Fatal Collisions

magicbastarder

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I cycle with a club in a group a few times weekly. We cycle two abreast which is perfectly legal but some motorists seem to have a problem with other road users behaving legally. I've never experienced a club ride where we didn't have at least one aggressive and dangerous overtaking manoeuvre - it sometimes occurs several times during a ride. Van drivers and 4x4 drivers being the worst offenders - often blaring their horn as the make a 'punishment' pass on a continuous white line approaching a bend.

twice yesterday on a 75km ride (on my own so the 'two abreast' example doesn't apply), oncoming motorists had to brake hard because someone decided to overtake me into said oncoming traffic. in neither case had the overtaking motorist had to wait for more than maybe 10 seconds, and in both cases if they'd have waited another 5 seconds or so there'd have been a clear overtaking opportunity as the road straightened out.

magicbastarder

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I think also pedestrians need to take personal responsibility, walking on a country road with no hard shoulder and a lack of high visibility clothing is irresponsible.

at all times, or just at night?

Andrewf20

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yeah so you could still see them. Anyway i can't remember the last time a cyclist was killed at night in Ireland, it's always during the day.

I don't see why that's a measure of anything? I never said they were invisible. I was out walking the last time it happened. The probability of them getting hit would higher without lights.

Strumms

Spook_ie wrote: »

But where do you stop, €350 is eminently affordable by some and legislation doesn't allow for FCPNs to be charged at different rates based on ability to pay, so you'd need to clog up the courts system with RLJs and other offences

It’s affordable, it should be affordable. Though it’s a hell of a deterrent and will make people say... “ok, I don’t want to be or need to be 350 quid light, got whatever.. kids going back to school, car insurance due, xx kid starting music lessons, dentist to pay for or whatever ‘living’ expenses.

Rubberchikken

It works both ways imo. Drivers have a major responsibility to be aware of where they're driving and their speed, attention etc. Pedestrians have a responsibility to be aware of where they are and they're actions.

Drivers in car parks are sometimes beyond understanding. How they can drive the way they do in such a confined space is beyond me.

I reverse into spots always. At least there's some chance of seeing idiot drivers/pedestrians when leaving.

Duckjob

Ned Led Zeppo wrote: »

What about all the eighty and ninety year old drivers that are still around.
Go to any Super Value shops on a Friday, and see these drivers that can barely
get out of their cars never mind get back in, some even request passers by to help
them get out and get back in. It beggars belief.

You don't normally see them ripping up and down the car park like they're in The Fast and the Furious though.

I visited my local shopping centre yesterday. There's a one way system in the car park I was parked in.

Coming back to my car I see a lady in some tanky SUV casually doing about 30kph down the lane between the cars - the wrong way. Zero f**ks given by her. She just couldn't be arsed to take the extra couple of seconds to drive around the correct way to the exit. I could only imagine a family with kids crossing to go the shops, making the mistake of only checking for traffic from the direction it should be coming from and getting milled out of it by this stupid selfish f****r.

magicbastarder

Rubberchikken wrote: »

It works both ways imo. Drivers have a major responsibility to be aware of where they're driving and their speed, attention etc. Pedestrians have a responsibility to be aware of where they are and they're actions.

that, on the face of it, suggests a false equivalence. the burden of responsibility has to fall incredibly heavily on the driver.

Keep in mind we know little/nothing of the circumstances of the stories posted in the OP - for example - the chap on the scooter should never have been on the N51 in the first place, it's a tight, winding road, with no hard shoulder. I appreciate it's a horrible situation for all involved, but that accident was not just the driver's fault.

I myself nearly killed two hitch-hikers on that very same stretch of road about 3-4 weeks ago. Two morons walking in not just the dark, but in fog, with no lights, no hi-vis, no anything. Stumbling around, walking in the darkness with a thumb out. I only seen them by sheer luck and was extremely close to colliding with them.


Had I knocked them down and killed them both, I wouldn't have accepted any responsibility for their deaths.


A chap on an electric scooter, on a narrow, bendy 100kph road was an accident waiting to happen. I wouldn't be pointing my finger at the driver just yet.

El Tarangu

+1 to the OP

It really enrages me when I read the report, as is the case with the first link you posted, about a collision between a 1-tonne plus vehicle and a vulnerable road user:

The driver of the van ... was uninjured in the incident

- of course the driver was f**king uninjured - a driver of a car or van or truck that hits a cyclist or pedestrian is never injured, they have a huge metal and glass structure to protect them, whereas a vulnerable road user has (at best) a couple of inches of styrofoam.

