# Family of dead cyclist sued by driver that killed him.



## MikeG (25 Apr 2014)

Because the accident she caused has spoiled her quality of life, or something......


----------



## Dave 123 (25 Apr 2014)

This is wrong on every level, but if you're that way inclined...
What I think is just as bad is that there is a lawyer who is prepared to stick their 
name to it.


----------



## Cycling Dan (25 Apr 2014)

There is merit in her case. Cyclist with no lights during the night and she hit and killed one of them. She has to live with that. 
While the amount is insane and fact of the case is out of taste it has merit.


----------



## summerdays (25 Apr 2014)

Dave 123 said:


> This is wrong on every level, but if you're that way inclined...
> What I think is just as bad is that there is a lawyer who is prepared to stick their
> name to it.


I can only hope we don't follow the USA on this type of thing! Poor parents, to loose two children and then be sued by someone who killed your son. Words fail me.


----------



## jefmcg (25 Apr 2014)

Someone in Canada does something creepy: do we really have to get upset about it?


----------



## summerdays (25 Apr 2014)

Cycling Dan said:


> There is merit in her case. Cyclist with no lights during the night and she hit and killed one of them. She has to live with that.
> While the amount is insane and fact of the case is out of taste it has merit.


They made a mistake, so did she, but in her case she was an adult and driving a lump of metal, which means looking out for things that may be on the road, without reflectors etc such as animals and trees.


----------



## stuee147 (25 Apr 2014)

i was hit by a car when i was 15 the police watched the whole accident and there was no doubt it was the car drivers fault yet he still tried to sue me for £8000 damages to his car that my body had done when he hit me there just no sense in the law at times


----------



## MikeG (25 Apr 2014)

stuee147 said:


> i was hit by a car when i was 15 the police watched the whole accident and there was no doubt it was the car drivers fault yet *he* still *tried to sue me* for £8000 damages to his car that my body had done when he hit me there just *no sense in the law at times*



Presumably he failed, and therefore the law was utterly blameless. His understanding of it may have been in error, but the law was OK.


----------



## sidevalve (25 Apr 2014)

Cycling Dan said:


> There is merit in her case. Cyclist with no lights during the night and she hit and killed one of them. She has to live with that.
> While the amount is insane and fact of the case is out of taste it has merit.


 Interesting. Much as I feel sorry for the parents it seems this is another case of "it's not up to me to do anything to protect myself - it's always somebody elses fault" and that includes when I'm breaking the law and riding without lights. Yes I have seen the effects killing someone by accident can produce and it can be pretty devastating. If the story had been the other way around and it had been another car there would have been NO sympathy for the driver of an unlit car. Or is it that as cyclists arn't forced to have any [even 3rd party] insurance anyone else injured or with any losses due to a cyclist just has to put up with it ? As an adult [and yes he was old enough to be responsible] if you cause another person damage [and carrying death on your concience for life is just that] through your own recklesness or stupidity then you should expect to pay a price.


----------



## Cycling Dan (25 Apr 2014)

summerdays said:


> They made a mistake, so did she, but in her case she was an adult and driving a lump of metal, which means looking out for things that may be on the road, without reflectors etc such as animals and trees.


I'm not making excuses for her but the case does have merit.


----------



## stuee147 (25 Apr 2014)

MikeG said:


> Presumably he failed, and therefore the law was utterly blameless. His understanding of it may have been in error, but the law was OK.


yea he did fail it was more that his solicitor and even the court took it so far i just couldn't understand it even with 8 witnesses 2 of which were traffic cops and the driver pleading guilty it still went all the way to court


----------



## summerdays (25 Apr 2014)

Cycling Dan said:


> I'm not making excuses for her but the case does have merit.


Not enough to sue them!


----------



## MikeG (25 Apr 2014)

stuee147 said:


> yea he did fail it was more that his solicitor and even the court took it so far i just couldn't understand it even with 8 witnesses 2 of which were traffic cops and the driver pleading guilty it still went all the way to court


Well, like the process or not, the system actually worked for you. You won the case, or at least, you didn't lose it. Fine to criticise the law when it's an ass (as it often is), but this time it seems the law was not only right, but it was interpreted correctly. Unpleasant for you being in the middle of it all, but nonetheless, the right result was achieved.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Apr 2014)

summerdays said:


> They made a mistake, so did she, but in her case she was an adult and driving a lump of metal, which means looking out for things that may be on the road, without reflectors etc such as animals and trees.



