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

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Stop digging. You're now looking past the obvious and clutching at some hypothetical factors to try to save face. Low sun, looking southwestwards ion the way to work in mid-April. Maybe she starts her retail assistant work at 8 pm alright. :rolleyes:

Curvature of the median? Below is her view.

It comes back to the same question I posed above. If she couldn't see that the road was clear, why did she cross? It's not like a McLaren F1 car came out of nowhere and hit her.

Because she was reckless. That doesn't get the motorist off the hook for not using her brakes and for seemingly driving in an unobservant manner.

I presented hypothetical factors I order to demonstrate that neither of us know what the actual factors were. They are as relevant as the factors you presented in the post prior. In other words not necessarily relevant at all.

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

Because she was reckless. That doesn't get the motorist off the hook for not using her brakes and for seemingly driving in an unobservant manner.

I presented hypothetical factors I order to demonstrate that neither of us know what the actual factors were. They are as relevant as the factors you presented in the post prior. In other words not necessarily relevant at all.

She was reckless. Her recklessness set in motion a train of events. Had she not been reckless it wouldn't have happened, therefore the primary blame lies with her. She got paid 3 million for her recklessness and I'm going to pay part of that when I renew next month. No amount of repeating this point is going to change your mind, it seems.

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

She was reckless. Her recklessness set in motion a train of events. Had she not been reckless it wouldn't have happened, therefore the primary blame lies with her. She got paid 3 million for her recklessness and I'm going to pay part of that when I renew next month. No amount of repeating this point is going to change your mind, it seems.

I have never questioned her responsibility. I'm not sure why you have difficulty with understanding that.However no one can defend the failure of a motorist to brake. Spurious insurance claims are problem. But some people are in a rush to be outraged. Whether the motorist was found to be 30, 50 or 80 % is somewhat moot.

As for the size of the compensation, without full knowledge of how her long term health has been effected, none of us can say if the payment is adequate or obscene.

What is apparent, is that many are expressing a car centric view which absolves them from their responsibility in operating potentially lethal machinery in a safe and controlled manner.

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

I have never questioned her responsibility. I'm not sure why you have difficulty with understanding that.However no one can defend the failure of a motorist to brake. Spurious insurance claims are problem. But some people are in a rush to be outraged. Whether the motorist was found to be 30, 50 or 80 % is somewhat moot.

As for the size of the compensation, without full knowledge of how her long term health has been effected, none of us can say if the payment is adequate or obscene.

What is apparent, is that many are expressing a car centric view which absolves them from their responsibility in operating potentially lethal machinery.

Now you're going around in circles. Nobody has denied that a driver must pay due care and attention. It's been said over and over. Yes, I am outraged because the driver was found to be two thirds responsible and therefore I will pay that bit more. It is not a moot point at all.

From the nature of your posts I'm guessing you no longer drive. Earlier I searched your posts in the Motors forum to try to see where you're coming from and I see your last post of 80 was 3 years ago. If that's the case then this settlement has no bearing on your directly, though it will indirectly. If the driver did apply the brakes late then she does bear a small part of the responsibility, but you're just completely ignoring the whole root cause of the incident itself.

If the driver needed to apply brakes at all then it was because the pedestrian ran across when the car was too close. If the car had been at a safe distance (further away than the distance she would travel in the time it took the pedestrian to cross the road) then she wouldn't have been hit. The fact is she was hit, therefore she ran out when it was not safe to do so.

.anon.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I didn't have to trawl, it was the second result on the search.

The very fact that you searched their previous posts to make such an absolutely vapid point is pathetic beyond belief. I've received penalty points in the past too, and it doesn't invalidate my view that motorists should be capable of anticipating hazards, whatever speed they're travelling at.

Genuinely terrifying that you think right-of-way removes the need to use your brakes. I hope you don't have a driving licence.

Gaoth Laidir

.anon. wrote: »

The very fact that you searched their previous posts to make such an absolutely vapid point is pathetic beyond belief. I've received penalty points in the past too, and it doesn't invalidate my view that motorists should be capable of anticipating hazards, whatever speed they're travelling at.

