A Canadian woman who ran over and killed a teenager is suing the dead boy for “emotional trauma”.
CANADA wtf - thought things were semi-rational up there.
She is also suing the other boys involved in the accident, as well as the dead boy’s parents and his brother, who has since died.
Simon is also suing the County of Simcoe for failing to maintain the road.
And she was speeding!
I’ve got nothing snarky to say. Just fucking wow.
…there was a heck of a lot left out of that report.
The parents of the deceased disagreed with the report and:
The parents of the dead teen launched their lawsuit first. The lawsuit is based on speculation only: there is absolutely no evidence that any of their claims are true. Even though she was going over the speed limit: the cyclists were cycling abreast at the early hours of the morning with no reflectors in bad visibility: and the driver was cleared of causing the accident.
The one thing I wanted to find out in the OP’s link was whether the kids had lights or not, but no mention.
I'm not as convinced as you are that this is not a rational act. The kids did something stupid -- rode abreast on bikes on a dark night and this caused *everyone* involved to have a very bad day. As a result, she's being sued by the parents of the kids even though she was found not liable. And she's being accused in that lawsuit of being distracted or drunk, despite there being no evidence. ( While I feel bad for the parents, I'm annoyed at the reflexive "Oh noes, we experienced a tragedy, let's file a law suit!") So ... expensive lawsuit, libelous statements, and, one assumes, a fairly nightmarish few months because some dumb ass kids don't know enough to bike single-file. (Maybe I'm a bit extra snappish because Spring is Here, which means that damned idiots in fluorescent garb will be holding daily pelotons up and down the local roads, and none of them have heard of single-file.)
Even taken as a warning shot over the bows ("Sue me and I’ll sue you back.), it makes sense, even it seems a bit tacky.
As for the lawyer’s sense of outrage – if he claims that he hasn’t heard of a victim being sued, he’s incompetent, bloviating, or just doesn’t know how to use Google.
It appears that the only lights they had were some reflectors on the pedals of their bicycles. Those would be very inadequate, for sure.
I remember once driving my bike home at night and it had no lights. I sometimes look back at that and feel extremely lucky that I wasn’t killed. It was an extremely negligent thing to do.
But even if I would have been hit and killed by a vehicle, I can’t imagine the driver suing my family for causing them emotional distress.
Yeah, as loath as I am to wander into Pit threads I suspect that the driver, who wasn’t charged and feels pretty damn bad about it all is now dealing with the true suck of being sued by outraged (if anger-misdirected) parents.
And sadly one way to defend oneself is to countersue.
Without greater analysis I suspect this is the case here. Also I would not be surprised if the parent’s lawyer wasn’t shilling for a little public sympathy for his cause to pry some money out of somebody.
[Quote=Mass Law PART I - TITLE XIV - Chapter 85 - Section 11B - (1)]
(1) Bicyclists riding together shall not ride more than 2 abreast but, on a roadway with more than 1 lane in the direction of travel, bicyclists shall ride within a single lane.
[/quote]
In the interest of fighting ignorance, the definition of “snappish” apparently means fucking clueless about the law!
I’ll counter with Chapter 89,
“Section 2. Except as herein otherwise provided, the driver of a vehicle passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction shall drive a safe distance to the left of such other vehicle and shall not return to the right until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle; and, if the way is of sufficient width for the two vehicles to pass, the driver of the leading one shall not unnecessarily obstruct the other.”
The roads around these parts were built for oxen carts in the mid 1700’s. They are not wide. There is no way to ride two or more abreast and not unnecessarily obstruct traffic, unless you can peddle at 30mph +
Sounds all neat and clean but riding two abreast can certainly prevent the huge amount of unsafe passing that happens constantly. I’m not going to cry for impatient Masshole drivers over some technicalities of the law.
There have been indications that the kids were wearing reflective clothing. While they certainly could have been wearing more I have to wonder how someone plows into them even if they were in full ninja mode.
There seem to have been some reflectors: Latest News - Breaking News Stories | Simcoe.com
Its seems that the woman’s husband is also suing the victim’s family. If this is an insurance company move they need a better grasp on the term ‘dick move’.
A typical bicycle is about six feet in length, more or less. If two bikes are riding abreast, that means you have a distance of around twelve feet of forward travel to clear them (assuming a three foot margin all around). If they are riding in single file with, say, eighteen inches between their wheels, that extends your passing distance to around twenty feet. And even if they are threading the fogline, you still have to go into the other lane to get around them. So, bikes riding abreast are doing you a favor.