It could and should be messy ... the equally valid counter argument is that she should have seen them and been able to stop.

What if it had been a pedestrian, a car with an electrics failure..........


----------



## Cycling Dan (25 Apr 2014)

summerdays said:


> Not enough to sue them!


It depends on the case.
A cyclist without lights can be invisible depending on the lighting and you may only see them once they hit the top of your beam or bonnet. 
Varies of factors but it is America after all. You can sue for anything


----------



## summerdays (25 Apr 2014)

You have an increased chance of seeing them if you aren't exceeding the speed limit.


----------



## vickster (25 Apr 2014)

Doesn't the highway code actually say that a cyclist should have lights when riding on the road in the dark?! OK, never heard of anyone being done for no pedal reflectors, but it is technically possible!

*At night* your cycle *MUST* have white front and red rear lights lit. It *MUST* also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
*Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24*

Not that the legal action being taken is right


----------



## Cycling Dan (25 Apr 2014)

summerdays said:


> You have an increased chance of seeing them if you aren't exceeding the speed limit.


Arguably more chance being seen if you use lights at night.


----------



## vickster (25 Apr 2014)

Cycling Dan said:


> It depends on the case.
> A cyclist without lights can be invisible depending on the lighting and you may only see them once they hit the top of your beam or bonnet.
> Varies of factors but it is America after all. You can sue for anything



Canada...they don't much like being called Americans (especially the French ones)


----------



## MikeG (25 Apr 2014)

vickster said:


> Doesn't the highway code actually say that a cyclist should have lights when riding on the road in the dark?!..........
> *Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24*


This is Canada, Vickster. They probably have the same basic codes as us, but it isn't our HIghway Code.


----------



## summerdays (25 Apr 2014)

It's USA I think but I presume similar rules. , however they could just as easily been walking pushing their bikes and she probably would still have hit them.


----------



## PK99 (25 Apr 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> It could and should be messy ... the equally valid counter argument is that she should have seen them and been able to stop.
> 
> *What if it had been a pedestrian, a car with an electrics failure...*.......



A pedestrian in dark clothing in the middle of the road would be auditioning for a Darwin Award.

A car would have more than the minimal reflectors referred to in the report


----------



## vickster (25 Apr 2014)

No, it was more previous comments about hitting deer and pedestrians, they aren't required to use lights. I am not familiar with Canadian law but I can't see it would be especially different


----------



## Cycling Dan (25 Apr 2014)

summerdays said:


> It's USA I think but I presume similar rules. , however they could just as easily been walking pushing their bikes and she probably would still have hit them.


What idiot walks their bike on the road with no lights??
It's like your asking to be hit by something.

Getting hit at pitch black night with no lights is like juggling with a loaded gun and wondering why you got shot


----------



## User169 (25 Apr 2014)

sidevalve said:


> Interesting. Much as I feel sorry for the parents it seems this is another case of "it's not up to me to do anything to protect myself - it's always somebody elses fault" and that includes when I'm breaking the law and riding without lights. Yes I have seen the effects killing someone by accident can produce and it can be pretty devastating. If the story had been the other way around and it had been another car there would have been NO sympathy for the driver of an unlit car. Or is it that as cyclists arn't forced to have any [even 3rd party] insurance anyone else injured or with any losses due to a cyclist just has to put up with it ? As an adult [and yes he was old enough to be responsible] if you cause another person damage [and carrying death on your concience for life is just that] through your own recklesness or stupidity then you should expect to pay a price.



A steaming pile of horseshit from start to finish: the fact that plenty will be prepared to agree with you just shows how in thrall to the private automobile we seem to have become. 

