Policewoman came driving behind. But the judge supported the car driver.
Photo: Tor Høvik (archive) Published: Published:
Less than 40 minutes ago
A female motorist in her 50s had to appear in Hordaland district court on Thursday because she has refused to pay a fine.
It concerned that when passing a pedestrian crossing on Askøy, she allegedly had to brake suddenly for a jogger. According to the police, she should not have been able to stop before the car was in the footpath, “with the consequence that the pedestrian had to stop”.
– She thus did not comply with the duty to give way to the pedestrian, the submission states.
also read
The lorry driver who was buried on the E16
NOK 12,900
In the district court, the police filed a claim for a fine of NOK 8,900 and that the driver should pay NOK 4,000 in court costs. So NOK 12,900 in total.
The driver explained in court that she was aware of a jogger on the opposite side of the road who was running in her direction. She described the speed as running “at a good pace”. She said she did not perceive it as the jogger going across the crosswalk.
– Whoops
Thus, the driver explained, it came as a surprise when it still happened. But she explained that she was able to brake up before the crosswalk.
– The braking was still not as smooth as she had wanted, as she sped because of the jogger. The jogger also ran, she stopped and threw out her arms when she saw her, says the reproduction of the driver’s explanation.
Coincidentally, a policewoman driving three cars came up behind. She testified in the case and explained that she saw the jogger. The police witness said that she saw early on that the jogger was going to cross the road.
– This is because she pulled to the right and turned her head backwards before running out into the walkway.
The witness explained that the jogger veered into the pedestrian zone early on – and maintained his running pace.
– The defendant then had to brake suddenly. The girl who ran looked surprised, took her arm out, looked into the suspect’s car, before she went around the car and jogged on, according to the policewoman’s explanation.
also read
“This is not going well”, Martine managed to think. Then everything went black.
The police witness believed that the car entered the pedestrian lane and that the driving was a breach of the duty to yield. The driver was therefore stopped, the judgment states.
Doubt
The court comes to the conclusion that the driver undoubtedly had a duty to yield, but concludes that the driver should be acquitted.
The judge believes it has not been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the jogger stayed obstructed or disturbed in the corridor.
The judge casts doubt on whether the police witness could see for sure whether the defendant had entered the walkway or not.
– The court must then rely on the defendant’s explanation that she slowed down somewhat suddenly, but that she managed to slow down before entering the pedestrian crossing.
The district court also emphasizes the coincidental explanations that the jogger maintained her running speed even if she had to cross the road.
The court believes that it is most likely that the driver could not perceive the jogger’s intention to cross the road as clearly as the policewoman did, since the defendant’s car was much closer to the pedestrian crossing.
– The fact that the pedestrian suddenly stopped and lashed out with one arm can, in the court’s opinion, just as much be due to the fact that the pedestrian herself was not aware of the defendant’s car, but still ran into the crosswalk, and therefore ran when she saw the car, it says in the judgment.
The trial proceeded without co-jurors.
Published:
Published: 27 October 2023 18:27
Updated: 27 October 2023 19:03
2023-10-27 16:27:41
#Car #driver #acquitted #sudden #braking #pedestrian #crossings