Mentioning that 'the driver was uninjured' lends to this false narrative that the risks are somehow equal for each road user.

Beltby

magicbastarder wrote: »

that, on the face of it, suggests a false equivalence. the burden of responsibility has to fall incredibly heavily on the driver.

Funny that. In a warehouse, the forklift usually has the right of way. In other words, the onus is on the person walking to stay clear while it's moving.

The forklift operator has a duty to operate the machine safely too, of course.

Wildly Boaring

bobbyy gee wrote: »

when I drive a van and its reversing
the reverse lights go on and van starts beeping it's warning
but people still walk behind it and also cars drive past .i have a big blind spot and can't see either people or cars .i would be blamed but it's their fault if you see reverse lights on a car or van dont cross its path with a car you have more hope of seeing someone but less so in a van

I know this was way back on page 1.

But you realise you are completely in the wrong!
A reversing vehicle has no right of way over cars or pedestrians behind it.

Also you must be able to see all points around your vehicle.

If your vehicle has blind spots you, the driver (or owner), must overcome through the use of mirrors and/or cameras.

Perhaps it's time CPD became mandatory for van drivers too.

Your attitude is frankly worrying. What fire the big white van in reverse and everyone watch out!?!

jackofalltrades

Strumms wrote: »

At the moment for example the punishment breaking red lights carries 3 penalty points and fine of up to €120... that’s not much of a deterrent. It’s not ANY deterrent at all in fact.

Points ok ‘maybe’ appropriate but the fine is the average price out of a night out in town with drinks, taxis, food.... the fine is eminently affordable therefore NOT any sort of deterrent. The law and the punishment it provides needs to be a deterrent for it to succeed. Therefore keeping the points but jacking up the fine to 350 euros is what I’d want to see happening.

The main financial penalty from getting penalty points is the increase in insurance premiums over the next 3 years.
It could easily cost you an extra few hundred euro.

The penalty point system is only effective if you've got a reasonable chance of being caught, which you don't right now IMO.
An expansion of camera based enforcement would be able to catch a huge amount of dangerous driving and stop a lot of bad behaviour overnight.

magicbastarder

El Tarangu wrote: »

- of course the driver was f**king uninjured - a driver of a car or van or truck that hits a cyclist or pedestrian is never injured, they have a huge metal and glass structure to protect them, whereas a vulnerable road user has (at best) a couple of inches of styrofoam.

Mentioning that 'the driver was uninjured' lends to this false narrative that the risks are somehow equal for each road user.

It seems to be standard practice to report on all parties involved in the collision.

El Tarangu

El Tarangu wrote: »

- of course the driver was f**king uninjured - a driver of a car or van or truck that hits a cyclist or pedestrian is never injured

It's good reporting. When you read that the driver wasn't injured, you know the car didn't smash into the cyclist at 150kmh and then flip the car over a median barrier and explode in a ball of fire because the driver had had a heart attack and died at the wheel.




Or would you be in favour or never including the driver's condition as it's apparently so obvious?

sameoldname

magicbastarder wrote: »

that, on the face of it, suggests a false equivalence. the burden of responsibility has to fall incredibly heavily on the driver.

In a legal sense you are of course correct but coming from a standpoint of mortality, if I'm out walking on the roads I'm going to take every precaution that I don't get hit because I value my life and/or my unbroken bones. I have a lot more to lose than they do in a collision and the chances are that they'll be physically fine.

So while I may have the right to walk 3-abreast on the inside of a bend on a rural road and yes, it would be the drivers fault if they hit me, that's not much gonna matter much to me if I'm dead or possibly injured for life. The driver that hit me might be sentenced and maybe they'll spend some time in prison but ultimately they'll get to go home to their family and I possibly won't. That's why even at a pedestrian crossing where my light is green I'll make sure the cars approaching are slowing down/stopped before stepping out. The risk to me is too great regardless of my rights or innocence.

Even if you got 99% of drivers out there to be vigilant there's always going to be the 1% that you can't do anything with and no deterrent would be enough. Maybe that's the wrong viewpoint to hold but I always just assume that the next driver I meet is a total incompetent, which is the same as I do when I'm driving myself.

Wishbone Ash

Beltby wrote: »

Funny that. In a warehouse, the forklift usually has the right of way. In other words, the onus is on the person walking to stay clear while it's moving...

