Quebec Woman Guilty - Saves Ducks, Two People Dead

[jbg]

It is tragic that 2 people died, but miraculous that more vehicles weren't involved, and more injuries.

At least the duck lived.

[cybercoma]

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.

You would be surprised then. She may say that she would do it again because she thought she was doing the right thing by saving the ducks.

[segnosaur]

You can't travel 3 to 6 seconds apart on the 401 in Montreal.

Yes you can. The fact that people don't doesn't mean that its impossible.

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.

So? Let them pull in.

At the speed that vehicles travel, backing off to maintain a larger gap (keeping the same approximate speed) will only add a second or 2 to your overall travel time. So a few dozen cars cut in front of you? You've added probably less than half a minute to your daily commute. the average commute time is around half an hour, you're not going to be in traffic that much longer.

And here's something else to consider... shockwave Jams. These are traffic jams caused when one car's slowdown causes a cascading effect, leaving an entire highway travelling at a snail's pace. Want to stop it? All that is needed is an occasional car leaving a larger gap in front of them... this buffer 'absorbs' these little slowdowns, and as a result the entire traffic system travels much better. The person tailgating is not helping traffic along by keeping cars tightly packed together.... they are part of the problem.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19004_6-things-that-annoy-you-every-day-explained-by-science_p2.html

[cybercoma]

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.

I pointed out these differences. That's why one case was manslaughter and the other criminal negligence causing death.

[guyser]

At least the duck lived.

Sooo funny

[WWWTT]

Yes you can. The fact that people don't doesn't mean that its impossible.

So? Let them pull in.

At the speed that vehicles travel, backing off to maintain a larger gap (keeping the same approximate speed) will only add a second or 2 to your overall travel time. So a few dozen cars cut in front of you? You've added probably less than half a minute to your daily commute. the average commute time is around half an hour, you're not going to be in traffic that much longer.

Pretty much sums it up perfect.

A traffic accident is probably your best chance of dying prematurely.

Lots of reasons why a vehicle can be stopped on the road.

I'm sure if the cyclist lived, he should have faced some kind of charges as well.

To say that the cyclist is at no fault for his misfortune, is to put your entire safety on another driver. And that my friends is just too freekin crazy!

WWWTT

[The_Squid]

Even if the motorcyclist is partially to blame, that doesn't absolve her of the negligence of parking her car on a freeway in the passing lane where it would clearly be a hazard.

There is no evidence that the motorcyclist was going too fast, following too close or not paying attention. Anyone who claims any of these things is speculating. The mere fact that he hit the parked car is not evidence for any of those spurious accusations. If you think you can react quicker at highway speeds, great. Let's hope you never have to find out. If you think that someone should be going slow enough to avoid every unforeseeable situation on a freeway that may occur, you're an idiot and should stop driving and take the bus. Clearly this woman was at fault.

The verdict is just.... Let's hope the sentence is as well.

[WWWTT]

I agree that leaving your vehicle stopped on a busy highway for no reason will land you an charge for some kind of violation of the highway traffic act.

But when you drive a vehicle on any road way, you must expect the unexpected. Especially driving a motorcycle.

Putting yourself into a position where you can get caught off guard is plain stupidity. It's really that simple!

WWWTT

[On Guard for Thee]

I agree that leaving your vehicle stopped on a busy highway for no reason will land you an charge for some kind of violation of the highway traffic act.

But when you drive a vehicle on any road way, you must expect the unexpected. Especially driving a motorcycle.

Putting yourself into a position where you can get caught off guard is plain stupidity. It's really that simple!

WWWTT

It's really not that simple at all. (maybe for you) But as I read more about this case it appears the MC guy pulled out to pass a vehicle he was coming up behind and all of a sudden there is a parked car. Question is how far does your idea of "expect the unexpected go"? Apparently you think you should expect a parked car in the passing lane. I think parking your car in the passing lane creates a hazard less likely to be expected than it is to be anticipated.

