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

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

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)?

I don't know why you continue to pretend that I am unaware the pedestrian bears responsibility. The actual judgement found both parties responsible. I have only ever re-iterated that some portion of blame applys to the motorist in so far as we can tell from the information available to us. What is lamentable, is that there is a segment of motorists who seem unable to recognise this responsibility.

I would estimate that a significant (possibly most in an urban setting) cycling accidents involve Jay walkers stepping from the kerb. The vast majority of such incidents result in nothing worse than bruising. This example doesn't negate the additional responsibility of motorists to operate their vehicle safely considering the potentially tragic outcomes of a motor accident.

kippy

Alias G wrote: »

I don't know why you continue to pretend that I am unaware the pedestrian bears responsibility. The actual judgement found both parties responsible. I have only ever re-iterated that some portion of blame applys to the motorist in so far as we can tell from the information available to us. What is lamentable, is that there is a segment of motorists who seem unable to recognise this responsibility.

Motorists are also pedestrians, and maybe even that dirty word Cyclists.
It's not like "Motorist" is an entire category of people unable to think with any other hat on, who get around without walking and/or cycling maybe.
What is lamentable is you and me and EVERYONE HERE WHO PAYS ANY FORM OF INSURANCE pays for the incident in the first place, no matter who is ultimately at fault and that no doubt another massive portion of our insurance money goes towards legal fees.

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

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

Through the greater swords area, yes it does. 40,000 people don't live in the village.

TheChizler

I don't get the comments of stupidity for crossing there, when she was hit she was crossing a bus lane and two regular lanes to get to the central median just before a signal controlled roundabout where people should be slowing down from 80 anyway, that kind of setup is extremely common across the country and people wouldn't give two thoughts to crossing those places. It's not like she was sprinting blind across all 5 lanes in one go, or across a 120 km/h motorway. Has the word "dual-carriageway" blinded people? I'm not familiar with the area but the pedestrian bridge route would add a significant distance, I wouldn't reasonably expect people to use it to get to the bus stop. Typical of planning in this country that pedestrians are an inconvenient afterthought.

Alias G

kippy wrote: »

Motorists are also pedestrians, and maybe even that dirty word Cyclists.
It's not like "Motorist" is an entire category of people unable to think with any other hat on, who get around without walking and/or cycling maybe.
What is lamentable is you and me and EVERYONE HERE WHO PAYS ANY FORM OF INSURANCE pays for the incident in the first place, no matter who is ultimately at fault and that no doubt another massive portion of our insurance money goes towards legal fees.

That's where a better design of the infrastructure would come in. One which places the pedestrian at the summit of the hierarchy of who's needs an urban environment should be designed around.

Your lament should be directed at both parties in this instance since that is where blame has been assigned. But for some reason you think the motorist gets a pass.

TheChizler

kippy wrote: »

What is lamentable is you and me and EVERYONE HERE WHO PAYS ANY FORM OF INSURANCE pays for the incident in the first place, no matter who is ultimately at fault and that no doubt another massive portion of our insurance money goes towards legal fees.

What is lamentable is that this incident was entirely predicable and practically encouraged by the placement of the bus stop and break in the hedge and no reasonable attempt was made to improve the safety of people using it. The footbridge is not a get out of jail card it's not in any way conveniently placed for accessing the stop from the shopping centre.

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

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

https://maps.app.goo.gl/cFE8XaEfuceHXpUg8

Pretty much right down the centre of the greater swords area

runawaybishop

TheChizler wrote: »

What is lamentable is that this incident was entirely predicable and practically encouraged by the placement of the bus stop and break in the hedge and no reasonable attempt was made to improve the safety of people using it. The footbridge is not a get out of jail card it's not in any way conveniently placed for accessing the stop from the shopping centre.

Well, you probably shouldn't swan across the road without looking maybe?

Gaoth Laidir

TheChizler wrote: »

I don't get the comments of stupidity for crossing there, when she was hit she was crossing a bus lane and two regular lanes to get to the central median just before a signal controlled roundabout where people should be slowing down from 80 anyway, that kind of setup is extremely common across the country and people wouldn't give two thoughts to crossing those places. It's not like she was sprinting blind across all 5 lanes in one go, or across a 120 km/h motorway. Has the word "dual-carriageway" blinded people? I'm not familiar with the area but the pedestrian bridge route would add a significant distance, I wouldn't reasonably expect people to use it to get to the bus stop. Typical of planning in this country that pedestrians are an inconvenient afterthought.

Maybe you should familarise yourself with what we do know about the facts first. She was not trying to get to the median. She had already reached there from her bus stop and was crossing the second northbound carriageway to get to the Pavilions side. It's been outlined here several times by both maps and Streetview.

