Only in America

Anonymous

Women speeding runs of three boy cycling, kills one. She then goes on to sue the boys familys for $1.3 million as she suffers: "psychological suffering", including "depressions, anxiety, irritability and post-traumatic stress".

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/cry-baby ... etwitteruk

imposter2.0

Already posted a couple of times, I think. A few weeks ago. Aslo, I think it's Canada, not 'America'..?

Grill

Indeed. Please keep with the times and blame the appropriate country.

charlie_potatoes

Maybe change the title to 'Only in North America'

Grill

Here's the first sentence in that article:

On the night of the 28th of October, 2012, 17-year-old Brandon Majewski was out for a bike ride with two friends in Alcona, Canada.

How do you screw that up? Only in the UK...

Colinthecop

Grill wrote:

How do you screw that up? Only in the UK...

Wiggle have a lot to answer for.... :shock:

sparklehedgehog

run her over!

sorted

TheHound

Has anyone bothered to read the article?

These boys were riding 3 abreast, in the dark with no lights, wearing dark clothes.

The law suit is a counter measure as she is being sued by the family.

dennisn

TheHound wrote:

Has anyone bothered to read the article?

These boys were riding 3 abreast, in the dark with no lights, wearing dark clothes.

The law suit is a counter measure as she is being sued by the family.

On this forum there does seem to be the idea that if a cyclist is killed by a car it's always the cars fault. Never the cyclist.

StillGoing

dennisn wrote:

TheHound wrote:

Has anyone bothered to read the article?

These boys were riding 3 abreast, in the dark with no lights, wearing dark clothes.

The law suit is a counter measure as she is being sued by the family.

On this forum there does seem to be the idea that if a cyclist is killed by a car it's always the cars fault. Never the cyclist.

Yep, there sure does. An unlit road, no lights, reflective or light coloured clothing, 3 abreast and from one account pissing about in the middle of the road. But hell, blame the driver every time.

al_kidder

philthy3 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

TheHound wrote:

Has anyone bothered to read the article?

These boys were riding 3 abreast, in the dark with no lights, wearing dark clothes.

The law suit is a counter measure as she is being sued by the family.

On this forum there does seem to be the idea that if a cyclist is killed by a car it's always the cars fault. Never the cyclist.

Yep, there sure does. An unlit road, no lights, reflective or light coloured clothing, 3 abreast and from one account pissing about in the middle of the road. But hell, blame the driver every time.

She hit them from behind? She had headlights, did she not? Her fault. Unless they wandered into her path unpredictably from a side street

ai_1

Al Kidder wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

TheHound wrote:

Has anyone bothered to read the article?

These boys were riding 3 abreast, in the dark with no lights, wearing dark clothes.

The law suit is a counter measure as she is being sued by the family.

On this forum there does seem to be the idea that if a cyclist is killed by a car it's always the cars fault. Never the cyclist.

Yep, there sure does. An unlit road, no lights, reflective or light coloured clothing, 3 abreast and from one account pissing about in the middle of the road. But hell, blame the driver every time.

She hit them from behind? She had headlights, did she not? Her fault. Unless they wandered into her path unpredictably from a side street

Bull

If you're unlit and inappropriately dressed a driver will not see you in time to take considered action. There is no way I would assume the driver is automatically in the wrong.
I assume you don't drive or if you do you don't realise your limitations, my guess is the former.
Non-driving cyclists on this forum are typically as ignorant and prejudiced as they accuse drivers of being. Both extremes are idiots. I do both. I've seen dangerous, ignorant and incompetent behaviour by both drivers and cyclists while both driving and cycling. I've done one or two silly things myself while both driving and cycling. Thankfully nothing that's caused more than slight annoyance for others and embarrassment for myself - and I try and learn from the few mistakes I do make instead of blaming others and shirking any and all responsibility.
Cycling on roads in the dark without lights is crazy. Doing it three abreast on unlit roads in dark clothing is an accident waiting to happen.

Headlights do not make drivers omnipotent. A surprising number of cyclists and pedestrians seem to think that if headlights shine in their general direction they've been seen. Nonsense. It's very easy to miss someone, especially if there's headlights coming the other way or you're using your dipped lights and they're in dark clothing. This is not a sign of incompetence by the driver but by the cyclist/pedestrian.

Joeblack

It was the motorists fault she was SPEEDING!!! She in the wrong because she was breaking the law, end of story.

