...and I spilled McDonald's coffee in my lap while doing so!

[TheBigMan045]

Whoa whoa whoa here, not to cause offense to Famine or anything but your missing a vital point 100MPH is speeding, so the kid misjudged his speed. But the 🤬 should still be liable for damages. he comitted Dangerous driving causing a fatality, but according to Famine (again no offence) if some kid jumped out in front of my car and died then i wouldnt sue the family damages, I wouldnt expect money, in fact i'd try and help them out. This 🤬 has to pull his own head out of a place where the sun don't shine and see that this family is grieving but its ok for his because he can get his Audi fixed for nothing. It just seems that everything revolves around money for this guy and its a shame a real shame. If he hadnt been doing 100mph ON A PUBLIC ROAD then this wouldnt of happened but it did so hes liable

 

[Famine]

Whoa whoa whoa here, not to cause offense to Famine or anything but your missing a vital point 100MPH is speeding

No, I quite clearly stated that:

All we know is that the driver was breaking an arbitrary law - the speed limit. We also know that had he been on an derestricted Autobahn he wouldn't have been breaking any law at all.

Note the additional point - 100mph might be speeding where the driver did the speed, but it's not automatically dangerous. Had it been a 20mph limit, you could argue that it's very dangerous, given the general location of 20mph limits, but it was a 50mph limit.

I recently returned from Iceland which has an upper road speed limit of 90km/h - 56mph. A lot of the roads with this limit resemble two lane German Autobahn and can be limited to 80, 70 and even 50km/h. It's legal and safe to do 155mph on a very similar road but illegal, for an entirely arbitrary reason, to do 155mph on that specific road - is it necessarily unsafe?


All that aside, the driver was clearly in the wrong because he was found 50% liable for the accident. The other 50% liability was with the other road user involved - the cyclist.

so the kid misjudged his speed.

I was taught to judge speed at 4, so I could safely cross roads. At 17 you can legally drive in most countries - an inability to judge speed could be catastrophic.

But the 🤬 should still be liable for damages.

He was. He was found 50% liable and the family of the child won $48,500 in damages.

The child is ALSO 50% liable, according to the courts.

If he hadnt been doing 100mph ON A PUBLIC ROAD then this wouldnt of happened

Unhelpful - if the kid hadn't ignored an instruction to give way to traffic on the major road, or worn something brighter, this wouldn't have happened.

But it did.

And BOTH parties broke the law and BOTH are liable for the accident that resulted.

 

[Joey D]

Famine speaks the truth, everyone automatically assumes the Audi drive is an asshat for collecting damages but none of us know the full story to what exactly happened. Also he wants he car fixed, at least he is going through legal means to collect...this is why we have court systems.

 

[Touring Mars]

Since both parties are to blame, both parties should be entitled to some form of compensation from the other, but that doesn't mean to say that the guy is any less of an asshat for driving at 100 mph on a public road... but that is a matter of personal opinion, and doesn't admonish the guy who died from all responsibility in the case... also, you've got to love the anti-Audi sentiment in the original article! As if that has anything to do with it whatsover!

 

[Pupik]

Note the additional point - 100mph might be speeding where the driver did the speed, but it's not automatically dangerous.

Isn't that why speeding laws were created in the first place? Perhaps all drivers aren't capable of dealing with outside phenomena while traveling at such speeds?

And why wouldn't an insurance company repair the damage; if it's a no-fault (or all-fault) accident, I suppose the law differs from land to land, but suing the family is a bit over the top even in these circumstances.

I also don't think the anti-Audi sentiment is a big deal; we'd probably find another way to thrash him regardless of make or model. Spite conforms to circumstances very nicely.

 

[exigeracer]

Whoah whoah whoah whoah, folks.

We're all assuming that the driver was at fault for the accident. The fact that the case has got this far would seem to cast doubt on that assumption - lawyers tend not to work cases they don't think have a chance of succeeding.

This is why I posted this:

What if it was the biker's fault for the incident? Would it be alright to seek compensation then?

Just a though.

 

[Alfaholic]

👍 to what Famine said. All of it (in this thread at least ).






Except:

call me odd, but I always assumed traffic on the major road had right of way, and traffic on the joining road had a responsibility to join appropriately

This is true in every country I've been in. But I remember being told by someone about their experience in some or other continental European country (I think it was a Scandinavean country but not sure) that he was confused there because their local law gives right of way to traffic in the minor road, so when travelling down a major road with junctions, you have to keep a lookout for cars flying out of side roads without slowing down. You could argue that this level of observation is good practice anyway, but there it's essential by law.

Please note I have not researched the validity of this claim.

Back to driver / guy on bike: If the bike crossed the road from a side street, any reflectors, if fitted on the bike, wouldn't have been visible to the Audi unless they were mounted sideways. Riding a bicycle at night with dark clothes, particularly if the bike has no active lighting, is quite frankly asking cars to drive into you without even hitting the brakes. It's common sense to do what you can to maximise your chances of survival. Even if this accident was completely the fault of the driver (which it wasn't), bright or reflective clothing might have saved the boy's life. Little use moaning and suing the driver afterwards. Laying blame doesn't make the kid any less dead.

