Woman who fatally hit boy suing dead boy and his family

[siead_lietrathua]

actually, it's not- we know it was dark, and we know that the police report says she could not have avoided the accident.

also to footnote this, i live in rural ontario. so if here is like there, we're talking no streetlights, narrow or unmarked lanes, speed limit of 80km (our township is lower but that's a recent, and only local, change). if i had one of those dashcams i'd show ya'll. lol.

ontario roads are damn near the same wherever you go. only thing diffrent is the number of trees.

if you know the road, and the season, there's no need to go below the limit. arguing that people should drive 30km in an 80km when it gets dark because of the odds of a sudden, freak accident is silly. you might as well say not to drive over 10km at night, ever, cuz a deer might jump out.

[Greenday]

also to footnote this, i live in rural ontario. so if here is like there, we're talking no streetlights, narrow or unmarked lanes, speed limit of 80km (our township is lower but that's a recent, and only local, change). if i had one of those dashcams i'd show ya'll. lol.

if you know the road, and the season, there's no need to go below the limit. arguing that people should drive 30km in an 80km when it gets dark because of the odds of a sudden, freak accident is silly. you might as well say not to drive over 10km at night, ever, cuz a deer might jump out.

Yea, 80km/hr isn't super fast and a lot of the roads by my girlfriend fits that description. Lots of long, dark roads.

[siead_lietrathua]

Yea, 80km/hr isn't super fast and a lot of the roads by my girlfriend fits that description. Lots of long, dark roads.

it's like living in a slenderman game O_O

[Jetfire]

Well if you look at the road on google maps you can see that while it is a rural road (in parts), it does seem to be decentish shape. (Granted Google seems to have caught it after it was repaved recently).

I haven't been able to find any place that matches this image though.

[Greenday]

Well if you look at the road on google maps you can see that while it is a rural road (in parts), it does seem to be decentish shape. (Granted Google seems to have caught it after it was repaved recently).

I haven't been able to find any place that matches this image though.

I notice a lack of street lights.

[s_stabeler]

Yea, 80km/hr isn't super fast and a lot of the roads by my girlfriend fits that description. Lots of long, dark roads.

it's 50MPH. For an unmarked road, with no streetlgihts, at night. Granted, it's not as narrow as I thought (a narrow road, to me, if about 75% the size of that one- as in, you CANNOT pass w/o someone having to pull over) but I would still not go faster than 30MPH while I knew another car was coming.

[siead_lietrathua]

it's 50MPH. For an unmarked road, with no streetlgihts, at night. Granted, it's not as narrow as I thought (a narrow road, to me, if about 75% the size of that one- as in, you CANNOT pass w/o someone having to pull over) but I would still not go faster than 30MPH while I knew another car was coming.

see, and to me that's slow. that's the in-town speed limits. even school zones are (accordin to a converter) 24MPH here. and that's plenty slow to not be dangerous.

if you know another car is coming, and you know the road, driving conditions, and etc it's not necessary to drop speed drastically. we can't plan for the freak deer-jumpouts or etc. that's why they're called accidents.

[Jetfire]

Assuming I found the right road (image doesn't match google maps, even with the google maps from 2012), it looks like a standard rural road in decent shape. 80 would be normal, 90 if you know the road. I do that on the road I grew up on at home, and it's in much worse shape than that one seems. So while 90 is speeding, given the straightness of the road, it doesn't seem too untoward. Still it is speeding and a factor to be considered.

On another board discussing this, I've heard there's going to be another inquiry into this incident (the 3rd one) using an outside force unrelated to anyone involved. We'll see if anything comes of it.

[Gravekeeper]

On another board discussing this, I've heard there's going to be another inquiry into this incident (the 3rd one) using an outside force unrelated to anyone involved. We'll see if anything comes of it.

Its really turning into a total witch hunt. I can't find much in the way of actual reporting or updates about the story. Just the same OMGWTF outrage "articles" that are just someone's opinion of another unclear article that leave out or gloss over key facts like this being a countersuit. The reporting on this one has actually been pretty bad. From the Toronto Sun especially.

The first two inquiries were unrelated to anyone involved as well. It was a different precient that handled the accident, not her husband's, and the crash reconstruction team was independent.

[s_stabeler]

see, and to me that's slow. that's the in-town speed limits. even school zones are (accordin to a converter) 24MPH here. and that's plenty slow to not be dangerous.

if you know another car is coming, and you know the road, driving conditions, and etc it's not necessary to drop speed drastically. we can't plan for the freak deer-jumpouts or etc. that's why they're called accidents.

my issue is that she knew a car was coming, but could not apparently see three cyclists riding three abreast. How come? And if she truy could not see the cyclists coming, then it looks like she was going too fast for conditions- poor visibility, if nothing else. You can't plan for freak deer-jumpouts, but you CAN plan for catching up to a vehicle in front of you.

[Gravekeeper]

my issue is that she knew a car was coming, but could not apparently see three cyclists riding three abreast. How come? And if she truy could not see the cyclists coming, then it looks like she was going too fast for conditions- poor visibility, if nothing else. You can't plan for freak deer-jumpouts, but you CAN plan for catching up to a vehicle in front of you.

