The "I Don't Want To Live On This Planet Anymore" thread

[Raekwon]

The cars that stopped for the Jaywalker should be responsible IMO

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

The cars that stopped for the Jaywalker should be responsible IMO

Damned straight. How is a motorcycle supposed to see around a bunch of stopped cars?

Further, once you're jaywalking you should be responsible for your own wellbeing, if you cant handle that then use one on Victoria's many crosswalks or controlled pedestrian crossings.

Getting hit by a motorbike? Whats that, like a one in a million shot?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Locke

Damned straight. How is a motorcycle supposed to see around a bunch of stopped cars?

Further, once you're jaywalking you should be responsible for your own wellbeing, if you cant handle that then use one on Victoria's many crosswalks or controlled pedestrian crossings.

Getting hit by a motorbike? Whats that, like a one in a million shot?

You've become rather unusual.

[81MC]

I made the mistake of starting to watch a road rage video on YouTube (I really should stop wasting my life). No wonder America is so ####ed, what they call ‘road rage’ I call straight up violent assault, if not attempted murder. People are vile.

[MikePatton]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/1...19BCSC1287.htm

There was already cars stopped for a jaywalker coming from the other side. They took that as an opportunity to cross but the motorcycle, for no apparent reason, didn't appear to take any precautions despite the jaywalkers being visible. Of course the jaywalkers are far from blameless, but it seems like the motorcycle either didn't care or wasn't paying attention in which case tough luck.

On the bolded - I always worry when traffic is mysteriously stopped in lanes other than mine and I have the freedom to drive past unobstructed. A mysterious jaywalker is always what I worry about. I guess the right thing to do is to slow down gradually so that drivers behind you have a chance to react and so that you put yourself in the best situation possible for whatever lies ahead.

I feel for the motorcyclist, but I'm also inclined to say that they are culpable.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://twitter.com/user/status/789904504317698048




https://www.thedrive.com/news/29332/...ervice-animals

This might be taking it a bit to far. I'm not sure how this is considered safe, either. In the event of heavy turbulence. Plus don't horses poop whenever and wherever they feel like it? Or does it have a bum bag?

How would it work if someone on the plane is allergic to horses. My son wouldn't be able to breath on this plane. If he is within 100m of horses his airway starts to close and he needs intervention.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by gasman

How would it work if someone on the plane is allergic to horses. My son wouldn't be able to breath on this plane. If he is within 100m of horses his airway starts to close and he needs intervention.

Oh I’m certain you’d get blamed for that somehow.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah, pedestrians breaking the law are the victims here and they should have gotten more.

I mean, they couldnt have been more injured if they'd stepped into the road between stopped cars, they shouldnt be responsible for checking for oncoming traffic when crossing a road.

We aren't talking about the pedestrians culpability. They are to blame and everyone agrees. Don't be obtuse by changing the argument.

Now it's a question of how much, if any, fault should lie on the driver. I think you would agree if there was some kid who ran in front of you, you would brake right? If you took reasonable steps, i.e. braked as quickly as possible, you would not be at fault for the accident. But if you were looking at your phone in the same scenario or otherwise not paying attention, and didn't brake or were too late to brake, then you would be at (some) fault. That's obvious. Otherwise you're giving way to legal murder of any jaywalkers?

The motorist had an opportunity to defend himself and didn't take it, he was unable to explain why he couldn't see the bright yellow sweater despite having visibility, why he didn't slow down despite the other lane being stopped, he didn't take the necessary steps a reasonable careful driver would have took. That makes him at fault. And it's explicit in the law (for BC):

181 Despite sections 178, 179 and 180, a driver of a vehicle must

(a) exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian who is on the highway,

(b) give warning by sounding the horn of the vehicle when necessary, and

(c) observe proper precaution on observing a child or apparently confused or incapacitated person on the highway.

He ####ed up on the due care part. You don't just get to close your eyes until the next intersection, stuff happens, people jaywalk, it's still your responsibility to drive carefully and pay attention for unexpected occurrences.

There's a difference between someone running out in front of you and you slamming on your breaks, and just not looking in front of you. This is the case of the latter.

