You can't blame a mother of a fallen son, in a way. Poor boy loved speed, he wasn't to blame. If only the driver had been looking further down the road, before he made that turn.
He was going 97 miles an hour at the time of the accident. I've gone faster than 115, through traffic, on a bridge where motion was constrained. If I'd have been killed doing it, no one but me was to blame.
Catechism 2290: "Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air." I've made my own confession on this point, I'm not too proud to admit.
4 comments:
I've seen a headlight video of some of these adrenalized motor cycle users.
It's like watching a plane crash in motion, except usually they don't crash.... usually.
My nephew was hit in the same manner, only he was doing speed limit and the other person was trying to cross in front of on-coming traffic before it got there. She didn't see my nephew passing the van until it was too late.
However, he came out of his coma two years ago and has recently begun walking with assistance again.
The bridge was a better place to speed- no one is going to turn left in front of you.
97 mph on a small road like that with cross traffic? We know what happened to the cyclist, but what about the occupant(s) of the car? A ways back, a motorcycle doing around 100 down a major street near here hit a car pulling out of a side street broadside (the car never saw the bike coming). The bike was like a torpedo into that car, and killed a child in the back seat. You want to take chances with your life, so be it. Endangering others is a whole other story. It's awfully hard to get that through to a man in his late teens / early twenties.
This is what sky diving, para sailing, gliding, and squirrel suits are for.
If people want to go the Adrenaline route, they should go full steam ahead instead of taking the cheap ones.
Post a Comment