchair Rights in Canada/ Hey Nova Scotia- Hey Canada- if ur driving and u hit and badly injure or MURDER a pedestrian in a crosswalk, highway, bicycle or bike rider on the highway SHOULDN'T U DO 10 YRS HARDTIME- instead of a ticket 4 murder?? OR HIT BY LOUSY DRUNK DRIVER... SHOULDN’T U GET LIFE???/Disability Rights in Canada March 25-2015

-------------

WORDPRESS:
O CANADA?- Why aren’t there more (visible/invisible) disabled TV Anchors, Media, Radio, OnLine folks representing us on air and radio?-Here’s how 2do it-make the world proud/ #1BRising /UN Peacekeepers stop raping/OmarKhadr dishonours Canada and our troops who died 4 Afghan freedom
----------------

USA- KNOW YOUR RIGHTS ON CAMPUS- DISABILITIES-


USA-disabilities-   Know It 2 Own It: Advocating for Your Rights on Campus from the @USEdGov Blog http://1.usa.gov/1FmoAfP  #Disability


WORDPRESS:

USA-disabilities-   Know It 2 Own It: Advocating for Your Rights on Campus from the @USEdGov Blog http://1.usa.gov/1FmoAfP  #Disability

Know It 2 Own It: Advocating for Your Rights on Campus

As we approach the end of the school year, most high school seniors are preparing for graduation and their future. At this time, I’m reminded that each passing year, more and more students with autism and other disabilities are attending college with their peers. For many of them this will be their first time away from home, a time for excitement and a time for independence. It will also be the first time where they will be responsible to advocate for their own needs at school.
The transition from high school to college can be tough, especially for students with disabilities; however, when students know their rights and where to get help, the transition can be made a little easier. Some students, such as Elijah a high school senior from Jacksonville, Florida, learn the importance of advocating for themselves and their needs for accommodations while still in high school. Here is his story and his wish for all students with disabilities.
A student’s ability to advocate for himself is important to succeed at the college level. Every year, I have an opportunity to meet and work with a group of about 15 autistic college students from various backgrounds and ranging in age. Some of them are traditional college students, others are accessing college through a TPSID program or a modified course of study. All of them say the same thing – it can be hard.
Part of my job at the Autistic Self Advocacy Network is to provide incoming students with training in self-advocacy through our Autism Campus Inclusion program and give them the tools and resources they need in order to effectively advocate for themselves and get the most out of their college experience.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, colleges and universities are required to remove any barriers impeding the student, whether these are architectural, communication related, or transportation and to provide reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices. It is, however, the student’s responsibility to know his or her rights and how to advocate for appropriate accommodations. These accommodations could include:
  • Wearing noise-cancelling headphones in class,
  • Using laptops for note-taking
  • A place to doodle, fidget, pace, or sit on the floor in order to focus and learn.
  • Live in a single dorm room, even as a freshman if needed
  • A quiet testing space
  • Alternative formats of classroom materials, textbooks, and tests
In addition to getting the word out about self-advocacy, we’ve created resources such as Navigating College and ACI to assist students with disabilities as they navigate through higher education.
Autistic and other students with disabilities will often face barriers from the day they set foot on campus. In order for these students to succeed in college, we say, self-advocacy is needed. You have to know your rights, have a plan for getting the accommodations and modifications that are appropriate and needed, and be prepared to face an array of challenges. However, by creating a community on campus and bringing students together to share their experiences we remind one another that self-advocacy is easiest when we know we aren’t alone.
The opinions expressed and materials contained in this blog are not an endorsement by the U.S Department of Education and herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the United States Department of Education.
Julia Bascom is the Deputy Executive Director of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network.

Posts you may also like






----------------

Edmonton woman who hit, killed man in crosswalk has licence suspended, fined
CP | By The Canadian Press
Posted: 11/12/2014 3:08 pm EST Updated: 01/12/2015 5:59 am EST

----------------


10 Mar 2014 ... Soldiers killed in battle are mourned by the whole community, and they were
doing that ... “Pedestrians could cross at crosswalks. .... The exception was during
World War II, when fuel shortages and resource conservation .... In 2012,
automobile collisions killed more than 34,000 Americans, but unlike our ...



