You started a series of arguments. Shame on you. Lol

Yes, but that's irrelevant, she was fount to be faultless

That's rediculous. I can't see any scenario where that isn't the driver's fault. A driver is responsible for making sure that every move they make is safe.

He literally hid from her. You can't put yourself under a cars tires and blame the driver for not knowing you were there.

I'm curious, what would be your finding if the pedestrian had been having a heart attack. This was my first thought and if the title didn't say it was a prank I honestly wouldn't have known it was a prank, he looked like he had a heart attack and fell to his knees and then on to the ground at first.
In that scenario, is the man having a heart attack at fault for choosing a ****** place to have a heart attack?
Drivers are responsible for the things their vehicles come in contact with, at least that's how it works in Massachusetts. Pedestrians have right of way at a cross walk, and so drivers need to be paying attention to the pedestrians when crossing, not their mirrors. If a vehicle approaching from their rear doesn't see them stopped, there is literally nothing that a stopped vehicle can do to get out of the way in time, especially in front of an active cross walk.
Given if a person jumps in front of you, it's a case of not having enough time to stop. But this driver made no effort to stop, and ignorance of surroundings is not an excuse. If on a 3 lane highway, a truck merges into another car not knowing it was there because they were traveling in a blind zone, it's either the merging trucks fault or shared fault, but never the fault of the car because it had right of way. That's how it works in my state anyway.
Because this man wasn't having a heart attack, I would say it was shared fault. He shouldn't have put himself purposefully in harms way, but the driver is responsible for proceeding forward without knowing what was ahead, which they would have been aware of had they been paying attention to the parties that had the right of way, meaning the crossing pedestrians

Normally it would be chalked up to an accident. It's unreasonable to know where every single pedestrian is on a crosswalk and know that none of them are hiding under you car, it's expected of you to simply know that you don't accelerate if you can see something in front of you.

The only issue I have is the guy wasn't hiding under the wheel, he's very clearly on the crosswalk, and here at least we have regulations for how far back you need to stop. For example, you need to be far enough behind the vehicle in front of you so that you can see their tires. And at a crosswalk you need to be able to see the crosswalk. Maybe the light changed quickly, which happens, and they stopped late, but then they need to be extra vigilant of their surroundings because their vehicle is in the pedestrian zone. I'm not saying the guy is faultless, he purposefully put himself in harms way, but the driver is also a contributing force to the accident, making it a shared fault situation

The regulations where I live don't say you need to be able to see the crosswalk itself. It's considered wise but you don't have to.

Then it's probably just a difference of areas, and rules differ everywhere and while it would be a shared fault accident in my state, that doesn't mean it would be everwhere.
But really the guys just a tool for doing that on purpose and expecting it to be so fahnny

Doesn't look like he was "hiding"... looks like he tripped or something. Doesn't matter anyways. It should always the driver's responsibility to know what's in front of them. In my province if you hit a pedestrian it's your fault no questions asked. But I guess wherever that driver's from must have the same laws as where bruce jenner murdered that woman

"looks like he tripped or something"

You are so ******* stupid it hurts

>Clearly very carefully laying down
>Lol looks like he tripped

Dude, he bent down slowly and put his hand in front of him. In no world is that tripping over.

In anywhere that's not ******** backwards, a person hiding under your wheels is at fault for getting run over.

I really really hope you don't have a driver's license.

Ah yes.

Hundreds of people and the legal system disagree with you here

But clearly, I am the poor driver.

Maybe the lhe legal system in whatever country this was from determined she was faultless, but in most civilized societies drivers are responsible when they run people over.

You're responsible for running someone over when it's your fault. It clearly wasn't her fault, given he hid from her, so she's not responsible. Hence her lack of punishment.

She should have been paying attention. How is it not her fault? Drivers should always be prepared for scenarios like this. Any time there are pedestrians moving around your vehicle you should be paying attention. That's like drivers ed 101. He got run over because the driver wasn't doing their job and watching the road like they should have. End of story.

The man deliberately laid down in front of her car, probably BECAUSE he saw that she was looking at something else. She's at a red light, she has no obligation to be looking forwards or watching for pedestrians. It's possible she was looking to her right, toward the END of the wave of pedestrians. Either way, he was at fault for purposefully lying down in front of her car, in such a manner that she couldn't see him when she had no reason to think he'd be there. If I was walking across a crosswalk in front of you, and dropped a landmine that you ran over, causing your car to explode, would it be your fault because you weren't paying attention?

