# Sir T-Cups, come on down **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 3, 2012, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066 "2012-07-03T04:47:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/61 "2012-07-03T16:56:09Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Me, I’m going to throw a +1 at **Rick** on this one. For me, the tipping point from sympathy to scorn is the fact that Sir T-Cups was riding on the sidewalk going against the flow of traffic. Nah, for me the tipping point was **Sit T-Cups** ’ refusal to take any responsibility—responsibility for knowing the rules of the road, and responsibility for his role in causing the accident. I’ve done things that are illegal and/or stupid, but if an accident had resulted from my doing so, I’d feel ashamed and apologetic. In other words, what **mhendo** said: > [@mhendo](#): > > I agree with this, and i said in the other thread that i wouldn’t be very surprised if the driver was guilty of failing to pay proper attention to the sidewalk as he exited the property. I’ve seen it happen plenty of times; some drivers are just oblivious to everything but their own needs. > > My main irritation, like **Rick** ’s, is that, even after being informed that he was riding illegally, **Sir T-Cups** refuses to accept _any_ moral or behavioral blame for the accident at all. In the other thread, i asked him whether learning that riding a bike on the sidewalk was illegal had changed his mind about the incident. His response?Some of his mincing, whining defenders have adopted the same attitude. > > From both a moral and a legal standpoint, i believe that blame in this case should be distributed between the driver and the cyclist. The driver should pay better attention to what’s happening when he exits a property, but the cyclist also bears some responsibility to obey the law and, if he’s not going to obey the law, to at least be conscious that people might not expect him to be in a place where it’s illegal for him to ride. All of us who use the road, whether drivers, cyclists, or pedestrians, have a responsibility to be considerate and thoughtful and cautious; that burden does not fall on drivers alone. > > As a pedestrian, i jaywalk all the time. I know it’s illegal, but i do it anyway. I do it in my relatively quiet neighborhood; i do it in cities like New York and San Francisco. But when i do it, i am extra vigilant about where the traffic is, and i make sure that i don’t impede cars that have the right of way. And if i ever get knocked down by a car while jaywalking, i hope i’ll have the principles to admit that it was at least partly my fault. However, I don’t really think this Pit thread is necessary, as everything that needed be said, with the possible exception of one or two "You idiot!"s, could be, and was, said in the original thread. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/62 "2012-07-03T17:03:44Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > This is utterly ludicrous. Please do tell me what ‘contributory negligence’ there is for a pedestrian walking on a sidewalk? A sidewalk is where a pedestrian is supposed to be and they are supposed to be free from vehicles driving on them. Drivers have an obligation to avoid collisions with pedestrians in areas such as parking lot entries. > > However, as you suggested I looked up ‘Contributory negligence’ and found rather pathetic results. A couple of [web pages](http://www.pibriefupdate.com/mags/20070322/article3.php) were devoted to _extremely rare_ cases where the pedestrian was considered _partly_ at fault in a car/pedestrian collision. In all of the cases they found it was _a pedestrian crossing a street or walking along a road and not on a sidewalk or parking lot entrance_. > > Not impressed. You hit a pedestrian while driving on a sidewalk, you are to blame unless they were trying to commit suicide or other extreme examples. OK who wants to be the first to point out this is a huge straw man as STC wasn’t a pedestrian? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/63 "2012-07-03T17:05:39Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > Nice editing job. This is this full of what I wrote: > > That’s the part you snipped, and that is the part that makes your comments irrelevant. > > But hey, if you think dishonest quoting gets you the pwnage, go ahead. It’s the concept of contributory negligence you’re not comprehending. There really isn’t any point in playing hypothetical games with you in this regard. My point was that\*\* T-Cup\*\* could be found to have contributed to his injury by his negligence. That’s more in tune with the topic of the thread than your wild ass assumptions and blatant misstatements are. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/64 "2012-07-03T17:13:29Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > It’s the concept of contributory negligence you’re not comprehending. I’m getting it fine. > [@](#): > > There really isn’t any point in playing hypothetical games with you in this regard. Why? because your dishonest quoting won’t work? > [@](#): > > My point was that\*\* T-Cup\*\* could be found to have contributed to his injury by his negligence. That’s more in tune with the topic of the thread than your wild ass assumptions and blatant misstatements are. My comments were in reply to Mithras’ statements, which were _specifically_ about _pedestrians_ and how he opined that pedestrians had the obligation of safety on the sidewalk. Since T-Cups was not a pedestrian but a cyclist this did not apply to him. ---
**Author:** ![Lionne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Lionne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lionne)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/65 "2012-07-03T17:17:58Z")
The cherry on top of **Sir T-Cup’s** juvenile attitude is this statement: > [@A truck just ran over me and my bike](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-truck-just-ran-over-me-and-my-bike/626927/138): > > You’re clearly not going to stop unless I admit how lucky I am that the nice gentleman who hit me with his truck didn’t insist I call the cops so he can rub it in my face that he not only destroyed my bike but that he gets to see me spend money to buy a new one. All the while knowing just how right he was. The guy was accommodating enough to work it out between the two of them, even to buy him a new bike. Most mature adults wouldn’t see a hidden agenda of nose-rubbing and humiliation in those actions. