A question of safety.

[Rywokast]

1 minute ago, /Dev/Null said:

The city is responsible for paving the sidewalk in front of the houses, along the street etc.  It's also responsible for maintaining the pavement.  The homeowner is responsible for cleaning it.

I think the city was probably sued because that was where the money was.

oh i see, different here they are not responsible for sidewalks at least in front of private property.. only roads.. and yea no doubt lol

[PLEASE_DELETE]

Deleted.

Edited March 18 by PLEASE_DELETE

[Rywokast]

2 minutes ago, /Dev/Null said:

So if the pavement is broken in-front of your house, it is the homeowners responsibility in your area?

im not sure about the specific details of what is their responsibility, i just know that clearing snow/ice is.. i doubt if the pavement is broken

[mike_bike_kite]

 

8 hours ago, giggidditygiggiddity said:

Idk wat country your from, but even a broken sidewalk a pedestrian who tripped and fell sued and won against the city. That's amurrca for you.

I'm from the UK, the same country where the accident happened. Unfortunately it's illegal to ride EUC's on the road here. It's also illegal to drive any motorised vehicle on the pavement.  It's also illegal to ride while wearing headphones or while operating a mobile phone due to distraction.

4 hours ago, /Dev/Null said:

What if the police officer hit a young child who froze (terrified) in a crosswalk?  What if the police officer hit a deaf/blind adult who was crossing?  Having sirens & lights doesn't give you a license to mow people down.

Here, that would be 100% the police's fault. Pedestrians are legally allowed to cross the road on the crosswalks (we call them zebra crossings because they're painted black and white). Police would never speed across pedestrian crossings if there were pedestrians about. Sadly the same can't be said for the folk they're chasing.

Edited November 29, 2019 by mike_bike_kite

[Planemo]

43 minutes ago, mike_bike_kite said:

It's also illegal to ride while wearing headphones or while operating a mobile phone due to distraction.

Are you sure about this?

My understanding is that there is no law whatsoever preventing use of headphones/earphones. The only law that may come into play is if it is proved that they distracted you, which could be dealt with as careless driving.

[mike_bike_kite]

2 hours ago, Planemo said:

Are you sure about this?

I think you're right and I also meant to put driving rather than riding  If you're seen wearing headphones while driving then this would be a fairly clear indication of careless driving which, as you say, is illegal. My guess is that it would apply equally to any motorised vehicle. If we're already riding vehicles that are uninsured, untaxed and deemed illegal (in the UK) then do you really want to add careless driving to the mix? If someone argued that the headphones weren't plugged in then they'll probably think you're taking the piss and just unplugged it. 

What we really need is to be legal on the roads and bike lanes but I'm guessing it will be a long process.

Edited November 29, 2019 by mike_bike_kite

[giggidditygiggiddity]

3 hours ago, mike_bike_kite said:

Unfortunately it's illegal to ride EUC's on the road here.

That's because of the irresponsible riders getting killed doing dumb things and the guberment has to "show" they are talking action.

3 hours ago, mike_bike_kite said:

It's also illegal to drive any motorised vehicle on the pavement. 

Are we still talking about pev's? I was picturing mopeds/gas powered scooters when I read that. 

 

[Mono]

4 hours ago, mike_bike_kite said:

If you're seen wearing headphones while driving then this would be a fairly clear indication of careless driving

What? Maybe use Google some time? A quick search reveals for me that hands-free phone calls made with headphones are only illegal in some states of the US (mostly for young people) and in Brazil.

Edited November 29, 2019 by Mono

[mike_bike_kite]

46 minutes ago, giggidditygiggiddity said:

Are we still talking about pev's? I was picturing mopeds/gas powered scooters when I read that. 

A PEV is seen as a motorised vehicle in the UK.

37 minutes ago, Mono said:

What? Maybe use Google some time? A quick search reveals for me that hands-free phone calls made with headphones are only illegal in some states of the US and in Brazil.

Wouldn't that be an earpiece attached to one ear and only operating while the phone is on? No policeman will bother you over that. But surely we're talking in this thread about headphones that stop people hearing what's going on around them? The OP spoke about a guy that couldn't even hear the sirens on a police car as it hit him.

[Planemo]

1 hour ago, mike_bike_kite said:

If you're seen wearing headphones while driving then this would be a fairly clear indication of careless driving

No it wouldn't.

You would have to be driving carelessly.

[atdlzpae]

17 hours ago, Xoltri said:

Several years ago on my way home from work I actually hit a 15 year old, in a crosswalk, with my car.

Your story is not an argument for not wearing headphones, but for not jaywalking blindly. He had to be listening really loudly not to hear a siren.
And I'm pretty sure he got lucky a 100 times before someone actually hit him.

I've never been in a situation where sound would be much help, be it as a pedestrian, in a car or on a unicycle. But I tend to look around.

