Odd that you go so crazy in trying to create a situation where it is morally justified to swerve you had to presume that the person swerving is such an immoral asshole that if he hits a pedestrian who dove in front of his vehicle, he'll just drive off.
Actually, the person who DID NOT swerve is the immoral asshole who chose to run over an innocent child instead of swerve into an empty oncoming lane of traffic, and the one who did NOT swerve is the one who DID have the accident and must stop. He's the only one I talked about having to stop to maintain perfect adherence to the almighty traffic rules. That you didn't realize who I was talking about tells me you didn't read, or didn't comprehend, the hypothetical situation.
The moral, decent guy who chose to break a minor traffic law to save a life doesn't need to stop because there was no accident. The "hit and run" laws don't include "miss and run".
If you had time to swerve, you had time to stop.
this table, I see that the total stopping distance for a car going 30MPH is 109 feet. That's ten car lengths. There are many streets in my town that have onstreet parking with a 30MPH speed limit. Even with 0 reaction time, the physical distance is still 43 feet. That's four car lengths, about. If you cannot make a full change of lanes in less than ten car lengths, you don't know how to drive.
Even at 20 MPH, the stopping distance is 63 feet. Ditto changing lanes in six car lengths. But you don't have to make a full lane change, all you need to do is avoid hitting a four year old child.
So, sometimes you may be able to stop before you hit the child. Sometimes you won't be able to, and a sane, rational, ethical human being will chose a path that will save the child rather than simply run it over because someone told them the only proper thing to do was "keep going straight ahead."
There are not rows of parked cars on the freeway.
There aren't. But there are often culverts, ditches, or grassy areas close. And those animals which decide to cross sometimes think if they go fast enough they'll make it -- faster than you can stop. I've had such animals dart into my path from less than 10 feet away, much less that 109 feet I'd need to stop for them going at just 30 MPH. The table says that even with zero reaction time involved, I could go no faster than 15 MPH and I'd still hit that animal. If you think driving on I5 or I90 or any other highway at 15MPH is the right thing to do so you will never have to avoid hitting an animal by anything less than coming to a full stop, you're dangerous.
Streets that have lane-side parking have speed limits such that if you have time to turn the wheel to swerve, you'd have time to stop too.
Nope. Maybe on your planet, but not on planet Earth. "Time to turn the wheel" is milliseconds" and is for the most part "reaction time". "Time to stop" includes "reaction time" plus the physical stopping action, which can be a lot longer.
And if children are just popping randomly out from behind parked cars, and you can't see that kids are playing by the road as you approach, how the hell are you going to know if a bicycle just pulled out into the other lane and you didn't notice yet?
I see kids playing by the road all the time. Do you really stop for each and every group of them, just in case? No, you don't. Neither do I. And I'm not counting them continuously, so if one of them goes in between the parked cars I may not notice that specific detail, until they pop out into traffic.
That empty oncoming lane, if there is a bike rider in it, will be obvious. He will most likely be on the other side of the lane to begin with, and I don't need the whole lane to swerve around a child just appearing from between the cars.
So your idea of safe driving is to take the known, sure hit of a child in the street over the good chance of missing it, because there is a small chance that yet another obstacle will suddenly appear in the empty lane you would have swerved into to miss the child? You pick 100% "kill a four year old" over 1% "cause a bike rider to swerve"?
There is a lot more going on in this scenario than just an unseen kid.
Of course there is, so why don't you acknowledge that? Your claim that it is never appropriate to swerve ignores everything else going on, like that completely empty oncoming lane where a swerve would safe the life of a child.
I didn't say it was always appropriate to swerve, only that your claim that it was never appropriate to do so was ridiculous, as is your claim that "DMV" mandates the driver stay the course and proceed straight ahead and stop before hitting anything.
There is a speeding asshole who thinks he's smarter than an engineer,
Yeah, and if he's in the oncoming lane I'll see him and change my course of action. If he's passing me by crossing that double yellow from behind me, well, he'll get a dented fended and I won't have killed a four year old child. I think that's a great trade, because I'll have a few dents in my car, too.
and a child whose parents' fault the accident would be,
Wow. When I said as sarcasm that I'd be innocent if I ran down the child, you actually believe that. You're more interested in whose fault it is rather than can there be a compromise where some cars get damaged but the child lives through it. And you think you are a good driver.
and the bicyclist who you killed who was the only innocent party in the scenario.
There was no bicycle in my scenario. The other lane was empty. I suppose if you believe in the magic of autonomous vehicles getting every life and death decision right 100% of the time, then you believe in the same kind of magic of remote action that includes "step on a crack, break your mother's back", where an unknown bicycle rider is killed whenever someone swerves into an empty lane of traffic.