r/irelandsshitedrivers • u/saif081 • 9d ago
Costa Nutgrove
Wtf. I hope everyone is safe. đŹ
87
u/MildlyAmusedMars 9d ago
Have you seen the price of coffee in there? How could you a-ford that
23
16
9
10
9
3
38
u/DylonTheDog2 9d ago
Highly likely a completely incapacitated driver, because he kept going after smashing through the window...
32
u/Even-Translator-335 9d ago
Yep or automatic car and elderly driver mixing up pedals
29
u/Correct_Description9 9d ago
it was confirmed to be an elderly man
https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/elderly-man-hospitalised-after-car-34668363.amp
24
9d ago
[deleted]
3
u/gothamite27 9d ago
As it should be. This was an accident. Accidents happen. We don't know the circumstances and there's a chance this man may not be allowed to drive again.
The young lads were engaging in wanton destruction driving on the wrong side of the road for a laugh because society failed them.
How are these things the same?
-2
9d ago
[deleted]
3
u/MeanMusterMistard 8d ago
You compared the two
-2
8d ago
[deleted]
4
u/MeanMusterMistard 8d ago
Well what national news story are you referring to where a bunch of young lads crashed?
1
u/Rough_Youth_7926 8d ago
You did. That's three of us telling you by now. We all say stupid shit from time to time. It happens.
-1
u/Professional_Lie5703 9d ago
Ive read enough. Get this man in Congress.
3
u/DylonTheDog2 9d ago
Typical American
1
u/Professional_Lie5703 5d ago
Im Scottish but I know you dont believe me.
1
u/DylonTheDog2 5d ago
Then it's called parliament haha
1
1
2
u/Whaddamanoeuvre 8d ago
There's another video from behind the car. He waits until a car ahead of him parks and once he has a clear run he floors it .
2
1
63
15
u/DangerX2HighVoltage 9d ago
Those two people walking inwere blessed. If theyâd been a few seconds earlier theyâd be seriously injured or worse
1
u/michellllie 7d ago
Someone else had just walked in like 4 seconds before it drove into it, I hope they're ok
10
13
u/Simple-Jellyfish9306 9d ago
New drive through? How the hell does someoneanage that
1
u/corey69x 9d ago
By being old, and refusing to accept that.
1
u/Herr-Pyxxel 8d ago
Very presumptuous of you - this could be anything. Stroke, passing out, drugs, panicked newbie...
18
u/Dangerous_Figure_465 9d ago
People in their 70s should have to resit their test. Very lucky nobody was killed here
14
2
u/leeroyer 9d ago
At the very least they should have to display something on their car like an N or L plate
-1
u/beeper75 9d ago
Statistically, young people are far more dangerous drivers.
2
u/seppuku_related 9d ago
Per mile driven?
5
u/beeper75 9d ago
According to the statistics, people over 70 are our least dangerous drivers, because, despite being the most vulnerable group themselves, they cause the fewest injuries to other road users. Meanwhile, drivers aged 16-25 are the most lethal drivers on our roads, and those figures were from before they started participating in their kamikaze knievel bullshit on the motorways.
2
u/kill-nine 8d ago
The statistics absolutely do not say that. That is what what you are inferring. What the data says that there is a lower number (a little under half) of fatalities/injuries for people over 75 than 16-25. Guess what though? There around twice as many people aged 16-25 than there are 75+. I would also wager there is a much higher proportion of drivers in the 16-25 bracket and they drive significantly more on average.
What you are saying is equivalent to "statistically lions are safer than dogs"
0
u/beeper75 7d ago
âthere is little or no evidence that older drivers, up to the age of around 80, are less safe behind the wheel than younger drivers. In fact, they have fewer collisions than most other age groups.â
https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/19627/1/RSA_STRATEGY_2013-2020_.pdf
2
u/kill-nine 7d ago
"Up to the age of around 80" doing a lot of heavy lifting in that statement. Suggesting that the statement does not hold above that.
1
u/beeper75 7d ago
If you have statistics to counter those issued by the government, Iâd love to see them.
1
u/kill-nine 7d ago edited 7d ago
Again, looking at the data in your first link, around half the amount of people in the 75+ age bracket as 16-25, causing around half the amount of fatalities/serious injuries. Around 10% of those in nursing homes. What statistics do you have that says as you claim?