And I drive, I have passed various advanced driving courses as well.

mfin

Joeblack wrote:

It was the motorists fault she was SPEEDING!!! She in the wrong because she was breaking the law, end of story.

And I drive, I have passed various advanced driving courses as well.

It says "According to the police report, Sharlene was driving 10kmph over the speed limit.", this probably would be an estimate as a result of the investigation. Also, there's 'speeding' and then there's 'SPEEDING', at least in this country different degrees of speeding are dealt with differently.

The fact is, there's only enough information in that short amount of text to trigger outrage if you're the kind of person who only needs the tiniest amount of information to trigger some underlying prejudices and predispositions. If you're into that kind of thing then the Daily Mail might be right up your street.

ai_1

Joeblack wrote:

It was the motorists fault she was SPEEDING!!! She in the wrong because she was breaking the law, end of story.

And I drive, I have passed various advanced driving courses as well.

Sounds to me like they were both in the wrong. Are bike lights a legal requirement in Canada?

Regardless, the thread title and the attitude of the reply I quoted are inappropriate.

Joeblack

mfin wrote:

Joeblack wrote:

It was the motorists fault she was SPEEDING!!! She in the wrong because she was breaking the law, end of story.

And I drive, I have passed various advanced driving courses as well.

It says "According to the police report, Sharlene was driving 10kmph over the speed limit.", this probably would be an estimate as a result of the investigation. Also, there's 'speeding' and then there's 'SPEEDING', at least in this country different degrees of speeding are dealt with differently.

The fact is, there's only enough information in that short amount of text to trigger outrage if you're the kind of person who only needs the tiniest amount of information to trigger some underlying prejudices and predispositions. If you're into that kind of thing then the Daily Mail might be right up your street.

Try killing someone and being over the speed limit, see how the police deal with you :roll:

I'm not sure if your last comment was directed at me but I'm not outraged I'm merely amused how some posts here neglected the fact she was speeding a quickly blamed the cyclist.

HellsCyclist

She was doing 10kph/6mph over the speed limit. Not enough in itself to be a major factor imo. Basically she was too stupid to drive properly regardless of speed. This is the main factor. This point is backed up by: "They did not apply their brakes properly". She drove right into the back of them. If she couldn't stop in time then that is due to careless or dangerous driving. Shouldn't have been ****ing tailgating.
With regards to claiming compo, even if it were the cyclists fault, you cant claim off the family as they bear no responsibility for the actions of the deceased or his cycling friends. Im not claiming to know all the facts but this sounds completely insane from what I have read.

Pross

Joeblack wrote:

mfin wrote:

Joeblack wrote:

It was the motorists fault she was SPEEDING!!! She in the wrong because she was breaking the law, end of story.

And I drive, I have passed various advanced driving courses as well.

It says "According to the police report, Sharlene was driving 10kmph over the speed limit.", this probably would be an estimate as a result of the investigation. Also, there's 'speeding' and then there's 'SPEEDING', at least in this country different degrees of speeding are dealt with differently.

The fact is, there's only enough information in that short amount of text to trigger outrage if you're the kind of person who only needs the tiniest amount of information to trigger some underlying prejudices and predispositions. If you're into that kind of thing then the Daily Mail might be right up your street.

Try killing someone and being over the speed limit, see how the police deal with you :roll:

I'm not sure if your last comment was directed at me but I'm not outraged I'm merely amused how some posts here neglected the fact she was speeding a quickly blamed the cyclist.

It doesn't matter how the police deal with you. They don't determine guilt or impose sentencing. I suspect in a UK court a jury of 12 who are far more likely to drive than to cycle will take the side of a driver (slightly??) exceeding the speed limit over a cyclist who isn't lit up. Have you ever come upon an unlit cyclist or pedestrian in dark clothing on an unlit road? I have and I wouldn't fancy my chances of always having time to avoid them.

dennisn

Ai_1 wrote:

Headlights do not make drivers omnipotent. A surprising number of cyclists and pedestrians seem to think that if headlights shine in their general direction they've been seen. Nonsense. It's very easy to miss someone, especially if there's headlights coming the other way or you're using your dipped lights and they're in dark clothing. This is not a sign of incompetence by the driver but by the cyclist/pedestrian.

