You Know What Really Grinds My Gears? Now with 3x more gears...

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Also #### that piece of #### for not being immediately concerned over the kids wellbeing and for not being overly apologetic. What a ######. 100% was on his phone.

If the kid isn't even concerned over her own well-being that she'd so haphazardly cross the street at a crosswalk, should the driver really need to be concerned over it?


Why be overly apologetic when even if they are at 100% fault, the kid could have watched where they were going and this whole thing could have been avoided? Surely a lecture on self-preservation and the importance of having awareness of your surroundings would be more valuable than some performative contrition.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

She should have to pay some sort of penalty for being late, but I do think it's predatory to have a contract that charges full interest (at likely a massive rate) if you are late in any way.

It's the interest that would have accumulated over the year.

I did this once and I forgot to pay on time, despite the bill arriving every month with a gigantic section surrounded in asterisks written in all caps reminding me to pay before the year grace to save on the interest.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Yeah, we do get a bit too into the weeds on sh-t like this. We just can't help ourselves, it's like when a Border Collie sees a squirrel, and-...
I knew the bad-faith argument would make an appearance sooner or later.

The driver is entirely responsible for causing the collision. Full stop.

What I'm saying is that responsibility for causing an event and responsibility for protecting yourself from other people's mistakes are two different things. One is moral and legal, the other is practical. You can be completely blameless and still have made choices that didn't help your odds of avoiding harm from someone else's fu-k-up.


... see?

What is the practical difference between the driver being responsible for causing the collision, and the pedestrian being responsible for not avoiding the collision?

[TorqueDog]

About the same as the difference between starting a fire and not running fast enough away from it. You can talk about how to react better next time without pretending that doing so shares the blame for the fire in the first place.

[Roughneck]

Somebody starts a fire, there’s still a fire whether I run away from it or not.

If the pedestrian had better self awareness, there is no collision for the driver to be responsible for.

[TorqueDog]

Cool. Metaphors are useful and work until we push them to a point that they don't, and at this specific point, you're just arguing to argue.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

If the kid isn't even concerned over her own well-being that she'd so haphazardly cross the street at a crosswalk, should the driver really need to be concerned over it?


Why be overly apologetic when even if they are at 100% fault, the kid could have watched where they were going and this whole thing could have been avoided? Surely a lecture on self-preservation and the importance of having awareness of your surroundings would be more valuable than some performative contrition.

Because they ran over a kid with their car…

[Knut]

This Canada Post strike can eff off any time now.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Cappy, what is this, did you get into a competition with a neutron star to see who is the most dense? Because you're f-cking winning.

"I just think it's funny that a 17 year old girl gets hit at a crosswalk and everyone is jumping on her for not paying attention - which we have absolutely no evidence of."
1. Please go here and fix this problem.
2. We have a video where she doesn't even flinch. No one is 'jumping on her', we're simply remarking on the video evidence that there was zero reaction by her whatsoever prior to the moment of impact.

No one, I repeat, no one is excusing the driver, as evidenced by quotes in this thread stating he's 100% at fault... because he is.


That's the state of online discourse far too often and it's tiring and annoying. Multiple things can be true, having the ability to notice one thing doesn't negate the other.

Not reacting to getting hit at 30+Km/h is not the same as not paying attention, dude.

But your insults are top notch, man. astronomy? you're on fire.

[fotze2]

How in the sweet fata do you guys find things to argue about in that clip. It’s pretty amazing.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Yeah, we do get a bit too into the weeds on sh-t like this. We just can't help ourselves, it's like when a Border Collie sees a squirrel, and-...
I knew the bad-faith argument would make an appearance sooner or later.

The driver is entirely responsible for causing the collision. Full stop.

What I'm saying is that responsibility for causing an event and responsibility for protecting yourself from other people's mistakes are two different things. One is moral and legal, the other is practical. You can be completely blameless and still have made choices that didn't help your odds of avoiding harm from someone else's fu-k-up.


... see?

It’s not a bad faith argument. Your and Fuzz’s position is more like a 90/10 or 80/20 responsibility split, though I’m not sure why you’re avoiding stating that outright. In an event that involves two people, one where force is applied from one to another, it’s impossible for one person to have all the blame/responsibility for the event and for the other to have some, too. You’re then talking about an event where there is >100% responsibility/blame, which isn’t how it works, so you have to acknowledge that the driver isn’t entirely responsible for the event if the victim is partially responsible for the event.

There might be some “facts” that led to the event occurring. Like, it is a fact she walked in a crosswalk, it is a fact she didn’t jump out of the way, etc. And I think pointing that out is fine, but then assigning responsibility for not doing those things is different.

Is it fair to say she didn’t jump out of the way, or try to run past, or stop before the van approached? Yes, facts! Is it victim blaming or putting responsibility on her to do those things, and thus removing responsibility from the driver, when suggesting she should have walked smarter, had less negligent parents, stopped staring at her non existent phone, etc? Also yes.

I also think the “state of online discourse” comment was kind of funny as there’s nothing more prevalent in online discourse than seeing someone become a victim of something and criticising/pointing out all the ways they should have known better.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Because they ran over a kid with their car…

The kid was never ran over

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Cool. Metaphors are useful and work until we push them to a point that they don't, and at this specific point, you're just arguing to argue.

I mean, it's your metaphor.


So if the minvan running the crosswalk is the fire and it's the pedestrian's responsibility to run fast enough away from the fire, who then is responsible for the pedestrian getting hit by the fire?

[Wormius]

So who would be blamed if she jumped forward, but the van swerved to the left? How do we get from 80/20 to 100/0?

[fotze2]

Three things that need to go. Aioli of all forms, drizzle and/or cabbage/slaw in tacos.

Giant tacos because it’s packed with cabbage. Like we are fataing stupid. Let’s pack this taco with the shredded paper that virtually zero cost. I wish I were a baby Bumble bee.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Not reacting to getting hit at 30+Km/h is not the same as not paying attention, dude.

Distinction without a difference, really. Whether you call it not paying attention or just failing to react, the point is the same in that she showed no awareness of a car that was clearly about to hit her.

you&me put it pretty succinctly here:

Originally Posted by you&me

The driver can still be 100% at fault, while being hit by the driver was still avoidable if the pedestrian acted differently.

To put it another way, how many of you would have been hit by the minivan under the same circumstances?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Knut

This Canada Post strike can eff off any time now.

I can’t even say that I’ve noticed, and this is really the issue with Canada Post.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Nah screw the toddlers, little know it all whiny ####s have it coming to them. You think you wanna go for a walk without mom and dad? Freak out when you don’t get the race car shopping cart? Good luck playing frogger ya dickhead.

Tons of toddlers grow up to be inattentive minivan drivers that run over teenagers so we should probably just take them out now.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Knut

This Canada Post strike can eff off any time now.

Waiting for your Publishers Clearing House cheque?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Waiting for your Publishers Clearing House cheque?

They've gone bankrupt and so it isn't coming even if Canada Post re-starts.