---------------

BLOGSPOT:  WORDPRESS

CANADA MILITARY NEWS- July 27 2014- from Canadian Point of View- God bless our troops. God bless Israel-God Bless Canada-God bless Afghanistan- u choose Palestine- we choose our gay brothers and sisters and ISRAEL- equality trumps ur Hamas-Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Muslim killing Muslims without a care….



------------------
BLOGSPOT
CANADA MILITARY NEWS: KURDS fight as bravely as AFGHANS 4 their daughters and sons and their very freedoms, culture and a future of education and prosperity #1BRising /14 most beautiful places in Middle East- we must save humanity and cultures /Videos of 1900s Kurdish Music/ Beautiful Afghan Rubab- culture and music of the real Afghanistan

------------

CANADA-
·     
·     
Review of All Accidental Pedestrian Deaths in Ontario .... Currently, Canada is ranked 10th in terms of fatalities per billion vehicle kilometers travelled ...
www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca › ... › Office of the Chief Coroner
·     
·     
Apr 29, 2015 - Review of Ornge Air Ambulance Transport Related Deaths. July 2013 HTML / PDF- 1.35 MB ... Pedestrian Death Review. HTML / PDF – 958kb.
www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca › ... › Publications & Reports
·     
·     
Jul 26, 2012 - Office of the Chief Coroner Cycling Death Review June 2012. ...collisions, just like motor vehicle collision deaths and pedestrian deaths, are  ..

--------------


Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario
A Review of All Accidental Pedestrian Deaths in Ontario
From January 1st, 2010 to December

-------


USA- What happens when a motorist kills a pedestrian?
Started by billh, Sep 26 2006 07:59 AM





by Walt Seifert (executive director, Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates)





We frown on killing people with gun, knives or poison. If we catch the culprit the consequences can be harsh—long sentences, life in prison or even the death penalty. We are much more forgiving when someone kills with a car, especially if the driver is sober and exhibits a bit of remorse. Generally, when motorists kill a pedestrian or cyclist, if they are charged at all, they get off with a slap on the wrist from the legal system.



In West Sacramento 22-year old Amanda Latimer struck and killed crossing guard Bud Brown on Park Boulevard. Brown had just finished crossing kids to Westmore Oaks Elementary School. An 85 years old World War II vet, Brown is survived by a widow and sister. Latimer said she was reaching for her sunglasses. She pleaded no contest to vehicular manslaughter, a misdemeanor. Her sentence: three years probation, $390 in fines and fees and 200 hours of community service.



Shawn Joseph Ponce, 29, killed 17-year old Carrie Higgins on Hazel Avenue, near Curragh Downs Drive. Higgins, a bright Orangevale high school junior and soccer team member, was in the crosswalk crossing Hazel with a friend. Ponce pleaded no contest to vehicular manslaughter and felony hit-and-run. He did not stop after hitting Higgins, but turned himself in four days later. Ponce claimed he was reaching down for a baby bottle and thought the light was green when he went through the intersection. Now free on bond, at sentencing Ponce faces up to two years in prison—the length of the term is not so much because he killed someone, but because he didn’t stop.



Every year across the United States, motorists who speed, drive drunk, fall asleep, have the sun in their eyes or are distracted kill thousands of pedestrians and cyclists. Since the war in Iraq started, more than 700 American troops have been killed in the war zone. During the same time, motorists have killed about 7,000 Americans who were walking or biking.



At least one study confirms the conclusion that not much happens to motorists who kill pedestrians or cyclists. In San Jose, during 2001 and 2002 there were 31 pedestrian and 6 cyclist fatalities. Of the 11 pedestrian cases in which the driver was at fault, 4 were charged. Of the 2 cyclist cases in which the driver was at fault, neither driver was charged. Drivers were not charged in more than 75 percent of the cases in which they were at fault.



Why are drivers not held accountable? Why is punishment so light?



There are many factors in play. Courts, juries and police officers may sympathize more with the driver than the victim. “It could have been me driving,” seems to be the thought. The number of people who share a cyclist’s perspective is small and cyclists are often viewed unsympathetically. Because of this district attorneys are reluctant to prosecute. When they do, there can be difficulty in getting a conviction.