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/66 "2012-07-03T17:26:04Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > . . . > My comments were in reply to Mithras’ statements, which were _specifically_ about _pedestrians_ and how he opined that pedestrians had the obligation of safety on the sidewalk. Since T-Cups was not a pedestrian but a cyclist this did not apply to him. Tell me more about this _pedestrian obligation of safety_. Are you referring to due diligence by a driver? Or are you seeking to establish that there is a strict liability standard for anyone who crosses a sidewalk with a motor vehicle? Does contributory negligence give rise to a partial defense, or offset, in a case where a pedestrian was injured through some fault of his own in such instances? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/67 "2012-07-03T17:41:07Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Tell me more about this _pedestrian obligation of safety_. Ask MIthras. > [@](#): > > Are you referring to due diligence by a driver? Or are you seeking to establish that there is a strict liability standard for anyone who crosses a sidewalk with a motor vehicle? Pretty much. Why is this a problem? Cars have, or should have, the strictest of safety obligations when they are on roads they belong on. It is even more so when they are crossing sidewalks. > [@](#): > > Does contributory negligence give rise to a partial defense, or offset, in a case where a pedestrian was injured through some fault of his own in such instances? Such as what? Unless the pedestrian\* deliberately dives in front of the vehicle or takes some criminal action (carjacking) I can’t really see any scenario that relieves the driver of any of the safety obligation in that position. I couldn’t find any such cases. Why is this hard to grasp? - I should point out, once again, that a cyclist on the sidewalk is not a pedestrian, no matter how much they consider themselves to be one, and does not benefit from the driver’s obligations. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/68 "2012-07-03T17:47:59Z")
I see you’re arguing opinion not fact. Fair enough, you can have your opinion. ---
**Author:** ![OtisCampbellWasRight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/d78d45/32.png) [@OtisCampbellWasRight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtisCampbellWasRight)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/69 "2012-07-03T18:01:26Z")
Guys, guys, stay on topic. Sir T-cups is the pwecious snowflake here. Am I the only one who noticed that Just a week ago he was pitting Southern women for having the audicity to call him a Yankee/assume he was hittin’ on 'em/dismiss him. And smugly zips outta the pit when things are not going his way? Self-centered over-entitled prick is a self-centered over-entitled prick. Simple as that. And he took that poor old dudes money and has no problem with it. Amazing. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/70 "2012-07-03T18:02:17Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I see you’re arguing opinion not fact. Fair enough, you can have your opinion. I’m sure you can cite the cases and legal statutes that make this ‘opinion’. The only cases that went with your ‘Contributory Negligence’ involved pedestrians on streets and highways - not sidewalks. The Florida code came up first in a vehicle code search, so I’ll just use that > [@](#): > > DRIVER DUTY TO PEDESTRIAN AT VEHICULAR > ROADWAY CONNECTIONS [§316.125] > The driver of a vehicle emerging from an alley, building, > private road or driveway within a business or > residence district shall stop the vehicle immediately > prior to driving onto a sidewalk or any sidewalk area > extending across the alley, building entrance, road > or driveway and to yield to all vehicles and pedestrians > so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. > > For a driver exiting a roadway at such a location, no > duty to yield to pedestrians on a sidewalk area is > specifically stated. However, the driver must “exercise > due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian” > (see below). > > DRIVER DUTY TO EXERCISE CARE TO AVOID > PEDESTRIAN [§316.130(15)] > Notwithstanding other provisions, every driver of a > vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with > any pedestrian or any person propelling a human powered > vehicle. Seems ironclad to me. But hey, just my opinion, right? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/71 "2012-07-03T18:10:15Z")
The standard you have quotes is “ **due care** ” not one of “ **strict liability**.” Your earlier statement that (liability is) “_100% in the court of the driver_” applies a strict liability standard to drivers. You’ve failed to prove that that’s the law. I’m not going to explain the difference between due care and strict liability as it’s really not important to me whether you get it or not. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/72 "2012-07-03T18:11:27Z")