That's irrelevant. Warehouses are private property and the operators can implement their own rules. We are discussing public places.

(Drivers of fork lift trucks have severely limited forward visability when transporting a tall loaded pallet and generally travel in reverse. It's not a good example).

FintanMcluskey

magicbastarder wrote: »

at all times, or just at night?

If you are walking on an N or R route, and you have no choice but to walk between the yellow and white lines, wear a high vis. It will make a difference

magicbastarder

You mentioned walking without hi vis is irresponsible. Is it irresponsible to drive a car in similar circumstances with no lights? My car is black, I drive all the time with dips on, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if I was involved in any sort of collision in daylight without my lights on, no one would mention the visibility of my car.

Spook_ie

Strumms wrote: »

It’s affordable, it should be affordable. Though it’s a hell of a deterrent and will make people say... “ok, I don’t want to be or need to be 350 quid light, got whatever.. kids going back to school, car insurance due, xx kid starting music lessons, dentist to pay for or whatever ‘living’ expenses.

Yeah €80 would be a hit to my budget, €350 damn near impossible without stopping payment of the electricity or something. Whereas some people wouldn't really wince at a €1k fine, that's the point, points are what make the difference, remove the license is a better deterrent for the majority of law abiding, nothing will deter the scum who would even view the slammer as a badge of honor

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

You mentioned walking without hi vis is irresponsible. Is it irresponsible to drive a car in similar circumstances with no lights? My car is black, I drive all the time with dips on, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if I was involved in any sort of collision in daylight without my lights on, no one would mention the visibility of my car.

Oh God no, simple observation something big is more noticeable if it has lights or not, something smaller is less obvious.

Queue the usual suspects with their pictures of cars crashed into houses etc.

s1ippy

s1ippy wrote: »

I feel like it's at least the third time this week I've read that somebody who took somebody else's life with their careless driving is being "treated for shock" at the scene.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/man-75-dies-after-being-hit-by-van-in-co-cork-1.4365623

A pedestrian is dead because someone dropping a child off at football thought nothing of lashing their van around the car park without due consideration for those around them. The sympathy I have for the deceased man's family vastly outweighs that which I have for the "shocked" van driver. His carelessness caused the entire issue.

https://www.meathchronicle.ie/2020/09/26/gardai-believe-man-may-have-died-in-traffic-collision-while-riding-electric-scooter-on-slane-navan-road/

Hit and runs are also ten a penny lately. If someone I knew ever confided in me that they were responsible for murdering somebody on the road and fleeing the scene, I would straight away report them no matter who they were to me. Scum.

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/576277/limerick-school-shows-its-love-for-pupil-injured-in-road-collision.html

https://www.thejournal.ie/man-dies-crash-co-mayo-5214360-Sep2020/

There are more injuries and fatal crashes just from today's news. Two more young people injured by pricks on the road, one now dead.

Why don't people wake the hell up and drive with consideration for those around them. Then they wouldn't be so shocked because they wouldn't end up killing someone.

Got as far as that and zoned out. Ten a penny? Away and shíte.

Lies and exaggerations mean an agenda.

Thelonious Monk

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Got as far as that and zoned out. Ten a penny? Away and shíte.

Lies and exaggerations mean an agenda.

Not really, there are so many of them

https://www.thejournal.ie/hit-and-run/news/

It's really low life behaviour and happens regularly. If it was anything else not involving a car that led to people leaving someone for dead and legging it, the country would be up in arms.

Thelonious Monk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Not really, there are so many of them

https://www.thejournal.ie/hit-and-run/news/

It's really low life behaviour and happens regularly. If it was anything else not involving a car that led to people leaving someone for dead and legging it, the country would be up in arms.

Ten a penny. No, not even on your planet.

Thelonious Monk

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Ten a penny. No, not even on your planet.

Happens all the time, we won't be waiting long for the next one

byronbay2

s1ippy wrote: »

I just discovered that the man killed was an incredible musician and very good friend of mine who I often played with in the Haven cafe in Cork. I'm absolutely devastated by this news as I had planned to meet him and have a jam just this week, having not seen him since just before the last lockdown. A huge loss to Cork.

I witnessed the aftermaths of this accident as did a lot of children, teenagers and adults. Very traumatic for everyone there and a horrific thing to happen. My heart goes out to his family who must have been devastated when they heard the details. All I can say to anyone driving a van is get a camera or make certain there is no one behind you when reversing because what I witnessed yesterday you would not want to be responsible for.

