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

Kermit.de.frog

Alias G wrote: »

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

Yeah, this is nonsense you are talking now. I know that area and i'm telling you practically everyone uses the bridge.

I have never seen anyone crossing the DC lanes.

It has bush and wires in the middle of it ffs.

You can't be taken in any way seriously.

Alias G

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Yeah, this is nonsense you are talking now. I know that area and i'm telling you practically everyone uses the bridge.

I have never seen anyone crossing the DC lanes.

It has bush and wires in the middle of it ffs.

You can't be taken in any way seriously.

People alighting northbound buses are known to cross where the bush and wire fence ends in order to access pavilions. As stated during the trial.

The wire fence ends well short of the bridge.

runawaybishop

Alias G wrote: »

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

Lazy and stupid people running out in front of cars shouldn't be surprised if they get hit, and shouldn't get a payout due to their own stupidity. We have a payout compo culture here. There is no denying that.

Kermit.de.frog

Alias G wrote: »

People alighting northbound buses are known to cross where the bush and wire fence ends in order to access pavilions. As stated during the trial.

The wire fence ends well short of the bridge.

You are just wrong. Not even teenagers do that. They all use the bridge which is right there.

At night you might get the odd chancer, I don't know but I have never seen anyone not use the bridge and run across the road instead.

Do you know why?

Because it makes no sense.

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

People alighting northbound buses are known to cross where the bush and wire fence ends in order to access pavilions. As stated during the trial.

The wire fence ends well short of the bridge.

Are you sure you know the road at all? Northbound buses stop on the Pavillions side so there's no need to cross the road. We drive on the left in Ireland.

:rolleyes:

Kermit.de.frog

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Are you sure you know the road at all? Northbound buses stop on the Pavillions side so there's no need to cross the road. We drive on the left in Ireland.

:rolleyes:

Not only that - the bus goes right to the door well off the roundabout on the DC. The southbound buses go from or through there too.

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Are you sure you know the road at all? Northbound buses stop on the Pavillions side so there's no need to cross the road. We drive on the left in Ireland.

:rolleyes:

Correct. I should have said south bound. My mistake.

Alias G

runawaybishop wrote: »

Lazy and stupid people running out in front of cars shouldn't be surprised if they get hit, and shouldn't get a payout due to their own stupidity. We have a payout compo culture here. There is no denying that.

She didn't get a payout due to her own stupidity. She received a payout due to partial culpability on the part of the motorist which resulted in severe injury.

Gaoth Laidir

That accident happened in 2018. I don't know exactly how the fence was at that time but Google maps shows that it's been completely sealed off between the time of the northbound view below (first image, May 2017, she crossed from her stop on the right) and the southbound view (second image, June 2019, her stop on the left). Someone now need to physically climb over the fence to cross.

Note how close the footbridge is in the first image.

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

She didn't get a payout due to her own stupidity. She received a payout due to partial culpability on the part of the motorist which resulted in severe injury.

No, her decision to cross the road resulted in her severe injury.

runawaybishop

Alias G wrote: »

She didn't get a payout due to her own stupidity. She received a payout due to partial culpability on the part of the motorist which resulted in severe injury.

She received a payout because idiots aren't responsible for their actions, and we all pay for it.

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No, her decision to cross the road resulted in her severe injury.

That statement would suggest that the failure of the motorist to apply her brakes had nothing to do with the outcome. That is just untrue.

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

That statement would suggest that the failure of the motorist to apply her brakes had nothing to do with the outcome. That is just untrue.

If she hadn't decided to illegally cross the road then she'd still be fine (though 3.2 million less off).

This pretty much sums up your and this country's legal system's attitude.

https://youtu.be/g4GoWLIV23A?t=134

runawaybishop

Alias G wrote: »

That statement would suggest that the failure of the motorist to apply her brakes had nothing to do with the outcome. That is just untrue.

Open your eyes, the courts routinely pay out and insurance companies routinely settle the daftest cases. A women claimed for banging her knee when she sat down at a table, a young one fell off the back of a luas. Even when the cases are dismissed, like the gob****e who pulled the skin off his finger jumping a fence, the policy holders still have to pay in the form of higher premiums.

Serial litigants even come here from other countries as our system so heavily favours abrogating any sense of personal responsibility.

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

If she hadn't decided to illegally cross the road then she'd still be fine (though 3.2 million less off).

This pretty much sums up your and this country's legal system's attitude.

https://youtu.be/g4GoWLIV23A?t=134

I am not arguing for or against the size of the compensation as I don't know what the ladies life circumstances are now.

I am simply stating that motorists do bear responsibility for the damage their vehicles can cause if not operated in a safe manner. And responsibility was portioned to the driver in this instance. What is shocking is how many don't seem to recognise that this responsibility applies to the operation of a potentially lethal machine. Although it does go some way to explaining some of driving on display on a daily basis.

Circa 300 people dead annually. How many close family/connections does that leave distraught year on year. But heaven forbid motorists should moderate their behaviour.

runawaybishop

Alias G wrote: »

. But heaven forbid motorists should moderate their behaviour.

Heaven forbid people should have some cop on and not prance across a dual carriageway.

Yes motorists bear responsibility, but in the courts they bear all of the responsibility all of the time.

Alias G

runawaybishop wrote: »

Open your eyes, the courts routinely pay out and insurance companies routinely settle the daftest cases. A women claimed for banging her knee when she sat down at a table, a young one fell off the back of a luas. Even when the cases are dismissed, like the gob****e who pulled the skin off his finger jumping a fence, the policy holders still have to pay in the form of higher premiums.

