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

glenfieldman

glenfieldman wrote:

What do you want, us plebs to drive at 20km to avoid the odd moron that has a death wis

Alias G wrote: »

I have already stated what I expect motorists to do. Ie drive with due consideration. But we all know a significant number of them can't be trusted to do so. What we will probably get instead is a reduced speed limit and a pedestrian crossing at the sight of the incident. If not now, then after someone does lose their life.

Oh, so you actually do think people should be driving at 20kp/h incase of idiots. :rolleyes: Seems reasonable.

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

A lot of assumptions there. Mostly well wide of the mark. At not point did I say this woman bears no personal responsibility for what happened.

What about the woman who got 550K for illegally tram surfing when she was younger? Why should she get anything?

Kermit.de.frog

Alias G wrote: »

That depends on the extent of her injuries. If she is brain injured and needs lifetime support and care, 3.2 million possibly won't stretch as far as you would imagine.

She chose to walk across the Dual Carriageway.

Would you choose to walk across a Dual Carriageway?

Why not?

(although I guess after this settlement you may as well take your chances!)

Alias G

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, so you actually do think people should be driving at 20kp/h incase of idiots. :rolleyes: Seems reasonable.

Feel free to make up stuff I said if it makes you feel better. There is nowhere in the city with a 20km/h limit. I do however support the roll out of the 30 km/h limit on the city centre and housing estates

Mod: Alias G and Glenfieldman, enough of the bickering and insults. Anymore and you'll be thread banned.

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

What about the woman who got 550K for illegally tram surfing when she was younger? Why should she get anything?

What about her. She is irrelevant to this specific incident.

glenfieldman

Alias G wrote: »

I'm guessing you are hairy neanderthal who has scars on his knuckles from dragging them on the ground and drives a flash car to make up for the deficiency in his pants.

I can make ad hominem insults too. Not sure how it furthers the debate though.

I have already stated what I expect motorists to do. Ie drive with due consideration. But we all know a significant number of them can't be trusted to do so. What we will probably get instead is a reduced speed limit and a pedestrian crossing at the sight of the incident. If not now, then after someone does lose their life.

How good is your stopping skills at 60km, because I know my stopping skills in my little Hyundai i20, (far from big or flash) would also kill a person
Btw have you watch the video of the "victim"

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

There is a more than adequate pedestrian crossing there already and she chose not to use it. You now want one on the road too? That would be great for traffic.

Unbelievable.

There is no pedestrian crossing at that point. There is a bridge which people habitually ignore. People are far more likely to use a pedestrian crossing. That's human nature.

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

What about her. She is irrelevant to this specific incident.

She is relevant as it's another similar case. This is not just one isolated incident. Personal responsibility seems to be a thing of the past. You can do what you want and if you hurt yourself doing it, someone else must pay. And you're fine with that.

Kermit.de.frog

Alias G wrote: »

People are far more likely to use a pedestrian crossing.

Is the bridge for cattle or for humans?

Why is the bridge there?

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

There is no pedestrian crossing at that point. There is a bridge which people habitually ignore. People are far more likely to use a pedestrian crossing. That's human nature.

The bridge is a pedestrian bridge. It's a bridge across the road so that traffic can move freely. There is also a bridge across the N4 at Liffey Valley. Do you think if people "habitually ignore" it, then they should be rewarded with a further surface crossing? I really think you're on the wind-up now at this stage...

Alias G

glenfieldman wrote: »

How good is your stopping skills at 60km, because I know my stopping skills in my little Hyundai i20, (far from big or flash) would also kill a person
Btw have you watch the video of the "victim"

I have watched the video. It neither confirms nor denies what her long term injuries may or may not be. I never stated if the payout was excessive or adequate because I simply don't know those facts. I have simply stated that mororist culpability is plausible and likely in this incident. There is a big difference between not being observant and hitting a pedestrian at speed and applying the brakes and limiting the violence of the impact.

glenfieldman

Alias G wrote: »

There is no pedestrian crossing at that point. There is a bridge which people habitually ignore. People are far more likely to use a pedestrian crossing. That's human nature.