Genuinely terrifying that you think right-of-way removes the need to use your brakes. I hope you don't have a driving licence.

I don't know what vapid is but I do have a licence, and you'd know that if you cared to read my posts. Read them all first and then come back.

kippy

Alias G wrote: »

I have never questioned her responsibility. I'm not sure why you have difficulty with understanding that.However no one can defend the failure of a motorist to brake. Spurious insurance claims are problem. But some people are in a rush to be outraged. Whether the motorist was found to be 30, 50 or 80 % is somewhat moot.

As for the size of the compensation, without full knowledge of how her long term health has been effected, none of us can say if the payment is adequate or obscene.

What is apparent, is that many are expressing a car centric view which absolves them from their responsibility in operating potentially lethal machinery in a safe and controlled manner.

It's not a "Car centric" view - christ. The car has little to lose or gain from the situation.
No one is absolving anyone from responsibility (most of us walk, drive and possibly cycle - they are not binary activities), however, at the same time, as an individual, if you want to control your on destiny (in as much a way as possible) you need to take responsibility for your actions (both the driver and the person hit).

It's not even about being in the "right" or in the "wrong". It's about risk.
As a pedestrian, you are always gonna come out worse in a car incident and as such need to have a greater appreciation that serious injury/death is an outcome that can happen when crossing a road - even if the car driver is "in the wrong" - at the end of the day if the car driver is in the wrong, you die/serious injury. If you are in the wrong, you die/serious injury.

Galwayguy35

Being too thick and stupid to know not to cross a dual carraigeway pays off it seems.

And its the rest of us who pay for these ridiculous sums of money awarded to idiots like this one.

lalababa

Niallof9 wrote: »

There's no begrudgery at all. What people take issue with, is that awards like this **** it up for the rest of us. People are fed up of these utterly ridiculous payouts. And yeah most people, suing wouldn't be the first thing that crosses anyones mind. There's a thing called personal responsibility and we're in dangerous territory here of where its being forgotten. Ironically if she had actually died she'd have got nothing most likely. At times Ireland would do your head in.

Yeah look it was terrible for her. Grave injuries etc. But its just wrong giving her a payout of 3.2 million. On any level.

And the reason people are using examples from her social media or whatnot, is because if you go by what is being posted, it doesn't seem like its had huge long lasting effects. 3.2 million might be a just award if injuries were catastrophic, i.e paraplegic, braindead etc.

Braindead.... you're looking at 15million. A complete cluster****

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Now you're going around in circles. Nobody has denied that a driver must pay due care and attention. It's been said over and over. Yes, I am outraged because the driver was found to be two thirds responsible and therefore I will pay that bit more. It is not a moot point at all.

From the nature of your posts I'm guessing you no longer drive. Earlier I searched your posts in the Motors forum to try to see where you're coming from and I see your last post of 80 was 3 years ago. If that's the case then this settlement has no bearing on your directly, though it will indirectly. If the driver did apply the brakes late then she does bear a small part of the responsibility, but you're just completely ignoring the whole root cause of the incident itself.

If the driver needed to apply brakes at all then it was because the pedestrian ran across when the car was too close. If the car had been at a safe distance (further away than the distance she would travel in the time it took the pedestrian to cross the road) then she wouldn't have been hit. The fact is she was hit, therefore she ran out when it was not safe to do so.

Well you only need to search as far as this very thread to conform that I still drive.

The compensation may well be excessive, but in the absence of evidence to this effect, my assumption is that it is based on significant long term health implications. In that regard, the proportion of motorist culpability is somewhat moot as I stated. But of course, it wouldn't be unusual to see an outrageous payout in this juristiction.

My point and only point I am making is that the motorist was found to be partially responsible. And justifiably so based on the evidence reported. What's obvious, is that there is a reluctance on the part of some to accept that there is a onus on them to understand this responsibility and for this responsibility to inform their driving habits. A cursory observation of driving at any segment of road in the country will confirm this quick enough.

