Traffic squabbling.

[overpowered]

(New thread to get this shit out of the epic fails thread).


You would never get a Zebra crossing in areas where the pedestrian volume is that high. It's called proper road planning. It would be a push-button pedestrian crossing in the UK, alternating right-of-way between traffic and pedestrians, so that everybody gets a chance to use the road, rather than just one party. Giving pedestrians an unlimited, indefinite, permanent right of way without proper supervision, closing of roads and re-routing of traffic will only ever end in conflict. My mind will not change on that. The whole circumstances were entirely avoidable from square one.Pedestrian volume is only this high at this intersection for about 4 days per year. There are a fair amount of intersections like this in the area. Lights cost a lot of money to install and maintain and most of the year they are not needed at this intersection. The rule works fine most of the time. Maybe they should have had police directing traffic here to allow all modes but they didn't, so that means everyone just has to suck it up and follow the rules.


Do you have temporary traffic lights over there? If so, this would have been a great time to use them. Or you install a permanent set and operate them temporarily as required. Can't believe I'm even having to make these obvious suggestions.I haven't seen temporary lights. Generally, when they have special needs at intersections they'll put cops at them to direct traffic. However, there are quite a few intersections like this in this area. The train tracks that go through town along this part of the bay cause a lot of dead ends that result in low traffic intersections like this one.


Wrong. It's actually you that's suggesting that one party should have a permanent right of way and fuck the other party. Hence giving not only an elevated importance to one party, but an all-conquering supremacy to them. I'm merely suggesting a system whereby everybody gets a turn. I.e. equal importance.Nope. Normally, pedestrians are sparse enough that everyone gets a turn. The problem is that if pedestrians didn't have priority, motorists would never yield to them. They don't yield like they are supposed to a lot of the time anyway. Again, this is a special event situation. I've dealt with it at concerts and sporting events as well. It happens. You deal with it. Grow the fuck up.


Not to one where there is no organisation and they just spring it on everyone and the police are sat round spanking their monkey instead of managing traffic and diversionary routes. It just doesn't happen with proper planning. The only time it does, we call it a 'riot'.It happens in various places all the time. Again, major sporting events have this issue. Major concerts have this issue. It happens. Get over it. Your impatience is not that important. You have rage over unreasonable expectations.


If you don't see anything wrong with the way the pedestrians responded, I'm wasting my time. Like I said, the pedestrian density in York centre on the narrow cobbled pedestrianised streets is this great every Saturday and worse at Christmas. A car comes because they need access to a shop (shop owner, delivery etc.). People just move aside a bit. It takes less than 2s, it's not even an inconvenience. Nobody starts beating cars, or their chest, or chimping out and climbing on cars. What I saw from the pedestrians in that video made the monkeys of Leicester Zoo seem civilised. The only thing missing was a few people flinging excrement about.I didn't say that there was nothing wrong with the way that they responded. I never would have touched the guy's car if I had been there but I might have gone over to his side window and tried to talk to him. I do understand why they responded that way and it was predictable. People don't like being threatened or bullied. They will often stand their ground against bullies, as some of these people did. Again, the LAW says that they have the right to cross the street and they don't have to yield to some impatient bully who uses his car as a weapon.


This a completely inaccurate view of the situation. The motorcycle was bumped accidentally because he braked suddenly. They then broke a window in the SUV when it stopped, which is what caused the SUV driver to accelerate to get away.I don't think so. They were slowing for a while before that. They were already pretty slow before the bump. The slow down wasn't all that abrupt. He was following too close as they were slowing down in front of him. He bumped him intentionally or at best, misjudged his attempt to tailgate a fucking motorcycle.


So now you say the SUV driver should have called 911? So why didn't the pedestrians call 911, step aside and report his plates, if they felt he'd done something wrong? Or just as the motorcyclists could have done, marginally adjust their speed and road position for a few seconds to let the driver through? Sorry but I find your arguments are very heavily biased against car drivers.As I said, they were breaking the LAW when they tried to slow all traffic to create clear space ahead so they could do stunts on the road. They were jerks. I'm not on their side. However, that doesn't make it OK to threaten them with a fucking car.

I'm not biased against people who drive cars in general. I am against impatient ass hats who act like the world is coming to an end if they get delayed slightly. The rage is far out of proportion to the inconvenience. It also often seems massively amplified when the person or persons causing the delay are vulnerable road users. Those people are bullies, plain and simple. Their belief is: "I can easily kill you, therefore you have to do what I want regardless of the rules of the road". We have rules of the road in order to create predictability and safety and allow everyone to get around. Sometimes the rules fail at that last part but I'm not sure how you make a rule about whose turn it is with pedestrians without active traffic controls.

[Godson]

I think the issue here is Z07 is too self absorbed to understand he isn't important and doesn't get preferential treatment.

[thesameguy]

Isn't anyone suggesting "you must wait for me" asking for preferential treatment? Isn't that actually the definition of preferential treatment?

[speedpimp]

Tomato, tomato.

[overpowered]

Isn't anyone suggesting "you must wait for me" asking for preferential treatment? Isn't that actually the definition of preferential treatment?It's the law. Are you saying that the pedestrians should have to wait for the motorists?

It's the only way to arbitrate intersections with pedestrians if you don't have some sort of active control system like traffic lights or a person directing traffic. Otherwise pedestrians couldn't cross the street. Under normal circumstances, it works fine, at least when people obey the rules.

[thesameguy]

I am saying that just because motorists must stop for pedestrians present at a crossing, that doesn't entitle pedestrians to be asshats. Just as motorists need to stop to give pedestrians a chance to get across, pedestrians must cross expeditiously and endeavor to clear the crossing in reasonable time. Either group not doing their best to enable the other's passage is unconscionable as far as I'm concerned.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Law doesn't save a pedestrian when he is hit by an unlawful asshole driver.

[Yw-slayer]

Doesn't look like Z07 is going to come in here.

[Jason]

Pedestrians have the right of way, even if they are blocking traffic and being douchebags. Just because you don't like someone, doesn't give you a right to run them over. Driver instigated the "crowd violence", would have been easy enough to roll down the window and start asking people if you can get through because you have an important appointment or something. Not sure how this is even a discussion.

[Tom Servo]

I'm with Jason on this. Pedestrians are king out on the roads. Walking purposely slowly or whatever is maybe rude and inconsiderate, but I certainly wouldn't call it "unconscionable".

[Crazed_Insanity]

Nobody's disagreeing pedestrians are kings by law. Nobody disagree the the driver is the bigger asshole.

Main focus is does right of way also give people the right to be assholes? Are our assholes also protected by law? Z07s country doesn't have such law and he thinks the pedestrians are also assholes. What's the big deal here?

[thesameguy]

I certainly wouldn't call it "unconscionable".

But it is, completely. You have *no idea* what the other person's needs are. Maybe they're going to the ER. Maybe they are going to a job interview. Maybe their kids are in trouble. Maybe they have to pee. You don't know what their situation is, and you leveraging your right to be there into your right to hold them up to whatever degree you feel like doing it, putting their needs, dreams, or goals at risk for no reason other than you just don't feel like walking quickly is unconscionable. Everyone has to get along, not doing everything you can at every moment to at least not hinder and hopefully even facilitate those around you is completely and utterly messed up. It's standing at the checkout talking on your cell phone instead of paying your bill, it's driving 15 under the limit and not moving over, it's getting in line at Taco Bell before you know what you'll be ordering. "I'm first, fuck you." Unconscionable.

[Tom Servo]

So...does that mean it's unconscionable if I don't burst into a full sprint every time I cross the street? I mean, I'm capable of going reasonably quickly for short distances, is it unconscionable if I don't do that on the off chance that somebody is trying to go to the ER?

[thesameguy]

You should move as quickly as reasonably possible. Running across the street introduces safety variables - your stability, your ability to react, etc. - and may be excessive. Perhaps a purposeful stride. In places I have been - here, San Francisco, etc. - pedestrians typically hustle across the street to get out of the way. I appreciate it, and I return the favor wherever possible. Me jogging across the street hurts me in absolutely no way, keeps me reasonably safe, and helps prevent the "rubber band effect" from unnecessarily slowing traffic. It's an easy thing to do to help everyone get what they want. Linger on your time, not somebody else's. You don't know their challenges. Maybe when you're in a hurry some time the karma fairy will clear your path.

