In Memoriam Johnny Gaudreau & Matthew Gaudreau killed by drunk driver while cycling (MOD WARNING. No Flaming, Trolling, or Politics.)

[GirardSpinorama]

I see you are getting flamed already, but I thought I'd chime on this as I am a cyclist and I had a similar thought process after I heard what happened to Johnny Hockey.

From my house to the train station, it's a 2 hour walk, or 20 minutes bike ride. A good chunk of that ride is a rural road.

When I come back from Montreal past 9PM, there is no bus option anymore from the train to "nearish" my house, so I bike. I have strong lights on my bike, but it's true that there are different dangers, not just cars. I always bike really slow when on that dark road since I fell (in daylight) because I didn't brake fast enough to avoid a crack in the road. It's too narrow and cars often go at 80+ in this 50 km/h zone.

This terrible news today makes me question this bike ride in the future. Roads aren't safe enough the way they are made for bikers at night on country roads. It should be, but it just isn't. I might spend the 15$ for the taxi ride next time, even though I try biking as often as I can.

It should be the other way around. Dangerous drivers should be the ones spending 15$ everytime they take that road, since they are the ones making it more dangerous.

The risk is even worse for a pedestrian, since they don't have lights most of the time and their ride is way longer, so they meet more cars on the same ride.

Yup. But for my personal safety, i would definitely take taxi. That 15 dollars isnt worth my life.

 

[Empoleon8771]

That's not the lesson here. This is the same as "she was asking for it" because of the clothes she was wearing.

The lesson is that we have to fight harder for stricter laws and penalties for those who endanger others with their motor vehicles.

What's next? Are you going to say that kids should opt for home schooling so they don't get killed by school shooters?

Again, more idealism while ignoring pragmatism. Realizing the risks that come with everyday events and looking for ways to mitigate those risks is in no way, shape or form saying "she was asking for it".

If you want to bike safely, the pragmatically best way to do that is to bike where there aren't cars. That's not victim blaming, that's just a factual statement.

 

[Sol]

What the f*** man?. That’s awful. So f***ing young.

 

[tarheelhockey]

So you just don't understand what the word implicit means then?

View attachment 904063

Except that there have now been several clarifications that the comment was explicit and to be taken at face value.

If you’re not willing to accept that, it’s a matter of putting words in my mouth and I can’t help you with that.

 

[AKL]

Eh as a frequent pedestrian around cities, cyclists absolutely can be a menace given that some of them buzz along at speeds close to vehicle traffic. If a cyclist hit a 4 year old on a sidewalk, the comments would go in the completely opposite direction. When a cyclist gets hit on the road, we can go "well if only there was a sidewalk", if a pedestrian gets hit on a sidewalk, well they've got nowhere else to go.

Which is why we need better infrastructure to support cars, bikes and pedestrians. But that may or may not ever come, and there's no telling how quickly it'll happen, which means, in the meantime, everybody should be taking extra precautions to protect themselves as much as they realistically can, with the understanding that there are people out there who won't take any precautions to protect others at all. It's the same concept behind the defensive driving methods they teach you in driving school. They teach you those because there are inevitably threats to your life and safety out there that you can't get rid of, but following those measures can help you lower your risk.

 

[Incognito]

Absolutely tragic. Deepest condolences to the Gaudreau family.

There’s a special place in hell for drunk drivers. It’s the absolute pinnacle of villainous selfishness and entitlement.

 

[Youngguns1380]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1829552331387764934

 

[King'sPawn]

Do you not see the inherent contradiction here in your first sentence?

It's putting the focus on the legal activity the two dead young men were engaged in and not the illegal, dangerous, and lethal activities of the driver. The goal should be to keep drivers from killing and injuring people.

And as someone who bikes frequently, TRUST ME no cyclists needs a lesson in how dangerous drivers are. But some of us choose to live our lives and do something we legally enjoy in as safe a manner as possible.

For what it's worth, know I'm with you on this.

To try and clarify what I THINK some others are trying to say, though - I listen to a few true crime podcasts and one host is a former detective named Paul Holes. He brought up a salient point that muddies these discussions sometimes. It's the importance of conducting risk assessment to improve survivability chances, even though sometimes people step over and make it sound like victim blaming.

I haven't read all of the thread, so I'm sure I missed out on some comments. But hopefully the reasonable people can acknowledge the blame goes on the drunk driver. And, ultimately, the Gaudreaus are victims of that drunk driving.

I also want to minimize the risk of future bicyclists, like you and others, by emphasizing steps that can be taken to improve your chances. I believe you know those steps. But others may not. And even if none of the precautionary steps are taken, let's be clear it's still the drunk driver's fault.

Hopefully that makes sense. And hopefully that helps some who were trying to make the distinction but struggling to find the words.

 

[ZachaFlockaFlame]

I also updated my initial post with an example below my first paragraph from your thinking of taking an Uber home after 1 drink.

Regarding this, I'm not necessarily against this. My only issue would be what happens if the car for some reason flags you as having had alcohol when you didn't at all? And some people take mouthwash that has traces of alcohol in it, what happens in a situation like that?

There obviously has to be some common sense in installing something like this but it's still a solution. You can't just brush something aside is my point as "well it's gonna happen, so why bother" type of thing

 

[WillTheThrill]

Can the people who obviously witnessed the event please post any photos or videos.

In life, unless you witness something? There is no absolutes.
.

We have witness and police statements shared in this thread and you're asking for photos and videos? Seek help

 

[ZachaFlockaFlame]

Not easy to start the car even if you were sober but I understand where you're getting at

I mean, fair lol, but at the end of the day we have to realize that cars are heaping dangerous pieces of metal

 

[Youngguns1380]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1829527954164240505

 

[tarheelhockey]

That's not the lesson here. This is the same as "she was asking for it" because of the clothes she was wearing.

