Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie 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 hello@boards.ie

Fatal Collisions

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Wildly Boaring
    Registered Users Posts: 3,630 ✭✭✭Wildly Boaring


    bobbyy gee wrote: »
    when I drive a van and its reversing
    the reverse lights go on and van starts beeping it's warning
    but people still walk behind it and also cars drive past .i have a big blind spot and can't see either people or cars .i would be blamed but it's their fault if you see reverse lights on a car or van dont cross its path with a car you have more hope of seeing someone but less so in a van

    I know this was way back on page 1.

    But you realise you are completely in the wrong!
    A reversing vehicle has no right of way over cars or pedestrians behind it.

    Also you must be able to see all points around your vehicle.

    If your vehicle has blind spots you, the driver (or owner), must overcome through the use of mirrors and/or cameras.

    Perhaps it's time CPD became mandatory for van drivers too.

    Your attitude is frankly worrying. What fire the big white van in reverse and everyone watch out!?!


  • Options
    #63
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Strumms wrote: »
    At the moment for example the punishment breaking red lights carries 3 penalty points and fine of up to €120... that’s not much of a deterrent. It’s not ANY deterrent at all in fact.

    Points ok ‘maybe’ appropriate but the fine is the average price out of a night out in town with drinks, taxis, food.... the fine is eminently affordable therefore NOT any sort of deterrent. The law and the punishment it provides needs to be a deterrent for it to succeed. Therefore keeping the points but jacking up the fine to 350 euros is what I’d want to see happening.
    The main financial penalty from getting penalty points is the increase in insurance premiums over the next 3 years.
    It could easily cost you an extra few hundred euro.

    The penalty point system is only effective if you've got a reasonable chance of being caught, which you don't right now IMO.
    An expansion of camera based enforcement would be able to catch a huge amount of dangerous driving and stop a lot of bad behaviour overnight.


  • Options
    #64
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,477 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    El Tarangu wrote: »
    - of course the driver was f**king uninjured - a driver of a car or van or truck that hits a cyclist or pedestrian is never injured, they have a huge metal and glass structure to protect them, whereas a vulnerable road user has (at best) a couple of inches of styrofoam.

    Mentioning that 'the driver was uninjured' lends to this false narrative that the risks are somehow equal for each road user.
    It seems to be standard practice to report on all parties involved in the collision.


  • Options
    #65
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    El Tarangu wrote: »
    - of course the driver was f**king uninjured - a driver of a car or van or truck that hits a cyclist or pedestrian is never injured


    It's good reporting. When you read that the driver wasn't injured, you know the car didn't smash into the cyclist at 150kmh and then flip the car over a median barrier and explode in a ball of fire because the driver had had a heart attack and died at the wheel.




    Or would you be in favour or never including the driver's condition as it's apparently so obvious?


  • Options
    #66
    sameoldname
    Registered Users Posts: 899 ✭✭✭sameoldname


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    that, on the face of it, suggests a false equivalence. the burden of responsibility has to fall incredibly heavily on the driver.

    In a legal sense you are of course correct but coming from a standpoint of mortality, if I'm out walking on the roads I'm going to take every precaution that I don't get hit because I value my life and/or my unbroken bones. I have a lot more to lose than they do in a collision and the chances are that they'll be physically fine.

    So while I may have the right to walk 3-abreast on the inside of a bend on a rural road and yes, it would be the drivers fault if they hit me, that's not much gonna matter much to me if I'm dead or possibly injured for life. The driver that hit me might be sentenced and maybe they'll spend some time in prison but ultimately they'll get to go home to their family and I possibly won't. That's why even at a pedestrian crossing where my light is green I'll make sure the cars approaching are slowing down/stopped before stepping out. The risk to me is too great regardless of my rights or innocence.

    Even if you got 99% of drivers out there to be vigilant there's always going to be the 1% that you can't do anything with and no deterrent would be enough. Maybe that's the wrong viewpoint to hold but I always just assume that the next driver I meet is a total incompetent, which is the same as I do when I'm driving myself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Wishbone Ash
    Registered Users Posts: 24,959 ✭✭✭✭Wishbone Ash


    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...
    That's irrelevant. Warehouses are private property and the operators can implement their own rules. We are discussing public places.

