Family of dead cyclist sued by driver that killed him.

[ComedyPilot]

A driver pulls out of a driveway and a cyclist rides into the side of them. In your logic, the cyclist has no claim on the driver?

Who is the vulnerable road user?

I am no expert, but I have never pulled out of a driveway into the path of a cyclist, nor have I ridden into the side out an emerging car. Plenty of cars have pulled out on me, the difference being I anticipated their actions and avoided a collision - a big clue being lowered kerbs, junctions etc. The onus IMO is on the driver of the metal box, not the cyclist.

The point I am making (badly it seems) is that vulnerable road users whether we like it or not are most likely to be hurt worse in a collision with a faster moving object. As in the scenario the vulerable ped was ridden into (in a forwards direction by the cyclist) then the cyclist is responsible.

Maybe a t'internet forum isn't the best place to discuss it?

Get your ass on the York to Kingston Upon Hull FNRttC in May, buy me a pint and we'll discuss it.

 

[theclaud]

I would remove the pejorative term "killed" from that

Are you trying to be funny? The whole thread is about a woman who killed a teenager and injured another.

 

[MontyVeda]

Because some people think through the implications of the OP and responses, rather that spout ill thought out opinions.

there's a difference between thinking through the implications of the OP and making up a completely different scenario that doesn't involve a speeding driver that approaches and rams a group of cyclists.

 

[PK99]

I don't believe 'Killed' is a pejorative. 'Murdered' would be inappropriate, but 'killed' is a stating a fact, not implying intent or malice aforethought.

to kill is an active verb, with the meaning to cause the death of.

In a motor accident it will often be correct to say that the deceased was "killed by a car", it is not necessarily correct in the same event to say "killed by the driver" of the car.

My niece committed suicide by walking in front of a train. She was killed by a train. She was not killed by the driver of the train.
Similarly, if ever i cycle out of a junction without looking, i might well be killed by a car but not by the driver.

 

[PK99]

there's a difference between thinking through the implications of the OP and making up a completely different scenario that doesn't involve a speeding driver that approaches and rams a group of cyclists.

it is often useful to identify the logic of an argument and apply it to a different scenario. In doing so, the flaws or validity of the logic become apparent.

This line of debate stemmed from the post : "Either way, I hope with all my heart that we never arrive at the position in this country that the family of a dead cyclist can be sued by the driver that killed him/her....."

 

[theclaud]

it is often useful to identify the logic of an argument and apply it to a different scenario. In doing so, the flaws or validity of the logic become apparent.

This line of debate stemmed from the post : "Either way, I hope with all my heart that we never arrive at the position in this country that the family of a dead cyclist can be sued by the driver that killed him/her....."

The scenario in the OP is an outrage, and it's real. Why don't you deal with that before indulging your crappy half-arsed mind games?

 

[Tin Pot]

So what? Can't we just assume everyone here sides with The Cyclist against The Imperial Motoring Forces of Darkness and then move on to what is actually going on?

Outrage? I ran out of outrage with the Sudan and Syria. This is a farking civil law case in Canada - a counter suit at that, against the $900000 suit against her. The criminal case is already resolved, and justice served.

If you want outrage, you're going to have to try harder.

 

[theclaud]

So what? Can't we just assume everyone here sides with The Cyclist against The Imperial Motoring Forces of Darkness and then move on to what is actually going on?

Wouldn't it be nice, even if only on this forum, if we could assume that everyone would "side with" a kid who was run over, and the family who have lost him (and who six months later lost his older brother too).

 

[Tin Pot]

The criminal case is already resolved, and justice served.

 

[theclaud]

Nice touch, quoting yourself. A speeding driver killed a kid and no charges were brought. You appear to have set the "justice" bar abominably low.

 

[PK99]

Wouldn't it be nice, even if only on this forum, if we could assume that everyone would "side with" a kid who was run over, and the family who have lost him (and who six months later lost his older brother too).

Why? There is emotional trauma on both sides, to "side with" one side for no more than tribal reasons has no merit.

Would you recommend that in future another group of 3 cyclists ride side by side, without lights and with minimal reflectives along the same unlit country road?
If not, why not?
Would you do it?

 

[theclaud]

Why? There is emotional trauma on both sides, to "side with" one side for no more than tribal reasons has no merit.

Would you recommend that in future another group of 3 cyclists ride side by side, without lights and with minimal reflectives along the same unlit country road?
If not, why not?
Would you do it?

Tribal reasons? Listen to yourself. One can avoid the emotional trauma involved in having run kids over by the simple expedient of not running kids over. One might even imagine that the trauma might be best dealt with by accepting responsibility for one's pointlessly life-shattering actions.

 

[MontyVeda]

...

Would you recommend that in future another group of 3 cyclists ride side by side, without lights and with minimal reflectives along the same unlit country road?
If not, why not?
Would you do it?

One would assume that the road is not unlit due to the lights on the front of the vehicle travelling down it... just saying like.

 

[Nigeyy]

Followed this thread with interest, it is a sad case all round. I don't know the full story either. From this: http://blogs.ajc.com/news-to-me/2014/04/28/driver-kills-teen-cyclist-sues-his-parents/ it sounds like the driver was speeding, however I'm not sure if it truly made a difference or not. It also sounds like the kids' parents were first to file a lawsuit against the driver -pretty ballsy as it appears they didn't have lights or reflective vests at night. Add in the fact the driver's husband was a cop and it can get murkier.

However (and I'm not taking any side here) and granted I don't know the Canadian system, at least in the States this may not be as ridiculous as it sounds. If you require medical care (including counselling) it can be pretty expensive (a million dollars expensive? I don't know but certainly thousands -possibly tens of thousands of pounds -and the insurance company can and will pursue the person at fault to sue them or their insurance company for the costs.) Or a person with no insurance can do similarly. As bad as it sounds, why shouldn't an individual do this? If it's someone elses fault, why should they be stuck with a potentially very expensive medical bill?

FYI: I was out running and strained my calf muscle and had to undergo physical therapy. At around the same time, I was involved in an automobile accident. I was subject to threatening letters from my health insurance company demanding to know if this was a result of the automobile accident (and no, it wasn't due to any concern on their part either!). I put off responding as much as I could as I pay a hefty health insurance premium every month and I resented this intrusion immensely. In the end I was threatened with loss of coverage (which they can do) unless I answered. I did so extremely begrudgingly -and with a new found knowledge that insurance companies clearly scan accidents here (I did not provide any details of my health insurance coverage at the accident either).

Anyway, sadly no winners here, but I do think there are two sides to a story like this, and I'm not sure we're getting them.