Quebec Woman Guilty - Saves Ducks, Two People Dead

WWWTT · June 27, 2014

Obviously passing vehicles.

You ignore the why.

Was the vehicle he was passing doing the limit?

WWWTT

WWWTT · June 27, 2014

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.

Another good point!

Why didn't this speed demon go back to the safety of the centre lane.

Actually you know what, this story is starting to sound more and more confusing.

It sounds like he wanted to also pass the alleged SUV and sped up!

WWWTT

guyser · June 27, 2014

Obviously passing vehicles.

...at a high rate of speed.

Cybercoma, your post re the left hand lane law while factual and appreciated ( I didnt know that law existed) it is still only one facet of the issue. And it appears from the fine ($30) that they dont regard it as a serious offence.

Her being in that lane is illegal, and parking obvious, but so too was the MC . Both of those stand on their own.

Multiple cars missed hitting her and we know why. They kept a proper lookout. We cannot debate that point. Its obvious he did not do that. Add in his speeding and the result is not pretty.

Again, she mad e a dumb move. But the MC has his own duty to keep safe and he didnt. The hazard existed for some time. A reasonable and prudent driver would have missed him.

I honestly and hopefully wish the charge is overturned and she is convicted for the $30 fine.

guyser · June 27, 2014

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.

No ones defending her actions, just minimizing them to t what we feel is the proper amount of blame.

The car could have broken down, flat tire, blown tranny any number of things, ergo it would (or could) be where it ultimately wound up.

The SUV and many many other cars managed to pass by w/out harm .

So now we have an existing road hazard, same as a pothole, tree,debris etc. Its not like she slammed the brakes on and he plowed her.

So with ANY existing hazard, he has a duty to avoid and keep a proper lookout.

He didnt.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Guyser2

Bob Macadoo · June 27, 2014

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

No I wouldn't. I also wouldn't high speed lane weave on a motorcycle with a rider which if you've ever driven in urban/suburban Quebec occurs right regular. I drive the 401/400 in TO alot and I hate driving with the SOBs on the 40/20 in Montreal.

scribblet · June 27, 2014

I don't think many other cars passed her, I've read that only one vehicle passed her which was ahead of the bikes, it swerved and got around. It was said that, that vehicle was blocking his view... The wife also testified that he wasn't speeding as she was only a learner so he was driving more slowly. If that is true, why was he in the passing lane ? If the estimate of his driving speed is accurate than the wife is not telling the truth, but speed didn't seem to matter to the jury.

I agree that the woman was absolutely stupid to stop in the passing lane like that, but I do think there appears to be a small portion of culpability to be assigned to the bike. The Jury didn't see it that way though.

cybercoma · June 28, 2014

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.

If it's his responsibility, then he's responsible for his death. He's not because he was not reasonably able to foresee something as stupid as someone parking their car in the passing lane and everyone claiming it's his responsibility have not reconciled the fact that he was following an SUV that blocked his view of parked car.

Edited June 28, 2014 by cybercoma

cybercoma · June 28, 2014

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.

WWWTT

Prove he was driving recklessly. That was never claimed in court.

cybercoma · June 28, 2014

Everyone saying the biker was driving recklessly must think the defence attorney is an idiot because that is exactly what he would have been arguing to get his client cleared. If the biker was driving recklessly, than she was not criminally negligent. He was, as it wouldn't have been her actions that caused his death, but his reckless driving that did.

Edited June 28, 2014 by cybercoma

GostHacked · June 28, 2014

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/wrong-way-driver-causes-crash-on-gardiner-expressway-1.2690792

But hey, people here say you should expect and be able to avoid this type of thing.

GostHacked · June 28, 2014

If it's his responsibility, then he's responsible for his death. He's not because he was not reasonably able to foresee something as stupid as someone parking their car in the passing lane and everyone claiming it's his responsibility have not reconciled the fact that he was following an SUV that blocked his view of parked car.

Even in a car some large vehicles block my view. In some cases I blow a red light because the transport in front of my is huge and blocking my view. On a bike I can move around the lane a bit easier to try and see ahead of me. Does not always work.

WWWTT · June 28, 2014

Prove he was driving recklessly. That was never claimed in court.