    (Drivers of fork lift trucks have severely limited forward visability when transporting a tall loaded pallet and generally travel in reverse. It's not a good example).


  • Options
    #68
    FintanMcluskey
    Registered Users Posts: 8,274 ✭✭✭FintanMcluskey


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    at all times, or just at night?

    If you are walking on an N or R route, and you have no choice but to walk between the yellow and white lines, wear a high vis. It will make a difference


  • Options
    #69
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,477 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    You mentioned walking without hi vis is irresponsible. Is it irresponsible to drive a car in similar circumstances with no lights? My car is black, I drive all the time with dips on, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if I was involved in any sort of collision in daylight without my lights on, no one would mention the visibility of my car.


  • Options
    #70
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Strumms wrote: »
    It’s affordable, it should be affordable. Though it’s a hell of a deterrent and will make people say... “ok, I don’t want to be or need to be 350 quid light, got whatever.. kids going back to school, car insurance due, xx kid starting music lessons, dentist to pay for or whatever ‘living’ expenses.

    Yeah €80 would be a hit to my budget, €350 damn near impossible without stopping payment of the electricity or something. Whereas some people wouldn't really wince at a €1k fine, that's the point, points are what make the difference, remove the license is a better deterrent for the majority of law abiding, nothing will deter the scum who would even view the slammer as a badge of honor


  • Options
    #71
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    You mentioned walking without hi vis is irresponsible. Is it irresponsible to drive a car in similar circumstances with no lights? My car is black, I drive all the time with dips on, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if I was involved in any sort of collision in daylight without my lights on, no one would mention the visibility of my car.

    Oh God no, simple observation something big is more noticeable if it has lights or not, something smaller is less obvious.

    Queue the usual suspects with their pictures of cars crashed into houses etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/man-75-dies-after-being-hit-by-van-in-co-cork-1.4365623

    A pedestrian is dead because someone dropping a child off at football thought nothing of lashing their van around the car park without due consideration for those around them. The sympathy I have for the deceased man's family vastly outweighs that which I have for the "shocked" van driver. His carelessness caused the entire issue.

    https://www.meathchronicle.ie/2020/09/26/gardai-believe-man-may-have-died-in-traffic-collision-while-riding-electric-scooter-on-slane-navan-road/

    Hit and runs are also ten a penny lately. If someone I knew ever confided in me that they were responsible for murdering somebody on the road and fleeing the scene, I would straight away report them no matter who they were to me. Scum.

    https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/576277/limerick-school-shows-its-love-for-pupil-injured-in-road-collision.html

    https://www.thejournal.ie/man-dies-crash-co-mayo-5214360-Sep2020/

    There are more injuries and fatal crashes just from today's news. Two more young people injured by pricks on the road, one now dead.

    Why don't people wake the hell up and drive with consideration for those around them. Then they wouldn't be so shocked because they wouldn't end up killing someone.

    Got as far as that and zoned out. Ten a penny? Away and shíte.

    Lies and exaggerations mean an agenda.


  • Options
    #73
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,811 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    ReginaldSmythV wrote: »
    Got as far as that and zoned out. Ten a penny? Away and shíte.

    Lies and exaggerations mean an agenda.

    Not really, there are so many of them

    https://www.thejournal.ie/hit-and-run/news/

    It's really low life behaviour and happens regularly. If it was anything else not involving a car that led to people leaving someone for dead and legging it, the country would be up in arms.


  • Options
    #74
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    Not really, there are so many of them

    https://www.thejournal.ie/hit-and-run/news/

    It's really low life behaviour and happens regularly. If it was anything else not involving a car that led to people leaving someone for dead and legging it, the country would be up in arms.

    Ten a penny. No, not even on your planet.


  • Options
    #75
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,811 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    ReginaldSmythV wrote: »
    Ten a penny. No, not even on your planet.

    Happens all the time, we won't be waiting long for the next one


  • Options
    #76
    byronbay2
    Registered Users Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭byronbay2


    s1ippy wrote: »
    I just discovered that the man killed was an incredible musician and very good friend of mine who I often played with in the Haven cafe in Cork. I'm absolutely devastated by this news as I had planned to meet him and have a jam just this week, having not seen him since just before the last lockdown. A huge loss to Cork.