14 hours ago, Hatchet said:

Put it this way; here, the law is when a siren is approaching, all traffic must pull off to the side of the road or simply stop in place at an intersection until the emergency vehicle passes. So if a driver gets t-boned by an ambulance because they had their stereo so loud they couldn't hear a siren, is that the ambulance/cop's fault? Nope.

There are tons of cases where the privileged vehicle was charged when they got t-boned.
Putting on a magic siren doesn't absolve them from responsibility. That really depends on exact circumstances. A car surprised by an ambulance on a green light can't simply "stop in place".

[atdlzpae]

1 hour ago, mike_bike_kite said:

If you're seen wearing headphones while driving then this would be a fairly clear indication of careless driving which, as you say, is illegal.

Wearing headphones != careless driving. If so, riding deaf would be careless driving. Riding while talking to someone would be reckless driving.

I don't see any difference if I ride with music or podcasts. And so all laws that ban headphones annoy me.
Thankfully there are no laws against hearing protectors and loud speakers. That's what I'm gonna use when I go to France.

[Mono]

8 hours ago, mike_bike_kite said:

Wouldn't that be an earpiece attached to one ear and only operating while the phone is on?

There is no specification on how it is only allowed to listen to a call hands-free (or to music either).

Quote

No policeman will bother you over that. But surely we're talking in this thread about headphones that stop people hearing what's going on around them?

Maybe, but you were not, you were writing that wearing headphones is a fairly clear indication of careless driving in itself.

Quote

The OP spoke about a guy that couldn't even hear the sirens on a police car as it hit him.

Right, and you responded by writing that wearing headphones is a fairly clear indication of careless driving in itself.

The points remain

• I am allowed to drive a car even though I am deaf, whether it was from listening to too loud music (before) or from birth.
• No road user can assume that the crossover passing pedestrian or the driver on the other side of the road is able to hear.

 

Edited November 29, 2019 by Mono

[mike_bike_kite]

My views are obviously different to you guys on this. If someone is deaf then that's not their fault and they certainly aren't negligent. It's a different thing If you purposefully make yourself deaf by wearing headphones and listening to loud music (as happened here). Sure, you might just be listening to a podcast quietly or just keeping your ears warm but if you have an accident then the other party will point out in their claim that you were wearing headphones and so you'd made yourself unable to properly hear the traffic around you. Which would mean you were driving carelessly.

Careless : not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm or errors

[Planemo]

I think you are confusing matters.

No one (and certainly not me) is saying the the dude wearing the headphones in the original post wasnt careless.

The point I am making is that wearing headphones doesnt by default mean you are careless. Which is why it isnt illegal.

In fact, I would wager that I would be far less careless than many drivers, even if I had Metallica blaring at volume 11. 30 years on motorbikes has taught me to be careful, not careless.

Dont get me wrong, I dont wear headphones on an euc and dont advocate it either, but its simply not correct (or fair) to say that those that do are careless.

IMO, people get complacent and actually rely on their ears too much, forgetting about using the Mk1 eyeball. The numerous people who have been hit by 'silent' electric cars being testament to this.

If we were all deaf, I am quite convinced we would all be looking a bit harder...

[atdlzpae]

1 hour ago, mike_bike_kite said:

Sure, you might just be listening to a podcast quietly or just keeping your ears warm but if you have an accident then the other party will point out in their claim that you were wearing headphones and so you'd made yourself unable to properly hear the traffic around you.

I can imagine it in court:

- Driver in front: This guy rear ended me!
- Driver in the back: This guy wore headphones and didn't hear I was about to rear end him!
- Court: The guy in the front is guilty!!!

Thankfully, our courts don't work that badly... most of the time.

If you're riding a car, you don't hear anything unless you ride very slowly AND with open windows. Sound is used like 1% of the time, mainly to troubleshoot your car.

If you're doing maneuvers that require you to look back, you look back. I hope I never meet a person who tries to switch a lane on sound alone.

 

 

Edited November 29, 2019 by atdlzpae

[Planemo]

1 hour ago, mike_bike_kite said:

Careless : not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm or errors

I meant to add that you are on very wafty ground with the quote above.

If you stand by the above, I could say:

"Any deaf person driving a vehicle whilst on an non-emegency or essential journey (ie avoidable) is careless"

 

[mike_bike_kite]

6 minutes ago, Planemo said:

I meant to add that you are on very wafty ground with the quote above.

If you stand by the above, I could say:

"Any deaf person driving a vehicle whilst on an non-emegency or essential journey (ie avoidable) is careless"

 

I think I said exactly the opposite, I suggest you reread my posts.

[giggidditygiggiddity]

Popo bro

[Planemo]

1 hour ago, mike_bike_kite said:

 I suggest you reread my posts.

I dont need to. I know what I read, and I read it right.