[overpowered]

These pedestrians weren't going intentionally slow. They had a crowd of people ahead of them. They really couldn't go much faster without pushing each other.

It was a continuous stream of pedestrians. Imagine if you're in that line, trying to get across the street, do you want to stop and wait for the car or do you want to keep going? Most people will want to keep going. In their minds, if they think about it at all, they think: "Well, I'm just one more. It won't add even a whole extra second for the driver". They aren't thinking about how long the stream behind them is or how long the driver is stuck there.

Imagine if you're the person in that line who decides to let the car go. You stop. Does everybody behind you and to the side of you stop? Probably not. You have to get a group of people to stop together, which is not always so easy to negotiate.

[thesameguy]

These pedestrians weren't going intentionally slow. They had a crowd of people ahead of them. They really couldn't go much faster without pushing each other.

It was a continuous stream of pedestrians. Imagine if you're in that line, trying to get across the street, do you want to stop and wait for the car or do you want to keep going? Most people will want to keep going. In their minds, if they think about it at all, they think: "Well, I'm just one more. It won't add even a whole extra second for the driver". They aren't thinking about how long the stream behind them is or how long the driver is stuck there.

Imagine if you're the person in that line who decides to let the car go. You stop. Does everybody behind you and to the side of you stop? Probably not. You have to get a group of people to stop together, which is not always so easy to negotiate.

I certainly can't argue that. It's fair to say "probably not everyone would stop" but it's also fair to say "probably nobody tried." That's really the crux of it as far as I'm concerned. So few in thus fucking country ever think "Gosh, what is my action/inaction doing for the people around me," or "how can I adjust my behavior in a small way to get everyone closer to their goal?" We've had the luxury of so much space for so many generations that we are simply not good at mutual consideration when space is limited. It's gotta change. People need to wake the fuck up, look around, and see if they have an opportunity to mitigate or possibly improve things. Millions of people making small concessions can lead to enormous improvements in everyone's well being. That includes seeing a panicked driver trying to get through an intersection and taking 30 fucking seconds to get him through. What would that have cost? What would that have won? But nobody ever looked, because everyone was well within their rights, and fuck everyone else. 'Murica.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Like I said, this is also one of the classic white/blue dress epic fails. Each side thinking clearly the other side is the side of stupid assholes when the reality is that both sides have assholes.

Law is only good after the fact. We can easily conclude driver will be the one charged by law. However, law doesn't give us the right to be assholes. I should walk and ride at a reasonable rate and position and be considerate of assholes around me so that I won't get run over by assholes!

[overpowered]

He has been charged with reckless driving. That's what started this fiasco in the other thread. I didn't think it would get out of control like it did.

[overpowered]

Pedestrians have the right of way, even if they are blocking traffic and being douchebags. Just because you don't like someone, doesn't give you a right to run them over. Driver instigated the "crowd violence", would have been easy enough to roll down the window and start asking people if you can get through because you have an important appointment or something. Not sure how this is even a discussion.Yep.

Many years ago I tried riding in Critical Mass a couple of times before I decided it sucked. I do remember the crowd accommodating an ambulance and another time a motorist did just what you say, telling us that he was taking his pregnant wife to the hospital because she had started labor. We could see her in the car. I suppose they could have been lying about her being in labor but they sure weren't lying about her being pregnant. They were also accommodated. Politely asking, especially when you really do have something urgent will generally be a lot better received than trying to bully people.

[Crazed_Insanity]

He has been charged with reckless driving. That's what started this fiasco in the other thread. I didn't think it would get out of control like it did.

Yes. However, was Z07 arguing that the driver should not be charged at all? Even in the UK, if the same incident occurs, driver in the UK would be free from any charges because zombies were the only assholes? I don't think he was making that claim.

[thesameguy]

law doesn't give us the right to be assholes

It actually kinda does, and that's the problem with writing down words and applying them to millions of people - it necessarily becomes the letter and not the spirit.

One would hope thousands of years later people would say "Hey we're better than that" but mostly people just say "Law says so, fuck off."

[Yw-slayer]

Page 3 and he's still not here. :lol:

[LHutton]

But it is, completely. You have *no idea* what the other person's needs are. Maybe they're going to the ER. Maybe they are going to a job interview. Maybe their kids are in trouble. Maybe they have to pee. You don't know what their situation is, and you leveraging your right to be there into your right to hold them up to whatever degree you feel like doing it, putting their needs, dreams, or goals at risk for no reason other than you just don't feel like walking quickly is unconscionable. Everyone has to get along, not doing everything you can at every moment to at least not hinder and hopefully even facilitate those around you is completely and utterly messed up. It's standing at the checkout talking on your cell phone instead of paying your bill, it's driving 15 under the limit and not moving over, it's getting in line at Taco Bell before you know what you'll be ordering. "I'm first, fuck you." Unconscionable.
That's all I really ask for here, just like anyone can observe in crowded pedestrian area in cities in the UK when delivery vans need shop access, some people walk slightly faster and the rest slow down for 2s to make a gap. Costs the pedestrians a second, not doing so, costs the driver hours. That doesn't really change the fact that a situation like this is in dire need of proper management, either by way of police directing right of way, or providing diversion, or traffic signals. The situation in that video as is, is never going to work. It will likely fail again next year. What works at this intersection 361 days year, clearly doesn't work for shit on the remaining 4 days, and the people are clearly too obtuse to take turns themselves, so it needs management.

[LHutton]

(New thread to get this shit out of the epic fails thread).

Pedestrian volume is only this high at this intersection for about 4 days per year. There are a fair amount of intersections like this in the area. Lights cost a lot of money to install and maintain and most of the year they are not needed at this intersection. The rule works fine most of the time. Maybe they should have had police directing traffic here to allow all modes but they didn't, so that means everyone just has to suck it up and follow the rules.
You wouldn't design a bridge support that only works 361 days a year. Hence why I suggested temporary traffic lights, you can move them around as required. Or everyone could behave like decent human beings and take turns, rather than taking advantage of a law that they know is only appropriate at that junction for 361 days of the year.



I haven't seen temporary lights. Generally, when they have special needs at intersections they'll put cops at them to direct traffic. However, there are quite a few intersections like this in this area. The train tracks that go through town along this part of the bay cause a lot of dead ends that result in low traffic intersections like this one.
See above on temporary lights. Basically a portable set that you can move around and plug in as required. Often used for road works too. I saw shops on the other side of the intersection, basically that says to me that it's busy enough for lights (by UK standards anyway). In fact everything about the width of the road there and the amount of road paint says it's busy enough for lights.



Nope. Normally, pedestrians are sparse enough that everyone gets a turn. The problem is that if pedestrians didn't have priority, motorists would never yield to them. They don't yield like they are supposed to a lot of the time anyway. Again, this is a special event situation. I've dealt with it at concerts and sporting events as well.
Well now you've just denied something and then confirmed it. You are giving them a permanent right of way over everyone else, that isn't equal importance, it's complete supremacy. It really does just need lights. But hell, the Jay Walking rule is stupid too. If the road's clear, just cross it.


It happens. You deal with it. Grow the fuck up.
Well actually it doesn't just happen. Most things like this are easily traced back to design flaws (already mentioned) and cultural malfunction. The people who couldn't let the driver through, because they were too important and too right, spent 20 times as long obstructing him, banging on his car and shouting, than it would have taken to just move. They were ran over for their troubles. This is the absolute pinnacle of Darwinian selection at play. Even a monkey knows to let go of the electrified banana.



It happens in various places all the time.
I know and we all muse over the videos afterwards, it's great entertainment, like a man with his head stuck between the bars in a metal fence, but really, there comes a time when someone should do something about it.