The footbridge argument just doesn't stand up. You're making it having admitted you don't know the area. Plenty of people who do know it have argued the opposite.

kippy

Alias G wrote: »

That's where a better design of the infrastructure would come in. One which places the pedestrian at the summit of the hierarchy of who's needs and urban environment should be designed around.

Your lament should be directed at both parties in this instance since that is where blame has been assigned. But gur some reason you think the motorist gets a pass.

TheChizler wrote: »

What is lamentable is that this incident was entirely predicable and practically encouraged by the placement of the bus stop and break in the hedge and no reasonable attempt was made to improve the safety of people using it. The footbridge is not a get out of jail card it's not in any way conveniently placed for accessing the stop from the shopping centre.

Okay - lets get back to basics here.

There are literally hundreds and thousands of "things" that should be done better in this country and others when it comes to planning and infrastructure ( and other areas obviously).
I don't disagree with that at all.

However, we are not in an ideal world.

As individuals at a point in time, we need to take some responsibility in reviewing the "controlables" - things that one can control, and making risk assessments based on the environment we find ourselves in, taking into account all of the factors and controllables we are aware of. (This is a general concept, not just applicable to pedestrians etc)

Blaming an entirely avoidable event on poor planning/infrastructure in this case gives all of the involved parties (Motorist, Pedestrian, Insurance, Legal Profession) a completely free pass - which is not something that we should accept.


Now, if people are happy enough for others to go around making decisions, then blaming others when those decisions turn out to have some negative impact - then fair enough. I go back to my first post on this thread. This country is fcuked.

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Maybe you should familarise yourself with what we do know about the facts first. She was not trying to get to the median. She had already reached there from her bus stop and was crossing the second northbound carriageway to get to the Pavilions side. It's been outlined here several times by both maps and Streetview.

The footbridge argument just doesn't stand up. You're making it having admitted you don't know the area. Plenty of people who do know it have argued the opposite.

The footbridge being positioned a couple of hundred metres out of the way of bus commuters is quite clearly a factor in why some admittadly less than sensible people choose not to use it.

kippy

Can I just ask (to try keep all happy here) - should/can the bus stop be moved?
(I am not at all familiar with the area)

Alias G

kippy wrote: »

Okay - lets get back to basics here.

There are literally hundreds and thousands of "things" that should be done better in this country and others when it comes to planning and infrastructure ( and other areas obviously).
I don't disagree with that at all.

However, we are not in an ideal world.

As individuals at a point in time, we need to take some responsibility in reviewing the "controlables" - things that one can control, and making risk assessments based on the environment we find ourselves in, taking into account all of the factors and controllables we are aware of. (This is a general concept, not just applicable to pedestrians etc)

Blaming an entirely avoidable event on poor planning/infrastructure in this case gives all of the involved parties (Motorist, Pedestrian, Insurance, Legal Profession) a completely free pass - which is not something that we should accept.


Now, if people are happy enough for others to go around making decisions, then blaming others when those decisions turn out to have some negative impact - then fair enough. I go back to my first post on this thread. This country is fcuked.

I placed blame solely at the feet of the motorist and the pedestrian and so did the judge.

I merely stated that the junction may need to be redesigned to suit the needs of the pedestrian as not only is that best practice per DMURS guidelines but it was a contributory factor in the incident.

the_syco

https://goo.gl/maps/qPbPyqYPtTxZ18aW8
The County Council should put up a fence to deter people running across a triple lane road.

It was claimed the car was being driven at an allegedly excessive speed and there was a failure to observe Ms Regazzoli and others crossing the carriageway on foot and drive accordingly.

I found this part to be the most insane; there was a failure to observe stupid people crossing the carriageway on foot when there was a pedestrian bridge nearby.

Alias G

kippy wrote: »

Can I just ask (to try keep all happy here) - should/can the bus stop be moved?
(I am not at all familiar with the area)

I presume there are safety concerns with moving the bus closer to the junction where the lane runs out and becomes a driving lane for the 3rd/4th exit but perhaps a solution is available there

Alias G

the_syco wrote: »

https://goo.gl/maps/qPbPyqYPtTxZ18aW8
The County Council should put up a fence to deter people running across a triple lane road.


I found this part to be the most insane; there was a failure to observe stupid people crossing the carriageway on foot when there was a pedestrian bridge nearby.

Your attitude is literally phsycotic. Who cares if someone gets smashed by a car if they did something stupid. Why should I drive my car observantly. Username is apt.

AndrewJRenko

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

If this was treated like an aviation crash investigation then the outcome would be as follows;

Root Cause: the pedestrian's decision to illegally cross a busy dual carriageway.

Contributing factors: the driver's late application of the brakes.

