Lollipop lady hit by car or lollipop lady hits car?

[Yodafone]

The driving is really bad and he should have stopped but looking at the clip,

1. Did lollipop lady get hit by car?
Or
2. Did lollipop lady hit the car?


https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/23251922.car-near...

[kiethton]

The car should have stopped but that's her hitting the car every day of the week

[ThunderSpook]

Clearly the lollipop lady hit the car. She didn’t have to do that even though the car was totally in the wrong. There was nobody else but her in the road and she was well clear.

[bitchstewie]

kiethton said:

The car should have stopped but that's her hitting the car every day of the week

^^

This.

[Mars]

Car is 100% in the wrong. As soon as anyone sets foot on a crossing, you're supposed to stop.

As for the lollipop "hit", she didn't swing it. She just pushed it in front of the car and the car hit it. Again, car at fault.

[mcpoot]

Mars said:

Car is 100% in the wrong. As soon as anyone sets foot on a crossing, you're supposed to stop.

As for the lollipop "hit", she didn't swing it. She just pushed it in front of the car and the car hit it. Again, car at fault.

So if you're running past me and at the last second I stick my fist out right in front of your face it's your fault when you get a black eye?

Behave!

[kambites]

As others have said, the car was appallingly driven and the driver 100% at fault but the lollipop lady clearly stuck out her stick to make the car hit it in order to make a point.

[Bill]

Mars said:

Car is 100% in the wrong. As soon as anyone sets foot on a crossing, you're supposed to stop.

As for the lollipop "hit", she didn't swing it. She just pushed it in front of the car and the car hit it. Again, car at fault.

Absolutely this.

[Kes Arevo]

I'm not sure a car doing something wrong gives anyone the right to strike that car, particularly.

[Baldchap]

mcpoot said:

Mars said:

Car is 100% in the wrong. As soon as anyone sets foot on a crossing, you're supposed to stop.

As for the lollipop "hit", she didn't swing it. She just pushed it in front of the car and the car hit it. Again, car at fault.

So if you're running past me and at the last second I stick my fist out right in front of your face it's your fault when you get a black eye?

Behave!

What does the highway code say?

[marksx]

Baldchap said:

mcpoot said:

Mars said:

Car is 100% in the wrong. As soon as anyone sets foot on a crossing, you're supposed to stop.

As for the lollipop "hit", she didn't swing it. She just pushed it in front of the car and the car hit it. Again, car at fault.

So if you're running past me and at the last second I stick my fist out right in front of your face it's your fault when you get a black eye?

Behave!

What does the highway code say?

Don't punch people in the face.

[TonyRPH]

She lunged at the car with the lollipop.

As for the headline: "Car nearly hits Bursledon lollipop lady on Portsmouth Road crossing" - what utter nonsense.

She was 100% aware that the car had no intention of stopping, and stood back knowing that was the case, therefore "nearly hits" is nonsense.

And out of frustration, she thrust the lollipop at the car.

The driver was in the wrong - that much is clear - but regardless of the situation she was wrong to do what she did.

[Rough101]

A crossing warden is authorised to stop vehicles. I’ve no problem with their actions here.

[Draxindustries1]

Crossing patrols are taught to put the stick in front of them. Vehicles should stop as soon as she steps from the pavement, in this instance she was halfway over the crossing. So what if the stick hit the car??Car driver is 100% at fault. Those that can't see this are deluded...

[Antony Moxey]

She didn't lunge at anyone, nor did she hit anything. She stuck her lollipop out to say to the driver 'look fkwit, I'm a lollipop lady halfway across a crossing so stop and wait instead of trying to charge through you absolute bellend'. She did nothing wrong, the fault is entirely with the driver.

[768]

Both in the wrong. One clearly deliberately.

[Teddy Lop]

She quite clearly attacked the car.
The driver quite clearly deserved it.
Next.

[thebraketester]

Teddy Lop said:

She quite clearly attacked the car.
The driver quite clearly deserved it.
Next.

I think that’s the crux of it.

Either that or it’s a setup and the lollypop lady actually works for the dog grooming company.

[normalbloke]

Baldchap said:

mcpoot said:

Mars said:

Car is 100% in the wrong. As soon as anyone sets foot on a crossing, you're supposed to stop.

As for the lollipop "hit", she didn't swing it. She just pushed it in front of the car and the car hit it. Again, car at fault.

So if you're running past me and at the last second I stick my fist out right in front of your face it's your fault when you get a black eye?

Behave!

What does the highway code say?

More importantly, what does the fox say?

[ATG]

TonyRPH said:

She lunged at the car with the lollipop.

As for the headline: "Car nearly hits Bursledon lollipop lady on Portsmouth Road crossing" - what utter nonsense.

She was 100% aware that the car had no intention of stopping, and stood back knowing that was the case, therefore "nearly hits" is nonsense.

And out of frustration, she thrust the lollipop at the car.

The driver was in the wrong - that much is clear - but regardless of the situation she was wrong to do what she did.

She should have shoved a brick through its window.