Serial litigants even come here from other countries as our system so heavily favours abrogating any sense of personal responsibility.

I am aware there is insurance fraud and spurious cases which should never see the inside of a courtroom.

I wouldn't place getting hit by a car at speed where the driver failed to deploy the brakes in the same category.

Alias G

runawaybishop wrote: »

Heaven forbid people should have some cop on and not prance across a dual carriageway.

Yes motorists bear responsibility, but in the courts they bear all of the responsibility all of the time.

For the umpteenth time. Yes she should have used the bridge. Also for the umpteenth time, the motorist also bears culpability.

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

I am not arguing for or against the size of the compensation as I don't know what the ladies life circumstances are now.

I am simply stating that motorists do bear responsibility for the damage their vehicles can cause if not operated in a safe manner. And responsibility was portioned to the driver in this instance. What is shocking is how many don't seem to recognise that this responsibility applies to the operation of a potentially lethal machine. Although it does go some way to explaining some of driving on display on a daily basis.

Circa 300 people dead annually. How many close family/connections does that leave distraught year on year. But heaven forbid motorists should moderate their behaviour.

You yourself admitted back in 2015 to getting points for doing 63 in a 50 zone so less of the lecturing, please.

Rikand

Alias G wrote: »

For the umpteenth time. Yes she should have used the bridge. Also for the umpteenth time, the motorist also bears culpability.

The motorist was definitely to blame for not anticipating that some idiot would walk out in front of them on a dual carraigeway

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

For the umpteenth time. Yes she should have used the bridge. Also for the umpteenth time, the motorist also bears culpability.

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.

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You yourself admitted back in 2015 to getting points for doing 63 in a 50 zone so less of the lecturing, please.

I have never claimed a perfect record. But I will say I learned from the experience and ensured it never happened again. Hence my opinion that motorists need to moderate their behaviour.

Quite petty of you to trawl 5 to 10 year old posts in order to claim an irrelevant point.

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

I have never claimed a perfect record. But I will say I learned from the experience and ensured it never happened again. Hence my opinion that motorists need to moderate their behaviour.

Quite petty of you to trawl 5 to 10 year old posts in order to claim an irrelevant point.

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

Alias G

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.

What is the relevance of aviation investigations? You guys really will stretch to any point.

Why not drill the root cause down further. Why is the bridge 100 to 200 metres from the bus stop which results in some people ignoring it. Why hasn't the speed limit been reduced an a built up urban location and a pedestrian crossing placed more conveniently to the bus stop.

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

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

Still petty, and an indication of how weak your arguments on topic are.

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

What is the relevance of aviation investigations? You guys really will stretch to any point.

Why not drill the root cause down further. Why is the bridge 100 to 200 metres from the bus stop which results in some people ignoring it. Why hasn't the speed limit been reduced an a built up urban location and a pedestrian crossing placed more conveniently to the bus stop.

Because aviation accident investigations are a perfect template for trying to make sense of this incident. They leave no stone unturned and are there to find the facts and only the facts.

I'm still struggling to figure out the timeline of the incident. If I was a pedestrian wanting to cross there (I wouldn't, but let's take it that I'm thick) I'd definitely make sure there was no traffic coming. It's a lot easier for me to spot traffic that should be there than it is for a moving vehicle to spot me behind a hedge about to cross where I shouldn't be.

Either

a) I don't actually look before running across and get hit, or

b) Look and see that there is a car coming but decide to run across anyway and get hit.

Either way, I'm not really to blame and I can cash in. Fůck it, the drivers of Ireland can foot my bill.

Make any sense to you?

Alias G

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Because aviation accident investigations are a perfect template for trying to make sense of this incident. They leave no stone unturned and are there to find the facts and only the facts.

I'm still struggling to figure out the timeline of the incident. If I was a pedestrian wanting to cross there (I wouldn't, but let's take it that I'm thick) I'd definitely make sure there was no traffic coming. It's a lot easier for me to spot traffic that should be there than it is for a moving vehicle to spot me behind a hedge about to cross where I shouldn't be.

Either

a) I don't actually look before running across and get hit, or

b) Look and see that there is a car coming but decide to run across anyway and get hit.

Either way, I'm not really to blame and I can cash in. Fůck it, the drivers of Ireland can foot my bill.

Make any sense to you?

Lots of investigation templates are thorough and are focused on determination of the root cause including fatal road accidents. Your deference to aviation investigations is just odd.

There are countless factors which could have inhibited her view of the car or her judgement of the speed.

Maybe a low sun on the horizon or curvature of the median inhibited her view. Neither of us know. And neither of which would absolve either the pedestrian or motorist from responsibility.

happyoutscan

She's no model and I'm not seeing much in the way of a brain injury. Another scammer.

Alias G

I imagine there are far more sensible means of scamming than getting hit by a car at speed.

An eejit perhaps.

Gaoth Laidir

Alias G wrote: »

Lots of investigation templates are thorough and are focused on determination of the root cause including fatal road accidents. Your deference to aviation investigations is just odd.

There are countless factors which could have inhibited her view of the car or her judgement of the speed.

Maybe a low sun on the horizon or curvature of the median inhibited her view. Neither of us know. And neither of which would absolve either the pedestrian or motorist from responsibility.

Stop digging. You're now looking past the obvious and clutching at some hypothetical factors to try to save face. Low sun, looking southwestwards on 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.