Alias G

kippy wrote: »

It's not a "Car centric" view - christ. The car has little to lose or gain from the situation.
No one is absolving anyone from responsibility (most of us walk, drive and possibly cycle - they are not binary activities), however, at the same time, as an individual, if you want to control your on destiny (in as much a way as possible) you need to take responsibility for your actions (both the driver and the person hit).

It's not even about being in the "right" or in the "wrong". It's about risk.
As a pedestrian, you are always gonna come out worse in a car incident and as such need to have a greater appreciation that serious injury/death is an outcome that can happen when crossing a road - even if the car driver is "in the wrong" - at the end of the day if the car driver is in the wrong, you die/serious injury. If you are in the wrong, you die/serious injury.

I would argue it is car centric to expect to be allowed speed through the 7th most populous urban area in the country at 80km/h and expect pedestrians to have to go out of their way to use a bridge. In my view, a traffic light controlled crossing should be in place in close proximity to the bus stop, otherwise people will risk crossing the dual carriageway without it.

kippy

Alias G wrote: »

I would argue it is car centric to expect to be allowed speed through the 7th most populous urban area in the country at 80km/h and expect pedestrians to have to go out of their way to use a bridge. In my view, a traffic light controlled crossing should be in place in close proximity to the bus stop, otherwise people will risk crossing the dual carriageway without it.

Well, it's a poor argument when picked apart as has already been shown.
Zero personal responsibility assigned or expected by the looks of it.

Alias G

kippy wrote: »

Well, it's a poor argument when picked apart as has already been shown.
Zero personal responsibility assigned or expected by the looks of it.

It is actually a pragmatic argument as people clearly do cross the carriageway here. Hopefully it gets upgraded before someone actually dies.

kippy

Alias G wrote: »

It is actually a pragmatic argument as people clearly do cross the carriageway here. Hopefully it gets upgraded before someone actually dies.

Hopefully it doesn't take someone dying for others to realise that crossing the carriageway in that location is a risky behavior that needs a bit of thought put into it........

Alias G

kippy wrote: »

Hopefully it doesn't take someone dying for others to realise that crossing the carriageway in that location is a risky behavior that needs a bit of thought put into it........

Unfortunately, no one would notice beyond a short period and people will continue to take short cuts if they assess that the infrastructure doesn't serve their purpose. It makes more sense to provide a design that is user friendly to the pedestrian.

kippy

Alias G wrote: »

Unfortunately, no one will notice beyond a short period and people will continue to take short cuts if they assess that the infrastructure doesn't serve their purpose. It makes more sense to provide a design that is user friendly to the pedestrian.

Surely moving this bus stop would solve the problem in a more cost effective and timely manner then?

People need to assess the chances of death or injury, as opposed to "infrastructure" not serving their purpose.
Have a think about what you've said there - basically exonerating people making bad decisions based on something completely outside of their control.

I'd love more infrastructure to serve my own individual purpose every day, but it doesn't so I make decisions based on the situation at the time.

Alias G

kippy wrote: »

Surely moving this bus stop would solve the problem in a more cost effective and timely manner then?

People need to assess the chances of death or injury, as opposed to "infrastructure" not serving their purpose.
Have a think about what you've said there - basically exonerating people making bad decisions based on something completely outside of their control.

I'd love more infrastructure to serve my own individual purpose every day, but it doesn't so I make decisions based on the situation at the time.

I haven't exonerated anyone of anything. Least of all the pedestrian and motorist in question. Surely that much has been obvious.

But if the current design results in people crossing the carriageway at a non designated spot, then it clearly doesn't serve its purpose whomever the fault lies with. The logical thing to do is re-engineer the design.

You may feel that you make perfect decisions when crossing the road but in the real world that doesn't happen 100% of the time and particularly if the design brings pedestrians vua a less than direct route. Pedestrians are the most vulnerable of road users and should be placed first in the hierarchy of any urban design. This is best policy as per DMURS guidelines which all councils in the country abide by

Potential-Monke

People still making assumptions. All we have to go on is the article. The article states the driver was in the bus lane, but it doesn't say how far in. Maybe they swerved left to avoid and ended up in the bus lane? Maybe you merge into the bus lane there to take a left at the upcoming roundabout?