[jbg]

Sure but any driver should be fully prepared to be able to come to a stop should there be a stationary object ahead of them (a tire, roadkill or a foolish woman trying to save ducks). Hazards help, but unless it was on an unlit road on a foggy night, the driver should have been able to detect that the lane was blocked and at very least change lanes, if not be able to come to a complete stop.

And what does that do to drivers behind the car that suddenly comes to a full stop for apparently no reason?

[segnosaur]

There is no evidence that the motorcyclist was going too fast, following too close or not paying attention. Anyone who claims any of these things is speculating.

Actually, an earlier post had the following link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emma-czornobaj-guilty-in-2-highway-deaths-after-stopping-for-ducks-1.2682200

A provincial police officer testified at the trial that Roy, whose speed was estimated to be from 113 km/h to 129 km/h when he applied his brakes, collided with Czornobaj's car at between 105 km/h and 121 km/h.

I am assuming an officer that was called to testify would probably have the experience to determine approximate speed (skid marks, damage to the car, distance the rider would have flown after impact, etc.)

[The_Squid]

Ok... He was partially to blame perhaps.... Although, I don't think it was that fast and I don't know what kind of certainty is involved in those calculations.

Regardless, as I said previously, that doesn't negate her culpability in leaving her car parked in the passing lane on a freeway!

[Boges]

And what does that do to drivers behind the car that suddenly comes to a full stop for apparently no reason?

You gotta give enough room to be able to stop. It sucks, but no insurance company is going to find the person that slams their brakes and gets rear-ended at fault.

This is how people do insurance fraud. They pick a mark and put a car in front of them then strategically place a car next to them, the the car in front slams on the breaks the mark can't swerve out of the way.

They rear-end the car and suddenly everyone in the car that gets hit has mysterious neck-injuries and bilk the insurance company for all it can.

[GostHacked]

Not very experienced with bikes so I will take your word. I know enough to know very well that I will steer clear of them on the road and I won't get on one beyond a recreational off road bike putting around.

It can get scary out there. So many are simply NOT paying attention to the road and their surroundings. You are always scanning ahead and around when on the bike. I've had a few close calls, a couple were due to my lack of experience. Still a new rider in a sense. I had a dirt bike when I was a kid, but this V-Star 1100 can be a bit to handle.

Granted there are idiot bike riders as there are car drivers.

I also tried checking out the pics, but I only had more questions than answers.

I will say that is my reaction as well.

Leaving your car stopped in the middle of the road would only be partial responsibility in my opinion. You still have to be in control of your vehicle. It's not like she pulled out in front of someone. Her vehicle was not moving.

WWWTT

The one pic clearly shows her car straddling the yellow line. A scenario is that a car in that left lane could not move over to the right because of another vehicle.

This is on a divided highway where speed limits are 100kph and many moving in the lane she was half way in, do speeds up to 140kph. She was not being responsible at all the way she parked. No hazard and no indication to other drivers.

Also considering where she parked. How do you expect her to get up to speed to pull back into that lane? There is no way for her to merge as she is already half way in the lane.

[segnosaur]

Ok... He was partially to blame perhaps.... Although, I don't think it was that fast ...

Why do you think that?

I believe that the speed limit was 90 km/h. So this driver was likely going ~25km/h over the limit (at minimum) and perhaps as much as ~35 km/h over the limit.

I know people often say "well, most people go 10 over the limit". This guy was going double that. All the while, driving a vehicle which has very little personal protection, and (as others here have said) cannot stop easily in a short distance. While carrying a passanger.

You can't even claim that he was "following the flow of traffic", since he'd be in the "fast lane", indicating he was trying to exceed the flow of traffic, or pass vehicles that were travelling at what would be considered "normal" traffic flow. (And if he was travelling 25km/h over the limit, I think its reasonable to assume he wasn't just trying to get around some little old lady driving at half the limit.)

and I don't know what kind of certainty is involved in those calculations.

I'm sure there is an uncertainty. That's why a range of possible speeds was given, rather than an exact speed.

[GostHacked]

So? Let them pull in.

