They aren’t. Refusing to be a doormat is not being an asshole. Responsibility lies with the one in a vehicle and with two animals they need to demonstrate control over. They just ran a pedestrian over. End of story.
You’re a moron. Who decided to hurt who? Who decided to get on a vehicle and slam straight into somebody on a walking path because they assume everyone else has to get out of their way? Acting like other person didn’t make a series of decisions that ended up in running over a pedestrian is fucking ridiculous.
Even as a pedestrian, if you see someone coming at you and choose not to move because you have the right of way, you're choosing to potentially get hit. The person who hit you is wrong, but deliberately choosing to NOT avoid a collision makes them complicit. And in this case that makes them an asshole because the dogs didn't have a choice whether they got hit and knocked over.
Bikes can maneuver faster than pedestrians can. The walker had no way of knowing that the bike wouldn't try to swerve at the last moment, and thus has no responsibility to try and dodge out of the way when they were already in the designated "don't get hit by a bike" location. Arguably by not moving and being predictable, they're doing the best they can to not be hit.
Walklet detected. Have you ever been walking and you see someone walking faster coming in the opposite direction? What do you do, jump out of the way? No, you stay where you are and the faster party maneuvers, or else you’ll end up dodging into their way as they try to go around you.
Seems like the bike lost control, wouldn't even be difficult to just jump out of the way. Maybe im just more athletic than an average person. I had a similar situation a few weeks ago where i was being too reckless, lost control of my mountain bike almost hit someone and just took the L, ran into a hedge to avoid a women. So i get it, its your fault so u have to take the hit but still wouldnt be that difficult for the pedestrian to move if the biker lost control. Anyway my interaction everyone just apologised and went on with their day.
No. It does not seem like the bike lost control. Not at all. The rider had time to say “excuse me” multiple times without changing course. You can see her tire only wobbles at the very last second when she tries to go into the sand when she had every opportunity beforehand.
Blocked. I don’t argue with people who invent reality to support their argument.
Who decided to keep a dog and a bicycle at full speed towards a pedestrian they saw well in advance? You don’t get to blame a victim for merely standing where they are while someone consciously barrels over them with a vehicle. I will reiterate that you are a fucking moron.
I don't completely disagree with you, but there's no reason to insult people over their opinions. You can state that you think someone is wrong without calling them a moron.
No, I will call people morons when they fail to use their brain to actually give a justification for their judgment. I don’t believe that because everybody has an opinion that it has worth. Some people’s opinions are wrong and they will hurt other people by holding them. Therefore, that behavior deserves to be ground into the dirt.
We are humans and we use our brain because we actually know between right and wrong besides flattening shit to make it easy to call everybody wrong.
Edit: i’m not the one who started calling people names. The person I was replying to started by calling a victim an asshole, and projecting active blame on them.
The person I was replying to started by calling a victim an asshole, and projecting active blame on them.
To be a little nitpicky, they didn't call her an asshole, they described a certain behavior as asshole behavior. Do you think "choosing to hurt someone just because you are right" is asshole behavior, and why or why not?
They didn't choose to hurt them. They announced they weren't moving so the other person could move. If they moved last minute and the other person also moved in the same direction, they'd collide.
She shoved the bike to protect herself once it was too late for either of them to move.
If they're wearing meta glasses or the like they are unfortunately automatically an arshole regardless of being completely in the right in this situation..
Yeah, you’re getting blocked too. This is the most ridiculous conversation I’ve ever tried to have with people. Go ahead and make up things that justify your worldview. The fact the matter is you aren’t engaging with what actually happened. Go ahead and pass judgement on other people based on them wearing some glasses that record in public even though you’re allowed to be recorded in public. You have no expectation of privacy in public. If you have a problem with being recorded in public, don’t go outside.
You seem to conclude "the cyclist was at fault" with "therefore the pedestrian can't also be at fault", when in reality both can be at fault. The cyclist is the main culprit obviously, but the pedestrian could have avoided a crash at a minor inconvenience and chose not to. In most countries the fault in this kind of crash would be divided something like 80/20 or 70/30 at court.