I've already explained about brake marks, so I think it's impossible to say brakes were not deployed, they could have been but no marks to prove it thanks to ABS. If there was no braking, then I'd be of the opinion she ran out at the last second. Even at 20mph, the stopping distance is about 12m, not including the few meters it takes for the "thinking time" involved in reactions. So I reckon the driver didn't have time to stop. No evidence to prove it either way from what we have available. See table below.

And people still saying it's a well known area for people crossing the road. I've said this already too, I'm not from Dublin. The only literal signs I have are the road signs, which show 80kph. Even talking about this now, if I was to drive there tomorrow, I wouldn't know that this is a dual carriageway jaywalking hotspot. Road seems good too, so no reason to not drive 80 or just below. The argument that the driver should have been going slower can similarly be applied to every single road in Ireland, and expecting people to walk out in front of you all the time is just not feasible, all roads would then be 20kph. But the council and authorities say that 80 is suitable for this road, so for non-locals that's the highest limit, and the limit is not illegal.

Yes, there's an argument that the layout is poor, but it still doesn't excuse someone literally putting their lives on the line by running across 4 lanes of fast moving traffic. I'm going to take the advice of some people on here and just drive 20kph everywhere, that'll give me plenty of time to keep an eye out for absolute morons so I can stop in time.

Nonsense.

Alias G

The defendant not using her brakes is what is alleged by the prosecution and reported in the media. So it has as much substance as we can possibly have in relation to the issue. None of us have the full facts. The defendant was prepared to accept a payout to the injured party . She must have had some council that there was probable liability on her part.

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

I would argue it is car centric to expect to be allowed speed through the 7th most populous urban area in the country at 80km/h and expect pedestrians to have to go out of their way to use a bridge. In my view, a traffic light controlled crossing should be in place in close proximity to the bus stop, otherwise people will risk crossing the dual carriageway without it.

You try to twist the facts in your favour. "The 7th most populous urban area...bla bla bla..." That road does not go through an urban area at all. It's not like it goes through the main street. It may as well be going through rural Kildare. There are no houses fronting onto it. It's completely for vehicles and that's all. Below is the view of a driver a little bit before coming to the area in question. 80 kph is a reasonable speed here. Now imagine an idiot running out from behind that hedge.

Alias G

The road literally bypasses swords village 50 to 100 metres away and disects the swords area in general. You don't have the same volume of pedestrians and cyclists in rural kildare and you know it.

You have no more info on the motorists visibility on the day in question than I do.

Gaoth Laidir

And Alias, I see that you also recently wrote this in a cycling thread.

Of course accidents happen but your personnel anecdotes are meaningless with all due respect. Nobody should have to pay for the negligence of others but that doesn't make the scheme you are proposing workable or justified. The administration involved would be prohibitive when factored against the number and cost of incidents that cyclists are responsible for. More cyclist/pedestrian collisions seem to occur as a result of jaywalking rather than cyclists running lights. Following your argument, surely pedestrians should carry registrations and insurance too.

A little bit rich to be making the opposite argument in this thread. Which is it?

TheChizler

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

To the both of you, are you saying that every road incident is automatically the fault of the driver? If a kid runs out from behind a parked car, also fault of the driver? Is there ANY case in which you would argue for the case of the driver if someone deliberately choses to run out in front of a car?

If I'm driving next to parked cars with poor visibility I slow down and move towards the centre of the road, or slow right down if there's an oncoming car and can't leave space. If there are pedestrians on the path I do the same, especially in these times as they might suddenly step off the path to avoid each other. Yesterday I saw an elderly lady who wasn't looking my direction who looked like she might run across the road so I took my foot off the accelerator and hovered over the brake in case she did, which she immediately did. I was able to stop in good time and because I had already slowed the car behind had time to react to my emergency brake and didn't plow into me. Driving is about being aware of your surroundings and anticipating possible hazards, not just about reacting to them. If I didn't take those precautions and something happened I would consider myself partially if not mostly responsible. Driving is a privilege I'm not the vulnerable one in the situation, I'm the one driving the machine.

