Woman runs over teenaged cyclist, then sues his bereaved family

[DonFerrari]

DD_Bwest said:

peoDonFerrari said:

DD_Bwest said:

DonFerrari said:
Can anyone confirm if she was with her headlights on?? And if she tried to slow down or deviate??? Because by the look of it it seems like she didn't even saw the boys. Because doesn't matter how close you are when seeing (and with the headlight even tough the reflection was minimal she should have saw them from at least what? 50 ft?) you will try breaking and deviating, so it would have some tyre marks indicating that. Now if you are drunk, typing, speeding and with headlights off it would be possible to just smack down without seeing.

it is also very possible that at 130 in the morning on a foggy rainy night, on-coming lights could drown out the much darker objects infront of you.  we already know a 3rd vehicle was there right away.

That is why we use fog light in this condition and drive at lesser speeds... No matter how much you do to defend the woman this stinks more on the case of poor investigation or lack of evidence to prove guilty than to say she have done everything reasonable to avoid an accident.

How can you sue the municipality for poor conditions of the road and drive above limit on even poorer conditions (low light, rain, possible fog, etc)??? To me this says she was confident enough on the street to drive that fast.

not all cars have fog lights, and if a car is coming towards you, you shouldnt be using your highbeams.   People are very sensitive to light contrast, its one of the reasons cars have day-time running lights.  and studies have shown that a normal reaction time (from seeing the object to applying corrective measures) is about 1.5 seconds. (http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/pedestrian.html).   at the speed limit, in that time she would have travelled 33 meters or 108 feet.  and thats all before she even applies the break and if she even saw them.  there are reasons we have reflector laws.

 

im also going to add i dont think shes going to win her case, not only is proving damages exceptionally hard and that number extremely high for cases in canada, holding the parents liable for the actions will be a major battle. i just dont think people should be so hard on her, especially since she is being sued for a million

1.5s??? Are you crazy??? With reflexes like these we wouldn´t ever complain about lag or frameratedrop... Ayrton Senna had 0,12s reflex and normal human reactions are below 0.5s. You could say that tought reaction could take 1.5s, but not one taken on desperation to save your life.

Well I'm certain a Kia Sorento have fog light. And actualy not having one in a car is a lot more imbecile than kids not using appropriate reflection since one are minors without knowledge of traffic regulation and the other is the wife of a cop... but you probably will ignore this and all the other possible mistakes the womam made just because she wasn't prosecuted... since the boys weren't prosecute for reckless bycicle driving or lack of safety signaling them you also think they aren't wrong right?