If you choose to operate highly dangerous machinery in public space, you should be expected to do so safely, and that should reasonably cover looking out for the more vulnerable, including children on bicycles irrespective of how well illuminated they are. If operating standards were so lax in a company environment, the operators would be fired and the directors looking at corporate manslaughter charges. Why lower standards of care are routinely deemed acceptable in public is baffling.


----------



## summerdays (25 Apr 2014)

Cycling Dan said:


> What idiot walks their bike on the road with no lights??
> It's like your asking to be hit by something.
> 
> Getting hit at pitch black night with no lights is like playing with a loaded gun and wondering why you got shot


Someone who didn't plan to be out that late, I've done it on rare occasions, if there isn't a pavement then you have to be on the road.


----------



## Cycling Dan (25 Apr 2014)

summerdays said:


> Someone who didn't plan to be out that late, I've done it on rare occasions.


Walk home on path then


----------



## summerdays (25 Apr 2014)

For a start there isn't a path immediately outside my house, I usually manage to get to my house in the dark ok (though it's rare that I'm out late enough for the street lights to be off).


----------



## Cycling Dan (25 Apr 2014)

summerdays said:


> For a start there isn't a path immediately outside my house, I usually manage to get to my house in the dark ok (though it's rare that I'm out late enough for the street lights to be off).


I'm speaking in the matter of these idiots on their bikes.
My question would be why are you not prepared for such events. You should have lights fixed to your bike


----------



## T4tomo (25 Apr 2014)

Certainly don't ride 3 abreast on a dark road. 

Madness to sue the estate though, but that's transatlantic culture for you.


----------



## summerdays (25 Apr 2014)

Cycling Dan said:


> I'm speaking in the matter of these idiots on their bikes.
> My question would be why are you not prepared for such events. You should have lights fixed to your bike


I can't leave lights attached to my bike as they wouldn't be there when I went to unlock it and ride home, occasionally lights get turned on in my bag draining the battery, and at this time of year it's normally light when I'm cycling so I don't routinely carry lights. And if I carried enough stuff for every eventuality my bag would be twice the weight it is! My point was that unplanned things happen.


----------



## jefmcg (25 Apr 2014)

While I think the driver is an arse, I remember driving down a well lit suburban road, with my headlights on, when I noticed something white on the road. First I thought it was rubbish, then I decided it may be a cat, so swerved to avoid it. As I passed, I realised they were white trainers and someone was wearing them. I'm not sure how she was so invisible, but if she had been wearing dark shoes, I would have hit her full on - 60 kph - and probably killed her. I wasn't distracted, I wasn't looking away just somehow she was perfectly camouflaged. 

Just saying.


----------



## Globalti (25 Apr 2014)

The litigation industry has reached the absolute rock bottom with this one. If I was the judge I would award her one dollar.


----------



## mrandmrspoves (25 Apr 2014)

In 1980 while out cycling with my Grandfather, we were both hit from behind by a motorist that didn't see us and drove straight through the back of both of us on a straight stretch of unrestricted road. Before the collision, my grandfather was about 6 feet behind me - but he and the bicycle were thrown in front of me and eye witnesses stated that I was thrown about 20 feet into the air.
My Grandfather was killed and I sustained a fractured Tibia at the knee joint. When we sued for damages, the motorist's insurer tried to counter claim that my Grandfather had wobbled into the path of her car and then it was him and his bicycle that knocked me off my bicycle, therefore any damages that I claimed should be against his estate. I forgive the lady that hit us, any motorist can have a lapse of concentration or fail to see something - but I hope that the scum bags that tried to defend her by accusing my deceased Grandfather have a long and very miserable life! Needless to say with eye witnesses evidence and the work the police crash scene investigators did the claims made by her insurers were proven to be absolute lies.
So these cases are not just things that happen abroad. Despite my own experience, I can see that a person who is acting outside of the law and causes a fatal accident in which they die, may be considered liable for damages to someone traumatised as a result of their behaviour. The counter argument though, is that motorists should only ever be travelling at a speed that is within their stopping distance - which means if you hit something/someone in the road, even if not illuminated, it is still at least partially your fault.


----------



## albion (25 Apr 2014)

I can really see the eventual outcome of all of this.

Now that certainly won't be in the highway code.


