Pedestrians & cyclists taking stupid risks

wexandproud

andekwarhola wrote: »

And the Cyclist Reaction Force congratulate themselves having successfully tripped the complainant up on points of order and move onwards to find other online crime scenes at which to be triggered.

im a cyclists and motorist and have made plenty of mistakes at both , but what do you expect when you get someone pointing the finger at someone and at the same time doing something plain stupid himself . Driving when you cant see clearly through the windscreen is not a mistake , or a ''point of order '' its downright stupid and dangerous

archer22

One thing that annoys me in Ireland is that most drivers do not know what their hooters are for....majority think they are for saluting their friends or for fighting with other road users.

They are in fact a safety feature for alerting other road users of your presence.

I lived in SE Asia for a while and the way they use hooters is quite smart...for example they will never overtake without giving two short beeps to alert the person in front that they are being overtaken...same when they see dozy pedestrians about to enter the road.
Hell they even use it to alert Dogs that are about to cross the road...amusing to see the Dog automatically step back on the pavement without a second thought .

cbyrd

Iirc, there's no jaywalking law in Ireland, but the way it goes is this.. the pedestrian doesn't have the right to just walk across the road in front of traffic, even at a pedestrian crossing, they must wait for traffic to stop and allow them cross, But once they step onto the road they have the right of way regardless.
I always love the people who think I'm driving a rubber car or that it wont hurt cos they're in a pack. Stupid pedestrians.

I've also been midway across a pedestrian crossing with my 2 year old and get beeped at by someone who had to jam on his brakes. Stupid drivers

As my dad used to say, no one sets out on their journey to kill or be killed, and you can be the best driver in the world but you never know what the other guy is going to do.
No point in being right and dead.

I very much agree that poor visibility and dark clothing, even in towns, can be very dangerous. So everyone should keep their wits about them. Pedestrian driver and cyclist.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

*Brrt*
Wrong.

That's like saying the guy with a gun is a bigger threat so the onus is on the guy without a gun to be more cautious around him.

The bigger the vehicle, the more responsibility you have to be careful, and the more blame you should take and more severely you should be punished for making a mistake.

Totally disagree, this is the type of advice that makes pedestrians and cyclists think they can do what they want. The onus is on a driver to do his best to avoid accidents but there is a large onus on pedestrians and cyclists not to put themselves in danger.

It's impossible for a driver to avoid everything and it's not always a drivers fault when an incident occurs between a driver and a pedestrian/cyclist in fact it's very often not the drivers fault.

Muahahaha wrote: »

It is beyond the laws of physics for somebody to "come out of nowhere". Perhaps you should have more awareness of your surrounds? Because people do not come out of nowhere and if you think they do all it means is that you were not a good enough driver to see them before you nearly knocked them over

You can't be serious? Of course it all possible for a person to come out of nowhere. This nonsense of a "driver always has to be able to stop" really needs to be thrown in the bin. It's physically impossible for a driver to always be abe to stop, blame very much can be given to pedestrians and cyclists.

Billy86

Pedestrians and cyclists can be, but so can drivers - I doubt I'm alone in having been very close to getting hit by cars a number of times down the years that decided to rocket through a red light when the little green man is there for pedestrians.

diomed

Deleted User wrote: »

Never, ever assume a driver is paying attention to everything around him. Any driver will tell you that.
They make mistakes, they are distracted by various things (especially in these days of various electronic gadgets) and most of all they can cause much more harm to you than you can to them.

Why do you talk about cyclists and pedestrians taking stupid risks?
From your post it I assume you drive without care and attention.

etselbbuns

Force everyone to drive and buy vehicle at 18.
Clog up the roads all day every day.
Just to keep OP happy.

Ray Palmer

entropi wrote: »

Any cyclists who want to go along the path whilst I'm walking the opposite direction usually decide to move back to the road where they belong, as I won't back down from their game of chicken. They're in the wrong, and don't belong on the path. Stick to the cycle lane, don't be a dick.

What do you say or do if a pedestrian is in a cycle lane? Happens daily to me should I just ignore them because I am in the right.

At one point there was a guy who would do this everyday and scream abuse at cyclists who asked him to get out of the cycle lane. After a few months of this I eventually saw a cyclist punch him a few times and then he stayed out of the cycle lane. He didn't deserve it for walking in the cycle lane but he did deserve it for threatening people. It was inevitable that it would become physical

Muahahaha

Kora Chilly Spoon wrote: »

You can't be serious? Of course it all possible for a person to come out of nowhere. This nonsense of a "driver always has to be able to stop" really needs to be thrown in the bin. It's physically impossible for a driver to always be abe to stop, blame very much can be given to pedestrians and cyclists.

