Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Driver suing teenager she struck and killed

57 replies to this topic
Andreaz1
  • Andreaz1

    ♪ Anything 80's ♫

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2010
  • Sweden
  • Helpfulness Award

#1

Posted 28 April 2014 - 10:30 PM

I'm not generally one for posting topics but this was too stupid to ignore. Not going to quote the whole story here, have a look at these links:

http://www.mirror.co...es-dead-3466633

http://www.independe...ma-9292104.html

TLDR: A woman who is speeding in her SUV in bad weather hits three teenagers on their bicycles. The impact kills 17-year-old Brandon Majewski, and leaves his two friends Richard McClean and Jake Roberts seriously injured and with sustained scratches, respectively. She now claims they were "incompetent bicyclists" and is now SUING the dead boy's parents and - dead - brother for $1.35 million for the "emotional trauma" that this event caused HER over the last two years since it happened.

If this was April Fool's Day I would have thought this was some sort of joke but I don't even know what to think right now. It is so stupid even contemplating that this is really happening makes my brain want to shrivel up and die, I can't believe it.

Governator
  • Governator

    Thompson Terminator

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#2

Posted 28 April 2014 - 10:33 PM

The world's going to sh*t. This is why I don't visit this section very often, because I get angry and depressed :)
  • DarrinPA, Killzone3265 and xVampire Fangx like this

gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#3

Posted 28 April 2014 - 10:53 PM

You gotta be kidding me. I didn't even know you could sue a dead person. I hope after this crazy wench loses she ends up flat broke because of the Lawyer fees. I would be quite happy seeing her in a one room tenement eating Ramen and drinking rain water from the gutter. because that's what she is trying to do to the family who LOST THEIR SON!

 

What a greedy c*nt. I'm sick of these "File a lawsuit and get rich quick" schemes popping up everywhere. And quite frankly its the late night TV ad lawyers who are almost every-bit to blame as their clients. 

  • Killzone3265, xVampire Fangx and IVIechanomics like this

Brown Sugar
  • Brown Sugar

    turnt up

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2010
  • Ethiopia

#4

Posted 28 April 2014 - 11:04 PM

What a self centered, greedy c*nt.

  • xVampire Fangx likes this

universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    Traum - Tagtraum - Am Fenster

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States
  • Best Workshop 2014
    Most Improved 2014
    Funniest Member 2014
    April Fools Winner 2015

#5

Posted 28 April 2014 - 11:05 PM Edited by universetwisters, 28 April 2014 - 11:06 PM.

People are f*cking stupid.

 

 

I don't even have to elaborate on that.

 

 

PS, Speaking of which, did you know in Japan, if you commit suicide by jumping in front of a train, the railroad sues your family? Yeah.

  • gtamann123 and xVampire Fangx like this

Max
  • Max

    The Port Vila Killa.

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2009
  • Vanuatu
  • Contribution Award [Sports]

#6

Posted 28 April 2014 - 11:09 PM

What a disgusting thing to do, but I sincerely doubt she'll win. At least I hope.
  • xVampire Fangx likes this

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • None
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#7

Posted 28 April 2014 - 11:23 PM Edited by Raavi, 28 April 2014 - 11:23 PM.

It's a cooping mechanism. If she were to win, which there is no way in hell she will, she would not only have a sack of money but also a sense of justification that in her twisted way of thinking would absolve her at least partially of what she did. Because it wasn't her fault, no the kids didn't ride their bikes properly. It's twisted but not unique. There are similar cases where killers end up suing the victims's family.

  • xVampire Fangx and IVIechanomics like this

gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#8

Posted 28 April 2014 - 11:30 PM

People are f*cking stupid.

 

 

I don't even have to elaborate on that.

 

 

PS, Speaking of which, did you know in Japan, if you commit suicide by jumping in front of a train, the railroad sues your family? Yeah.

