A pedestrian outside the crossing in the dark: what the Supreme Court of Latvia said about the driver's fault

A dark evening, an ordinary street, someone in a dark jacket stepping across the road about thirty metres from the crossing. You brake — and you don't stop in time. The first thought afterwards is always the same: "I was driving by the book, he walked out wherever he felt like." The thought is logical — it just doesn't always protect you.

The law really does let you rely on others

Let me start with the good news. The Ceļu satiksmes likums (Latvia's Road Traffic Law) gives every road user the right to assume that the others will also meet the requirements set for them. That is Article 19, part four. In case law this approach is called the principle of reliance (paļaušanās princips).

All traffic rests on that: you are entitled to assume that the oncoming car will stay out of your lane and that a pedestrian will cross where they are supposed to.

Where that trust ends

And now the part nobody usually explains: that reliance is not absolute. The Supreme Court of Latvia has stated the boundary plainly: the principle does not apply if the driver knows there is no basis for relying on another person's lawful conduct, or if there are concrete signs pointing to that.

There are categories where you cannot count on the rules being followed at all:

• Children. The behaviour of a young child near the road cannot be predicted. The court puts it directly: whether the pedestrian broke the rules or not is of no material significance.
• People under the influence. Someone moving erratically is that "concrete sign" — the point at which there is nothing left to rely on.
• Any behaviour that already looks odd. Someone at the kerb facing the traffic while looking at a phone; a teenager who has taken a step and frozen.

The requirement here is strict: the moment you have an objective opportunity to assess a pedestrian's behaviour as dangerous, you must immediately do whatever is needed to avoid hitting them. Not "preferably" — you are obliged to.

Speed is chosen by visibility, not by the sign

The Ceļu satiksmes noteikumi (CSN — Latvia's road traffic regulations, Cabinet Regulation Nr. 279) require you to drive at a speed that not only stays within the set limits but also takes into account traffic intensity, the features and condition of the vehicle and its load, and road and meteorological conditions — especially visibility in the direction of travel. That is point 99.

The wording matters: the number on the sign is a ceiling, not permission to drive that fast at all times. At night, in rain, in fog, a permitted 50 km/h can be far too quick, and the rules say so explicitly. Alongside it sits another provision: if dangerous obstacles appear that the driver is able to notice, he must reduce speed or stop the vehicle completely. That is point 100.

Why a pedestrian in dark clothing becomes visible so late, and what the law demands of the pedestrian themselves, I covered in a separate article about the dark season.

The pedestrian's own breach does not clear you

A telling case. In darkness, on a poorly lit stretch, a driver hit pedestrians who were crossing the carriageway in a place not intended for crossing — in dark clothes and without reflective elements. Two people died, two more were injured.

The first-instance and appellate courts held that guilt had not been proven: doubt remained as to whether the driver should have seen the people in time. The Supreme Court of Latvia quashed the appellate decision in full and sent the case back for fresh examination. The logic is simple: poor visibility — caused both by the lighting and by the weather — is exactly the circumstance in which the driver was obliged to reduce speed under point 99. Poor visibility is not an excuse — it is a reason to drive slower.

The few kilometres per hour that change the outcome

The second case is harsher: it involved neither darkness nor rain. Daylight, a built-up area, a pedestrian stepping across the street away from a crossing, the driver hits them, the pedestrian dies. The speed: not less than 55 km/h where 50 is permitted.

The lower courts acquitted the driver. The Supreme Court of Latvia set that decision aside: by exceeding the permitted speed in a built-up area the driver increased the risk of an accident and reduced their own chances of noticing an obstacle in time and reacting appropriately. And separately — a sentence worth keeping in mind: the set limit must not be exceeded even when every other circumstance is as favourable to the driver as possible.

On re-examination the driver was found guilty: three years' imprisonment, suspended, and a three-year ban on driving.

What the court actually establishes

First, a specific moment is established: when the driver saw the pedestrian — or should have seen them — and when an objective opportunity arose to assess that behaviour as dangerous.

From there the question splits in two. Whether there was a technical possibility of stopping before the point of impact is answered by an expert, working from calculations: speed, braking distance, visibility range. Whether this particular driver had a chance to avoid the accident is assessed by the court, weighing all the evidence together.

That is where the effect of those few kilometres per hour comes from: they change not only the braking distance but the expert's answer — and with it the outcome of the case.

What the law provides for

Liability for breaching the traffic rules in a way that harms a person is set out in the Krimināllikums (Latvia's Criminal Law). That is Article 260:

• moderate bodily harm — imprisonment for up to three years, short-term imprisonment, probation supervision, community service, or a fine;
• serious bodily harm or a person's death — imprisonment for up to eight years, with a driving ban of up to five years;
• the death of two or more people — imprisonment for three to twelve years, with a driving ban of up to seven years.

This is no longer an administrative penalty. The everyday ones are in the fines new drivers actually collect.

What to do with this behind the wheel

When preparing for the CSDD (Road Traffic Safety Directorate) exam, students treat "choose your speed by visibility" as a textbook formality. After cases like these, they stop.

In practice it is three habits. Drive so that your stopping distance fits inside the distance you can actually see. Lift off the accelerator early wherever a pedestrian may appear: by bus stops, between parked cars, on unlit stretches. And treat the sign as a maximum rather than a norm.

The other first-year mistakes I have collected here. Speed choice in the dark is exactly what an instructor sees from the passenger seat in a single evening lesson; you can book one online.

"I was driving by the book" is the beginning of the conversation, not the end of it. You do have the right to rely on other people — but the duty to see what is happening ahead of you does not go anywhere because of it.

Rules verified against the current consolidated texts of the Ceļu satiksmes noteikumi (Cabinet Regulation Nr. 279), the Ceļu satiksmes likums and the Krimināllikums, September 2026. Legislation changes — check the current version on likumi.lv.