Done. Now what?
Yes, yes, I’ve heard the whole ‘You’ll be right…dead right’ quip before - it always comes with the stench of victim blaming.
Then I will never again point out to a person any behavior they could modify to make their lives happier or longer. I definitely do not want to be perceived as blaming victims. Knowing that that’s how I’d come off would make me feel much worse than any guilt I’d feel if instead of saying something I just watched someone get run over by a truck.
No need for such melodramatics, merely stop using the idea that what is simply a good idea (paying attention) is an obligation and that failing to do so mitigates a responsibility that is 100% in the court of the driver. Certainly do not use it as a pittable offense because then your are just plain blaming the victim.
Me too.
Ashamed that you are a member here, that is.
Boy do I support the OP’s pitting. I’ve had close encounters with bikes on sidewalks several times lately. Not sure what is the worst. Maybe the person riding on the sidewalk downtown on a one-way street that had a bike lane. I checked for pedestrians, checked my mirrors to see if any bicycles were between me and the parked cars to my left, then started to turn left into a parking lot. Out of nowhere a bicyclist zooms down the sidewalk right across the entrance. I just avoided hitting her and was lucky that I wasn’t rear ended when I braked.
Then there was the guy riding downhill at full tilt on the sidewalk. Maybe going 30 MPH or so. There was a wide, empty street to ride on, but no he had to use the sidewalk. As I ease out he suddenly cuts right across the intersection; not where vehicles would, but on the crosswalk.
The best though, was the guy riding downtown on the sidewalk against the flow of traffic on a one way street (again, on a street with a bike lane) that blew through a Don’t Walk signal and was narrowly missed by several cars.
Drivers just don’t expect to see fast moving vehicles on sidewalks. It’s dickish behavior that endangers yourself and pedestrians, and leads to backlash against responsible cyclists.
Go back and read post #30.
I’m not pitting him for being a victim.
I’m pitting him for being a self entitled jerk.
That’s your opinion (100% in the court of the driver). I don’t believe it’s supported by law or by reason. T-Cup doesn’t have clean hands in this matter. It’s only logical that he be assigned a percentage of the fault.
Yes a million times! I am also a cyclist, ride to and from work most days of the week, follow the rules, and get shit on because of assholes that don’t follow the rules. It’s awesome to ride on the road, like you’re supposed to, in fear of getting hit by the side mirror of a car that passes too close because the driver has had one too many run in’s with idiot cyclists and is taking it out on everyone.
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.
The only way it isn’t is if the person on sidewalk is doing something illegal, such as riding a bicycle - which makes them no longer a pedestrian.
Otherwise, yes, drivers are responsible for what they do with their cars when they are on sidewalks. Feel free to quote cases where this isn’t so by all means
T-Cups ‘dirty hands’ are solely from riding a bike on the sidewalk. We weren’t discussing that at this point. The comments were that even pedestrians had a legal obligation (thus diminishing the driver’s responsibilities) to pay attention to drivers acting carelessly.
Barring my first post, I wasn’t really talking to you, but others who had commented in the thread.
Just ask the paramedics to lie and say you were killed, then take the insurance money and buy a bike at Target (BTW, did anyone in the original thread point out the irony of where he wants to buy his new bike)?
Oh good. Every Pit thread needs at least one drama queen to blubber and wring their hands about how mean it all is. You get two extra gold stars for (a) gently explaining to the subject of the OP that the Pit is full of terrible, terrible people he would do well to stay away from and (b) giving charmingly insincere (not to mention grossly unqualified) advice to the OP regarding the best way to handle his mental and social issues. Kudos.
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. That is completely fucking retarded. Most drivers turning right are going to check once for pedestrians and then watch left for an opening, not expecting any vehicles to be driving the wrong way up the street at them. Don’t ride your bike like a jackhole and then expect sympathy when the predictable happens.
**Mr. Miskatonic **…
Perhaps you need to look into a concept called Contributory Negligence. IANAL but it seems you’re attempting to assign strict liability to a driver who gets into an accident with a pedestrian, without regard to contributory negligence on the part of the victim. Since you’re the one making the claim, the duty falls on you to support your claim. Then I’ll respond.
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 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.
Well put, Rick.
The culpability of the driver does not erase the culpability of the cyclist. Doesn’t matter whether it be a child or not. If the person who gets hit is breaking laws that are in place to prevent accidents of this type, common sense dictates that they are, at least in part, responsible for the accident. So, to answer your question, if the old man had hit a kid instead of Sir T-cups and the kid, unlike Sir T-cups, was not illegally operating a vehicle, the kid would not share culpability for the accident. Make sense? See how your hypothetical doesn’t really apply to the event that inspired this pitting?