Yes you are probably right. I can't prove squat!

This is just my opinion here.

WWWTT

bush_cheney2004 · June 28, 2014

Prove he was driving recklessly. That was never claimed in court.

He was not driving defensively, a totally different idea. Following a SUV that visually masks conditions ahead is not wise. His own decisions and actions could have prevented her illegal stupidity from taking their lives.

On Guard for Thee · June 28, 2014

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

It may be an interesting question but I think courts/juries are supposed to make decisions based what did happen, not "what if's"

WWWTT · June 28, 2014

It may be an interesting question but I think courts/juries are supposed to make decisions based what did happen, not "what if's"

Sounds logical.

But the court decision won't be giving anyone a second chance at life either!

Hopefully, the high publicity of this case will make people second guess stopping their vehicle on the highway and driving too fast, too close and in a manner to reduce response time.

WWWTT

GostHacked · June 29, 2014

Don't forget, people can speed and not be reckless with their vehicles. I would say that 90% of us speed daily.

overthere · June 29, 2014

They should dig up the bodies of the two dead ones and give them both tickets for driving in the left lane.

Last time I was in Montreal I was driving 15km over the limit on a narrow two lane road in moderate to heavy traffic. I look in the side mirror, a gravel truck that had been tailgating me is passing me on a double yellow line, starting to head up a hill. JUst as that hideous fact hits my lizard brain, I realize a car is passing me on the right at the same time, doing perhaps 70km over the limit on the narrow shoulder. They managed to miss each other when they converged in front of me, and the car coming down the hill only got halfway into the ditch in his successful attempt to avoid a headon with the gravel truck.

Always an adventure on the road there..

Big Guy · June 30, 2014

I thought that in Quebec the posted limits are suggestions only. And since the numbers are in English, to be ignored by francophones.

segnosaur · July 2, 2014

If it's his responsibility, then he's responsible for his death. He's not because he was not reasonably able to foresee something as stupid as someone parking their car in the passing lane

The fact that he (meaning the motorcycle driver) didn't imagine the possibility of obstructions in the road doesn't mean that other drivers aren't so blind.

and everyone claiming it's his responsibility have not reconciled the fact that he was following an SUV that blocked his view of parked car.

One of the things I remember from my driver's ed class many years ago...

If the vehicle in front is blocking your view, there is a solution.... drop back/slow down. It improves your visibility, and at the same time gives you more leeway in stopping.

Everyone saying the biker was driving recklessly must think the defence attorney is an idiot because that is exactly what he would have been arguing to get his client cleared.

Actually the defence did point out that the driver was going too fast.

From: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Stopping+ducks+criminal+defence+lawyer+says/9928372/story.html

Other elements beyond Czornobaj's control, Labelle said, included the position of the setting sun that Sunday evening as drivers were heading westbound and the speed at which Roy was travelling on his Harley-Davidson when it crashed into the back of the Civic.

So yes, the speed of the cyclist was brought up by the defense as a factor in the crash.

segnosaur · July 2, 2014

Don't forget, people can speed and not be reckless with their vehicles.

And, its also possible to be in a situation where speeding is reckless... such as when visibility is limited (e.g. behind a truck, or when driving into the sun), when driving a vehicle with a limited ability to stop quickly (e.g. a motorcycle), when driving a motorcycle with a passanger....

I would say that 90% of us speed daily.

So?

First of all, the fact that the majority "speed" doesn't necessarily mean that its actually safe to do so. If the majority do a foolish thing, its still a foolish thing.

Secondly, a bit of context is important... Yeah, most people probaby say "10km/h over the limit is fine". This driver wasn't driving 10km over... he was driving probably 25km/h over.

If your argument is "its ok to drive fast because others do it too" then what are your limits? if you accept 25km over the limit, where exactly do you draw the line to say "OK that's too fast"? Or are you in favor of eliminating any and all speed limits? 150 km/h through a school zone? 200km/h on the highway?

GostHacked · July 3, 2014

The fact that he (meaning the motorcycle driver) didn't imagine the possibility of obstructions in the road doesn't mean that other drivers aren't so blind.

Again you typically don't have bone heads pulling over to the left of a divided highway to save some ducks. It's hard enough when you can see it, and try to avoid it, but she was blocking half that lane. That alone should come with a large fine.