----------



## gavintc (25 Apr 2014)

summerdays said:


> It's USA I think but I presume similar rules. , however they could just as easily been walking pushing their bikes and she probably would still have hit them.



Not the USA, it was CANADA!!! Just checked and it is not far from where my wife grew up. I must show her this article.


----------



## albion (25 Apr 2014)

A speeding drive. Report said reflectors were ineffective yet a friend of the killers policeman husband did the investigation .

And seemingly it is unsubstantiatedly claimed she was texting her policeman husband driving behind at the time.
I bet the time and date stamped text records could be found on the network if an independent investigation ever takes place.


----------



## dan_bo (25 Apr 2014)

daffodils.


----------



## Accy cyclist (26 Apr 2014)

A lesson to all that lights and reflectors will greatly reduce the chances of this happening to you,or your family! All this talk of "drivers should be prepared for any unlit things on the road" is unfair to drivers. As a motorist i've had near incidents with unlit cyclists. I wouldn't sue them or their family if i hit them but i wouldn't blame myself and let it affect my life in the first place.


----------



## Pale Rider (26 Apr 2014)

The family of the dead cyclist began a claim last March.

The claim against them began in December.

So it seems there is an element of tit for tat or claim and counter claim.

We will never know, but it may be the motorist would not have claimed had legal action not been taken against her first.


----------



## Andyg63 (26 Apr 2014)

MikeG said:


> Because the accident she caused has spoiled her quality of life, or something......


A very sad person, hope they reopen the investigation and find her guilty
Andyg63


----------



## Brandane (26 Apr 2014)

I wish I could sue someone for every event I have experienced which has adversely affected my quality of life. I would be very rich! 
I do sympathise with the driver here, but not to the extent that she should be making money out of it. It was no doubt a traumatic experience, but money won't make that go away.


----------



## winjim (26 Apr 2014)

Brandane said:


> I wish I could sue someone for every event I have experienced which has adversely affected my quality of life. I would be very rich!
> I do sympathise with the driver here, but not to the extent that she should be making money out of it. It was no doubt a traumatic experience, but money won't make that go away.


It might help pay for some counselling.


----------



## Cycleops (26 Apr 2014)

stuee147 said:


> i was hit by a car when i was 15 the police watched the whole accident and there was no doubt it was the car drivers fault yet he still tried to sue me for £8000 damages to his car that my body had done when he hit me there just no sense in the law at times


This would have been brought by the drivers insurance company in an effort to get some money back. Part of the games played by these people.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (26 Apr 2014)

summerdays said:


> I can't leave lights attached to my bike as they wouldn't be there when I went to unlock it and ride home, occasionally lights get turned on in my bag draining the battery, and at this time of year it's normally light when I'm cycling so I don't routinely carry lights. And if I carried enough stuff for every eventuality my bag would be twice the weight it is! My point was that unplanned things happen.


 
slight devils advocate but not having/using lights and excusing it does annoy me.

you can get lights that permanantly affix to bikes.

if your lights switch on in your bag either get lights with a better switch, remove or carry some spare batteries if the AA type (2 or 4 are REALLY that much extra bulk & weight?) or disconnect the power pack from the light if its of that type. You recognise a problem and refuse to mitigate it.

I barely ever drive my car after dark in the summer, (accepting its illegal but in 28 years of having a car I have never once been pulled over in daylight and asked to prove the lights work) would it be morally ok for me to remove the bulbs to save the wear and tear of potholes on wafer thin filaments between April and September?
---------------------------
*general opinion not aimed at summerdays*
its not as if we're being expected to drag a prisoners iron ankle ball around with us and if the aesthetic of even a tiny pair (lezyne femto for e.g.) of cheap totally unobtrusive get you seen in an emergency lights causes someone inconvenience or concern then I'd suggest they seek professional help.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (26 Apr 2014)

as to the topic. Seems that claim and counter claim is the way they go across the Atlantic.

its.almost like the M.A.D. model of nuclear deterrent, if you do it to me. I'll do the same to you.

the only winners will be the lawyers.


