Court says drivers responsible for dodging Oktoberfest drunks

Wow ! I can not believe it, Germany now has a "Drunkards protection law". So stupid of the German law system, I really feel sorry for the lady on the motorbike.

You jump into a pit of alligators, it's a bit disengenuous to then sue the alligators for biting you.

any excuses for these people to drink beer and eat sausage they use..it is their national right to be ignorant.

A message to two of the contributors above "Did you actually read the story?".

The motorcyclist sued the drunk guy after SHE hit HIM. I absolutely back the German Law this time (normally I am more sceptical) and I think the motorcyclist is the "typical" German in this case - "I have a right to ride my bike at the speed limit and if a drunken Wiesn goer crosses the road I can run into him and then sue him".

And as for the "Drunkards Protection Law", I think you will find that the German Court refused to put in place a "Protect stupid motorcyclists Law".

The poor guy had a bad day. He got run down by a motorbike, taken to court for damages, and then charged half the costs - just because he visited one of the biggest tourist events in the World.

And one last point, most Bavarians I know (and I live here) a) don't like the Wiesn and b) don't visit the Wiesn (they visit smaller festivals). The ones that do can generally hold their beer. So most of the drunks at the Wiesn are actually tourists.

Well the guy crossed at a red light, so it's his fault and the motorcyclist shouldn't be blame for it I think.

The 'drunkards protection law' is usually referred to as the StVO, or Strassen Verkehrs Ordnung (or similar), which protects all road users be they drunk or otherwise and requires of everyone that they take reasonable care to avoid causing accidents. It grants nobody a god-given right to drive at any speed they see appropriate be that something called the speed limit or any other but requires of everyone to adjust their style of driving according to likely risks that the environment may pose, and that everyone should be capable of anticipating such dangers.

In other words the bitch on the motorbike deserves to pay at least half and should probably be slapped for being self-centred and stupid.

If you did your license in Germany instead of converting it you would understand why she is partially guilty. As a driver you have to expect the unexpected. She lost because she insisted it was her right to drive at full speed in a place that could have drunk people left and right, she should have said she did what she could but at the end it was not possible to avoid the collision.

Really? This is the diametric opposite of what my German wife always tells me when she's giving me an earful when I demonstrate US-taught "defensive driving" skills.

When I 1) approach an intersection and I'm on a priority road (as shown by the yellow diamond) and think a car approaching from the other directions looks like the driver could be inattentive and or experiencing brake failure and prophylactically cover my brake and swerve over a bit or 2) brake a bit and wait until the headlights overtaking me in the left lane on the autobahn clear instead of just lurching out into the left lane at speed to overtake the slower car in front of me in the right lane or 3) give bikes and pedestrians wide berth, I'm always told "if you cause an accident by being 'overly careful' you'll be at fault for any accident you may cause by just plowing ahead under the St. VO" (who appears to be the patron saint of head-on collisions).

Apparently, you can't win!

Well this does not bode well for Silvester or the 1st of May then.

He caused the accident, broke the law to do it even and so he should be 100% responsible. I am sick and tired of bike riders and pedestrians crossing on red right in front of me. I guess this ruling will make me think twice about mowing the Darwin Award wannabes down from now on. Damn, I was so looking forward to getting a few points!

1a) If you break to a full stop with screeching tyres and the driver behind you crashes into your car you will be partially blamed

1b) If you swerve over a bit and crash into the incoming traffic you will be blamed

2) You won't be blamed at all

3) Like '1b' you will be blamed (partially) if you give them a wide berth and crash into something or cause incoming traffic to crash into something because they had to avoid you

It means that if a drunkard rapes a girl during Octoberfest will not be fully blamed. The girl is also "50% responsible", she should know there must be a bunch of drunkards, and she should stay at home all the time, shouldn't walk alone on the street, and no sexy clothing during Octoberfest.

