Driver that struck teen suing dead boy's family

[123456789A]

I am going to sue her for the 2 minutes I spent reading the article, shaking my head, and responding to it.

[margrave]

The buck doesn't ever stop here anymore..... just sad.

 

 

Hell's hot.

[srbeen]

If you are suing the county for the road condition you clearly had intent to cause injury. You knew the road was unsafe, yet still used it. I'm going to bet that she never filed a single complaint about the road prior to the incident in 2012. I really hope karma finds her.

[srbeen]

How were bike riders at fault? Riding at night isn't illegal. They should wear more reflective gear if they weren't, but that doesn't dismiss drivers from paying attention to the road. She hit them from behind - in the auto world, that's basically at-fault by default.

 

Not sure about Ontario, but on the east coast its an offence to ride without a rear reflector/active rear lighting 30 minutes after dusk. Pedal reflectors don't count. You can get a fine and have your bike confiscated if an officer who cares sees you. Not defending this scumbag woman, but the riders may not have been fully 'legal' either. Again, based on another Canadian provinces laws and not familiar with Ontarios specifically.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

While you are technically correct, speed limits around here are made with the Assumption that you are going 10km/h over. They know most people are going to speed, so it's now just factored into the equation.

 

Again, not saying she's not at fault at all.. but just point out, there's a reason why police don't ticket you for going 5-10 over (again, unless school zones, or construction zones).

 

Oh I agree,, tegal tactic or not, it's in VERY poor taste.

 

A speed limit is a speed limit...and...

 

 

 

Now the driver of the SUV, Sharlene Simon, 42, a mother of three, formerly from Innisfil, is suing the dead boy for the emotional trauma she says she has suffered. She?s also suing the two other boys, as well as the dead boy?s parents, and even his brother, who has since died. She?s also suing the County of Simcoe for failing to maintain the road.

 

If the road was bad enough to be in this lawsuit then she probably should have been going under the speed limit.

 

I hope this thing gets thrown out...and she gets countersued for everything she has.  She is a piece of kha

[compl3x]

I can only assume you are a new driver if you still believe that what is on the sign is a hard ceiling, what nonsense.  To say a driver must categorically never exceed is not only a lie, it's a dangerous thing to do.  To throw this woman under the bus as Hawk did for such a facile reason alone, with a blind eye to the more important factors here, is unbelievable.

 

 

Please explain how observing a speed limit is dangerous. Is it in the same logical realm as speeding has no bearing on road accidents?

 

Tell the next cop who pulls you over for speeding that you're exceeding the limit because it is safer and see his/her reaction.

[HawkMan]

10km is nothing speedwise and would have had little to no bearing on the accident.  Also pointed out above, I'm under the impression that the family started a suit first, not her.  This is simply a legal tactic.

 

Simple question, if this was a car driving at night, in the rain without lights, would you all feel the same way?

 

This shows how much you know. 10km has a HUGE effect on breaking distance, especially on slippery surfaces. 

 

and again, you're supposed to adjust to the circumstances, that means when it's wet and dark, you adjust down, NOT UP.  if she had, she might not have avoided hitting them, but she could have avoided killing and maiming. that's why she's at fault. 

[zhangm Supervisor]

This shows how much you know. 10km has a HUGE effect on breaking distance, especially on slippery surfaces.

About 10 - 15 meters difference.

 

and again, you're supposed to adjust to the circumstances, that means when it's wet and dark, you adjust down, NOT UP.  if she had, she might not have avoided hitting them, but she could have avoided killing and maiming. that's why she's at fault.

Speaking as a cyclist, reflectors basically don't cut it. Many reflectors are ineffective under most angles of illumination. Pedal and wheel reflectors, and under-seat rear reflectors are extremely vulnerable to being coated with dirt, which further reduces their utility. That said, and now speaking as a motorist, it is foolish in the extreme to expect that road obstacles will be illuminated. Instead of kids, it could have been a fallen tree, a large animal, or a sinkhole, and it is the duty of the driver to adjust their speed as conditions dictate so that they can avoid slow moving or stationary obstacles on the road. :) Could the kids and parents have done more with lighting? Definitely. But this woman was a bad driver looking for an accident.

[HawkMan]

About 10 - 15 meters difference.

 

Speaking as a cyclist, reflectors basically don't cut it. Many reflectors are ineffective under most angles of illumination. Pedal and wheel reflectors, and under-seat rear reflectors are extremely vulnerable to being coated with dirt, which further reduces their utility. That said, and now speaking as a motorist, it is foolish in the extreme to expect that road obstacles will be illuminated. Instead of kids, it could have been a fallen tree, a large animal, or a sinkhole, and it is the duty of the driver to adjust their speed as conditions dictate so that they can avoid slow moving or stationary obstacles on the road. :) Could the kids and parents have done more with lighting? Definitely. But this woman was a bad driver looking for an accident.