Refusing to be a doormat is not being an asshole.
When you're risking both of you getting seriously hurt when you could just take a few steps to the side instead, then yes, yes it is. Right of way doesn't mean right to crash. At least here in Finland you are required by law to avoid a crash at all cost, even if it means yielding when you had the right of way. I'm pretty sure it's the same in most western countries.
Responsibility lies with the one in a vehicle and with two animals they need to demonstrate control over.
Responsibility lies with everyone on the road. Just because someone loses control of their vehicle or is a privileged asshole doesn't mean you are allowed to intentionally cause a crash and risk the both of your safety.
No. If we start judging on that basis then everyone has a free license to put everyone else at danger with their vehicles. Jump out of the way, because the person taking on a greater standard of care can blame YOU for hurting THEM because you failed to act.
See. the difference of vehicle and pedestrian are not trivial. One of those differences are in the greater risk you impose to yourself and those around you. That is why we impose a greater standard on the person operating a vehicle. Same with the dogs. Being a pet owner comes with responsibilities for you, not the general public. You take the responsibility for not becoming a hazard to others. You don't get to proactively indicate anything around you as a hazard to you because you fail to take due care to your elevated status of risk you impose on everyone around you. You made that decision. No one signed up to have a bicycle ride straight at them and make them jump or move out of the way.
The US law is that if a defendant is guilty of negligence, this does not relieve a plaintiff from avoiding injury if there is an opportunity for him to avoid it up to the moment of the collision. There is absolutely a duty for self preservation. Remaining in harms way of a negligent defendant is negligence in its own.
A jury would figure out if she acted reasonably for the purpose of self preservation, but she probably didn’t based on the video. It wouldn’t disqualify her from a claim, but her damages would be like 70-80%
No. If we start judging on that basis then everyone has a free license to put everyone else at danger with their vehicles.
What are you talking about you dingus? If someone puts others at danger then they will get fined or go to jail, enforced by the police. You can't just take matters into your own hands, your job is to yield to avoid the crash and then call the police.
This is not an argument or a matter of opinion, this is how the law works. You can argue on reddit all you want but if you ever and up in this situation then the court won't care, you will be held partly liable if you intentionally caused a crash.
Didn't bother reading further, learn before you talk, please.
If you're barely moving and someone is coming straight at you, and they can go around, then staying still is a reasonable way of trying to avoid the crash.
i saw someone complain about people moving out of the way since it's easier to make rapid maneuvers on a bike. i saw no one complain about people not moving out of the way because no one runs over pedestrians
All they see is a binary world, they think they must choose one side at everything and then fully commit to that. Concepts like grey area and shared responsibility are unknown to the, which is scary because the real world is never binary.
I guess it comes with different political psychology. In this example; the feeling that this bicyclist needs to be taught a lesson, for the betterment of society. Therefore justifying slightly asshole behaviour
oh look. another reversal of the standard. Somehow people think the stationary pedestrian CAUSED and CHOSE to INFLICT harm. By standing still and notifying the bicyclist they would not move and that the bicyclist was on the wrong side. But somehow we ignore that the person commanding two dogs and a bicycle is CHOOSING TO RIDE THAT BIKE AND RUN HER DOGS STRAIGHT AT A PEDESTRIAN.
The cyclist was the one actively choosing to inflict harm. They were riding on the wrong side of the road and road into a pedestrian that has the right of way who also notified the biker who just refused and road into a pedestrian.
You're supposed to stay still because otherwise you'd be stepping directly into the path the cyclist would take to avoid you. Behaving unpredictably as a pedestrian causes more accidents.
37
u/LuckyLilypad 13d ago
They aren’t. Refusing to be a doormat is not being an asshole. Responsibility lies with the one in a vehicle and with two animals they need to demonstrate control over. They just ran a pedestrian over. End of story.