LOL......

lol indeed, mixing Straßenverkehrsordnung and Strafrecht

The law is not to different in the UK where the speed limit is in fact the maximum speed limit. You should be aware of other dangers and drive accordingly. It is the drivers responsibility to look out for potential danger.

If someone is illegally crossing the road, because you are in the right it gives you no right to kill them.

It also depends on whether a car hits a car or a car hits a pedestrian. Generally, a car can inflict more damage than a pedestrian, therefore the driver of a car has to be more careful.

There are many questions like this in the driving theory test, like:

[Picture of kids on the sidewalk]

a. You continue driving at the same speed

b. You reduce speed because the kids could try to cross the street

c. You horn to let the kids know you are on the way and continue at the same speed

[Picture of dark street]

a. You reduce speed because it is dark

b. You drive at 50 km/h

c. You change to full lights and continue driving at the same speed

And the bigger element in the road has to be careful with the smaller ones, like:

Truck -> Car -> Motorbike -> Bicycle -> Pedestrian

Christ, you're a prick aren't you. Your analogy, as stupid as it is, can be stretched to include the girl going to the Oktoberfest, dressed in a sexy dirndl, realising that there will be loads of drunk and hormone charged men around so she stays with her friends and avoids dark, quiet places, ie. she takes reasonable precautions to stay safe given her surroundings. However I have the feeling that you didn't really mean that, did you.

Section 1 of the StVOSo everybody has to use caution and consideration. Everybody has to make sure that no other is damaged, endangered or impeded beyond a reasonable measure.

Different interpretation: The guy was drunk and incapacitated. He put himself into this siuation deliberately, thus disabling his ability to use caution. He shouldn't have been taking part in traffic at all, just like a drunk driver.

I'm getting quite a kick out of the whole situation because of the general contempt in which Germans are held on this forum for not crossing the street at a red light. Now one does cross at red, gets knocked arse over teakettle and everyone is sorry for him and says he didn't deserve it?

I agree that you must be aware of the situation around and adjust your driving to the situation... but when somebody crosses a red light or does anything else which is illegal, causing an accident, he should then be 100% responsible for it.

That's just it: The biker was sticking to the law. The drunk guy walked out in front of her. She gets injured and receives no compensation because the guy was too drunk to pay attention.

Turn the situation around: A drunken biker runs a red light and knocks down a sober pedestrian. Politicians call for stricter laws and more alcohol checks, the biker is fined or thrown into prison, the pedestrian gets factual damages and damages for injuries.

Following the court's logic any pedestrians are at fault when run into by a drunk driver coming home from the Wiesn as this is typical for the Oktoberfest season.

In the UK the driver has a 'duty of care' to pedestrians and cyclists i.e. use your common sense instead of just taking your right of way. I agree with the court's decision.

Indeed, if you've ever been anywhere near the Wiesn site when it's in full swing you'll know that there's a very high probability of some drunk idiot lurching into the traffic. The girl on the motorbike should have known this, and should have realised it from the crowds of people that are always around, and the drunk, well we've all done stupid things when drunk haven't we. Is he stupid? Yes. Can he expect to get hurt? Yes. But should he expect everyone else to pay attention and try not to hurt him? Yes.

In response to sarabyrd's turn the situation around scenario - I'd advise anyone travelling in Munich for the next 2 weeks to be very careful on the way home because there are a lot of drunks around and some are driving, cycling or walking. To me it matters not one jot if I'm following the law or not - I do not want to end up in hospital either if I'm the drunk or just going about my business.

This case seems like a contradiction but really it's a forceful statement of what we all know - be careful on the streets, there are lots of idiots out there.

The SZ article gives a different impression of the events. Apparently the pedestrian started crossing the road on the green man signal. A friend called to him, so h…[/quote]Edit (r.e. Steven192's comment below): The SZ also stated that the motorcyclist was doing 40-50kph.

Apples and oranges, I'm afraid. This is German law, see §1 StVO above - everybody is responsible.