We need to do a number of things differently. We need safer roads, with more crossings for pedestrians, lower speeds and much better traffic enforcement.



We need a legal system that is more just. Some places in the world assume drivers are at fault in all car crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists. There needs to be better-trained police officers who make unbiased and informed reports. Prosecutors must be willing to prosecute and judges and juries willing to convict.



We need motorists with a different attitude about the serious responsibilities that go along with the privilege of driving. In a case that occurred in Orem, Utah, an eight-year old girl was in a crosswalk near an elementary school. A woman driving a mini-van rolled through the intersection and hit the child. The girl was spun around, suffered facial injuries and a dislocated shoulder.



The driver stopped only long enough to roll down her window and apologize. The girl's mother watched it all happen. The mother, Gloria Frutus, said, "I felt bad. I didn't think to say anything to the woman. She didn't say anything but, 'I'm sorry' and left."



In a way, this case is more chilling than the fatalities. The indifferent and casual attitude of the driver is profoundly disturbing. Hitting a little girl with a two-ton car is apparently simply a bother and no more serious than bumping someone in a crowd or inadvertently stepping on a foot.



Drivers are rarely out to kill—they are not committing murder. Even though they lack the intent to do harm, their carelessness takes lives. Saying you’re sorry is not enough. Being sorry is not enough. Punishing drivers won’t bring back the victims, but serves justice and may save others by making all drivers more careful. Irresponsible driving that kills should have consequences.

-----------

USA-  Does Uninsured Motorist Insurance Cover Pedestrians?
November 21, 2010 by EINSURANCE

Almost every state and the District of Columbia requires that you carry a minimum level of car insurance as a condition of registering and operating a vehicle. Some states also add uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage to their minimum requirements. Uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage helps cover your property damage and bodily injury costs when the at-fault driver can’t or the hit and run driver won’t. In the case of an underinsured driver, uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage helps compensate for the difference between what that driver’s policy will cover and your reality.
But what if you’re a pedestrian who is injured by someone driving around without insurance? Maybe you have your own medical coverage, but it hardly seems fair that you have to pay the deductible, co-pays and hospital bills, or use up your vacation time and savings to cover lost wages. Worst-case scenario, what if you or a loved one is killed by an uninsured driver while walking? If you carry uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage for your own vehicle, your policy may cover you even if you’re on foot when the accident happens.
Pedestrian coverage is a compelling reason to get this relatively cheap car insurance coverage even if you aren’t required by law to carry it. Research from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that about 64,000 pedestrians are injured by vehicles in the U.S. every year. Any impact with a moving vehicle is likely to result in a serious accident, so it’s not surprising that about 5,000 pedestrians die as a result of those encounters each year.
Here are more data from NHTSA and The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that should send you looking for Uninsured Motorist Coverage quotes:
·         Pedestrian deaths account for 11% of all motor vehicle deaths.
·         Following occupant death, pedestrians suffer the most motor vehicle accident fatalities.
·         90% of all pedestrian fatalities involve a single vehicle.
Some places are safer than others, statistically. The aforementioned data (collected between 1998 and 2000) showed that although New Mexico had the highest rate of pedestrian/vehicle fatalities per 100,000 population, Florida was the most dangerous place for walkers. Of the top 10 cities cited for pedestrian fatalities, 5 were in the Sunshine State and 3 -- Ft. Lauderdale, Miami and Tampa – had the highest pedestrian fatality rates overall.
While you’re on foot, you might also want to consider that the highest rate of pedestrian deaths (about 2/3rds) happen in congested urban areas. Makes sense, since there are more cars and more pedestrians in cities. But country dwellers beware: the ratio of pedestrian deaths to injuries is greater on rural roads because the vehicles tend to be traveling faster.
Not surprisingly, these run-ins tend to happen most often on Fridays and Saturdays after dark. And while drivers are frequently to blame, pedestrians often invite disaster by wearing dark clothing, jaywalking and walking while intoxicated or distracted.
-------------



No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.