Unless you have made a new discovery in the laws of physics it is certainly impossible for a person to come out of nowhere. Maybe you might show us this black hole where people are coming out of nowhere?

_Kaiser_

Ah the usual response to a reasonable OP... "it's not my responsibility to have some cop on and not be walking out randomly in front of traffic in my dark clothes at night" :rolleyes:

Yes the driver should be aware of such muppets, but when did the notion of personal responsibility and cop on become bad things??

amcalester

MadDog76 wrote: »

If I was facing a guy with a gun whilst unarmed myself then I would be very cautious around him ......... obviously.

But if that guy shot you it would hardly be your fault for not being cautious enough.

Rezident

Deleted User wrote: »

Coming into the short, dark evenings and bad weather, why do some pedestrians and cyclists take such utterly incomprehensible risks on the road? People in vehicles obviously are a bigger threat to pedestrians than they are to them. Therefore, the onus is on pedestrians/cyclists to have most caution. Whatever the legality may be about particular situations, pedestrians and cyclists will physically suffer most when interacting with vehicles. That reality is the most important one.

Last night it was filthy wet and dark with the wipers on incessantly, and plenty of road traffic. Windows steaming up affecting visibility etc. Then, out of nowhere a group of pedestrians wearing ordinary dark black/navy/grey clothes decided to jaywalk across the road as I was just about to move up in the traffic. Out of nowhere they were right in front of my car in the middle of the road. I could easily have hit them. Easily. Yes, I get that they obviously wanted to get out of the rain and over to that pub asap but whatever about jaywalking in broad daylight, doing so in these dark wet autumn/winter nights is painfully naive at best.

Never, ever assume a driver is paying attention to everything around him. Any driver will tell you that. They make mistakes, they are distracted by various things (especially in these days of various electronic gadgets) and most of all they can cause much more harm to you than you can to them. I wouldn't mind the massive car insurance premium hike for a few years if I were involved in an accident (fortunately, I've never been involved in one); money comes and goes. I would, however, not want to be responsible for harming anybody else or their family. The driver's risk is only losing money; the careless pedestrian/cyclist risks their health and life. Stop taking stupid risks with your lives on the road please.

No the higher duty of care is - obviously - on the person driving the ton or 2 tonnes of metal that can kill people. Vehicles are so dangerous that terrorists use them now instead of guns and bombs for killing lots of people.

Absolutely amazed that someone with your utterly and self-evidently wrong perspective is driving around in a machine that can kill people!

Arsemageddon

Rezident wrote: »

No the higher duty of care is - obviously - on the person driving the ton or 2 tonnes of metal that can kill people. Vehicles are so dangerous that terrorists use them now instead of guns and bombs for killing lots of people.

Absolutely amazed that someone with your utterly and self-evidently wrong perspective is driving around in a machine that can kill people!

A tad hysterical methinks.

andekwarhola

Rezident wrote: »

No the higher duty of care is - obviously - on the person driving the ton or 2 tonnes of metal that can kill people. Vehicles are so dangerous that terrorists use them now instead of guns and bombs for killing lots of people.

Absolutely amazed that someone with your utterly and self-evidently wrong perspective is driving around in a machine that can kill people!

Translation: personal responsibility is just for those bastards not on two wheels.

mikhail

seamus wrote: »

*Brrt*
Wrong.

Why is it that people can't have a normal discussion? Would you do that to someone's face? Would that make you an asshole? I imagine I could get carded for that question, but it's so unnecessarily nasty that I have to call you out on it.

That's like saying the guy with a gun is a bigger threat so the onus is on the guy without a gun to be more cautious around him.

Yes, there's a major onus on a gun owner not to shoot someone by mistake (or indeed deliberately, for the most part). That doesn't mean you should skip around a firing range in poor visibility while wearing dark clothes.

The OP is wrong to say vulnerable road users should have the "most caution", but he's right that they shouldn't be reckless.

The days of human drivers appear to be numbered, and while road deaths will diminish as a result, there will still be fools who manage to get themselves killed.

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

Unless you have made a new discovery in the laws of physics it is certainly impossible for a person to come out of nowhere. Maybe you might show us this black hole where people are coming out of nowhere?