EDIT: He behaved irresponsibly. If he had done the same thing sober the biker would have had a fair chance. It is wrong to punish someone (by not awarding damages) just because the other person is drunk. That's my personal beef with the verdict.

Sounds like you have integrated well. If you can't stand the ignorance then you could always go home!

The Locals' version of the story is either wrong or woefully translated then.

According to them the biker was doing 50Kph - pretty impressive standing start acceleration even for a big bike.

If your linked version is nearer the truth then I agree with the judge as all drivers are taught that they are supposed to wait until the crossing is clear before moving off.

On a related topic - I wonder if all those who think that ignoring the little red man is somehow clever, would they ignore a red light when driving?

Sorry, perhaps you dont u know what is analogy. What i was trying to say is that breaking the law is wrong no matter u r drunk or sober.

This is to say that "crossing the road at a red light" is wrong no matter he is drunk or sober. The biker should not be blamed.

The same difference as between the letter or spirit of the law. The law is designed to protect all road users, and regardless that he was drunk and was in the road when the light was green; she decided against all common sense to take her right of way regardless of the consequences. Did she have intent to cause bodily harm? Or is she just an idiot who doesn't realise more care needs to be taken in the area surrounding the fest due to the numbers of people, let alone drunk people.

I'm not excusing drunk behaviour, but regardless of whether a motorist, cyclist or pedestrian, extra vigilance is a matter of course during these coming weeks not only for our own personal safety, but for that of others.

But on the other hand the impact was her driving in to him not the other way round and according to the StVO, as you well know, she owes a duty of care to other road users which, by her actions, she failed to do. Although he was either standing in the street (according to SZ quote above) or lurching into it, and either is pretty stupid, he is still protected by law, even from his own stupidity. Perhaps another division of blame other than 50/50 would have been fairer but by the sound of things she could have avoided the impact had she been less pig-headed.

Your analogy is stupid. Someone crossing a red light while drunken is very different to someone raping a girl while drunken. Also the raped girl doesn'T drive a potentially deadly vehicle while being raped.

Much like ignoring the red man, its only a good idea when there isn't another human being in site.

It is strange though that somehow being inside the vehicle makes you more likely to stop and wait at a red light even at 3am when you can see there is no other traffic about but being on foot means you can safely ignore that same signal.

Or is that just me?

Probably has to do with the fact that a cop is more likely to give you a ticket/fine/points (or whatever they do here) for running a red light than walking on a red man. I also assume the traffic repercussions are worse than jaywalking.

Keep in mind that a moving car is much more dangerous than a pedestrian.

Even stranger is that if the light is green many people never bother to look and check. I live on a road junction controlled by traffic lights and hear a big bang about once per week when drivers mistake the traffic lights for green.

I can envision scenarios where a pedestrian wandering into the street can cause a huge amount of damage - making a tanker full of petrol swerve into a bus full of nuns for instance.

I just find it strange that those same people who find waiting for the red man to change some sort of infingement on their personal liberty or expression of their lack of serf like behaviour or something, have no problems with waiting for the light to change when they are driving.

Just an idle thought that crossed my mind is all.

U r damn stupid, of course both cases are different, that's why i said it is an analogy. Wrong means wrong, no matter it is traffic offenses, Felonies and Misdemeanors, etc...

Maybe that is your typical germany double standard.

not always...

(attached image)

And I agreed that it was an analogy, but a stupid one. If you accept the fact that both cases are different then you should also accept that both will be treated differently.

Stupid because u still dont know what is analogy.

Of course both case should be treated differently. Let me try again, my point is: the one who doesn't break the law should not be punished. Got it?

But the rider broke the law. She did not drive responsible enough.

Indeed, Mr. Manly you need to read again what the law says. You can find it stupid if you like but that doesn't change its validity.

So even if I as a sober driver am creeping along at walking speed and a drunk falls directly in front of my car from behind a parked truck, meaning that I had no chance of seeing him or stopping, and I roll over him I am not driving responsibly enough?

