Woman crosses dual carriageway on foot, gets hit by car, gets €3.2M

Vestiapx

Augeo wrote: »

She wasn't crossing an autobahn, it a dual carriageway with a low speed limit, the driver was presumably going too fast and not watching what they were doing.

Who had right of way?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

DaveyDave wrote: »

She made a decision to walk into traffic, she should be greatful her actions didn't get her killed.

This isn't a driver running a red at a pedestrian crossing. She chose not to use a pedestrian bridge and walked into a dual carriageway.

I’m just saying, I wouldn’t trade places with her for a second despite the huge settlement.

1874

1874 wrote: »

..........
It would be downright dangerous to slam on the brakes on a dual carriageway.......

Drivers behind you are meant to be at a safe distance back, fyi. If you need to stop to avoid hitting someone who stop instinctively if you are watching the road ahead.

the beer revolu

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’m just saying, I wouldn’t trade places with her for a second despite the huge settlement.

Sure a fella here had the same thing happen.
Oh, wait, he broke his arm, but apart from that it was just the same!

Potential-Monke

Augeo wrote: »

Drivers behind you are meant to be at a safe distance back, fyi. If you need to stop to avoid hitting someone who stop instinctively if you are watching the road ahead.

Ok, what about if there are 2 cars, one in each lane, but the one on the outside lane is about a cars length behind. She runs across the road, car on the inside lane sees this and magically comes to a stop from 80kph before hitting her, but the car on the outside lane would not have seen her but was driving legally in their own lane. They haven't a hope of even braking, let alone stopping in time.

I can only speak for myself, but a dual carriageway has always been a road I never expect people to run across. Sake like, most roads don't allow you to drive across 2 lanes of traffic without traffic lights, so the last thing I expect is someone to run across 2 lanes.

Crazy payout for yet another example of personal stupidity, which apparantly has no place in the courts. I agree we don't have all the info, but I genuinely fail to see how the driver could be in any way responsible for this, even if they were speeding as no one can actually say how fast or slow the driver was going without the GoSafe/Gatso/speed cameras. I'm sure there's more to it, but it is just another example of someone getting a massive payout for being a complete and utter idiot.

Really must get around to getting a dash cam.

.anon.

sugarman wrote: »

No, but I'd like to think most people would at least take extreme caution when doing so. Its an 80KPH dual carriageway FFS, nobody would be able to stop a car in time if someone darts out in front of you.

The fact that it's an 80km/h road doesn't mean that you have to drive at that speed, especially when there's a bus stop and a shopping centre nearby. It's the driver's responsibility to be able to anticipate, rather than react to, unexpected events and hazards. In this case, the driver was local, so there's no excuse whatsoever. Like it or not, driving a three-tonne car confers a higher level of responsibility on you than walking. That'll be why you don't need a licence to walk. It's hugely unsurprising that so many people on here fail to recognise that. Appalling driving standards are the reason for high insurance premiums. Too many people drive straight to the scene of their accident because they've been taught too much about 'right-of-way' and not enough about hazard perception.

sugarman wrote:

Shes just lucky it was a car and not a double decker bus or 40ft truck.

Last year, a child fell off her bike, into the bus lane on the Stillorgan dual carriageway, right in front of me. I was driving a double decker bus. I had actually been driving slightly over the legal limit too (it was 60, I was doing 64). I managed to stop in plenty of time - not because I have particularly great reaction speeds or because I'm a great driver, but because I was taught about the importance of spotting potential hazards, which meant my foot was touching the brake pedal before she started wobbling. If it was a bus and the driver was trained to do their job properly, there probably wouldn't have been an accident in the first place.

Potential-Monke

.anon. wrote: »

The fact that it's an 80km/h road doesn't mean that you have to drive at that speed, especially when there's a bus stop and a shopping centre nearby. It's the driver's responsibility to be able to anticipate, rather than react to, unexpected events and hazards.

While I see the point, I don't agree with this. If the road is not suitable for doing 80kph, it shouldn't be 80kph. While not a target, it's also the upper legal limit and driving at or just below that speed should not be used against the driver because the state has said it's ok to do that speed on that stretch of road.

Maybe the fault lies with bad council planning, but you can't say the law is X and then tell people they're wrong for obeying the law.

Simple matter is she shouldn't have crossed the road there. If it wasn't a local person, it would have been someone else. I don't know Dublin, but if I was on a dual carriageway that says 80kph, and it's safe to do so, I'll do it. I'm not local so I wouldn't have known to slow down because idiots cross a dual carriageway. Someone mentioned it's coming up to a roundabout, so most drivers would be slowing down anyway. Which is why we can't 100% say who's at fault, but common sense says it's 100% hers. Anything else is a "but, but, but..." argument.