At the speed that vehicles travel, backing off to maintain a larger gap (keeping the same approximate speed) will only add a second or 2 to your overall travel time. So a few dozen cars cut in front of you?

The thing is most look at it as an invitation to squeeze in. You are doing the right thing by keeping the proper distance at speed, but in my experience, if there is room, people will butt in. They do it even when there is not enough room.

So you keep your distance, and every asshat behind you looks at it as an opportunity to jockey ahead. Too many times I have seen people almost get rammed by the transport truck, because they cut him off and then had to break hard.

[Boges]

The thing is most look at it as an invitation to squeeze in. You are doing the right thing by keeping the proper distance at speed, but in my experience, if there is room, people will butt in. They do it even when there is not enough room.

So you keep your distance, and every asshat behind you looks at it as an opportunity to jockey ahead. Too many times I have seen people almost get rammed by the transport truck, because they cut him off and then had to break hard.

See this is the whole problem with Canadian driving. If you see someone 4 seconds or so behind you in the left lane, let them pass! Even if you're driving 120 kms plus, let them pass anyway, they'll get caught speeding before you, if anything.

I would only drive in the passing lane if I had a wide-open road to drive (able to use cruise control). The left lane is for passing.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Boges

[Big Guy]

For a number of years I drove the Toronto-Windsor-Toronto 401 racetrack. When I was younger, I was a passing lane, "metal-to-the-pedal" tailgating jerk. As I survived to get older, after passing some pretty horrendous accidents, I maintained the middle lane when available. I also remember driving an elderly relative who had driving fears. To placate her, we stayed in the third slow lane for the trip. To my surprise, the trip in the slow lane was far less stressful and less than 10 minutes longer than my usual!

I now drive on smaller highways (highway #3) enjoying the scenery and stopping at times to take a stretch break. It took a long time but I have finally learned that the trip from point A and point B can also be an enjoyable experience if you plan accordingly.

[segnosaur]

So? Let them pull in.

At the speed that vehicles travel, backing off to maintain a larger gap (keeping the same approximate speed) will only add a second or 2 to your overall travel time

The thing is most look at it as an invitation to squeeze in. You are doing the right thing by keeping the proper distance at speed, but in my experience, if there is room, people will butt in. They do it even when there is not enough room.

So you keep your distance, and every asshat behind you looks at it as an opportunity to jockey ahead.

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.)

Too many times I have seen people almost get rammed by the transport truck, because they cut him off and then had to break hard.

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.

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.

[cybercoma]

Ok... He was partially to blame perhaps.... Although, I don't think it was that fast and I don't know what kind of certainty is involved in those calculations.

Regardless, as I said previously, that doesn't negate her culpability in leaving her car parked in the passing lane on a freeway!

The problem with determining whether he was partially to blame or not is that you have to consider whether he would have still hit her and been killed were he following all the rules. Given the verdict of the case, the judge clearly thinks that he would have hit her car and died regardless. If it was his negligence that caused the accident, then she would be acquitted, since it was not her act of parking the car on the highway that killed him, but his act of following too close and speeding.

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. 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. If he was keeping the same distance from the car in front of him as others were keeping from the cars in front of them, it might have been following too closely, but it wasn't negligent. He was doing what other reasonable people do.

Now parking your car in the passing lane and getting out on a busy highway without putting on your hazards..... People don't do that and the reason they don't do that is obvious. A reasonable person sees it as a lot more dangerous than doing 120km/h on the 401 or following 2 car lengths instead of 3.

His death was due to an act of negligence, but not his. I find it difficult to see how he was negligent, as the definition of negligence has to do with what doing something (or failing to do something) that a reasonable person would do (or not do), which then causes someone serious bodily harm or death. What he was doing doesn't meet that criteria. What she did certainly does.

Edited June 24, 2014 by cybercoma

[Bonam]

Good explanation.

[cybercoma]

You gotta give enough room to be able to stop. It sucks, but no insurance company is going to find the person that slams their brakes and gets rear-ended at fault.

