Quebec Woman Guilty - Saves Ducks, Two People Dead

[cybercoma]

Why was this guy not able to see the stopped vehicle? Keep in mind that a stopped vehicle looks like a stopped vehicle even without hazard lights on.

WWWTT

Have you not read the article or the posts here?

He was travelling behind an SUV that switched lanes at the last second to avoid the parked car. The SUV changing lanes is not enough to indicate a hazard. The biker would have then seen the offender's car, but it still would not have registered immediately that it was stopped until he began gaining on it. That would have taken a second and he would have had to slam on the brakes, which he did according to the forensic testimony. The safe stopping distance between him on the SUV assumes that the SUV would take several meters to stop if he locked up his brakes. It doesn't assume that he swerves out of the way of a stationary object on the highway that appears the exact same as all the other moving vehicles (since neither her brake lights nor indicators were on).

[WWWTT]

What a rude, disrespectful, and idiotic comment to make about someone who died. If parking her car in the passing lane wasn't a stupid and dangerous act, then it wouldn't have been negligent. It also wouldn't be illegal to park your car on the highway.

You're the one making the idiotic disrespectful and rude comment here buddy!

Starting to get real tired of you acting like as if you are the "Moral voice" of MLW buddy!

Why don't you just ignore my comment and report it buddy!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

If you ignore the fact that the SUV in front of him changed lanes at the last minute, sure.

We may never know, but the fact that the SUV would have swerved should have caused a reaction of the MC driver.

Imagine the situation. You're riding a motorcycle on the highway at night and the SUV in front of you changes lanes. You see the car that was in front of the SUV, but it doesn't have any brake lights on and there's no obvious signs of an accident. You're not going to assume it is stopped. That safe stopping distance between you and the moving SUV also includes the SUV's stopping distance. Her car wasn't moving. It was stopped and it wouldn't have appeared to be stopped until the motorcycle gained on the car. Therefore, it's my opinion that this isn't a stopping distance issue. I believe he would have hit that car even if he was driving the speed limit and was 3 seconds behind the SUV that changed lanes.

Check the math Cybercoma.

At the speeds indicated at trial, under your scenario...he had 352 feet to stop (3 cecs). Over a football field.

A foot ball field.

Had the posted limit been observed , 246 feet 90KPH to scrub off. Pretty easy to be honest.

You're not accounting for reaction time. How long would it take a reasonable person to determine that the car in the lane was stopped, when she wasn't on her brakes nor had her hazards on? It's completely unexpected that a car would be parked in traffic in the passing lane. He would have had to see the car, which was at the last second due to the SUV changing lanes, then it would have had to register that the car was parked, then he would have had to react. How many feet are covered in the amount of time that takes?

[WWWTT]

No it doesnt.

Not that it matters

Yes it does!

You obviously never been to a trial where the judge asked you "why did you not see the vehicle in front of you"!!!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Have you not read the article or the posts here?

He was travelling behind an SUV that switched lanes at the last second to avoid the parked car. The SUV changing lanes is not enough to indicate a hazard. The biker would have then seen the offender's car, but it still would not have registered immediately that it was stopped until he began gaining on it. That would have taken a second and he would have had to slam on the brakes, which he did according to the forensic testimony. The safe stopping distance between him on the SUV assumes that the SUV would take several meters to stop if he locked up his brakes. It doesn't assume that he swerves out of the way of a stationary object on the highway that appears the exact same as all the other moving vehicles (since neither her brake lights nor indicators were on).

No I did not read that part. The article I read did not mention that.

Did the truck driver remain on the scene? How close was he travelling to the alleged truck?

WWWTT

[guyser]

The general rule of thumb used to be 1 car for each 10MPH.

Its now a 3 to 6 second gap (good luck with that) depending on speed and road conditions.

Thats 576 feet . A semi with bad wheels could stop in that time.

[cybercoma]

You're the one making the idiotic disrespectful and rude comment here buddy!

Starting to get real tired of you acting like as if you are the "Moral voice" of MLW buddy!