I didn't say that there was nothing wrong with the way that they responded. I never would have touched the guy's car if I had been there but I might have gone over to his side window and tried to talk to him. I do understand why they responded that way and it was predictable. People don't like being threatened or bullied. They will often stand their ground against bullies, as some of these people did. Again, the LAW says that they have the right to cross the street and they don't have to yield to some impatient bully who uses his car as a weapon.
Ahaaaaa..... here we go..... now we've got to the route (pun) of the problem.:lol: I can't let the banana go syndrome. Go to the window and talk to him, which takes 10 times as long as moving. Stand their ground!? How about standing their ground just before they're in front of the car. It has many advantages:

a) Quicker.

b) Doesn't hurt as much.

c) Beneficial outcome for all parties.

a), b) and c) happen everyday in city centres here. People don't have to yield, they just do, because it's more reasonable than trying to make a delivery van wait from 9am to 7pm to deliver goods. As a result, they lose half a second, go home uninjured and there is actually shit to buy in the shops when they get there. Meanwhile in Comic-Conville, people have spent too long with their head up their arse reading The Adventures of The Incredible Hulk, and Hulk smash. Sadly though Hulk could also stop cars with his bare hands and fling them across streets, an attribute not to be overlooked in this game. Without this ability, things usually happen the other way round, hence this video.



I don't think so. They were slowing for a while before that. They were already pretty slow before the bump. The slow down wasn't all that abrupt. He was following too close as they were slowing down in front of him. He bumped him intentionally or at best, misjudged his attempt to tailgate a fucking motorcycle.
Too me it looked like they slowed down more after the beep, creating a tailgate situation.



As I said, they were breaking the LAW when they tried to slow all traffic to create clear space ahead so they could do stunts on the road. They were jerks. I'm not on their side. However, that doesn't make it OK to threaten them with a fucking car.
Technically nothing to say they can't use all the lanes, it was just deemed to be an unreasonable inconvenience to other road users, much like this. But yes, the street racing probably did them no favours.



I'm not biased against people who drive cars in general. I am against impatient ass hats who act like the world is coming to an end if they get delayed slightly. The rage is far out of proportion to the inconvenience. It also often seems massively amplified when the person or persons causing the delay are vulnerable road users. Those people are bullies, plain and simple. Their belief is: "I can easily kill you, therefore you have to do what I want regardless of the rules of the road". We have rules of the road in order to create predictability and safety and allow everyone to get around. Sometimes the rules fail at that last part but I'm not sure how you make a rule about whose turn it is with pedestrians without active traffic controls.
In fairness, you mentioned 200,000 people. That is not a slight delay and the driver had already waited a significant period of time. The impatient asshat is actually the one who can't wait for 1s out to allow a car with a family and kids to pass... but can, somewhat ironically, wait for 30s to bang the car, make threats and get run over. Who is the bully here again? The one who waited for quarter of an hour and wanted the people to wait one second, or the crowd of people who expected the driver to wait another hour, and banged his car, making threats as part of a large mob? Sorry but the bullies are always the ones who make threats as part of a large mob. It's classic bully, and they won his star prize..... MOOOOOOOOOOVE!

[overpowered]

You wouldn't design a bridge support that only works 361 days a year. Hence why I suggested temporary traffic lights, you can move them around as required. Or everyone could behave like decent human beings and take turns, rather than taking advantage of a law that they know is only appropriate at that junction for 361 days of the year.Seriously? Lights cost money. If people would just obey the rules then there wouldn't be a problem.


See above on temporary lights. Basically a portable set that you can move around and plug in as required. Often used for road works too. I saw shops on the other side of the intersection, basically that says to me that it's busy enough for lights (by UK standards anyway). In fact everything about the width of the road there and the amount of road paint says it's busy enough for lights.You've never been there. Most of the time, it's not that busy.


You are giving them a permanent right of way over everyone else, that isn't equal importance, it's complete supremacy.How do you arbitrate whose turn it is with pedestrians? Is it one pedestrian crosses and then one car crosses? Can parents go with their children? How do you do this with your "zebra" crossings when there is no traffic light?


Well actually it doesn't just happen. Most things like this are easily traced back to design flaws (already mentioned) and cultural malfunction. The people who couldn't let the driver through, because they were too important and too right, spent 20 times as long obstructing him, banging on his car and shouting, than it would have taken to just move. They were ran over for their troublesFor the thousandth time, they didn't bang on the car until after he first assaulted them with it. You seem to be too thick to realize that as soon as he started to push into them, he was attacking them, and you seem to think that he was perfectly justified in doing so.


Ahaaaaa..... here we go..... now we've got to the route (pun) of the problem.:lol: I can't let the banana go syndrome. Go to the window and talk to him, which takes 10 times as long as moving. Stand their ground!? How about standing their ground just before they're in front of the car.How does that work when the massive herd is going across the street? Have you ever walked in a massive crowd like this? Just stopping to make space is not as simple as you pretend.


Too me it looked like they slowed down more after the beep, creating a tailgate situation.Duh. Things started escalating there due to the assault.


In fairness, you mentioned 200,000 people. That is not a slight delay and the driver had already waited a significant period of time.Not 200,000 on that spot. 200,000 in and around the convention center. This is maybe 3-4 blocks from the convention center. It's hard to communicate what it's like to be in a crowd like that in an urban environment to someone who's never been in it.


The impatient asshat is actually the one who can't wait for 1s out to allow a car with a family and kids to pass... but can, somewhat ironically, wait for 30s to bang the car, make threats and get run over. Who is the bully here again? The one who waited for quarter of an hour and wanted the people to wait one second, or the crowd of people who expected the driver to wait another hour, and banged his car, making threats as part of a large mob? Sorry but the bullies are always the ones who make threats as part of a large mob. It's classic bully, and they won his star prize..... MOOOOOOOOOOVE!Nope. No matter how hard you try to justify it, driving your car into a group of pedestrians is violent bully behavior.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Yes. It's blue.

Yes. It's white.

Yes. driver acted violently bullyishly.

Yes. Pedestrians acting like their royal ass is so heavy that they just cannot get across fast enough and they don't think banging on cars is a bully-ish behavior because the law is on their side so they think nobody can touch them or hurt them or otherwise. Little do they know that a 3000lbs vehicle could still easily run them over and the law won't be able to protect them at that moment.

Poor old lady ended up getting hurt because of bunch of assholes.

Anyway, let the debate continue. Let's see how many more pages we can generate! :D

[LHutton]

Seriously? Lights cost money.
So do court cases. This one would probably pay for the lights several times over. In fact, instead of having it, they should use the money for lights and save the same again happening next year. Maybe even get the Comic-Con organisers to chip in, since it's their fault for disturbing an otherwise quiet community.


If people would just obey the rules then there wouldn't be a problem.
Hence why you need lights, because when rules become stupid they are never obeyed.



You've never been there. Most of the time, it's not that busy.
If there's a cafe there across the street, it's busy enough for lights. If it was busy enough to put a stop sign and paint the road, it's busy enough for lights.



How do you arbitrate whose turn it is with pedestrians? Is it one pedestrian crosses and then one car crosses? Can parents go with their children? How do you do this with your "zebra" crossings when there is no traffic light?
Well it is more difficult without lights, but people manage in city centres on pedestrianised areas. Since you said the junction wasn't busy, I'm assuming there were few cars to get by anyway. A zebra crossing would never be put in an area where a road is likely to be blocked for an hour by pedestrians. It's usually a 'pelican' crossing in such cases and sometimes a 'toucan', or an ordinary light controlled junction crossing.



For the thousandth time, they didn't bang on the car until after he first assaulted them with it. You seem to be too thick to realize that as soon as he started to push into them, he was attacking them, and you seem to think that he was perfectly justified in doing so.
He didn't assault them with it, he beeped to let them know he was coming and moved forwards. They took that as aggression because they're silly monkey-like people and grabbed the banana, refusing to let go. 'Standing their ground', as you say. It would be reasonable to take turns. Hundred pedestrians, then one car. This is why someone needs to control it, can't leave it to the monkey people.



