Estate of teen being sued by woman who ran him over

"Boss2452stolemylunchmoney" (boss2452stolemylunchmoney) 04/27/2014 at 21:47 • Filed to: None

0

32

I just read !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! about a woman who is claiming PTSD after running over a teen on his bike. Now, I'm a little uncertain how to feel about this. On the one hand, it does appear to have been the teen's fault (look out, someone from Jezebel is going to call me a victim blamer) because he and his friends were riding on a fast section of road without any lights or anything. On the other hand, It's a little harsh to sue the family of someone you killed.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

What do you all think? Is she horrible?

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 04/27/2014 at 21:56

0

She's a monster.

BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 04/27/2014 at 21:57

1

I think the estate should counter-sue her for the same. Let's see who wins.

interrogator-chaplain > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 04/27/2014 at 22:00

0

It's about the most callous thing you could possibly do in this situation.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 04/27/2014 at 22:01

0

According to something I read she was going 10-20 mph over the speed limit, so she would be at fault. Unless it goes by the last person to say "Sorry" in Canada, she is at fault.

AthomSfere > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 04/27/2014 at 22:01

5

Based on your summary, yes she is a horrible person. But:

She is counter suing. The police investigated and found there was nothing she could have done differently, poor road conditions, poor lighting and the teen apparently was not biking safely (from my reading).

The parents of the teen are suing her, so she is counter suing them (The best way it seems to get out of being sued) but also suing the city for the poor road conditions that played no small part in the accident.

My assumption (and hope) is that all she really wants is for the initial lawsuit to be dropped and the city improve the road in that area (add some lighting). If that is the case she is doing the right thing. If she collects any money from the family, she is a horrible person. If the city gives her and the family money or does something to improve the lighting there, then everyone wins as far as making the most of a horrible situation.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 04/27/2014 at 22:02

1

Actually the jezebel article did point out this might be a counter-sue because the incident happened at like 2am and the kids were wearing dark clothing with no reflectors or safety clothing. Yes, the driver was distracted and speeding but I'm going to use a phrase to sum up a local incident a few years back. I think it was 2008 or 2009, a "Model, exemplary student" was struck and killed by someone dodging a pothole at 3 am....on a wednesday......So I do have to ask - What was that individual doing there at that time? This is not at all saying they got some sort of divine justice for whatever transgressions may or may not have happened. I just want to ask - How do you get yourself into that situation and the common sense part of your brain goes "Yes, this is absolutely what I should be doing right now"?

I don't think the driver has ANY right to sue the victims' families or estates but on the other hand it sounds like the families might not have a good ground to sue her on either. At the risk of sounding like I'm using this as a soapbox, this is why I disagree with bicyclists having to share automobile roads where the speed is expected to exceed 20-30 mph.

AthomSfere > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 04/27/2014 at 22:05

0

I agree here with bikes off the roads. Who's stupid idea was it to put the bikes on the same slab of rock as the vehicles weighing 100 times more and doing twice the speed?

pfftballer > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 04/27/2014 at 22:11

0

Fuck her. I don't get it. He's dead, mostly because he did something dumb but who here hasn't and by the grace of God not died. Well he did die. His family is mourning his loss so I'm sure they want to sue because of the unimaginable loss they are suffering. Clearly it wasn't all her fault, but if we knew all the facts I would be willing to bet less than 100% of the fault lies with the dead teen. Maybe she is only 5% at fault because she wasn't paying enough attention or going too fast or was preoccupied by her phone/stereo/etc. That's for her to live with, regardless it isn't enough to win a case for the kid's family so she should just let it play out. The law is on her side. By countersuing she is just proving to the world she is a fucking horrible person.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 04/27/2014 at 22:13

2

I had no idea Jezebel linked this story too!

In other news, as a cyclist I think that we should be able to ride any road where we meet the minimum speed requirements at any time. But they should be well visible with reflectors and or lights.