Slamming on your brakes is different. From the point the car slams on its brakes, the brake lights come on and it takes a distance for that vehicle to stop. That's entirely different than parking a car in the passing lane without the brake lights or hazards on. The safe distance behind the SUV for the motorcyclist assumes the SUV has a stopping distance. When the SUV moved out of the way to reveal a parked car, the stopping distance was reduced to ZERO; her car was already stopped. That's not typical of a highway driving situation. Even if he had been following the SUV at a safe distance, the fact that her car was not moving at all when it appeared to him at the distance that the SUV was (since the SUV moved out of the way of the parked car) means that even at a safe following distance he could not have made that stop. That's not to mention that for this to be his negligence, he would have to be shown to be doing something a reasonable person wouldn't do. If he was following at a distance and driving at a speed that most reasonable people drive, then he wasn't at all negligent.

[bush_cheney2004]

As stated earlier, I think the motorcycle driver would be held partially liable for damages and injury/death in a civil case (lawsuit). As a licensed motorcycle driver with many thousands of miles on the road, alert operation, defensive driving experience, and the inherent agility of the bike should have prevented this worse case scenario. The Honda could have been disabled in the left lane for a very legitimate reason, requiring identical decision making and action to avoid a collision.

Anybody who "rides" knows and expects that a "cage" driver can/will screw up at any time and must be ready to take defensive action. We train for it at schools offered for even the most experienced riders, recognizing that as we age, our reaction time to situations is slower.

She broke the law and two people died...but they didn't have to.

[guyser]

Even if the motorcyclist is partially to blame, that doesn't absolve her of the negligence of parking her car on a freeway in the passing lane where it would clearly be a hazard.

Apparently not according to whats transpired.

However....

There is no evidence that the motorcyclist was going too fast, following too close or not paying attention. Anyone who claims any of these things is speculating. The mere fact that he hit the parked car is not evidence for any of those spurious accusations.

I beg to differ for obvious reasons, and I suspect this is not what you meant to write.

Evidence given in court said he was speeding, grossly speeding too.

Anytime someone hits a car on a highway means exactly that they were not paying attn and following too close. Its physics really.

If you think that someone should be going slow enough to avoid every unforeseeable situation on a freeway that may occur, you're an idiot and should stop driving and take the bus.

Thats exactly what they teach you, drive slow enough for the conditions and hazards that abound.

I bet you slow down around a school zone even though it may be a wide road, kids can dart from nowhere. Drive a country lane with trees et al near the road, slow down as aninals can dart out....I am betting you do.

The verdict is just.... Let's hope the sentence is as well.

I certainly think it is not just and I hope for an overturn on appeal.

cybercoma-The problem with determining whether he was partially to blame or not is that you have to consider whether he would have still hit her and been killed were he following all the rules. Given the verdict of the case, the judge clearly thinks that he would have hit her car and died regardless. If it was his negligence that caused the accident, then she would be acquitted, since it was not her act of parking the car on the highway that killed him, but his act of following too close and speeding.

Had he been following all the rules, he wouldnt have hit her. He would have been attentive, driving a safe speed, and all would be good.

And it was a jury who decided, not the Judge.

His death was due to an act of negligence, but not his. I find it difficult to see how he was negligent, as the definition of negligence has to do with what doing something (or failing to do something) that a reasonable person would do (or not do), which then causes someone serious bodily harm or death. What he was doing doesn't meet that criteria. What she did certainly does.

Both were negligent.

His was because he failed to keep a proper lookout and his speeding. It cannot be debated in all honesty.I know we all do it, I am not on some high horse here.

Look at it this way.

He needs to think...ok I am going 130k(+/-) so I need extra time to stop, can I see far enough ahead to do what I may need to do?

Is my vision ahead clear enough that I can miss any debris that may be on the road?

Lastly and it bears repeating.....ANYTIME anyone hits an object at rest , you are considered at fault. This accident likely would have occured had it been a rock on the road, something off the back of a truck etc.

[Hal 9000]

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.