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

Man Vs ManUre · 14-02-2021 5:19pm

This chicks brother is an Instagram fella who seems to spend his life on holidays, Dubai, Ibiza, Maldives, Bali. Part of the Sosueme, Wrights bar brigade in Swords. She’s from money is what I’m saying. Sounds like a crazy payout to receive.

Alias G · 14-02-2021 5:23pm

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

This chicks brother is an Instagram fella who seems to spend his life on holidays, Dubai, Ibiza, Maldives, Bali. Part of the Sosueme, Wrights bar brigade in Swords. She’s from money is what I’m saying. Sounds like a crazy payout to receive.

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.

14-02-2021 5:31pm

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.

There are pictures of her walking to/from the court on her own. She seems quite independent.

glenfieldman · 14-02-2021 5:33pm

Alias G wrote: »

No, just you.

Im guessing your a spandex wearing who likes cycling,
You said "In this instance there was an alleged failure to apply the brakes promptly. This would indicate the driver was not paying due care and attention."

You try and drop the anchors at 80km which is the speed limit.
What do you want, us plebs to drive at 20km to avoid the odd moron that has a death wish

Gaoth Laidir · 14-02-2021 5:33pm

Alias G wrote: »

I know the road well myself. I have seen people alight the bus and proceed across the road countless times. It sounds like you should be paying more attention. And it was stated during the trial that people are on the habit of crossing at that very point

Vulnerable road users quiet obviously consist of pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists etc.

Nobody has absolved the pedestrian of culpability. Nor did the judgement in fact.

What I am stating is that motorists are responsible for operating their vehicle with due consideration of their surroundings. Unfortunately I witness a distinct lack of this responsibility in motorists on a daily basis. In this instance there was an alleged failure to apply the brakes promptly. This would indicate the driver was not paying due care and attention.

It is a dual carriage way which intersects the urban area of swords which is the 7th most populous urban area in the state and consequently has large volumes of pedestrians and cyclists utilising and crossing at various points. A failure to anticipate other road users places culpability on the motorist.

You really have a chip on your shoulder with the arrogant attitude you're displaying. I would bet that you're actually a cyclist, one of those who refuses to use the cycle lanes that are there but yet complains no end about drivers. I see that type every day. Yes, I'm observing all around me when I'm driving, a lot more than they are, and obviously a lot more than this woman was when she decided to run across the road. The same due care and attentions doesn't also equally extend to pedestrians, no?

You seem to be set on this thing of a driver being more responsible for hunking around a tonne of metal, yet what if she had caused that car to swerve to avoid her, hit a pole and killed the driver. Would the pedestrian still be absolved, given that she's not in the car?

The fact that you don't seem in any way slightly miffed that this will have an effect on drivers' insurance premia is probably a further indication that you're a cyclist or pedestrian and hence pay no insurance yourself. Or else you drive around with no insurance. One or the other.

glenfieldman · 14-02-2021 5:35pm

Alias G wrote: »

Again, the privilege of driving around in one tonne of metal with the ability to seriously maim or kill comes with responsibilities. At a very minimum that responsibility includes due diligence with regard to driving in a manner that considers the driving environment and presence of other more vunerable road users. Regardless of the right or wrong actions of the other individuals. Being hit by one tonne at 80 km/h is hardly a fair penalty for Jay walking.

Your a f**king idiot
So you think we should foot the bill of €3.2 million for a brainless moron.

glenfieldman · 14-02-2021 5:39pm

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.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/part-time-model-settles-court-action-for-32m-after-being-struck-by-car-on-dual-carriageway-40052486.html

Watch the video, far from a vegetable she is

Alias G · 14-02-2021 5:44pm

glenfieldman wrote: »

Im guessing your a spandex wearing who likes cycling,
You said "In this instance there was an alleged failure to apply the brakes promptly. This would indicate the driver was not paying due care and attention."

You try and drop the anchors at 80km which is the speed limit.
What do you want, us plebs to drive at 20km to avoid the odd moron that has a death wish

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.

Alias G · 14-02-2021 5:49pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

You really have a chip on your shoulder with the arrogant attitude you're displaying. I would bet that you're actually a cyclist, one of those who refuses to use the cycle lanes that are there but yet complains no end about drivers. I see that type every day. Yes, I'm observing all around me when I'm driving, a lot more than they are, and obviously a lot more than this woman was when she decided to run across the road. The same due care and attentions doesn't also equally extend to pedestrians, no?

You seem to be set on this thing of a driver being more responsible for hunking around a tonne of metal, yet what if she had caused that car to swerve to avoid her, hit a pole and killed the driver. Would the pedestrian still be absolved, given that she's not in the car?

The fact that you don't seem in any way slightly miffed that this will have an effect on drivers' insurance premia is probably a further indication that you're a cyclist or pedestrian and hence pay no insurance yourself. Or else you drive around with no insurance. One or the other.

A lot of assumptions there. Mostly well wide of the mark. At no point did I say this woman bears no personal responsibility for what happened.

Unfortunately I pay insurance for lots of things. Including driving. And there are plenty of examples of insurance fraud that do piss me off. I haven't stated categorically whether the 3.2 million is justified or not in this instance because I don't know the full facts. All I have said is that based on what we know from the trial, the motorist does bear some responsibility for the incident. The driver didn't use their brakes FFS.

Gaoth Laidir · 14-02-2021 5:49pm

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.

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.

14-02-2021 5:49pm

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 · 14-02-2021 5:51pm

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 · 14-02-2021 5:51pm

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 · 14-02-2021 5:57pm

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

14-02-2021 5:58pm

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

Alias G · 14-02-2021 5:59pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:01pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:02pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:04pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:06pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:06pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:08pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:08pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:12pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:14pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:15pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:18pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:19pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:23pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:23pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:23pm

Alias G wrote: »

Why do you think people largely ignore the bridge?

Because they are lazy and/or stupid?

Alias G · 14-02-2021 6:24pm

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.

14-02-2021 6:25pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:25pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:25pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:26pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:27pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:27pm

Genuine question here.

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

Alias G · 14-02-2021 6:27pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:28pm

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.

Kermit.de.frog · 14-02-2021 6:30pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:33pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:36pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:37pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:41pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:44pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:48pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:52pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:56pm

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 · 14-02-2021 6:57pm

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.

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

Comments