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

The road literally bypasses swords village 50 to 100 metres away and disects the swords area in general. You don't have the same volume of pedestrians and cyclists in rural kildare and you know it.

You have no more info on the motorists visibility on the day in question than I do.

No it doesn't. I'm beginning to wonder if you know this road at all.

Road is the R132 in the centre of the image and the direction of travel was northeastwards. Those houses do not back onto the road. They are completely sealed off by trees a ditch.

Gaoth Laidir

TheChizler wrote: »

If I'm driving next to parked cars with poor visibility I slow down and move towards the centre of the road, or slow right down if there's an oncoming car and can't leave space. If there are pedestrians on the path I do the same, especially in these times as they might suddenly step off the path to avoid each other. Yesterday I saw an elderly lady who wasn't looking my direction who looked like she might run across the road so I took my foot off the accelerator and hovered over the brake in case she did, and I was able to stop in good time, because I had already slowed the car behind had time to react to my emergency brake and didn't plow into me. Driving is about being aware of your surroundings and anticipating possible hazards, not just about reacting to them. If I didn't take those precautions and something happened I would consider myself partially if not mostly responsible. Driving is a privilege I'm not the vulnerable one in the situation, I'm the one driving the machine.

Correct, and that's what I do too. Driving in a pedestrianised area with parked cars is one thing, and of course speed limits there are 30 for a reason. Nobody would drive through there at 80 or even 50, and if they did they should be done for it.

Now that does not compare to this case, as I've shown many times now. If there is someone stupid enough to cross that road when a car is within an unsafe distance then they should not be surprised if they get hit.

Alias G

Point one. Nobody is paying for the negligence of others. The motorists insurance is paying for the drivers contributory negligence.

Point two. This is quite clearly a sarcastic comment on the utter daftness of extending insurance beyond motorists.

It really is exceptionally said trawling through someones post history in an attempt to sling mud just because you are incapable of presenting an argument of your own.

TheChizler

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No it doesn't. I'm beginning to wonder if you know this road at all.

Road is the R132 in the centre of the image and the direction of travel was northeastwards. Those houses do not back onto the road. They are completely sealed off by trees a ditch.

Jesus christ that's an absolutely chronic setup for a bus stop, what did they expect was going to happen?

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No it doesn't. I'm beginning to wonder if you know this road at all.

Road is the R132 in the centre of the image and the direction of travel was northeastwards. Those houses do not back onto the road. They are completely sealed off by trees a ditch.

Swords has a population of 40,000 and this road literally passes through it. Ergo pedestrians and cyclists are significantly represented compared to rural kildare. Spin it whatever way you like.

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

Point one. Nobody is paying for the negligence of others. The motorists insurance is paying for the drivers contributory negligence.

Point two. This is quite clearly a sarcastic comment on the utter daftness of extending insurance beyond motorists.

It really is exceptionally said trawling through someones post history in an attempt to sling mud just because you are incapable of presenting an argument of your own.

I am paying for the negligence/recklessness/stupidity/pure neck of that idiot who broke the law by running out in front of a car. In this case, motorist insurance is paying for this fact. Had she not done it, she would not have been hit. I reckon it's something she probably did regularly, given that she takes a bus to work there. Probably did it so many times that she just got slack and didn't pay attention. And I've to pay for that.

You admitted that most cycling accidents are caused by jaywalking. Who is at fault in that case? This woman was jaywalking. What's the difference if she's hit by a bike or a car (apart from the obvious)?

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

Swords has a population of 40,000 and this road literally passes through it. Ergo pedestrians and cyclists are significantly represented compared to rural kildare. Spin it whatever way you like.

It doesn't pass through it. Jesus.:rolleyes: