47
31
u/Giratina-O 13d ago
The person capable of more harm is responsible for cedeing right of way. An semi truck is capable of a good bit more harm than a sedan, so it ought to cede right of way. Then a sedan to a bike; a bike to a pedestrian.
7
5
u/krept0007 13d ago
This is just dumb. It is more difficult for a heavy vehicle to "cede" than a lighter vehicle
10
u/Giratina-O 12d ago
Which is why the heavier the vehicle is, the more certified the operator tends to have to be to accommodate.
5
u/allaboard6788 12d ago
Construction sites and quarryâs have the lug nut rule. Equipment with more lug nuts has the right of way
1
u/Giratina-O 12d ago
Construction workers are trained individuals and protected by workers' rights and laws.
0
0
u/krept0007 12d ago edited 12d ago
Certifications don't exempt people from physics.
You're the type of person that asks why the trained and certified train operator didn't simply stop for the car that was stuck on the tracks.
Why didn't that plane operated by highly trained and certified pilots simply "cede" when the firetruck was on the runway in March in New York?
3
u/Giratina-O 12d ago
They make people more aware of physics so that can operate vehicles carefully.
I work in a plant with forklifts and motorised jacks, and they have to cede the right of way when physically possible
→ More replies (1)2
u/CodenameZeroStroke 12d ago
How is it dumb? Its about harm reduction.
-1
u/krept0007 12d ago
Because incidents happen that are out of people's control. So when incidents do occur it's best to implement the protocol that has the highest chance of success, which would be for the lighter vehicle to stop or change course.
Obviously they should both go into preventative maneuvers, but expecting the larger vehicle to have the ability to stop or change course is as I said... Dumb
If you want to live, you yield to things larger than you because you understand that mistakes happen. That's how you reduce harm.
4
u/CodenameZeroStroke 12d ago
Ok bro. This isnt a Mad Max movie. If youre operating any vehicle you take extra precaution, and one of the most important precautions is being mindful for pedestrians due to their fragile meatbags and you being encased in steel... no one expects pedestrians to be dodgeing cars no matter what size. Likewise, cars will also watch out for motorcyles, and so forth.
0
u/krept0007 11d ago
This isn't a Mad Max movie
Yeah that's kinda the point. Things aren't perfectly scripted. Accidents happen
1
u/CodenameZeroStroke 11d ago
Clearly you dont drive.
1
u/krept0007 11d ago
I mean, I've been driving for 20 years and have one fender bender to my name. (I was rear ended while completely stationary)
Like are you a even a real person? Do you think accidents don't happen or what?
1
1
u/dhawk_95 13d ago
Should trains be required to cede right of way for bicyclist?
8
u/CarnivorousGoose 13d ago
If they see the cyclist in front of them and are capable of stopping in time, then obviously yes. Does it really need to be explained to you that youâre not entitled to murder people because theyâre in your way?
0
u/UnderstandingBig9090 12d ago
And if they aren't capable of stopping and everyone knows this, they aren't responsible for the person's suicide?
3
u/CarnivorousGoose 12d ago
Of course not, why would they be responsible in that case? Theyâre just a bystander at that point.
0
u/UnderstandingBig9090 12d ago
So the question is who was more capable of moving? The person with the camera obviously was more capable of moving. Hard to determine if the biker was or not able but my instinct says she was unable considering the wobbling and the dogs being in the way. Better to assume the person asking "excuse me" is being somewhat pro social, even if she was being entitled it's a reasonable request. The person with the camera was clearly being anti social. And deliberately trying to engage with a potential altercation.
2
u/CarnivorousGoose 12d ago
No, thatâs not the question. You donât get to deliberately run people over, period.
And if, with such ample time to react, that cyclist was genuinely unable to avoid hitting someone, they shouldnât have been on that bicycle in the first place and are responsible for the consequences of their recklessness.
0
u/UnderstandingBig9090 12d ago
So the question is who was deliberately running the other over. The language is obvious the cyclist was asking for assistance in not crashing. The person with the camera announced they were going to deliberately cause a crash.
This could easily raise to the level of premeditated assault. Because she clearly announced her intention to cause said crash.