The lesson is that we have to fight harder for stricter laws and penalties for those who endanger others with their motor vehicles.

What's next? Are you going to say that kids should opt for home schooling so they don't get killed by school shooters?

Except nobody is saying that they “asked” to be killed. That is being inferred into comments that suggested no such thing, even after repeated clarifications. I can’t help you here.

 

[TheBeard]

Unbelievable that anyone would try to pass anyone on that sort of road.

Anyone who has a license knows there is no legal means to pass on the right.

 

[swiftwin]

Again, more idealism while ignoring pragmatism. Realizing the risks that come with everyday events and looking for ways to mitigate those risks is in no way, shape or form saying "she was asking for it".

If you want to bike safely, the pragmatically best way to do that is to bike where there aren't cars. That's not victim blaming, that's just a factual statement.

Pragmatically, the safest thing you can do is never leaving the house. But that's not realistic, is it?

 

[GirardSpinorama]

They need to read the f***ing room.

These are the kinds of people who show up at a BLM protest saying "all lives matter".

Yes, obviously, all lives matter, but that's not the f***ing point.

100%. This thread should really be about dangerous driving. Even if the johnny was in a car, he could have still died.

 

[TheUnusedCrayon]

This is all my opinion, but the way I view how harsh the punishment is that ultimately he took a life because of his actions, albeit it wasn't purposefully taking a life. So therefor off the hop, if he intended to then it should be 1 for 1 for life in prison, but because it wasn't intentional, I reduce that to half of what the decent portion of life should be so approximately 30 years (60 good years of life), then on top of that he was also negligent by purposefully drinking and driving, so you automatically get an extra 10.

So 40 years, but can be reduced to 30 if shown great remorse and being a good person whilst in prison. That way if you get out, you can at least do something and it isn't a full life punishment, but also if you get out people can't say he got away with something.

But as I said before, my guess is he gets 5 years and gets out in 3.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Which is why we need better infrastructure to support cars, bikes and pedestrians. But that may or may not ever come, and there's no telling how quickly it'll happen, which means, in the meantime, everybody should be taking extra precautions to protect themselves as much as they realistically can, with the understanding that there are people out there who won't take any precautions to protect others at all. It's the same concept behind the defensive driving methods they teach you in driving school. They teach you those because there are inevitably threats to your life and safety out there that you can't get rid of, but following those measures can help you lower your risk.

This is exactly correct. In a perfect world, the bike infrastructure would be good enough that cyclists can safely bike wherever they want and drivers respect the safety of cyclists by driving safely. But we're not in the perfect world, we're in the real world.

Cyclists should absolutely be fighting to improve bike infrastructure and make the roads safer for cyclists, that's absolute true. But until that happens, you still need to stay safe while biking.

Pragmatically, the safest thing you can do is never leaving the house. But that's not realistic, is it?

I don't think you understand what "pragmatic" means.

 

[SoupNazi]

Which is why we need better infrastructure to support cars, bikes and pedestrians. But that may or may not ever come, and there's no telling how quickly it'll happen, which means, in the meantime, everybody should be taking extra precautions to protect themselves as much as they realistically can, with the understanding that there are people out there who won't take any precautions to protect others at all. It's the same concept behind the defensive driving methods they teach you in driving school. They teach you those because there are inevitably threats to your life and safety out there that you can't get rid of, but following those measures can help you lower your risk.

Agreed. A lot of nonprofits seek to make things safer for bikers/pedestrians in cities throughout the U.S., but without the muscle of government behind them, I'm afraid making the roads safer is a tall task. Example is Bike Walk Savannah:

Home - Bike Walk Savannah

ALL SAVANNAHIANS DESERVE SAFE AND WELCOMING PLACES TO BIKE AND WALK. We seek to create safe streets for all – whether you’re walking, biking, rolling, or driving. Our vision is […]

bikewalksavannah.org

They have great goals, but unfortunately, there aren't enough traffic cops to make the roads safe for everyone, and there isn't enough money to have them. You're also never going to completely mitigate risk. It's just impossible, unfortunately. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but we should definitely know what we're getting in to.

 

[SoundwaveIsCharisma]

I'm not a lawyer, or American, but this was a quick google search for New Jersey Car Murder.

Now x 2.

Says the family can pursue a a wrongful death claim in civil court as well.

Death by auto is a second degree crime punishable by up to 10 years in state prison and a fine up to $200,000. The driver will also be required to serve 85% of his sentence before he is eligible for parole.

I'm also no lawyer, but there's the possibility that if/when he is sentenced it could be concurrent rather than consecutive and they may not give him the full 10 years. Even if it's the max and consecutive, 20 years really isn't all that much for killing two people, and completely turning the world upside for the friends/families involved.

 

[Bjorn Le]

It is hard to make this about cyclists needing to be safer when the Gaudreau’s were killed by a very drunk man who tried to pass two vehicles on the right side of the road.

 

[AKL]

Pragmatically, the safest thing you can do is never leaving the house. But that's not realistic, is it?

I don't mean to be a dick, but pragmatic means sensible and realistic.

 

[Neutrinos]

If there ever was a need for a small victory at a time like this, his sister's wedding was to take place the following day, so at least they're together as a family...

 

[Breakers]

It looks like a very suburban road with homes around

the way another media outlet described was like a bike lane on two-lane fast way

 

[Turin]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1829527722760294561

Alcohol is so pervasive in society.

Alcohol isn’t the problem. I do think America has a weird drinking culture though.