A judgement like this is basically saying that even though you may 100% obey the law, you'll still be found part to blame for someone elses idiocy.

weldoninhio

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’m just saying, I wouldn’t trade places with her for a second despite the huge settlement.

Me either. Imagine having to navigate life being that stupid.

Homelander

Doubt anyone's overly surprised at this. It's incredible how the law can be so technically inclined to reward complete idiotic personal fault.

Remember a year or two ago, a woman was awarded half a million for clinging into the back of the Luas and falling off? Despite the fact that her own lawyer said they 100% accepted she was entirely to blame and shouldn't have been doing it.

But, "technically" Luas was at fault for not having adequate systems in place to stop people clinging onto the trams. :rolleyes:

BattleCorp

weldoninhio wrote: »

The judge decided it was a suitable settlement

Approving the settlement ,Mr Justice Cross said Ms Regazzoli’s life had been turned upside down.

He said the settlement was fair and reasonable and he wished her well for the future.

The judge only gets to rubber stamp settlements when it's an adult involved. It's only when the settlement involves a minor that the judge can actually intervene and say that the settlement is not enough.

.anon.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

While I see the point, I don't agree with this. If the road is not suitable for doing 80kph, it shouldn't be 80kph. While not a target, it's also the upper legal limit and driving at or just below that speed should not be used against the driver because the state has said it's ok to do that speed on that stretch of road.

It's the upper legal limit if, and only if, conditions allow. It is still the driver's responsibility to watch out for potential hazards and be able to react to them in time. In this case, for whatever reason, the driver wasn't able to react in time. Having a licence confers a level of responsibility on drivers, especially where pedestrians and more vulnerable road users are concerned.

Potential-Monke wrote:

A judgement like this is basically saying that even though you may 100% obey the law, you'll still be found part to blame for someone elses idiocy.

No, it's saying you can't run human beings over with your giant lump of metal, even if you have right of way. It's saying that hazard perception is a very basic part of being a competent driver. And it is genuinely terrifying that so many people on here (at least some of whom presumably have driving licences) fail to understand that.

monkeybutter

Potential-Monke wrote: »

While I see the point, I don't agree with this. If the road is not suitable for doing 80kph, it shouldn't be 80kph. While not a target, it's also the upper legal limit and driving at or just below that speed should not be used against the driver because the state has said it's ok to do that speed on that stretch of road.

Maybe the fault lies with bad council planning, but you can't say the law is X and then tell people they're wrong for obeying the law.

Simple matter is she shouldn't have crossed the road there. If it wasn't a local person, it would have been someone else. I don't know Dublin, but if I was on a dual carriageway that says 80kph, and it's safe to do so, I'll do it. I'm not local so I wouldn't have known to slow down because idiots cross a dual carriageway. Someone mentioned it's coming up to a roundabout, so most drivers would be slowing down anyway. Which is why we can't 100% say who's at fault, but common sense says it's 100% hers. Anything else is a "but, but, but..." argument.

A judgement like this is basically saying that even though you may 100% obey the law, you'll still be found part to blame for someone elses idiocy.

It wasn't a judgement, it was a settlement


there must have been something else going on, as in she got hit in the bus lane, right


they said excessive speed, so in excess of the limit would seem logical



i think we all agree it was a stupid thing for her to do and the settlement is way too high

1874

Augeo wrote: »

Drivers behind you are meant to be at a safe distance back, fyi. If you need to stop to avoid hitting someone who stop instinctively if you are watching the road ahead.

Right? but you replied to me saying it would be downright dangerous to slam on the brakes on a dual carriageway, how does your post not make that so? You are making a huge assumption that being far enough back gives you time, but no matter how far back you are from the car in front, if someone runs across just in front of you, that still gives you limited time to respond.

If someone appears in front of you out of nowhere (e.g from behind a car that just passes an errant pedestrian), then the time you have and the options available to deal with that situation are limited, you may have left enough room to the next car, but that doesnt take into account people acting as this person did. If a driver has to stop suddenly or swerve to avoid a pedestrian doing this, they will as likely be involved in some form of collision.

If all the traffic is moving at the same speed, are all the drivers to blame? or was it just bad luck for the person who was driving the car that made contact with the pedestrian in their path? IMO a reasonable person could reasonably expect there wont be pedestrians weaving through traffic moving at any speeds on a dual carriageway, therefore the pedestrian imo is responsible for their own decision and actions.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

While I see the point, I don't agree with this. If the road is not suitable for doing 80kph, it shouldn't be 80kph. While not a target, it's also the upper legal limit and driving at or just below that speed should not be used against the driver because the state has said it's ok to do that speed on that stretch of road.

Maybe the fault lies with bad council planning, but you can't say the law is X and then tell people they're wrong for obeying the law.

Simple matter is she shouldn't have crossed the road there. If it wasn't a local person, it would have been someone else. I don't know Dublin, but if I was on a dual carriageway that says 80kph, and it's safe to do so, I'll do it. I'm not local so I wouldn't have known to slow down because idiots cross a dual carriageway. Someone mentioned it's coming up to a roundabout, so most drivers would be slowing down anyway. Which is why we can't 100% say who's at fault, but common sense says it's 100% hers. Anything else is a "but, but, but..." argument.

A judgement like this is basically saying that even though you may 100% obey the law, you'll still be found part to blame for someone elses idiocy.

I see what you're saying here, but I think the driver of the car seems to have been found completely to blame. I dont see how the pedestrian was given any responsibility for her decision to cross and then acting on it?
It seems her injuries and future medical care were more to mind, and while Im sympathetic, that doesnt mean she should not be held accountable or given some responsibility for that.

Rodin

If she was only thrown 6ft in the air, I doubt the car was excessively speeding.
She also survived - not really consistent with a 80kmh+ speed.

An awful lot of irresponsibility and lies told here.

monkeybutter

1874 wrote: »

Right? but you replied to me saying it would be downright dangerous to slam on the brakes on a dual carriageway, how does your post not make that so? You are making a huge assumption that being far enough back gives you time, but no matter how far back you are from the car in front, if someone runs across just in front of you, that still gives you limited time to respond.

If someone appears in front of you out of nowhere (e.g from behind a car that just passes an errant pedestrian), then the time you have and the options available to deal with that situation are limited, you may have left enough room to the next car, but that doesnt take into account people acting as this person did. If a driver has to stop suddenly or swerve to avoid a pedestrian doing this, they will as likely be involved in some form of collision.

If all the traffic is moving at the same speed, are all the drivers to blame? or was it just bad luck for the person who was driving the car that made contact with the pedestrian in their path? IMO a reasonable person could reasonably expect there wont be pedestrians weaving through traffic moving at any speeds on a dual carriageway, therefore the pedestrian imo is responsible for their own decision and actions.






I see what you're saying here, but I think the driver of the car seems to have been found completely to blame. I dont see how the pedestrian was given any responsibility for her decision to cross and then acting on it?
It seems her injuries and future medical care were more to mind, and while Im sympathetic, that doesnt mean she should not be held accountable or given some responsibility for that.

as you don't know the details of this case why make up the rest?


they could have had plenty of time to see the person, they were driving in a bus lane? they were on their phone? they were driving too fast? etc



there are loads of ways that it could have become at lest partially there fault, which seems to be the case here

monkeybutter

Rodin wrote: »

If she was only thrown 6ft in the air, I doubt the car was excessively speeding.
She also survived - not really consistent with a 80kmh+ speed.

An awful lot of irresponsibility and lies told here.

you can be speeding, right and then you apply the brakes, then what happens next?

Rodin

monkeybutter wrote: »

you can be speeding, right and then you apply the brakes, then what happens next?

The prosecution contended that the brakes were not properly used if at all.

''It was further claimed there was a failure to apply the brakes in time effectively or at all.''

1874

monkeybutter wrote: »

as you don't know the details of this case why make up the rest?

they could have had plenty of time to see the person, they were driving in a bus lane? they were on their phone? they were driving too fast? etc

there are loads of ways that it could have become at lest partially there fault, which seems to be the case here

Running/walking across a dual carriageway is a ridiculous thing to do, 100's or 1000's may have gotten away with it, the person ahead of her may have made it, imo her being on the road in the first place is wrong, she made the wrong decision, she put other people at risk, the only good outcome in this and as unfortunate for her as it is, is that she was hit, and not someone unconnected to her decision.
I would like to think the Council would have started getting railings either on both sides or even on the middle of the road to prevent (or even limit) pedestrians crossing (as I have seen in places elsewhere), they should move the bus stop and direct people where they should be going.
People have to be accountable for their actions, the driver of the car seems to being made more an example of than anything, when the person should never have been on the road at all.
I was taught when I was young, not to even cross at a pedestrian crossing until I knew a car was stopping, because even if you are right, it just isnt worth it, thats a location a pedestrian can reasonably be expected by a driver. It is foolish to cross traffic where you should not be.

monkeybutter

Rodin wrote: »

The prosecution contended that the brakes were not properly used if at all.

''It was further claimed there was a failure to apply the brakes in time effectively or at all.''

If they had been properly used she would not have hit her

Rodin

monkeybutter wrote: »

If they had been properly used she would not have hit her

The point is they were clearly sufficiently used to only throw her 6ft in the air.
That is not an 80kmh+ collision.

