For instance, someone who was so super important that they would risk injuring people to save a few minutes.
Not letting assholes inconvenience you is not the same as thinking the world revolves around you
“Not letting assholes inconvenience you” is a rather craven euphemism for “deliberately and wantonly putting assholes at risk of serious harm because they dared to inconvenience you”.
Yes, that level of selfish and callous attitude can be reasonably described as “thinking the world revolves around you”.
Other people acting like assholes by blocking the road you wanted to take entitles you to rant about them on a messageboard and maybe yell at them as you turn around and find an alternate route. It does not entitle you to deliberately risk knocking them down or running them over with your car.
Comic Con used to have a Zombie walk where the attendees would cosplay zombies. Fair enough, until a zombie walk involving a load of people zombie walking through busy streets, creating a major traffic problems.
City fixed it, no more zombie walks.
And, this happened… Deaf ZombieWalk Driver Found Guilty In Comic-Con 2014 Accident – Deadline
Inching through a crowd is not wantonly putting anyone at risk of serious harm. It’s clear that those present did not see this serious risk of harm since several of them ran in front of the car and some even decided to jump on it.
Nonsense. All it takes is one person losing their balance and falling in front of the car for you to end up running over some part of them. Depending on which part it happens to be, the harm could indeed be very serious.
Also, “inching through a crowd” is obviously not the same thing as “not letting” the crowd “inconvenience you”, because inching along a street is extremely inconvenient for a driver. The least inconvenient thing for a driver to do in such a situation would be just to leave the scene and find an unblocked alternate route.
What you’re advocating is not avoidance of inconvenience, but simply responding to obstructive assholes by being a dangerous asshole, in a childish act of aggression one-upmanship.
So first you denounce “those present” as irresponsible assholes for blocking the road in the first place, and then you take refuge behind those irresponsible assholes to vindicate the driver’s choice to deliberately put them in harm’s way.
Because of course if irresponsible assholes don’t seem aware of a danger, then it must not really be dangerous at all! Everybody knows that the behavior of irresponsible assholes is a reliable safety indicator. :rolleyes:
This strikes me as a post from a universe as depicted in those silly infomercials. Where carrying a bowl of snacks and a glass of juice to the couch is a spill inducing ordeal, breaking pasta sends it flying everywhere, and getting brownies out of a tray is nigh on impossible. In short, it would take a ludicrously improbable series of events for a car inching forward to run over someone that fell in front of it. It’s simply not a dangerous thing to do.
I don’t believe I used the word irresponsible. Assholes? Yes. Snowflakes? Yes. Irresponsible? No. These are self righteous narcissists who think the world revolves around them. They aren’t the types to actually put themselves in danger and risk being harmed. They are far too important.
Your analogy is absurd. There is nothing remotely improbable about a car “inching” through a crowd pushing somebody down, or about the car wheels then going over part of that person.
:rolleyes: And yet they were out there in a crowd in the middle of the fucking road where, as we have repeatedly seen, plenty of tantrum-throwing entitled asshole drivers are perfectly willing to plow into protesters. Even if this particular driver didn’t actually end up harming these particular protesters, it’s beyond absurd to use protesters who voluntarily stand in the road as an example of people who by nature are unwilling to risk being harmed.
Drivers are legally required to exercise due care to avoid pedestrians, even when the pedestrians are violating traffic laws and causing obstructions. A driver who voluntarily tries to push his car through a crowd of pedestrians, even at a slow speed, is not exercising due care to avoid pedestrians. On the contrary, he is being a malicious entitled asshole trying to escalate the obstruction-and-annoyance game, potentially to dangerous levels.
Watched the video. Meh. Guy should get community service. The idea that he could’ve killed somebody is absurd. The assertion that he did something dangerous is silly. He went less than 1 mph for about 30 ft. People dodged him by shuffling backward, not even walking backward.
Watch the video. Dude was craaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwling through that intersection.
Here, I found another vantage point that shows the whole incident better.
On my way home, I pass a high school. On some friday nights, there is a football game, and trying to get past the school is a pain, as there are people crossing the street to get tot he school, even after the light has changed. I have sat for several light changes waiting for these people to all go by.
It would be very unlikely for me to harm or kill anyone if I just started shoving them out of my way with my car, does that mean I should do it?
Or is it only okay if they are protesting something you don’t like or don’t care about, but if they are simply selfish people trying to get to a football game, you shouldn’t?
As a person who does not drive and gets around on a bicycle most of the time, I talk a lot about “driver privilege”. The most obnoxious part of the phenomenon is that someone in your way is not just annoying, but a horrible person who deserves every curse you can possibly throw at them. Something about driving makes people alter their perceptions of the world. Someone in my way at a grocery store is a mild annoyance, and politeness dictates that I wait for them unless they are being obnoxious about hogging the pizza section for ten minutes. And even then, you say, “excuse me, I just need to grab this.” Someone forces you to not even stop, but slow down 5 mph, is cause for “You MFer! You son of a bitch! I hope you die!”
Your example is different because those people aren’t intentionally blocking an intersection to force you to pay attention to them.
2 things there. So first, you did admit that it is because it is a protest that you disagree with that it is okay to hit them with your car. And second, the protestors were not intentionally blocking the intersection to force you to pay attention to them, they were crossing the street.
ETA: I have participated in a few marches about drug legalization in the past. And they have the whole march stay together, and have police block the intersections. The marchers do not follow traffic laws, they follow the direction of the officers.
If there were officers waving the march through, and holding the cars back, (as there should have been, if not the PD is not on the ball), would you still say the driver was in the right?
It looked like they were walking across all four crosswalks of the intersection, in a circle.
Is that what they were doing? I haven’t see a different view of it, but it looked like they were crossing from one side to the catty-corner side, and so crossing two streets. The video doesn’t have a panoramic though, so it is hard to tell, as the other 2 streets are never shown in that video prior to the crowd being dispersed into the middle of the intersection by the disturbance of the vehicle.
Is there a better view, or an article that says what they were doing?
Wait so this isn’t about the “Aaaand it’s a Muslim” guy today in NYC?
No. No he didn’t, you bizarre nincompoop.
LOL classic
That is exactly what he said, you illiterate moron.
He says that it is different because they are forcing them to pay attention to them, as opposed to in my example of a football game, they are just selfish assholes who don’t care that people have to wait through several lights so that they can cross. The only difference between my example and the protest is that they want you to notice them, and the football fans are just self centered.
Now, if a self centered football fan is fine to block the intersection, but a protester is not, then what does that mean? That means that the protest is what is unacceptable, not the blocking of the intersection.
No, it doesn’t. It’s a ridiculous twisting of my words in some bizarre attempt to “prove” my hypocracy.