Why don't you just ignore my comment and report it buddy!

WWWTT

I'm not your buddy. Calling someone's life stupid when they were killed by another person's negligence is extremely rude and disrespectful. If that was someone in your family, how would you like me saying they weren't smart enough to "save their own stupid life"? I'm guessing you would find it pretty rude and disrespectful like I said.

[cybercoma]

The general rule of thumb used to be 1 car for each 10MPH.

Its now a 3 to 6 second gap (good luck with that) depending on speed and road conditions.

Thats 576 feet . A semi with bad wheels could stop in that time.

You can't travel 3 to 6 seconds apart on the 401 in Montreal. You know that and I'm sure the judge knows that. You leave that much space and cars are just going to pull in. You'll constantly be backing off from vehicles cutting in front of you.

[guyser]

Yes it does!

Not at all. How ridiculous

A stopped car w/o hazards looks all the same as other cars if in your lane.

You obviously never been to a trial where the judge asked you "why did you not see the vehicle in front of you"!!!

WWWTT

Unlike you , I can drive, ergo no judge has asked me that question.

Apparently you hit things, thus why he asked.

[WWWTT]

I'm not your buddy. Calling someone's life stupid when they were killed by another person's negligence is extremely rude and disrespectful. If that was someone in your family, how would you like me saying they weren't smart enough to "save their own stupid life"? I'm guessing you would find it pretty rude and disrespectful like I said.

Ya no kidding we're not buddies!

But coming from someone whom is always making sarcastic comments, you don't get it anymore do you?

Damn straight that guy driving the motorcycle was stupid. Here's a hint, he died from hitting a stopped vehicle!

He was on a motorcycle with his daughter on the back! Driving too fast and following to close is what this sounds like.

WWWTT

[guyser]

You can't travel 3 to 6 seconds apart on the 401 in Montreal. You know that and I'm sure the judge knows that. You leave that much space and cars are just going to pull in. You'll constantly be backing off from vehicles cutting in front of you.

Ahh...I get that and agree.

The same thing applies when on my way to the cottage, sometimes its 120- 130, sometimes less, but go with the flow.

But all that, go/flow , not leaving 3 secs on 401 in Mtl goes out the window when addressed in court.

[Bonam]

There is absolutely no excuse for stopping in the left lane like this, and even less so for doing so without even putting on your hazard lights. Regardless of what other people "should" be doing, it creates a very unsafe situation on the highway. Completely unacceptable and definitely deserving of significant jail time.

[WWWTT]

Not at all. How ridiculous

A stopped car w/o hazards looks all the same as other cars if in your lane.

Unlike you , I can drive, ergo no judge has asked me that question.

Apparently you hit things, thus why he asked.

Actually a stopped vehicle looks different because it DOES NOT MOVE. If a stopped vehicle looks the same as a moving vehicle to you, then I hope you drive slowly.

I've heard a judge and cops say those same things to other drivers! One was impaired too, but not me my friend.

WWWTT

[guyser]

There is absolutely no excuse for stopping in the left lane like this,

Except ther are a number of reasons why one may need to.

and even less so for doing so without even putting on your hazard lights.

Theres an issue I am having trouble coming to terms with, and frankly have to conclude a lapse in thought.

Regardless of what other people "should" be doing, it creates a very unsafe situation on the highway.

Careful here, thats a broad statement.

THe MC rider is more at fault in most States and Provinces for falling to keep a proper lookout, travelling to close , speeding and so on.

By dint of what you wrote, let me give you a couple of scenarios ....

1) MC (or any car for that matter) travelling at 150K ? Now what? (you are saying speed was regardless of result)

2) Your car breaks down (alternator down), traffic is heavy and you cant get over to right because of it, (this car could not get over to the left) Now what?

[Boges]

A stopped vehicle would get larger quite fast if you were going in excess of 100 kms/h.

[guyser]

Actually a stopped vehicle looks different because it DOES NOT MOVE. If a stopped vehicle looks the same as a moving vehicle to you, then I hope you drive slowly.