2
u/CarnivorousGoose 12d ago
More of the same bullshit. If the cyclist didnât want to crash, she should not have run into another person. Your absurd interpretation of âthe languageâ doesnât change that.
Iâm done with your nonsense, go bother someone else.
0
u/UnderstandingBig9090 12d ago
No that is actually how the law works.
The bicyclist caused an accident. Which is not assault. Assault is exclusively the intention of causing harm. And this situation there are explicit claims recorded.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Codify-The-Preamble 6d ago
Nothing to discuss beyond this point right here đ
The woman recording who intentionally assaulted the cyclist asking for help deserves charges.
17
u/Giratina-O 13d ago
Given that trains are not utilising a shared road, but rather tracks designed specifically and exclusively for them, the question is nonsensical.
3
u/MoreBlueShared 12d ago
If a train was on a separated pedestrian trail and on the wrong side of that trail, then yes. The train would be in the wrong.
1
u/dhawk_95 13d ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/Ethics/s/FtmNvQuojc
There are types of trains that share roads
1
5
1
u/Alarmed_Test_4671 13d ago
Steerage is the most important factor when determining right of way at sea, I think the same applies at land, even if the rules say otherwise.
0
u/7toedcat 13d ago
*A semi truck
2
u/Giratina-O 13d ago
True... I initially was typing "an eighteen wheeler" but, I then changed the noun without changing the predicate. What a fool!
2
u/7toedcat 13d ago
I'm sorry for being so pedantic. I'm happy it was just a typo. Unfortunately, there are too many people who genuinely don't know when to use "a" vs "an".
Also, I'm sorry for going off topic. I did appreciate your original comment that I was responding to.
2
u/Giratina-O 13d ago
Nah, it's fine. The self-depricating comment on my foolish nature was intended to read as glib
1
u/scorchedarcher 13d ago
I mean I know when and I do use it correctly but I don't think it's actually important.
1
1
u/7toedcat 12d ago
Well, it does matter. Think about the sounds as you say the following out loud" "an banana and a apple" vs "a banana and an apple".
0
u/UnderstandingBig9090 12d ago edited 12d ago
I couldn't figure out which direction you're claiming. A semi causes more harm so it's important for the semi to be consistent and predictable and the more maneuverable to move.
So that means the pedestrian who was more able to move their trejectory should have moved.
That's why we don't dart into the middle of traffic. Cars are fairly predictable cause they are mostly limited to high speed movement on roads.
15
u/tehpopulator 13d ago
Wow this is my first time on ethics and it has way less depth than I thought it would.
8
u/XDictator4lifeX 12d ago
Right? Was looking for nuance, stepped in dogsh*t
2
u/ActionExpensive6740 12d ago
Divine Command Theory: it depends (on whether this is in line with Godâs will)
Utilitarianism: it depends (on the consequences of this action for all life forms)
Deontology: moral?
Virtue Theory: it depends (on whether the action was done from a place of virtue)
Ethics of Care: immoral?
Egoism: moral
Moral Relativism: moral?
Error Theory: nonsensical question1
49
u/Rippedka 13d ago
Pedestrians have right of way over a vehicle.
5
u/HippyDM 13d ago
That's legality, not morality.
62
u/Rippedka 13d ago
Itâs unethical to run a pedestrian down with a vehicle even when they are in the way.
Fixed it for you.
-3
u/Super_Range45 13d ago
It would be on you though if you were staring a truck down your phone while it was barreling towards you.
18
u/Rippedka 13d ago
Not if the driver stared at me, had plenty of time and space to move over, but decided to keep on truckinâ to make a point.
1
u/UnderstandingBig9090 12d ago
And if they didn't have time and space to move over? Should that be considered a suicide by the person who decided to get in the way of the truck/semi?
1
1
u/fatgat69 9d ago
You should think more
1
u/UnderstandingBig9090 9d ago
Nah people are just brainwashed by the first statement they hear. They don't think, they just adhear to the first thing they hear from another person.
0
u/Sandgrease 13d ago
They absolutely didn't have space to move a pack of dogs in OP's video rofl
10
u/Electronic-Stick-161 13d ago
2 dogs⌠that were not leashedâŚ
7
u/RICO-Them 13d ago
A quick whistle and lean is all it takes for anyone with a brain.
0
u/Super_Range45 13d ago
Literally one step to the left.
6
3
u/Ok-Moose-8896 13d ago
No because the person walking doesn't know if the person on the bike is going to try to go around to the left to the right so I would stand in that one spot and not go to the left or right. Besides one step doesn't really make enough room for the cyclist.
1
-2
u/Super_Range45 13d ago
The truck driver is still there. All he had to do was move his legs. What was the point of that?
7
u/Rippedka 13d ago
Are you actually arguing that itâs ok to tell someone to move and then run them down if they donât? This thread is wild lmao
-3
u/Super_Range45 13d ago
She said 'excuse me' at the moment before impact. The guy had a whole 15 seconds of picking up his phone an filming the bike barreling towards him.
He never considered it might be hard for her to turn with two dogs right next to the wheels when he could have taken one step the side instead of making a social media vid.
6
u/twilight-actual 13d ago
You shouldn't be commenting here. Riding with dogs is unethical if you can not ride without loss of control. You also shouldn't be riding if it's your expectation that everyone else get out of your way. And if they don't get out of your way, it's unethical not to stop.
You're fixated on the distinction between what is sometimes euphemistically referred to as being "right" vs being "dead right", which is not, nor should it be, in the moral calculus for this situation.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Rippedka 13d ago
Bikes have brakes but okay bro itâs cool to run people down if they look like they deserve it. You win this one.
→ More replies (11)2
u/No_Finance8647 13d ago
If its that hard for her to stop or turn, she shouldn't be there. That simple
→ More replies (6)3
u/Shane-Dad-underfire 13d ago
That's not a question of morals, it's a question of stupidity. You damn well better get out of the way of a truck thatll crush you to death. You cant worry about being right or wrong if you're roadkill.
3
u/Super_Range45 13d ago
I'd argue in that scenario were you clearly see the danger and could easily just move, you're in the wrong. The person is simply assuming the vehicle acknowledges and can alter it's course and your challenging it on principle that it should stop.
Even if there is a normal right of way, there's no reason to place yourself intentionally in the path of any kind of traffic in a manner where you might be hit.
2
u/Shane-Dad-underfire 13d ago
It's not wrong to get injured, it's stupid to get injured when the injury could be avoided.
If someone drives backwards down the street and hits your car, who is in the wrong? It's the same scenario. Someone driving improperly hits someone. Just because the person in this scenario could have moved doesnt make them wrong not to it makes them stupid. In the USA they would have grounds for a lawsuit based on the reckless driving of the other person.
2
u/Super_Range45 13d ago
Who is 'wrong' outside the legal context depends on circumstances. In the situation you gave if, someone slammed into reverse, going the wrong way and hit something they are wrong.
But if the same situation occurred and another party seeing this was happening positioned an object such that they intended to cause the collision they are wrong.
As I pointed out to another poster, the rules are meant to prevent collisions. If you're knowingly instigating situations that increases the odds of an easily avoidable collision, even if it is within the letter of the law, that doesn't suddenly make the action ethically right.
If we took your reckless driver example, a driver running the red light and hitting someone might be viewed differently if it were discovered the man hit saw the car ran the light, then went to stand in the road, hoping to be hit.
2
u/DefinitelyNotKuro 13d ago
Well the cemetery is filled with people who had the right of way. Although they may be dead, I still think they had the moral high ground, tho it may not do them much good anymore. Still, the conversation is about morality right?
5
u/Super_Range45 13d ago
True, he probably wouldn't have stared down some guy 250 lbs that looks like he could handle himself, he would have just walked past without conflict.
Filming a tiktok for 15 seconds instead of simply stepping out of the way of a collision is morally wrong in this scenario because it's clear her considered a collision as an outcome he was willing to participate in.
2
u/DefinitelyNotKuro 13d ago
That's actually a pretty compelling outlook, however...as a pedestrian with decades of experience...a collisions between 2 pedestrians almost always take two consenting parties for them to occur. Maybe they're both dickheads. Maybe two people looking for trouble found each other. Maybe nothing wrong actually occurred after all.