I have heard of that before. Quite f*cked up if you ask me but I also heard Suicide by rail was a big problem in japan or other parts of the world where firearms aren't readily available. So I imagine that the Railroads are sick of having to clean up the mess afterwards. 

 

It's a cooping mechanism. If she were to win, which there is no way in hell she will, she would not only have a sack of money but also a sense of justification that in her twisted way of thinking would absolve her at least partially of what she did. Because it wasn't her fault, no the kids didn't ride their bikes properly. It's twisted but not unique. There are similar cases where killers end up suing the victims's family.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. Not only will she be rich she will also be in the right and never have to feel bad or worry about being judged or demonized because the courts upheld her end of the story! Because that's totally how it works!   :whistle:

  • xVampire Fangx likes this

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Tokel. Never forget.

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#9

Posted 28 April 2014 - 11:37 PM Edited by The Yokel, 28 April 2014 - 11:38 PM.

It's a cooping mechanism. If she were to win, which there is no way in hell she will, she would not only have a sack of money but also a sense of justification that in her twisted way of thinking would absolve her at least partially of what she did. Because it wasn't her fault, no the kids didn't ride their bikes properly. It's twisted but not unique. There are similar cases where killers end up suing the victims's family.

Could be. But I don't think she's traumatized at all. In fact, if this was her idea then she might be a psychopath. A natural human response in a situation like this would be empathy. If she feels emotionally traumatized then she should be able to empathize with the parents. Any normal person would. But instead she's using the tragedy that she caused to make a quick buck in the worst way you could imagine. Another possibility is that someone else convinced her to do this. In that case she's just dumb as a box of rocks.

  • xVampire Fangx likes this

GN 1992
  • GN 1992

    aka gnad.1992

  • GTAF Crew
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2014
  • Brazil
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#10

Posted 28 April 2014 - 11:39 PM

What a f*cking c*nt.

 

She's the one who should be dead.

  • matajuegos01, xVampire Fangx and THE GHETTO JEZUS like this

Josh
  • Josh

    I'm sitting in the middle waiting

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2010
  • None

#11

Posted 28 April 2014 - 11:45 PM

What a disgusting thing to do, but I sincerely doubt she'll win. At least I hope.

She won't win. She admitted to speeding in poor weather conditions, and there are precedents (albeit in America and not in Canada) where people have sued the families of children that they've killed whilst speeding and it's been thrown out of court. I would presume that the same thing would happen in this case.

 

As Raavi said, it's about absolving herself of personal responsibility, as it's a response to her being sued herself by the child's family as far as I can tell. She probably isn't doing this for the money (although of course that would be another upside) but mainly for the peace of mind that a judgment in her favour would bring.

 

I have heard of that before. Quite f*cked up if you ask me but I also heard Suicide by rail was a big problem in japan or other parts of the world where firearms aren't readily available. So I imagine that the Railroads are sick of having to clean up the mess afterwards. 

In Japan the railways work incredibly efficiently and so even a dealy of 10 seconds can cause passengers to miss connections and so on. I don't think it's unreasonable of the railway system to sue for the distress caused to the driver and cleaners (who may have had to undergo therapy) and for the disruption to the schedule.

 

As an aside I recently missed an appointment because of a suicide on the tube, costing me £75. I don't mind if people want to end their lives but I don't think it's at all necessary to inconvenience others with your suicide.

  • gtamann123 and xVampire Fangx like this

Killerdude
  • Killerdude

    And Remember, Respect is Everything!

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Canada

#12

Posted 28 April 2014 - 11:47 PM

People are f*cking stupid.
 
 
I don't even have to elaborate on that.
 
 
PS, Speaking of which, did you know in Japan, if you commit suicide by jumping in front of a train, the railroad sues your family? Yeah.