At the end of the day, if you set foot on a dual carraigeway, you should be responsible for each and every impact that happens. What if a car swerved to avoid her, hit another car etc...

Why is modern society so devoid of people being responsible for their actions whether is nonsense like this, or criminal behaviour...

I wouldn't have given her a penny.

monkeybutter

1874 wrote: »

Running/walking across a dual carriageway is a ridiculous thing to do, 100's or 1000's may have gotten away with it, the person ahead of her may have made it, imo her being on the road in the first place is wrong, she made the wrong decision, she put other people at risk, the only good outcome in this and as unfortunate for her as it is, is that she was hit, and not someone unconnected to her decision.
I would like to think the Council would have started getting railings either on both sides or even on the middle of the road to prevent (or even limit) pedestrians crossing (as I have seen in places elsewhere), they should move the bus stop and direct people where they should be going.
People have to be accountable for their actions, the driver of the car seems to being made more an example of than anything, when the person should never have been on the road at all.
I was taught when I was young, not to even cross at a pedestrian crossing until I knew a car was stopping, because even if you are right, it just isnt worth it, thats a location a pedestrian can reasonably be expected by a driver. It is foolish to cross traffic where you should not be.

no one is saying it wasn't stupid


you can still contribute to the accident by being stupid yourself


I mean anything can happen on the road ahead and it is your responsibility as a drive to react to that


i mean someone could have broken down in the bus lane, would it be ok to crash into them, would you expect them to be there?


you need to be driving at a safe speed and paying attention


if she had and the person say stepped out with no time to stop, then the outcome would no doubt be different


so there were probably cctv, witnesses etc, skid marks etc

monkeybutter

Rodin wrote: »

The point is they were clearly sufficiently used to only throw her 6ft in the air.
That is not an 80kmh+ collision.

At the end of the day, if you set foot on a dual carraigeway, you should be responsible for each and every impact that happens. What if a car swerved to avoid her, hit another car etc...

Why is modern society so devoid of people being responsible for their actions whether is nonsense like this, or criminal behaviour...

I wouldn't have given her a penny.

so you go at 100k and then manage to slow to 50k and hit


you see the point


there is not doubt the settlement was too high and she was stupid


but we don't know all the details


the insurance company settled, they could have chosen not to


they did it for a reason, its not like the judge was really going to award more than that, no matter how bad they are

1874

Rodin wrote: »

The prosecution contended that the brakes were not properly used if at all.
''It was further claimed there was a failure to apply the brakes in time effectively or at all.''

That sounds like there simply wasnt time to react, which if someone steps out in front of you is going to happen.

monkeybutter wrote: »

no one is saying it wasn't stupid

you can still contribute to the accident by being stupid yourself

I mean anything can happen on the road ahead and it is your responsibility as a drive to react to that

i mean someone could have broken down in the bus lane, would it be ok to crash into them, would you expect them to be there?

you need to be driving at a safe speed and paying attention

if she had and the person say stepped out with no time to stop, then the outcome would no doubt be different


so there were probably cctv, witnesses etc, skid marks etc

Thats completely different though, and yes you might reasonably expect them to be there.
AND
You could be driving at a safe speed and paying attention, if someone steps out just in front of you or dashes through traffic, it can come down to pure chance. I have seen pedestrians take stupid risks, not knowing that vehicles simply cannot stop or maneuver on the button, so the outcome may not have been different.
The only way the outcome may have been different is if the traffic was a jam and not or barely moving, and even then there is risk and it's foolhardy to cross a dual carriageway.



Skid marks!?, thats inconsistent with what another poster has quoted


The way I see it, I see pedestrians and drivers doing stupid things, that puts them and others at risk, careless stuff that can be avoided, there is always going to be some risk to certain things, many things, walking/dashing/running/whatever through traffic on a dual carriageway is madness. I dont want to sink to insulting the person but its downright careless and stupid to do what she did, what if the car while trying to avoid her drove over someone else, do you think she would give one damn, she already showed she wasnt concerned or clued in enough to think of her own safety. others? I dont think so.

monkeybutter

1874 wrote: »

That sounds like there simply wasnt time to react, which if someone steps out in front of you is going to happen.






Thats completely different though, and yes you might reasonably expect them to be there.
AND
You could be driving at a safe speed and paying attention, if someone steps out just in front of you or dashes through traffic, it can come down to pure chance. I have seen pedestrians take stupid risks, not knowing that vehicles simply cannot stop or maneuver on the button, so the outcome may not have been different.
The only way the outcome may have been different is if the traffic was a jam and not or barely moving, and even then there is risk and it's foolhardy to cross a dual carriageway.