----------



## Salad Dodger (26 Apr 2014)

jefmcg said:


> While I think the driver is an arse, I remember driving down a well lit suburban road, with my headlights on, when I noticed something white on the road. First I thought it was rubbish, then I decided it may be a cat, so swerved to avoid it. As I passed, I realised they were white trainers and someone was wearing them. I'm not sure how she was so invisible, but if she had been wearing dark shoes, I would have hit her full on - 60 kph - and probably killed her. I wasn't distracted, I wasn't looking away just somehow she was perfectly camouflaged.
> 
> Just saying.


I, too, have had a similar experience. One winter's evening, about 7pm. A dogwalker, dressed all in black, walking a black dog, stepped out of a footpath onto the road, which has no pavement or lights along that stretch. I saw something - maybe the dog's eyes or sparkle from it's chain/collar and swerved to avoid an impact. Had the dog and owner been one or two steps quicker, I might well have hit them. Fortunately, I was going relatively slowly - maybe 20mph. I consider myself to be a slow and cautious driver.

But presumably, as I was at the wheel of a merciless killing machine, I should have been going even slower, as the responsibility obviously rests entirely upon me to avoid the actions of an inappropriately dressed person, even if they walk out into the road without looking at all. That's how it works when you drive a car, (or at least according to some on this forum) isn't it? Or maybe it only applies if you hit an unlit ninja cyclist, not an unlit ninja pedestrian?

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......


----------



## summerdays (26 Apr 2014)

shouldbeinbed said:


> slight devils advocate but not having/using lights and excusing it does annoy me.
> 
> you can get lights that permanantly affix to bikes.
> 
> ...


If you carry lights in your bag all summer never using them, then use them, you can find they go on but don't last long. I actually often do have a rear light in my bag cos I have so much in it that it gets lost at the bottom. 

Lights are different from in a car as on the car they are attached and unlikely to be nicked, and used more frequently. 

I've already said that I mostly cycle in the daylight at this time of year, and I carry lights if I think I may need them such as the possibility of bad weather, or intending to be out late enough to need them. In winter I even carry back up lights that are easily lent to friends if needed but not very strong. But it doesn't mean that I've not been caught out by assuming I've got working lights (hope lights so no warning of fading batteries). Just not frequently. 

Do you carry a first aid kit? I do, and apart from the wipes it gets used a lot less than my lights. But I have stopped to offer bits to others.


----------



## ComedyPilot (26 Apr 2014)

I've seen loads of unlit cyclists whilst driving at night.


I haven't hit one yet........and given that I am looking for anything out of the ordinary, I don't think I ever will hit one.....because I'm looking.


There is zero excuse for hitting/killing another human being. If you can't stop in the distance you can see to be clear in front of your car then you're going too fast.

If we keep pampering to myopic, careless, dangerous, couldn't-give-a-toss drivers then the roads will never be safe.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (26 Apr 2014)

summerdays said:


> Do you carry a first aid kit? I do, and apart from the wipes it gets used a lot less than my lights. But I have stopped to offer bits to others.



yes I do, much for myself tidying up the odd tumble graze and hopefully giving myself a bit of a better chance in a bad one, but I've done the same and stopped to offer help to others. My space blanket has never folded back as small as it did after that was sadly called into use, for a pedestrian floored by a turning bus, before the ambulance got there - not sure what the point you're making is though, it gets dark every day it isn't a surprise or unusual event like the first aid emergencies that you or I have happened upon.


----------



## theclaud (26 Apr 2014)

Salad Dodger said:


> I, too, have had a similar experience. One winter's evening, about 7pm. A dogwalker, dressed all in black, walking a black dog, stepped out of a footpath onto the road, which has no pavement or lights along that stretch. I saw something - maybe the dog's eyes or sparkle from it's chain/collar and swerved to avoid an impact. Had the dog and owner been one or two steps quicker, I might well have hit them. Fortunately, I was going relatively slowly - maybe 20mph. I consider myself to be a slow and cautious driver.
> 
> But presumably, as I was at the wheel of a merciless killing machine, I should have been going even slower, as the responsibility obviously rests entirely upon me to avoid the actions of an inappropriately dressed person, even if they walk out into the road without looking at all. That's how it works when you drive a car, (or at least according to some on this forum) isn't it? Or maybe it only applies if you hit an unlit ninja cyclist, not an unlit ninja pedestrian?
> 
> 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......


