Quebec Woman Guilty - Saves Ducks, Two People Dead

[Big Guy]

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.

What would have been the liability if the Motorcycle, instead of hitting the car, hit the lady and killed her?

[Big Guy]

It appears that there is a growing fowl conspiracy to retaliate for the way that this lady was handled by our judicial system;

http://www.simcoereformer.ca/2014/06/26/motorcycle-cop-injured-in-barrie-ont-crash

This may just be the beginning !?!

[-1=e^ipi]

A 2 year jail sentence seems about right to me.

2 years seems unjustifiably long given her lack of intent and the fact that 20 years is the maximum sentence. Maybe 6 months at most.

[jbg]

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.

But the ducks lived and who said those ducks' lives aren't as valuable as the motorcyclists'? All of you have a homo sapiens-centric system.

[Bonam]

2 years seems unjustifiably long given her lack of intent and the fact that 20 years is the maximum sentence. Maybe 6 months at most.

Why is 1/10 of the maximum sentence too much? As for intent... intent to kill is not a part of a "criminal negligence causing death" conviction or consideration. Obviously, if there was intent, then we would be looking at some type of murder charge, not a negligence charge. Besides, this is Canada, she'll almost certainly be out after what, perhaps half of her sentence if even that?

[-1=e^ipi]

Why is 1/10 of the maximum sentence too much?

To me it does seem too much. You also have to take into account that some blame should go to the man on the motorcycle (going over the speed limit on a motor cycle at night with a little girl). 6 months + loss of driving privileges for a few years + community service seems more than enough to me.

Interestingly, I was speaking about this topic with some of my family members, and they were surprised that I thought that she should get any jail time.

[GostHacked]

But the ducks lived and who said those ducks' lives aren't as valuable as the motorcyclists'? All of you have a homo sapiens-centric system.

Well, we are homo-sapiens.

To me it does seem too much. You also have to take into account that some blame should go to the man on the motorcycle (going over the speed limit on a motor cycle at night with a little girl). 6 months + loss of driving privileges for a few years + community service seems more than enough to me.

Interestingly, I was speaking about this topic with some of my family members, and they were surprised that I thought that she should get any jail time.

The MC driver does get some blame, but since he is dead, really hard to hold him accountable for his actions, or non actions. The idiot who parked her car on a major highway without any indication that she had done so, is complete negligence. I would revoke her drivers license.

[Bob Macadoo]

Well, we are homo-sapiens.The MC driver does get some blame, but since he is dead, really hard to hold him accountable for his actions, or non actions. The idiot who parked her car on a major highway without any indication that she had done so, is complete negligence. I would revoke her drivers license.

You can't then assign his portion of blame to her b/c he isn't around to be charged.

[GostHacked]

You can't then assign his portion of blame to her b/c he isn't around to be charged.

Would you park your car like that on a major highway?

[cybercoma]

2 years seems unjustifiably long given her lack of intent and the fact that 20 years is the maximum sentence. Maybe 6 months at most.

Criminal negligence causing death does not require intent.

[cybercoma]

But the ducks lived and who said those ducks' lives aren't as valuable as the motorcyclists'? All of you have a homo sapiens-centric system.

Thank you for weighing in, PETA.

[cybercoma]

To everyone defending this woman, saying it's the motorcyclists fault, you should really ask yourself what GostHacked just asked: Would you park your car in the passing lane on the 401 or any other major highway and get out without putting on your emergency lights, setting flares, or putting up pylons? Why or why not?

[bush_cheney2004]

Not defending this woman.....it really doesn't matter why or why not, as her conviction and sentence can/will do nothing to preserve the life of the motorcyclist and his passenger, for which he is/was responsible. Out of pure self interest, he should have not left their fate to the decision making ability of a "professed animal lover" or any other act of left lane vehicle stoppage that he can't control. She is at fault and will be held accountable, but he is "dead right".

[WWWTT]

What would have been the liability if the Motorcycle, instead of hitting the car, hit the lady and killed her?

Ya that's a damn good question that I bet that lots of people here are going to ignore because it's TOO in their face screaming that you're a freakin hypocrite!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

To everyone defending this woman, saying it's the motorcyclists fault, you should really ask yourself what GostHacked just asked: Would you park your car in the passing lane on the 401 or any other major highway and get out without putting on your emergency lights, setting flares, or putting up pylons? Why or why not?

Yes she should be charged, I agree.

But with failing to put on her signal light. Not for causing the death of the mc driver.

WWWTT

[Bonam]

What would have been the liability if the Motorcycle, instead of hitting the car, hit the lady and killed her?