Skid marks!?, thats inconsistent with what another poster has quoted


The way I see it, I see pedestrians and drivers doing stupid things, that puts them and others at risk, careless stuff that can be avoided, there is always going to be some risk to certain things, many things, walking/dashing/running/whatever through traffic on a dual carriageway is madness. I dont want to sink to insulting the person but its downright careless and stupid to do what she did, what if the car while trying to avoid her drove over someone else, do you think she would give one damn, she already showed she wasnt concerned or clued in enough to think of her own safety. others? I dont think so.

you don't have a clue if they stepped out with the driver having no chance to stop


not much else to say on that


again why settle if that was the case


if it was and she was hit at 80+ k, she would most likely be dead, but who can say that for sure

Rodin

monkeybutter wrote: »

you don't have a clue if they stepped out with the driver having no chance to stop


not much else to say on that


again why settle if that was the case


if it was and she was hit at 80+ k, she would most likely be dead, but who can say that for sure

I would suggest it is against the laws of physics to be hit at 80kmh+ and only be thrown 6ft into the air

monkeybutter

Rodin wrote: »

I would suggest it is against the laws of physics to be hit at 80kmh+ and only be thrown 6ft into the air

no one said she was hit at 80kph+


what does 6feet into the air mean, upwards through the air



so I'm not sure what you are saying


you no idea if she was hit head on etc


as you have no details perhaps you should leave the physics to the physicists

Potential-Monke

.anon. wrote: »

It's the upper legal limit if, and only if, conditions allow. It is still the driver's responsibility to watch out for potential hazards and be able to react to them in time. In this case, for whatever reason, the driver wasn't able to react in time. Having a licence confers a level of responsibility on drivers, especially where pedestrians and more vulnerable road users are concerned.

No, it's saying you can't run human beings over with your giant lump of metal, even if you have right of way. It's saying that hazard perception is a very basic part of being a competent driver. And it is genuinely terrifying that so many people on here (at least some of whom presumably have driving licences) fail to understand that.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. If 80kph is too fast for an area, it shouldn't be 80kph. The argument that you shouldn't be doing 80 in an 80 is ridiculous. Yes, the driver has to be aware, but you can't say that driving at 80 in an 80 was a contributing factor because it was legal. The speed wouldn't have matter if she didn't cross a feckin dual carriageway.

What's more terrifying than believing drivers don't have hazard perception is your assumption that we should be expecting people to walk out in front of us on any road at any time. Which makes speed limits absolutely pointless to begin with. Would you be saying the same if it was a motorway she was crossing? Keeping in mind that pedestrians are not supposed to cross either? Or common fupping sense says running across a 4 lane road is stupid?

Both sides need to pay attention. With the lack of details in this case, it's impossible to say who was to blame, but the bottom line is if she used the footbridge just down the road, the one thing constructed to safely make it across 4 lanes of fast moving traffic, then this would never have happened. Settlements and judgements such as this are not just stupid, they're dangerous, because people will see money and start causing such accidents, and nothing will be done about it until it's too late and people start getting killed to make a few quid.

monkeybutter wrote: »

If they had been properly used she would not have hit her

You can't say that for certain. Just because prosecution makes an assumption, doesn't mean it's proven. There was no proof in the papers so we can't say for certain.

Re: skid marks; modern cars don't usually leave skid marks due to the anti-lock braking system most cars have these days. The skid marks were caused by older brakes just stopping the wheel from spinning, ABS "feathers" the brakes so they keep spinning but slow down very quickly, thus no skid marks.

A lot of assumptions going on here, with both sides assuming. This should be resolved easily, make it illegal to cross anything with more than 2 lanes without traffic lights.

ShatterAlan

I doubt she wanted to be left in a coma and brain damaged.

knucklehead6

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I doubt she wanted to be left in a coma and brain damaged.

I doubt the driver set out to knock someone down that day.

the_pen_turner

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I doubt she wanted to be left in a coma and brain damaged.

She have been more carefull then. Anyone who walks out into on coming traffic is taking that risk

Gaoth Laidir

We bought a KitchenAid blender recently. It's a great piece of kit, but if I stick my hand into it and mangle up my fingers could I take them to court for personal injury? Yeah? That seems the way things are heading alright.

I will put in my left hand so that I'll still be able to sign the settlement papers with my right hand. I always wanted my own plane, but how to fly it with only one hand... I'll put that down in my claim too so.

theblackstuff

think we need to start showing this again...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEssgMQ1O_k

Gaoth Laidir

theblackstuff wrote: »

think we need to start showing this again...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEssgMQ1O_k

Takes me back...

tallaghtfornia

Driving home there last night and witnessed a guy walk out just before the foot bridge near Woddies with a black coat hat scarf and headphones he just strolled straight out onto the bypass a car sounded there horn at him and he didn't care.