 
Does your car not have headlights?

Mind you, there is a stealth dog that sometimes appears in my local boozer. A black lab that you never notice moving about until suddenly it licks your hands. Most disconcerting. So perhaps there is something in this magic invisible dog theory. But probably not.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (26 Apr 2014)

summerdays said:


> If you carry lights in your bag all summer never using them,I don't carry them in a bag I leave them on the bike year round - and tend to favour the daytime running light, then use them, you can find they go on but don't last long hence spare batteries . I actually often do have a rear light in my bag cos I have so much in it that it gets lost at the bottom.
> 
> Lights are different from in a car as on the car they are attached and unlikely to be nicked, and used more frequently - as said mine in the summer are barely used at all, why do I need the bulbs in them where their fine filament can be prone to road buzz and potholes - far less wearing out of the bulbs if I don't carry them because I barely ever need them.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dragonwight (26 Apr 2014)

From what I can ascertain of this lights are not actually a legal requirement for a cyclist in Canada if they have approved reflectors which two of the three did have. Given she admitted speeding I cant see her claim stacking up. They also seem to have the dreaded police investigating themselves disease which we used to have here in the UK.


----------



## Custom24 (27 Apr 2014)

I feel awful. That poor kid I killed. It's really eating me up inside. I can't sleep properly at night, I can't eat. It's been a few months now. They say time is a healer, but I can't see how I'm going to be able to move on with my life. I know, I'll sue the kid's family.

What the fark?


----------



## Tyke (27 Apr 2014)

This may be in another country but it could happen anyplace. What if as many of us are car drivers you hit a black car on a dark road driving with no lights would the be feeling the same or would you blame the other driver? While I think this is wrong I can see ware it comes from. For £32 a year BC insurance (Other insurance may be available) can go a long way to helping in this situation but until it becomes something we are forced to have far too many will go without and blame the car driver or take the chance of being sued,
Insurance and good lights should be a must and you can have both for less than £50 why take the risk.


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (27 Apr 2014)

summerdays said:


> If you carry lights in your bag all summer never using them, then use them, you can find they go on but don't last long. I actually often do have a rear light in my bag cos I have so much in it that it gets lost at the bottom.
> 
> Lights are different from in a car as on the car they are attached and unlikely to be nicked, and used more frequently.
> 
> ...



My lights live on my bikes all year round, and I'll only take them off when I'm somewhere where they might get nicked. The go straight back on when I return.
Yes, I might not need them much at this time of year, but it doesn't matter, I'd rather be safe than sorry.*

To be fair, I learned my lesson a few years back after getting a hire bike without any lights for a few days. All was ok until I was caught out one night and had to cycle 6 miles back to where I was staying over a remote, unlit and potentially dangerous roads without any pavements of any description whatsoever.

I stopped every time I saw a car coming and got well out of the way, but, still, I learned my lesson THAT night!


* - That said, if I am on a path away from a road that I know well, then I have been known to cycle without my lights switched on and just rely on my night vision. Its surprising just how much more you can see out there!


----------



## ComedyPilot (27 Apr 2014)

I must come from another planet.....

What is the obsession with black 'thing' and a dark night with no lights just suddenly appearing....?

I have yet in 30 years of driving/riding to hit anything unlit on the road.

When you get in a vehicle at night and turn the lights on a beam falls onto the road in front of you. If you CANNOT bring your vehicle safely to a stop in the length of that beam of light, then you are driving without due care as a minimum and dangerously as, well, the seemingly 'excusable' norm?

These strange black 'things' are there. You can't see them because they are outside the beam of your headlights - although I would argue most vehicles/bikes would have some shiny/reflective part on them that would show up well before your beam hits them (if you are looking that is).

I have zero fear of hitting something when driving, but I do worry about being hit from behind from a 'normal' driver as I slow down for a hazard I have spotted well in front. 