Got to agree with this wholeheartedly. Nobody, least of all me, wants to hit someone walking or cycling alongside a road. At night headlights don't let you see everything. I can think of a few times where it seemed that a rider or pedestrian appeared out of nowhere. Also these were young kids and many young people seem to think they are invulnerable or at the very least don't think things through. i.e. the two teenagers, from our neighborhood, who were walking to school and decided to try and beat a passenger train at a crossing. He's dead and she lost a leg. Broad daylight, whistle blowing, crossing gate down, traffic stopped, and one fast moving train.

ai_1

Joeblack wrote:

mfin wrote:

Joeblack wrote:

It was the motorists fault she was SPEEDING!!! She in the wrong because she was breaking the law, end of story.

And I drive, I have passed various advanced driving courses as well.

It says "According to the police report, Sharlene was driving 10kmph over the speed limit.", this probably would be an estimate as a result of the investigation. Also, there's 'speeding' and then there's 'SPEEDING', at least in this country different degrees of speeding are dealt with differently.

The fact is, there's only enough information in that short amount of text to trigger outrage if you're the kind of person who only needs the tiniest amount of information to trigger some underlying prejudices and predispositions. If you're into that kind of thing then the Daily Mail might be right up your street.

Try killing someone and being over the speed limit, see how the police deal with you :roll:

I'm not sure if your last comment was directed at me but I'm not outraged I'm merely amused how some posts here neglected the fact she was speeding a quickly blamed the cyclist.

I think you'll find the quickest blame was aimed at the motorist as is standard operating procedure around here - just look at the original post. In light of the circumstances of the crash it's not so clear cut. I don't have a pre-disposition to blame either cyclists or motorists. I'm simply anti-prejudice and anti-ignorance. Any case must be judged with more consideration than the knee-jerk response of blaming motorists and automatically awarding cyclists the high moral ground. This attitude gets showcased here on a regular basis and it's no better than than the drivers who have similarly negative attitudes about cyclists. Both these groups are alike and they are both the problem, not the solution. They're ignorant and self-righteous not the clear-thinking, say it like it is types they always consider themselves to be.

Pross

Perfectly put.

lostboysaint

Her name is Sharlene FFS, of course she's guilty.

rolf_f

So,just to clarify, are we agreed that the correct title of this thread should be:

"In Canada, as in lots of other countries, if you have the misfortune to hit unlit cyclists in the early hours of the morning you may have to counter sue the families of the cyclists in order to protect yourself. By doing this, lots of people who can't be bothered to research the facts will get really uppity at you"?

It doesn't seem to have the same punch anymore!

iPete

To re-fuel this fire I read (and I can't back this up whilst at work but BR is OK ) that the car behind was driven by her husband, her husband the police officer. The very same police officer that allowed her to leave the scene before others arrived.

Pure conjecture but if the above is true then I'll have a complete guess that she was drunk.

iPete

Simon was being followed in a separate car by her husband, a York Regional police officer, and did not undergo a breathalyzer test, since police did not believe she was driving under the influence. Simon’s husband drove her home after the accident and no charges were filed.

Make of that what you will.

Joeblack

Pross wrote:

Joeblack wrote:

mfin wrote:

Joeblack wrote:

It was the motorists fault she was SPEEDING!!! She in the wrong because she was breaking the law, end of story.

And I drive, I have passed various advanced driving courses as well.

It says "According to the police report, Sharlene was driving 10kmph over the speed limit.", this probably would be an estimate as a result of the investigation. Also, there's 'speeding' and then there's 'SPEEDING', at least in this country different degrees of speeding are dealt with differently.

The fact is, there's only enough information in that short amount of text to trigger outrage if you're the kind of person who only needs the tiniest amount of information to trigger some underlying prejudices and predispositions. If you're into that kind of thing then the Daily Mail might be right up your street.

Try killing someone and being over the speed limit, see how the police deal with you :roll:

I'm not sure if your last comment was directed at me but I'm not outraged I'm merely amused how some posts here neglected the fact she was speeding a quickly blamed the cyclist.

It doesn't matter how the police deal with you. They don't determine guilt or impose sentencing. I suspect in a UK court a jury of 12 who are far more likely to drive than to cycle will take the side of a driver (slightly??) exceeding the speed limit over a cyclist who isn't lit up. Have you ever come upon an unlit cyclist or pedestrian in dark clothing on an unlit road? I have and I wouldn't fancy my chances of always having time to avoid them.

No but it's the police that charge you and will put the case forward to the cps, and 6mph will make a differance with regards to stopping distance and reaction time I think you'll find.

