Driver who killed teen cyclist sues his family - because "her enjoyment of life... has been lessened"

Even if just one of the bikes had pedal reflectors they would have told out a mile.

I was driving down a pitch black a road late at night and I saw a cycling ninja riding down there. All in black. No lights but his pedal reflectors were doing a brilliant job. Id not have ridden like that - but I could see him hundreds of meters away.

Cycling at night isn't dangerous normally.
Good lights (always two in the rear) and plenty of reflectives and you stand out much better than in daylight. It's also a lot quieter.

Did they not look at the scene to work out what happened ?

I am thinking of suing her because she has destroyed what little faith I had left in humanity.

Ok it's a cyclist that was killed.

I don't doubt that the woman's life has been massively affected.

The law in anglo saxon jurisdictions and most others allows tou to sue for damages if you have suffered loss or harm. She has suffered mental harm.

She has a right to sue.

In my opinion she shouldn't. In fact the mere fact that it cosses her mind to sue (even if she has a right to) is somewhat disturbing.

I would expect most decent people if they suffered in the way she does to perhaps wake up from that night mare or flashback and then consider the way the family of the dead girl must feel. On doing that I wouldn't expect a decent person to sue them and add to their distress. It takes a "special" kind of heartless to do that.

The more I read of this story the more distressing it sounds, but its in a far away country and has nothing to do with me so I wish I hadn't started. What's the point in trying to play Columbo from second-hand reports a thousand miles away?

The following are things I find puzzling:

The newspapers report that the police report definitively states the driver was not breathalysed on the spot.

Its also widely reported that her policeman husband was (for unknown reasons), following along behind her as she drove over the speed limit.

It also seems established that after he approached both were allowed by his fellow officers to leave the scene immediately while other witnesses were held there.

This makes the whole thing sound a bit odd.

As does the way the woman is now apparently claiming the accident occurred because 'the boys didn't brake properly' - even though she hit at least two-out-of-three of them from behind while doing 90kmph. How would better braking technique have helped them in that situation? Surely she was the one who needed to brake, not them?

It does seem a truly _terrible_ idea to ride sans lights on an unlit road with an 80kmph speed limit (why is the speed limit so high, if there is no safer alternative route provided for pedestrians or cyclists to use, incidentally? That's another angle I'd be inclined to take if this were a domestic case).

When I've ridden such routes I've found it terrifying and added more lights every time I repeated the journey till I resembled something out of Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind.

It is, I think, another reason why cyclists should _always_ have lights - don't give drivers any get-out-of-jail-free cards!

And if unlit roads are to have 60mph limits, how about showing some thought and providing some provision for those not in cars?

If Dave Davey Dave "Call me Dave" Cameron is reading this, then he could solve unemployment and reduce road accidents in one move.

Employ the peasantry to carry and wave red flags in front of each of these murderous contrivances called motorcars. Then, when each of the bloodthirsty and speed crazed evildoers behind the wheel alights from their vehicle, we can all grab them and scream "burn the witch"

That'll teach 'em, the bastards.

Seriously, I know the original article sounds pretty horrendous, and that everyone involved is suing everyone else, but generally on here I think we all need to lighten the fuck up and stop preaching and whining. Cars exist. Accidents happen, that's how it is, society as a whole has accepted a level of road deaths as an unfortunate downside to the benefits of mass personal transport. Raging against this is as futile as trying to reverse the industrial revolution.

Oh, and Nelson Mandela apparently really liked cars. Jimmy Saville raced in the Tour of Britain. Chew on that little conundrum while I go off to ride through some red lights (but not all of them) alternately wearing hi vi, helmet and headphones in varying combinations.

Outta here.

Should the Majeskis sue Simon for the upset this new lawsuit is causing them?

If anything she should be sueing the motor industry for making her believe that driving at speeds like that on suburban roads is acceptable.
We are all victims of a powerful and pervasive force we have little or no control over, the advertising media that makes us feel that we are within our right to drive at speeds that kill where there could be three teenagers coming home on their bikes.
The driver is only in the wrong if he or she chooses to subscribe to a delusional sense of what's normal. What she did wasn't normal, it was irresponsible, but in her world it was normal and she feels like the victim.
We are all victims if we don't think things through in the light of what's real rather than what the telly says we can do.

Outrageous. I hope she loses and has to pay costs which will bankrupt her.

In this country the Highway Code paragraph 126 says

"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear."

I would be surprised if the Canadian equivalent did not say the same. It is a basic safety idea. The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea say something pretty similar about fog navigation.
This does not mean, keep going at speed unless you see an obstacle, but, if you cannot see that there is nothing within your stopping distance, then slow down. Basic common sense. There might be something a bit solider than cyclists in the road. A fallen tree or broken down lorry for instance.
We all know that many drivers do not obey this rule. There is much advice to cyclists to make themselves conspicuous with hiviz. It is seldom accompanied with advice to drivers to obey rule 126.
If this woman had obeyed this basic safety rule she would not be feeling so upset at having killed.
Isn't this a weakness in her case?

Driving or cycling at night is very dangerous.

Under no circumstances should you be without lights (as a cyclist) or go over the speed limit (as a driver).

Being a teenager isn't a great excuse for the former (although I've done it); being an adult is even less excuse for the latter (not done it so far).

In fact it would be a good idea if all speed limits in all countries automatically became 20% less as soon as sunset occurs. I certainly drive at least 10% less faster than daylight and usually more than that.