You know full well what "out of nowhere means", you are just talking rubbish with your laws of physics comments.

It is very possible for a pedestrian or cyclist to appear in front of you in a situation where it would be impossible for you to see them until they are there and nothing that you could do to have prepared for it.

I can't believe people are trying totally absolve pedestrians and cyclists of any possible blame and essentially tell them "do what ever you want when ever you want as it's never going to be your fault". This is the message you and some other posters are trying to deliver and it's idiotic and dangerous.

amcalester wrote: »

But if that guy shot you it would hardly be your fault for not being cautious enough.

It was a very poor analogy to use.

A much better example would be if a person sneaks into an army shooting range and somehow gets himself between the shooters and the target while ammo is being fired and gets shot then who's fault is it? Obviously 100% the persons own fault and no blame whatsoever could be given to the shooter.

amcalester

Kora Chilly Spoon wrote: »

You know full well what "out of nowhere means", you are just talking rubbish with your laws of physics comments.

It is very possible for a pedestrian or cyclist to appear in front of you in a situation where it would be impossible for you to see them until they are there and nothing that you could do to have prepared for it.

I can't believe people are trying totally absolve pedestrians and cyclists of any possible blame and essentially tell them "do what ever you want when ever you want as it's never going to be your fault". This is the message you and some other posters are trying to deliver and it's idiotic and dangerous.



It was a very poor analogy to use.

A much better example would be if a person sneaks into an army shooting range and somehow gets himself between the shooters and the target while ammo is being fired and gets shot then who's fault is it? Obviously 100% the persons own fault and no blame whatsoever could be given to the shooter.

It was, but yours isn't much better.

Motorists, pedestrians and cyclists all share roughly the same space so the bigger duty of care is always with the motorist.

Continuing your analogy it would be like there was a pathway across the gun range and the shooter fired off a few shots without checking for people on the path.

Of course, that's just poor planning no one would build a path through a firing range but we do expect pedestrians and cyclists to share road space with motorists (with the exception of motorways and a few other exceptions) so the bigger onus is on the motorist to take care.

the_pen_turner

amcalester wrote: »

Kora Chilly Spoon wrote: »

You know full well what "out of nowhere means", you are just talking rubbish with your laws of physics comments.

It is very possible for a pedestrian or cyclist to appear in front of you in a situation where it would be impossible for you to see them until they are there and nothing that you could do to have prepared for it.

I can't believe people are trying totally absolve pedestrians and cyclists of any possible blame and essentially tell them "do what ever you want when ever you want as it's never going to be your fault". This is the message you and some other posters are trying to deliver and it's idiotic and dangerous.



It was a very poor analogy to use.

A much better example would be if a person sneaks into an army shooting range and somehow gets himself between the shooters and the target while ammo is being fired and gets shot then who's fault is it? Obviously 100% the persons own fault and no blame whatsoever could be given to the shooter.

It was, but yours isn't much better.

Motorists, pedestrians and cyclists all share roughly the same space so the bigger duty of care is always with the motorist.

Continuing your analogy it would be like there was a pathway across the gun range and the shooter fired off a few shots without checking for people on the path.

Of course, that's just poor planning no one would build a path through a firing range but we do expect pedestrians and cyclists to share road space with motorists (with the exception of motorways and a few other exceptions) so the bigger onus is on the motorist to take care.

Stupid analogy. It would be like a path running along side the range on both sides and the pedestrian went across from one side to the other.

There are stupid people on all sides. But the motorist is usually found at fault . The pedestrian s and cyclists are often at fault too

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Deleted User wrote: »

The driver's risk is only losing money; the careless pedestrian/cyclist risks their health and life. Stop taking stupid risks with your lives on the road please.

Your post is loaded with presumptions. How you write it is really odd. Although you say visibility is limited, and that electronic devices distract drivers. You somehow twist the story and make the inattentive out to be the victims, while pedestrians and cyclists are careless? Where's the logic in that?

The drivers risk is also going to jail. It's not just monetary.

meeeeh

And pedestrian's risk is being scrapped of the road in 50 pieces. If some want to rely just on drivers being completely attentive all the time fine. I think they give Darwin awards for that.

entropi

Fighting Tao wrote: »

“Nice to meet you sir” said the 5 year old child on his bicycle.

What a stupid post.

Fighting Tao

entropi wrote: »

What a stupid post.

Saucer of milk for one!

