Quebec Woman Guilty - Saves Ducks, Two People Dead

[Boges]

Everybody keeps saying that "if her car was broken down", or if it was another obstacle. And...if that was the case then sure, absolve her of wrongdoing and call it unfortunate. Well, it wasn't. It was her that made the conscience decision to stop the car in a passing lane. If she had swerved into the bike, if it was a moose and she was afraid for her life - then maybe. But, none of that happened, the accident happened because she parked her car in a passing lane - plain and simple.

No one is absolving her of any wrongdoing. But the fact that any obstacle "could" exist in the passing lane indicates that perhaps the MC driver wasn't paying proper attention to the road and could have avoided the accident.

[Queenmandy85]

In over two decades enforcing the Highway Traffic Act, I have yet to meet anyone who is not a better than average or excellent driver.

[guyser]

In over two decades enforcing the Highway Traffic Act, I have yet to meet anyone who is not a better than average or excellent driver.

LOL !

In over three decades I have yet to see those who are paid to uphold and enforce the HTA abide by the same rules.

And that includes all 5000 of the TPS.

[segnosaur]

Why I think he wasn't negligent is that he would have to be doing something that a reasonable person wouldn't do because they know it's dangerous and puts people at risk for serious bodily harm or death. Do most people travel at the speed and distance he was travelling from the SUV? More than likely.

You see, here's the problem...

In this case, what an "average person" thinks might actually be incorrect. (Notice that I didn't say "reasonable person"... because in this case the 2 of them may be different.)

A "reasonable person" might think "driving too fast and following to close are risky... shouldn't do it". On the other hand, the "average" driver might be completely ignorant of the dangers. They may think "Hey, I go 30 over the speed limit all the time. And tailgating is fun!", oblivious to the risks that those involve.

We should all be better drivers, without excusing people's bad habits by saying "well bad habits are common".

Reminds me of drunk drivers. Decades ago, it seemed to be a lot more common. The "average" person thought it was no big deal to drive home from the bar drunk... now, people are more aware of the dangers. Hopefully people will likewise recognize that driving faster than conditions warrant and/or following too close are likewise habits that are no longer socially acceptable.

So if he was travelling at the speed and distance that reasonable people travel on the highway, he wasn't being negligent. If the flow of traffic was 120km/h and he was driving at 120km/h, that's speeding, yes, but not negligence.

As has been pointed out before, if this accident was in the "fast lane" then he was likely exceeding the flow of traffic.

And has been pointed out before, a motorcycle has different restrictions than a car... less protection for the driver, riskier to "slam" on the brakes, etc.... as such, going at a slower speed than larger vehicles is warranted, even if it involves driving in the right hand lane.

[Hal 9000]

Speeding was not the cause of the crash, the cause was the vehicle PARKED in the fast lane. Could he have avoided it? Maybe, but I've been there before where the car pulls out and someone is stopped (usually turning left)and you have very little response time. I'd say he had maybe 2-3 seconds to stop before impact, going slower maybe slightly better than 3 seconds.

If a car runs a red light, it doesn't matter that the victim was speeding and could've prevented it, If a car runs through an intersection and hits a pedestrian, it's not their fault for not getting across quicker.

If we're playing the "if" game, what if city workers just left a concrete partition in the middle of the passing lane, is it still the motorcyclists fault? I doubt it! In fact, the city would be held 100% liable and we'd all rally behind the biker. What is tripping people up is the fact that this is a girl, and ducks are involved - as weird as that sounds.

[guyser]

Speeding was not the cause of the crash, the cause was the vehicle PARKED in the fast lane.

In most jurisdictions the cause would be attributed to the MC driver and a little to the woman.

Speed did cause the crash, had he gone the posted limit, he would have lots of time to stop.

Could he have avoided it? Maybe, but I've been there before where the car pulls out and someone is stopped (usually turning left)and you have very little response time.

And if you hit that left turner? Totally at fault . Not sure why this is any different.

If a car runs a red light, it doesn't matter that the victim was speeding and could've prevented it, If a car runs through an intersection and hits a pedestrian, it's not their fault for not getting across quicker.

Im confused here.

If we're playing the "if" game, what if city workers just left a concrete partition in the middle of the passing lane, is it still the motorcyclists fault? I doubt it! In fact, the city would be held 100% liable and we'd all rally behind the biker. What is tripping people up is the fact that this is a girl, and ducks are involved - as weird as that sounds.

That last part is stupid. End of that thought.

