Topic: Woman who kills teen on bike sues his family for pain and suffering

[Brig]

Wow.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/24/christie-blatchford-family-of-teen-fatally-struck-by-suv-sued-by-motorist-for-her-pain-and-suffering/

Her enjoyment of life will be lessened.

[johngenx]

I get that the collision might not have been her fault, but now she's a total c-nt for suing these poor people.  She needs a baseball bat to the head.  Repeatedly.

[ArticSteve]

The boys wouldn't have had an estate worth suing. 

[bridgecity]

Unreal.

[JacobBlack]

Where I'm from, these people are referred to as "maggots".

[Northernridge]

I wonder if Canada has a mechanism to head off or discourage frivolous law suits.

[Fobroader]

I hope the judge is a decent person and kicks her a$$ out of court......such a frivolous lawsuit to an already devastated family....like John says, bat to head, repeatedly.

[blotter]

a bat to the head indeed. 

A collision reconstruction team from the South Simcoe Police Service investigated the crash; their 26-page report found that the “lack of visibility” of the cyclists “was the largest contributing factor,” and that on a dark overcast night, “the driver of the Kia did not see the cyclists on the roadway and was unable to make an evasive reaction.”

what, her car doesn't have headlights?   I totally get visibility of some people on bikes could be tricky but WTF - if you pay attention to the road you should see people quick enough to avoid running them over.
This is an accident with THREE KIDS on bikes NOT one!!!   How do you not see THREE kids riding their bikes.

[Fobroader]

a bat to the head indeed. 

A collision reconstruction team from the South Simcoe Police Service investigated the crash; their 26-page report found that the “lack of visibility” of the cyclists “was the largest contributing factor,” and that on a dark overcast night, “the driver of the Kia did not see the cyclists on the roadway and was unable to make an evasive reaction.”

what, her car doesn't have headlights?   I totally get visibility of some people on bikes could be tricky but WTF - if you pay attention to the road you should see people quick enough to avoid running them over.
This is an accident with THREE KIDS on bikes NOT one!!!   How do you not see THREE kids riding their bikes.

Have you seen the amount of people that do not turn their headlights on, or have yellow/fogged headlights or are just simply in lala land behind the wheel?? Any number of things could have been wrong, the fact that shes taking the family to court in unacceptable. I cant believe that there is a lawyer enabling her sick, disgusting idea though.

[blotter]

Have you seen the amount of people that do not turn their headlights on,

That's the exact reason why I think it's absolutely stupid that the "investigation" pretty blames the kids.
Never mind the fact that she's trying to sue the family.  Totally ridiculous. 

[KKullar]

I can't fathom how she could live with herself for even filing this. And even more shameful for a lawyer to humour such a case. Yes, lawyers are in the business of making money but this crosses an ethical boundary.

Hoping the judge throws out this case with a healthy tongue-lashing to the plaintiff and her legal council.

  Kev

[dr_spock]

It seems like a US style sue & counter-sue tactic to me.  If somebody sues you, you sue them back and let the lawyers fight it. 

[Snowman]

I can't find words.

[johngenx]

I can but they're not mixed company appropriate.

[goodsonr]

I say the following as a cyclist ... It is very very hard to see a cyclist who does not have lights on a dark road.  This is why any course you will ever take about safe cycling will stress the importance of being visible .. Which means active bright lights.

Riding abrest of each other in the dark with dark clothing on a road with 80 km/hr speed limit is a very foolish thing to do.  Being kids I can well imagine that they had no clue about the risks they were taking.  This doesn't let the woman off the hook and I have no clue how attentive she was .. but the kids were not exactly behaving defensively.  They didn't deserve to get hit and it is very fortunate we all didn't pay so high a price for the common foolish acts of our youth.

As to the lawsuit .. I wonder how much of that is a tactic suggested by her lawyer as a countersuit to whatever lawsuit comes her way.  I would like to think she wouldn't be suing if nobody was going after her.

A tragedy either way with no bright side for anyone

[ArticSteve]

If she is getting sued by the families it will be her insurance company that appoints her legal defense and as such she has zero input.

If a cyclist is riding in the middle of your lane, in the sticks, and it's dark and they are unlit or lack non reflective clothing, you will hit them.  Not choosing sides, just stating the obvious.