    I witnessed the aftermaths of this accident as did a lot of children, teenagers and adults. Very traumatic for everyone there and a horrific thing to happen. My heart goes out to his family who must have been devastated when they heard the details. All I can say to anyone driving a van is get a camera or make certain there is no one behind you when reversing because what I witnessed yesterday you would not want to be responsible for.

    I personally do have sympathy for the driver as he was literally moving at a snails pace but was just not aware there was someone behind him. He was distraught after the accident and what unfolded afterwards will live with him forever. I suspect he knew Pete if not to talk to but to see as they were both regulars in the soccer club. This is what makes it all the more heartbreaking for all concerned.


  • Options
    #77
    RobAMerc
    Registered Users Posts: 5,862 ✭✭✭RobAMerc


    s1ippy wrote: »
    I was just angered that the perpetrator of a crime be painted as somebody to have sympathy for.

    Are you for real ?

    Are you 100% sure you are 100% totally incapable of having an accident or being involved in an accident where someone dies ?

    Even if you walk or cycle you could fall in front of a car or knock someone down and it be completely not your fault.

    This absolute horsesh*t that there is no such thing as an accident is total bollix, there can be and is accidents its probably why the word was invented

    I once was witness to an accident where a girl tripped off a path and fell into the path of an oncoming car. How was this not an accident ? Whos fault was it ?

    This childish belief that we can all be safe if we all take 100% care 100% of the time is nonsense - humans are built that way, we take risks and sh*t happens us. Its crappy but its just the way it is.

    The thoughts that we think we could eradicate people being killed by badgering everyone and blaming those involved in an accident is just moronic imo. grow up.


  • Options
    #78
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,459 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    Yeah so you could still see them. Anyway i can't remember the last time a cyclist was killed at night in Ireland, it's always during the day.

    In 2018, 14 out of 16 cyclists killed were killed in daytime. That doesn't stop the RSA spending €5 million on hi-vis materials, though they have no evidence that this works.
    FintanMcluskey wrote: »
    I think also pedestrians need to take personal responsibility, walking on a country road with no hard shoulder and a lack of high visibility clothing is irresponsible.

    Also, while growing up on a farm, I was thought that the driver of any vehicle must see you at all times, dont walk accross the path of a reversing vehicle under any circumstances. The pedestrian was responsible for their own safety

    I get the impression from comments here the driver has the responsibility for the pedestrians safety
    You are legally required to drive in a manner that allows you stop within the distance you can see to be clear.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Had I knocked them down and killed them both, I wouldn't have accepted any responsibility for their deaths.


    A chap on an electric scooter, on a narrow, bendy 100kph road was an accident waiting to happen. I wouldn't be pointing my finger at the driver just yet.
    You are legally required to drive in a manner that allows you stop within the distance you can see to be clear.
    magicbastarder wrote: »
    i don't think there should be a fine. instead, the vehicle should be confiscated within one week of the FCPN being issued, for the number of days equivalent to the points issued. so in the above scenario, the vehicle is impounded for three days.
    Nice system in theory, difficult to implement in practice.

    The penalty point system is really all we need, if we could be reasonably sure that drivers would actually lose their licence when they hit the 12 points.

    bobbyy gee wrote: »
    when I drive a van and its reversing
    the reverse lights go on and van starts beeping it's warning
    but people still walk behind it and also cars drive past .i have a big blind spot and can't see either people or cars .i would be blamed but it's their fault if you see reverse lights on a car or van dont cross its path with a car you have more hope of seeing someone but less so in a van

    Your blind spot is YOUR problem to fix. You are legally required to ensure your equipment is safe to use. You need to fit extra mirrors, or extra cameras or put a man with a red flag behind you - whatever it takes to make YOUR equipment safe. It IS your responsibility.


  • Options
    #79
    FintanMcluskey
    Registered Users Posts: 8,274 ✭✭✭FintanMcluskey


    RobAMerc wrote: »
    Are you for real ?