If you are not speeding, and the bikes are single file and as far right as possible, you can pass safely in the same lane. Well, maybe someone in an SUV doesn’t feel safe doing so, but I lived in one of the biggest biking towns in the US (Bloomington, IN, home of the Little 500 bicycle race), and slowing down slightly while staying in the lane is usually safer than speeding up and changing lanes. I have lots of experience both as a rider and a driver in this.
Normally, I would be sympathetic toward the cyclists if this were a case of an inattentive or aggressive driver. In this case, though, they were cycling on a rural road whose speed limit is around 50 mph on a drizzly, dark night without any sort of lights. Sure they had tiny reflectors on their pedals and possibly some reflective clothing, but the physics just doesn’t favor them at all. The amount of time that the reflectors could actually start reflecting and let the driver determine what she was seeing at that speed probably leaves little to no time for evasive action. Sure, the driver was going roughly 55 mph in a 50 mph zone at night in poor visibility, but the cyclists put themselves in a very very dangerous situation. I have cycled on 50 mph roads during the day, and it makes me very very nervous. As a cyclist you have to be hyperaware of your surroundings in cases like that during the day; to put yourself in that type of situation at night without any sort of lights is downright insane.
As far as the lawsuit by the driver, from what I understand, it was a countersuit against a family who had been hounding her in the media and accusing her of being drunk or texting with little or no merit. Neither side is doing themselves any favors here.
There’s no mention in any of the stories that it was raining or otherwise poor visibility. If that was the case, she was speeding by a wide margin(basic speed law).
Reflectors are visible from a considerable distance, at least 400-600 meters in my experience. That’s 15-22 seconds of time before impact, plenty to identify and avoid.
Bullshit. For a variety of reasons, the most important one being that you failed to qualify, hence, your assertion implies “always”. In this
part of the country, drivers are required to give cyclists at least 3 feet of clearance. On several of the roads I ride on, even as far to the right “as possible” leaves no room for a car to squeeze past me. On many of the roads I ride on, the garbage lane (shoulder) is not navigable above walking speed. And most importantly, drivers see bicycles in the lane of traffic, they do not see them when they are way over to the side.
In some places, there are lanes wide enough for a car to safely pass a bicycle. Even then, I have my doubts that it is a good idea.
This article refers to it as a dark, drizzly night. Here it is just referred to as an overcast night. I totally agree that she was going way too fast for the conditions.
The distance that reflectors should be visible presumes a straight, flat road. The amount of reasonable distance from which one could expect to be seen is very low. Pedal reflectors are small enough to be effectively useless. 400-600 meters seems awfully generous. Did you mean 400-600 feet? Even then, the speed differential on a 50 mph road is quite problematic.
None of this, however, means that the accident was the cyclists fault and that they should be sued.
It just says it was a wet, dark road. Nothing about active rain.
I’ve always taken note of how far I can pick up bright shirts/lights/reflectors. Habit I picked up from driving on the job for over twenty years, runner for 26 and cyclist for 15.
Pedal reflectors are quite visible and the up-down motion is eye-catching.
My bicycle headlight is only 250 lumens and it picks up reflectors almost a half mile away.
ETA: If the road is not straight, then again, she was way over a safe speed. What if it were a disabled vehicle rather than bikes?
You missed the next sentence: “Section 2. Except as herein otherwise provided, the driver of a vehicle passing another vehicle traveling in the same direction shall drive a safe distance to the left of such other vehicle and shall not return to the right until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle; and, if the way is of sufficient width for the two vehicles to pass, the driver of the leading one shall not unnecessarily obstruct the other. **If it is not possible to overtake a bicycle or other vehicle at a safe distance in the same lane, the overtaking vehicle shall use all or part of an adjacent lane if it is safe to do so or wait for a safe opportunity to overtake. **”
If the roads are as narrow as you state, & given the requirements to give a cyclist “safe distance” when passing (usually regarded as 3’), then it’s not safe to pass a cyclist while staying in your lane; doesn’t matter whether they are single file or two abreast.
Ok, I concede. Perhaps I am viewing this as a cyclist who wouldn’t ride on a road with that speed limit at night without at least two rear-facing red lamps and reflective clothing. The accident is clearly the majority fault of the driver who was going too fast for conditions. I do think, though, that there is a good chance it could have been avoided had the cyclists made more of an attempt to make themselves visible.
One should always drive with the assumption that there will be an obstruction on the road. That means driving in a manner and speed at which under the conditions at the time (weather, curves, light) you always have time to stop should one appear. It’s a tragedy that the obstruction happened to be kids, and it’s easy to place blame since they are humans, but it could just as easily been a fallen branch or a garbage can.