 

If you can JUST stop for something at 80, you will hit it at 50kmh at 90. 

 

you won't understand what they say, but it illustrates the difference 

 

In fact just those 10 kmh over the speed limit(that she admitted to, meaning it likely was more) could have meant the difference in not hitting the kids at all. 

[HawkMan]

I can only assume you are a new driver if you still believe that what is on the sign is a hard ceiling, what nonsense.  To say a driver must categorically never exceed is not only a lie, it's a dangerous thing to do.  To throw this woman under the bus as Hawk did for such a facile reason alone, with a blind eye to the more important factors here, is unbelievable.

 

oh really, what good reasons are there ever for speeding ? 10 kmh won't save you ANYTHING in the long run, it since breaking distance is a quad scale or whatever it's called it can be plain dangerous of something appear in the road in front of you.  This doesn't even count the fact that your field of vew narrows as you go faster, and you travel a lot faster before you start reacting, your brain takes some time to react and yoru foot takes even longer. at higher speed this translates to more meters travelled. 

 

It's never dangerous to not speed. even if you're in a queue, which SHE WASN'T anyway so it's not a valid defense for speeding. But just because everyone else speeds doesn't mean you have to. the ones who then pass you to keep speeding, THEY are the ones driving dangerously not YOU. In a queue speeding is even more dangerous as you run the risk of a much more dangerous chain collision, which you by not speeding with the others can help avoid. 

[Ryoken]

I obviously can't comment on Canadian speed laws or how they are enforced, but it is pointless calling it a "speed limit" if they are expecting people to exceed it. It may as well be called a "speed suggestion".

 

It's one of the few cases where the Gov't actually uses a little common sense.

 

They are NOT gonna stop everyone for 5-10 over, they Know people are going to go 5-10 over, so they just account for it. Just like a supermarket making sure they mark up everything enough to make up for stuff that's stolen, damaged, or goes bad.

 

Putting some perspective on it.. The road I live off of is an 80 zone..  Why? Because the gov't decided that non-highways would not exceed 80. It's designed to be safe at 100, cause that's what they BUILT it for. If you are doing 90 on it, not only is it safe, the police won't stop you.

 

Also, you'll find Police most always are doing 10 over, on highways they generally are doing 20 over. Lights on, 30-40 over.

 

Now I'm NOT saying Speed was NOT a factor, and you people need to get that out of your heads. I don't KNOW the road conditions that she experienced.. And a little rain and dark isn't very descriptive.. I'm just saying you can't say she was doing 10 over, and as such was FULLY at fault and that was the SOLE Cause. He'll, you can't even say it was the Cause at all. For all we know they had dark bike's, dark clothes, and no/covered reflectors.. They wouldn't be seen at all till it was too late.

 

And for the comment about if it was a tree or deer, or moose, or whatever, well then she'd hit it. Speedlimits are there to keep you from hitting other cars, running off the road, etc.. not there to keep you from hitting a fallen tree. You'd call your insurance, and that would be that. It's also why people aren't allowed to walk with the traffic on the road, cause they are not accounted for, so they want YOU to see the car coming and be out of the way. Bikers ride WITH traffic because they are required to have lights/reflectors, etc to be visible. 

[HawkMan]

We didn't say she was fully at fault. as I said many many posts ago, it's likely the kids are at fault for her hitting them, to some degree, BUT she's at fault for killing them since she drove to fast, on a road with low visibility and slippery surface and she herself by the lawsuit admits wasn't suitable for the speed she was driving. Had she been driving the speed limit, breaking maths say that she likely wouldn't have injured them, and possibly wouldn't even have hit them. 

[splur]

This will get thrown out of court so quickly.

Luckily, for those of you completely offended by this, in Canada when you attempt #### like this and lose, you pay the costs for both sides.  Apprently this is a counter-suit, well bad idea anyways.

[Ryoken]

This will get thrown out of court so quickly.  I would like to see the family countersue; I'm sure the damages for the boy's life and the family's emotional trauma could trump whatever price she submits.

Luckily, for those of you completely offended by this, in Canada when you attempt #### like this and lose, you pay the costs for both sides.

 

This suit IS the Counter to the family suing her over their kids deaths.

[bonalste]

I can only assume you are a new driver if you still believe that what is on the sign is a hard ceiling, what nonsense. To say a driver must categorically never exceed is not only a lie, it's a dangerous thing to do.

Pfft, you're taking out of your backside. In the UK at least the police will not speed unless they are responding to a call. My brother is a traffic police officer, and as far as he is concerned a speed limit is a limit, not a target. If you drive up to the limit, that's no problem, but even 1km over and he is entitled to pull you over. Now he probably wouldn't, because he is lazy, but a friend of mine was pulled over in New Zealand for going 2km over the speed limit while overtaking a slow car. And you know what? Fair enough. They went over the limit, they got a fine. It doesn't matter whether roads might be safe at a higher speed, the law is the law and it shouldn't be broken. Myself, I never go over the speed limit. Sit down one day and actually work out how much time you save by going 10km/h over the speed limit on a regular route that you do, say your journey to work. It'll save maybe 2 minutes over a 1/2 hour drive, and if you're running that late then it's your own damned fault if you end up hitting somebody, or being pulled over by the police.

[smooth_criminal1990]

Reminds me of the Scientology episode of South Park...

[Marcos_Edson]

This suit IS the Counter to the family suing her over their kids deaths.

 

If i got the original article right, the families (or at least one of them) is suing to cover medical expenses and the such, this lady is trying to double that amount to almost 2 million... :(

[GotBored]

Not to defend her at all, cause I think this is horrible, but..

 

Such is my understanding, this is a counter-suit, against the parents who are already suing her.

No charges were laid. Hence the parents suing in the first place.

The boys were riding abreast, without helmets, and without the legal minimums for a bike ( Actual rear reflectors above the real wheel, lights for it being night, etc )..

 

It's not all as cut and dry as it seems.

She was speeding, but doing 90 in an 80 zone is FAR from uncommon, about the only places where 10 over is an issue is school zones and construction zones. Anywhere else, and you'd be a joke for writing a ticket. Also, breathalyzers are as far as I know, only done if the person Appears to be intoxicated. Which she didn't. 

 

End of the day I think it was just a horrible accident in which all parties share some blame, but not enough to press charges, or be suing over.

 

That said, I could be wrong and there's more to this.. who knows..

 

3km over the speed limit and you get a $106 fine in Melbourne, Australia. I find it laughable too but the police don't. When I visited the US most cars on the road were doing 10mph over even with a cop driving next to them in Australia everyone slows down when they see a car that even closely resembles a police car. (We also have speed cameras just about everywhere)

 

The driver who was going over the speed limit would be at total fault in Australia, if the parents of the victim wanted to sue they would have to sue the drivers insurance company while the driver would not be required to pay anything but most likely face criminal charges for being involved in a accident while he/she was driving over the speed limit (breaking the law).

[shine_victim]

I actually hate these type of humans!

[Ryoken]

3km over the speed limit and you get a $106 fine in Melbourne, Australia. I find it laughable too but the police don't. When I visited the US most cars on the road were doing 10mph over even with a cop driving next to them in Australia everyone slows down when they see a car that even closely resembles a police car. (We also have speed cameras just about everywhere)

 

Ya not like that here.. 10 over is standard.. on Highways, during good weather, they generally won't even stop you for 20 over. Speed cameras are rare, but are generally also setup for 5 over.. they are rare in normal areas, you sometimes see them in construction zones.. so the 5 over is just due to the fact that what a car says the speed is doing is never, ever, right.

[bonalste]

Ya not like that here.. 10 over is standard.. on Highways, during good weather, they generally won't even stop you for 20 over. Speed cameras are rare, but are generally also setup for 5 over.. they are rare in normal areas, you sometimes see them in construction zones.. so the 5 over is just due to the fact that what a car says the speed is doing is never, ever, right.

The only reason they are set for 5km/h over the limit isn't because that is safe, or because it is acceptable, it's in order to accommodate error in speedometers.

[HawkMan]

The only reason they are set for 5km/h over the limit isn't because that is safe, or because it is acceptable, it's in order to accommodate error in speedometers.

 

Granted speedometers generally only show to high speed. usually in the range of ~10% so 90 on the speed is usually 81-82. 

 

but it depends on your wheels to. their 2.5-5kmh error rate(I believe it's actually a 5kmh, but it's -2.5 and +2.5, of course the - doesn't matter) is because of equipment error. though equipment is a LOT more accurate that that, but it removes any claim of equipment fixing since it's a lot more accurate than the error they put in. 

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Wow. Just wow.  :huh:  :|

[Dashel]

Luckily this happened in North America, where saner traffic laws (and drivers) seem to at least be something the US and Canada have in common.  Then again, we have many, many more drivers and many, many more miles of roadways. (And probably more wild animals to boot, which most closely approximates what happened here it seems).

 

Maybe in your country, drivers and not politicians, set the limits.  That's the only way I can rationalize your wonky emphasis on such trivial matters.

[Ryoken]

It's also worth noting people talking about stopping distances at 10km/h over and other such.. And it's all very valid on paper.. real world, you get even more variation in those distances just based on your tires, tire-wear, breaks, break-wear, the load in your vehicle, the actual quality of the asphalt you are on, etc.