Driving my 20,000 pound armored vehicle down a one way street, crossing another one way street on a green light. Guy on bike zips across the front of my truck going in the wrong direction on that one-way, looking in the wrong direction. Breaking several laws in the process. Very nearly became a water balloon on the front of my truck. Scared the shit out of me, made me very angry and upset (post adrenaline rush). My fault at all? No. My responsiblity if I hit him? Zero. Wouldn’t change the fact that I would have killed a man with my truck and got to watch it in full living color right in front of my face. Driving up a different one way, in the Bus lane that goes counter to normal traffic flow. Business woman steps off the curb in front of me. Guy next to her grabs her by the collar and yanks her off the street. I get to watch her eyes go from anger (at him for yanking her) to terror (as she sees me that close) in a fraction of a second. Again, my responsibility? None at all. But the same net effect if I’d have hit her. Walking myself a couple of months ago, looked toward traffic on a one way, then stepped onto the road. Failed to see the bus coming from the other direction in the bus lane. It honked, I stepped back. My responsibility if it had hit me? 100% Being a pedestrian doesn’t absolve you of any obligation to be aware of your surroundings or automatically make everyone else responsible for your injuries or death. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/73 "2012-07-03T18:19:50Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > The standard you have quotes is “ **due care** ” not one of “ **strict liability**.” Your earlier statement that (liability is) “_100% in the court of the driver_” applies a strict liability standard to drivers. You’ve failed to prove that that’s the law. > > I’m not going to explain the difference between due care and strict liability as it’s really not important to me whether you get it or not. Except that you keep trying to salvage this line of thought and have no examples to cite. Sure. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/74 "2012-07-03T18:24:55Z")
> [@](#): > > Being a pedestrian doesn’t absolve you of any obligation to be aware of your surroundings or automatically make everyone else responsible for your injuries or death. I don’t think anyone said they did. All of your examples involve pedestrians (and a cyclist) in the road, not on the sidewalk. So why are you bringing it up? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/75 "2012-07-03T18:38:23Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > Except that you keep trying to salvage this line of thought and have no examples to cite. Sure. You’re not grasping that there is a difference in the standard of care the law requires in operating a motor vehicle, and what your opinion requires with respect to operating that vehicle. You opinion is that there should be a standard of strict liability applied, yet your cites clearly state the standard is “due care.” The two standards are different. The result of applying the two standards is quite different. If the defendant was operating a nuclear power plant, the court might find a standard of strict liability applied for their negligence. But not for operating a motor vehicle, where the law,\* as you’ve cited\*, clearly applies a standard of “due care.” ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/76 "2012-07-03T18:44:23Z")
Jesus Christ, shut the fuck up, Mr. Miskatonic, you goddamn retard. Start a new thread if you want to blather on about a situation that has _absolutely fuck all to do with the situation in the OP_. Yes, I know, someone said some keyword that you feel gives you license to yammer on about hypotheticals involving pedestrians for twenty posts, but you’re boring the fuck out of everybody. Morgenstern, please stop replying to him. Maybe he’ll go away. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/77 "2012-07-03T18:53:38Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > You’re not grasping that there is a difference in the standard of care the law requires in operating a motor vehicle, and what your opinion requires with respect to operating that vehicle. > > You opinion is that there should be a standard of strict liability applied, yet your cites clearly state the standard is “due care.” The two standards are different. When the difference actually means something to a driver who has hit a pedestrian on the sidewalk who was not suicidal or criminal that might mean something. Otherwise you are game-playing with terminology. If there was a meaningful difference then you should be able to find cases ‘due care’ meant differing results in the court’s results when a vehicle strikes a pedestrian on the sidewalk. (again barring suicidal or criminal pedestrians). You’ve tried to handwave this away as ‘my opinion’ and you’ve tried to use dishonest quoting, and your trying obscure this in legal terms. But it doesn’t change things. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/78 "2012-07-03T18:57:23Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Jesus Christ, shut the fuck up, Mr. Miskatonic, you goddamn retard. You have an ignore file. Feel free to put me in it. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/79 "2012-07-03T18:58:08Z")
**Morgenstern** , anyone with half a brain understands the distinction you’re making. Now, let’s talk about **Sir T-cups**. When is he coming back to admit his error and thank everyone for fighting his ignorance so he can continue to enjoy the ability to ride a bicycle? Ahem, legally and responsibly, I should add. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2012, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066/80 "2012-07-03T19:04:03Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > You have an ignore file. Feel free to put me in it. You have a toilet. Feel free to stick your head in it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sir-t-cups-come-on-down/627066.md?page=5)