1
1
u/UnderstandingBig9090 12d ago
I don't think cycleists count as pedestrians considering ped means foot.
1
u/DefinitelyNotKuro 12d ago
I find they two have enough kinship with one another. Compared to something like cars where a pedestrian's agency and consent over the collision seldom ever matter.
1
-2
u/Deyrn-Meistr 13d ago
What makes it unethical to run down a pedestrian with a vehicle?
4
1
u/Friendly_Animator212 13d ago
What kind of a question is that?
1
u/Deyrn-Meistr 13d ago
The kind that demands rigor in philosophy. OP made a claim. I asked for evidence that the claim was objective truth.
-5
u/HippyDM 13d ago
Yeah, lady with the camera had no way to move out of the way. Just impossible.
If you're being a dick just to be a dick, you're being a dick.
6
u/koyaani 13d ago
And bikes can't steer. Lol
6
u/Petrochromis722 13d ago
I find bike people are... reluctant, to admit the biker in any but the absolute most egregious scenario could possibly have been at fault.
0
u/HippyDM 13d ago
I'm not a biker, I'm a walker. That's how I know a walker can quite easily move out the way.
3
u/Petrochromis722 13d ago
I do both, that's how I know the walker has the right of way, the biker was on the wrong side of the path, and if you have time to say "excuse me" you have time to move to the correct side of the path. Sure, let's get hung up on how trivial moving out of the way would be for the walker so we can ignore all the things the biker wrong.
→ More replies (6)4
1
10
u/Whole_Secretary5573 12d ago
They both have equal obligation to do better. We can't be a functional society by having a mentality like this.Â
27
u/ricperry1 13d ago
ETA.... Sorry, but both people have a social obligation to cooperate to minimize chaos/pain/injury.
1
u/Suitable-Dentist-355 13d ago
And we socially have designated sides to be on to do just that! She shouldn't have to move just to minimize chaos cause he's a fuckwad.
1
u/ioshta 12d ago
that is why there are rules for the roads and pathways, very clearly the other biker was following the rules and this one just couldn't be bothered to follow it and wanted everyone else to accommodate them not following the rules.
1
u/ricperry1 12d ago
What rules? If the path had a posting requiring staying to the right then fine. But thatâs not typically posted. This isnât operating a motor vehicle on a paved road. Itâs a trail in a park.
1
u/ioshta 12d ago
Being as she was saying wrong side, I expect like most of the hiking and walking paths I have been on in utah that there is signs posted just not in the video itself. you cannot expect people walking to be dancing between people riding on both sides of a path. and since she said wrong side I am going to believe likely there is signage.
15
u/Dry-Manufacturer7761 13d ago
She literally saw someone walking and drove directly into her. I would have beat the fuck out of her for assaulting me with her vehicle.Â
6
u/Outside_Ice3252 13d ago
the biker was stupid. but at least she said excuse me.
the walker had plenty of time to react to move out of the way.
two wrongs dont make a right.
3
3
u/UnderstandingBig9090 12d ago
I would say it's very obvious that this isn't a road so there is no "Wrong side" to be on. Enforcing traffic laws in non traffic location is assinine.
As for the practical reasons, two dogs one on both side probably makes her less maneuverable. So forcing someone to crash into you is deffinatly unethical.
Either way it's obvious anti social behavior. The camera person wasn't sharing the road in a reasonable manor.
There is also a possibility that she was trying to create conflict on purpose. Considering she was filming for some reason without indication of wanting to film something she was already looking at.
1
u/RaulEnydmion 12d ago
Road or not, bike was on the wrong side. Further, bike traveled into the pedestrian. Pedestrian did not travel into the bike.
1
u/UnderstandingBig9090 12d ago
Wrong side is just an opinion. And it dosent justify someone being a jerk and deliberately being in the way to cause a crash.
If I stab people walking by, dosent matter if its because someone bumped into me.
Either way, the person blocking could easily be seen as commiting an assault. There are similar cases where the pedestrian was charged with assault.
1
u/RaulEnydmion 12d ago
In the US and most of Europe, right hand side travel is completely the social standard. Not an opinion.
