|
To the douchebag jwalking in the snowstorm: (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
So I describe a situation where the road is busy and cars are driving 40, and you tell me you're the dude steppin on the gas on the 'open road', then, when I hold you to the outlined sitiation that I described in the original post, that you referenced in your reply, you tell ME to read carefully?
Are you for serious? |
in that case, you are ridiculous for telling people not to hit the gas when you're talking about grid lock traffic :rolleyes:
but being a rational human, i took your "step on the gas" remark in reference to situations where it's possible to do so, i.e. open road.
ur stupid and boring, i'm going to bed.
:p |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by fayraree
in that case, you are ridiculous for telling people not to hit the gas when you're talking about grid lock traffic :rolleyes:
but being a rational human, i took your "step on the gas" remark in reference to situations where it's possible to do so, i.e. open road.
ur stupid and boring, i'm going to bed.
:p |
My 'step on the gas' remark was for those idiots who would hit the gas just enough to close a large-enough gap for me to walk/trot/sprint through. People close gaps between cars all the time, thus it's not ridiculous at all that I would say "as long as they don't step on the gas", because I would appreciate that the gap between cars REMAIN a gap whilst I am within said gap.
You're ugly and fat, I just woke up
:p |
|
|
| zoogla |
get a ing job!!! waking up at 2 pm ffs :rolleyes:
and unless YOU'RE a fatass you should be able to fit through any "gap" between two cars in gridlock traffic because last time I checked people don't hit the gas to lock bumpers with the car in front of them, so it's a moot point. walk close to the rear bumper of the car that is stopped / going slowly in the front and it's irrelevant whether the car behind hits his gas or not, at 20 km/h.
, you're making my brain hurt with your nonsense. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Pett
playing chicken with cyclists constitutes reckless driving |
i dont aim for him or speed up. I just drive like i normally would down a one way street ;) The bicyclist driving the wrong way on a one way street is clearly breaking the law. Im just driving like i normally would when some dude on a bike happens to hit me head on ;). BTW i do believe that bicyclists can be charged under the exact same laws undewr the highway traffic act as cars. And perhaps they should start enforcing these laws on bikes. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by fayraree
get a ing job!!! waking up at 2 pm ffs :rolleyes:
and unless YOU'RE a fatass you should be able to fit through any "gap" between two cars in gridlock traffic because last time I checked people don't hit the gas to lock bumpers with the car in front of them, so it's a moot point. walk close to the rear bumper of the car that is stopped / going slowly in the front and it's irrelevant whether the car behind hits his gas or not, at 20 km/h.
, you're making my brain hurt with your nonsense. |
No one said gridlock traffic. No one said stopped, or even slow 20km/h traddic. I ACTUALLY said traffic moving around 40/45. IOW, typical, middle of the day, downtown traffic. It's no wonder your head hurts what with all your attempting to invent new situations to be in just to argue with me. At 40-45km/h, traffic is actually running fairly smoothly in the core, and it's totally acceptable to expect that a car MIGHT decide to speed up to 50-55 to close a gap that would otherwise be wide enough for a pedestrian to make it through. I don't know why you're arguing. My original post was clear, and now because YOU wanted to make up imaginary events that *I* never described, you're bitching at me like it's MY fault your brain hurts. Maybe if you used it more often, you wouldn't be causing it so much stress over an internet post.
FFS man, YOU need a vacation!!! You're arguing with a forum troll and it's causing brain-cramps! I hear Mexico is cheap this time of year... |
|
|
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
I hear Mexico is cheap this time of year... |
cool, i'll hafta look into that ;)
ps. at least try to be consistent, though...
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
If you can hit 20 over on a busy downtown street without hitting the run-down voyager/corola driving 30 in the left hand lane, all the more power to ya. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
No one said gridlock traffic. No one said stopped, or even slow 20km/h traddic. I ACTUALLY said traffic moving around 40/45. |
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| cherry_blossom |
| Jaywalking is wrong, no doubt about that, BUT when you hit and kill someone, it's a crime, so you do the time, simple as that. I don't know why people in here are trying to justify that. |
|
|
| cherry_blossom |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
So you are saying that pedestrians should not take responsibility for their own safety? That its ok for me to have to pay for his negligence? That people jwalking should not be culpable for being in a place they have no business being in the first place? Id use your points to argue why the laws SHOULD change. Since jwalking can result in such serious injury, the onus should be on the pedestrian not to jwalk in the first place.
Perfect comprimise:
Pedestrian has right of way and car hits them... car is automatically at fault
Pedestrian does not have right of way and car hits them, pedestrian is automatically at fault.
Makes the driver more cautious at intersections and crosswalks. Makes the pedestrian more cautious in the middle of the street |
What are you talking about? Those "laws" you made up are completely stupid. Anytime, anywhere you kill someone when YOU'RE driving a VEHICLE, you're the one automatically at fault. Maybe not morally(like for instance when someone jaywalks in front of you), but legally you ARE. Deal with it. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by cherry_blossom
What are you talking about? Those "laws" you made up are completely stupid. Anytime, anywhere you kill someone when YOU'RE driving a VEHICLE, you're the one automatically at fault. Maybe not morally(like for instance when someone jaywalks in front of you), but legally you ARE. Deal with it. |
The driver is not automatically at fault.....there is a reverse onus of negligence in any auto accident with a pedestrian. The insurer of the auto has to show the pedestrian was negligent. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by fayraree
ps. at least try to be consistent, though... |
Hah! Got me!
In all fairness though, the first quote is a smart-ass comment about you stepping on the gas, and I deliberately exaggerated the slowness of the stupid in the left-hand lane for effect, not to make the point I'm currently making. Also, the second quote you list is commenting directly on my ORIGINAL post, where I do NOT mention any speed slower than 45, gridlock, stopped cars or people traveling at 20km/h. It's all about context my friend ;) |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by cherry_blossom
What are you talking about? Those "laws" you made up are completely stupid. Anytime, anywhere you kill someone when YOU'RE driving a VEHICLE, you're the one automatically at fault. Maybe not morally(like for instance when someone jaywalks in front of you), but legally you ARE. Deal with it. |
I'm sorry but you're wrong. My father was killed by a driver while riding his bike...but the driver was not found at fault because my father failed to yield. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
I hear Mexico is cheap this time of year... |
try j-walking toronto style there and see what happens LOL |
|
|
|
|