The MC would be at fault for the collission...yes sirree ! (In Ontario absolutley)

There well may be a lawsuit and the city fined for negligence, but that is different.

[cybercoma]

Speed did cause the crash, had he gone the posted limit, he would have lots of time to stop.

there is absolutely no evidence of this, as the defence certainly attempted this angle and failed. If speed was the cause, she would have been acquitted.

[GostHacked]

The MC driver paid the price for whatever actions he had to take, or did not take. That does not absolve this woman of her negligence. There are other scenarios where even an alert, aware and proper driver can get taken out at the last second. It happens often actually.

I'll say the same thing I said before...

So? Let them in.

Is there something sacred about the car in front that requires that you be behind them? Let someone pull in in front. Yeah, you might have to drop back by a few feet to maintain the buffer, but the guy who cuts in isn't going to benefit very much (since eventually he'll meet the car that had been in front of you.)

No, If I am maintaining a safe distance from the vehicle ahead of me, it is not an invitation to get your vehicle between us. By doing that you are creating an unsafe condition by not giving yourself enough room with respect to that vehicle that is in front of me. Get it? If you want to get technical about it.

Of course, if the transport truck had been maintaing a larger space in front, then a driver that cuts in front wouldn't have had to break as hard, since whey they cut in front, they'd have more open road to slow down in.

You are an idiot to cut off a transport truck. They don't break as easily as a car if they are carrying a full load. And again, if the truck is trying to maintain that distance for safety, why would you cut in? Want to make a bad situation worse?

Its amazing how many people have attempted to minimize the contribution to the event by the cyclist by justifying bad driver behavior. Speeding? Acceptible because "everyone does it". Following too close? You NEED to because otherwise someone might cut in, and you need to be able to read the bumper sticker of the car in front.

The MC driver and his daughter are dead. As I said, they paid the price for whatever stupidity may have taken place on their part. But I do suggest getting out on a motorbike in traffic. You notice a lot more when you do not have a protective cage of a car surrounding you.

It's possible he could have swerved to avoid something else, but then this other parked car comes into play and there is no possibility for any kind of good result.

Edited June 25, 2014 by GostHacked

[guyser]

there is absolutely no evidence of this,

The cop(s) said he was speeding, 25-40 over.

Come on C, if he hadnt been, he may have been able to brake.

And no, she is not absolved of anything.

[cybercoma]

The cop(s) said he was speeding, 25-40 over.

Come on C, if he hadnt been, he may have been able to brake.

And no, she is not absolved of anything.

If he hadn't have been, he may not have been able to brake either. That's the point. The SUV swerved at the last minute. Safe stopping distance doesn't assume something is immediately dead in the middle of the road 2 seconds in front of your vehicle. It assumes the vehicle in front of you will have its own stopping distance or that you'll see something well enough in advance to stop. Imagining the scenario, I just don't think I would have been able to make that stop if I were safe distance away. It's certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt that he could.

[bush_cheney2004]

He wouldn't have necessarily had to stop, at least not directly behind the stopped Honda. If an SUV driver was able to maneuver around the stopped vehicle, then a motorcycle's alert and aware driver should have been able to do the same. In some cases a panic stop on a bike is the least desired action.

[guyser]

C, safe driving is going the limit, and leaving enough room, now considerd to be 3-6 seconds.

Lets say he was travelling 100k. Thats 10 over, not unreasonable, we all do it and worse.

Ok, at that speed he closes in on an object at 100 f/s . Given what he should have betw he and the veh in front, 3+ seconds, once that SUV swerved he would have 300+ feet to stop, a football field.

3 hundred feet.

Im willing to bet that yes, you would be able to stop in 300 ft.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Guyser2

[overthere]

She was negligent in her actions, and that negligence resulted directly in the deaths of two persons. In the cirumstances, a conviction and a suspended sentence would be appropriate.

Nothing would be served by a long jail sentence.

[Bonam]

She was negligent in her actions, and that negligence resulted directly in the deaths of two persons. In the cirumstances, a conviction and a suspended sentence would be appropriate.

Nothing would be served by a long jail sentence.

You mean nothing except justice for those killed as a result of her actions?

[PIK]

She was found guilty.

How much jail time do you think would be appropriate?

2 yrs and she deserves it. These stupid acts by stupid people must be dealt with.

[PIK]

The cop(s) said he was speeding, 25-40 over.

Come on C, if he hadnt been, he may have been able to brake.

