Woman at faul fo hitting & Killing a MB Rider and sues father

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Samdallas214, Apr 27, 2014.

  1. Samdallas214

    Samdallas214 Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 18, 2015

  2. butre

    butre Well-Known Member

    The riders were found to be at fault. It was late at night, they were wearing dark clothes, had no lights, and were riding 3 abreast. They were incompetent and reckless riders on unsafe equipment.

    Don't believe every sensationalist headline you read, "Crazed madwoman sues dead baby boy" will sell more papers than "Stupid teen got himself killed and his family is being sued for letting him out in the middle of the night on a vehicle that isn't street legal in ontario"
  3. ua2pants

    ua2pants Member

    That's crazy.. regardless of who was at fault, how can someone live with themselves knowing they took another persons life (intentional or not) and then sue the family who is having a very hard time over the loss of their kid..

    I don't want to live on this planet anymore.. :(
  4. bluegoatwoods

    bluegoatwoods Well-Known Member

    Reading the story I had some suspicions along the lines of butre's. I noticed that there was no mention of proper lighting on these bikes. Only reflectors. And it was the middle of the night. Not that they shouldn't necessarily be riding then. But it muddies the waters. The article said that she may have been intoxicated. But why wasn't that determined by the police at the time? My guess is that they didn't find enough alcohol in her system to hang that charge on her.

    All that being said, every driver has the responsibility to never hit anything that's in the road. That especially includes people.

    All in all, I suspect the woman is the guilty one. Not as guilty, perhaps, as other bicycle killers. But guilty nonetheless.

    She should not be suing. She should be ashamed of herself. And she's earned the scorn of her society.
  5. Samdallas214

    Samdallas214 Member

    Simon, who was speeding and may have been intoxicated and talking on her cell phone so she was at minimum parsley at fault

  6. darwin

    darwin Well-Known Member

    I read the lady was being sued 1st by one of the family's. I guess she's just getting a little even with just cause.
  7. butre

    butre Well-Known Member

    You're correct, her suit is a counter-suit. Standard legal practice, the only reason it's even in the news is because they know how to spin it to make her seem like a demon *****.
  8. butre

    butre Well-Known Member

    Not that you shouldn't ride in the middle of the night, but anyone who rides in the middle of the night without at a minimum headlights and taillights is asking to get killed. If you look at the picture of his bike, there's no reflectors either, except the ones on the pedals.

    Riding like that, it's no wonder they got hit. I'm surprised they didn't get hit sooner.
  9. butre

    butre Well-Known Member

    I'm looking at some of the other articles on this "news" site and if I were you I'd take it about as seriously as the onion. It's all hyper-leftist sensationalized garbage throwing **** at the NRA. I'm amazed they stopped frothing about guns and the GOP long enough to write this article.
  10. velzie

    velzie Member

    Here is the original article. So far I haven't read anything about riding motored bikes, just bicycles. Its hard to find non-partisan articles; too many bad journalists who write their emotions and lower the credibility of the medium.

    Oh, and the woman was (is) not at fault. The title of this thread is a misnomer.
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2014
  11. keatonx

    keatonx Member

    "A South Simcoe Police report shows Simon admitted that she was driving at 90 km/h in an 80 km/h zone on the two-lane road. She claims she didn't see the boys or any of the orange-red pedal reflectors. The impact of the collision cracked the windshield of her SUV, dented the bumper, a headlight was busted, the roof where Brandon hit was dented and scratched and a side mirror dangled by its wires."

    "They did not apply their brakes properly, the claim states. "They were incompetent bicyclists.

    She hit them head-on, so what's with all this "they didn't apply their brakes properly" bs? If I was getting mowed down from behind I definitely wouldn't be braking!

    She must've been paying no attention whatsoever, it must've been light out enough for the bikers to see, and she also has headlights. What if there was a deer?

    And how would poor road maintenance effect it? If the road was really that bad, then she shouldn't have been speeding, at night in the rain too!

    I'm not saying the bikers aren't partially at fault, but this lady's excuses are horrible.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 16, 2015
  12. butre

    butre Well-Known Member

    keep in mind 10 km/h is only around 6 mph. If you told me you don't occasionally drive 6 over I'd call you a liar.

    keatonx, I don't think you understand how a counter-suit works or what a lawyer is meant to do for a living.
  13. Fabian

    Fabian Well-Known Member

    All of these situations come down to one fundamental construct - personal responsibility, meaning that "you" are responsible for your actions (as has always been the case) but over the last 25 years the American legal fraternity has managed to turn this idea on it's head, with Scandinavian countries adopting such concepts whole heatedly; then taking it to an even greater extreme.
    Unfortunately the American (legal) influence has marched it's way into many western countries, where the ramifications of irresponsible behaviour are shifted onto those people behaving responsibly, or put another way, making the responsible person be responsible for irresponsible behaviour of another person - a completely idiotic concept.

    The most obvious examples are seen in traffic/vehicle law, where should someone happen to hit a pedestrian or cyclist, the motorist is automatically at fault, when the pedestrian or cyclist was behaving irresponsibly; being responsible for causing the collision.
  14. Aidan

    Aidan New Member

    It doesn't matter who is at fault, it's a new kind of cold heated to sue the parents of a kid you just ran over and killed.
  15. velzie

    velzie Member

    A counter-suit is part of standard legal proceedings. It shows that she is not only defending here involvement but also shedding light on the negligent actions of the cyclists. It is not meant to be cold-hearted.
  16. darwin

    darwin Well-Known Member

    How does 1 determine if a bicycleist apllies the brakes in any situation? Skid marks are subjective and according to the situation.
  17. KCvale

    KCvale Motorized Bicycle Vendor

    How the heck did America get dragged into this?
    As a born and raised American that has been built and sold over 100 motorized bikes the last 4 years and rides MB and operates cars daily stupidity is stupidity on the riders part.

    I give a very stern lecture to every new build buyer about safety and offer a killer daytime lifesaver front strobe light at wholesale cost as I don't ever want to see one of my customers hurt!

    Also, as a driver in the 7th largest metro area in America I appreciate all our bike lanes and pay attention to bike riders more than most but also see kids out dressed in black trying to be 'punk stealth' at night riding on the roadway usually with earbuds in being idiots.

    As harsh as that sounds if I were on a jury I be more likely to side with the poor old woman's counter suite than the apparently useless parents of the kid they let go out to be an arrogant punk and died because of it.