Printable View
The people investigating it clearly do not think it's a crime otherwise she would be in prison. Also love how you're completely forgetting what @subo; posted about the accident being unavoidable. Can't be bothered to discuss this anymore as it's going off trackQuote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
wat r u going on about her not using headlights for and having a fear of night driving
the case was reviewed and she wasnt at fault. so no not "3 key issues against 1 against the cyclists" u r just making stuff up in ur head :S
ive been driving on the uni campus on a wet night and ppl have crossed the road in front of me and ive literally not even been able to see them because of the headlights and rain causing a refelection/sparkle on the windscreen... and this is a well lit road im talking about. i didnt see them stood in the middle of the road til they were on my right through my driver side window and it scared the **** out of me
Not all crimes are punished with imprisonment... In this instance, she was likely to have received a $1,000 fine and a 12-month driving prohibition. Most crimes are punished with it, but not all of them. Also, article @subo didn't post an article as far as I can find, other than a small quote about accident reconstruction which does not negate liability. In a real article:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Don
Telegraph: She admits she was speeding
She cannot pull the negligence card because she was grossly negligent (she killed someone). Not taking due care and attention on the road by speeding, which she ought to know better if she can't control a vehicle at night, is negligent. Calling the cyclists negligent simply will not work in this instance, because maybe if she wasn't negligent herself by thinking it wise to speed then maybe the boy would have survived. There are rumours she may have also have been under the influence of alcohol and/or been on her mobile phone.
You could just alter your headlights, which is what you're meant to do. Also, does your car not have wipers? They're good at removing water from the windscreen.Quote:
Originally Posted by subo
EDIT: Apparently the police let her go and it looks like everyone treated it as a horrific accident, which seems about right since the boys should have worn the right clothing (though not necessary, it is hugely recommended) and it wasn't on purpose. It's a shame she thinks it is wise to go on the offensive and reopen the wounds by going after some money from the families.
lol dont patronise me obviously i had wipers on y do u just make stuff up and assume all the time :SQuote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
uve done it again in ur post still going on about her not being able to control a car?? wat r u talking about??
u just guess all the time and fantasise wat u want to hear?? maybe u are skitz just a thought
ur wrong ALL the time its kind of weird. how can the cyclists not be negligent.. maybe if he wasnt cycling on the road at 1am without the correct reflective she wouldve actually seen him despite her speeding by 6pm, no??
all u have is that she was speeding by 6mph. yet if u searched that quote in google u would find it linked to countless articles and if u read it u would see that the police report stated AN EVASIVE REACTION TO AVOID THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT POSSIBLE meaning that she couldnt have helped the issue and the cause of the accident lies with the boys because they were not visible. therefore its not her fault
:S :S :S :S
.
10mph is the difference between 80% chance of living and 70% chance of death.
Even if for whatever reason they found the accident wasn't possible to evade, it could certainly have had a completely different turn out had she not been speeding. If what Gomme said regarding phone/DUI then in my view she's entirely to blame.
So why was their rain on your windscreen? The fact you missed these people shows you clearly are competent when driving so it seemed pointless adding what you did.Quote:
Originally Posted by subo
Where did I say they weren't negligent? Maybe if you learnt to read better than you can write you may actually understand the argument :rolleyes: Her calling them negligent won't hold since maybe if she wasn't speeding and had control of the car she may have not caused the accident.The article you quoted even hints at this. The article even mentions how there are many unsolved mysteries - why was she being followed home by her husband? Why didn't she observe basic driving rules of going slower if she couldn't see? It's what you're meant to do since driving holds so many risks. There's the belief she was texting at the time.
Where am I wrong ALL the time? You just post "you're wrong" and leave, but given how you write and resort to calling people "skitz" shows that maybe talking to you is a waste of time since, well, you're clearly a rude and obnoxious, ignorant child.
Again, it was a tragic accident. The boys were reckless not wearing the right stuff, but they did have the minimum reflective bars on their bikes.
"y was there rain on ur windscreen" jesus christQuote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
no no no she hit them because she couldnt see them not because she was speeding. she couldnt see them because they werent wearing the correct gear it really is as simple as that and the 26 page police report confirms that! ur wild imagination and theorizing isnt gna cut it, BYE!
Bye then, we'd just keep discussing without you :SQuote:
Originally Posted by subo
-------------
It does seem dodgy how she was being followed by her husband. All these articles just make it completely difficult to understand what happened. The fact headlights are there to provide visibility and somehow in this instance they couldn't seems weird. If she was suffering from poor visibility the general practice is to slow down, seeing as you never know who you could hit.
disgusting. It sounds like both parties were at fault but surely she could do the right thing and let the family grieve. She sounds like she's just trying to cash in on it
Idiot of a woman.
She may have had time to react if she hadn't been speeding, as you would've seen cyclists in front of you and would have time to react. No question about it, the cyclists were not at fault for this regardless of deaths.
If you have poor visibility, you slow down to 15-20mph (least I do). The woman will be taken to the cleaners and forced to pay all the bills of the family she's taking to court, and although I feel for her as she's been through something traumatic herself (killing somebody is a big thing), she would likely get her just desserts.
Accidents can always be prevented somewhere down the line, like if she was driving slowly. My opinion is that reconstruction sounds a little flawed.
But nah, not the cyclists fault. People forget that the car would likely be heard by cyclists before it hit them, especially if it was travelling fast, but might be it was going so fast they didn't have time to react. Poor driver for not allowing the cyclists to react to a car coming behind them. Shame on them lol.