Not on a straight road it doesnt.

Its also why people need to keep a proper lookout and give some distance

I've heard a judge and cops say those same things to other drivers! One was impaired too, but not me my friend.

WWWTT

Oh please, stop will you?

You heard...cuz you have a habit of standing near wrecks listening in? Or did you stick your head in the window of the COp car and suggest " dont mind me, just getting info for MLW" "Oh carry on then"

And you sat through court cases did you? Did you think we , especially me, would not know 999 out of 1000 accidents never see the light of day in a court room?

Not to mention unless you are involved you would not be sitting in. Go peddle your "I heard" somewhere else.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Guyser2

[guyser]

A stopped vehicle would get larger quite fast if you were going in excess of 100 kms/h.

You hope they realize it ...yes.

[cybercoma]

There is absolutely no excuse for stopping in the left lane like this, and even less so for doing so without even putting on your hazard lights. Regardless of what other people "should" be doing, it creates a very unsafe situation on the highway. Completely unacceptable and definitely deserving of significant jail time.

See, I don't think she deserves "significant" jail time, but I don't know what you mean by that. She created the situation that killed two people. She created the situation by doing something that any reasonable person would know could cause serious bodily harm or death. Yet, she has no prior convictions and has to live with killing two people. If she shows absolutely no remorse (and only the judge can determine that), then I agree with you. If she is remorseful and regrets what she did, then I imagine a short jail term (if any at all) and losing her license for 2-4 years would be appropriate.

[WWWTT]

Not on a straight road it doesnt.

Its also why people need to keep a proper lookout and give some distance

Oh please, stop will you?

You heard...cuz you have a habit of standing near wrecks listening in? Or did you stick your head in the window of the COp car and suggest " dont mind me, just getting info for MLW" "Oh carry on then"

And you sat through court cases did you? Did you think we , especially me, would not know 999 out of 1000 accidents never see the light of day in a court room?

Not to mention unless you are involved you would not be sitting in. Go peddle your "I heard" somewhere else.

Hey buddy, I've been licensed to drive since 1983. I've been operating my own vehicle and paying insurance for over 30 years!

I have not been involved in anything since the 80's. But there were a few accidents back then where I was a passenger and a witness driver.

If you think you can hit a stopped car, and a cop is not going to ask you why you didn't see the stopped vehicle, tell him you thought it was moving until you hit it! (man that sounds so bizarre)

WWWTT

[Bonam]

Except ther are a number of reasons why one may need to.

Theres an issue I am having trouble coming to terms with, and frankly have to conclude a lapse in thought.

Careful here, thats a broad statement.

THe MC rider is more at fault in most States and Provinces for falling to keep a proper lookout, travelling to close , speeding and so on.

By dint of what you wrote, let me give you a couple of scenarios ....

1) MC (or any car for that matter) travelling at 150K ? Now what? (you are saying speed was regardless of result)

2) Your car breaks down (alternator down), traffic is heavy and you cant get over to right because of it, (this car could not get over to the left) Now what?

In heavy traffic cars are moving slowly, not 100kph. If cars are moving 100 kph, then there is almost invariably more than enough space between them to move over to the right (or onto a shoulder) before running out of momentum in the event of almost any kind of mechanical failure. Yes, even in Toronto or Montreal or whatever.

A vehicle moving significantly above the speed limit (150 kph) is at fault for speeding and possibly dangerous driving and should be treated as such. If the speeding results in death of the driver then the person at fault for said speeding isn't around to receive punishment. That doesn't change the fact that being stopped in the left lane of a highway in fast-moving traffic (unless some freak set of events absolutely forces you to be) is voluntarily and thoughtlessly creating an extremely unsafe situation and should be punished accordingly.

In fact, even just driving slowly in the leftmost lane creates a dangerous situation and should also be punishable with some kind of fine (and is in many jurisdictions).

[WWWTT]

You hope they realize it ...yes.

So which is it?

They look the same or not?