Bottom line is if she wasn't speeding she might not have killed someone.

rolf_f

iPete wrote:

Simon was being followed in a separate car by her husband, a York Regional police officer, and did not undergo a breathalyzer test, since police did not believe she was driving under the influence. Simon’s husband drove her home after the accident and no charges were filed.

Make of that what you will.

Makes you wonder why there was any uncertainty over her speeding doesn't it!

dennisn

Joeblack wrote:

Bottom line is if she wasn't speeding she might not have killed someone.

Plenty of IF'S in this world. In any case someone is dead and someone who most likely didn't want to kill someone, has. Hard learned lessons all around on that accident.

cougie

This hasnt been posted here :

Brandon's father rejects the notion that his son had been negligent, saying: 'They're kids. They have the right to make mistakes.'
He added that the bikes all were fitted with reflectors that would have been visible.

OK - they're idiots for not having lights - but reflectors on an unlit road ? I cant understand how she didn't see them.
If it was on a bend - then she'd have hit them lights or not.
If it wasnt a bend - then the reflectors would have stood out a mile.

ai_1

cougie wrote:

This hasnt been posted here :

Brandon's father rejects the notion that his son had been negligent, saying: 'They're kids. They have the right to make mistakes.'

With all due respect, whether or not you have "the right to make mistakes" does not make the consequences of the mistake disappear. If a bunch of kids sat down in the middle of a motorway in the middle of the night for a party would that be okay because they have the right to make mistakes? It's a silly comment.

cougie wrote:

He added that the bikes all were fitted with reflectors that would have been visible.

OK - they're idiots for not having lights - but reflectors on an unlit road ? I cant understand how she didn't see them.
If it was on a bend - then she'd have hit them lights or not.
If it wasnt a bend - then the reflectors would have stood out a mile.

Well reflectors obviously help but they're no guarantee you'll be seen or that the motorist can interpret what they're seeing and not a sufficient substitute for lights. How does he know they would have been visible? Were the reflectors mounted front & back plus on the pedals and wheels? Were they clean or dirty, what direction were the bikes pointing? I'm not saying I know who should be blamed, but as before there's not enough knowledge available to condemn the driver. The cyclists were certainly somewhat responsible if using no lights and wearing dark clothing and maybe the motorist was speeding/going too fast for the conditions, not paying due attention, whatever...there's no benefit in us guessing.

Sometimes just one error is enough to cause an accident but I think more often it's a combination of different factors contributing to create a dangerous situation. For an accident like this is may be a combination of elements that can be legislated for and enforced, like bike lights and speed limits, using a mobile phone while driving or less easily prescribed elements like not being tired or distracted while driving. It's easy to fling blame and condemnation on people after the fact. Amazing how often those who do so are guilty of the same offences, but they've been fortunate enough to have gotten away with them so far.... Is there any driver here willing to claim they've never exceeded a speed limit, never been over-tired while driving or been distracted by a passenger, the radio or a mobile phone - in short, never made a minor mistake that could have been a major one if circumstances had conspired to make it so?

I believe I am a safer than average driver but far from perfect. I've averaged around 36000km driving per year for the past 5 years and slightly less prior to that. I have never caused even a minor accident since I began driving.
I have been over-tired while driving, I have exceeded speed limits on occasion. I'm certain there have been moments when the wrong set of external circumstances would have made me culpable in an accident. Thankfully that has not happened and I hope it never will but I'm aware that as easy as it is to point the finger and say "You're responsible for killing that kid because you did X" it could as easily be myself or any of you at the other end of that accusation. We have to be held responsible for our actions of course but let's not start vilifying those whose unintentional mistakes have the worst of possible outcomes. There are only losers in these incidents, there's nothing to be gained by slinging blame. We learn more by looking closely at the factors involved and how we encounter them every day than by fixating on a perceived point of blame, labeling one party as the bad guy and pretending they are unlike us somehow.

dennisn

cougie wrote:

OK - they're idiots for not having lights - but reflectors on an unlit road ? I cant understand how she didn't see them.
If it was on a bend - then she'd have hit them lights or not.
If it wasnt a bend - then the reflectors would have stood out a mile.

I would have to say that even WITH lights, cyclists at night are not all that easy to see. Cycling lights are just not that strong. Maybe if you had a half dozen of them, all flashing wildly.

As for reflectors. They work OK at best and only if the light hits them right. I can easily see how the driver didn't see them.