I personally do have sympathy for the driver as he was literally moving at a snails pace but was just not aware there was someone behind him. He was distraught after the accident and what unfolded afterwards will live with him forever. I suspect he knew Pete if not to talk to but to see as they were both regulars in the soccer club. This is what makes it all the more heartbreaking for all concerned.

RobAMerc

s1ippy wrote: »

I was just angered that the perpetrator of a crime be painted as somebody to have sympathy for.

Are you for real ?

Are you 100% sure you are 100% totally incapable of having an accident or being involved in an accident where someone dies ?

Even if you walk or cycle you could fall in front of a car or knock someone down and it be completely not your fault.

This absolute horsesh*t that there is no such thing as an accident is total bollix, there can be and is accidents its probably why the word was invented

I once was witness to an accident where a girl tripped off a path and fell into the path of an oncoming car. How was this not an accident ? Whos fault was it ?

This childish belief that we can all be safe if we all take 100% care 100% of the time is nonsense - humans are built that way, we take risks and sh*t happens us. Its crappy but its just the way it is.

The thoughts that we think we could eradicate people being killed by badgering everyone and blaming those involved in an accident is just moronic imo. grow up.

AndrewJRenko

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yeah so you could still see them. Anyway i can't remember the last time a cyclist was killed at night in Ireland, it's always during the day.

In 2018, 14 out of 16 cyclists killed were killed in daytime. That doesn't stop the RSA spending €5 million on hi-vis materials, though they have no evidence that this works.

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

I think also pedestrians need to take personal responsibility, walking on a country road with no hard shoulder and a lack of high visibility clothing is irresponsible.

Also, while growing up on a farm, I was thought that the driver of any vehicle must see you at all times, dont walk accross the path of a reversing vehicle under any circumstances. The pedestrian was responsible for their own safety

I get the impression from comments here the driver has the responsibility for the pedestrians safety

You are legally required to drive in a manner that allows you stop within the distance you can see to be clear.

Deleted User wrote: »

Had I knocked them down and killed them both, I wouldn't have accepted any responsibility for their deaths.


A chap on an electric scooter, on a narrow, bendy 100kph road was an accident waiting to happen. I wouldn't be pointing my finger at the driver just yet.

You are legally required to drive in a manner that allows you stop within the distance you can see to be clear.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't think there should be a fine. instead, the vehicle should be confiscated within one week of the FCPN being issued, for the number of days equivalent to the points issued. so in the above scenario, the vehicle is impounded for three days.

Nice system in theory, difficult to implement in practice.

The penalty point system is really all we need, if we could be reasonably sure that drivers would actually lose their licence when they hit the 12 points.

bobbyy gee wrote: »

when I drive a van and its reversing
the reverse lights go on and van starts beeping it's warning
but people still walk behind it and also cars drive past .i have a big blind spot and can't see either people or cars .i would be blamed but it's their fault if you see reverse lights on a car or van dont cross its path with a car you have more hope of seeing someone but less so in a van

Your blind spot is YOUR problem to fix. You are legally required to ensure your equipment is safe to use. You need to fit extra mirrors, or extra cameras or put a man with a red flag behind you - whatever it takes to make YOUR equipment safe. It IS your responsibility.

FintanMcluskey

RobAMerc wrote: »

Are you for real ?

Are you 100% sure you are 100% totally incapable of having an accident or being involved in an accident where someone dies ?

Even if you walk or cycle you could fall in front of a car or knock someone down and it be completely not your fault.

This absolute horsesh*t that there is no such thing as an accident is total bollix, there can be and is accidents its probably why the word was invented

I once was witness to an accident where a girl tripped off a path and fell into the path of an oncoming car. How was this not an accident ? Whos fault was it ?

This childish belief that we can all be safe if we all take 100% care 100% of the time is nonsense - humans are built that way, we take risks and sh*t happens us. Its crappy but its just the way it is.

The thoughts that we think we could eradicate people being killed by badgering everyone and blaming those involved in an accident is just moronic imo. grow up.

Completely agree with the sentiment here.

Accidents happen unfortunately.

Unusual thread tbh, feel sorry for the van driver as well as the victim.

AndrewJRenko

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Completely agree with the sentiment here.

Accidents happen unfortunately.

https://crashnotaccident.com/

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

https://crashnotaccident.com/

"accident
noun
1.
an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.