As was stated in Hmaied, “If it is reasonably foreseeable or apparent that a pedestrian will disregard the law and thus create a hazardous situation, a driver is obliged to take all reasonable steps to avoid a collision.” In this case, I find that it was apparent that the Marcenas had created a hazardous situation by entering the roadway. However, there is no evidence as to what, if any, precautions Mr. Thomson took to avoid the collision.

I'm content with 25%, especially as it's insurance. The only people who have to worry about this verdict are the careless drivers who don't pay attention, which is great.

[Weitz]

Imagine living in a world where you are willing to defend a guy getting paid $100k because he saw his wife get hit by a motor bike while jaywalking.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Imagine living in a world where you are willing to defend drivers carelessly driving into pedestrians because they are not paying attention.

I don't care about insurance paying some guy based on doctor's expert opinions. I care about unaware drivers running into pedestrians.

[Weitz]

And what happens if these people walked the 20 meters to a crosswalk?

There is only 2 people to blame for this and neither of them were driving.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Weitz

And what happens if these people walked the 20 meters to a crosswalk?

There is only 2 people to blame for this and neither of them were driving.

Well, no, the driver is to blame as well.

[Oling_Roachinen]

What the jaywalkers did was wrong. We agree. Had police been there they would have deserved a ticket.

But it does not give carte blanche ability to run them over. I'm sure you would stop for kids playing hockey in the streets and would be absolutely furious by anyone who drove into them because they were "jaywalking" and didn't care.

This is about the motorcyclists actions, not the pedestrians. What he did, in this case apparently nothing, puts him at fault as well. And I'm not saying he did it on purpose, obviously, but he still has a duty to drive safely.

People jaywalk all the time. If you want to operate a vehicle it's your duty to be aware and take proper precautions. When you see a vehicle stopped, be on the lookout, pay attention to what is ahead of you and any safety risks. If you can't or won't do that, don't drive.

[Wormius]

Yeah, again if it were a flag person or some first responder who was in the street, nobody would be questioning who was at fault if a motorcyclist ran into them. The motorcyclist sounded like he was in auto-pilot mode as he was going down that street that he goes down almost daily.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by gasman

How would it work if someone on the plane is allergic to horses. My son wouldn't be able to breath on this plane. If he is within 100m of horses his airway starts to close and he needs intervention.

Sounds like he needs to sign up for an emotional support oxygen tank.

[WhiteTiger]

Not even sure what to think about this...

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...iolations.html

The Federal Court has ordered Air Canada to pay a total of $21,000 to two francophones for repeated violations of their language rights, including seatbelts on which the instruction to “lift” the buckle was marked only in English...The pair complained that planes’ emergency exit door signs were either in English only, or the English words were in larger font than the French ones...And they complained that a French-language boarding announcement made at the airport in Fredericton was not as detailed as the English-language one. The two say Air Canada systematically violated the linguistic rights of francophones.

The airline argued the Thibodeaus were interpreting the Official Languages Act too strictly. The airline said the law doesn’t require it to treat the two languages identically, but in a substantially similar way.
On the issue of the seatbelt, it was the manufacturer’s decision to mark the word “lift,” Air Canada said, noting that a fully bilingual message on how to use a seatbelt is delivered before takeoff.
Federal Court Justice Martine St-Louis disagreed. She ordered the airline to write letters of apology to both complainants and to pay them damages totalling $21,000.

Apparently, most of us are living our lives wrong. We need to find some little detail we can whinge about, take it to court, and hope for a sympathetic judge, and if you don't find one (like this pair didn't on their first go at this...) then keep trying until you do.

[Jason14h]

The best isn't that they got money, but that AC had to issue an apology....

And they wonder why Alberta hates Quebec

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

And they wonder why Alberta hates Quebec

The two complainants aren't from Quebec. They are from Ontario.

[Roof-Daddy]

Federal Court Justice Martine St-Louis...

That's pretty shocking that she took the french speaking side. /sarcasm

Pretty much just legalized robbery.

[Locke]

If they dont know how to operate a seatbelt without instructions they should be prohibited from all travel in excess of a Horse and Buggy.

They can have their $21K and their apology, but they are legally prohibited from motorized travel for life.