Dunno, makes sense, if you're gonna off yourself, have the decency to do it in a way that's easy for people to deal with you.
Gonna blow your brains out? Do it in the bathtub, easier to clean.
Don't have a gun? Don't ruin some poor engineers day by getting splattered on a train.

universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    Traum - Tagtraum - Am Fenster

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States
  • Best Workshop 2014
    Most Improved 2014
    Funniest Member 2014
    April Fools Winner 2015

#13

Posted 29 April 2014 - 12:03 AM

 

People are f*cking stupid.

 

 

I don't even have to elaborate on that.

 

 

PS, Speaking of which, did you know in Japan, if you commit suicide by jumping in front of a train, the railroad sues your family? Yeah.

I have heard of that before. Quite f*cked up if you ask me but I also heard Suicide by rail was a big problem in japan or other parts of the world where firearms aren't readily available. So I imagine that the Railroads are sick of having to clean up the mess afterwards. 

 

It's not that much of a deterrent, though. If anything, it's an enabler if you're committing suicide because of your family.


Eris
  • Eris

    Ghetto Star

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2013
  • None

#14

Posted 29 April 2014 - 12:09 AM

 

 

People are f*cking stupid.

 

 

I don't even have to elaborate on that.

 

 

PS, Speaking of which, did you know in Japan, if you commit suicide by jumping in front of a train, the railroad sues your family? Yeah.

I have heard of that before. Quite f*cked up if you ask me but I also heard Suicide by rail was a big problem in japan or other parts of the world where firearms aren't readily available. So I imagine that the Railroads are sick of having to clean up the mess afterwards. 

 

It's not that much of a deterrent, though. If anything, it's an enabler if you're committing suicide because of your family.

 

In Japanese culture, honor is very important. Most people don't want to shame their family.


Josh
  • Josh

    I'm sitting in the middle waiting

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2010
  • None

#15

Posted 29 April 2014 - 12:19 AM Edited by Josh, 29 April 2014 - 12:20 AM.

It's not that much of a deterrent, though. If anything, it's an enabler if you're committing suicide because of your family.

 

I don't think it's designed to be a deterrent to be honest, more likely to recoup the money spent on cleaning you off of the railway equipment and the money that was lost through you disrupting the service by turning yourself into jam.

 

And call me crazy but I don't think anyone in Japan has ever been persuaded to jump in front of a train over taking an overdose or hanging themself because of the fact that their families will be sued. Although obviously there are no stats for that...

 

If anything the main deterrent to suicide by rail in Japan is that insurance companies may not pay out in the event of your death like they would with other types of suicide...

 

In Japanese culture, honor is very important. Most people don't want to shame their family.

 

Japan has a huge number of suicides each year partially down to the exact opposite of that. Suicide is often still thought to be an honourable death, and due to the high pressures that many men (responsible for 71% of suicides in Japan) live under, suicide is much more prevalent than in Western industrialised nations.


AceRay
  • AceRay

    In my restless dreams, I see that town...

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2010

#16

Posted 29 April 2014 - 12:25 AM

Just so you know, the family originally tried to sue Simon for hitting the kid, when it was really their negligence that allowed the boy to go out riding at 1am. Its a counter-sue. Trust the media to fictionalize a story to provoke an emotional response


universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    Traum - Tagtraum - Am Fenster

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States
  • Best Workshop 2014
    Most Improved 2014
    Funniest Member 2014
    April Fools Winner 2015

#17

Posted 29 April 2014 - 12:36 AM

 

It's not that much of a deterrent, though. If anything, it's an enabler if you're committing suicide because of your family.

 

I don't think it's designed to be a deterrent to be honest, more likely to recoup the money spent on cleaning you off of the railway equipment and the money that was lost through you disrupting the service by turning yourself into jam.

 

And call me crazy but I don't think anyone in Japan has ever been persuaded to jump in front of a train over taking an overdose or hanging themself because of the fact that their families will be sued. Although obviously there are no stats for that...

 

If anything the main deterrent to suicide by rail in Japan is that insurance companies may not pay out in the event of your death like they would with other types of suicide...

 

I think they might have a similar policy in Germany, seeing as a lot of people use the train as public transportation. It's kinda a stupid way to kill yourself, seeing as you have to sit there and wait for a train to come by. 

