Woman who fatally hit boy suing dead boy and his family

[s_stabeler]

Gravekeeper, by your own argument, going more than 25KPH at night is too fast for conditions- going too fast for conditions is defined as going too fast to be able to stop in a reasonable time under the conditions at the time.

[Gravekeeper]

Gravekeeper, by your own argument, going more than 25KPH at night is too fast for conditions- going too fast for conditions is defined as going too fast to be able to stop in a reasonable time under the conditions at the time.

You really missed the point there, didn't you? -.-

The point is that the standard you're trying to hold her to is unrealistic, even illegal, and if you yourself do not drive at 25km/h at all times at night, then its also hypocritical.

[Sleepwalker]

Preeety sure she'd have been given a pass for nailing a slow moving car with its lights off, too.

[s_stabeler]

You really missed the point there, didn't you? -.-

The point is that the standard you're trying to hold her to is unrealistic, even illegal, and if you yourself do not drive at 25km/h at all times at night, then its also hypocritical.

so what is driving too fast for conditions to you? To me, it is driving fast enough that you cannot stop in time if you can see something.

I am not saying the driver is 100% at fault ( I'm guessing blame should be about 50-50)- I am saying, though, that I believe the report that laid the blame on the cyclists entirely is incorrect.

[patiokitty]

I'm in the 50/50 crowd - both sides have some blame to lay upon them for their actions. I can understand why the parents would want to sue the driver even though the amount is a bit nuts, but I cannot truly understand why the driver would counter-sue.

Yes, precautions should have been taken on all sides, and it sucks that people died as a direct result of the accident and its after effects.

I know how I would drive in similar conditions so that I could avoid any potential accidents - and I live in a province that has some very spectacular night time moose vs. vehicle accidents. Accidents happen in the dark even if you, as the driver, think you have taken all the necessary precautions. Shit happens, sadly. I wish that both sides in this case were not as litigious as they are being though, but that is not my call to make.

[Gravekeeper]

so what is driving too fast for conditions to you? To me, it is driving fast enough that you cannot stop in time if you can see something.

Doesn't matter what it is to me. You're the one setting the standard that is impossible, illegal and even dangerous. And maintaining that standard despite the fact physics itself disagrees with you.

Stopping in time is rarely possible at speeds above residential limits ( which is why they are residential speed limits ). But even at residential speed limits in broad daylight under ideal conditions you still have a total stopping distance of 18m. And thats for the average car. This woman was driving an SUV.

But clearly visible obstacles in the road in broad daylight aren't the problem. Surprise obstacles and sudden lane incursions are the problem. Especially under reduced visibility conditions.

I am not saying the driver is 100% at fault ( I'm guessing blame should be about 50-50)- I am saying, though, that I believe the report that laid the blame on the cyclists entirely is incorrect.

There is no report that laid the blame entirely on the cyclists.

[s_stabeler]

The report said that the driver couldn't be blamed though- so logically, that means that the cyclists are to blame.

as for stopping in time, I happen to agree- she couldn't have stopped in time. That's why i don't blame her entirely for the accident. What my problem is is that she was going so fast she couldn't react at all- when slowing down would have improved the odds the dead cyclists survived. ( Yes, the chances are he'd still have died. but it is at least a greater chance he'd survived- my problem is no attempt was made at all to slow down)

[siead_lietrathua]

The report said that the driver couldn't be blamed though- so logically, that means that the cyclists are to blame.

no... it means that it could have been a genuine accident, with enough random factors from both ends that it's impossible to assign any real blame to either party.
it doesn't have to be "she did it!" or "they did it!". it's possible the answer is "they both did it" or "noone did anything intentionally, it's just a tragic lining up of circumstances"

also, 90 isn't too fast to see a biker on a road like that... unless they're wearing all back and no reflectors. it's plenty of time to slow when you can see them. and even then, when they are on the shoulder of the road like they're supposed to be, it's easy enough to swerve a bit and miss them, or only glance them.

[NecCat]

The problem with all of this is the news, and the fact that they get their information directly from the police. I actually live close enough to this that it would be considered local news. Thanks to great support from the local community, the police have promised to reopen the investigation (a while ago - it hasn't started yet). The original investigation, which ruled this an accident, was severely flawed:

1) The driver that hit the cyclists was being followed in another car by her husband, a York region police officer
2) After the accident she was given a roadside assessment, he was interviewed and questioned for less time than it took the ambulances to leave the scene with the the three boys, and both were released. She was never questioned at the scene, her husband wouldn't allow it.
3) Several witnesses (none saw the actual moment of impact, but people did drive up before police arrived on scene) were made to stay until the police had all their information.
4) She went home with her husband in his car. She never took a breathalyser, her phone was never examined to see if she was using it while driving, and her purse went with her so it was never examined.
5) When her and her husband returned to a police station for more thorough questioning it was well past the time limit when a breathalyzer (or blood analysis) is allowed (I think the time limit is 24h, but I'm not positive)

The family of two of the boys, upon legal advice, sued her civilly in order to legally gain access to the criminal investigation records. That worked, they publicized many facts about the investigation, including the above. The resulting protests complaints and pleas by the local town resulted in a (local) media shit storm, and the police have promised to reopen the investigation, using entirely separate uninvolved investigators. It really doesn't matter, it's too damn late.

Everyone seems to agree her and her family are all complete douchebags for their countersuit.

The clothes the boys were wearing and the speed she was driving were the only things that could be determined fairly accurately, and while over the posted limit her speed was nowhere near ridiculous for that particular bit of road if there isn't ice on the ground (there wasn't).

BTW you won't be able to find the road in the picture anywhere but in the picture, this happened right before a major repaving, replacing culvert, moving electrical etc project that continued until about 2 months ago. The road is completely different now, the scenery is different, that hill is not nearly so steep, there aren't very many trees and it is angled slightly differently. The cross that marks where he was hit was moved three times as the roadwork crews did their thing. Good luck with the new investigation!

[s_stabeler]

OK I'll admit I was probably wrong about her going too fast for conditions- albeit she probably should have stuck to the speed limit, but that's a separate debate- but my suspicions about the police report seem to be somewhat accurate.

and it's not so much that a breathalyser isn't allowed after 24h, it's more that it's pointless, on two counts. a) "I needed a drink after getting home"-not exactly unreasonable, even if I'd want a cup of tea myself. (I don't drink alcohol- don't like the taste) b) the body processes 1 unit of alcohol an hour. After 24 hours, the chances are that there is no alcohol left in your system.

[Titi]

Where are you getting any of this from? This is not a criminal investigation, its civil suit. It was already ruled an accident. So unless you've suddenly become clairvoyant your entire post is just ill informed. unfounded pot stirring.

The lawsuit for emotional distress. I know it is hard but she did kill someone. Even though it was their own fault it hard to accept the fact, until you make peace with yourself. Yes, she knows that she didn't go out and plan to hit a kid on a bike who was riding unsafely, but she needs to admit that she did it for herself. I just feel that had she admitted it to the police (which her husband wouldn't allow her to do) she wouldn't have this hanging over her head every day.