SmoresTM Has No Chill (O==[][]==O) > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather 04/27/2014 at 22:16

1

Counter-countersue her for countersuing them? A double countersue? Oh, lord. My brain does not have the capacity for this type of thing.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > AthomSfere 04/27/2014 at 22:16

3

ugh... Where else would you like cyclists to ride? I mean, if I go out for a 4 hour bike ride, the road is pretty much all there is to ride on for that kind if distance. Plus, cyclists are traffic too. It's every bit of valid a form of transportation as cars. In fact, in a lot of places, cycling is a while lot more convenient!

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies 04/27/2014 at 22:18

0

I read it was 55 in a 50 zone.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/27/2014 at 22:19

0

You think? Maybe she really is super traumatized?

AthomSfere > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 04/27/2014 at 22:19

0

I disagree, although there are places where there is no choice and you need to commute too. I can think of a few times I have been behind a tall SUV who changes lanes last second and suddenly there is a cyclist dead in front of me. I follow with 4 seconds lead time instead of the taught 2 seconds and it scares me shitless and forces me to break pretty hard. Every time I experience I wish the cyclists weren't on those roads when a perfectly good slower street (access road generally) or sidewalk / bike path isn't more than 50 feet away.

True the real problem is the truck / SUV in front of me that drives until the last second and does an emergency last second no blinker lane change, but all it takes is once I am distracted by a kid in the back seat and there is a severely injured cyclist on my hood.

AthomSfere > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 04/27/2014 at 22:21

0

In a lot of places, yes. In a lot of places there are more bikes than cars.

Lets stay on the thread where I sort of already answered this, but where (appx) do you live? Big city? Suburbia? USA?

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 04/27/2014 at 22:24

0

The problem is we don't really have the best "minimum" speed laws. At least, they're not as well advertised. I live in a downtown area and I've never really encountered a situation where a cyclist was a hazard simply for being on a bicycle. I almost hit one in winter when they slipped on some ice, but then again I've almost hit cars too. It's a risk you take and unfortunately for a cyclist in a michigan winter, you don't have bumpers to make a 10mph hit "harmless". All in all, when the limit is 25mph and your average speed is about 10-15, bicyclists rarely are in danger simply for being on a bicycle.

However, one of our primary roads that goes through the downtown area goes up a very steep hill. Nothing is more hazardous than a driver who doesn't signal while passing a cyclist who is effectively at a walking pace in the center of a lane. That HAS almost ended in me hitting a cyclist. But technically they're "legal" to do that, it just doesn't pass a single measure of common sense. I might be doing 30 in a 35 but when you're doing 3 on your fixed gear cruiser well.......if I did hit someone doing that, I'm sorry but you were basically putting yourself in danger unnecessarily considering there are nice paved sidewalks you can use to walk your bike up the hill.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > AthomSfere 04/27/2014 at 22:26

0

Sorry, but I don't feel bad for you. Been the cyclist in that situation more times than I could possibly count. As the cyclist, you do your best to be seen (which often means you put yourself further into the lane) and just live with the fact that your safety often rests in the hands of drivers who are hostile to your very existence. Otherwise would be to live as a slave to the expectations and selfishness of others.

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 04/27/2014 at 22:28

0

The family should not be sued and they shouldn't sue her. The city/county should be sued by both parties.

Jordan and the Slowrunner, Boomer Intensifies > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 04/27/2014 at 22:29

0

Oh, I guess the credibility of Reddit sources isn't the best...

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 04/27/2014 at 22:31

0

Cyclists will generally take the route they consider the safest for them. Sometimes there are big hills and sometimes it sucks because you feel the pressure to get up the hill and out of the way... While realizing there isn't anything you can do other than not exist. Most drivers are fine with cyclists being on the road... Just not the road they are driving on right now.

AthomSfere > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 04/27/2014 at 22:35

0

Wut? I am not asking you to feel bad for me, I don't want you killed. I give cars in front of me more than the standard following distance, but I can not see around or over vehicles. Bikes on the road are fairly rare in my city, thus unexpected. When there is a viable and safe alternative not more than 50 feet away, generally less than 10 why would that path not be taken?