How does that work when the massive herd is going across the street? Have you ever walked in a massive crowd like this? Just stopping to make space is not as simple as you pretend.
It works here all the time. A few people stop and look to others and the vehicle slowly moves through. Am I really describing some kind of super-evolved communication here? Perhaps if they say, "Aaaarhh, Aaaarhh!" and flap towards the ground, that would work, maybe?:?



Duh. Things started escalating there due to the assault.
Nope, things escalated due to:

a) Improper road planning.

b) Poor event organisation.

c) The inevitable.

d) Ape men climbing and banging on cars, much like a safari. You have to drive on otherwise the chimps get your wing mirror.



Not 200,000 on that spot. 200,000 in and around the convention center. This is maybe 3-4 blocks from the convention center. It's hard to communicate what it's like to be in a crowd like that in an urban environment to someone who's never been in it.
Are you kidding me? This is a small island with 1/40th of the land mass of the US and 1/5th of the population. You would need to put everyone in the whole of North America, South America, Europe and Africa in your country to be as densely populated as the UK. You could put the entire US population in Texas and not be as densely populated as the UK.



Nope. No matter how hard you try to justify it, driving your car into a group of pedestrians is violent bully behavior.
:rolleyes: I'll be sure to mention that every time it happens in pedestrianised areas for shop access. Usually the vehicle edges forward and people automatically move, it's called civilisation. 'Bullying' is when a mob starts beating a car. Talk about a persecution complex. Let's liberate this car, freedom etc.

I mean please continue if you wish, the videos make for great entertainment. Can you give me the date of these events so that I can create a reminder on YouTube?

[Godson]

OP, just face it. This meglomaniac thinks that cars always have the right of way. He wants to throw a slew of ideas at something that is only a problem on a SUPER rare instance because the driver is the primary dickhead.


He is too dense to understand the driver is the cause of this. People leave the area of major sports events all the time, and there is seldom ANY issues. Not in this case as the driver is like Z07 and thinks he has the right of way because he is bigger. It is a shame really, he continually tries to talk down on the US, when he knows little to nothing about it. Keep looking down on us Z07, I think I can see your self-centered brain from here.

[overpowered]

Yeah, I've been debating whether to continue.

I love his idiotic red herring about population density. This is not about population density. It's about massive number of people around an event. Even London does not have this type of pedestrian traffic under normal circumstances. The whole area is covered with hotels and restaurants. Many parking lots and the few parks are taken over by exhibitors up to 3 blocks or so from the convention center. There are crowds everywhere and they're all going to and from all of those places. Shitty restaurants in the area have lines out the door and down the block. A lot of those 200,000 don't even have Comic-con badges. People who couldn't get Comic-con badges often go to a lot of the outdoor exhibits because many of them don't require a badge. The number of badges they sell is determined by the fire department and is based upon how many they can have actually in the convention center and nearby hotel meeting rooms. Restaurants and hotels all have maximum staff and there are plenty of people working the outdoor attractions.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the next few years they start just closing the streets to cars for several blocks around the convention center. It's that bad.

[Godson]

Yeh, but he doesn't 'get' that.


Soccer matches don't have 200k people. So he immediately thinks he has an idea.

[Tom Servo]

I get the impression he's like the inevitable person who drives around the barricades that block of Ciclavia routes. I've seen it happen personally at a few of them...someone just decides they need to get to the other side of the street and can't use one of the crossings, so they just drive around the barriers. One guy got hit and badly hurt a year or so ago.

[overpowered]

Yeah. I'm pretty sure he's the guy that does what this lady did:

https://scontent-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10003919_429325660557012_5985309428132665552_n.jpg ?oh=aa5c17fbd4615771c16dde9d1772d6ae&oe=55812B45

The extreme responsibility of operating a multi-ton vehicle in a public space does not exist for him.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Gosh, you people are just so amazingly funny! :D

I predict this thread will go on a few more pages... and then each side will become more extreme than before?

[George]

*careens wildly through thread at a high rate of speed*

GET OUTTA MY WAY YOU JERKS!

[LHutton]

Yeh, but he doesn't 'get' that.


Soccer matches don't have 200k people. So he immediately thinks he has an idea.
Football clubs pay for the situation, including traffic, to be policed. So should Comic-Con. And yes Football matches can draw near 100,000 depending on the scale of the match.


Yeah, I've been debating whether to continue.

I love his idiotic red herring about population density. This is not about population density. It's about massive number of people around an event. Even London does not have this type of pedestrian traffic under normal circumstances. The whole area is covered with hotels and restaurants. Many parking lots and the few parks are taken over by exhibitors up to 3 blocks or so from the convention center. There are crowds everywhere and they're all going to and from all of those places. Shitty restaurants in the area have lines out the door and down the block. A lot of those 200,000 don't even have Comic-con badges. People who couldn't get Comic-con badges often go to a lot of the outdoor exhibits because many of them don't require a badge. The number of badges they sell is determined by the fire department and is based upon how many they can have actually in the convention center and nearby hotel meeting rooms. Restaurants and hotels all have maximum staff and there are plenty of people working the outdoor attractions.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the next few years they start just closing the streets to cars for several blocks around the convention center. It's that bad.
All the more reason it should be managed. Closing roads and providing diversions is just fine, at least that way a person doesn't get half way down a street, with traffic up their arse and a crowd blocking the street in front of them. That isn't a reasonable situation to put someone in.

[overpowered]

What you're still failing to get is that not everything can be planned perfectly. There are a lot of intersections like this one in the area and they can't always predict which ones will need policing.

In any case, when they get it wrong, pushing your car through a crowd of pedestrians is never justified.

[Crazed_Insanity]

I think "never" is a strong word. Real life situations are never that white/gold or blue/black!

If I have a pregnant wife ready to go in labor... or other life and death emergencies, I'd certainly justify slowly pushing my car thru the crowd. I don't care what the law says.

[overpowered]

Or you could tell the people what your situation is and politely ask them to let you through.

[Crazed_Insanity]

All 200,000 of them? ;)

I think I'd just drive thru them slowly to give them the opportunity to not get run over... while gesturing and pointing to my wife or to some sick person next to me and hope that they get the idea.

We are emotional beings dude. When emotionally charged, it'd be very difficult for us to 'ask nicely'. It'd be difficult enough to do the right things already.

In that video, we don't know what's on the mind of the driver. At least according to the link story and police's own testimony, the driver was genuinely scared... along with his scared kid in the car. Running people over with the car was definitely the wrong thing to do. He needs to be charged and held responsible. However, I can also understand why he did what he did. Hopefully he wasn't just being an asshole.

We all can see things differently. Rarely can we see the whole truth.

Laws also are not always so absolute to the letter. No need to be like a pharisee trying to catch Jesus violating God's laws. Now, not saying Z08 is Jesus or anything like that, but we're not lawyers, plus he's not even familiar with our laws. Why must argue to death with him regarding our own local laws? Let the motherfoquen issue drop already!

[Freude am Fahren]

You only have to appeal to a few of them and the rest will fall in. (the assholes will filter through for a bit until the entire front of the line are normal humans.)

[thesameguy]

In any case, when they get it wrong, pushing your car through a crowd of pedestrians is never justified.

But surrounding and pounding on a car post-accident is, right? Or is it more like after one bad thing has happened it's a free for all? Still confused about this.

[thesameguy]

What you're still failing to get is that not everything can be planned perfectly. There are a lot of intersections like this one in the area and they can't always predict which ones will need policing.

Also, this is utter bullshit. Any time a big event is planned traffic studies are done and there are talks about who will pay for the necessary controls - the city or the organizer. If there is a sudden surge in attendance maybe there are some excuses, but Comic Can is a sold-in-advance, ticketed event. They know long in advance how many people are going to be there and should have a very good idea about what controls need to be where. Maybe San Diego is run by r-tards, but everything from the Second Saturday Art Walk in Sac to the Asian Culture Festival in San Francisco has cops on foot, bikes, and horses directing foot and vehicle traffic, signs and banners advising of alternate routes and enforcing paths and controls. Even the stupid Sacramento Kings with their record-low attendance wins temporary traffic controls. Obviously that has nothing to do with this accident, but it's insane to suggest nobody took a minute to look at how 200,000 people were going to get in and out of the event. "Whoops, we missed an intersection" is ridiculous. Frankly, I am surprised nobody involved in this incident sued the city or the organizers. Those suits are *exactly* why traffic studies are done and done carefully.