  • xVampire Fangx likes this

Eris
  • Eris

    Ghetto Star

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2013
  • None

#18

Posted 29 April 2014 - 12:39 AM

 

Japan has a huge number of suicides each year partially down to the exact opposite of that. Suicide is often still thought to be an honourable death, and due to the high pressures that many men (responsible for 71% of suicides in Japan) live under, suicide is much more prevalent than in Western industrialised nations.

 

That wasn't my point though. If they commit suicide by jumping in front of a train. their families are sued. No one wants their family to be sued a large amount of money because of their actions, especially right after their deaths. 

  • xVampire Fangx likes this

gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#19

Posted 29 April 2014 - 12:39 AM

 

 

It's not that much of a deterrent, though. If anything, it's an enabler if you're committing suicide because of your family.

 

I don't think it's designed to be a deterrent to be honest, more likely to recoup the money spent on cleaning you off of the railway equipment and the money that was lost through you disrupting the service by turning yourself into jam.

 

And call me crazy but I don't think anyone in Japan has ever been persuaded to jump in front of a train over taking an overdose or hanging themself because of the fact that their families will be sued. Although obviously there are no stats for that...

 

If anything the main deterrent to suicide by rail in Japan is that insurance companies may not pay out in the event of your death like they would with other types of suicide...

 

I think they might have a similar policy in Germany, seeing as a lot of people use the train as public transportation. It's kinda a stupid way to kill yourself, seeing as you have to sit there and wait for a train to come by. 

 

It's probably the quickest and easiest way of doing it though seeing as guns are pretty much out of the question for most people. 

 

OT: I'm surprised this is in Canada. Sounds like something that would happen here. In the land of everyone constantly suing everyone over everything. 

  • xVampire Fangx likes this

universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    Traum - Tagtraum - Am Fenster

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States
  • Best Workshop 2014
    Most Improved 2014
    Funniest Member 2014
    April Fools Winner 2015

#20

Posted 29 April 2014 - 12:49 AM

 

 

 

It's not that much of a deterrent, though. If anything, it's an enabler if you're committing suicide because of your family.

 

I don't think it's designed to be a deterrent to be honest, more likely to recoup the money spent on cleaning you off of the railway equipment and the money that was lost through you disrupting the service by turning yourself into jam.

 

And call me crazy but I don't think anyone in Japan has ever been persuaded to jump in front of a train over taking an overdose or hanging themself because of the fact that their families will be sued. Although obviously there are no stats for that...

 

If anything the main deterrent to suicide by rail in Japan is that insurance companies may not pay out in the event of your death like they would with other types of suicide...

 

I think they might have a similar policy in Germany, seeing as a lot of people use the train as public transportation. It's kinda a stupid way to kill yourself, seeing as you have to sit there and wait for a train to come by. 

 

It's probably the quickest and easiest way of doing it though seeing as guns are pretty much out of the question for most people. 

 

 

There's rat poison, nooses, doing a sprint through rush hour traffic, getting into enough trouble to warrant the police shooting you, etc.

 

I think the worst part about those who end up committing suicide is that they don't use their imagination enough.


gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#21

Posted 29 April 2014 - 12:53 AM Edited by gtamann123, 29 April 2014 - 12:53 AM.

But methods like that are generally thought of as taking longer, being more painful, and being less effective. Not to mention drawing attention for the traffic one. Take it from someone who has attempted before. Even as a little kid I wanted to use a method that was the quickest and the most painless. And for people with no Firearms a bullet train seems the most effective.

 

Lets get back on topic though dude. 


Josh
  • Josh

    I'm sitting in the middle waiting

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2010
  • None

#22

Posted 29 April 2014 - 02:38 AM


That wasn't my point though. If they commit suicide by jumping in front of a train. their families are sued. No one wants their family to be sued a large amount of money because of their actions, especially right after their deaths. 

