1nterceptor

"Woman sues parents of cyclist she killed with her SUV, complaining "her enjoyment of life has been be lessened"."

Read the full article:
Woman sues parents of cyclist she killed with her SUV, complaining "her enjoyment of life has been be lessened" : TreeHugger

FBinNY 

So we now have a new definition of Chutzpah. I'm impressed.

rydabent

Oh the poor girl!!! Drunk and texting, give me a break!!!

350htrr

That's good that her enjoyment of life has been lessened, maybe a few years in jail should lessen her enjoyment of life some more... If what goes around comes around theory is right...

FBinNY 

I think that if there were reliable evidence of that she would have been facing criminal charges. Therefore your characterization is inappropriate.

Sullalto

And another: Driver Sues Dead Cyclist for Damage To His Audi : TreeHugger

CbadRider

Reminds me of an old saying, "I killed my parents and now I'm an orphan so you should feel sorry for me."

katsrevenge

Wow.

cooker

The kids were riding three abreast on the highway at 1:30 am with no lights, and the family is suing the driver for about a million even though police found her not at fault. This is a tactical countersuit.

JoeyBike

"1:30 in the morning...three abreast...their clothing was dark..." On what I presume was an unlit country road.

How does ANY cyclist survive those odds? My city is full of such cyclists and I always wonder how they don't get themselves killed hourly.

If you preceeded the facts with "You will NEVER BELIEVE who got killed last night"

Watch this:

You will NEVER BELIEVE who got killed last night...a cyclist riding at 1:30 am on a dark country road with no active lighting on his bike while wearing dark clothing as he and two cycling companions spread out across the entire travel lane.

Duh...seems like suicide to me.

The ONLY people driving cars at 1:30 am on a country road are drunks and tired people. Maybe someone amped up on Red Bull to stay awake if you are LUCKY. Nothing good can happen cycling at that hour under those circumstances. I am in awe that anyone survives that scenario on a bicycle.

The girl has a point - assuming she was not drunk or messing with her phone.

I-Like-To-Bike

New motto for A&S ranters: When in doubt, just make it up. Of course some are never in doubt and have no need for reliable information, evidence, or facts.

When the A&S lynch mob gets tossed some Internet chum, it is time to get the pitchforks sharpened and torches blazing hot, eh?

B. Carfree

Leaving aside the fact that the kids weren't following anyone's "safest riding practices", this woman did run over a substantial mass of stuff that was literally right in front of her on a straight, flat roadway. Add in the fact that two of the three riders had legal reflectors and I don't think she has the driving skill/knowledge/caution to be allowed to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads. 'Tis a pity that our laws don't conform to my opinion, but at the least she should own her share of the incident, which is pretty close to all of it.

Chris516

Oh mercy me!! How dare a motorist have common sense.

Yes, I know. They were riding at 1:30am. But still.

JoeyBike

This is what i call "Swimming with sharks" cycling style. Even if the girl is 100% wrong - people are dead from taking extra risk doing something already risky. Basically hanging raw meat around their necks while in shark infested waters.

I think we all know that "legal" reflectors, often dirty, are generally inadequate. Even my backwards community bumped the requirement to flashing rear light along with active headlight. No mention of headlight use in the article. Aren't headlights mandatory in every state?

dynodonn 

If the motorist hit the cyclists head on, then the cyclists not having an operating headlight on their bikes might have merit in this incident. What should be in question is the condition of the headlights on the motorist's vehicle, where they covered in grime, UV fogged, or one possibly being burned out.

cooker

Reflectors aren't much protection at the best of times, and certainly not intended to protect you from an overtaking motorist at 80 or 100 km (50-60 mph) on a night-time highway. A thorough investigation and 26 page report didn't lead to charges. Note that the suit by the parents against the driver accuses her of "speeding, under the influence or texting". Why did they use the word "or"? Because they have no idea if any of that is true and are fishing for something to blame her with.

JoeyBike

Also many motorists drive with filthy windscreens. Bugs all over the windshield would effectively camouflage any road user not well lit.

And my headlight creates a huge light patch on the pavement ahead of me. Even without a tail light on a dark country road I will look like a UFO landing from any distance or direction. But then...I am ACTIVELY trying to not get killed out there.

This incident probably goes in the books under "Clash of the Morons". Everyone involved sounds like a Darwin theory in progress.

CB HI

So with a 26 page report, how did the police not definitely establish such facts. What was written in the article from the report appears to show an extreme bias in favor of the motorist and against the cyclists. If it was a cop in a dark uniform this woman hit at night, would the report show similar bias?

Riding 3 abreast should have made the three cyclists easier to see. Would a single rider with the legal reflector been easier to see when this woman killed?

B. Carfree and I both long for the days when motorist were mostly considered at fault when they hit something right in front of them, day or night.

FBinNY 

There is civil fault and criminal fault. Th police investigation relates mainly to the possible criminal aspects, ie. gross negligence, drunk driving, etc. and the prosecutor's office is mainly concerned with whether there is sufficient evidence to support the criminal charges.

However, not being criminally liable doesn't change the civil aspect, and in most states here in the USA, and I assume in Canada, the driver would still be civilly responsible, unless they could show by a preponderance of the evidence that the other party was at fault.

I suspect that this suit is a tactic to get evidence of contributory negligence on the part of the cyclists considered, and/or to negotiate a settlement to the initial suit.

billew

Did everyone miss the fact that this is a cop's wife, the husband was following in another vehicle refused to give CPR or call 911? Read the comments on the original story.

JoeyBike

I missed that.

mconlonx

Does that include her husband, the police officer, who was following behind her at the time...?

JeffreyGlobe

Comments which were mostly refuted by a later comment. Did you selectively forget to read that one? So, which comment is to be believed? Obviously, to you, the one that supports your feelings that the driver was completely in the wrong. There are no truly relevant facts presented in the article to make any sort of informed opinion, nor can any credibility be given to any of the comments. There just isn't anything of substance presented in the entire link to make a call either for or against the driver. Just because the bikes had reflectors doesn't mean that they were positioned correctly or even visible (I see bikes everyday that have reflectors that don't actually reflect much of any light at all). One comment states that the driver passed a roadside breathalyzer test. The comment also states that the driver was possibly speeding (55 mph in a 50 mph zone (90 kph in an 80 kph zone)). Where did the parents get the information that the driver might have been intoxicated or texting (as per the last paragraph of the article)? The speeding part seems to be known, but then again, none of the comments provide any corroboration to back their statements. Where, in either the article or the comments, is there anything other than what amounts to hearsay that would confirm that the officer refused to call 911 or provide CPR?

Why not let the court system do its job of determining the facts and render an informed opinion rather than hanging them with ignorance on an internet forum?

CB HI

A little more reading for you from an unbiased witness who actually performed CPR for the boy, while the cop husband began the cover-up.
https://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/201...ash-speaks-out

What type of justice do you believe occurs when the cops do a cover-up?

FBinNY 

IMO this is the kind of case which jurists hate. While I think the driver's suit is patently ridiculous, there's plenty of fault to go around.

The father admits fault on his son's part, but feels it should be forgiven. Unfortunately the laws of nature are harsher than the laws of Canada, so that's not an option. OTOH where's parental responsibility fit in? Every time I hear of some foolish teenage ninja getting killed or injured late at nght, I ask myself what kind of people let their sixteen year old ride an unlit bicycle in the middle of the night?

It's not necessarily the lateness of the hour, but the failure to supervise how and when they ride that bothers me. If you're a parent, and your child is out riding at night without a light, it's not his fault, it's yours.