A hit and run driver represent an example of extreme negligence. He or she has failed to heed the normal precautions, those that let other drivers feel safer. At the same time, how or she has ignored the needs of the person that was harmed by the same driver’s negligence.
In the eyes of the law, someone that has hit another motorist, a bicycle rider or a pedestrian, and has abandoned the site of that same incident could qualify as a criminal.
• Having driver’s license revoked
• Loss of ability to obtain a reversal on that revocation
• Need to pay a fine, possibly as much as $2,000
Once identified, the at-fault/criminal driver could be required to cover these costs
• The victim’s medical expenses
• The rehabilitation costs for the victim
• The expenses created by any other follow-up services, those offered after the victim has recovered from the injuries.
• If victim was employed, the loss of wages
• The possible loss of earning power
• If victim’s injury were able to create a disabling condition, there could be costs related to a need for certain equipment.
Public response to hit and run incidents
As those incidents increase the number of on-the-road fatalities, the affected members of the public could decide to take action. Some of them have done that in one California County. Their collective action has allowed an entire group of people to go after anyone that has caused their grief, or has caused similar grief to another person/family.
While members of the activist group cannot be vigilantes, they can make life harder for anyone that might attempt to add to the list of hit-and-run incidents. How can they make their life harder? By highlighting the egregious nature of their violation, as per Personal Injury Lawyer in St. Catharines.
That collection of activists has called for the introduction of more visible cross walks, along with head start signals. Those signals start flashing the “walk” sign 3 seconds before the drivers get a green signal. That change is supposed to cut down on the number of times that a driver that had chosen to make a turn could fail to see a pedestrian that has stepped into the cross walk.
If pedestrians were to become more visible, then any motorist would find it hard to claim the inability to see that same walker. In other words, someone guilty of hitting a pedestrian would find it difficult to produce a logical reason for that same violation.
Eventually, it could become obvious which motorists were hitting pedestrians because of their failure to see them, and which of them were performing that act of negligence out of a disregard for a walker’s desire to cross the street, thus impeding a speeder’s progress.