From the it could always be worse department . . .
Uncategorized January 25th, 2008
Driver sues deceased cyclist for damage done to his car by cyclist’s body..
Oh did I mention the driver was doing 100 mph in a 55 zone when he hit the guy?
–Erik Ryberg
January 26th, 2008 at 8:44 am
In both the articles you posted today, this one and this one, the reporter makes a very specific point about the rider not wearing a helmet. In the Golden Gate article, it’s possible that the lack of a helmet made a difference, based soley on the article. However, in this case, how is it possible that a helmet makes a difference when being hit at 100mph?! How is it possible that the lack of reflective clothing impeded Delgado’s ability to stop in time at that speed? That is utterly and hilariously ridiculous.
Delgado’s inhuman callousness aside, I cannot imaging how his driving nearly twice the posted speed limit can ever equate to shared fault. Can you shed some light?
January 26th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I’m afraid I cannot shed any light on this. I agree that maybe the rider may have made a poor choice in riding without reflective clothing or lights, but that choice had little or nothing to do with his being struck and killed by a driver who was traveling 100 miles per hour.
I hope the Spanish courts turn around and see it the same way.
ER
January 28th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
No kidding! It’s a good bet that the kid made the choice to cross based on the assumption that the driver was travelling at a sane speed.
This is a little more extreem version of that hit-n-run victim in NYC getting ticketed for having no bell.