I really don't understand what's wrong with people it would take an extra 5mins to walk across the foot bridge.

.anon.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

We're going to have to agree to disagree. If 80kph is too fast for an area, it shouldn't be 80kph. The argument that you shouldn't be doing 80 in an 80 is ridiculous. Yes, the driver has to be aware, but you can't say that driving at 80 in an 80 was a contributing factor because it was legal. The speed wouldn't have matter if she didn't cross a feckin dual carriageway.

We don't even know that they were doing 80. Whatever speed they were doing in the bus lane, their reactions weren't sufficient to avoid the accident that they failed to anticipate. Hazard perception is a very, very basic part of being a competent driver.

Potential-Monke wrote:

What's more terrifying than believing drivers don't have hazard perception is your assumption that we should be expecting people to walk out in front of us on any road at any time. Which makes speed limits absolutely pointless to begin with. Would you be saying the same if it was a motorway she was crossing? Keeping in mind that pedestrians are not supposed to cross either? Or common fupping sense says running across a 4 lane road is stupid?

You should be scanning the road ahead of you for potential hazards, especially coming up to a bus stop, shopping centre, etc. You don't have to expect someone to walk out in front of you, in order to put yourself into a position where you can avoid hitting them. You just have to be aware of the risk.

As for motorways, pedestrians aren't allowed anywhere near them. They don't have footpaths alongside them, so the risk is a lot lower. But I've seen people walking along the hard shoulder of the 120km/h stretch of the M50 before. And I didn't just blindly carry on doing 120 past them, because that's my God-given right - I backed off and moved into the next lane. Car drivers are expected to use common sense too - not that you'd think so, reading some of the stuff on this thread.

Potential-Monke wrote:

Both sides need to pay attention. With the lack of details in this case, it's impossible to say who was to blame, but the bottom line is if she used the footbridge just down the road, the one thing constructed to safely make it across 4 lanes of fast moving traffic, then this would never have happened. Settlements and judgements such as this are not just stupid, they're dangerous, because people will see money and start causing such accidents, and nothing will be done about it until it's too late and people start getting killed to make a few quid.

If she had used the footbridge, rather than taking the shortcut. And if the car driver in the bus lane had been taught how to drive properly. A greater burden of responsibility lies with drivers than with pedestrians because it's a three-tonne weapon that they need a licence to operate.

And I strongly doubt that anyone in possession of a brain will go out and deliberately damage it in the hope of 'making a few quid'.

Gaoth Laidir

.anon. wrote: »

We don't even know that they were doing 80. Whatever speed they were doing in the bus lane, their reactions weren't sufficient to avoid the accident that they failed to anticipate. Hazard perception is a very, very basic part of being a competent driver.



You should be scanning the road ahead of you for potential hazards, especially coming up to a bus stop, shopping centre, etc. You don't have to expect someone to walk out in front of you, in order to put yourself into a position where you can avoid hitting them. You just have to be aware of the risk.

As for motorways, pedestrians aren't allowed anywhere near them. They don't have footpaths alongside them, so the risk is a lot lower. But I've seen people walking along the hard shoulder of the 120km/h stretch of the M50 before. And I didn't just blindly carry on doing 120 past them, because that's my God-given right - I backed off and moved into the next lane. Car drivers are expected to use common sense too - not that you'd think so, reading some of the stuff on this thread.



If she had used the footbridge, rather than taking the shortcut. And if the car driver in the bus lane had been taught how to drive properly. A greater burden of responsibility lies with drivers than with pedestrians because it's a three-tonne weapon that they need a licence to operate.

And I strongly doubt that anyone in possession of a brain will go out and deliberately damage it in the hope of 'making a few quid'.

Cars are 3 tonnes now, are they? She could have been in a Yaris either.

The car had a right to be there, she didn't. We don't know exactly where the impact occurred so the driver may have been moving in to turn left at the roundabout ahead. Yes, you should always drive with due care and attention, but at what point do you become culpable if someone runs out where they shouldn't run out? It's not like driving through an estate, where kids or animals are likely to run out. If someone runs out onto the M50 when you're going at the correct speed and you hit them, is it your fault? Should we all be driving at 30 kph just in case some idiot decides to go try for a Darwin Award? I don't for a second believe that you'd be holding your hands up and saying "sorry, my bad, I'm at fault here, not you". It's easy for you to take the side of the chancer victim when you're sitting at a keyboard. "If the driver had been taught how to drive properly" FFS

the_pen_turner

why does the driver have to have common sence but the pedestrian doesnt. its a crazy system.

