Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Fatal Collisions

124»

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,798 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,209 ✭✭✭FintanMcluskey


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,209 ✭✭✭FintanMcluskey


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,548 ✭✭✭SeanW


    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.
    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,798 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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'?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,148 ✭✭✭amadangomor


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    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.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37 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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 715 ✭✭✭Stihl waters


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

    You can't just pick and choose from what you've said, you know well what I meant but you choose to be ignorant


  • Registered Users Posts: 715 ✭✭✭Stihl waters


    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.

    **** happens, would that be a good enough explanation if an elderly driver didn't see your toddler while reversing out of a tight space while you were busy loading up the shopping


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,980 ✭✭✭s1ippy


    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.

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

    Yeah because a forklift can't go up to 200kph and there aren't likely to be children, elderly or special needs people or any variety of animal you care to imagine lumbering around a warehouse. It's a place of employment and you generally need some sort of approval to be there, and health and safety training. Cars aren't the custodians of the fúckin road who can lace around the place with impunity, that analogy doesn't even remotely line up.
    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
    So you can't even be more responsible than a child, who, for whatever reason, is unattended. You really shouldn't be on the road in that case.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 47,874 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    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.

    The forklift operator has a duty to operate the machine safely too, of course.
    just saw this now. this is so irrelevant it's hardly worth responding to, surely?

    though i will respond with this - that would, on the face of it, be a very poor response based on the standard for hazard controls, which is 1. eliminate the hazard; 2. remove the hazard; 3. isolate the hazard; 4. administer the hazard (i.e. change the way people work), 5. protect with PPE.

    that places the action you mention above as barely tolerable as a response to the risk.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,209 ✭✭✭FintanMcluskey


    s1ippy wrote: »
    So you can't even be more responsible than a child, who, for whatever reason, is unattended. You really shouldn't be on the road in that case.

    What are you on about?

    I made the point, if a parent looses sight of a child, through a mistake, it proves mistakes happen.

    If mistakes dont happen, then loosing the child is just as negligent as not seeing someone in the blind spot of a vehicle.

    Its an abdication of personal responsibility by the padestrian, and its why compo culture has thrived in Ireland.

    An attitude that someone else is responsible for my safety at all times, and if not they will pay for it


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,980 ✭✭✭s1ippy


    Dude if you're seriously arguing that a parent could even be remotely responsible for the driver of a car hitting their child then you need actual mental help.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,209 ✭✭✭FintanMcluskey


    s1ippy wrote: »
    Dude if you're seriously arguing that a parent could even be remotely responsible for the driver of a car hitting their child then you need actual mental help.

    Nowhere have I suggested that.

    Your emotionally invested in the case in the OP.

    Ive suggested mistakes happen, something you dont think can happen.

    Im unsure do you drive, if you do, your attitude and lack of understanding is not conducive to someone who drives a commercial vehicle.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,798 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Nowhere have I suggested that.

    Your emotionally invested in the case in the OP.

    Ive suggested mistakes happen, something you dont think can happen.

    Im unsure do you drive, if you do, your attitude and lack of understanding is not conducive to someone who drives a commercial vehicle.

    Not seeing someone while reversing, knowing that you have a blind spot isn't a mistake.

    It is predictable negligence.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 47,874 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    I made the point, if a parent looses sight of a child, through a mistake, it proves mistakes happen.
    i fail to see any logic in this. because of the unpredictable nature of small children, mistakes happen in general?

    i wonder if they used this defence in the investigation into the challenger disaster. 'hey, if you've ever lost sight of your kid in a car park, mistakes happen, and that's why the shuttle blew up'.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,980 ✭✭✭s1ippy


    Sorry I hit and killed them but they were where my vehicle was going so it's not my fault.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,209 ✭✭✭FintanMcluskey


    i fail to see any logic in this. because of the unpredictable nature of small children, mistakes happen in general?

    i wonder if they used this defence in the investigation into the challenger disaster. 'hey, if you've ever lost sight of your kid in a car park, mistakes happen, and that's why the shuttle blew up'.

    Ill acquiesce to accept your point of view.

    Mistakes dont happen.

    There can be no mitigating factors, and the pedestrian has no personal responsibility and must be protected at all costs


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,610 ✭✭✭stoneill


    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.

    Don't mix the meaning of Shock Trauma and emotional shock.
    Trauma shock is a lack of oxygen to vital organs, and can cause death.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,190 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


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

    Yep! And rightly so. “With great (horse) power, comes great responsibility”. It’s not up to pedestrians to be careful, it’s up to us motorists to drive “with due care and attention” ... especially on rural roads that don’t have street lights or pavements.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,852 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    One of the guiding principles of "Vision Zero" as adopted by countries like NL and Denmark is a recognition that people are human and human beings make mistakes.

    Therefore, a system that aims to successfully keep people safe needs to recognise this basic fact and design for it our traffic systems so that a simple mistake should not result in death or serious injury.


Advertisement