[overpowered]

The driver is suing the city over it, but that's bullshit, because it's still no excuse for his actions.

The level of crowd at intersections varies. Sometimes it's bad. Sometimes it's not. This event starts on Wednesday evening and ends on Sunday evening. There's a lot of variability over those days.

[overpowered]

But surrounding and pounding on a car post-accident is, right? Or is it more like after one bad thing has happened it's a free for all? Still confused about this.It's not OK but it's not all that surprising that when you get violent with someone, you get a violent response.

[overpowered]

You only have to appeal to a few of them and the rest will fall in. (the assholes will filter through for a bit until the entire front of the line are normal humans.)Yep. There weren't 200,000 at the intersection. There probably were a few hundred people in that stream though.

Be polite to them and let them know that you have something that is genuinely urgent, and most people will let you through.

[thesameguy]

The driver is suing the city over it, but that's bullshit, because it's still no excuse for his actions.

The level of crowd at intersections varies. Sometimes it's bad. Sometimes it's not. This event starts on Wednesday evening and ends on Sunday evening. There's a lot of variability over those days.

If it's EVER bad, that means the city is either necessarily aware of the situation or ineffectual in its analysis of the situation. In either scenario, the city has failed to meet an obligation to both drivers and pedestrians. "A lot of variability over those days" isn't an excuse to fail to provide adequate traffic controls, reasonable passage, and safety for everyone. If those things cannot be provided at normal levels, then warnings to people should be posted so they can adjust their routes and plans accordingly. "Stuck at a pedestrian crossing for 15 minutes without any indication of getting through" is not safe or reasonable for anyone, as has been shown.

[thesameguy]

It's not OK but it's not all that surprising that when you get violent with someone, you get a violent response.

Exactly at what point did the driver get violent, in your opinion?

[overpowered]

When he used a 3000 pound vehicle to push pedestrians.

[thesameguy]

Then by your own admission, everything is ok. He didn't touch a living soul until dude sat on the hood of his car. Solved. :up:

[overpowered]

Hardeehar.

He was pushing them as soon as he moved forward towards them at close range. Apparently you think that threatening someone with a 3000 pound vehicle isn't violence. It is.

[overpowered]

In other news:

Car crashes cost U.S. $300B a year: AAA

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/car-crashes-cost-us-300b-a-year-aaa/

1 death is a tragedy. 33,000 is just statistics.

[thesameguy]

Okay, so now *threatening* someone is violence, and *threatening* yields a not-all-that-surprising violent response, and that's ok. I like what you're doing here. :up: So, like, if a big guy yells at me, I'm justified in punching him in the face. Or, if a guy on a bike rides down a sidewalk and rings his bell at me signaling his approach, I can kick him over. I like these rules. You've got my vote.

[overpowered]

Holeee fuck. You are an asshole.

Yelling isn't necessarily threatening. Driving your car at pedestrians is most definitely threatening. And again, that doesn't justify violence from the pedestrians, but it does make it understandable. If you don't start with the violence, then there is less likelihood of violence. You need to learn to accept that using a car to threaten people is not acceptable. Cars are dangerous, and operating one is a large responsibility. I know that you don't want to accept that. You want to pretend that you can do anything you want in a car. You can't. You always have to make sure that you don't endanger others with your multi-ton missile.

I get it. You hate every single second that you spend in your car. Too bad. If you can't handle it then don't drive.

[thesameguy]

Nobody was in danger. That guy was blaring his horn inching forwards. In 23 of the 45 seconds of that video not a single pedestrian said, "Shit, that's a car!" or "Man, that guy is really anxious, maybe I should move." There was zero chance of anyone getting hurt until orange shirt guy started banging on the window and fat guy sat on the hood. They decided it was best to a) ignore the car, b) taunt the driver, and c) enforce the law themselves. The proper and only response is GTFO, note his plate, report him to the police. The driver was clearly being an asshat. He was clearly in the wrong. But that doesn't even REMOTELY excuse the behavior of the people on the street. The old saying "Mess with the bull, get the horns" applies 100% here. Everyone on that street had 100% opportunity to disarm the situation, but starting with orange shirt guy and ending with fat guy they escalated and provoked the driver until he made a bad situation worse.

Your attitude is always "driver is wrong." Your synopsis is always "everyone else is justified." Your opinion is always "drivers must show responsibility." The law is the law, I get that. But maybe, someday, stop calling other people assholes and take a good strong look at all parties involved and consider *exactly* when a bad situation got worse. Being on the side of the law doesn't magically absolve you of making stupid fucking decisions and *rarely* does following the letter of the law result in a person taking the moral high ground. You seem to be 100% okay with "welp, the law says so" as being the only thing you need on your side. Obviously, that's working out great for you. Maybe someday in your free time when you're not researching internet videos consider some of the things that separate humans from animals. Those things seem largely to elude you.

I don't know what's happened to you in your life to make you so completely inflexible, so utterly incapable of seeing how maybe - just maybe - everything can go okay even if someone is coloring outside the lines. Just statistically speaking, with seven billion people on this planet sometimes things just aren't going to unfold in the prescribed manner. If every single man, woman, and child holds his or her legally assigned ground at every given moment, nothing is ever going to get done. Sometimes pedestrians need to yield to the car. Sometimes the bicyclist could move over and let a car by. Sometimes just taking a step back - regardless of what you're entitled to do - is the moral highground, the simple way disarm an otherwise volatile situation. People who express attitudes like you are exactly the same as the driver of the car and the fat guy on the hood. You are the people who exacerbate situations. Either party could have backed down, neither did. Then an old lady got flattened. You're like my friend Trevor, who we don't take to parties and we definitely don't take to strip clubs. He would definitely, definitely, sit on the hood of the car.

I hate to break it to you, but you, OP, you are the asshole.

[LHutton]

I think "never" is a strong word. Real life situations are never that white/gold or blue/black!

If I have a pregnant wife ready to go in labor... or other life and death emergencies, I'd certainly justify slowly pushing my car thru the crowd. I don't care what the law says.
Always have a cushion handy. Good thinking CI.

[LHutton]

The driver is suing the city over it, but that's bullshit, because it's still no excuse for his actions.

The level of crowd at intersections varies. Sometimes it's bad. Sometimes it's not. This event starts on Wednesday evening and ends on Sunday evening. There's a lot of variability over those days.
Disagree. The police knew about the event, the situation should have been policed. Proper traffic management would have prevented this. You plan for the worst, not hope for the best.


When he used a 3000 pound vehicle to push pedestrians.
I disagree with that. It's a sign of a fucked up mentality that people take that as a violent gesture, he's simply indicating his desire to get through. If violence was the intent he'd have dropped the clutch at 5000rpm, or never stopped in the first place. In normal societies people just start walking round behind the car. They surrounded his car, started pounded and gave him no choice. Once someone grabs the door handle or lifts the wheels the option is no longer there, so you have to run them over before that. Their desire to waste his time, wasted more of their own time and got them ran over.


Driving your car at pedestrians is most definitely threatening.
Stop misrepresenting things. You make it sound like he was doing 60mph towards them. He was crawling through, even slower than they were walking. That indicates an intent to get through, not a threat of violence.

[overpowered]

Nope. I get it. You refuse to accept that driving a motor vehicle in a public space is a big responsibility. Moving your car into pedestrians is threatening to anyone who has an I.Q. above room temperature. It is an act of violence.

[overpowered]

I don't know what's happened to you in your life to make you so completely inflexible, so utterly incapable of seeing how maybe - just maybe - everything can go okay even if someone is coloring outside the lines.It isn't me who is inflexible. It's you. You can't begin to imagine that anyone who is not operating a motor vehicle has any rights whatsoever on the road, no matter what. You take the view that anyone who is operating a motor vehicle is more important than anyone who is not, no matter what. That's a big part of why we see over 4700 pedestrians getting killed per year on our roads. Too many people simply do not take the responsibility of driving a motor vehicle seriously enough. For that matter, well over 28,000 motorists die every year. You want to pretend that driving a motor vehicle should be effortless, and that everyone other than you has to be responsible. I get it. You hate driving. It's too much effort for you.