You SHOULD know “bike law” seeing as how “bike law” is contained in the vehicular code that your driver’s license requires your knowledge and compliance. It’s like saying, “I don’t drive a semi, so I don’t know tractor-trailer law.” There isn’t a separate code for tractor-trailers, or bikes, for that matter. The point is, as a licensed driver you should be aware of the laws that apply in your jurisdiction to ALL vehicles with which you share the road (and the code), and will most assuredly interact with. There is a reason “bike law” is codified in the vehicular code: every vehicle operator needs to know it to assure safety for all. I suggest, now that you know where to find “bike law,” that you better familiarize yourself your jurisdiction’s vehicular code.
This is not a moral dilemma. Nobody is suggesting that drivers intentionally run over pedestrians or cyclists who are in violation of the law. However, it certainly doesn’t seem to be the case here that inattentive truck driver intentionally ran over an illegally operated vehicle and its operator aka Sir T-cups. But let’s say that your morality argument applies equally to pedestrians and cyclists, who have not only a legal obligation but a moral obligation as well, to not make themselves hazards to safe vehicular operation by law-abiding drivers who – I know I’m going out on a limb here – do not want to mow them down. I think we call agree that pretty much wrecks everyone’s day.
That’s all well and good, but doesn’t mean that people who would take on financial responsibility for only their culpability are immoral, whereas you are above reproach. Can we assume you would do the same in any accident that involved another party getting hurt as a direct result of your operation of a vehicle regardless of the other party’s noncompliance with the law? Guy on a bike (or in a car or even walking across the street) runs a red light and you, with a green light and not expecting cross-traffic, plow into him killing him instantly. You saw him at the last second, but couldn’t avoid the accident. You pay? Does it make a difference if you were also exceeding the speed limit? I know the legal answer, but I want to know your *moral *answer.
Absolutely agree with this. But hitting a cyclist (or pedestrian) who comes out of an unexpected place does not absolve the cyclist (or pedestrian) of the same duty and their culpability in the accident that they may have directly avoided by a) complying with the law and b) watching out for potentially dangerous interactions with other vehicles. It’s a two-way street (pardon the pun). Both drivers and cyclists and pedestrians are equally responsible for behaving in a lawful and responsible manner. The failings of one party does not absolve the other party of their own duty.
How is this relevant? Do you not see the difference between a stationary car and a moving-at-speed cyclist?
Without saying that the driver of the truck *did *look well enough (who knows), can you not see how it’s possible to look in the direction that Sir T-cups was coming from (the right) and see no obstacles, then look towards expected flow of traffic (the left), assuring no obstacles, and then look forward to pull out, unaware that there is now a cyclist who has ridden into your blind spot just in front of the right corner of your bumper? Can you understand how someone perhaps informed of the law requiring cyclists to be coming from the left in the road with traffic would not expect there would be a cyclist in front of his headlight after seeing nothing directly in front of him only a second ago?
Not necessarily. It only indicates that he didn’t see Sir T-cups (if you will stipulate that he didn’t intentionally run him down). And that is just as much Sir T-cups fault, possibly more so, than the truck driver’s fault.
Okay, so you are stipulating it wasn’t intentional. That’s good because the vehicle code that applies to both the driver and Sir T-cups, doesn’t cover that, the criminal code does. Nevertheless, accidents happen, but that doesn’t always mean that someone isn’t at fault. When it’s obvious there is noncompliance with the law associated with the accident, it makes it much easier to determine fault.
If only. The thing is that this message board is for fighting ignorance, right? When it became obvious that Sir T-cups was ignorant of the law that applies to him, the very law that is put in place to avoid the type of accident to which his actions contributed, Dopers stepped up to eliminate his ignorance. Exceedingly well, it should be noted and what was Sir T-cups response? To go on the defensive, to attack the characters of those who called him on his behavior, then to brush away the law as inconsequential. It seems plain that Sir T-cups hasn’t learned a lesson here. Let’s review, shall we?
That seems to be the crux of the problem here and why this rightfully ended up in the pit.
WTF? They let these guys drive in Florida? They must also be the ones responsible for hanging chads! 
Uhmmmm. Do you see what you did there?
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.
No one’s going to argue that drivers shouldn’t be careful, and watch out for and make every effort not to hit cyclists and pedestrians, even those who are behaving illegally and/or unsafely.
But from the point of view of the cyclist or pedestrian, this is yet another reason to be careful, aside from protecting your own self: if you do something stupid and a driver hits you, they’re going to feel terrible about it, even if it isn’t their fault—even if they couldn’t have avoided hitting you.