Cars have lights for starters. If there was another vehicle on the road in front of her, with no lights, travelling at leisurely bicycle speed, she would have rear ended it too. Do I have to go over the whole physics vs reaction time vs visibility thing again?

I'll put the same question to you that I did to wolfie: Do you drive at 20-25km/h at night all the times? Because that is the speed you would have to be driving in order to successfully spot, react too and bring the car to a complete stop before hitting a cyclist that suddenly appeared in the middle of the road. And thats assuming a lighter vehicle such as car on a completely level road.

Any faster than that and you would hit them no matter what.

Car headlights do not point forward, they point down and to the right so that they don't directly hit other drivers in the eyes. But this also means they illuminate an object from the ground up as it approachs and do not intially hit reflective material straight on. A reflective material only helps when it reflects enough light back towards the driver. Aside from that, our vision at night relies on contrast to spot objects. Without contrast, it is very difficult to spot something.

This is why Ontario law mandates bike lights and reflective strips instead of just normal bike reflectors for night time cycling.

On top of that, pedestrians tend to overestimate how far away a vehicle can see them from by up to 400%.

[s_stabeler]

a) when i can see lights ( like from the oncoming car) then yes, I would drive slower.
b)I don't doubt that hitting the cyclists was somewhat inevitable- my problem is that she made no effort to slow down. Had she slowed down, the dead cyclist may have survived. THAT is my problem with what happened.

[patiokitty]

I always drive slower at night than I do doing the day, because I know that I will not be able to see quite as far ahead in lower light conditions. Not everybody thinks to throw on reflective gear to hop on a bike at night, and there are a LOT of people that do not realize that they need more than reflectors on their bikes at night.

I've led workshops on bike safety and pretty much nobody I've taught realized that if they plan on riding at night that they need such precautions - they thought that people that put lights on their bikes was just a sign of somebody who took cycling way too seriously. Ditto for bike helmets. For the boys to not be wearing the proper preventative gear I do place some of the blame on the parents, but at the same time, having lived on a poorly lit country road as a child, the boys would not have expected for there to be traffic in the first place so I can understand why they would think it was safe to be out riding they way they were.

My biggest issue with what happened is that the driver even thought it was appropriate to sue the parents and boys involved. Yes, it's traumatic for her but at the same time she was the one behind the wheel of the vehicle that struck the boys. She was the one who thought that going full speed on a dark country road was a good idea. If she had indeed been drinking, she was the one that thought getting behind the wheel of her SUV was a good idea.

[Gravekeeper]

a) when i can see lights ( like from the oncoming car) then yes, I would drive slower.

Congradulations, you're actually an unsafe driver by doing this and could even be ticketed.

b)I don't doubt that hitting the cyclists was somewhat inevitable- my problem is that she made no effort to slow down. Had she slowed down, the dead cyclist may have survived. THAT is my problem with what happened.

He might also still be alive had he worn a helmet per law, had proper lights and reflectors per law and not assumed vehicles could see him in time on a dark rural road and moved off to the shoulder. Instead of staying in the middle despite headlights. You can't cast any negligent blame on the driver without casting it on the cyclists too. As I have said already, there's a reason this was ruled an accident.

As for impact speed, the chance of fatality is alarmingly high at anything over 30 km/h and reaction time is even worse at night for drivers. So lets examine a best case scenario and put this armchair accident investigation crap to rest already.

Let's say she slowed down to half the speed limit of this road, so 40 km/h and we quite generously assume she managed to spot these cyclists at about 25m or 6 car lengths or so in front of her in the dark despite their lack of proper biking equipment.

That would still be a 45% chance of death on impact. Because at 40 km/h with an average night driving reaction time you still need 32m just to percieve and react. So you would still plow into them full speed at 40 km/h.

So, again, unless you're all going to tell me you drive at 25/km an hour at night, at all times under all conditions, then physics says your opinions are invalid.

[Gravekeeper]

Not everybody thinks to throw on reflective gear to hop on a bike at night, and there are a LOT of people that do not realize that they need more than reflectors on their bikes at night.

Except that its the law in Ontario. >.>

My biggest issue with what happened is that the driver even thought it was appropriate to sue the parents and boys involved.

She is being sued for 2.3 million according to the court records and they sued her first. Her countersuit is basically legal self defense, appropriate or not, and its being turned into a witch hunt against her. ( Even people with the same last name as her are getting harrassing and threatening phonecalls now ).

She broke one law:
- Speeding.

They broke three:
- No lights
- No helmets
- Riding three abreast ( Illegal in Ontario )

The mother of the victim broke one:
- Knowingly allowing someone under the age of 18 to bike without a helmet ( Yes, tihs is the law in Ontario. If the parents are aware of it, they are legally responsible and she's the one that let him head out at 1:30am on his bike ).

So 2.4 million dollar lawsuit vs a 1.35 millon dollar countersuit.

If she had indeed been drinking, she was the one that thought getting behind the wheel of her SUV was a good idea.

She had not. Thats one of the problems with the lawsuit. It claims she was intoxicated. She blew 0 at the scene.