There's more to driving than the 50 degrees field of view in front of you

She could legally have been looking at the lights, or mirrors, or in her car, or checking her watch, literally dozens of things that exempt her from fault. He bent down in a moving crowd, waited to get hit.

You do not get to ruin someones life by throwing yourself under their tires. That's completely retarded.

Unless you are 100% certain the path ahead is clear, you shouldn't be going ahead. I don't know why you are so fiercely defending this negligent driver but I've said all there is so be said, so goodbye.

Ah yes

It's well known that people are legally required to get out of the car and make sure no one is hiding under their wheels every time they stop moving

That is a thing everywhere

but if she was paying attention like she is required by law to be doing, she would have seen him.

Paying attention to just what's in front of you is literally illegal most places. You've gotta check your mirrors and **** too, which is significantly more important when you're stopped because since you're not moving forward the biggest threat is an idiot not stopping behind you.

yeah good luck with this defense if you aren't a woman.

also what are you going to do about someone behind you hitting your car? lol run a red light?

That, or pull up on to the curb besides you, or honk your horn. Evasive maneuvers are very legal for the simple reason that you shouldn't be expected to just let yourself die.

And mate, you're simply wrong. I don't know anywhere that the driver would be put at fault because the pedestrian put himself in harms way and she has dozens of reasons to be looking elsewhere before he put himself in a blind spot.

Put simply, if you think you're meant to be staring stonily ahead at all times, you're a **** driver.

I am pretty sure you have to watch what is in front of you when driving and just because someone is acting like an ass doesn't give you the right to run them over. I am pretty sure this some judge letting her go because she is a woman. I am looking around and I can't find anything anywhere that says you can do that.

Or maybe he let her go because she wasn't at fault. Crazy, I know, but it's been known to happen.

yeah the video is pretty clear, she was at fault.

unless you can show me the law t hat says this is ok because so far what I am finding is it isn't ok.

Laws don't work on what's okay, they work on what's not. The relevant clause here is in the definition of vehicular manslaughter, given in layman terms to be "A crime that generally involves the death of an individual other than the driver as a result of either criminally negligent or murderous operation of a vehicle."

The driver was unambiguously not murderous. Which leaves criminally negligent. She has the perfectly reasonable case of having other things to pay attention to when he dropped down, as I said in >>#204 if you think you're meant to look stonily ahead at all times you're a **** driver.

The law on this is simple. If a car hits you off the road, the driver is at fault. If you put yourself in the way of the car, whether by accident or for insurance fraud or as a suicide attempt, it's only the drivers fault if they had every chance to avoid you. This driver did not. The guy hid from her in a moving crowd and was then impossible to see. Not her fault, end of story.

pretty sure that you can't hit people even if they are walking in the road, especially if you should have been able to see them. basically what you are saying is if he honestly fell over he is at fault, I am saying they both are.

"The law on this is simple. If a car hits you off the road, the driver is at fault. If you put yourself in the way of the car, whether by accident or for insurance fraud or as a suicide attempt, it's only the drivers fault if they had every chance to avoid you. This driver did not. The guy hid from her in a moving crowd and was then impossible to see. Not her fault, end of story."
-Me, mere minutes ago

and I am saying you are wrong because I have no reason to believe you are right.

This has the same status as someone jumping in front of your car while you're doing 60. As I and others have explained several times, there's many things she could have been doing that would excuse her from not seeing the guy bend down, including basic human psychology. After that point, there's no reason to expect her to see the guy hidden in her blind spot, so there's no reason to blame her.

lol I shouldn't even have to explain why you are full **** ..... you just did it for me

Sounds suspiciously like not having anything of worth to contribute. Not that you have thus far.

it's nothing like jumping in front of a car going 60. you are stupid.

ok... the person I responded to said this is just like someone jumping out in front of you driving 60mph. If you can't see how that isn't the same you are an idiot.

you she someone on the ground and you just run them over anyway, and you are FAULTLESS?! lmao

Yes, because he unreasonably put himself in danger

and not because it's a woman? I am pretty sure if someone lays on the ground you can't just run them over, if someone jumps out in front of you and you can't stop, sure. I am sensing some serious white knighting going down.

yeah but if I saw someone fall down in front me I wouldn't assume they just disappeared.

She didnt see him

Its the same as someone running out into the street

not white-Knighting: Lawyering

this is why people think lawyers have no soul

that's not even close to what I am saying. If she was watching like she was supposed to be she would have SEEN HIM FALL.