And no, she is not absolved of anything.

And if she did not stop on the road, they would be alive today.Like the lady that will IMO get off on the drunk driving causing death because the said the other guy was drinking. But the other guy did not cross the line like she did.

[guyser]

And if she did not stop on the road, they would be alive today.Like the lady that will IMO get off on the drunk driving causing death because the said the other guy was drinking. But the other guy did not cross the line like she did.

If they were going the speed limit they would be alive today.

If they kept a proper lookout they would be alive today.

'We' are all responsible to drive safely and cautiously.

She made a mistake, as we all do, she wasnt wreckless as in cutting lanes, driving erratically,impaired, she stupidly stopped her car. The reason she did could be applied to a ton of things that may be on a highway. Be it ducks or a person. (if it was a human, she would have been cleared and I dont get why then becuase its ducks she is guilty)

Her actions stand on its own.

Is anyone aware that a slew of other cars manage to brake and go around her? That plays to the facts that people did keep a proper lookout and managed to avoid hitting her.

So if other cars managed to avoid, why didnt the M/C rider ? That can only be put down to speed , inattentiveness and ability.

The M/C drivers actions stand on his own. Sad but his actions caused his death.

I fully expect this to be overturned, for her to be found not guilty. She most certainly does not deserve jail time.

[Hal 9000]

She made a mistake, as we all do, she wasnt wreckless as in cutting lanes, driving erratically,impaired, she stupidly stopped her car. The reason she did could be applied to a ton of things that may be on a highway. Be it ducks or a person. (if it was a human, she would have been cleared and I dont get why then becuase its ducks she is guilty)

She was reckless and a jury of 12 people said as much.

"Be it ducks or a person. (if it was a human, she would have been cleared and I dont get why then becuase its ducks she is guilty"

Because a humans life if more valuable than a ducks life.

[Boges]

She was reckless for sure. No one is denying that. But this man played a role in his death as well.

Heard a good analogy watching Soccer today. A US player was trying to meet a cross close to the goal and he collided with the ref. The US side was obviously upset. The announcer made the point, and I paraphrase:

"It's sort of like driving, if you hit someone from behind it's always your fault"

Eric Duhaime commented on this today

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/25/highway-duck-rescuer-not-a-criminal

[GostHacked]

For all those saying that this situation could have been avoided if the MC driver was going the proper speed limit, I say this. Ever been caught off guard on the road even when you ARE paying attention and doing the speed limit?

[guyser]

For all those saying that this situation could have been avoided if the MC driver was going the proper speed limit, I say this. Ever been caught off guard on the road even when you ARE paying attention and doing the speed limit?

Yes.

Numerous times in fact.

Now GH.....what of it?

[overthere]

You mean nothing except justice for those killed as a result of her actions?

An eye for an eye? How very Biblical. Perhaps she should be stoned to death by the victims relatives, using chunks of asphalt from the patch of raod where she died.

Her actions were not malicious. They were extremely stupid, but if she had thought for a moment and pulled to the side there would be nothing to speak of.

I am not at all soft on crime, but nothing is served by a long jail sentence except to ruin more lives.

[WWWTT]

He wouldn't have necessarily had to stop, at least not directly behind the stopped Honda. If an SUV driver was able to maneuver around the stopped vehicle, then a motorcycle's alert and aware driver should have been able to do the same. In some cases a panic stop on a bike is the least desired action.

Bingo!

Why was he not changing lanes back into the safety of the right lane where there was nobody?

I'll tell you exactly why.

He was not aware of his surroundings!

If he survived, he should have been charged with dangerous driving with criminal intent!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

For all those saying that this situation could have been avoided if the MC driver was going the proper speed limit, I say this. Ever been caught off guard on the road even when you ARE paying attention and doing the speed limit?

Sure. But that's not the same thing because 2 seconds to react could have saved the lives.

WWWTT

[Bonam]

An eye for an eye? How very Biblical. Perhaps she should be stoned to death by the victims relatives, using chunks of asphalt from the patch of raod where she died.

Her actions were not malicious. They were extremely stupid, but if she had thought for a moment and pulled to the side there would be nothing to speak of.

I am not at all soft on crime, but nothing is served by a long jail sentence except to ruin more lives.

No eye for an eye, just a jail sentence of reasonable and appropriate length for negligence causing death, so justice can be seen to have been served, and to set an appropriate precedent for such acts of wanton recklessness. A 2 year jail sentence seems about right to me.