**** me.
This has to be Ms Regazzoli or a friend to defend her

Mod ban me if you want

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

The bridge is a pedestrian bridge. It's a bridge across the road so that traffic can move freely. There is also a bridge across the N4 at Liffey Valley. Do you think if people "habitually ignore" it, then they should be rewarded with a further surface crossing? I really think you're on the wind-up now at this stage...

Well we can follow your advice and continue with a clearly inadequate design. Or we can be pragmatic and build infrastructure that people will actually use based on typical human behaviour

Sounds to me like you are happy for the odd pedestrian to get clipped as long as nothing slows your driving time down by a few seconds. Selfish and motor centrist.

Alias G

glenfieldman wrote: »

**** me.
This has to be Ms Regazzoli or a friend to defend her

Mod ban me if you want

Pedestrian crossing. You know those little green, red and yellow figures?

Kermit.de.frog

Alias G wrote: »

Well we can follow your advice and continue with a clearly inadequate design.

Why do you think the bridge is there?

How much common sense do you think it takes to use the bridge when crossing a dual carriageway?

Alias G

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Why do you think the bridge is there?

How much common sense do you think it takes to use the bridge when crossing a dual carriageway?

Why do you think people largely ignore the bridge?

Do you think we should build infra that actually will get used or should we just accept that we don't want to reduce road fatalities/injuries.

And does a motorist bear no responsibility for observing their surroundings?

Kermit.de.frog

Alias G wrote: »

Why do you think people largely ignore the bridge?

I know the area well and I know that is not true.

So again I ask you how much common sense is required to use a bridge provided to cross a dual carriageway?

What do you think?

glenfieldman

Alias G wrote: »

Why do you think people largely ignore the bridge?

Do you think we should build infra that actually will get used or should we just accept that we don't want to reduce road fatalities/injuries.

And does a motorist bear no responsibility for observing their surroundings?

I dont know,
Why do people cross a busy road and not use the safety of a pedestrian bridge

Kermit.de.frog

glenfieldman wrote: »

I dont know,
Why do people cross a busy road and not use the safety of a pedestrian bridge

99% do. I know the area. It's nonsense that the vast vast majority don't use the bridge. Everyone uses the bridge.

runawaybishop

Alias G wrote: »

Why do you think people largely ignore the bridge?

Because they are lazy and/or stupid?

Alias G

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I know the area well and I know that is not true.

So again I ask you how much common sense is required to use a bridge provided to cross a dual carriageway?

What do you think?

It is obviously the common sense means of crossing the road. Unfortunately, there are significant numbers of people who choose not to as described during the trial.

Both motorist behaviour and urban design should accommodate the fact that there are individuals who don't always employ the common sense approach.

Hence the outcome of culpability on both sides.

glenfieldman

glenfieldman wrote: »

**** me.
This has to be Ms Regazzoli or a friend to defend her

Mod ban me if you want

Mod: Do not post in this thread again.

Alias G

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

99% do. I know the area. It's nonsense that the vast vast majority don't use the bridge. Everyone uses the bridge.

It doesn't need to be majority not using the bridge in order for it to be a significant safety issue.

Kermit.de.frog

Alias G wrote: »

It is obviously the common sense means of crossing the road. Unfortunately, there are significant numbers of people who choose not to as described during the trial.

No, there isn't. There is not a lot of people who choose not to and anyone from Swords will tell you that.

Alias G

runawaybishop wrote: »

Because they are lazy and/or stupid?

If lazy and stupid people deserved to be hit with a car at 80km/h, the population would thin very quickly.

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

It is obviously the common sense means of crossing the road. Unfortunately, there are significant numbers of people who choose not to as described during the trial.

Both motorist behaviour and urban design should accommodate the fact that there are individuals who don't always employ the common sense approach.

Hence the outcome of culpability on both sides.

I can't take you seriously anymore, sorry. Your past few posts are just raving luncacy.

TallGlass2

Genuine question here.

Considering 3.2 million is a fair amount of money, can/could the driver sue the women now?

Alias G

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No, there isn't. There is not a lot of people who choose not to and anyone from Swords will tell you that.

I commuted that road for years and saw plenty of people cross the road without the aid of the bridge.

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I can't take you seriously anymore, sorry. Your past few posts are just raving luncacy.

Whereas yours have been devoid of a counter argument.