MadDog76

amcalester wrote: »

But if that guy shot you it would hardly be your fault for not being cautious enough.

True ......... but it would be foolish of me to taunt him.

Manic Moran

amcalester wrote: »

It was, but yours isn't much better.

Motorists, pedestrians and cyclists all share roughly the same space so the bigger duty of care is always with the motorist.

The traditional 'out of nowhere' is someone crossing a road from behind a truck or bus. Things like that. There is always a duty of care with the motorist, but there is also a duty of care with everyone else on the road as well. Right of way =/= duty of care.

Common sense indicates that taking measures to aid in your own protection is important. Having 'right of way' is not of great consolation if you are in pieces down the hospital, especially if the practical realities (such as wearing dark clothes at night) are such that there is no reasonable expectation that even a normal, cautious driver can see you. If you're invisible, Ayrton Senna himself may not be able to avoid you.

yesto24

seamus wrote: »

*Brrt*
Wrong.

That's like saying the guy with a gun is a bigger threat so the onus is on the guy without a gun to be more cautious around him.

The bigger the vehicle, the more responsibility you have to be careful, and the more blame you should take and more severely you should be punished for making a mistake.

That's great. I will take responsibility and you will be dead.
No problem.

maryishere

At least with so much wind forecast for tomorrow, that cyclist in the dark clothes with no light that I nearly killed while driving near the dart line on the way home last week will probably not be out tomorrow. One thing I hate is cyclists in dark clothing without lights and who come out of nowhere.

amcalester

the_pen_turner wrote: »

Stupid analogy. It would be like a path running along side the range on both sides and the pedestrian went across from one side to the other.

There are stupid people on all sides. But the motorist is usually found at fault . The pedestrian s and cyclists are often at fault too

It is a stupid analogy.

In the majority of cyclist/motorist collisions it is the motorist that is most often at fault. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/drivers-to-blame-for-two-thirds-of-bicycle-collisions-in-westminster-8602166.html

MadDog76 wrote: »

True ......... but it would be foolish of me to taunt him.

Cyclists and pedestrians going about their business are hardly taunting motorists.

erica74

How about everyone be careful? Regardless of whether you're on 1 foot, 2 feet, 6 wheels, whatever. It's no use lying in a hospital bed saying to yourself "well at least I was in the right".

One example of how I'm extra vigilant - I automatically slow down when driving on a street with loads of parked cars and pedestrians on the footpath as you can be guaranteed someone is going to suddenly pop out between 2 cars. At a slower pace I can hit the brakes easily without any serious repercussions for me or the pedestrian if someone pops out in front of me.
Yes, the pedestrian needs to be vigilant too but their head is probably up their arse or in their phone.
What use is it to me saying "well he was the eejit who walked out in front of me" when my motorbike has gone for a slide up the road because I braked harshly as I wasn't being vigilant and riding at a slower pace.

amcalester

Manic Moran wrote: »

The traditional 'out of nowhere' is someone crossing a road from behind a truck or bus. Things like that. There is always a duty of care with the motorist, but there is also a duty of care with everyone else on the road as well. Right of way =/= duty of care.

Common sense indicates that taking measures to aid in your own protection is important. Having 'right of way' is not of great consolation if you are in pieces down the hospital, especially if the practical realities (such as wearing dark clothes at night) are such that there is no reasonable expectation that even a normal, cautious driver can see you. If you're invisible, Ayrton Senna himself may not be able to avoid you.

Not sure why you're quoting me, I made no mention of out of nowhere nor did I equate right of way with duty of care.

In fact, I said the bigger duty of care was with the motorist, the inference being that cyclists and pedestrians also have a duty of care, albeit a smaller one, to other road users.

Also reading the OP, it sounds like he was stopped in traffic and about to move off when the pedestrians walked in front of him. I wonder if the reason they appeared out of nowhere was because the OP's window was fogged up.

Windows steaming up affecting visibility etc. Then, out of nowhere a group of pedestrians wearing ordinary dark black/navy/grey clothes decided to jaywalk across the road as I was just about to move up in the traffic.

Bruthal

seamus wrote: »

*Brrt*
Wrong.

That's like saying the guy with a gun is a bigger threat so the onus is on the guy without a gun to be more cautious around him.

The gunman being careful is outside the non gunman`s control. If the guy without the gun is facing endless gunmen on a daily basis, many of them incompetent, he needs to do all he can to avoid being shot.