Well the statistics show that it really doesn't matter. People still commit suicide using trains in spite of the fact that they know that their family is going to get sued. So honour doesn't really factor into the matter.

 

I think they might have a similar policy in Germany, seeing as a lot of people use the train as public transportation. It's kinda a stupid way to kill yourself, seeing as you have to sit there and wait for a train to come by. 

I agree that it would probably be a sensible way to go about things in all countries.

 

Just so you know, the family originally tried to sue Simon for hitting the kid, when it was really their negligence that allowed the boy to go out riding at 1am. Its a counter-sue. Trust the media to fictionalize a story to provoke an emotional response

It's not fictionalised in any way. The Independent's article mentions the fact that the family sued her first.

 

Also, what a fantastic job of blaming the victim you've done there. If I want to use the roads as a pedestrian, cyclist or driver in a manner which is within the law it should not matter what time it is (and it doesn't in the law).

 

You can blame the people that were using the road lawfully (they were wearing reflective clothing), or by the same token you can choose to blame the woman who was over the speed limit in poor weather conditions at 1AM -- I know who I'd choose to blame, and I know whose side the courts will come down on.

  • gtamann123 likes this

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#23

Posted 29 April 2014 - 02:43 AM

Some people appear to actually think that a bicycle has the "Right of Way" and the operator can do not wrong.
You've never been driving with a cyclist weaving all over the traffic lane, riding against the traffic flow, or riding hell-bent for leather down a sidewalk?
How about not having the required (in my area) light or reflector on the non-existent rear fender? Nor a headlamp at night?

Just because a person died doesn't mitigate culpability, if one exists.
And that dear children is the venue of the legal system.
So, let us see what the court thinks about it.
  • xVampire Fangx likes this

Josh
  • Josh

    I'm sitting in the middle waiting

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2010
  • None

#24

Posted 29 April 2014 - 03:04 AM

Some people appear to actually think that a bicycle has the "Right of Way" and the operator can do not wrong.
You've never been driving with a cyclist weaving all over the traffic lane, riding against the traffic flow, or riding hell-bent for leather down a sidewalk?
How about not having the required (in my area) light or reflector on the non-existent rear fender? Nor a headlamp at night?

Just because a person died doesn't mitigate culpability, if one exists.
And that dear children is the venue of the legal system.
So, let us see what the court thinks about it.


OK then I'll go through your post. In many cases cyclists do have right of way and should be afforded the same protection as motorised vehicles (like for example not being rear-ended by a speeding car whilst lawfully coming back from the shops)...
 
How are any of those factors relevant in this case? The cyclists weren't riding on a 'sidewalk', nor were they weaving (I assume that would've been brought up in the suit) and they definitely weren't riding against traffic flow.
 
Again, all irrelevant in the case at hand. The boys were wearing reflectors and their lights complied with the law.
 
I assume that in this case with the circumstances being as they are, there is not enough evidence for a criminal case against the driver -- but she should be liable in a civil court for damages and her countersuit should be thrown out.
 

Also:
 

OT: I'm surprised this is in Canada. Sounds like something that would happen here. In the land of everyone constantly suing everyone over everything.

It's already happened in the USA (link). Unsurprisingly this one was thrown out of court.

  • xVampire Fangx likes this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#25

Posted 29 April 2014 - 03:24 AM

The world's going to sh*t. This is why I don't visit this section very often, because I get angry and depressed :)

relax.

 

the world is not going to sh*t, just the USA.


gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#26

Posted 29 April 2014 - 03:26 AM

Well this particular case is in Canada. Close but not the same. And if the US goes down the drain completely it would drag a good portion of the world pretty deep as well.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#27

Posted 29 April 2014 - 03:27 AM

it's in Canada?

I saw frivolous lawsuit and assumed US...