.anon.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Cars are 3 tonnes now, are they? She could have been in a Yaris either.

I'm not interested in pedantry. That was just a general example. I'm sure we can agree that an incident involving a car (even a Yaris or whatever) and a pedestrian will cause more damage to the pedestrian than to the occupants of the car. That's why a greater burden of responsibility lies with the person behind the wheel of the car.

Gaoth Laidir wrote:

The car had a right to be there, she didn't. We don't know exactly where the impact occurred so the driver may have been moving in to turn left at the roundabout ahead. Yes, you should always drive with due care and attention, but at what point do you become culpable if someone runs out where they shouldn't run out? It's not like driving through an estate, where kids or animals are likely to run out. If someone runs out onto the M50 when you're going at the correct speed and you hit them, is it your fault? Should we all be driving at 30 kph just in case some idiot decides to go try for a Darwin Award? I don't for a second believe that you'd be holding your hands up and saying "sorry, my bad, I'm at fault here, not you". It's easy for you to take the side of the chancer victim when you're sitting at a keyboard. "If the driver had been taught how to drive properly" FFS

And I don't believe for a second that you'd be saying "Not my fault, I had a right to be there, the pedestrian didn't" if your lax attitude to road safety caused you to kill someone. Unless you're an absolute sociopath, you'd be going out of your mind thinking about what you could potentially have done to avoid it and wishing you could turn back the clock. You certainly wouldn't be spouting trite cliches about 'Darwin Awards'.

It's not even about speed. We could safely increase many speed limits if car drivers could be trusted to anticipate, rather than belatedly react to, hazards. This thread is a fantastic example of why so many speed limits need to be set at such an artificially low level.

I strongly recommend this book to anyone who thinks anticipating hazards is unnecessary when you've got right of way anyway. It's aimed towards UK police drivers, but it's relevant to anyone who drives. Here's a screenshot from a page from the chapter on Information, Observation and Anticipation.

ShatterAlan

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Cars are 3 tonnes now, are they? She could have been in a Yaris either.

The car had a right to be there, she didn't. We don't know exactly where the impact occurred so the driver may have been moving in to turn left at the roundabout ahead. Yes, you should always drive with due care and attention, but at what point do you become culpable if someone runs out where they shouldn't run out? It's not like driving through an estate, where kids or animals are likely to run out. If someone runs out onto the M50 when you're going at the correct speed and you hit them, is it your fault? Should we all be driving at 30 kph just in case some idiot decides to go try for a Darwin Award? I don't for a second believe that you'd be holding your hands up and saying "sorry, my bad, I'm at fault here, not you". It's easy for you to take the side of the chancer victim when you're sitting at a keyboard. "If the driver had been taught how to drive properly" FFS

Are you trying to say she deliberately got run over and nearly killed in order to make some money? So she was hit and put in a coma, brain damaged and ended up homeless. She said "screw this working for a living. Fcuk this modelling malarkey. I'll walk in front of a car and wreck my life but I might get some money in a few years time."

ShatterAlan

the_pen_turner wrote: »

why does the driver have to have common sence but the pedestrian doesnt. its a crazy system.

The driver is the one with the greater responsibility. There are some people on here who just think that it's ok to deliberately hurt someone who made a mistake rather than rise above such scumbaggery and avoid such an outcome.


It's almost like the American way of looking at things. If someone comes on your property you just go and shoot them even though you know they pose no risk. Anything to hurt someone as long as they can be blamed.

ShatterAlan

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I doubt the driver set out to knock someone down that day.

I never said the driver did. What kind of a stupid statement is that?
Yet there are people on here trying to maintain that she deliberately got struck and horribly injured in order to make money.

tallaghtfornia

tallaghtfornia wrote: »

Driving home there last night and witnessed a guy walk out just before the foot bridge near Woddies with a black coat hat scarf and headphones he just strolled straight out onto the bypass a car sounded there horn at him and he didn't care.

I really don't understand what's wrong with people it would take an extra 5mins to walk across the foot bridge.

Why would he care? Tap him and he's a millionaire. He'd be a literal lotto winner.

Gaoth Laidir

.anon. wrote: »

I'm not interested in pedantry. That was just a general example. I'm sure we can agree that an incident involving a car (even a Yaris or whatever) and a pedestrian will cause more damage to the pedestrian than to the occupants of the car. That's why a greater burden of responsibility lies with the person behind the wheel of the car.



And I don't believe for a second that you'd be saying "Not my fault, I had a right to be there, the pedestrian didn't" if your lax attitude to road safety caused you to kill someone. Unless you're an absolute sociopath, you'd be going out of your mind thinking about what you could potentially have done to avoid it and wishing you could turn back the clock. You certainly wouldn't be spouting trite cliches about 'Darwin Awards'.