Also, some of you are going on about the heartless driver... is he really any more heartless than the parents, who decided to make a profit from their child's death at the driver's expense even when the child was found to be partly to blame?

 

[Famine]

Isn't that why speeding laws were created in the first place? Perhaps all drivers aren't capable of dealing with outside phenomena while traveling at such speeds?

Who can say? I can't personally think of any argument which would convince me that 55mph is dangerous but 49mph is safe.

And why wouldn't an insurance company repair the damage; if it's a no-fault (or all-fault) accident, I suppose the law differs from land to land, but suing the family is a bit over the top even in these circumstances.

The family sued the driver...

The biggest insult in this is that the courts and insurers thought the kid's life was worth £25,000 - the average annual wage in the USA - not that the driver is seeking to recoup 50% of his costs from a party 50% responsible for the crash.


Jalopnik's reporting of this leaves a lot to be desired - to them the Audi driver is a KILLER. If that were true, the cyclist should be a SUICIDER, since they're both equally responsible for his death.

 

[Muzaffar]

Okay, after reading some of the thoughts from you guys and a better explanation of the story, I am truly sorry for that last post. Didn't knew that the kid actually moved onto the road when the driver hit the guy.....

But wow..... I mean winning the case by $48,500? I mean, either thats too little or too much (but to me, it could at least went up to 100k in compensation....) So really, why shouldn't this guy sue the family? But he probably just wants to settle the case and call it even. Doesn't really matter though, I guess things just happens and can't be avoided....

 

[Danoff]

If the blame is 50/50, then it seems each insurance company should take care of their own. Whatever car the guy was driving, I think the family of the boy and the boy himself has paid "enough" for his transgression. The part that really bothers people about this story is the notion that somehow the family has not be penalized sufficiently for a traffic accident. The fact that the kid died is simply not enough for this guy.

In my mind, that means he has an extremely low opinion of human life. So low that I'd worry about him being dangerous in the future. In the US, we have much stricter sentencing against people who demonstrate a low value for human life because it indicates that they might be a threat to society in the future.

Almost more than anything this guy is guilty of a lack of tact and compassion in a situation that obviously more than called for it.

 

[Famine]

If the blame is 50/50, then it seems each insurance company should take care of their own.

Cyclists are uninsured parties.


I'm not sure how it works in Spain - I'd assume that the insurance company would try to reclaim its costs in repairing the car from the at-fault parties. But in this case it seems that they haven't repaired the car and it's down to the guy. However you look at it, he's only half to blame for the accident and, presumably, is seeking the other half to fix his car.

In my mind, that means he has an extremely low opinion of human life. So low that I'd worry about him being dangerous in the future. In the US, we have much stricter sentencing against people who demonstrate a low value for human life because it indicates that they might be a threat to society in the future.

In the UK he'd probably get a driving ban but, unless he was wholly at fault for the accident, he wouldn't face a charge of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving (which can lead to a prison sentence).

 

[Danoff]

Cyclists are uninsured parties.

I guess that leaves the the boy to cover his half and the driver's insurance to cover his. Again, I'd think they should each take care of their own and be done with it.

 

[Famine]

Quite so - but both parties have seen fit to seek reparation from the other.

 

[Alfaholic]

The part that really bothers people about this story is the notion that somehow the family has not be penalized sufficiently for a traffic accident. The fact that the kid died is simply not enough for this guy.

Or:

The driver went through a lot too. Killing someone, even when it's not your fault or partly your fault, is traumatic. The train drivers here who hit the suiciders are themselves often ruined by the emotional impact. So the driver, after being put through this by someone who put themselves in front of him (the law said 50:50, but the driver could possibly feel less at fault than that) then gets sued for lots of money by the family, rubbing salt in the wound. He gets really upset by that and fights back as he feels the action against him is unjust or unfair.

That's an alternative viewpoint anyway. Yours could be right.

 

[OpheliaMontague]

Another article on the same story says the kid was wearing no protective gear and had no reflectors or lights.

The youth had been cycling alone at night without reflective clothing or a helmet, according to a police report cited by El Pais.

In that instance I'd say it really is his own fault that he go hit, but there's no way I can agree with suing his family for damaging the car. Especially 4 years later... this guy must be in desperate need of money if he's willing to sink so low. He already escaped any criminal charges for the accident, and his insurance covered the compensation.

 

[TheBigMan045]

In reponse to Famine isnt roads in which there is pedrestians usally limited in urban areas? (didnt have the full facts before i ranted. Sorry)

Seeing that he wasnt riding with reflectors or anything kinda does make it his fault.

 

[Famine]

Another article on the same story says the kid was wearing no protective gear and had no reflectors or lights.

In that instance I'd say it really is his own fault that he go hit, but there's no way I can agree with suing his family for damaging the car. Especially 4 years later... this guy must be in desperate need of money if he's willing to sink so low. He already escaped any criminal charges for the accident, and his insurance covered the compensation.