Her life should be ruined because her inattention caused serious injury, yes
I will not believe she was faultless
She could have killed someone

Yes her inattention
He didn't crawl in from the side, he was infront of her when he "fell"
If she were paying attention she'd have seen him

So I hold her responsible

Actually, yes, she would've been at fault if someone walked in front just as she accelerated, since that's a ******* zebra crossing.

yes
absolutely
pay the **** attention to what's infront of you when you're piloting 2 tons of steel ********

doesnt matter if she couldnt see THE GROUNF
she couldve seen the guy who FELL on the ground if she were paying the **** attention, like she shouldve been

piss piss moan moan try to impress someone else

piss piss moan moan Im not impressed sweetheart try someone else

Well if you feel like it's working then you have at it babycakes

Whatever helps you stroke yourself sweetheart

Ehhhh I don't think you've ever driven. There are plenty of reasons why she could not have seen him. She may have thought that he had gotten up already if she did see him fall, or not have been looking directly in front of her at that time. He shouldn't have laid down obviously.

So many people that just don't understand driving on this site lately.

SHE THOUGHT HE GOT UP?!?!! lol

I've driven
I don't because I don't trust myself to control a vehicle to such a fine degree as to never put anyone in danger, but I've done it

The only reason she could not have seen him is she wasn't paying attention
Any other reason would suggest a factor that would make her unsuited to drive in the first place

Yes he shouldnt have laid down
But she should have been looking
She is by far and away not faultless, and is verymuch respoinsible

piss piss moan moan try to impress someone else

piss piss moan moan it absolutely looks like youre trying to impress yes
You could not pay me to give a **** about your outrage

Oh damn we've upgraded to bigot now

Aight aight
Get a little more flustered and I might be impressed

This is me giving a ****
Sorry looks like you lucked out

Actually yes they are verymuch similar things

To impress, as to create an impression, as to force the person who you are trying to impress to take note of you and find your behaviour relevant to their concerns or interests

Like you keep trying to do with the constant barrage of really anemic "berating"

You've got no bite, and the more you bark about how youre totally not barking, the smaller and smaller your teeth get still

Well you seem to think Im going to be intimidated by all the name calling and the appeal to public opinion
As if somehow, your degree of outrage and upset is going to be of concern to me, that Im going to find myself giving a rat's ass that you're angry

pissing and moaning like you matter at all
try to impress someone else

cute

I've driven a car
and yes I am aware of all of those things, hence why I refuse to drive seeing as I know I couldnt keep up with the demands for my attention

becuase you see I don't view my convenience and ease of transport as more important than the harm and death I could potentially cause by a lapse in focus or attention

And I certainly wouldn't excuse anyone else for the same

Answer me this:
Why does this woman in the content get the green light to be fully excused for the serious injury her lack of attention directly caused, but FJ will froth at the mouth to declare bruce jenner a disgusting and vile murderer most foul, for what was effectively the same crime

What because the ******* who laid on the ground survived?
Are we excusing her because the victim was not himself innocent?
Is that where we're at? Only one party involved can face guilt?

and yes I brought them up
It's essentially the same crime, hitting someone with a car due to not paying attention

Im saying if you drive and hurt someone, you should be held responsible, every time

I would LIKE to say nobody should drive but that's too close to controlling censorship, so I can settle for, ok, drive, but never be excused for hurting someone

Nah m8, I still have to disagree. When sitting at a red light, I check my mirrors, make sure no one around me is dangerously close, or I switch my songs. Looking away for moment is ok, because you shouldn't expect someone to lay down in front of you. I get that you're too much of a pussy to drive, and that's fine, but don't make comments on things you clearly don't understand.

Then I don't trust you enough to walk infront of you
You're piloting something that can kill, and you should be making sure that you're going to avoid doing that

The direction it goes is forward
so look the **** forward

Technically everyone is always piloting something that can kill cause all you are is a brain and nervous system. your body is one giant meat pocket you pilot that you can kill someone with.

yeahbut its not as immediately deadly as a car
not by a long ways

far as I know noone needs a body license

well i haven't seen a car pick up a gun and shoot a school up or blow up any towers.

meat pocket? lol

Again, you don't drive, so shut the **** up. You're comments show that you clearly don't understand the way driving actually works. You are supposed to focus on your surroundings, and make sure no one is doing anything dangerous. There are plenty of valid reasons to not look forward, especially at a red light. Especially when you're watching a bunch of pedestrians finish crossing with no indication that someone HAS LAID DOWN FOR NO REASON. She is not at fault.

make me
As far as Im concerned you're a murderer waiting to happen

Try not to kill anyone in your bloodlust you ******* maniac

Do me a favor at least? Go lay down in a street. Since you're too much of a pathetic pussy to drive, next time you're out for a walk, lay down and just let a car run you over. Sure, you can ignore the fact that personal responsibility exists and blame the driver, but at least your stupid argument won't be heard.