There is a limit to how circumspect I have to be if someone else is too drunk to be participating in traffic. The drunk guy turned back, or stopped, crossing the street. The biker had other directions to look as well when she started at a green light, she is not obliged to watch every Tom, Drunk and Harry at all times.

This one is interesting. On the one hand, I am aware of the particular risk motorcyclists are at in traffic--their vehicles are smaller and offer no protection to their bodies, it can be difficult to gauge their speed from a distance, and other motorists believe they have more room when they are on the road. Whether driving, cycling or walking, I try to give motorcyclists a wide berth and wait for them to cross intersections before turning left so I don't paralyse someone like I saw once back home.

On the other hand, there is this effed up attitude around here sometimes that if you're in the way, tough titties. I admit, on my bicycle, I occasionally attempt to cut corners or make it through a yellow-almost-red-ah--it's-red light, and sometimes I am in the wrong. However, I find it hard to comprehend why, even if you really really hate idiot cyclists like me, why you would jam on the gas THE SECOND you see that my light has changed. I mean, I get it, maybe you think you are making a point, but anything could happen--my chain could seize up, foot slips off the pedal, anything. If my speed changes one bit as I try to skate through this intersection, your 3000 pound vehicle will collide with my body at 35mph. Do you really want to take the risk that you will hit me, just to prove that I am a jerk?

So when I hear that this lady decided it was her right to go, pedestrian be damned, I have to wonder if she actually saw him and deliberately thought "hey lemme run this guy over real quick, I haven't got else to do but sit in the hospital tonight." I don't ride a motorcycle, but while cycling I am aware that it is almost more in my own best interest than that of the jay-walking pedestrian not to run into him--I am moving fast, and when I hit, my bike will stop, but my body will keep going. Not pretty. Peds walk in front of my bike quite intentionally all the time and while I often fantasize about all the violent retribution I would be delighted to visit upon their persons, and although I am in the right, I am going to do my best not to hit them, rude idiots though they are.

IMO if she saw him but assumed/gambled that he was going to get out of her way just because she has the right of way, she should be held more than 50% responsible. Because while even if the guy was sober and thinking rationally (and indeed he'd be a jackass for not having followed the rules), the most he expected would happen was that he would inconvenience the driver. The driver on the other hand would have intentionally injured another person and that is not the same thing, to me. You don't gamble with other people's lives, even when you think they deserve it.

I think she is obliged to watch IN FRONT. I wonder how can you hit with your motorcycle someone who is standing in the zebra cross when you have been waiting for the traffic light to turn green.

Did this driver creep along at walking speed? no. Of course there is a limit.

This story has found its way onto the Oktoberfest site under the title that drivers in the area of the Wiesn should be careful.

I would imagine that in your example sarabyrd you wouldn't share the blame 50/50 as you had clearly taken reasonable steps to avoid any accident and were driving in consideration of your surroundings. Clearly you can never avoid every idiocy that drunks on suicide missions throw at you but you can certainly reduce the chances by not being so stubborn the-speed-limit-is-what-I'll-do like the girl in this story. She was punished for her failure to adapt to a reasonably expected risk and that still seems fair to me.

I am trying to find this limit, that's why I gave you a very crass example. It is still wrong that the biker's claims are shrugged off with the remark, "There's drunks around, it's your fault for running into one of them, no matter how foolishly he was behaving".

I didn't see if the biker appealed, possibly the claim is below the permissible amount for an appeal.

For the ones who did not read the German version, this is what I understand:

- Drunk guy starts crossing the zebra when the little man is GREEN

- Drunk guy stops at the middle of the zebra for whatever reason

- Little man turns to red, drunk guy stays there

- Traffic light changes from red to green

- Drunk guys is still standing in the zebra cross

- Motorcycle girl hits the guy

Seriously, how can you drive your motorcycle over someone you should have clearly seen for long time already?