Where would the driver's failure to drive in a manner that allows them to stop within the distance they can see to be clear (as is required by law) have come on the aviation investigation?

TheChizler

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Maybe you should familarise yourself with what we do know about the facts first. She was not trying to get to the median. She had already reached there from her bus stop and was crossing the second northbound carriageway to get to the Pavilions side. It's been outlined here several times by both maps and Streetview.

The footbridge argument just doesn't stand up. You're making it having admitted you don't know the area. Plenty of people who do know it have argued the opposite.

From the median to the bus stop so, makes no difference to my point, she wasn't crossing the entire thing in one go so it being a dual carriageway is of little relevance, it's no different to many roads in the country that you wouldn't call stupid places to cross.

I don't know the area but I can use Google Maps and see that the bridge would add 250 metres or more to her journey, most people catching a bus or going to work aren't going to take that route when a more direct one exists.

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

The footbridge being positioned a couple of hundred metres out of the way of bus commuters is quite clearly a factor in why some admittadly less than sensible people choose not to use it.

I can't believe I'm doing this but I've measured both routes from her bus stp to the front entrance of Pavillions and using the footbridge is just 260 metres longer. Is it really worth risking it for this?

the_syco

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Contributing factors: the driver's late application of the brakes.

Possible contributing factor; bush.

Alias G wrote: »

Why should I drive my car observantly.

If driving in the overtaking lane, do you expect someone to jump out from behind a bush in front of you on a dual carriageway where there is no pedestrian crossing?

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I can't believe I'm doing this but I've measured both routes from her bus stp to the front entrance of Pavillions and using the footbridge is just 260 metres longer. Is it really worth risking it for this?

The evidence is that yes, some people believe the short cut is worth the risk. Which is why a pedestrian crossing by the bus stop makes sense. Unless of course you are satisfied with the possibility of an occasional pedestrian getting taken out.

Alias G

the_syco wrote: »

Possible contributing factor; bush.


If driving in the overtaking lane, do you expect someone to jump out from behind a bush in front of you on a dual carriageway where there is no pedestrian crossing?

The car was driving in the bus lane as reported from court proceedings.

Gaoth Laidir

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where would the driver's failure to drive in a manner that allows them to stop within the distance they can see to be clear (as is required by law) have come on the aviation investigation?

Eh, the distance ahead was clear until she ran out from behind a hedge. Should we all slow down at every gate, opening in a hedge, etc.?

TheChizler wrote: »

From the median to the bus stop so, makes no difference to my point, she wasn't crossing the entire thing in one go so it being a dual carriageway is of little relevance, it's no different to many roads in the country that you wouldn't call stupid places to cross.

I don't know the area but I can use Google Maps and see that the bridge would add 250 metres or more to her journey, most people catching a bus or going to work aren't going to take that route when a more direct one exists.

Stupid place to cross. Correct. But stupidity gets you a big payday.

1874

I hadn't realised she was hit while attempting to cross the second carriageway until a few posts back, I did not see that comment before,
I did see it mentioned she was hit in the bus lane, so that seems to suggest she made it nearly all the way across before she was hit, this makes it imo even more understandable, why on earth would a driver expect a pedestrian to be coming from their right side on a dual carriageway, there should be barriers to prevent people crossing from each side and a barrier in the central median.

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

The evidence is that yes, some people believe the short cut is worth the risk. Which is why a pedestrian crossing by the bus stop makes sense. Unless of course you are satisfied with the possibility of an occasional pedestrian getting taken out.

So should there be a pedestrian crossing at every bus stop along a dual carriageway?

I'm flogging a dead horse at this stage. Your mind is made up. Personal responsibility means nothing anymore. You and others like you are fcuking up this country and it seems there's nothing I or anyone else can do about it.

I just hope the driver sues the millionaire for damages herself.

the_syco

Alias G wrote: »

The car was driving in the bus lane as reported from court proceedings.

Does it say if she walked or ran across the road? https://goo.gl/maps/ZyWa5n7AwT4m3wXq6

Also, does it state what time of the year & day it was?

jmreire

From a slightly different viewpoint,,,,,,had this accident happened identically in any other EU Country, would the judgement and the award have been the same?

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So should there be a pedestrian crossing at every bus stop along a dual carriageway?

Perhaps not in rural kildare as per your example. But in this instance, it would be far safer if the bus stop was served by a convenient means of crossing safely and efficiently.

Alias G

jmreire wrote: »

From a slightly different viewpoint,,,,,,had this accident happened identically in any other EU Country, would the judgement and the award have been the same?

If the motorist was found to bear culpability, of course the judgement would be similar. The size of the award depends on facts that none of us are privvy to.

TallGlass2

I asked earlier, out of interest. Might have got lost in the heat of the other comments !

Can the driver sue the women?