By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Woman runs over teenaged cyclist, then sues his bereaved family

badgenome on 25 April 2014
dyremose said:
'merica?

'merica, Jr.



Around the Network
Max King of the Wild on 25 April 2014
badgenome said:
Lusche said:

yeah think so too ...

I would like to see how those here in the thread would react if you drive in your car and someone elso causing an accident with you at no fault and then the parents of that one who caused the accident who was at 100% fault sue you for $1mio ...

edit:
still sad for the victims and families ... on both sides.

Well, that's the kicker. The Post article specifies that she hit them from behind. While it seems not to be the case in Canada, where I come from if you hit someone from behind, you are at fault, period. So I can't really sympathize with her at all.


also describes going 6mph over the limit during poor visibility. your suppose to drive for conditions. a cop can give you a ticket for going 40 in a 45 if he thinks the conditions call for going slower



badgenome on 25 April 2014
Max King of the Wild said:

also describes going 6mph over the limit during poor visibility. your suppose to drive for conditions. a cop can give you a ticket for going 40 in a 45 if he thinks the conditions call for going slower

That is a pretty good indicator that she was probably outrunning her headlights, which would make her at least partially at fault no matter what the kids were doing.



JerCotter7 on 25 April 2014
TheBlackNaruto said:
DD_Bwest said:

it mentions the family sueing the lady, and they had the lawyer before the lawsuit(the ladys suit) was filed, because he didnt want to have to tell the family. But it doesnt say which was filed first. If the family was sueing the lady first, she has every right to file a counter suit, especially if it was the teenagers negligence.

should probably wait until more is revealed before casting judgement


She was already speeding on a dark and wet road at night. And she has killed a child while seriously injuring two others. So instead of reachign out to the families that she has torn apart....even if she was being sued she just for funeral sosts etc(which are still expenseive) she instead wants 1.35 million dollars and is not taking ahy responisbility herself? Not casting judgement at all but no matter how you look at it....this is LOW

Where is the evidence that she was speeding? The people on the ike could be 100% at fault here. The driver could also be 100% at fault. Why are most people jumping to conclusions.

Where are you seeing she was 6mph over the limit Max?



badgenome on 25 April 2014
JerCotter7 said:

Where is the evidence that she was speeding? The people on the ike could be 100% at fault here. The driver could also be 100% at fault. Why are most people jumping to conclusions.

Where are you seeing she was 6mph over the limit Max?

From the Post:

The report also confirmed that Ms. Simon, who acknowledged driving at about 90 k.p.h., above the 80 k.p.h. limit, wasn’t required to take a breathalyzer test because there were “no grounds to request” one.



Around the Network
TheLastStarFighter on 25 April 2014
badgenome said:
Lusche said:

yeah think so too ...

I would like to see how those here in the thread would react if you drive in your car and someone elso causing an accident with you at no fault and then the parents of that one who caused the accident who was at 100% fault sue you for $1mio ...

edit:
still sad for the victims and families ... on both sides.

Well, that's the kicker. The Post article specifies that she hit them from behind. While it seems not to be the case in Canada, where I come from if you hit someone from behind, you are at fault, period. So I can't really sympathize with her at all.


They failed to stop. They pulled out in front of her, apparently. In Canada that makes you at fault. 



TheBlackNaruto on 25 April 2014
JerCotter7 said:
TheBlackNaruto said:
DD_Bwest said:

it mentions the family sueing the lady, and they had the lawyer before the lawsuit(the ladys suit) was filed, because he didnt want to have to tell the family. But it doesnt say which was filed first. If the family was sueing the lady first, she has every right to file a counter suit, especially if it was the teenagers negligence.

should probably wait until more is revealed before casting judgement


She was already speeding on a dark and wet road at night. And she has killed a child while seriously injuring two others. So instead of reachign out to the families that she has torn apart....even if she was being sued she just for funeral sosts etc(which are still expenseive) she instead wants 1.35 million dollars and is not taking ahy responisbility herself? Not casting judgement at all but no matter how you look at it....this is LOW

Where is the evidence that she was speeding? The people on the ike could be 100% at fault here. The driver could also be 100% at fault. Why are most people jumping to conclusions.

Where are you seeing she was 6mph over the limit Max?


It says it in the article that the police report shows she was going 90 in an 80 on a dark wet road at night. And it also states that she hit the kids from behind. I am not judging or jumping to a conclusion. But suing a family after you have takent he life of their child is a slap in the face in my opinion.



The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence...

PSN: StlUzumaki23

Max King of the Wild on 25 April 2014
badgenome said:

From the Post:

The report also confirmed that Ms. Simon, who acknowledged driving at about 90 k.p.h., above the 80 k.p.h. limit, wasn’t required to take a breathalyzer test because there were “no grounds to request” one.


yeah, in my personal experience when someone admits in going a certain speed its usually more in reality too. but ill give her the benefit of the doubt



DD_Bwest on 25 April 2014

dark clothes, no reflectors, no helmets, 130 am on a poorly lit street

and the rule that a driver behind is always at fualt is because cars have tail lights, you can see them. If they had reflectors things would be very different. also note that part of the investigation included night-time sight line tests, which included calculating stopping distances at different speeds for the distances they got from the study.

HTA 62(17) - Lights
a bike must have a white front light and a red rear light or reflector if you ride between 1/2 hour before sunset and 1/2 hour after sunrise and white reflective tape on the front forks and red reflective tape on rear forks.

HTA 104 - Helmets
Every cyclist under the age of eighteen must wear an approved bicycle helmet. Parents or guardians shall not knowingly permit cyclists under sixteen to ride without a helmet.



I am Torgo, I take care of the place while the master is away.

"Hes the clown that makes the dark side fun.. Torgo!"

Ha.. i won my bet, but i wasnt around to gloat because im on a better forum!  See ya guys on Viz

badgenome on 25 April 2014
DD_Bwest said:
dark clothes, no reflectors, no helmets, 130 am on a poorly lit street

They're saying "minimal" reflectors, not no reflectors.