I found it disrespectful to both deaf people and those who choose to drive a vehicle whilst listening to loud music.

You suggested that anyone who drives and has the inability to hear their surroundings through overly loud music is careless or negligent.

You then went on to say its OK for deaf people because 'its not their fault' thereby giving them some sort of apparantly well-meant but nontheless condescending sympathy card.

You cant have it both ways.

I suggested you are confused because 'carelessness' is not defined by the inability to hear. You seem unable to grasp this fact.

I dont normally rise to issues on the internet but quite frankly I suggest that if you ever stepped foot into a courtroom with a prima facie case like this, you might want to rearrange your views because I would tear you to shreds, particularly given you have been proven wrong on a point of law already.

[mike_bike_kite]

You say I've said something but then don't provide any quote to prove this. I'll have to guess that it was the quote you put up before:

• "Careless : not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm or errors"

This was simply the first quote on google explaining what carelessness is. If you disagree with the definition then I suggest you provide your definition to whatever dictionary it came from. Carelessness has nothing to do with being unable to do something (ie not being able to listen because you're deaf) but being able to do something and then deliberately not doing it (ie being able to hear and then wearing headphones). Obviously you can do what you want in your own home but if you're driving then it puts everyone else's safety at risk and hence it's careless. In the case of the EUC rider mentioned in the first post he couldn't hear the police siren and rode straight in front of the police car. Just this afternoon I was in London and heard sirens all around me. Every driver on both sides of the road immediately pulled over to allow a stream of police cars and ambulances that were responding to today's terrorist incident. They all moved over because they could  "hear" the sirens.

[Hatchet]

8 hours ago, atdlzpae said:

 

There are tons of cases where the privileged vehicle was charged when they got t-boned.
Putting on a magic siren doesn't absolve them from responsibility. That really depends on exact circumstances. A car surprised by an ambulance on a green light can't simply "stop in place".

A car can't be surprised. No one mentioned magic. A driver who can legally drive, should not be surprised when a siren, lights, and all other traffic is clearly indicating an ambulance is approaching. You pull over, that's the law. 

The original story indicates a careless rider.

 

[giggidditygiggiddity]

On 1/30/2015 at 1:45 AM, John Chew said:

our fellow EU riders was crossing a road and got hit by a police car

How again is getting hit from behind careless? Headphones doesn't make one blind.  Even if he had turn to look, he still be hit but likely with more injury cause he would have to stop and turn.

30 minutes ago, Hatchet said:

The original story indicates a careless rider.

OP didn't say EU rider rode into the police vehicle, that's careless.  He had to be hit from behind his view, otherwise, who rides into on coming vehicle regardless if it was wrong way?!

The original story indicates a careless police officer.

Edited November 29, 2019 by giggidditygiggiddity

[mrelwood]

5 hours ago, mike_bike_kite said:

You say I've said something but then don't provide any quote to prove this. I'll have to guess that it was the quote you put up before:

• "Careless : not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm or errors"

This was simply the first quote on google explaining what carelessness is. If you disagree with the definition then I suggest you provide your definition to whatever dictionary it came from. Carelessness has nothing to do with being unable to do something (ie not being able to listen because you're deaf) but being able to do something and then deliberately not doing it (ie being able to hear and then wearing headphones). Obviously you can do what you want in your own home but if you're driving then it puts everyone else's safety at risk and hence it's careless. In the case of the EUC rider mentioned in the first post he couldn't hear the police siren and rode straight in front of the police car. Just this afternoon I was in London and heard sirens all around me. Every driver on both sides of the road immediately pulled over to allow a stream of police cars and ambulances that were responding to today's terrorist incident. They all moved over because they could  "hear" the sirens.

You are saying that a deaf person driving/riding doesn’t automatically put everyone else’s safety at risk. But listening to loud music does, because one deliberately puts oneself in the exact same position as the deaf person, which makes it careless?

Your morale discriminates based on one’s natural abilities to be able to do something, even when you think the disability by itself doesn’t make one careless. By the very definition you provided, careless is when one lacks sufficient attention. Why is the deaf persons attention sufficient while deliberately listening to music makes it not sufficient?

Edited November 30, 2019 by mrelwood

[Planemo]

2 hours ago, mrelwood said:

Why is the deaf persons attention sufficient while deliberately listening to music makes it not sufficient?

Because he keeps focusing (repeatedly) on the definition of 'careless' rather than applying it correctly.

Police response drivers are taught, in fact its drilled into them, to assume that all drivers are deaf. This isnt for fun. Its because they know that if they have a collision where the *only* factor is the victims inability to hear, the police have no defence whatsoever.

I will say it again in the simplest terms because he seems to be struggling:

The inability to hear (for whatever reason) does not by default make someone careless when it comes to traffic law.

There *has* to be an element of carelessness, simply being unable to hear isnt enough by any stretch.