I gotta say, being able to block and hide all on trolls like you is a blessing on this site. You should talk to improbablyyourdad, he's about as retarded as you when it comes to driving and responsibility. But hey, if you can blame others for your own idiocy, why bother being a productive member of society? Have a good life retard.

Ohh

You're a troll. Hahaahha got me. **** I keep falling for bait like this lately.

Keep telling yourself that, murderer-in-waiting
No skin off my nose if you want to resort to "LEL TRALL" to lie to yourself

It's not, you're right
The man was at fault for laying down, regardless of the reason

But the driver is by NO means faultless, not even a little bit
Pay attention to what's infront of you when piloting multiple tons of steel
If you dont think you can do that, if you can't keep close enough attention when youre behind a deadly weapon, don't ******* drive one

I can expect them to see it by paying attention to what's infront of them
he wasnt invisible, and he didnt crawl in from the side
He was plainly visible
pay attention

The driver deserves to be punished because their actions directly resulted in injury to someone, who should also be held responsible for being a ******* idiot
But we can imagine if the person on the ground were innocent, so therefore the driver has done something wrong

the fact that THE LAW sees no wrong in it is why I started the tyraid by saying this is why people think lawyers have no soul
I recopgnize that the law sees the driver as innocent, and I call ******* ******** on that, it's not ok

Its never ok to hurt someone, least of all with a 2ton box of steel on wheels

Why, because a man who put himself in the blind spot of a vehicle got run over because the driver couldn't see them?

he was right infront of the car
unless the front is somehow a blindspot now I call ********

Yes the front is a ******* blindspot. You can't see through your own engine block you retard.

You mean the front where the vehicle goes
You mean a driver cannot see directly infront of them in the direction they want to move the vehicle

And you call ME the retard

You can't see the ground in front of you when you're driving a car, the hood blocks your view. You say that you've driven before but that's obviously a lie, or if you have it's been several years ago.

here I made a very crude illustration of this exact ******* problem since words don't seem to get through to you.

So what about when he was standing up then

Does the driver not have object permanence
Is the driver a baby

Was probably watching
A) The light, to see if it was still red
B) surrounding car traffic to make sure she isn't in danger
C) To her right to see how many more pedestrians were coming

All of these are safe driving habits. Looking directly in front of you while you aren't moving first of all isn't needed, but is also not a safe driving habit because it means you aren't looking at any of the other 3 things I just mentioned.

In fact if you were using safe driving habits you WOULDN'T have seen it happen unless you noticed it in your periphrial vision.

Which you should have if you were fit to propel 2 tons of deadly steel and rubber and flammable liquids

snuck
yes he was so sneaky

Should have? Maybe. I might have noticed it but then again I'm hypervigilant, especially when at the wheel. Even if I did see it in the corner of my eye, I would have tried to pick up other cues. Everybody kept walking like nothing had happened, and nobody was groaning in pain like they would have if they fell. I would have thought I just saw something and kept going anyways. There wouldn't be any way for me to actually check to see if anybody was under there and 99.999999 percent of the time nobody's going to be there, so it would be considered reasonable to keep going and assume nothing happened.

And even if she should have noticed it, she shouldn't be held accountable for not. Sure, you SHOULD lock your doors, but if you don't that doesn't make you at fault for somebody robbing you.

She absolutely should be held accountable
her actions and lack of attention directly resulted in personal injury, possibly to a grave degree

"I didn't see you there" hasn't been an excuse for murder so the fact that the idiot survived shouldn't change whos at fault and why

If you dont lock your door you ARE somewhat at fault for getting robbed, but the comparison isn't relevant
There is no similarity in the situations
Just like there's no similarity between someone laying on train tracks or someone jumping infront of a moving car

Im quite bored of these superficial comparisons as if to make some point that isn't there

It's not lack of attention. Nobody in their right mind is going to think "golly gee, I better get out of the car for no reason to check to see if anybody is lying right under the car" every time they're at a red light. Your views are moronic and unrealistic, and show that you have no experience with driving whatsoever.

I'm probably the posterchild for following the rules of the road. I use my blinker even if there's not a single person on the road, I never even go the speed limit (I go 3mph under so I don't have to apply brake if I go down a hill), and follow all other asinine rules and regulations of the road to a T, to the point where it was an influencing decision in me getting diagnosed with anxiety, and even I think that what you're saying is expecting too much.

