jezer wrote:I expect when the next victim gets shot Mr Loophole will say he should have been wearing a bullet proof vest. It's not my fault m'lord, he brought it on himself. This moron needs to be removed from decent society.
And in the right circumstances, he might have a degree of justice in saying it. A person attending an organised shoot, for example, ought to take a degree of care of their own safety. But this would be a crass defence from a marauding gunman.
It is not clear what are the circumstances of the person being run over, but it seems likely from the comments that he voluntarily entered the roadway, and that further it was dark. Being in Salford, it was likely streetlit and with walkways. People entering the roadway cannot rely entirely on other road users avoiding them in all circumstances, they do have some responsibility for their own safety, and indeed for the safety of other road users who include the vulnerable roadusers such as cyclists. And where there are walkways, the drivers can rely to some degree on pedestrians keeping to them and only entering the roadway when safe. As a general principle, it seems appropriate that where a pedestrian's behaviour in entering the roadway was reckless, that ought to be relevant, at least in mitigation. Now if someone enters the roadway and you as a vehicle operator strike them and were committing some kind of road traffic offence at the time, it is likely to end up as your fault even if the pedestrian's behaviour was reckless.* Given that the irregular behaviour by the vehicle operator here includes speeding and operating telecommunications equipment, even if the pedestrian's behaviour was reckless it is likely to be difficult to show, or even unreasonable to argue - it is difficult for pedestrians to judge the safety of entering the roadway when drivers are speeding and operating telecommunications equipment, and they may well misjudge safety in such conditions. Nevertheless, I would think that walking down the road I live on in the dark without visibility aid is reckless - it has extended sections which are unlit, narrow and without footway. But walking around a city with streetlighting and walkways without visibility aid ought not be thought reckless.
*Note in particular the offence of causing death while driving uninsured - degree of fault for the accident is not relevant to being found guilty of this strict liability offence. One can understand the motivation for this offence being so, but it has resulted in some rather perverse outcomes. We can criticise the CPS for bringing charges in such cases, but the CPS tends to bring charges when it can get a conviction regardless of such matters. That tends to suggest to me it is bad law.