Quebec Woman Guilty - Saves Ducks, Two People Dead

[guyser]

Even if speeding is a factor, what the f*ck was that stupid woman thinking?

Those are two separate issues really.

Chances are, if he were not speeding and tailgating, he would have seen the car.

Had she not pulled over there, all would be good.

So her actions did create a hazard. It existed before he came along. What did he do to avoid the hazard? Rhetorical question of course.

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

I seriously doubt that.

A trucker is a professional driver (yea yea I know , some arent) but his viewpoint would be over the top of any vehicle in front of him, not to mention the mere fact he would be (a) going the speed limit or nearly at it, and ( he would be in the left lane.

[guyser]

Blind to a parked car at night with no hazard lights, possibly no lights at all.

GH, you are debating with fervor but you have facts wrong.

It was broad daylight and sunny.

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.

Ergo dont speed and keep an even better watch out.

You can do everything right and still get bit by stupid drivers.

True, very true . But really, so what?

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.

We all speed. No question.

We all face the consequences of that action.

Had this been me and I hit the car with my car, I know from my job that I would be at fault for the accident.

Not in a million years would I think I can be exonerated.

And in fact, even though she was convicted ( im assuming it will be overturned) the MC drivers mayb be held at fault on record with the insurance company

[cybercoma]

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

And it's obvious how well that worked out for them.

[guyser]

And it's obvious how well that worked out for them.

True, but I suspect if the widow goes for more in a civil suit it will play a huge part.

[segnosaur]

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

And it's obvious how well that worked out for them.

First of all, my point was in response to you calling the defense lawyer an "idiot" for not bringing up the cyclist's driving if it was actually a factor. I was just pointing out that yes, it was brought up as a factor.

Secondly, the fact that it "didn't work" doesn't necessarily mean the jury was right. Juries do make mistakes. So do police and lawyers.

[segnosaur]

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.

Yes, the biker is dead. Yes, he paid the 'ultimate price'. Ultimately what is discussed here will probably have no effect. Its an interesting intellectual exercise.

Blind to a parked car at night with no hazard lights, possibly no lights at all.

As another poster stated, the accident might have taken place in the day. She may also have had her hazards on. (The article I referred to mentions that, although I'm not sure if that issue was challenged.)

Even if it was dark and she had no lights on, they have this thing on a vehicle... its called a "headlight". Ideally the driver shouldn't be driving so fast that he can't stop within the distance the headlights illuminate.

And as you know you can do 120 on the Queensway and not get a ticket.

Yes, you probably can. But that doesn't necessarily mean you have to do 120. I see plenty of cars going around 100 or even less in the right hand lanes.

Because you do speed. We all do.

Beware of absolutes.

Is speeding common? Yeah probably. As I said before, most people I know say 10 over is reasonable. But the motorcyclist was not going 10 over. He wasn't going 20 over. It was estimated that he may have been going as much as 40 over.

And even if speeding is common, most people are smart about it... don't speed if conditions are bad, don't speed if your vehicle has problems, etc. The cyclist was driving a vehicle which, according to some here could not stop quickly. And he was carrying a passanger. Conditions that would suggest a driver be more cautious.

So, once again, your argument comes down to "Drivers suck so they shouldn't be blamed for sucking". I'd prefer if drivers sucked less.

Here's a question for you... at least 1 driver managed to miss hitting the parked car. Supposedly the guy's wife was also driving a motorcycle and managed to stop in time. Why exactly do you think they were able to avoid hitting the car, yet the Cyclist wasn't? Was it because:

- They had psychic abilities to detect obsticles in the distance,

or:

- They were driving in a method that was safer (leaving more space in front to avoid obsticles, perhaps not going as fast)

[cybercoma]

First of all, my point was in response to you calling the defense lawyer an "idiot" for not bringing up the cyclist's driving if it was actually a factor. I was just pointing out that yes, it was brought up as a factor.

Secondly, the fact that it "didn't work" doesn't necessarily mean the jury was right. Juries do make mistakes. So do police and lawyers.

my point is that it obviously didn't matter in this case at all. He wasn't responsible for his death. She was.