I don't think that was the remark that was made. There will be cases where you run into a drunk and don't get faulted for it. It depends on the situation. We don't know enough here to judge, I think.

The thing about our StVO is that you have to think while driving. Register your surroundings and try. Many people will see the green light and not register anything more. Maybe a form of tunnel vision. The more experienced you are as a driver the worse it gets. But taking part in the traffic with vehicles that cannot be controlled for most of the time is serious business.

thanks, Krieg, for clearing that up. I agree, it seems impossible that she did not see him and his erratic behavior. She definitely should have maneuvered around him with more caution.

Or perhaps just incomplete. The SZ version I linked to is mentioned on various legal and transport news websites too, e.g. here.

The motorcyclist must/should have seen the man standing in the street while waiting for the light to go green. She didn't drive carefully, had to brake, and then fell off her bike, causing damage to the bike.

The judge found that she was 50% responsible for the accident as she was driving too fast when drunk people were around, but her claim for damages wasn't shrugged off completely ? as I understand it, the pedestrian has to cover 50% of the cost for repairs.

The motorcyclist herself suffered some scrapes and bruises when she fell off the bike. The court found that the pedestrian did not have to pay her claim for ?1000 compensation, as she was partly responsible for the accident and her injuries weren't considered severe.

It is according to the title of this discussion. Not verbatim but the attitude is there:

The attidude, yes. Mainly that you have to be careful when you drive. Maybe we should read the complete ruling to say whether the decision was correct…[/quote]I'm talking especially about the last part (no matter how...). That is definitely not the case. If the drunk had just waited behind a car where she could not have seen him and ran in front of her when she was 5 meters away I don't think she would have been blamed.

So everybody is ok with the fact that he was standing in the street?

No, that's why he got blamed as well. Are you ok with the fact that the Biker couldn't see a man standing in front of her on the street? Do you think it is okay to drive a dangerous vehicle and then not look in the direction you are driving?

If this is the true series of events, isn't it a bit ludicrous that the drunk pedestrian has to pay 50% of the costs? If the same happened but the pedestrian was sober and stopped as he dropped something perhaps it would have been different?

I find it difficult to believe the motorcyclist hit the pedestrian on purpose, perhaps it was a turning and the driver could not see round? Would it have been different if it was another obstacle in the road - e.g. dog, boxes of the back of a lorry or another car.

If it was a true accident then I still see the motorcyclist as being 100% responsible - after all you should only drive as fast as you can see and stop (i.e. if you cannot see round the corner the correct speed is one that allows you stop before any unforeseen obstacles). This unwritten rule of driving is also happily ignored on autobahns, where people (including me) drive round corners at 160kph on the understanding that it is clear ahead.

Der Oktoberfestbesucher weigerte sich jedoch zu zahlen. Als der Fall deswegen vor das Amtsgericht kam, schilderte er dem Richter: Er sei bei Grünlicht auf die Kreuzung gegangen. Ein Freund habe ihm etwas zugerufen, er habe sich umgedreht - "dabei muss die Ampel von Grün auf Rot gesprungen sein". Die Motorradfahrerin sei sofort losgefahren, ohne auf ihn zu achten.

Online translation:

The Octoberfest visitor refused paying however. When the case came therefore before the district court, it described to the judge: It went with green light on the crossing. A friend has it somewhat to course-call, he turned - " the traffic light of green on red must jumped sein". The motorcycle woman driver drove off immediately, without paying attention to it.

Could it have been like this?:

- Drunk guy starts crossing the zebra when the little man is GREEN

- Drunk guy realizes he still has some beer left in his glass, tries to remember what tent he was in and stops at the middle of the zebra

- Little man turns to red, drunk guy stays there looking for the tent, everything is spinning so he doesn't notice the little red man

- Traffic light changes from red to green

- Drunk guys is still standing in the zebra cross, realizing where he has to go, about to move out of intersection

- Motorcycle girl hits the guy

- Drunk guy luckily does not feel too much, because of the beers he had

If as it seems the motorcyclist was stopped and then drove off immediately on getting a green light then this would mean that she wouldn't have been going round corners, wouldn't have been behind someone else (as that vehicle would have hit the drunk guy) so she probably thought that the drunk was going to keep going in one direction and she could drive infront/behind of him

How many people here have done exactly the same thing at a pedestrian crossing instead of waiting for the crossing to be clear?