It's not even about speed. We could safely increase many speed limits if car drivers could be trusted to anticipate, rather than belatedly react to, hazards. This thread is a fantastic example of why so many speed limits need to be set at such an artificially low level.

I strongly recommend this book to anyone who thinks anticipating hazards is unnecessary when you've got right of way anyway. It's aimed towards UK police drivers, but it's relevant to anyone who drives. Here's a screenshot from a page from the chapter on Information, Observation and Anticipation.

So in your opinion the pedestrian has no or at least less culpability here? If someone walks out onto a runway the pilot landing is responsible if that person gets hit? Is your name Judge Crown?

I never once said that drivers should not anticipate hazards. You obviously are not interested in pedantry when you seem content to exaggerate some things while ignoring others. Also, emergency vehicle drivers will drive through red lights so it is absolutely imperative that they are taught about the risks, but for someone driving on a road on which pedestrians are not allowed then if an accident does occur the blame should not be burdened on the driver, unless it is proven that she was driving recklessly. It's a different story had there been a pedestrian crossing there. Absolutely, no question the driver would be at fault if the light had been red or the pedestrian already had a foot on the stripes.

ShatterAlan

the_pen_turner wrote: »

She have been more carefull then. Anyone who walks out into on coming traffic is taking that risk

Well I guess that's where you and I differ. I actually care about my fellow man (or woman), even the ones who make mistakes. I don't blithely shrug of someone's misery and say "fuck 'em, their fault for being stupid" and I certainly am not so callous as to try to suggest that the victim of a horrific road accident engineered the accident in order to get compensated.

I'm sure there'll be an appeal and it'll be severely reduced down, though. Multo-million euro payout for ignoring the rules of the road. Almost as bad as that one that was hopping on the back of the Luas and fell off. Did she not make a fortune, too, doing something that she should have been laughed at for, instead of compensated for.

Gaoth Laidir

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Are you trying to say she deliberately got run over and nearly killed in order to make some money? So she was hit and put in a coma, brain damaged and ended up homeless. She said "screw this working for a living. Fcuk this modelling malarkey. I'll walk in front of a car and wreck my life but I might get some money in a few years time."

No, I didn't say that. Don't be ridiculous. She did, however, do an extremely dangerous, stupid and illegal act that unfortunately led to her paying dearly for it. Still, somehow, she goes after the driver of the car for it. Personal responsibility does not exist anymore (unless you're the one who did nothing wrong, then you're responsible, it seems).

It's like that one who got €32K from McDonald's in Clondalkin because she spilled hot coffee on her lap as she held the cup between her legs whilst in the driving seat of the vehicle. McDonald's were to blame there too...

FFS.

ShatterAlan

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would he care? Tap him and he's a millionaire. He'd be a literal lotto winner.

Would you deliberately get knocked down? Would you take the risk of being killed or left paralyzed from the neck down or in a vegetative state in order to possibly get compensation?

Markcheese

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

We bought a KitchenAid blender recently. It's a great piece of kit, but if I stick my hand into it and mangle up my fingers could I take them to court for personal injury? Yeah? That seems the way things are heading alright.

I will put in my left hand so that I'll still be able to sign the settlement papers with my right hand. I always wanted my own plane, but how to fly it with only one hand... I'll put that down in my claim too so.

Done it ... takes a special breed of idiot (with long fingers) I am that idiot ..
I just got a couple of plasters and carried on ,no law suit involved ,my thumb is fine ...

Gaoth Laidir

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Well I guess that's where you and I differ. I actually care about my fellow man (or woman), even the ones who make mistakes. I don't blithely shrug of someone's misery and say "fuck 'em, their fault for being stupid" and I certainly am not so callous as to try to suggest that the victim of a horrific road accident engineered the accident in order to get compensated.

Nobody is insinuating this.

ShatterAlan

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So in your opinion the pedestrian has no or at least less culpability here? If someone walks out onto a runway the pilot landing is responsible if that person gets hit? Is your name Judge Crown?

I never once said that drivers should not anticipate hazards. You obviously are not interested in pedantry when you seem content to exaggerate some things while ignoring others. Also, emergency vehicle drivers will drive through red lights so it is absolutely imperative that they are taught about the risks, but for someone driving on a road on which pedestrians are not allowed then if an accident does occur the blame should not be burdened on the driver, unless it is proven that she was driving recklessly. It's a different story had there been a pedestrian crossing there. Absolutely, no question the driver would be at fault if the light had been red or the pedestrian already had a foot on the stripes.

Oh boy.