  • gtamann123 and Killerdude like this

WTFThisIsntWii
  • WTFThisIsntWii

    Twerk Team

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2014
  • Australia

#28

Posted 29 April 2014 - 03:36 AM

Some people appear to actually think that a bicycle has the "Right of Way" and the operator can do not wrong.
You've never been driving with a cyclist weaving all over the traffic lane, riding against the traffic flow, or riding hell-bent for leather down a sidewalk?
How about not having the required (in my area) light or reflector on the non-existent rear fender? Nor a headlamp at night?

Just because a person died doesn't mitigate culpability, if one exists.
And that dear children is the venue of the legal system.
So, let us see what the court thinks about it.

.

If a cyclist is swerving all over the place and ride in front of you at the last second and you can't reasonably stop in time then it's not your fault.

The difference here is that the woman speeding in bad weather. She's already driving dangerously and illegally. She may of been able to avoid the accident if she was going at the speed limit or below due to bad weather means less visibility. So the blames entirely on her. It also appears the kids weren't being erratic.

Up to some extent if a cyclist isn't wearing reflective vests or lights it's there fault. If your following the law and they cut in front of you in dark clothing. But when it involves a vehicle driving recklessly then it's always the drivers fault. Negligent driving.
  • xVampire Fangx likes this

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#29

Posted 29 April 2014 - 03:54 AM

So, let us see what the court thinks about it.

.

The difference here is that the woman speeding in bad weather. She's already driving dangerously and illegally. She may [have] been able to avoid the accident if she was going at the speed limit or below due to bad weather means less visibility. So the blames entirely on her. It also appears the kids weren't being erratic.
Up to some extent if a cyclist isn't wearing reflective vests or lights it's [their] fault. If [you're] following the law and they cut in front of you in dark clothing. But when it involves a vehicle driving recklessly then it's always the drivers fault. Negligent driving.

You can be surprised at what comes out during trial. In our area driving the speed limit is for "Ideal Conditions", that is you may not drive the speed limit in hazardous weather/road conditions.
  • xVampire Fangx likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    The Wolf Hunger Rises

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#30

Posted 29 April 2014 - 08:43 AM

So, let us see what the court thinks about it.

.

The difference here is that the woman speeding in bad weather. She's already driving dangerously and illegally. She may [have] been able to avoid the accident if she was going at the speed limit or below due to bad weather means less visibility. So the blames entirely on her. It also appears the kids weren't being erratic.
Up to some extent if a cyclist isn't wearing reflective vests or lights it's [their] fault. If [you're] following the law and they cut in front of you in dark clothing. But when it involves a vehicle driving recklessly then it's always the drivers fault. Negligent driving.
You can be surprised at what comes out during trial. In our area driving the speed limit is for "Ideal Conditions", that is you may not drive the speed limit in hazardous weather/road conditions.

That's not at all surprising to anyone with a driving licence from a country where the test doesn't involve a bribe. In exceptionally poor weather the safe travel speed is usually significantly under the legal limit. Doing 70 on an NSL dual carriageway with driving rain and 2" of standing water is as clear cut a case of dangerous driving as exists, and doing 60 on an NSL country road with dense fog and visibility below 50m is basically suicide.

In the UK there exists a specifically listed criteria in all dangerous and careless driving legislation- "driving too fast for the conditions".

The whole thing brings to mind a recent incident in the UK involving a multi-car pile-up on the M5 in Somerset. Seven killed, multiple injuries. Initially reported as dense fog but then some of the involved parties started claiming that smoke from a fireworks display drifted over the carriageway and obscured vision. The guy who organised the display gets charged with manslaughter but the case is dropped for lack of evidence. Gets charged with breaches in health and safety law and is found not guilty by a court. There's an inquest that has basically completely absolved him of any blame and so far seems to suggest that it was simply a case of drivers going too fast for conditions and failing to maintain sufficient gaps to enable a safe emergency stop. They've basically ruined a guy's life by charging him twice and trying him once on the basis of people trying to absolve themselves of blame after driving irresponsibly. Utterly absurd.
  • Josh likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users