Seems like the judge got it about right 50% costs to both parties as they both were in the wrong.

I'm not even sure the motorcyclist hit the guy. Some reports mention a collision, others don't. The SZ just wrote about her falling off her bike after/while braking.

8420PR, the pedestrian was found 50% responsible because he had a duty to cross as quickly as possible but instead was blocking the road. His partial responsibility for the accident doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact he was drunk.

I am on tenterhooks waiting for the biker's side of the story, or that of other witnesses. We don't have all the information but the guy himself said that he stopped in the middle of the street, wisely omitting to mention how long he stood there.

As I mentioned before, the biker had other things to pay attention to as well. Assumption: She looked at the crossing, saw him moving, looked at the light, saw it turn green, did a quick glance right and left (as one does or should as a biker), looked ahead, started, saw the drunken fool in her way, tried to avoid him and couldn't because by then he realized that he was standing in the way of traffic and possibly moved the same way she was swerving.

I would dearly love a peek into the court files.

By the way, what about the criminal aspect? Anyone involved in a road accident where a person comes to harm is considered negligent and gets an invitation from the police to make a statement for the DA. In my case there was no criminal action as I had injured my daughter by getting her foot caught in a bike wheel; the DA waived any punishment because I'm going to remember it all my life. Which of the two will be done? Both? Neither? Who will get off the hook?

I cannot wait for the sequel.

I have done exactly that.

Wet winter morning, come round a corner on my bike- on cobbles yet - didn't see the pedestrian (who did have a green light) so I slap the brakes on and end up kissing the road.

Didn't even get close to the pedestrian and lucky enough only to break the indicator and a few minor scratches to the exhaust.

I'm surprised you're so excited by this case sarabyrd, it's not really like it sets any legal precedent (does it?) although on first appearance the decision may appear a bit odd.

It may have serious consequences but only if the biker can appeal and if the court has permitted the case to escalate to higher courts.

Law has a high passion potential, even after 25 years of cohabitation

Due care and attention. Road users must drive with due care and attention. If its raining and the driver is driving at the legal speed, skids etc. Then the driver is not driving with due care and attention. Same would be if its at 2am on a Sunday morning. Drivers should expect people a bit tipsy... however, it goes also for the drunkards to.

"Ein Freund habe ihm etwas zugerufen, er habe sich umgedreht - "dabei muss die Ampel von Grün auf Rot gesprungen sein". Die Motorradfahrerin sei sofort losgefahren, ohne auf ihn zu achten."

This is what the guy said (not a fact, Sueddeutsche is just quoting his version here). The friend must have called out very slowly, because usually the traffic light for the cars does not turn green immediately after the pedestrian's turns red, to leave a bit of time for Granny to finish crossing the street? The biker saw him turn back, how is she expected to know he'd not go back, but turn again and then cross without checking either the traffic lights or the traffic - he was sober enough to react to his friends call? Of course you need to drive very carefully, always, not only during the fest. But you also want to get on, otherwise you might as well walk yourself?

In any case, and even if she was to blame here, there's no need to call her a bitch or similar. She evaded him and it's her who's had the damage and the injury, because he had drunken himself into such a state that he didn't recognise a red light and also didn't see the biker.

For the Lady riding the motorcycle, she should of hit the drunk a bit harder. Any drunk walking the streets runs the risk of being hit by motorist and is always 100% at fault. The drunk could not hold his liquor, this lite wieght should

think about drinking at home

Problem solved: traffic's now banned from the immediate vicinity of Oktoberfest.