Nonetheless, the guy was only half to blame for the kid dying, and the insurers paid £25,000 to the kid (or rather his estate). The kid is half to blame for damaging the car...

In reponse to Famine isnt roads in which there is pedrestians usally limited in urban areas? (didnt have the full facts before i ranted. Sorry)

Seeing that he wasnt riding with reflectors or anything kinda does make it his fault.

Yes - in the UK a single-carriageway (one lane of traffic in each direction) roads are typically 60mph in "extra-urban" (away from house) environments, 40mph in semi-urban areas and 30mph in towns and cities. They may even be 20mph by schools and hospitals.

Which was something I find interesting - Iceland's dual carriageway (two lanes of traffic in each direction and separated by a barrier between the carriageways) roads have a maximum limit of 55mph (90km/h), yet I can drive faster, legally on a road one half the width without separation from cars coming in the opposite direction. And Germans can drive at limitless speed on roads which are identical to Iceland's 55mph roads.


All I'm trying to do is point out that speed is not necessarily linked to safety. Would the Germans have no upper limit on certain roads if it weren't safe to do so? So why would it automatically be unsafe to do the same speed on an identical road which has a limit?

100mph where the Audi driver did it isn't necessarily an unsafe speed, even though it's in a 50mph limit. On this occasion, it did prove to be unsafe as it was contributory to the accident (though had he been doing 125mph, he'd have passed the cyclist before he even pulled out) but it isn't automatically an unsafe speed because it's above the limit.


I have a friend whose job it is to drive at high speed on the road - speeds that'd make your eyes water and Det. Sgt. John Bunnell (Ret) blow a colon. He will say to you that if he felt, at any point, that it was unsafe to drive at that speed he wouldn't do it, because he also has a wife and kids and he'd like to see them at the end of his day. High speed is not automatically unsafe, even if it is above the speed limit.

 

[Alfaholic]

All I'm trying to do is point out that speed is not necessarily linked to safety. Would the Germans have no upper limit on certain roads if it weren't safe to do so? So why would it automatically be unsafe to do the same speed on an identical road which has a limit?

Because all other road users might be expecting you to be travelling at or around the posted limit, not twice as fast - assuming the majority of traffic on that road sticks to the limit, which is by no means a foregone conclusion. Maybe everyone does 100mph there. Anyway, if you're travelling much faster than the average motorist on that road, then other users are more likely to misjudge your speed and get in your way, especially at night when it's more difficult to judge how quickly a pair of headlights are approaching. Essentially, though, in this case it can be argued that it's the speed limit that makes the high speed dangerous (and even more so a very low speed), not really the speed of the vehicle in itself.

Generally speaking, the safest speed to be doing on any road is the same speed as the majority of traffic, regardless of what that speed is in relation to the speed limit, even if the majority are doing 250mph on slicks in a blizzard. It follows that the safest speed on a bicycle, assuming it was highly visible (bright reflective colours, lights, blah blah) to make up for its smaller cross section, on the same road in the same blizzard would also be 250mph. Good luck to the rider... most I ever got on a bicycle was around 60.

However, that's leaning more towards being pedantic, because I agree with your underlying point, and the point of your fast driving friend, that driving at high speed is not automatically unsafe. It's just a bit less safe than doing the same speed as everyone else because it gives others an excuse to get in your way.

 

[Joey D]

If people stuck with lane discipline then there really wouldn't be an issue with speeding, pass on the left and you are golden. In Michigan is common to travel near 100mph on the freeway, I find myself cruising at 90-95mph most of the time right along with 80% of the other drivers on the road. Speed in itself is not dangerous, it's the reckless use of it by weaving around cars, tailgating, etc. is.

 

[Danoff]

The driver dropped the case:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/30/spain.luxury.car/index.html

The family is attempting to rekindle the notion of criminal charges.

 

[superberkut]

Well, the notion of pursuing criminal charges may lead to a bad end if the family fails to get the money. It still seems (in my opinion) that the businessman has not learned enough about the real effects of showing such 'callousness' (I emphasize the quotations) to an incident in which he shares some blame, unless some transactions are involved. Given the propensity for some courts to show inconsistency (Kurt Cobain's murder, O.J. Simpson), the matter is indeed far from over.

I'm glad that the original case has been dropped, however.

 

[TheBigMan045]

Common sense has prevailed again

 

[Eric.]

What on earth does this guy has for a brain?

I think he haz cheezburger for brain.


The fact that the douche in the Audi was speeding negates any way that the kid could have been at-fault.

 

[Muzaffar]

Meh, its a good thing he dropped the case. I can't think how he would win a case which he had a 50% involvement in the accident. The parents in their own right to rekindle the criminal charges against him. I guess he got some common sense in him after all...... But still, like the kids father said:

"This is just the beginning"

 

[Famine]

The fact that the douche in the Audi was speeding negates any way that the kid could have been at-fault.

The fact that the kid was cycling in the dark with no lights, dark clothing and no helmet negates any way that the driver could have been at-fault.

Oh, wait, no. They're each 50% to blame.

Meh, its a good thing he dropped the case. I can't think how he would win a case which he had a 50% involvement in the accident.

The parents did.