    Are you 100% sure you are 100% totally incapable of having an accident or being involved in an accident where someone dies ?

    Even if you walk or cycle you could fall in front of a car or knock someone down and it be completely not your fault.

    This absolute horsesh*t that there is no such thing as an accident is total bollix, there can be and is accidents its probably why the word was invented

    I once was witness to an accident where a girl tripped off a path and fell into the path of an oncoming car. How was this not an accident ? Whos fault was it ?

    This childish belief that we can all be safe if we all take 100% care 100% of the time is nonsense - humans are built that way, we take risks and sh*t happens us. Its crappy but its just the way it is.

    The thoughts that we think we could eradicate people being killed by badgering everyone and blaming those involved in an accident is just moronic imo. grow up.

    Completely agree with the sentiment here.

    Accidents happen unfortunately.

    Unusual thread tbh, feel sorry for the van driver as well as the victim.


  • Options
    #80
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,459 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    FintanMcluskey wrote: »
    Completely agree with the sentiment here.

    Accidents happen unfortunately.
    https://crashnotaccident.com/


  • Options
    #81
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    https://crashnotaccident.com/

    "accident
    noun
    1.
    an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.

    2.
    an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,407 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    KaneToad wrote: »
    I'm tending to agree with the OP. The onus is on the driver when manoeuvring to go ridiculously slowly if they can't see the area they are moving into. The speed has to be sufficiently slow that any collision that does occur isn't enough to knock someone off their feet.

    The lamentations and hand wringing after an 'accident' are of no use to the victim.
    Especially in a car park where there are not just regular pedastrians but also children.


  • Options
    #83
    amadangomor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,148 ✭✭✭amadangomor


    kippy wrote: »
    Especially in a car park where there are not just regular pedastrians but also children.

    Remember losing at the time our 3 year old in an underground car park. Was seriously worried that he would walk out in front of a car. Luckily enough he went back up the escalator to the shop.

    People should drive in these confined spaces like there are three year olds wandering around and could walk out.

    But you get the numpties who think they are in the Circuit of Ireland rally at all times, reversing using their palms on the steering wheel, thinking they are cool when they have feck all control. Reversing really quickly and then accelerating off like a gob****e.

    I'm no shrinking violet when it comes to getting the foot down but in an appropriate place i.e the motorway and when conditions are good.


  • Options
    #84
    FintanMcluskey
    Registered Users Posts: 8,274 ✭✭✭FintanMcluskey


    amadangomor wrote: »
    Remember losing at the time our 3 year old in an underground car park. Was seriously worried that he would walk out in front of a car. Luckily enough he went back up the escalator to the shop.

    People should drive in these confined spaces like there are three year olds wandering around and could walk out.

    Would you consider it accidental that a 3 year old was wondering alone in a car park?

    If a 3 year old can wonder alone accidentally, it shows accidents happen


  • Options
    #85
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,477 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    it's not the actions of the three year old i suspect s/he was worried about.


  • Options
    #86
    FintanMcluskey
    Registered Users Posts: 8,274 ✭✭✭FintanMcluskey


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    it's not the actions of the three year old i suspect s/he was worried about.

    No, but if a 3 year old is wondering among traffic unsupervised I assume its an "accident", as the tragedy the OP is talking about is.


  • Options
    #87
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,459 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    FintanMcluskey wrote: »
    Would you consider it accidental that a 3 year old was wondering alone in a car park?

    If a 3 year old can wonder alone accidentally, it shows accidents happen

    Failing to notice and avoid a grandad or a child in a car park is negligence.


  • Options
    #88
    Stihl waters
    Registered Users Posts: 715 ✭✭✭Stihl waters


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Failing to notice and avoid a grandad or a child in a car park is negligence.

    As is losing or letting one wander off unsupervised


  • Options
    #89
    FintanMcluskey
    Registered Users Posts: 8,274 ✭✭✭FintanMcluskey


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Failing to notice and avoid a grandad or a child in a car park is negligence.

    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


  • Options
    #90
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Failing to notice and avoid a grandad or a child in a car park is negligence.

    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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,459 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    FintanMcluskey wrote: »
    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

    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?


Advertisement