[quadzilla]

I say the following as a cyclist ... It is very very hard to see a cyclist who does not have lights on a dark road.  This is why any course you will ever take about safe cycling will stress the importance of being visible .. Which means active bright lights.

This.

It can be hard enough to see a cyclist/pedestrian in dark clothes at night in the city, but out on a dark hwy it can be next to impossible to see them until the last second. Add in any undulations of the road (that area is hilly) and you may never see them until its too late.

[X-Traction]

I say the following as a cyclist ... It is very very hard to see a cyclist who does not have lights on a dark road.  This is why any course you will ever take about safe cycling will stress the importance of being visible .. Which means active bright lights.

Riding abrest of each other in the dark with dark clothing on a road with 80 km/hr speed limit is a very foolish thing to do.  Being kids I can well imagine that they had no clue about the risks they were taking.  This doesn't let the woman off the hook and I have no clue how attentive she was .. but the kids were not exactly behaving defensively.  They didn't deserve to get hit and it is very fortunate we all didn't pay so high a price for the common foolish acts of our youth.

As to the lawsuit .. I wonder how much of that is a tactic suggested by her lawyer as a countersuit to whatever lawsuit comes her way.  I would like to think she wouldn't be suing if nobody was going after her.

A tragedy either way with no bright side for anyone

The article I read said at least two of them had red rear reflectors, plus some sort of reflective elements on their clothing.  Anyone who runs into something as large as three kids on bicycles, at night or not, is in grave danger of running into all sorts of other things.  If you can't see far enough ahead, you're supposed to slow down, not run into something and blame it on the something.

[X-Traction]

I say the following as a cyclist ... It is very very hard to see a cyclist who does not have lights on a dark road.  This is why any course you will ever take about safe cycling will stress the importance of being visible .. Which means active bright lights.

This.

It can be hard enough to see a cyclist/pedestrian in dark clothes at night in the city, but out on a dark hwy it can be next to impossible to see them until the last second. Add in any undulations of the road (that area is hilly) and you may never see them until its too late.

True, and depending on the traffic laws, the cyclists probably are partly to blame by riding abreast and not having proper lights.  HOWEVER, the law also requires motorists to take reasonable care to avoid having accidents, and obviously this includes lowering one's speed if visibility is obstructed.  I hope she loses and also has to pay the defense's costs.

[quadzilla]

I say the following as a cyclist ... It is very very hard to see a cyclist who does not have lights on a dark road.  This is why any course you will ever take about safe cycling will stress the importance of being visible .. Which means active bright lights.

This.

It can be hard enough to see a cyclist/pedestrian in dark clothes at night in the city, but out on a dark hwy it can be next to impossible to see them until the last second. Add in any undulations of the road (that area is hilly) and you may never see them until its too late.

True, and depending on the traffic laws, the cyclists probably are partly to blame by riding abreast and not having proper lights.  HOWEVER, the law also requires motorists to take reasonable care to avoid having accidents, and obviously this includes lowering one's speed if visibility is obstructed.  I hope she loses and also has to pay the defense's costs.

For the record I think the law stupid should be thrown out.

How slow should one drive on a hwy at night? Without knowing the exact section of road this happened on we won't know how far she could see. This could have been on a curve, undulation in the road. She was only going 90kph in an 80 zone, pretty much what 90% of the drivers would do.

This is just a horrible story about some kids that didn't think when riding at night and being in the wrong place when the driver came along. The driver wasn't charged and while its horrible to live with knowing you killed people the driver should just go to therapy and try to move forward.

The article I read said at least two of them had red rear reflectors, plus some sort of reflective elements on their clothing.  Anyone who runs into something as large as three kids on bicycles, at night or not, is in grave danger of running into all sorts of other things.  If you can't see far enough ahead, you're supposed to slow down, not run into something and blame it on the something.

I have to disagree. Like I said before, it is extremely difficult to see a cyclist at night without lights in the city, out in the country the odds are almost nil. Lots of people hit deer standing on the hwy and they are 100x easier to see than cyclists. And yes, I know sometimes the deer jumped in front of the car at the last second.

80 kilometers per hour = 22.22 m / s

In 4.5 seconds you cover the length of a football field.