You Know What Really Grinds My Gears....The Sequel!

[DuffMan]

As far as getting rid of furniture goes, you can leave it by the dumpster at any apartment block where young people, students, poor people etc, live and they'll pick it up.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

Have you read Strombad's last two posts regarding this? It has been established that he is pretty damn stupid.

Oh cool, insults.

You must be having a great morning. Keep up the solid contributions.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by strombad

It's not illegal to change the dials, to grab a snack, to grab your drink, to take out a smoke, to look at someone for a moment while they talk to you, etc. All of which take about the same time or more than the time I spent moving my phone back into my seat, so if nothing else, I'd have a fair argument.

Ya, no

Originally Posted by Alberta Highway Traffic Act

Careless driving
123 A person who drives a vehicle on a highway
(a) without due care and attention, or
(b) without reasonable consideration for persons using the
highway,
is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly.

Its not the act of "changing a dial" that is illegal, its driving carelessly, which can be assessed at any time you're (surprise!) driving without due care!

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by strombad

Jaywalking is illegal.

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

You'd still be at fault, especially when you admitted to taking your eyes off the road.

Originally Posted by Igster

Sure, but you would be pretty stupid to admit that.

All drivers in a vehicle v pedestrian on public roads are automatically "at fault" untill they show otherwise.

[Igster]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

All drivers in a vehicle v pedestrian on public roads are automatically "at fault" untill they show otherwise.

That cannot be true. Especially when the pedestrian is clearly jaywalking nowhere near a crosswalk. You can't just step out into the street and say the driver is at fault automatically because Joe Pedestrian is an idiot, crossing where he shouldn't into oncoming traffic.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Igster

That cannot be true. Especially when the pedestrian is clearly jaywalking nowhere near a crosswalk. You can't just step out into the street and say the driver is at fault automatically because Joe Pedestrian is an idiot, crossing where he shouldn't into oncoming traffic.

You saw the part about "untill they show otherwise", correct?


Google "reverse onus of proof".

[Igster]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

You saw the part about "untill they show otherwise", correct?

Well, let's be serious...that would happen instantly based on the location of the idiot crossing the road.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Igster

Well, let's be serious...that would happen instantly based on the location of the idiot crossing the road.

I am being serious.

Here have a read:

http://www.beardwinter.com/wp-conten...Discussion.pdf


It is an Ontario firm, but they get the idea.

While in the situation noted, it may seem "instantly" evident that the pedestrian is "at fault", you can find cases where some libaility has been put on the driver.

[Dion]

Said goodbye to my neighbours dog a few minutes ago. She had a 6 year old golden retriever named Kobe. Kobe was diagnosed with blood cancer and was losing mobility in his hind legs so she decided it was time to put him down. I'm really going to miss that dog

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by strombad

Oh cool, insults.

You must be having a great morning. Keep up the solid contributions.

It wasn't meant as an insult. I was just making an observation.

Anyway keep up with the solid driving habits, try not to kill anyone when you're talking to your wife on the phone today.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Not judging because we've all made dumb mistakes while driving but 2-3 seconds is a long time to take your eyes off the road. I try my best just to make quick glances, don't fiddle with crap unless I'm stopped and eye contact with the person next to me is meaningless while I'm at the wheel.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

All drivers in a vehicle v pedestrian on public roads are automatically "at fault" untill they show otherwise.

The "at fault until they show otherwise" portion is the pedestrian running across the street in an undesignated zone where they do not have the right of way.

At WORST, I would be held partially responsible. However, considering the fact that I had:
- Checked the situation
- Noted no obvious pedestrians or problems that could/should have become relevant
- Kept my speed under the limit
- Had used a hands free device to operate my telephone
- and moved the device only to avoid possible complications to my ability to shift (thus drive safely)
Then I'm fairly confident I'd be just fine. Things come up, I wasn't just grabbing my phone for fun. Unfortunately I was operating my vehicle with due care in every possible legal sense and only nearly struck the man due to his own extremely negligence.

Funny though that a pedestrian risking his life is seen as somehow less "stupid" than the man who followed every possible precaution to ensure his manoeuvre was appropriate.

Again, questions of partial responsibility aside, I would still be alive and in good health. The pedestrian would be lucky to get away with just broken bones.

EDIT: And to clarify to MMF, say "1 Mississippi 2", take your eyes away from something when you say "1" and put them back when you say "2". That's not much more than a glance.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Who said it was less stupid?

The pedestrian involved in your near miss isn't here reply to, you are. Don't be so defensive.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by strombad

The "at fault until they show otherwise" portion is the pedestrian running across the street in an undesignated zone where they do not have the right of way.