2.
an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause."

kippy

KaneToad wrote: »

I'm tending to agree with the OP. The onus is on the driver when manoeuvring to go ridiculously slowly if they can't see the area they are moving into. The speed has to be sufficiently slow that any collision that does occur isn't enough to knock someone off their feet.

The lamentations and hand wringing after an 'accident' are of no use to the victim.

Especially in a car park where there are not just regular pedastrians but also children.

amadangomor

kippy wrote: »

Especially in a car park where there are not just regular pedastrians but also children.

Remember losing at the time our 3 year old in an underground car park. Was seriously worried that he would walk out in front of a car. Luckily enough he went back up the escalator to the shop.

People should drive in these confined spaces like there are three year olds wandering around and could walk out.

But you get the numpties who think they are in the Circuit of Ireland rally at all times, reversing using their palms on the steering wheel, thinking they are cool when they have feck all control. Reversing really quickly and then accelerating off like a gob****e.

I'm no shrinking violet when it comes to getting the foot down but in an appropriate place i.e the motorway and when conditions are good.

FintanMcluskey

amadangomor wrote: »

Remember losing at the time our 3 year old in an underground car park. Was seriously worried that he would walk out in front of a car. Luckily enough he went back up the escalator to the shop.

People should drive in these confined spaces like there are three year olds wandering around and could walk out.

Would you consider it accidental that a 3 year old was wondering alone in a car park?

If a 3 year old can wonder alone accidentally, it shows accidents happen

magicbastarder

it's not the actions of the three year old i suspect s/he was worried about.

FintanMcluskey

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's not the actions of the three year old i suspect s/he was worried about.

No, but if a 3 year old is wondering among traffic unsupervised I assume its an "accident", as the tragedy the OP is talking about is.

AndrewJRenko

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Would you consider it accidental that a 3 year old was wondering alone in a car park?

If a 3 year old can wonder alone accidentally, it shows accidents happen

Failing to notice and avoid a grandad or a child in a car park is negligence.

Stihl waters

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Failing to notice and avoid a grandad or a child in a car park is negligence.

As is losing or letting one wander off unsupervised

FintanMcluskey

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Failing to notice and avoid a grandad or a child in a car park is negligence.

Ok so in a vehicle with blind spots its negligence not to notice the unseen?

But unsupervised children is no issue?

Im struggling to understand the reasoning here

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Failing to notice and avoid a grandad or a child in a car park is negligence.

No it's not when it's a van. Which is considered completely road legal and meets the necessary safety requirements despite not having a rear view mirror.

A fully grown adult walking behind a reversing van is negligence.

I realise you hate drivers but try to be open minded. If you are reversing into a parking space, you check your right mirror, then you check your left. At that very moment a person in your right steps behind your van. It's a split second but it happened. It's not deliberate, it's not reckless, it's an accident.

Or we could stop with the leaps and accusations and simple say that people make mistakes and accidents do indeed happen. Sometimes tragically

AndrewJRenko

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Ok so in a vehicle with blind spots its negligence not to notice the unseen?

But unsupervised children is no issue?

Im struggling to understand the reasoning here

Your blind spots are your problem to solve. Stop expecting the world to make for your negligence. You KNEW you had a blind spot and you STILL reversed blind?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Your blind spots are your problem to solve. Stop expecting the world to make for your negligence. You KNEW you had a blind spot and you STILL reversed blind?

Jesus wept, it's a blind spot, it has reversing lights and beep to warn idiots not to go behind it.

It's your life, it's your problem to solve

AndrewJRenko

Stihl waters wrote: »

As is losing or letting one wander off unsupervised

So we need to supervise our Grandads now, just so you can reverse without have to actually take care?

FintanMcluskey

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No it's not when it's a van. Which is considered completely road legal and meets the necessary safety requirements despite not having a rear view mirror.

A fully grown adult walking behind a reversing van is negligence.

I realise you hate drivers but try to be open minded. If you are reversing into a parking space, you check your right mirror, then you check your left. At that very moment a person in your right steps behind your van. It's a split second but it happened. It's not deliberate, it's not reckless, it's an accident.

Or we could stop with the leaps and accusations and simple say that people make mistakes and accidents do indeed happen. Sometimes tragically

We have we accepted the abdication of personal responsibility.

There is only one winner, the pedestrian cant win, so they need to minimise the risk to themselves.

If Im walking accross a carpark, I dont expect the drivers to protect me, I protect myself

FintanMcluskey

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So we need to supervise our Grandads now, just so you can reverse without have to actually take care?