[GostHacked]

So, once again, your argument comes down to "Drivers suck so they shouldn't be blamed for sucking". I'd prefer if drivers sucked less.

What sucks is some stupid woman parked her car in a very dangerous spot creating a hazard for other drivers. She sucks for sure, and sure needs to be blamed for it. But instead some prefer to beat a dead horse (or MC driver).

[monty16]

There was no criminal intent and so the woman should at most receive a warning and maybe a little community service. It also serves as a warning to all those who drive motorcycles that they need to be extra vigilant of the dangers of the road. I speak from experience.

We must not get over anxious of following the Conservative party's lead of punishing all instances of man slaughter or murder or other crimes with a prescribed and predetermined punishment which forces judges into being overly harsh.

Conservatism and Harper's party's sick mindset has nothing to do with socially responsible government and correct reaction of the law to this sort of instance. In fact, it's no exaggeration to say that many of them would bring back capital punishment to Canada and make an example of this lady by executing her for her crime. Indeed, if the Cons had their way, the judge would have no choice!

Canada is a socially responsible country and must stay so. Therein again lies the reason why we must get rid of Harper and his evil gang of wanna be Americans.

WE Canadians don't ever want to contemplate US style justice against a woman who felt compassion for mammals in danger on the road. Perhaps also an acceptance of herself being no different in many ways as members of the animal kingdom. Another form of compassion that is lacking in the US and among conservative extremists such as Harper's followers.

[bush_cheney2004]

WE Canadians don't ever want to contemplate US style justice against a woman who felt compassion for mammals in danger on the road. Perhaps also an acceptance of herself being no different in many ways as members of the animal kingdom. Another form of compassion that is lacking in the US and among conservative extremists such as Harper's followers.

Ducks are "mammals" in Canada ? Is that because "American style" ducks are birds ? Got it....

[monty16]

Who are you addressing b_c? Me?

If so then you need to know that you must not address me specifically and you must address every post as if you aren't aware of who wrote that post.

Stop the personal attacks agains me. Thanks!

[bush_cheney2004]

If so then you need to know that you must not address me specifically and you must address every post as if you aren't aware of who wrote that post.

If you choose to post in this forum, any member can quote your post. I am addressing you.

[On Guard for Thee]

Who are you addressing b_c? Me?

If so then you need to know that you must not address me specifically and you must address every post as if you aren't aware of who wrote that post.

Stop the personal attacks agains me. Thanks!

If he quoted you then I guess you can assume he might be addressing you. Pretty simple really.

[Big Guy]

From the Ontario Drivers Manual;

“Maintaining space

As a general rule, drive at the same speed as traffic around you without going over the speed limit. Leave a cushion of space around your vehicle to let other drivers and cyclists see you and to avoid a collision. Whenever you follow another vehicle, you need enough space to stop safely if the other vehicle brakes suddenly. A safe following distance is at least two seconds behind the vehicle in front of you. This lets you see around the vehicle ahead and gives you enough distance to stop suddenly. Do not block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.”

From Ontario Motorcycle Handbook

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/handbook/motorcycles/section5-3-0.shtml

“As a motorcyclist, you have to be careful not to drive too fast on a freeway. Although it is easy for motorcycles to cut through traffic and speed on a freeway, driving faster than traffic is dangerous because you will not be able to react quickly enough in an emergency.

Drive at a steady speed on a freeway. Keep checking traffic all around you and look in your mirrors every five to 10 seconds. As in city driving, you should be constantly scanning the road ahead and to each side, and checking your rearview mirrors. Look ahead to where you are going to be in the next 15 to 20 seconds, or as far ahead as you can see.

Always keep at least a two- to three-second distance behind the vehicle in front of you. If another vehicle follows too closely, give yourself even more room in front or change lanes. Keep a cushion of space all around you and avoid driving in the blind spots of other vehicles. Stay clear of large vehicles. They block your view more than other vehicles and create a strong air disturbance behind them. If you get behind one of these vehicles, the wall of wind can whip around your motor- cycle, making it difficult to control.”