At WORST, I would be held partially responsible. However, considering the fact that I had:
- Checked the situation
- Noted no obvious pedestrians or problems that could/should have become relevant
- Kept my speed under the limit
- Had used a hands free device to operate my telephone
- and moved the device only to avoid possible complications to my ability to shift (thus drive safely)
Then I'm fairly confident I'd be just fine. Things come up, I wasn't just grabbing my phone for fun. Unfortunately I was operating my vehicle with due care in every possible legal sense and only nearly struck the man due to his own extremely negligence.

Funny though that a pedestrian risking his life is seen as somehow less "stupid" than the man who followed every possible precaution to ensure his manoeuvre was appropriate.

Again, questions of partial responsibility aside, I would still be alive and in good health. The pedestrian would be lucky to get away with just broken bones.

I ain't passing judgement on you, and not commenting on your situation/fact picture.

I am just saying that in a ped. v veh. incident, the onus is on the driver, always the driver to show they were not "at fault". Rightly or wrongly that is the way it is in Alberta. If you want to dig deep enough you can find caselaw to support any situation/fact picture.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

It wasn't meant as an insult. I was just making an observation.

Anyway keep up with the solid driving habits, try not to kill anyone when you're talking to your wife on the phone today.

No, you're being insulting, and you're being purposely obtuse in an attempt to troll.

If you don't have anything to say that doesn't serve only to phallate your own misplaced sense of social value, then perhaps it's best that you quiet down, give yourself a timeout, and let adults have a conversation that's clearly a step above your comprehension level.

You know, just an observation

[strombad]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Who said it was less stupid?



The pedestrian involved in your near miss isn't here reply to, you are. Don't be so defensive.

Sorry, didn't mean to be defensive, but it does happen when I get called "stupid" or generally accused of things that are not true, and my responses then tend to get skewed. Ate a bit too much troll bait, I'm afraid. At least I'm full now.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by strombad

The "at fault until they show otherwise" portion is the pedestrian running across the street in an undesignated zone where they do not have the right of way.

At WORST, I would be held partially responsible. However, considering the fact that I had:
- Checked the situation
- Noted no obvious pedestrians or problems that could/should have become relevant
- Kept my speed under the limit
- Had used a hands free device to operate my telephone
- and moved the device only to avoid possible complications to my ability to shift (thus drive safely)
Then I'm fairly confident I'd be just fine. Things come up, I wasn't just grabbing my phone for fun. Unfortunately I was operating my vehicle with due care in every possible legal sense and only nearly struck the man due to his own extremely negligence.

Funny though that a pedestrian risking his life is seen as somehow less "stupid" than the man who followed every possible precaution to ensure his manoeuvre was appropriate.

Again, questions of partial responsibility aside, I would still be alive and in good health. The pedestrian would be lucky to get away with just broken bones.

EDIT: And to clarify to MMF, say "1 Mississippi 2", take your eyes away from something when you say "1" and put them back when you say "2". That's not much more than a glance.

that's probably what this guy was thinking also

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/04/2...pped-cigarette

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by strombad

The "at fault until they show otherwise" portion is the pedestrian running across the street in an undesignated zone where they do not have the right of way.

At WORST, I would be held partially responsible. However, considering the fact that I had:
- Checked the situation
- Noted no obvious pedestrians or problems that could/should have become relevant
- Kept my speed under the limit
- Had used a hands free device to operate my telephone
- and moved the device only to avoid possible complications to my ability to shift (thus drive safely)
Then I'm fairly confident I'd be just fine. Things come up, I wasn't just grabbing my phone for fun. Unfortunately I was operating my vehicle with due care in every possible legal sense and only nearly struck the man due to his own extremely negligence.

Funny though that a pedestrian risking his life is seen as somehow less "stupid" than the man who followed every possible precaution to ensure his manoeuvre was appropriate.

Again, questions of partial responsibility aside, I would still be alive and in good health. The pedestrian would be lucky to get away with just broken bones.

EDIT: And to clarify to MMF, say "1 Mississippi 2", take your eyes away from something when you say "1" and put them back when you say "2". That's not much more than a glance.

From a completely legal sense you'd likely be held entirely responsible because you do admit to being distracted while it happened. It doesn't matter for how long or how safe you were otherwise being... "I looked down at my phone for a second..." and then it's completely your fault.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

From a completely legal sense you'd likely be held entirely responsible because you do admit to being distracted while it happened. It doesn't matter for how long or how safe you were otherwise being... "I looked down at my phone for a second..." and then it's completely your fault.

Perhaps snipetype could crawl off his model girlfriend to give his legal opinion here.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Rubicant

Perhaps snipetype could crawl off his model girlfriend to give his legal opinion here.