I dunno all the details, but in cases where a pedestrian is struck while wandering around on a divided highway at night where no one would possibly have expected them to be, the driver that struck them generally isn't found at fault. If the lady had been struck and killed while wandering around on the highway after stopping in the left lane, my opinion is that whoever struck her should have gotten off scot free, because it was completely 100% her own fault. That being said, I don't know if the court system would necessarily have seen it that way, just expressing my opinion.

[guyser]

I dunno all the details, but in cases where a pedestrian is struck while wandering around on a divided highway at night where no one would possibly have expected them to be, the driver that struck them generally isn't found at fault. If the lady had been struck and killed while wandering around on the highway after stopping in the left lane, my opinion is that whoever struck her should have gotten off scot free, because it was completely 100% her own fault. That being said, I don't know if the court system would necessarily have seen it that way, just expressing my opinion.

Pretty much spot on.

But are you aware of the reason?

Its because a person on a highway is moving entity. A stopped car, rock, tree, debris are not.

Check your policy folks, it explains it in the sections under Comprehensive (or AP) and Collision.

[cybercoma]

Yes she should be charged, I agree.

But with failing to put on her signal light. Not for causing the death of the mc driver.

WWWTT

Another thing you fail to realize is that in Quebec you are not allowed to drive in the left lane on the highways at all, even if they are empty, unless you are passing another vehicle. That's it. Article 324 of the Quebec Highway Safety Code states this. So part of the decision reached here is with that understanding. Drivers are not supposed to be in the left lane at all. Not even to drive, unless they're passing another car. She parked in the left lane. What if there had been an emergency vehicle responding to a call travelling quickly in the left lane and the SUV moved out of the way at the last second to reveal the parked car? Quebec's highway rules are explicit in this regard. You are not allowed to be in the left lane, much less park your car there.

Also Article 384 states explicitly that no one may stop their vehicle on a roadway where the posted limit is greater than 70km/h unless it's a necessity. Saving baby ducks is not a necessity.

Any way you cut it, she broke numerous laws, did something that any reasonable person would see as highly dangerous, and ultimately caused the death of two people by doing something that's illegal and dangerous.

Keep blaming the victim though. It's a true sign of class.

[Boges]

If you're not supposed to drive in the left land in Quebec, what was the Motorcycle doing there?

[cybercoma]

If you're not supposed to drive in the left land in Quebec, what was the Motorcycle doing there?

Obviously passing vehicles.

[Boges]

Obviously passing vehicles.

Is that an established fact?

If he was following the SUV to pass a slower moving vehicle in the centre lane then it would stand to reason he'd be quick to follow the SUV back to the centre land instead of going head on into the parked car.

[cybercoma]

Is that an established fact?

If he was following the SUV to pass a slower moving vehicle in the centre lane then it would stand to reason he'd be quick to follow the SUV back to the centre land instead of going head on into the parked car.

SUV passes a car, moves into the lane in front of that car, now the motorcycle is stuck beside a car with an SUV in front of it and a stopped car in the passing lane. It's pretty clear.

[cybercoma]

It's also irrelevant. It's entirely nonsensical to me that anyone would defend someone stupid enough to park their car in the passing lane on a highway. It's utterly insane. It's not something any reasonable person would do and it killed two people, which is an expected outcome from such a stupid stupid stupid activity.

[Boges]

I don't believe anyone has defended her.

What some here are doing is suggesting that no matter what the obstacle, it's ultimately the responsibility of the MC driver to ensure the safety of the vehicle. It's called defensive driving.

[WWWTT]

Another thing you fail to realize is that in Quebec you are not allowed to drive in the left lane on the highways at all, even if they are empty, unless you are passing another vehicle. That's it. Article 324 of the Quebec Highway Safety Code states this. So part of the decision reached here is with that understanding. Drivers are not supposed to be in the left lane at all. Not even to drive, unless they're passing another car. She parked in the left lane. What if there had been an emergency vehicle responding to a call travelling quickly in the left lane and the SUV moved out of the way at the last second to reveal the parked car? Quebec's highway rules are explicit in this regard. You are not allowed to be in the left lane, much less park your car there.

Also Article 384 states explicitly that no one may stop their vehicle on a roadway where the posted limit is greater than 70km/h unless it's a necessity. Saving baby ducks is not a necessity.

Any way you cut it, she broke numerous laws, did something that any reasonable person would see as highly dangerous, and ultimately caused the death of two people by doing something that's illegal and dangerous.

Keep blaming the victim though. It's a true sign of class.

Ok then there are some things that I am not aware of in the Quebec traffic act. That's fair to point out. So then there would be more violations.

Keep in mind that the Quebec traffic act as well could be flawed, and that flaw could have contributed in part to the accident. Not all laws are just.

And ya, I'll keep blaming the person that was driving recklessly and unaware of his surroundings to the point he could not react in time to save his life.

As far as I'm concerned, he's only a victim of his own actions!

WWWTT