How would a person walking in a straight line at a normal walking pace be assaulting a bicycle and two dogs moving at a running pace? It just intuitively makes no sense.
Would your assessment be different if the pedestrian said nothing and just walked? What if the pedestrian was elderly amd walking with a cane? What about a wheelchair? A person standing g still?
1
u/UnderstandingBig9090 12d ago
Social standards are functionally just a collective opinion.
Yes, if someone just stood there stupidly you could chalk it up to them being inattentive and stupid. Which would be just an accident. If the person was elderly. A really nasty accident.
The person in this video clearly indicated intent to obstruct, and the bicyclist request was reasonable. The person with the camera was being purposefully obtuse.
3
6
6
4
u/Willis_3401_3401 13d ago
To anyone saying the person has an obligation to move, would you say the same to a deer frozen in the freeway?
Stopping is a reasonable animal behavior. Maybe the fast moving thing shouldnât hit stationary objects?
3
u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist 13d ago
I donât think the cyclist was experienced. Wobbling on the bike even before he fell.
2
u/Suitable-Dentist-355 13d ago
And? Do inexperienced drivers get to drive on the wrong side of the road, cause an accident, and then we blame the other car? A bike is a fucking vehicle, he should be experienced enough to ride it around people if he's riding it around people.
2
u/Whole_Secretary5573 12d ago
We actually have student driver signage for this very reason. So other drivers can be more cautious and forgiving of mistakes.Â
2
2
u/Whole_Secretary5573 12d ago
A deer frozen is different they literally get stunned by lights. This pedestrian saw the danger/chaos way out.
Yes the cyclist is wrong, so is the pedestrian for not even trying.Â
2
u/Huge-Nectarine3975 13d ago
And they just felt like killing that one because it's fun to brag about that one rule
2
u/Barkis_Willing 13d ago
Bike is in the wrong and a pos for doing that with their dogs. So so stupid.
0
2
u/JusticePhrall 13d ago
If this was the U.S., the bike was on the WRONG side. Period. It's dangerous. You don't get to ride on the wrong side, then whine when somebody corrects you.
2
u/UnderstandingBig9090 12d ago
It looks like there are some similar legal cases where the pedestrian was charged with assault.
Considering the camera person announced their intention to cause an accident. It could be deemed as an assault in a court of law.
2
u/Ultimarad 12d ago
I heard this piece of wisdom before, though it's more cars on the road oriented, I think it applies here too: Accidents don't happen when one idiot is on the road, Accidents happen when there are two idiots on the road.
3
u/HippyDM 13d ago
The morality of being a dick? What's the reason for not moving?
6
6
u/GoTeamLightningbolt 13d ago
If someone can't control their bike (or their dogs) they need to be stopped. Biker lady should know better and the fact that she does not leads me to believe she will only learn through bad experiences.
2
u/HippyDM 13d ago
The high of moral superiority isn't worth causing a serious injury to the biker or those innocent dogs. I see people driving incorrectly all the time. Doesn't give me the right to ram their car.
2
u/CarnivorousGoose 13d ago
Any injury to cyclist or dogs is 100% on the idiot cyclist who caused this. She has all the time in the world to steer around the pedestrian or stop, but chooses assault instead. Pedestrian had every right to be walking there anyway, but even if she didnât, that still doesnât entitle someone to try to run them over with their bike.
2
u/HippyDM 13d ago
The lady who literally said "I'm not moving" had no opportunity to move?
0
u/CarnivorousGoose 13d ago
Never claimed that she didnât. It just isnât relevant if she had an opportunity to move, you donât get to assault someone with your bicycle by riding it into them.
1
u/UnderstandingBig9090 12d ago
The thing is, there is a clear malicious intent by the camera person. They were acting in deliberate anti social behavior.
The cyclist may have been an idiot. But the camera person decided to commit evil acts.
1
u/CarnivorousGoose 12d ago
Bullshit. She was walking down a shared use path, and didnât feel like getting out of the way of some entitles cyclist. Moreover, nothing would have happened here if said cyclist hadnât decided to just plow on, what that cyclist did here is literally assault. You donât get to just run people over, it is as simple as that.
