Advocacy & Safety - Should this drunk really have been killed.

A couple nights ago, not too far from Montreal, a drunk man walked out of a bar and stumbled into the street late at night. He got mowed down in the street. It seems to me that if the driver that hit him was really paying attention he or she could have driven defensivly and slowed down to avoid the "accident". The driver probably was not actually paying any attention, but they were not speeding which seems to be all the police look for these days.

No charges were laid.

Originally posted by Spire
A couple nights ago, not too far from Montreal, a drunk man walked out of a bar and stumbled into the street late at night. He got mowed down in the street. It seems to me that if the driver that hit him was really paying attention he or she could have driven defensivly and slowed down to avoid the "accident". The driver probably was not actually paying any attention, but they were not speeding which seems to be all the police look for these days. No charges were laid.

Hey, with cell phone calls to make, DVDs to watch, make-up to apply, kids to smack, fries to eat, newspapers to read ... who has time to pay attention to the menial task of driving??? :mad:

It's hard to judge without more information. I've personally seen a driver strike a pedestrian who was crossing the street mid-block. She was going about 20mph in a 30 zone, but it was dark, it was raining, there was a lot of glare on the city streets, and he was dressed in drab clothing. She just clipped him, then stopped immediately. Given how hard it was to see that night, and her low speed, combined with the unexpectedness of a pedestrian walking where he shouldn't have been, I saw no reason to lay blame with her. The police agreed, citing the pedestrian for crossing illegally (after a trip to the hospital to make sure he was ok). Would you blame her, or him, if he had been killed? :confused:

I agree. There are times when accidents just happen, not because of stupidity or negligence, but because of simple bad luck or bad judgement or even pedestrian stupidity. A few years ago, a little girl was killed when she rollerbladed right in front of a school bus. It happened in a suburb. It turns out I'd gone to high school with her mother (who was a year behind me and not a friend but I knew her). It was just one of those accidents. The bus didn't have time to stop, and it was on quiet street with little traffic. It was horrible but just an accident, no one was negligent. The bus driver was not expecting to see her rolling out in front of the bus! Sadly, many terrible accidents happen because people are not where they should be or they are where they shouldn't be, and drivers just don't have time to react. Frankly, if you're riding a bike at night without lights on a busy road, or walking down a median strip in the middle of the night, you are putting yourself at risk. And frankly, I think that suburban kids are given a sense of security, that they can run right out into the street and no vehicle will be going fast enough to hurt them.

Originally posted by Spire
...a drunk man walked out of a bar and stumbled into the street late at night. He got mowed down in the street.....

I'm sorry but I'm on the side of the driver here. A drunk stumbling in the street is displaying extreme negligence. Even if the driver wasn't paying attention, the drunk sure as heck wasn't either - and he was way out of his element. The driver was where they should have been.
Buckhead, suburb of Atlanta, has seemingly regular pedestrian fatalities and at first you think, "my god, this is terrible" until you go there and witness hoardes of pickled idiots walking into the 5-way intersection without a care because they're loaded.
Sorry, but this is Darwin award stuff.

Bikes-N-Drums,
I completely agree with you and that it was entirely the drunk's fault and that the driiver did not do anything wrong. I just seems to me that had the driver really been paying attention to what he/she was doing this needless death probably could have been avoided.

But then the question becomes a case of what reasonable expectations are while driving.
Really, given the information, it's hard to say whether or not it could have been avoided. Something is helping you believe that the actions of the driver could have been different, but I'm not sure if it's the details of this case or just bias against inattentive drivers in general. Is there an article about the event you could post a link to?

Originally posted by Spire
A couple nights ago, not too far from Montreal, a drunk man walked out of a bar and stumbled into the street late at night. He got mowed down in the street. It seems to me that if the driver that hit him was really paying attention he or she could have driven defensivly and slowed down to avoid the "accident". The driver probably was not actually paying any attention, but they were not speeding which seems to be all the police look for these days.


I really would like more information before blaming anyone here. Here on the Gold Coast, we still haven't forgotten the case of Dallas Johns, a drunk in Surfers Paradise who was swinging on a signpost after drinking too much one night and swung himself right into the path of a moving car on the Gold Coast Highway at precisely the moment the car was going past.

The woman driving the car simply had no time to react (unless you expect people to suddenly veer into your path for no apparent reason), but was driving slowly enough not to kill him (a rarity around here). Turned out that he sued not only the driver, but also the establishment that sold him the alcohol (gee, did they tie him to a chair and pour it down his throat or something?).

My point being that I'd like to know the exact position of the vehicle at the time the drunk stumbled out into the street before I attempt to apportion any blame here.

Originally posted by Spire
A couple nights ago, not too far from Montreal, a drunk man walked out of a bar and stumbled into the street late at night. He got mowed down in the street.
People just don't realize how hard it is to see them crossing the street at night.

This is terrible, but it's just so hard to see people at night.

I for one don't have great night vision and that can also be a problem for many other people. The truth is, that sometimes there is no time to react, and let's face it, many people out walking at night aren't clad in reflective gear. There are accidents that are just accidents. IN this case, though, the guy was drunk and stumbled right into the street- if he'd beek killed by a driver riding up on a sidewalk, I'd say, yes, the driver was to blame. But the drunk was in the street where cars were, and we all know that is dangerous. No, he shouldn't have been killed, but then, no one should.

However, there are times when accidents are just the result of stupidity. Earlier this year, a group of kids in a small town in Ontario all died when the driver (a teenager- all were teens) drove his newly-acquired vintage mustang off a pier into the ottawa river. Why? BEcuase he was trying to re-enact a stunt from a movie. The btoehr of one victim sayd, "Why did this have to happen?" Because the guy was a stupid moron!

I think that my thread has been misinterpreted a bit. I am not trying to place blame on the driver. I don't have a link, I saw it on couple news broadcasts. It seems to me though that the bar must have been at least a few meters from the edge of the road (they had a shot on the news) and it was about 7 or 8m + sidewalk. They said witnesses said he stumbled. My point really is that it would probably take at least 4 or 5 seconds to stumble the 10m required to hit the street. Plently of time for an alert, defensive driver to slow down (reports said she was already travelling below the posted speed limit). Granted it is hard to see people at night, but they are not invisible. However, I would maintain that he should have been visible at least a few seconds before the accident because of the headlights on the car.

I know that this is the drunks fault, and the driver of the car is obviously not at fault. I just believe that with the information presented on the newscast, if the driver had been alert and really paying attention to his/her surroundings this death probably could have been avoided.

Truth is, the only way to know is if you're in that car, in that situation on that road at that time. It's entirely likely that the driver was alert and cautious but probably had no way to stop. She may not have even seen the drunk until he was irght in front of her. There are all kinds of variables. I don't know if I'd be able to see in time to stop either. Sometimes, no matter how careful or cautious you are, accidents happen. It's the same on bikes. We'll crash and think, But I was being so careful, how'd that happen?

Right on, wabbit. I get the sense from some posters (from this thread and others I've seen on the BF board) that anything short of perfect information, perfect awareness, perfect skills, etc., among drivers is tantamount to guilt when a cyclist (or pedestrian) is injured or killed.

This is ridiculous. To them there is no such thing as an "accident", only "negligence" or even "homicide".

well back in the old country I you struct a pedestrian, you are held or charges will be laid, specially if the pedestrian is on a cross walk, now if he was sidesweep the driver will also be charge, I have live here in T.O., that is one law I really find it difficult to understand or comprehend