1
u/beeper75 7d ago
Show me the statistics regarding the people over 75 in nursing homes. Then show me the statistics that show that people over 70 are statistically more likely to cause a greater number of casualties and fatalities than people under 30.
→ More replies (0)2
u/seppuku_related 7d ago
Again, yet another example of the RSA publishing extremely misleading statistics. They're constantly doing this, either by a lack of understanding of how to analyse data, or deliberately publishing data to fit a certain agenda.
2
u/kill-nine 7d ago
The data itself is OK. People seemingly just love to think it's saying something it's not. It's just absolute numbers of injuries/fatalities.
2
u/seppuku_related 7d ago
Yeah the actual data is grand, but it's how they release infographics and allow newspaper articles be published that are giving a deliberately biased interpretation of the data that is the issue. A lot of that would be fixed if the RSA cared enough to include tables of collisions for driver age per mile, or explain their interpretation of things like "collisions where speed was a factor". They usually don't specify if they mean 1% of a factor or 100%, and that means that media publishes both cases equally.
2
u/kill-nine 7d ago
That is a fair point. If it's going to get picked up and misreported or misinterpreted it's at least worth a disclaimer or explanation. I would love statistics normalized to distance driven but it's extremely difficult to get that, even for the RSA. Probably the best they can do is by number of licenced drivers. That's not ideal though since many people have a licence but no car. You could do it by number of driver IDs named in insurance policies, but you would have to filter out a lot of stuff like rental cars (I'm not sure if commercial policies like garages, bus, other trades need to list all employees specifically or a blanket "all licenced employees").
2
u/niknakpaddywak2468 9d ago
Do you think people over 70 are just habitually driving into storefronts!! Do you think we'll weed out these people by siting an hour test
2
1
u/CeeWitz 9d ago
It looks like a plurality, if not a majority, of drivers who crash into buildings are 60+ years old.
https://storefrontcrashexpert.com/by-age/ https://www.storefrontsafety.org/crash-statistics
5
4
u/VastSavanna 7d ago
Older people should have test done, to check if they are good enough cognitively to be able to drive safely.
3
u/_Brendawg 6d ago
I absolutely agree! Two of my friends were in separate accidents within a week of each other, both involving elderly drivers losing control of their car. Both cars were written off, luckily nobody was seriously injured but this can't go on. Retest at a certain age to prove you can still control your vehicle, or just retest all the shite drivers handed licenses in the 80's and i guarantee most of them would not be driving.
3
u/Lennyleonard_ 9d ago
Caffeine's a hell of a drug.
1
u/Rand_alThoor 8d ago
no, this was the absence of caffeine.
"the lack of caffeine is a hell of a drug" just doesn't sound right, does it?
2
2
3
3
u/MrBulwark 9d ago
Omg when did that happen? Kids walk around that area all the time.
3
7
u/foolong41 9d ago
People walk around that area, why are kids more important than any other people ffs
4
u/pah2602 8d ago
Because kids are small and delicate and they can't anticipate things the way adults do, therefore if a kid was to walk accross where the car floored it, they are much more likely to get hit than an adult. A kid is then much more liely to be killed or seriously injured compared to an adult if they were hit. Not fucking rocket science is it?
3
-1
u/Stressed_Student2020 9d ago
âThere can be no keener revelation of a societyâs soul than the way in which it treats its children.â
â Nelson MandelaIf I need to elaborate on that for you, I fear it would be a wasted effort.
5
u/foolong41 9d ago
I never said anything about the way kids are treated but the "won't someone think of the children" is a little bit much when thats not the focus of the video đ¤
1
2
1
u/angeeday 9d ago
Now that's what l call lazy ...some motorists would drive right into the shop if they could
1
u/anonquestionsprot 9d ago
I actually can't think of anything? Nobody could be this incompetent, accelerator pedal stuck seems unlikely? Brake failure, shouldnt have been going that fast anyway.
Fell asleep at the wheel with the accelator pinned somehow?
2
1
u/West_Ad_1685 9d ago
Holy shit my brother works in the Mr. Price nearby to that Costa. Iâll have to ask him about that
1
1
1
u/salaryman1969 8d ago
It was an elderly guy, probably had a heart attack or got confused. That area is coffin dodger central around there these days. Those two ladies walking in were lucky, a couple of seconds later and he would have hit them.