[thesameguy]

Nope. I get it. You refuse to accept that driving a motor vehicle in a public space is a big responsibility. Moving your car into pedestrians is threatening to anyone who has an I.Q. above room temperature. It is an act of violence.

Speak for yourself, dude. I have a pretty notable IQ and I don't find myself threatened by cars. Maybe you got that backwards? The trick is to stand to the side, where they can't see you. People with low IQs flex nuts while they can still see the headlights. That is something I, personally, would never do. Cars are like manta rays. If you just put your hand out while they pass, you can touch them. Amazing experience.

[thesameguy]

It isn't me who is inflexible. It's you. You can't begin to imagine that anyone who is not operating a motor vehicle has any rights whatsoever on the road, no matter what. You take the view that anyone who is operating a motor vehicle is more important than anyone who is not, no matter what. That's a big part of why we see over 4700 pedestrians getting killed per year on our roads. Too many people simply do not take the responsibility of driving a motor vehicle seriously enough. For that matter, well over 28,000 motorists die every year. You want to pretend that driving a motor vehicle should be effortless, and that everyone other than you has to be responsible. I get it. You hate driving. It's too much effort for you.

Were you raped by a car or something?

[overpowered]

Speak for yourself, dude. I have a pretty notable IQ and I don't find myself threatened by cars. Maybe you got that backwards? The trick is to stand to the side, where they can't see you. People with low IQs flex nuts while they can still see the headlights. That is something I, personally, would never do. Cars are like manta rays. If you just put your hand out while they pass, you can touch them. Amazing experience.You may have the I.Q. but Z07 clearly doesn't.

You have instead, a deep prejudice and dishonesty. Standing to the side is not safer, no matter how hard you try to dishonestly pretend that it is.

[overpowered]

Were you raped by a car or something?Nope. I love cars.

I hate idiots who refuse to operate them responsibly.

[thesameguy]

You have instead, a deep prejudice and dishonesty. Standing to the side is not safer, no matter how hard you try to dishonestly pretend that it is.

WHAT? Please show me an example of a car unpredictably moving sideways. This I have got to see.

Edit: Nevermind. You are positively insane.

[overpowered]

Cars move unpredictably sideways all the fucking time. Texting is involved a lot of the time. So is DUI. Drivers prove all the time that they can't maintain a consistent line.

You can't be serious with this.

[thesameguy]

You are now asserting that you could stand on the side of a car, without being able to see its headlights, having no indicator that it is moving toward you, close enough to touch it when it suddenly is steered toward you or it breaks friction with the road that you should concerned about the possibility of it hitting you? Jesus, man, no wonder you're afraid of cars. They probably all seem totally out of control!

[LHutton]

Nope. I get it. You refuse to accept that driving a motor vehicle in a public space is a big responsibility. Moving your car into pedestrians is threatening to anyone who has an I.Q. above room temperature. It is an act of violence.
Not anywhere in Europe, where the slow approach of a motor vehicle is simply a cue to move. It takes less IQ to stand in front of a motor vehicle.

[thesameguy]

Bullshit. People in cars love driving over and through everything wherever possible. You can't be anywhere near a car without putting yourself in danger. Cars can move in three directions spontaneously, and automobile drivers are self-centered egoists who are bent on the destruction of everything that is not a car. The combination is instantly lethal. Even at 1mph, a car is a MISSILE and everyone nearby is at risk. Remember Otto's lesson:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5yzeMzXpJgo/UhlQibO2hGI/AAAAAAAAHg4/ooefZtBvRHc/s1600/a+fish+called+wanda+kkkken.jpg

It is not possible for two otherwise rational people - one in a car and one not - to sort out mutual passage issues communally. The person in a car must always yield while the other person can do whatever he'd like. If at any time he feels the car has come too close, the proper response is to sit on the hood of the car until its driver backs down. These are the truths. ACCEPT THEM.

[Tom Servo]

Yeah, it's not like people ever accidentally hit the gas instead of the brake. Oh, wait...

[thesameguy]

And crosswalks address that scenario exactly how?

Or are we just throwing out things that could conceivably happen? I've got some good ones if that's what we're doing.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Goddamn people! How many more pages does this thread need to have?

Let it go! Let it go! I can't be bother to read all this shit anymore!

I like religious threads better than these. After some investigation, we already know what color this dress is. Similarly in this traffic incident, deep down, you all know both driver and the pedestrians are being assholes to each other! Some may lean more to one side than the other. So be it dammit!

[Tom Servo]

Oh, I figured when we started in with the "There might be a lady going into labor in the car!", all far-fetched scenarios were in play.

[Crazed_Insanity]

That was my illustration of how an emotionally charged driver may want to break the law by forcing his way thru a herd of pedestrians.

Law doesn't make things so absolute that pedestrians can always just take their sweet time taking a dump in the middle of the street while the driver absolutely must wait there until the pedestrian wiped his ass clean.

Looking a the video alone, I'd definitely think driver is being more of an asshole.

However, after reading the linked article, even the cop claimed the driver was genuinely scared, I then had more understanding of the incident. However, I do agree he should still be charged. You can't just excuse a 'road rage' incident just because the driver is angry or scare or emotional. Just as if I crash my car while taking my laboring wife to the hospital and I broke traffic laws, it'd still be my fault and should be held responsible for my actions However, it should be more 'understandable'. Rather than continue to insist that I'm an asshole for breaking the fucking law.

Running thru a red light just because I feel like it vs, running thru a red light because I want to get my wife to the hospital fast should not be treated as the same. Laws don't care and don't know the difference, but as human beings, we should.

Are you guys seriously this inflexible and cannot see things any other way?

[overpowered]

Not anywhere in Europe, where the slow approach of a motor vehicle is simply a cue to move. It takes less IQ to stand in front of a motor vehicle.I'm sure that's your delusion, but it isn't fact and it isn't reason. It's just the rationalizations of a bully for his sociopathic behavior.

[overpowered]

Oh, I figured when we started in with the "There might be a lady going into labor in the car!", all far-fetched scenarios were in play.:lol:

[thesameguy]

You guys be real happy in your compassionless, fuck you I'm here, because law world. Sounds a lot like a world that, in another context, you'd be ridiculing, but whatever.

[overpowered]

When you say that you think it's OK to push your way through a group of pedestrians, you are the one who is compassionless.

Your sense of being victimized by being delayed by the presence of others is the problem here. People exist. Sometimes they're in your way. You can be polite and decent and wait or politely ask them to let you through or you can be a dick and demand that they get out of your way or you can be a bully and use force.

Bullies always have excuses for their behavior.

[LHutton]

I'm sure that's your delusion, but it isn't fact and it isn't reason. It's just the rationalizations of a bully for his sociopathic behavior.
I bet you'd stand in front of train and shout that at the driver as it's coming.


When you say that you think it's OK to push your way through a group of pedestrians, you are the one who is compassionless.

Your sense of being victimized by being delayed by the presence of others is the problem here. People exist. Sometimes they're in your way. You can be polite and decent and wait or politely ask them to let you through or you can be a dick and demand that they get out of your way or you can be a bully and use force.
He was being polite, decent and courteous by moving slowly forward with warning after waiting quarter of an hour. Discourteous and impolite would have been driving straight through them whilst deploying an 80-shot.



Bullies always have excuses for their behavior.
Hence all the excuses for pedestrians battering the guy's car, whilst his already terrified kids were inside.

"Hey fuck you man, gotta get to my Comic-Con 1s earlier, can't walk round the back of your car, matter of life and death, no surrender. Your 0.5mph car is an attack on my rights!"

[Crazed_Insanity]

When you say that you think it's OK to push your way through a group of pedestrians, you are the one who is compassionless.

Your sense of being victimized by being delayed by the presence of others is the problem here. People exist. Sometimes they're in your way. You can be polite and decent and wait or politely ask them to let you through or you can be a dick and demand that they get out of your way or you can be a bully and use force.

Bullies always have excuses for their behavior.

Can you try to put your self in opposition's shoes?

When you say that you think it's OK to keep vehicles waiting for a massive crowd indefinitely no matter what, even when there aren't any emergency situations, you don't think drivers can eventually get pissed off? You still don't give a damn because law is on your side?

Your sense of being victimized by having the presence of a slowly moving vehicle wanting to get thru is also the problem here. Both people and bikes and cars exist. Sometimes they're in your way. We definitely all need to be polite and decent and patient. However, politely asking them to let you through isn't always an option. I can ask near by folks to please let me thru because of my pregnant wife, but as I slowly pull into the crowd, I may be facing bunch of different folks who may or may not know why I'm slowly driving into them. Or if you're riding a bike slowly in front of me, how do I nicely ask you to pull over to let me pass because of my wife?

IMHO, slowly squeezing yourself in or swerve to pass a biker would be decent enough move which can keep both of us moving with minimal danger.

Problem with you is that you think the law is on your side and if somebody makes a move without your permission then that somebody is a dick!

Anyway, you are certainly entitle to your opinion, but lots of people don't share that kind of view.

Further, I think a lot of times, this is how road rage occurs. Some people are seriously being dicks, but there are also others who thinks they're justified to being dicks back to other dicks...

Whether someone is really being a dick or not is irrelevant to me, point is, I'd just let dicks go by rather than try to bang on their cars. Mainly because right of way law doesn't really protect you from injuries caused by a moving car.

Yes, bullies always have excuses for their behavior, but I don't think we can fight bullies by bullying them back.

Plus, in lots of road rage incidences, when emotions run high, people tend to do stupid things that they normally wouldn't do. No need to escalate things further.

Yes, if the driver patiently waited, that lady wouldn't get run over.

Furthermore, if pedestrians didn't threaten and bang on the car to further agitate the driver, that lady probably also won't get run over too.

It is possible for both pedestrians and slow moving car to coexist and share the road without hurting each other.

[overpowered]

He was being polite, decent and courteous by moving slowly forward with warning after waiting quarter of an hour.Really?!

That's rude as fuck and it's a violation of multiple laws including CVC 27001, CVC 21950 and probably a couple of others.

[overpowered]

When you say that you think it's OK to keep vehicles waiting for a massive crowd indefinitely no matter whatI never actually said that. I said that pushing your way through the crowd is not acceptable.


Your sense of being victimized by having the presence of a slowly moving vehicle wanting to get thru is also the problem here.Er, no.

Pushing through a crowd with a car is a violent act. You seem to have forgotten that driving is a privilege and a responsibility. Walking is a basic right and carries little responsibility.


Both people and bikes and cars exist.Yep. They do.


Sometimes they're in your way.Yep. Sometimes they are.


We definitely all need to be polite and decent and patient. However, politely asking them to let you through isn't always an option. I can ask near by folks to please let me thru because of my pregnant wife, but as I slowly pull into the crowd, I may be facing bunch of different folks who may or may not know why I'm slowly driving into them. Or if you're riding a bike slowly in front of me, how do I nicely ask you to pull over to let me pass because of my wife?If you have a real emergency, someone will accommodate you if you ask nicely. You'll get through. We weren't talking about bikes. We're talking about an unusual situation where an enormous crowd is streaming across an intersection. Do you really want to bring bikes into this?


IMHO, slowly squeezing yourself in or swerve to pass a biker would be decent enough move which can keep both of us moving with minimal danger.Pushing your way in is an act of violence and it's illegal. The bike thing again? I generally don't "swerve" around bicyclists. I make sure it's clear, signal and move into the next lane to pass them, just as I do for slow moving motor vehicles. Basic driving 101.


Problem with you is that you think the law is on your side and if somebody makes a move without your permission then that somebody is a dick!Eh? The law is on the side of pedestrians crossing the street. Someone who uses a car as a weapon is a dick.


Anyway, you are certainly entitle to your opinion, but lots of people don't share that kind of view.A lot of people are self entitled sociopathic bullies.


Whether someone is really being a dick or not is irrelevant to me, point is, I'd just let dicks go by rather than try to bang on their cars. Mainly because right of way law doesn't really protect you from injuries caused by a moving car.The pedestrians weren't trying to be dicks by simply crossing the street. They were just crossing the street.


It is possible for both pedestrians and slow moving car to coexist and share the road without hurting each other.Yes it is. Obeying the rules of the road would be a nice start.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Does the rule say anything about a slow moving but perceived 'violent' car approaching you, as a pedestrian, then you are within the rules to bang on it and threaten the driver?

Nobody here is trying to argue that we all must ignore laws and be anarchists. If you want to play nice, would you agree banging on a dick driver's car is not being very nice? You perceive a slow moving car as a violent act, therefore, it justifies the violent act you're about to take on the car? Two wrongs would make it alright?

[Tom Servo]

I think the problem here is that you're justifying the initial behavior by invoking the reaction to the initial behavior. It's akin to person A going to throw a punch at person B, and person B reacting by punching person A. You can't justify person A's behavior by invoking person B's, as person B would not have done what they did had person A not initiated it. You're putting words in OPs mouth when you are saying he says that it justifies the reactions of the people in the crowd. He's repeatedly said that that was wrong.

The other problem I see is that I can't think of a situation where moving a car towards a person is a "polite" act. It's not, at least not from the pedestrian's perspective. Hell, the behavior you talk about, "squeezing through", I can tell you from person experience is threatening and scary. It might not be to you, but it is to the person you're doing it to.

At least those are the things that I see as the fundamental disconnects here. Honking and moving towards pedestrians "slowly" might seem like a "courteous and polite" way to get through a crowd of people, but I can guarantee you the people in the path of that car didn't hear the honk as "Excuse me, would you mind if I come through?" They heard it as "Get the fuck out of my way or I will hit you". Then there's a lot of justifying the driver's behavior based on the reaction from others.

At any rate, I can comfortably say that in nearly 23 years of driving, I've never run into a situation where I couldn't figure out some alternative to trying to force my way through a crowd, be it take an alternate route or just wait, and those were in the days before cell phones where, if it really is as bad as they claim it was, why couldn't he call law enforcement to have something done about it?

[Crazed_Insanity]

I would not do what that driver did either, and I'm sure most US drivers wouldn't dare. Similarly, I'm sure most also wouldn't bang on a slow moving vehicle.

Our main difference is that I don't perceive slow moving honking vehicle as being violent punches. Id definitely begin to bang on the car if it really hit and hurt somebody. Until then, I may be pissed that he's honking at me, I may or may not alter my path depending where I am relative to the car...

Anyway, people will indeed react differently when they hear honking or seeing a car crossing their path. If I've put any words in ops mouth, then I apologize. It's just that he, and you, guys sounded like the situation is so clear cut that pedestrian is always right because of law. If you're not with me and the law then you are a dick bully. I do side with the pedestrians, but just don't agree that driver was really like that after reading the article.

Anyway, as long as we all understand that both sides behaved poorly and we bystanders can learn from it to prevent tragedies in the future, then this thread can be productive...

Also, aside from traffic situations, we don't need to perceive every honking, move, gesture, word, look as violent threats and be ready to respond in kind.

[Jason]

I do want to clarify one part of my opinion, just based on reading some of the stuff....

People purposefully blocking the roads are dicks, and should be ticketed or something... but that still doesn't give one the right to run them over.

[thesameguy]

I don't think - I hope - anybody is suggesting anyone has the right to run anyone over. Nobody was seriously injured, and the dude was charged fairly.

What's on the table is whether other people present have culpability (legal or moral) in the situation and, I guess, whether honking your horn and driving .6mph (yeah, I did the math) is a threat and/or violence.

[overpowered]

They were crossing the street in a long line of people. That's not purposely blocking the road. It's crossing the street.