WWWTT

[Bonam]

See, I don't think she deserves "significant" jail time, but I don't know what you mean by that. She created the situation that killed two people. She created the situation by doing something that any reasonable person would know could cause serious bodily harm or death. Yet, she has no prior convictions and has to live with killing two people. If she shows absolutely no remorse (and only the judge can determine that), then I agree with you. If she is remorseful and regrets what she did, then I imagine a short jail term (if any at all) and losing her license for 2-4 years would be appropriate.

I don't think the fact of having to "live with killing two people" is any kind of punishment in itself and should not be counted in lessening any sentence. Yes, she may experience remorse. That's on herself. But society needs to impose some additional punishment. As for "showing remorse" in a trial... any individual in full possession of their faculties can show remorse, on advice from their lawyer on doing so during a trial. Only the most far gone murderers would show no remorse, so again this is not something I'd see as being a consideration in this case.

By significant in this case, I would think 2-5 years.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Bonam

[guyser]

If you think you can hit a stopped car, and a cop is not going to ask you why you didn't see the stopped vehicle, tell him you thought it was moving until you hit it! (man that sounds so bizarre)

WWWTT

Was there bodily injury?

[guyser]

In heavy traffic cars are moving slowly, not 100kph.

Come take a trip to my cottage on a Friday afternoon. Hwy 400/11 are heavily paclked, yet for the most part, 100+ is the norm.

If cars are moving 100 kph, then there is almost invariably more than enough space between them to move over to the right (or onto a shoulder) before running out of momentum in the event of almost any kind of mechanical failure. Yes, even in Toronto or Montreal or whatever.

In this case, there was no left shoulder to move to. Had the car stalled, getting left was the only option since traffic is full on the right and you are slowing down.

Ever been on the DVP? Gardiner?

What if it happened on the Seattle Washington State Route 520 Bridge ? There is no shoulder there

A vehicle moving significantly above the speed limit (150 kph) is at fault for speeding and possibly dangerous driving and should be treated as such. If the speeding results in death of the driver then the person at fault for said speeding isn't around to receive punishment.

What it should do is mitigate the punishment for the other person. Contributory negligence as it were. Edited June 23, 2014 by Guyser2

[segnosaur]

If her alternator failed and she didn't put the car in neutral and get it off the road, she would have still been at fault for parking her car in the passing lane.

You are of course assuming that any sort of mechanical failure would have provided the opportunity for a person to get off the road.

Although it may be far fetched, its possible that some mechanical failures might have a more immediate effect to disable the car (e.g. blown tire), or that traffic in the right hand lanes might have made it impossible for a driver to safely navagate off the road.

Although the woman didn't have such a failure, any other driver on the road must operate their vehicle with the knowledge that such an event could happen.

It is a tragedy - but why would someone on a motorcycle with his daughter on the back be going "from 113 km/h to 129 km/h" on a highway

Probably because that's the speed traffic was going on the highway.

Minor point... The collision happened in the left hand lane. In general, that's the "fast lane". Even if the average speed on the highway is over 100, it would have been safer/more advisable for the individual to drive in the right-hand lane. There he could have reduced his speed to something that would have been safer.

The slapping case wasn't negligence because a reasonable person wouldn't assume that slapping someone would cause serious bodily harm or death. He was convicted and sentenced for manslaughter, which has a different standard of proof.

Here's the difference.

In the criminal negligence causing death case the Crown has to prove that she committed an act that a reasonable person would understand would cause serious bodily harm and that act resulted in someone's death.

In the manslaughter slapping case, the Crown has to prove that the person killed someone while doing something that was illegal and dangerous.

Technically, abuse of a minor is something which is illegal... even if the plan wasn't to kill the kid.

Here's another difference... In the case of the slapping, there was a clear intent to injure. Even if the goal wasn't to produce serious harm, the father had the goal to inflict pain and distress.

In the case of the collision, a driver might have an expectation that other drivers on the road were following standards (i.e. not exceeding the speed limit by more than 30 km/h, not tailgating, etc.) Obviously the driver of the SUV was able to safely negotiate a path around the stopped car.