Roadcc has always reported accidents and issues related to them over the 3 years I've been on here. Sometimes I avoid reading them or even avoid roadcc altogether during the winter when there's no fantasy or anything very exciting to read. I usually read inrng then for my cycling fix. There is an element of sensationalism to it but in that regard they are merely reflecting the wider culture. I doubt that it puts off non-cyclists because they don't come here and those of us who cycle regularly know the real statistics and dangers. Even at that age I would never have cycled 3-abreast on a country road without lights. When I went back drunk from a friend's party at 4am I went on the pavement, although the police did me for it!! My only ever fine as a cyclist!

1) if this had been 1.30 in the afternoon would the outcome have been different.
2) on a rural type road if an animal comes into the road and causes an accident. Who is to blame ? The animal or the driver?
3) accidents will always happen "there for the grace of god" most do not end up in total tragedy.
4) hindsight is a wonderful thing but even with this will we all drive/ ride safer
5) the funny thing is that all three were hit so the idea of 3 abreast being a causitive factor is not really an arguement

Very sad all round

Sorry to say it road.cc but this is the last time I'll be visiting your website. This is a non-article all too reminiscent of DM online. I cycle to get away from this shit.

Meanwhile back to the original story and the nonsense that is litigation and then even further back to the original incident.

I don't subscribe to the driver is always wrong and I'm dead sure the cyclist isn't always right.

The big issue for me in this case is not whether or not the driver was sober, or texting or whatever. The big issue here is a driver travelling at an inappropriate speed for the conditions. If you can't see three substantial objects (whether people, animals or big holes in the road, lit or unlit) soon enough to stop then you are going too fast.

That's what cars have lights for. Simple really!

Would it have been OK if the driver killed pedestrians?

Or ran into a herd of cattle when a gate had been left open?

No! Drivers are responsible for seeing what is ahead of them and driving at an appropriate speed.

Saw this yesterday, did some more reading and digging around (Gawker, r/rage, local and national news sites). There's only 25% of this reported so far, and seems there'll be 25% that never comes to light because of odd behaviour by the police at the scene and in the investigation.

The current position appears to be that Majewski's have lodged a PI claim against Simon's insurance company, and alleged to have been raising merry hell in the home town, resulting in Mrs Simon being harassed at work, and their home vandalised. The suit against the dead kids and their families is a spoiler countersuit, albeit one which leaves a very, very bad taste in one's mouth.

I'd prefer to read good stories about cycling as well. Mine's a receipt dated this morning for a cup of coffee and some cake, pinned up on the noticeboard. It won't get a thousand posts on Reddit, but it's my little bit of good cycling news for the week.

Firstly. Reporting from all over the Anglo Saxon world vastly enriches this site. The discussion of best practices in a number of countries could even tempt UK voters to want some of them implemented in their own country! Especially regarding cycling, what this site is all about.
Secondly. This tragic fait divers lifts the tip of the curtain ever so slightly on the very different models of jurisprudence evolving in the New World vs the Old one, where the former becomes ever more litigious. A generation or two from now, the USA/Canada will have become a very difficult place to understand for a European!
Thirdly. Please check out the article in road.cc earlier this week on the introduction of presumed liability which emphasizes that the road user capable of the greater harm has the greater responsibility (Jacknorell).Introduction of presumed liability would have reduced the temptation to litigate: driving above the speed limit in a SUV? killing and maiming 2 out of 3 cyclists? Guilty. Now, let us hear about mitigating circumstances.

Gkam84 wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

faz. wrote:

I must admit Road.CC post 2-3 times a week about something that is half way around the world, just because it's 'shocking'. This is wrong... Reminds me of the Mail online.

All major UK websites seem to have gone 'international', or at least 'TransAtlantic' now. Its one of the few things the Mail and the Guardian have in common.

Road.cc doesn't claim anywhere I can see to be a UK website.

CC infers Cycling Club to me. A worldwide cycling club infact.

They cover stories for all over the world, just the same as the fantasy game covers races from all over the world and the users.....come from all over the world

True, but it seems to me that the posters/readers are overwhelmingly from the UK.

And for me there's just more than enough to get worked up about in relation to UK transport issues, without bringing in foreign ones where one just doesn't know much about the context or background and where the chances of getting anything changed seem even more negligible. Its just a recipe for getting uselessly upset.

I think this sort of problem (cyclists vs motorised traffic) is, even more than say, an issue like racism, is very much tied into local culture and law and physical conditions and you need local knowledge to be able to have an informed opinion as to what to make of an event like this. Are there any posters local to this event on this thread?

Giff, stories like that can be published here, just contact the news team and give them the story....

Want to talk to the news team? info [at] road.cc (Click here)

I've always enjoyed the international feel that road.cc has. It's great to hear stories from far flung places and interact with fellow cyclists across the world. Sadly, a lot of the stories that the team come up with will be those that have had media exposure like the OP here. Very rarely will you get the press covering the good stories for example,a youngster my way had their bike stolen and the LBS heard about it and replaced the bike. This didn't even reach the local rag, yet it is a good story for cycling. Or how many of us complete endurance cycles for charity and it doesn't hit the media?

And you know what, this is where we come in as members of the 'road.cc family'. It's up to us to make use of the blog page and the forum to post the good stories that we hear of or our GOOD experiences. I will admit, I'm as guilty as any other in not doing this and being quite happy to join in the tirades about shocking behaviour of motorists and cyclists.

So how about the moaners of the 'bad stories' posting some good experiences themselves.

Why are other countries not relevant?

This is not a UK exclusive site, we have users from all over the world, so I think it is wholly relevant to report incidents from all over.

I must admit Road.CC post 2-3 times a week about something that is half way around the world, just because it's 'shocking'. This is wrong... Reminds me of the Mail online.

Sigh , I despair at the human race sometimes. Wait....does that mean I can sue someone for making me despair?! Haven't the family of the teenage lad suffered enough? Now with 2 deaths in the family.

Fewer front page stories about misery half a world away, please.