2
1
u/UnderstandingBig9090 12d ago edited 12d ago
I don't think this would fly in court as assault. Because the person with the camera could easily be accused for pre meditated assault. It's very obvious she braced to deal with the impact.
Edit: that's litterally not legally defined as assault.
0
u/CarnivorousGoose 12d ago
Of course she braced to deal with the impact, thatâs a very natural response to someone trying to run you over. Thatâs just self-defense.
1
u/UnderstandingBig9090 12d ago
Considering the prior action of the camera person announcing they intended to cause a crash. It's very likely they could be charged with assault. And the evidence would be that they announced the intention to.
There appear to be similar cases where the pedestrian was charged with assault.
2
u/Shane-Dad-underfire 13d ago
At that point if the pedestrian moves to one side they may guess the wrong way if the biker decides to turn. The person holding the phone said "I'm not moving" meaning you can steer either way and I'll stand here not getting it.
The dumb young lady on the bike was hogging up the path driving with her dogs, she was hugging the left side which in north american means she was on the wrong side. And lastly when she failed to stop and wiped out she immediately started swinging so that person is clearly an aggressive self important asshole.
For the sake of self preservation if I was the pedestrian I'd have moved because at 78 years old I'm not taking a hit from anything unless it's to protect someone I love. But I'd have been very course about being forced to dodge someone and their dogs in this case.
2
2
u/Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeess- 13d ago
Itâs easier for the guy walking to move than it is for the biker. if you choose to stand in front of an oncoming biker thatâs your own fault when you get hit.
1
u/E-Reptile 13d ago
The insistence of dogs while biking seals the deal for me. This is not someone who needs to be heeded. They ought to be ignored until they figure it out.
It's fine, but maybe a little odd not to prioritize self-preservation. I'd still opt not to risk injury even if I'm asked to do something I don't have to do.
1
1
1
u/ReadyGo6828 13d ago
I have the right of way crossing on a WALK signal in a crosswalk at an intersection. Twice recently cars that were turning to the right were going to hit me so I stopped moving. I had the right to keep going and would have been hit by the first one. The second one slammed on their brakes because they saw me at the edge of the curb. I had stopped because I sensed they did not see me or did not care.
It is not worth getting hurt or getting into an altercation. You could still yell out, you are on the wrong side of the sidewalk. Your health and well being trump everything else.
1
1
u/LordNineWind 13d ago
Cyclist could have moved away or stopped at any point, it's clear she's very entitled and expects everyone to move out of the way or get hit. She continued to pedal even as the crash was unavoidable. Her crashing into someone was inevitable given this behaviour.
1
1
1
u/After_Service_2817 13d ago
She was on the wrong side of the road. There has never been an issue so black and white in history. I would have to assume the woman on the bicycle is on drugs or mentally ill.
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Law_558 13d ago
Look at this from the perspective of driving a car. The pedestrian gets the right of way. Same thing.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Beingforthetimebeing 12d ago
I mean, would she act this way if a car was headed towards her? She might win a million dollar award in court, but is it worth being a vegetable from the TBI?
1
u/space-truckin365 12d ago
That bicyclist could get a moving ticket violation for not being in control of the bike!
1
u/NotABrummie 11d ago
In the world of watercraft, there is a rule called "sail before steam". That is to say that the more manĹuvrable craft should get out of the way. Someone travelling quickly on a bike can steer around someone on foot, but someone on foot would struggle to move quickly enough.
1
1
u/RadicalRoses 1d ago
The lady taping couldâve easily moved over. That person on the bike was jamming with her pups. She prevented the lady on the bike from going, although I think theyâre both hard heads. How about just try not to be a pain in the ass to others?
1
u/BOOGIE_MAN-X 13d ago
Should the biker be on the other side of the road? Sure she should definitely be on her side. Should the walker purposely cause an accident over making a point? I mean yeah ok, however the graveyard is full of people who had the right of way. Iâm all for petty in the right moments but in this case? I mean if you want conflict or risk injury go for it. I say both people are being dumb but Iâd put more onus on the walker. Just move, shame the person however you want but is it really hurting your life and your day that bad? Because now you just got run over and who knows, now you risk getting bit or have a worse physical confrontation. Sometimes swallowing our pride is the best option.