Yesterday I drove Mrs CP's car to town to drop off some items at the recycling. On the way I saw 3 people walking away from town (in daylight) on the wrong side of the road (not facing traffic). Now, not only were they doing this but there wasn't a path to walk on, so they would be on the road for the next 4 miles. I carried out the errand and set off back. All the way through the 40 limit I had Mr black Golf 'pushing' me to go faster by tailgating me. I entered the national speed limit and accelerated away and opened a 30 metre gap. The road bends to the right and as the road straightened I spotted the shape of the 3 walkers about half a mile in the distance, and if I could see them, the so could any car driver following me (if they were looking....). Here was my position on streetview the walkers were in the distance under the trees.
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=e...=rJ7Kjvo0qgXkTNYBzNS0Yw&cbp=12,260.02,,0,1.47

I got closer to the walkers who were by now on a left hand kink in the road, so I slowed down due to oncoming traffic, and not wanting to endanger vulnerable road users with a close pass at 60mph. The walkers moved onto the grass here as I approached by now doing about 45mph - with a black Golf trying to save fuel by slipstreaming me, and looking to try and pass (into oncoming traffic) - 

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=e...=zi9LPszRijOf30aZQS26-g&cbp=12,260.02,,1,1.47

Once past I accelerated away from the Golf, but there are 50mph, 40mph and 30mph limts ahead. Mr Golf seemed to be doing about 55mph in the national speed limits, so dropped back, but closed up on me and restricted his forward vision by being too close in the limits.

It's bad enough that we don't have enough police to patrol roads and make drivers more aware. It's also a bad do that courts do not hand down tougher penalties for all driving offences. It's also a pain to have to put up with the media's pro-motoring stance (Fast Car/Top Gear/Performace Car/F1) that influences some drivers. But it is worst when vulnerable road users have to voice their concerns and other equally vulnerable road users make excuses in favour of bad driving.

Well, don't count me in your camp. No matter what the road/weather/light/visibility condition if you drive carefully you will never hit anything. Stop making excuses for bad driving.


----------



## PK99 (27 Apr 2014)

Salad Dodger said:


> *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....*..



A thought experiment:

You are cycling in (say) london, at around 20/25mph. (not untypical for some of the videos from folks such as Gaz
A pedestrian runs from the pavement without looking and you collide with him.
He falls backwards, hits his head on the kerb and dies.
You fall sideways into the traffic stream and sustain life changing injuries.
Do you sue his estate?


----------



## ComedyPilot (27 Apr 2014)

Don't want to seem like a killjoy, but I wouldn't ride at 20-25mph anywhere near pedestrians for that very reason.


----------



## PK99 (27 Apr 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> Don't want to seem like a killjoy, but I wouldn't ride at 20-25mph anywhere near pedestrians for that very reason.



Neither would I, but often see commuting folks doing it along the Kingston road in SW19, perfectly legal and keeping up with the traffic flow.

In the thought experiment, should the now disabled cyclist claim on the estate of the dead pedestrian?


----------



## ComedyPilot (27 Apr 2014)

No.


----------



## PK99 (27 Apr 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> No.



The dead pedestrian was a millionaire and was well insured.


----------



## ComedyPilot (27 Apr 2014)

No.

Every road user has a personal responsibility for themselves and towards vulnerable road users.

In your scenario the cyclist is going too fast for the conditions. Regardless of whether the ped is Branson/Rockerfeller/Prince Charles or me, the cyclist (as the fast moving vehicle) is responsible and should have been anticipating the possibility of a ped just stepping out.

The ped having died has already paid the price for their actions in full.....


----------



## PK99 (27 Apr 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> No.
> 
> Every road user has a personal responsibility for themselves and towards vulnerable road users.
> 
> ...



Slightly different scenario, 
Cyclist was travelling at 10 mph.
All else unchanged


----------



## theclaud (27 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> Slightly different scenario,
> Cyclist was travelling at 10 mph.
> All else unchanged



Wow, these thought experiments of yours are pretty challenging. I'll need several days to think about this one.


----------



## PK99 (27 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> Wow, these thought experiments of yours are pretty challenging. I'll need several days to think about this one.



The pedestrian who caused the collision did die, his life insurance has paid out £1M to his family. He had house insurance including 3rd party liability.

