kulgan t1_j64rsjj wrote
Reply to comment by Blankman8 in Bicyclist involved in Jersey City hit-and-run by Councilwoman DeGise files $1M tort claim by EyesOnImprovement
> Shouldn’t you be just as aware when riding a bicycle?
Sort of, but not really. The burden of responsibility is much higher for the activity that can and does fairly regularly kill lots of people, knock down buildings, etc. Dude was an idiot, but he wasn't traveling at a speed and mass to do much damage.
How do you even start to explain her not seeing him? Was she drunk? A large man was right in front of her for about 3 seconds and her only reaction was to open her mouth in the frame that she hit him. If she didn't see him, she maybe shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Wildwilly54 t1_j64tbdz wrote
There’s a car parked on the corner in the cross walk, completely blocking her view from the way he was traveling. She could have been whacked out of her mind, we’ll never know. But the majority of drivers in this city would have tagged him.
kulgan t1_j64tvqj wrote
Nonsense. If I recall correctly, it's about 2.7 seconds from him coming into view until the impact. Even if that's not enough time to fully stop, it's enough time to apply the brakes or at least come off the accelerator. She doesn't even have the excuse of looking at her phone or something. Her hands were at ten and two, eyes straight ahead. She plowed through the guy at full speed and kept going.
Blankman8 t1_j64w25q wrote
Did you watch the video? She didn’t even flinch. Do you drive? Try not tapping your break for 10 seconds while driving through the city. It’s an instant reaction even if you’re going to hit a pothole. The fact that her brain didn’t even hesitate to keep driving makes me question if she saw him or if she was heavily impaired.
kulgan t1_j64wqha wrote
I have probably watched the various angles more than I've seen the Zapruder film. "Heavily impaired" is the only thing that makes any sense.
Blankman8 t1_j64x70v wrote
Or not seeing him… the fact that the break lights didn’t even flash red as if she didn’t even touch her break to think about it is what makes me think this
kulgan t1_j64xl17 wrote
But the only way she didn't see him is if she was paying no attention to the road, or she's actually blind.
Blankman8 t1_j64xqco wrote
Her face was up in the video so no phone excuse.
kulgan t1_j64y664 wrote
Right. She's spaced out, heavily impaired, blind, a complete sociopath, or some combination.
Blankman8 t1_j64yb2c wrote
Can we just agree that bikers need to be just as aware. Not giving her slack but he was heavily at fault
kulgan t1_j6505t5 wrote
I am on board that he was irresponsible in an idiotic way. Put himself in danger, wasn't aware, etc. It's not a good idea. But there are a lot of reasons we require a license and liability insurance to drive a car and don't for riding a bike. If she'd slammed on her brakes but still hit him, there's really no outrage, no story here. He fucked up. But the higher burden is always on the heavier, faster mode of travel. Pedestrians bear less responsibility than bicyclists and they bear less responsibility than drivers. She needed to try to avoid hitting the human that showed up in her path, regardless of the color of the light.
Blankman8 t1_j650k8p wrote
Now let me give you this scenario…
If she swerved because she couldn’t stop and ended up on the side walk hitting a couple people perhaps killing one because his ignorance who would we be mad at?
Another scenario.. a car railing you and if she breaks she’s getting hit hard from behind(no pun intended)
kulgan t1_j6519f5 wrote
Swerving in that scenario would be irresponsible. She was on a neighborhood street, and not even traveling that fast. Just apply the brakes.
Rear ending someone will always be the fault of the driver who didn't stop, not the one who does. This is basic stuff in the manual and on the test. Keep a safe following distance, be aware of what's in front of your car.
Blankman8 t1_j651jtt wrote
I’m just giving you scenarios that happens everyday. You can’t control someone tail hating you so chuck that manual and test out the window
kulgan t1_j651v1x wrote
Okay, if we're chucking the manual, yes, accept that you might get rear ended to avoid running into a human in front of your car. You've got crumple zones and their liability insurance will cover the damage.
[deleted] t1_j65es96 wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments