fauxpublica t1_ixfnmi3 wrote
Bollards. No bollards in front of the store. That mall has millions of dollars in coverage. There is plenty of available insurance. And the Apple Store facade. Is that reasonable to just have a sheet of glass that close to the parking lot intersection? I defended this same case in Cambridge a decade or more ago at a coffee shop. Had to look at 100s of pictures of bollards at mediation with an excellent plaintiff’s attorney. There is loads of available coverage. But you’re correct about the auto limits. The minimums are much too low.
il_biciclista OP t1_ixfodjc wrote
100%! We need more bollards in more places.
Conan776 t1_ixg29cy wrote
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Azr431 t1_ixhfj5e wrote
More bollards fewer cars. Cars ruin everything
Tempest_1 t1_ixhmf19 wrote
Bollards for US president! He will stop all the cars!
fakecrimesleep t1_ixhm03a wrote
It’s hingham. Car dependent af hingham. You’re never gonna change that without NIMBY opposition
SleaterKenny t1_ixi2wa1 wrote
Fewer bollards AND fewer cars is the right answer. Bollards are ugly.
Azr431 t1_ixje36d wrote
Check out @worldbollardassociation on Twitter for bollard awesomeness! 😄
SleaterKenny t1_ixjnk6j wrote
LOL the bollard lobby has apparently found this post. -14 as I type. Seriously, people think bollards are good? I mean, I get why they're necessary sometimes, but they are still a blight.
tacknosaddle t1_ixgt93z wrote
The general rule of thumb that the victims' lawyer(s) will use is to identify the "deep pockets" that are potentially liable in a lawsuit. I think it's a safe bet that the Apple Store/Company and the mall are going to have deeper pocket than the insurance policy of the guy that drove through it.
NoMoLerking t1_ixfub43 wrote
I thought it was so odd they have planted shrubs at the curb. Many years ago I was having lunch outside when I heard a crash. Turned around to see a car perched up on a cement planter. If it had been shrubs I’d have been dead for sure.
1000thusername t1_ixfulf8 wrote
Yeah the mall is a possible lawsuit target. I heard the news saying the state had been promoting these bollards too, so if there’s any documentation indicating a conscious choice not to install them, then watch out.
Someone lower down said they’d sue Apple. I disagree with Apple specifically because they don’t control the parking lot or structure overall, but the mall is quite possible, yes.
techiemikey t1_ixhsp0f wrote
The honest answer is sue them all, and let the court figure out who owes you what money.
fuckitillmakeanother t1_ixi06e7 wrote
America the beautiful
LEAKKsdad t1_ixjjuf4 wrote
Shouldn’t have responded, now he’ll sue you too.
[deleted] t1_ixhyv0e wrote
[deleted]
some1saveusnow t1_ixg6va7 wrote
Where was the coffee shop, out of curiosity?
fauxpublica t1_ixgr5mp wrote
Porter, in the mall with the supermarket. An elderly woman driving her son’s suv stepped on the gas instead of the brake and drove right into the place.
psychicsword t1_ixiug62 wrote
> But you’re correct about the auto limits. The minimums are much too low.
It is also possible that the under covered driver insurance add on of the victim's auto insurance will cover them as well.
I ran into the low coverage limit for bodily harm after being hit and I got another 15k from my own insurance.
Pleasant_Influence14 t1_ixjhu8g wrote
Cafe zing? I was there that day.
fauxpublica t1_ixjuxqs wrote
I don’t remember the name. The owners were excellent, compassionate people and the accident had absolutely nothing to do with the coffee shop, except that she drove into it. She was actually shopping somewhere else. They leased the commercial space from a realty trust which was the true defendant. I can’t recall the name of the coffee shop, just the location.
Pleasant_Influence14 t1_ixnz71j wrote
It’s cafe zing at porter square books. I went by that day and luckily no one was killed or hurt too badly.
fauxpublica t1_ixnzbxh wrote
That must have been terrifying. Are the bollards at that mall now?
Pleasant_Influence14 t1_ixuf0r9 wrote
Yes they are. I wasn’t in the bookstore when it happened but arrived meaning to get a coffee and scone a little while after it had happened.
wsdog t1_ixg4rvl wrote
They look ugly as hell. This incident is a tragedy, but a very rare tragedy to spoil any sort of architecture everywhere.
alohadave t1_ixhhsq1 wrote
Oh, well if they are ugly, then that's okay. Fuck people, we need pretty hardscaping at shopping malls.
wsdog t1_ixhj4j3 wrote
You cannot place ballards everywhere a car can hit a person, c'mon.
alohadave t1_ixhjd2q wrote
You can put them in front of fucking plate glass storefronts in a parking lot.
wsdog t1_ixhl6q1 wrote
You really think a car can hit somebody ONLY at a glass storefront. No other location is actually possible.
Why not put bollards everywhere in front of every single structure?
alohadave t1_ixhm88c wrote
Jesus, are you really willing to die on this hill?
You are the only one complaining about putting bollards everywhere. In this case, in a shopping mall, bollards are appropriate, and would have saved life and limb, literally.
wsdog t1_ixhmirj wrote
No, alright you're good, I agree. Spend money on bollards instead of checking drivers who can induce harm. Maybe it's a better solution.
techiemikey t1_ixhtloz wrote
This is a case of "you can only control what you are capable of controling". The property owners could have placed ballards for protection (and even done something like planters to prevent it from being ugly). The business could choose something other than a glass front, as they are allowed to make changes.
What could they have done about drivers specifically? The only people who could have is the government, who can't place the ballards.
il_biciclista OP t1_ixgsnjq wrote
There's nothing rare about people being killed by cars. It happens every day in this country.
dante50 t1_ixhnrw1 wrote
Yes, the classic “architecture” of an outdoor mall where an Apple Store is wedged between a Barnes & Noble an Anthropologie. I mean, famous landmarks across the globe deploy bollards for safety, but let’s not spoil ‘Merica’s suburban parking lot malls!
wsdog t1_ixho9gz wrote
Very true, cannot agree more. Museums cover paintings with glass because of a couple of idiots with glue and soup.
A tiny fraction of idiots always ruin the lives of everybody else. My point that the idiots should be targeted, not everyone else.
And Apple stores have decent architecture.
BillMurraysTesticle t1_ixhk7x4 wrote
Imagine being AGAINST bollards but FOR 17 people being injured in a preventable accident.
wsdog t1_ixhkk57 wrote
You cannot go back in time and install bollards at this particular location preventing this particular incident. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
BillMurraysTesticle t1_ixhkx37 wrote
Nice strawman. That's not even close to what my comment was getting at. I'm saying that you're valuing "pretty architecture" over public health and that's ridiculous.
wsdog t1_ixhle0w wrote
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that bollards do nothing good and do harm. As any other security theater does.
techiemikey t1_ixhttfl wrote
Bollards aren't security theater. They provide safety. And the "harm" you proposed is "they don't look pretty"
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments