That the husband is a cop should make you more sceptical of the official report.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Woman countersues the family of a 17 year old she killed with her car.
- Thread starter Shadownet
- Start date
- Status
That the husband is a cop should make you more sceptical of the official report.
shacklesmcgee
Member
IdreamofHIME
Member
I know it's morally wrong and she's crazy to do this...
but the official report blamed the kids on not having lights on their bikes in the bad weather. That opens them up to all sorts of trouble. A good (morally bad) lawyer can totally win this.
Yeah. Funny how he isn't defending his wife more as it is. He knows exactly what and what not to say. Plus he drove her home. When you slam into a cyclist/pedestrian, you wait until cops and ambulance come, get statements etc. OP doesn't really mention much.
Such a tragedy. What's worse, wearing a helmet while bike riding, or speeding nearly 10 km/h over the speed limit at night. As for reflectors, most bikes have them. This is precisely why I ride my bike on the sidewalk. There is like 5% or less foot traffic where I live on sidewalks, yet they want us to ride bikes in t Street. If I hit a car coming out of driveway, sure I'll be hurt, but I'll survive. If some guy slams into me doing 65, I'll be dead. I hate driving where I live because it's so dangerous, let alone think I'll ride bike in Street.
Just sad all around. Both suits should be dropped I think.
shira
Member
Seems like she just wants the harassment to stop and doesn't actually want the money.
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
Well I just watched the news story from CTV and it sounds like Simons is responding to duchery with duchery.
The family of the boy sued her first and alleged that she was speeding, intoxicated and on a cellphone; all with no proof and contradicting the police investigation that not only concluded that Simons wasn't at fault but was also driving safely. The news story sounds like Simons only counter-sued after the family sued her with the allegations.
If its a police force with a history of corruption then its easier to be more skeptical but as it currently stands, wouldn't you want more proof before siding with anyone.
Aren't you supposed to have the blinking lights if your riding in the street at night? Not just a reflector. My father in law is a huge bicyclist and he has one and everyone I see that actively rides in the street has one. It might not be law but it's definitely proper bicycling.
The suit is in very poor taste but it sounds like the bicyclists were largely at fault for the accident riding at night with no lights or reflectors and 3 abreast in poor conditions. You can't do shit like that, there's a reason cars have headlights and reflective shit all over them. And they're way larger and easier to see than bicyclists regardless.
Poltergust
Member
No, there is no justifiable reason to ride your bike on the sidewalk. Your bike is a motor vehicle and should not be ridden in places where pedestrians have to walk around. It's actually illegal to do that.
And no, saying that there are no pedestrians is not an excuse. That's akin to, say, running a red light because you don't see any cars coming in from the side roads, or heck even driving a car along an empty sidewalk.
If you must take your bike along the sidewalk, dismount it and walk while holding it.
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
Why is it a motor vehicle? I wasn't aware bikes were classified as such.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
They are not..
TheRedSnifit
Member
They aren't technically classified as such, but they follow most of the same regulations. You aren't classified as a pedestrian either way, so sidewalks are still off-limits.
Funny story. There's this place in Michigan called Makinac (think that's how it's spelled), and since you can't own a car there everybody bikes. There's this one hill that's really fucking steep, and it's possible to break the 20 MPH (!) speed limit and get pulled over. Most people don't take it seriously, until they have a reckless driving violation on their permanent record and a ticket.
Some areas (I'm talking G/A/F and the likes) simply don't have the proper infrastructure for cycling, but even then I'd ride on the sidewalk at your own peril. Majority of cyclist-to-auto collisions occur on corners, and bikes riding on the sidewalk are all but invisible to drivers. The actual occurrence of rear-end collisions are small, and I'd bet with proper visibility that rate will be even lower. Your best bet will be to scope out side roads (residential, etc) with slower and less traffic that'll let you ride on the road w/o having to share w/ drivers going 45+.
So from what I gather - the woman hit the kids, she stopped, her husband showed up shortly (he was driving behind her) a Samaritan attended to the victim(s) and she (the driver) called the police. The police and paramedics showed up, did a roadside test for inebriation and she did not seem drunk, and allowed her and her husband to leave.
Further investigation from the police came to the conclusion that she was not at fault for the accident, and was not drunk and/or did not seem distracted.
The parents of the deceased either did not agree, or were not aware of the results of the investigation, and sued the woman, claiming she was both drunk and texting at the time of the accident.
She is counter suing for emotional damages.
I think that's all the important stuff right?
Further investigation from the police came to the conclusion that she was not at fault for the accident, and was not drunk and/or did not seem distracted.
The parents of the deceased either did not agree, or were not aware of the results of the investigation, and sued the woman, claiming she was both drunk and texting at the time of the accident.
She is counter suing for emotional damages.
I think that's all the important stuff right?
This was an accident, she was not at fault. Tragedy happened, parents end up harassing her. She could sue for constant harassment (could invole blackmail?), and the distress caused by it. However I'm not sure if she will go through with it, maybe she just wants to scare them off. I would personally try and get a restraining order on the family first.
That's exactly what "play the devil's advocate" means. It carries no judgment of the people holding the viewpoint being advocated, it simply implies taking an unpopular stance for the sake of looking at both sides of an issue.
They were aware of the results of the investigation. They are claiming that the police department did not do the investigation correctly.
Otherwise, yeah, that's the long and short of it.
First of all. Not all police officers follow the rules and do their job. Now I wasn't there but he could have easily drove her home and then came back to the scene instead of calling 911. So the samaritan had to do it.
Secondly, boys. There were 3 boys. One was dying if not already dead, one was seriously injured and one was moderately injured. I'm guessing he was the one that got hit the least amount.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case especially since the husband was a police officer.
shacklesmcgee
Member
No idea what you're getting at with the first point, but in the witnesses account she says she found one of the boys in the middle of the road, alone. Then the husband pops up and calls the police.
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/25/witness-haunted-by-tragic-bike-accident
The Cowboy
Member
I can't agree with that, whist both are stupid - cycling at 1:30am with no lights, in dark cloths, with no helmets, in the rain and side by side on a road is easily more stupid than driving 5mph over the limit in the rain.
Of course it's not like the families have any evidence that the woman was drinking or texting either.
As the result plainly demonstrates.
Kite
Member
lol no.
Yea this isn't even up for debate. You have to add also that this wasn't 25 mph neighborhood road either. The speed limit was 50 mph.
Poltergust
Member
Yeah, that was not worded right. I should have said that they follow the same rules as motor vehicles.
The countersuit is a common legal measure and is effectively defensive in this case and thousands of others.
The kids were being stupid because they left themselves open to harm with their riding.
The lady was stupid because she left herself open to harming someone with her driving,
Schweinehund
Member
A complicated case. I can't blame the driver.
ZeroGravity
Member
There are definitely justifiable reasons to ride a bike on the sidewalk, not the least of which is avoiding situations like this, or simply wishing to avoid accidents in general with motorists who largely do not respect cyclists on the road.
And while technically illegal, good luck finding any cop who'll stop you for it. It's more akin to jaywalking than running a red light. Comparing it to driving a car on the sidewalk is goddamn laughable.
Have respect for pedestrians, always move to the side when approaching one, and there will never be an issue with riding on the sidewalk.
It was also the finding of the forensics report that recommended she not be charged.
3 boys were in the accident, not 1.
So you know the exact clothes the kids were wearing and whether or not they were side by side on the road?
I didn't know you were there.
And honestly that's what the police said. Her husband provably work for the same department. I don't trust the "report" one bit. How could the officer know they were riding side by side unless one of the other kids said so.
By the time they got there, one kid was probably dead, another unconscious and one might be able to talk.
Everybody know when its rain you supposed to slow down at least 10 mph. Not going over it. Or did we skip that class.
If visibility was as poor as has been claimed there is no reason whatsoever she should have been driving faster than the speed limit. In fact its pretty much stated in every country in the world when conditions of visibility are bad you slow down and become even more cautious.
Shit I got pulled over once doing the speed limit in a huge storm and was given a warning by the cop telling me I needed to slow down for public safety.
Consider in her own admission she was driving beyond the speed limit and we are left to accept the speed she says she was doing there should have been charges on those grounds alone. You as the driver are responsible to be in full control of your car at all times.
Shit I got pulled over once doing the speed limit in a huge storm and was given a warning by the cop telling me I needed to slow down for public safety.
Consider in her own admission she was driving beyond the speed limit and we are left to accept the speed she says she was doing there should have been charges on those grounds alone. You as the driver are responsible to be in full control of your car at all times.
OrlanisWorks
Banned
I've seen a number of run-ins between cyclists and the police around where I live. Holy shit, are these cops bored and borderline useless. One girl got ~$500 ticket for riding her bicycle in the bike lane of the wrong side of the road. University campus police will stop you on your bicycle if you're riding it around campus (even on the roads where cars and trucks drive), even if it's on a weekend and the campus is deserted.
Yeah, gotta keep a keen eye out for every damn thing. And there absolutely are justifications for riding on the sidewalks. I avoid buses on thin roads using the sidewalk. Heavy traffic? Sidewalk. Friday night drunk drivers? Sidewalk.
TheRedSnifit
Member
I didn't know you were there.
This conspiracy theory nonsense has got to stop. If you have to fall back on "Everybody's lying", then you don't have an argument and shouldn't be posting. Seriously, how do you even know that they're "provably" in the same department?
Where does it say it was raining? You're literally just making stuff up as you go along.
I might be off here but one of the links says this happened north of Toronto, meanwhile the husband is a cop in New York. If that's the case I doubt anyone processing the evidence or filing the reports gives two shits about who he is.
You're out of control here. Perpetuating rumor and speculation.
The report about "they were riding side by side" was prepared by an independent investigation. They probably, you know, asked the surviving kids. Because they're competent investigators.
The "conditions of visibility being bad" were a quality of the bikers, not a quality of the road. It wasn't raining. This would be more productive if we had our facts straight.
There's four stories in the OP alone, most of which link out to another two or three. The OP itself is bad, contains speculation answered by sources he's linked.
"I'm not even sure if they called police or just left them there" actually the husband called the police
This one has the facts surrounded pretty well. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...-sued-by-motorist-for-her-pain-and-suffering/
*facepalm*
Well let just break it down shall we? One kid got enough injuries to die from it, so its safe to assume he probably was unconscious, another kid broke his pelvis among other serious injuries, so 50/50 he might be conscious, and the last one got off the easiest so he most likely would still be conscious.
And I said "probably" not definitely. He's a police officer, considering that they weren't from out of town, its safe to at least consider that it is his own police department.
The report that the road was wet, so unless someone been spraying the road for mile and mile. It probably was raining or at the very least rained recently.
Edit:
So he is station in York.. Which is Maine?
One of the article said he was in York Police Department.
But how can that be? I remember seeing one of the report saying that he drove her home... So unless home meant hotel room. How could he have drove her 6 hours from Toronto to New York. You can't exactly leave the country when you're involved in an accident.
TheRedSnifit
Member
50/50, eh? Did it occur to you that the investigators maybe - wait for it - asked them at the hospital?
You said "provably". Maybe it was a typo, but either way you shouldn't be making such bold claims when twenty seconds of Googling proves you wrong.
It could have rained two hours before the incident. You're yet again making serious accusations without any evidence to back them up.
http://bit.ly/1is4c70
1) sure they could have. But that's not the point, I merely provided that there was a possibility none of them or maybe one was conscious at the time.
2) well if probably isn't good enough for you, then what is? Sorry I don't know every single fact to this case. I put together what I know at the time and came to a guess.
3)
(i googled up York police department before and it pull up Maine and Pennsylvania as some of its first results, my bad if I don't know the entire geography of Canada)
- Status