At the very least it should depend on the environment. New York City for example bikes on the street makes much more sense than bikes on your average interstate where they generally are banned. Or on a major high-ish speed thoroughfare where an alternate path is viable for cyclists.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > AthomSfere 04/27/2014 at 22:36

0

Suburbia/rural. Just moved here though. Doing more mountain biking here than where I used to live. Roads here aren't as good for road biking... Lots of winding roads. Navigation is tough and sightlines aren't good. Need to start looking for good routes because my road bike is feeling neglected.

As I told another guy though. Must drivers are OK with cyclists... As long as those cyclists aren't on the same road they are on at any given time. It doesn't matter what road, the driver will get upset because they don't like to share the road.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > AthomSfere 04/27/2014 at 22:38

0

Sorry, that came off harsh.

Cyclists will always take the route that makes them feel the safest. Always. We are keenly aware of our frailty. But we love to ride, so we won't be forced off or bikes just because v drivers don't want us there.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 04/27/2014 at 22:39

0

Then there are plenty of cyclists who don't know what "safest" means. On flat ground? Sure, whatever, I treat them like a motorcycle or scooter in regards to follow distance and whatnot. Never had any issues there. Just don't go as slow as someone walking while traffic is flowing. Especially when there's a wide sidewalk that is literally right next to the hill specifically to make it easy for a cyclist to drive up onto when their momentum runs out. Also to make it easy for a cyclist to go down the hill.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 04/27/2014 at 22:41

0

Try it out from the cyclists perspective sometime.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 04/27/2014 at 22:43

0

Given how often I walk downtown, I have a much more negative view of cyclists from that perspective.

AthomSfere > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 04/27/2014 at 22:45

0

I don't mind sharing the road one bit, as far as sharing the road part goes. I don't mind crossing a double yellow line to give cyclists extra, extra room when I pass. I live in either the worlds biggest town, or smallest city... Anyway, watching near hits on these guys is my concern, not just by me. We have so many access roads and sidewalks that would be 100 times safer and that's my concern. In some cities there are bike lanes and really that would be ideal for all involved, but in the interim in my city... get off the damn street before someone kills you! At least most of the main roads.

Here is what I mean, see that road on the right? Its basically 2 lanes and no traffic. Bikes should be there instead of on the road with 45-55 MPH speed limits.

Or here:

On the rights is an open sidewalk (Basically zero pedestrians) and on the far side is what I believe is a bike path, it is extra wide for a sidewalk at least. Again, no pedestrians really ever but the bikes are generally on the street even in areas like this.

AthomSfere > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 04/27/2014 at 22:50

0

Hey, I understand it. I rode a bike well after I didn't need to. Even took once from Mid-town to downtown Omaha a few times just for fun. It is great fun... I just worry about the inattentive drivers killing the guys on bikes. And I far too often see unused bike paths or sidewalks following the same route empty. I just don't see why risk your life when such a good alternative is 10 feet away.

I used the first person in the first example only because I have been the guy that almost had a cyclist through the windshield and thought of all the people I ride with who tailgate, or flip the radio endlessly, or talk on the phone... and probably would have killed that same cyclist.

Burrito de EJ25 > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 04/27/2014 at 23:12

1

"look out, someone from Jezebel is going to call me a victim blamer"

I won't say you're blaming the victim, but I will say that you're a shitlord.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > Burrito de EJ25 04/28/2014 at 07:38

0

Ah, there we go.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > AthomSfere 04/28/2014 at 07:55

0

Well, there are a few possibilities: one is that maybe it isn't marked as a bike path. If it isn't, then it's illegal to ride there. Another possibility is that the bike path frequently crosses uncontrolled intersections. I have seen this before in other cities. The bike path then becomes basically a sidewalk for bikes. These are fine if you're just tooling around on your bike, but if you're actually trying to get somewhere they slow you down immensely and make it inconvenient. Plus at every intersection you're coming into the intersection from a position the drivers turning right or left don't expect, making it even more dangerous to try to maintain speed. Bike paths are much better for cyclists when they are actually part odd the road. A lot of times, people like me will avoid the ones that are more like a sidewalk.

AthomSfere > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 04/28/2014 at 12:54

0

I can understand that, and really ideally a bike lane should be present.

But to me, if it is the difference between speed and death... I'd use the poor excuse for a bike path.