[thesameguy]

Some people are crossing the road. Others are standing there, facing literally 90 degrees to the intended direction of travel, staring off into the distance. Others are milling around doing who knows what. When Pocci finally starts honking the horn, one of the guys standing in the road turns around, looks at him, then turns right back around and doesn't move a centimeter. While there were people crossing the street, there is a clear line of people standing there and not moving.

[Jason]

They were crossing the street in a long line of people. That's not purposely blocking the road. It's crossing the street.

Looked to me that people were standing there blocking traffic intentionally. They deserve tickets, not squashing. Pretty simple.

[Jason]

Only Batman is allowed to dish out vigilante justice.

[LHutton]

Really?!

That's rude as fuck and it's a violation of multiple laws including CVC 27001, CVC 21950 and probably a couple of others.
Rubbish, after quarter of an hour, it was his turn in fair system.


I do want to clarify one part of my opinion, just based on reading some of the stuff....

People purposefully blocking the roads are dicks, and should be ticketed or something... but that still doesn't give one the right to run them over.
It wasn't the blocking of the road that got them run over, it was threatening the driver and occupants by banging and climbing on the vehicle and shouting, "get out of the car," in a mob. That will get you ran over every time because it's the only safe option you've left the driver.

[Jason]

Rubbish, after quarter of an hour, it was his turn in fair system.


It wasn't the blocking of the road that got them run over, it was threatening the driver and occupants by banging and climbing on the vehicle and shouting, "get out of the car," in a mob. That will get you ran over every time because it's the only safe option you've left the driver.
Which is gonna happen if you nudge into people, even if those people are being dicks and should have moved in the first place.

Both sides escalated events.

The side in power (the one with the car) bears responsibility in the end.

[LHutton]

Disagree, the side in a mob should have realised the threat posed by mob violence. Threaten the driver and the occupants of a vehicle and you will always get ran over, without fail.

[thesameguy]

You could get lit on fire if you're in SA. That happens.

http://blog.beforward.jp/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/flame.jpg

[Freude am Fahren]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5a_BmL0AfA

[Crazed_Insanity]

Disagree, the side in a mob should have realised the threat posed by mob violence. Threaten the driver and the occupants of a vehicle and you will always get ran over, without fail.

With great powers come great responsibilities. When you are piloting a 3000 lbs vehicle, you need to be more responsible. That's why US traffic laws let the drivers bear that responsibility. You hit a pedestrian, it WILL be your fault!

However, law can only deal with things after the fact. After you're ran over, that 3000 lbs vehicle will be driver's protection.

The problem is that some people have the illusion that since the law is with them, they don't have t worry about anything. Well, when the driver is sufficiently emotional, guess who's going to get squished in the end?

[LHutton]

The only mistake the driver made (by US law) is not waiting, although I can empathise with that given the situation that the crap planning had left him in. Everything that happened after that was legitimate self-defence and protection of his family. Not waiting was really tantamount to being rude or littering, a pretty trivial traffic offence, and that isn't legitimate grounds for violence, in the same way that jay walking, or jumping a red light on a bicycle, isn't legitimate grounds for deliberately running someone over.

[overpowered]

When you act violently towards other people, you lose the right to claim that you acted in self defense. When you try to push through a group of pedestrians, that is an act of violence, no matter how much self entitled idiots like you try to pretend that it isn't.

[LHutton]

Moving forward at 0.5mph would have to be the slowest act of violence ever perpetrated in the whole of history. Little ridiculous don't you think? Act of impatience, yes, violence no. He was trying to make his way through the pedestrians, I think his idea was that people would slowly start to filter around the back of the car instead of the front, which is what normally happens in homo sapien society. Safaris and nature reserves are somewhat different, in those places the monkeys and bears climb on cars, tear off wing mirrors and beat their chest. Which do you want to live in?

[Tom Servo]

I think it's pretty clear in this case that the pedestrians he was moving his car towards did not take it as a "just trying to make my way" kinda thing, and reacted in a way one would expect when one feels that they are being intimidated/threatened by a driver. Unless you think there was some sort of mass hallucination or that somehow he managed to find this massive group of people who do not act rationally, it seems like Occam's Razor might lead one to believe that the windshield perspective is not the only valid perspective here.

[thesameguy]

I think it's pretty clear in this case that the pedestrians he was moving his car towards did not take it as a "just trying to make my way" kinda thing, and reacted in a way one would expect when one feels that they are being intimidated/threatened by a driver. Unless you think there was some sort of mass hallucination or that somehow he managed to find this massive group of people who do not act rationally, it seems like Occam's Razor might lead one to believe that the windshield perspective is not the only valid perspective here.

While I agree it's clear there were two perspectives on the situation, I don't think you can reasonably say that anyone felt threatened except the driver. Witness camera guy turning around, seeing the honking car, and then turning right back around. Is ignoring a threat of imminent violence typical? Witness orange shirt guy coming up and pounding on the guy's window. Is banging on the 3,000 pound missile a typical response when threatened? Witness fatso bouncing on the hood of the car and then smiling to his friends. Is taunting a typical response to a threat of violence? The people creating this situation - not the pedestrians crossing the road, but the ZFG MFers - did not feel threatened in any way, shape or form. They saw this guy approaching at .6mph and found his situation either not worthy of their attention or worthy only of mockery.

Is moving your car through a sea of foot traffic a great idea? No. Did he have a right to do it? No. But the guy took totally defensible precautions - creeping at a speed even the disabled could avoid and announcing his presence with a horn everyone could hear even over the din. If people had simply not moved, I think it's reasonable to say he wouldn't have hit them. If people had simply moved and let him pass he probably wouldn't have hit them. Instead, two guys - specifically - laid hands on his car, put the fear in him and forced him to change his plans.

Every second Saturday downtown Sacramento has a big art walk with tens of thousands of pedestrians milling around an area they don't know. Cars drive slowly, sometimes cars move through area where there are people on foot, such as parking lots where flea markets get set up or on streets where crowds have spilled off the sidewalk. You know what happens? People move out of the way of slow moving cars. Every time. It's not that hard. It's not that dangerous. And in those rare circumstances where they refuse to, the cops ticket them. The pedestrians.

http://s3-media3.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/j3hTKuB7jxOe7h4u9-4Kxw/348s.jpghttp://planmygetaway.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/250x350/Sacramento/72211228269892MG3657.jpg

Was Pocci right? No. He should have waited. But to absolve dumbass lawbreakers of their responsibility in a volatile situation on the basis they didn't have a car is ludicrous. You can be as stupid/dismissive/irresponsible as you want as long as you're not in a car is a ridiculous notion. That is burglars suing for trip-and-fall accidents stupid. That is put the dog down because it bit me after I teased it stupid. All people in all situations need to bear responsibility for their actions. It doesn't matter their size, their conveyance, their income, or their mood.

Pocci was arraigned and fairly cited. The people present at the incident also need to be identified, arraigned, and cited.

[LHutton]

I think it's pretty clear in this case that the pedestrians he was moving his car towards did not take it as a "just trying to make my way" kinda thing, and reacted in a way one would expect when one feels that they are being intimidated/threatened by a driver. Unless you think there was some sort of mass hallucination or that somehow he managed to find this massive group of people who do not act rationally, it seems like Occam's Razor might lead one to believe that the windshield perspective is not the only valid perspective here.
People in a large collective group often don't act rationally, a common phenomenon observed with sports fans, protesters, rioters etc. In a large non-affiliated group I've seen them simply move, hence acting rationally. Standing in front of a moving car is never rational, standing in front of a moving car and then giving the driver a very good reason to run you over, i.e. threatening violence, is about as far from rationality as you can get.

[Crazed_Insanity]

I think it's pretty clear that both sides didn't act rationally.

An impatient rational driver would simply make a u-turn and find an alternate path thru rather than trying to force his way thru an Americanized-I-am-the-king-type-of-pedestrians.

Rational pedestrians would also just get out of the way so that they won't get ran over by a car driven by a crazy driver. If one wants to engage in road rage behavior, it'd be wise to engage other drivers while you are inside a car! ;)

[LHutton]

One thing we can agree on. It was definitely 'comical'.