Put one of your loved ones as the van driver, maybe a son or dad.

OP claims it wasnt an accident, criminally negligent, would you maintain your blinkered opinion?

Or would you say accidents happen?

SeanW

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

It has just been normalised that people die at the hands of motorised vehicles every couple of days. Can you imagine some new machine that people started using made 3 people's heads explode a week or something? Because that's what's happening really.

If the sole purpose of said machine was to make random people's heads explode then yes, it would be entirely appropriate to ask some serious questions.

But motor vehicles including private cars have enormous social benefits, and that needs to be taken into consideration. That's why basically every country on Earth has road fatalities every year, for every person who dies, a great many people have their lives made infinitely better. There is a balance - make the benefits of motoring as widely available as possible, while limiting fatalities as much as reasonably possible.

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Accidents are rare. Usually someone is at fault, through inattentiveness or complacency.

I hear this a lot and it's just not true:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/accident?s=t
For something to be an accident, the occurrence itself must be unintentional. Any contributory negligence by any party does not make the occurrence not an accident.

The ONLY time that a crash/collision/incident is not also an accident is if any party involved intentionally set out to cause the collision.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

It is very strange though how it's so normalised. Even the Deliveroo guy who was mown down a few weeks ago, 4 kids ran away from the car in question and now we hear nothing about it and there have been no arrests. Another person died last night in a crash and there are 3 comments on the Journal, 2 RIPs and a "Thoughts and prayers". It's a bit like gun deaths in USA, people just accept them.

Are you suggesting that scumbags playing GTA with real life people/cars are representative of Irish motorists?

As to the Charleville accident which you referred to indirectly, are you suggesting that a "street" like Charleville Main Street can reasonably be expected to function as a street when it has 10,000-20,000 vehicles on through movements every day? Do you support or oppose the construction of the M20 motorway between Cork and Limerick?

AndrewJRenko

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

Put one of your loved ones as the van driver, maybe a son or dad.

OP claims it wasnt an accident, criminally negligent, would you maintain your blinkered opinion?

Or would you say accidents happen?

Fascinating logic - sure it could happen to any of us, so let's go easy on them, because I'd really like people to go easy on me.

Now let's go the other way - let's assume it was your dad killed by a reversing driver, who knew well that he had blind spots, but couldn't be arsed fitting a €250 camera to address this. Or maybe one of your children, needlessly taken from you, just because.

Would you say 'ah sure not to worry' or would you say 'we have to stop this happening'?

amadangomor

Stihl waters wrote: »

As is losing or letting one wander off unsupervised

You obviously never have had children. We were walking down the escalator and the OH went back to grab a newspaper. Our son went with her but changed his mind and went to follow me. My OH thought I saw him but I didn't and I went to the car oblivious.

**** happens. That's why people need to take extra care driving in confined spaces/car parks/housing estates with people and kids walking around. Not belting around like a lunatic.

jackofalltrades

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No it's not when it's a van. Which is considered completely road legal and meets the necessary safety requirements despite not having a rear view mirror.

The safety requirements are bullsh*t if you're reversing a vehicle and you can't see what's directly behind you.
Reverse cameras and sensors cost nothing these days.
If you drive a vehicle like this and hit and kill someone then it's your fault.
We need to move on from a culture where we have "tragic accidents" and towards one that genuinely tries to avoid any death/injury.

jackofalltrades

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The safety requirements are bullsh*t if you're reversing a vehicle and you can't see what's directly behind you.
Reverse cameras and sensors cost nothing these days.
If you drive a vehicle like this and hit and kill someone then it's your fault.
We need to move on from a culture where we have "tragic accidents" and towards one that genuinely tries to avoid any death/injury.

How much of this thread did you read? Your opinion of the safety regulations are bull****. You expect too much. A vehicle will never be 100% safe. Ever. Nor is that a requirement or demand.


Adult pedestrians have responsibility when walking in a carpark. Thats also a truth. We all have personal repsonsibility for our own personal safety. Its not for me or anyone else to constantly babysit those that dont or wont consider their own actions and safety.

and no, the law does not always consider the driver at fault. Many cases are investigated and drivers found to have not commited a criminal act. many civil claims split responsibilty between both parties.

and again hopefully for the last time, using the term 'accident' merely means it was not intended. It doesnt absolve the people of blame.

MajorDon

The operation of a mechanically propelled vehicle is a responsibility, not a right. Drivers and cyclists alike have a duty of care to all more vulnerable road users, and they never have the right of way.