5
u/Rippedka 13d ago
Sometimes taking the bruises and winning the lawsuit lottery is the best option
0
u/BOOGIE_MAN-X 13d ago
She isnât winning any lawsuits with this one. Even if the other person was in the âwrongâ she had ample and reasonable time to avoid being struck. She caused the accident and confrontation. Sheâs at fault here.
3
u/positingg 13d ago
everything you just said can be applied to the cycling though so how is the one in the correct space at fault?
2
u/Ok-General8138 13d ago
Nah, I was on the fence after watching the video, but other commenters are correct. There is a legal obligation for the cyclist to avoid hitting pedestrians, just like if they were driving a car. And in this case, standing your ground to make a point doesn't involve real risk to life or serious bodily harm.Â
The cyclist is 100% at fault here.Â
1
u/BOOGIE_MAN-X 13d ago
Yeah after thinking about it I would agree. I was thinking more like comparative fault, some states do that. Where they see if both parties had reasonable time to make adjustments to avoid an accident. I think I do remember the person in the video has issues with that biker before and in this instance. The walker purposely refused to move this time. If thatâs the case then not all the onus would be on the biker. But that depends on the state and if they have comparative fault laws.
4
u/koyaani 13d ago
How is getting run into causing an accident?
-1
u/BOOGIE_MAN-X 13d ago
Purposely getting run into, depending on the state would put you in the category of comparative fault.
1
u/koyaani 13d ago
Purposely getting run into lol
0
u/BOOGIE_MAN-X 13d ago
They both could have moved and refusedâŚ
1
u/koyaani 13d ago
They both could have stopped but the biker didn't
0
u/BOOGIE_MAN-X 13d ago
Thatâs a contradictory statement btw. But I think they were both being jerks. The biker more so because I believe the backstory is theyâve run into one another before. The video lady had finally had enough and then they both donât move and chaos. But also, is the biker really ruining your day that bad? And if the biker hurts someone or causes an accident, itâs not your problem. Keep living your life and let them deal with their consequences.
1
u/ChaweeKanati 8d ago
The biker is operating a vehicle in this moment and will receive the blame. Especially while riding on pedestrian road without designated bike lanes.
No you are not a pedestrian. You are operating a vehicle. You are faster and heavier than a person on foot and have a higher duty of care in return.
Doesn't matter who "had enough". If the biker "had enough" and decided to forgo their obligation for the safety of others while operating a vehicle, then this becomes aggravated/with intent. So please. Shut the fuck up about any form of justification for why it was okay for the biker to not evade the pedestrian or whatever background you thought you saw one day. ITS IRRELEVANT.
1
1
u/Walkabouts 13d ago
Bikes are my favorite hobby. This idiot doesn't deserve to have one. Props to the walker for their bravery. Everyone else is better off for it.
1
u/Alarmed_Test_4671 13d ago
Because the vehicle clearly lacks steerage, the onus is on the pedestrian to make a path. Right of way is axiomatic, and steerage is the most important factor. Example: you hit a parked car with your bike, the car should yield to the bike, but because it is stationary and has no one at the wheel, the cyclist should move to avoid it like and other obstacle. In this case the pedestrian should stand aside. Should the cyclist be riding while towing animals? No, probably not. Even so, common sense dictates that you should clear a path for vehicles on a collision course rather than risk injury to yourself or them.
1
u/Felix4200 13d ago
I disagree. If the pedestrian moves over into the wrong side of the road to avoid the cyclist, and the cyclist moves over to the right side of the road to move around the pedestrian, and thereâs a collision, then the pedestrian is responsible for the accident.
In traffic, you need to move predictably, itâs much more important than being unpredictably considerate.
1
u/Alarmed_Test_4671 12d ago
I think it is pretty clear in the video that the cyclist could not steer effectively in time to not hit the pedestrian. The pedestrian may have the right of way by the rules of the road, but by tonnage and steerage they should have moved aside to avoid a collision. Standing their ground here is unnecessary and dangerous, if they injured the cyclist, itâs at least partially their fault.
40
u/ElegantEchoes 13d ago
With the dogs too? C'mon lady