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

[DownInFlames]

I think she actually saw the van and was mesmerized by its sexy styling.

[Shazam]

She was probably wondering what the hell it was, seeing as how nobody has minivans anymore.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Use this as a legal argument in a court and tell me how well it plays out. Sure, maybe you could make an argument of contributory negligence when you get sued for her injuries, but the reasoning behind these types of provisions is to prevent people from pulling the old Russian "lay down in the road and get hit for money" angle.

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.

She wasn't paying attention because she was not looking at the car that just plowed into her? surely this is some of her fault and the man was in his right to get out an yell at her for contributing 50% to the accident....

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.

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

The “victim blaming” comments to those raising this are hilarious. Are yall unable to have multiple takeaways from an event?

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.

[PepsiFree]

So spicy.

[PepsiFree]

Doesnt 100% imply the maximum fault? Not in an insurance sense, just in a general sense.

So, if the girl was partially at fault or deserving of criticism, doesn’t that reduce the fault or criticism of the driver? Or is this like when people give 110%?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Doesnt 100% imply the maximum fault? Not in an insurance sense, just in a general sense.

So, if the girl was partially at fault or deserving of criticism, doesn’t that reduce the fault or criticism of the driver? Or is this like when people give 110%?

She didn't force nor create an unsafe situation; he collided with her, that's 100% on him.

That doesn't stop us asking why people aren't more aware of their surroundings when crossing the street given some of the drivers out there are absolutely dogsh-t at it. Self-preservation.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

She didn't force nor create an unsafe situation; he collided with her, that's 100% on him.

That doesn't stop us asking why people aren't more aware of their surroundings when crossing the street given some of the drivers out there are absolutely dogsh-t at it. Self-preservation.

If we assume she was not being aware of her surroundings and this wasn’t just a momentary lapse or poor judgement call, but we also assume he driver bare 100% of the responsibility for creating an unsafe situation, doesn’t that imply that not being aware of your surroundings actually contributes 0% to an unsafe situation and is therefore completely fine?

[Wormius]

I don’t even know why age is entering the discussion. How is it relevant? Could have been 9 or 10 year old walking their bike across the crosswalk on their way home from school. Being 17 or whatever doesn’t really mean their actions contributed to this any more than if it were a toddler.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I don’t even know why age is entering the discussion. How is it relevant? Could have been 9 or 10 year old walking their bike across the crosswalk on their way home from school. Being 17 or whatever doesn’t really mean their actions contributed to this any more than if it were a toddler.

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.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If we assume she was not being aware of her surroundings and this wasn’t just a momentary lapse or poor judgement call, but we also assume he driver bare 100% of the responsibility for creating an unsafe situation, doesn’t that imply that not being aware of your surroundings actually contributes 0% to an unsafe situation and is therefore completely fine?

It is possible to fully acknowledge the driver's sole culpability while recognizing the pedestrian's lack of awareness is a separate, pragmatic issue about self-preservation. Fault only determines who causes an incident, but being faultless doesn't prevent injury whereas exercising good awareness does.

100% is being used in the legal and ethical sense, which doesn't prevent us making observations about behaviour. A driver can bear 100% of the fault and the pedestrian can still have made choices that worsened her odds of staying unharmed. Liability versus survival.

Age matters only insofar as it shapes our expectations of people. At 17, you're old enough to know what an inattentive driver looks like, how to safely cross a street; a 9-year-old, less so. That doesn't mean she's to blame, it just raises the question of why they weren't even remotely aware of what was happening around them.

[ResAlien]

Totally plus look what she was wearing she was practically begging for it

[DownInFlames]

If a pedantry vampire is reading this thread they must be gorging on TD’s posts.

[puckedoff]

I had a chuckle, so maybe this should go in Funny and Cool instead. Woman complains about no grace period after 12 month grace period -
https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/consu...-payment-plan/

Grinds my gears when people complain that they couldn't do the bare minimum of what they agreed to, in this case in writing.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

It is possible to fully acknowledge the driver's sole culpability while recognizing the pedestrian's lack of awareness is a separate, pragmatic issue about self-preservation. Fault only determines who causes an incident, but being faultless doesn't prevent injury whereas exercising good awareness does.

100% is being used in the legal and ethical sense, which doesn't prevent us making observations about behaviour. A driver can bear 100% of the fault and the pedestrian can still have made choices that worsened her odds of staying unharmed. Liability versus survival.

Age matters only insofar as it shapes our expectations of people. At 17, you're old enough to know what an inattentive driver looks like, how to safely cross a street; a 9-year-old, less so. That doesn't mean she's to blame, it just raises the question of why they weren't even remotely aware of what was happening around them.

So removing/ignoring liability or any legal definitions, your argument is that the driver was not 100% responsible for hitting the pedestrian and that the pedestrian carries some responsibility for getting hit in a crosswalk?

[Erick Estrada]

It’s on her to make sure she gets that last payment in but I would not be surprised in if the company purposely was late billing for the last payment for that sole reason.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

If a pedantry vampire is reading this thread they must be gorging on TD’s posts.

This says more about your reading stamina than my desire to express ideas with precision.

Originally Posted by puckedoff

I had a chuckle, so maybe this should go in Funny and Cool instead. Woman complains about no grace period after 12 month grace period -
https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/consu...-payment-plan/

Grinds my gears when people complain that they couldn't do the bare minimum of what they agreed to, in this case in writing.

We have an arrangement like that with our mattress. 0% and no payments for 12 months... with the obvious catch being if you have a balance after 12 months, you are charged interest on the entire original amount, irrespective of how much has been paid off to that point.

Using 0% is great since it's borrowing someone else's money for free... again, provided you pay it off. I have it set up as a recurring equal payment every month in my bank, plus a final lump sum two weeks prior to maturity (with a calendar reminder so I can confirm it's satisfied), so it'll take care of itself.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

This says more about your reading stamina than my desire to express ideas with precision.

I’ve actually read all of your posts here and enjoyed them. It’s just funny to me how we have these stupid discussions like they’re important.

[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.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

I’ve actually read all of your posts here and enjoyed them. It’s just funny to me how we have these stupid discussions like they’re important.

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-...

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So removing/ignoring liability or any legal definitions, your argument is that the driver was not 100% responsible for hitting the pedestrian and that the pedestrian carries some responsibility for getting hit in a crosswalk?

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?

[Erick Estrada]

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.

Those contracts are set up specifically for that reason because they know a lot of the general populace will forget or be late on the last payment especially if not billed on time. The buyer however agrees to those terms when they sign the dotted line.