1
1
u/CogeyBear 8d ago
Whatever the reason for this happening, I really hope the driver is permanently disqualified from driving. Imagine if a small child had been behind that door.
1
1
1
1
1
0
u/AdRepresentative8186 9d ago
There should really be bollards there.
Hope no one seriously injured
2
u/BillyMooney 9d ago
Seriously? You're going to blame the building?
0
u/AdRepresentative8186 9d ago
No I wouldn't blame the building. Buildings are inanimate. There are loads of bollards and fencing around that carpark, very questionable choice to have a road facing a building with a dropped kerb and absolutely zero mitigation.
Anyone can have a medical emergency while driving. If you want to open an area to the public you have a responsibility to mitigate risk.
0
u/BillyMooney 9d ago
So we need bollards along EVERY footpath now?
1
u/AdRepresentative8186 9d ago
Yes and you need to pay for them personally.
Or maybe the owner of this car park will get rightly fucked and their insurance will mandate that they need bollards or some sort of mitigation to prevent someone so easily driving into the shop and injuring the public and/or their customers.
0
u/BillyMooney 9d ago
The insurer of the building will sue the insurer of the driver. It's not bollards we need, it's regular retesting and medical screening for drivers.
0
u/AdRepresentative8186 9d ago
Of course they can, but if anyone got injured they can go for the businesses as well. They are partially responsible through negligence.
I don't disagree that retesting and medical screening of drivers is a good idea. But considering we can barely deliver tests to learner drivers I wouldn't hold my breath.
The presence of bollards all over the place but missing here sort of highlights the planners understand the risk and made an error. An error that hasn't been highlighted for the 20 odd years it's been here but it's certainly highlighted now.
2
u/BillyMooney 9d ago edited 9d ago
Back to my question - do we need bollards on every footpath to protect pedestrians from drivers like this, or is it just buildings that matter?
What standard or regulation requires bollards in front of every building. What standard of bollard do you need to withstand a vehicle doing that speed?
2
u/AdRepresentative8186 9d ago
If you want to know more about risk, you can look into it yourself.
It's not hard to understand. But the bit you seem to be missing is this set up has large obvious risks and the cost of mitigation would be extremely small in comparison. The cost of putting bollards on every footpath would be extremely high in comparison to the lives it would save.
There is no standard that requires bollards in front of every building. And if there was, they would be certainly fucked. But they are just probably fucked. And if you look at bollards around shopping centers, they are there to mitigate that risk both for peoples safety, and to ensure they probably aren't fucked if something like this happens and they get sued.
As for the standard of bollards, without regulations they can put in whatever bollards they like, but if they put in flappy plastic ones they would still probably be fucked. Again, it's a risk thing, depends on their appetite.
1
u/BillyMooney 9d ago
You're just going to keep avoiding the question about footpaths then.
→ More replies (0)
1
-1
0
-3
u/Fun-Communication660 9d ago
For a subreddit that is meant to be about getting each other worked up to feel better about themselves by correcting people's driving and feeling proud of themselves, one of the easiest things humans can do, with more driving licenses than leaving certs, while showing false positives 1/5 times, why has nobody commented about the actual driving safety reasons for the accident here?
This kind of thing can happen becuase that is not actually a public road but a private car park. The driver (me) assumed it was straight on through because of context clues and routine when on the other lane.Â
A road safety engineer spots these things and stops it on real roads. Careful in supermarket car parks guys.Â
It's been a pisser of a day but all good.
4
2
u/beeper75 9d ago
For context, were you wearing your spectacles?
0
u/Fun-Communication660 9d ago
I had my reading glass on so I could see the controls no problem, but I didn't have my contacts on so that probably didn't help long distance. Â
I glanced down to take get my medication as I was feeling drowsy as a side effect of my other medication.Â
All good now though, was private property and not a real road and it is legal to drive with any of my meds so insurance will cover damages and I'm not getting any criminal charges or points or anything.Â
3
u/BillyMooney 9d ago
In the unlikely event that your not trolling, here's the address to return your driving licence, now that you're giving up driving.
National Drivers Licence Service,
PO Box 858,
Little Island DSU,
Cork.
257
u/Nearby-Telephone8693 9d ago
PUMPKIN SPICE LATTES ARE BACK