You are a paraplegic as a result of the collision, your spouse and kids have no income.

Do you seek compensation from the deceased's estate ie his insurance company?


----------



## MontyVeda (27 Apr 2014)

what's this hypothetical nonsense got to do with the OP?


----------



## Tin Pot (27 Apr 2014)

Its attempting to establish if there are any scenarios in which it is right for the person who killed someone in a traffic accident should sue the estate of the person they killed.

A few people have responded to the OP saying this should never be the case. I suspect they are wrong.


----------



## PK99 (27 Apr 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> Its attempting to establish if there any scenarios in which it is right for the person who killed someone in a traffic accident should sue the estate of the person they killed.
> 
> A few people have responded to the OP saying this should never be the case. I suspect they are wrong.



I would remove the pejorative term "killed" from that, and rephrase as follows:

"Are there any scenarios in which it is right for a person who survives a traffic accident in which the person who was at fault for the accident died should sue the estate of the deceased person who was at fault for the accident?"

In practice, there are many car-on-car accidents where the person causing the accident dies and their insurance compensates the survivors. 

I am bemused, but not surprised, that some would seem to exempt an at fault cyclist from similar logic: Surely it all turns not on what category each participant was from, but who was at fault for the accident?

The logic of some would seem to suggest that if a motorist ploughed into the back of a cyclist, then swerved, crashed and died then _the driver having died has already paid the price for their actions in full....._ and the injured cyclist should have no claim on the deceased's estate or insurance.


----------



## ComedyPilot (27 Apr 2014)

The OP victim is the one being sued by the driver that ploughed into him and his 2 friends.

Quite what that has to do with a ped stepping out on a cyclist is beyond me. The scenario @PK99 set up changed a couple of times.....in an attempt to get a yes out of me?

As I am more than willing to stand by, my opinion is that ANY road user should be on the lookout for vulnerable/unlit/unpredictable peds/road users, and take any action possble to avoid a collision. Most bicycles I know travel in a forwards direction, so the area of conflict (for argument sake) is going to be somewhere in front of the cyclist. Without wanting to sound like a stuck-record, if you can't bring your vehicle (bike) to a stop in the distance you can see to be clear in front of you, then you are going too fast.

As I ride along I constantly scan for anyone/anything on a converging course, and already have a plan to stop or avoid if they 'suddenly' step out. I apply the same to driving.

The driver in @PK99 's last post is another scenario altogether. Of course the cyclist should claim on their insurance, the driver 'ploughed' into the back of the cyclist. In the other made-up scenario the ped stepped out without looking and the cyclist couldn't stop in time and crashed. IMO the cyclist should have been watching out for that possibility and ridden accordingly, so how they then have a claim on the ped is a strange one.....


----------



## glenn forger (27 Apr 2014)

If your vehicle collides with three people and kills them you are probably at fault.

If your vehicle collides with three people from behind and kills them you are almost certainly at fault.

If your vehicle collides with three people from behind and kills them as you are speeding you are definitely at fault.


----------



## PK99 (27 Apr 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> In the other made-up scenario the ped stepped out without looking and the cyclist couldn't stop in time and crashed. IMO the cyclist should have been watching out for that possibility and ridden accordingly, so how they then have a claim on the ped is a strange one.....



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?


----------



## MontyVeda (27 Apr 2014)

why are you still making sh!t up instead of discussing the OP?


----------



## Tin Pot (27 Apr 2014)

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.


----------



## Tin Pot (27 Apr 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> why are you still making sh!t up instead of discussing the OP?


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


----------



## ComedyPilot (27 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> 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 (27 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> 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 (27 Apr 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> 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 (27 Apr 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> 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 (27 Apr 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> 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 (27 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> 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 (27 Apr 2014)

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 (27 Apr 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> 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 (27 Apr 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> The criminal case is already resolved, and justice served.


----------



## theclaud (27 Apr 2014)

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 (27 Apr 2014)

theclaud said:


> 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 (27 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> 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 (27 Apr 2014)

PK99 said:


> ...
> 
> 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 (28 Apr 2014)

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.


----------