It absolutely is lack of attention

Shouldve seen it
Imagine if the jackass was innocent and fell over for a legit reason
imagine if he fell just a little to the left and instead of just being rolled over with some broken bones his skull was smushed to purée

Doubt youd find as many people frothing at the mouth to defend the driver then

On a practical level, there is literally no difference here, only the abstract, that being the intent and behaviour of the jackass who lay in the road

She shouldve seen it and not driven over a human being

Oppose them all you want, you're wrong, morally, legally, and in any way I can imagine. I'm done arguing with you as you refuse to listen to any form of logic whatsoever.

Seeing as I oppose them, and you, you telling me that means jack diddly
You tell me Im wrong, but it's completely meaningless to me to hear someone whos wrong tell me Im wrong

Well everybody, including a court of law, feels otherwise.

And I oppose them

It isn't inattentive. Seriously, drive a car before you start talking **** .

Ive done that
yes it is

No it would be neither at fault if that were the case.

Nah
no ****** way

That would be someone dead at the hands of someone else, in a large machine, being inattentive

"noone responsible" my hairy asshole

you know you need a different license to drive a bus?
Right
So not the greatest comparison to excuse someone driving what amounts to a deadly weapon in the hands of an idiot

I don't give a rat's ass what the thumbs say
You couldn't pay me to care what other people on FJ think and vote

Bottom line
If you're in a car and you hurt someone, you should be held responsible for it, no matter what
If you cannot avoid hurting people, don't ******* drive

You are so ******* stupid it hurts.

I'm just going to assume you're trolling, since nobody is that ******* edgy

piss piss moan moan try to impress someone else

She hurt someone
She shouldve been held responsible for hurting someone

No discussion
Fact that she wasn't is wrong

Good thing thats not a relevant example then

he too should be held responsible
they are both guilty

so that undoes your little 'gotcha' moment

>>#172
Sorry, dropping down here because too many purple lines to reply.

I think you're confused. I'm not the guy who you dropped the "bottom line" on so I'm not shifting goalposts, I'm challenging your "bottom line" which I think is utter ******** . My issue isn't with the statement that the driver in the post ****** up, I agree with that to an extent, my issue is with the statement you made in regards to general responsibility.

which I made because I lost patience with the shifting posts
if not you then not you but thats still why
I dont have a lot of patience for ANYONE trying to get all "yeahbut ok but imagine THIS totally DIFFERENt situation now" like

No Im not going to imagine that different situation
Im talking about this one

Holy **** , you're completely retarded. The driver acted well within the realm of acting safe. The guy literally hid from her, what the **** is she supposed to do, get out of the car every time she stops and check that no one has rolled under her tires?

piss piss moan moan try to impress someone else

What. Are you retarded? So if I'm driving along and a guy jumps in front of my car, it's somehow my fault? According to "If you're in a car and you hurt someone, you should be held responsible for it, no matter what" as you previously stated that should be the case.

And that's ******** . I don't know what your trauma is, but you've got a very warped view of legal responsibility if this is what you really believe.

You just want to excuse murder is all Im seeing

the guy didn't jump and the car was stationary so that comparison doesnt fit

Also vehicular manslaughter != murder.

thats just some dramatic languge on my part yes

I'm not talking about this specific situation. I'm talking about the statement in general, the "bottom line" that you previously stated. The case in this post is in much more of a gray area.

The case in this post is there is no way in hell the driver should be held as faultless
They are definitely responsible

I only added the bottom line emphasis because it was clear to me you were desperate to keep seeking excuses with these incomparable hypotheticals and I've no patience for goal-post shifting

that would only be possible if she wasn't looking in front of her, because he fell right in front of her.

Your field of vision for something 1 foot off the ground from a car is less than you think.

Get in a car and test it if you dont agree.

if she was an attentive driver, which you have to be, by law, she should have seen him.

Repeat after me:
BLIND. SPOT.

Is it really a blind spot though? He's lying over a car length in front of her, it feels like that should be within the driver's field of sight.

What he's trying to say in a poorly worded manner is that if she had been paying attention to her surroundings, as all drivers need to, then she would have seen the guy get down and known there was some idiot out of her view on the ground.

You should have no obligation whatsoever to check all your surroundings when stopping for a red light. When she's about to drive however she has to, and guess what? The ******* retard was lying down infront of the car at that point.

then you should have such an obligation
I've never heard "Oh I didnt see them" as a valid excuse to hit someone with your 2+ tons of deadly steel

do you drive?

Your mother should have been swallowed. You're obviously the result of retards being allowed to breed.