And as for your other comment, I really suggest driving in a large metropolis. Sure speeding is dumb, but there is another thing about keeping with traffic. One thing that pisses me off are people that cannot get up to speed when merging. Jutting out into 100kph traffic at 60kph.

Some roads I would love to see a higher limit. Seems to work in parts of Germany.

But even as a joke remark about 100km in a school zone is stupid.

The context is a parked car on the left side of a divided highway blocking half a lane without any indication it is there.

segnosaur · July 3, 2014

Again you typically don't have bone heads pulling over to the left of a divided highway to save some ducks. It's hard enough when you can see it, and try to avoid it, but she was blocking half that lane.

Never claimed that stopping in the left-hand lane of a divided highway was a good idea. The issue is whether the motorcycle driver deserves a significant amount of blame over the accident.

And as for your other comment, I really suggest driving in a large metropolis.

And what makes you think I haven't?

I live in Ottawa (population ~1 million). I've also driven in Toronto, Montreal, Boston, etc.

Sure speeding is dumb, but there is another thing about keeping with traffic.

I've covered this before.

First of all, the motorcycist was in the fast lane. You know, the lane you are in when you think the other cars are not going fast enough. So he was not likely "keeping up with traffic". He was trying to exceed traffic flow.

Secondly, you do realize that in a multi-lane highway, not all lanes are to travel at the same speed. Ones on the left travel faster than ones on the right. You might get angry drivers if you go 100km/h in the left-lane on the 401, but even the most agressive drivers probably won't complane if you stick to the speed limit (or close to it) in the right-hand lane.

Basically your argument is "Its ok if drivers suck if everyone does it together". I'd prefer if drivers didn't suck, and I'm not going to excuse a driver's contribution to an accident just because "its common to drive like a moron".

Some roads I would love to see a higher limit. Seems to work in parts of Germany.

The Autobahn has no speed limit in many areas (outside of urban areas, when the weather is not bad, etc.)

However, keep in mind that training in Germany is a bit more stringent than here in Canada... driving school is mandatory, and their tests seem to be a bit more comprehensive. I also suspect that their roads may be a little better maintained (given the fact that they have less worries about damage due to frost heaves.)

If you truly want "no speed limits", be prepared to spend a lot more, both in time (for the additional training) and money (higher taxes for better road maintenance.)

Then of course there is the issue of gas consumption... Cars tend to get their best fuel efficiency at 100km/h... driving faster waste gas, AND releases more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The context is a parked car on the left side of a divided highway blocking half a lane without any indication it is there.

Other than the fact that, well, a person with their eyes open, and who's not tailgating, might actually be able to see it.

Was the motor cycle driver blind?

Edited July 3, 2014 by segnosaur

guyser · July 3, 2014

Would anyone have a transcript of this case?

Ive looked but cannot find one.

GostHacked · July 3, 2014

Never claimed that stopping in the left-hand lane of a divided highway was a good idea. The issue is whether the motorcycle driver deserves a significant amount of blame over the accident.

He's dead. As I said before, he paid the ultimate price for what ever stupidity took place on his end. Even if speeding is a factor, what the f*ck was that stupid woman thinking? It's not something the majority of people would do. The biker is not exonerated for his actions, quite the opposite.

It is fortunate only a bike hit the car. It could have been a transport truck, which would have really messed things up.

GostHacked · July 3, 2014

Was the motor cycle driver blind?

Blind to a parked car at night with no hazard lights, possibly no lights at all. Your car windshield you can get reflections that can throw you off. A similar effect on the inside of a helmet visor. Not sure how many of you are experienced with motorbikes.

I've done shoulder checks for a lane change, only to find someone has jumped in front of me and I need to break hard. And that all happens in 1 or two seconds. Or a shoulder check puts my balance off and I drift a bit in the lane.

You can do everything right and still get bit by stupid drivers. And if you are in the Ottawa area, you experience this daily. And as you know you can do 120 on the Queensway and not get a ticket. The cops are usually going a bit faster. They are not setting a good example are they?

IF you would not park on that side of the road for ducks, then you would be hard pressed to put any blame on the MC rider. Because you do speed. We all do.