I love being a juror but it's finally over even though there was no resolve. The case is set to be settled outside of court after all that time .. waste of time. Basically, a car driver swerved to avoid hitting a bicyclist that ran a stop sign ended up hitting a jay walker (two feet away from the crosswalk). Complicating the matter, the car driver drank but his alcohol level is below the legal limit and passed the field sobriety test.
Nah, it was the bicycle running the stop sign; vehicle should have kept going straight and hit the party responsible, and not the jay walker (who did not cause the vehicle to swerve).
As a driving I blame the fault at the cyclist because.. 1. i hate cyclists being on the roads 2. the driver had done all he can to avoid any unnecessary injury 3. jaywalker maybe reckless but it's mainly the road users responsibility to stop for the pedestrian unless it is that close in distance between them that the jaywalker could have not crossed the road also this is a matter of negligence mostly rather than reckless roadusing... and the fact that the jaywalker wants to sue for compensation because he got "hit"... i bloody hate tort
If the bicyclist and the jay walker both admits (or have evidence) that they ran the stop sign and jay walking. Then, its the bicyclist and the jay walker who should get a fine. The motorist shouldnt get any fines even though he drank alcohol as it was under the legal limit, and I assume that he had proved that he was sober during the incident otherwise he would have been charged. I think its a simple case: (1) Bicyclist should be fined due to: 'ran the stop sign' 'causing other motorist(s) to swerve' in which 'caused a road accident' (2) Jay Walker should be fined for: 'Jay walking'.
The bicyclist should be at fault, because he disobeyed the rules of the road by running the stop sign which triggered the chain of events, if the bicyclist did not run the stop sign the car would not have had to swerve and whether or not he hits the jay walker would be another case in which, the case would be how fast was the driver going and whether the jay walker was within the crosswalk prior to the light turning green.... if the pedestrian tried to cross the street, even within the crosswalk, while the light has already turned green and a car going through the intersection hits him, it's the fault of the pedestrian.
Every country got's there own rules... and over here.. your screwed if your a car driver and you hit someone The cyclist is stupid to not look and ran through a stop sign and well... don't we all sometimes jayway? But the driver is also in fault. imo drivers shouldn' t drink and still drive, even if it's within the legal limitation, because alcohol does influence response time for braking etc etc.. and for some alcohol will affect more than others.
surely some people do genuinely have limits to when they can't drive the car.. i mean some people can have a pint of beer and just drive off sober and some lightweights will not be fit.. it's all down to personal immunity to alcohol tbh... hence that's why there is a legal limit to those who are confident and knows themselve that they can drive like a sober person? without limitation surely a lot more people will do it and there will be a lot more incidents like this in the roads and hell your insurance will be sky high too!
^ maybe I said it wrong... when i meant no limit i didn't mean unlimited.... i meant there should be absolutely no tolerance for drinking and driving, even a sip of alcohol. Like there should not be a set legal limit allowed, more of a complete intolerance of it all, if the driver is going to be blamed for events that were set into effect despite his/her best efforts to avoid someone who blatantly disobeyed traffic laws... But this is only in reference to Resentless' comments, i would hate to not be able to enjoy a beer or a shot of hennesy when i'm out having dinner with friends, but if the system is going to be that harsh on drivers, than that system should not have a set limit, is what i'm trying to get across....
^ but measuring to personal tolerance would be difficfult hence the legal limit but maybe the system should be more thorough on not jsut the breathaliser.. to our age, height, weight etc maybe?
Well .. I don't know what the final judgment will be .. I can tell ya'll that in our jury room, everyone was focusing on the driver. Even though the cyclist ran the stop sign, people questioned - how fast was the driver going, why did he swerve instead of stepping on the brake, how much of the alcohol affected his judgment despite being tested below limit, and what was the manner and direction in which he swerved and the car's last and final braked position .. so yeah .. people were getting very detailed ... the thing is that jay walker is an azn man so ppl were questioning whether his injuries was that serious since he sought a chiropractor instead of a physical therapist .. lol race was a big issue in the room too .. so much for being impartial .. lol
^ I'm not being funny right but.. There are mainly 3 things that goes through your mind when this situation happens... 1) Brake in a panic 2) Swerve in a panic to AVOID hitting the person 3) Keep driving like a hit and run I may sound like a bad driver but i would more than likely to swerve than brake.. Don't ask me why it's just my instinct.. I know the correct way to do this is to brake but what you have to realise people have different judgements and reactions whether sober or not... Was the jurors directed to talk about the driver by the judge or did the juror focused on the drivers by your arguments when making the decision?
^ no us jurors were just discussing the case in the room .. like I said .. we didn't finish hearing everything because it's gonna be settled outside of court ... but you made a good point .. then again .. panic reaction different from everyone .. and we don't know how fast was the driver going .. guess we will never know lol