Edited July 6, 2014 by Big Guy

[jacee]

From the Ontario Drivers Manual;

Maintaining space

As a general rule, drive at the same speed as traffic around you without going over the speed limit. Leave a cushion of space around your vehicle to let other drivers and cyclists see you and to avoid a collision. Whenever you follow another vehicle, you need enough space to stop safely if the other vehicle brakes suddenly. A safe following distance is at least two seconds behind the vehicle in front of you. This lets you see around the vehicle ahead and gives you enough distance to stop suddenly. Do not block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

From Ontario Motorcycle Handbook

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/handbook/motorcycles/section5-3-0.shtml

As a motorcyclist, you have to be careful not to drive too fast on a freeway. Although it is easy for motorcycles to cut through traffic and speed on a freeway, driving faster than traffic is dangerous because you will not be able to react quickly enough in an emergency.

Drive at a steady speed on a freeway. Keep checking traffic all around you and look in your mirrors every five to 10 seconds. As in city driving, you should be constantly scanning the road ahead and to each side, and checking your rearview mirrors. Look ahead to where you are going to be in the next 15 to 20 seconds, or as far ahead as you can see.

Always keep at least a two- to three-second distance behind the vehicle in front of you. If another vehicle follows too closely, give yourself even more room in front or change lanes. Keep a cushion of space all around you and avoid driving in the blind spots of other vehicles. Stay clear of large vehicles. They block your view more than other vehicles and create a strong air disturbance behind them. If you get behind one of these vehicles, the wall of wind can whip around your motor- cycle, making it difficult to control.

That's all fine and dandy when the vehicles in front of you are moving, but if one suddenly appears that's parked in your lane, it's not going to help at all.

.

[cybercoma]

There was no criminal intent . . .

You should familiarize yourself with criminal negligence laws.

[cybercoma]

That's all fine and dandy when the vehicles in front of you are moving, but if one suddenly appears that's parked in your lane, it's not going to help at all.

.

I love all these posters thinking they could stop in time with a 2-3 second gap between them and a stopped vehicle that appears out of nowhere, in the passing lane no less. I also find it absolutely hilarious all these people who are saying they would never exceed the posted speed limit when passing other cars. Hilariously naive.

[jacee]

There was no criminal intent and so the woman should at most receive a warning and maybe a little community service.

Negligence implies intent, in law ... because no care is shown to avoid damage to others.

WE Canadians

Speak only for yourself, please.

don't ever want to contemplate US style justice against a woman who felt compassion for mammals in danger on the road.

... and absolutely no compassion for the people on the road.

I want Canadian justice - jail time - for a dangerous idiot who got a father and 16 year old daughter KILLED trying incompetently to save a few ducks.

The ducks managed to save themselves without her help.

The father and daughter couldn't.

If you stop or swerve or brake for small animals on fast busy highways, you put people at risk ... and you can make them DEAD!

If your judgement is that dangerously bad,

do the rest of us a favour and

STAY OFF THE ROAD!!

Or go to jail for your negligence.

Two people died.

Ya got that?

TWO! PEOPLE! DIED!!!

.

Edited July 7, 2014 by jacee

[Boges]

Two people died.

Ya got that?

TWO! PEOPLE! DIED!!!

I think we got that, but many in this thread think that those TWO PEOPLE! or at least the driver could have done more to ensure their safety.

[jacee]

I think we got that, but many in this thread think that those TWO PEOPLE! or at least the driver could have done more to ensure their safety.

I don't agree. His speed wasn't out of line for the passing lane, and there was a vehicle in front of him that had to swerve quickly - he couldn't see the parked car until it was too late.

The person who had to swerve didn't even have time to check for other vehicles in the next lane - luckily none close. There could have been more people killed.

Rule of the road: People take precedence over animals.

.

Edited July 7, 2014 by jacee

[Boges]

- he couldn't see the parked car until it was too late.

That would indicate that he didn't leave enough time to safely stop.

This has been debated over and over in this thread.

There could have been any number of obstacles in the passing lane that a driver should keep an eye out for. But because this obstacle was a stupid woman trying save ducks it means the driver didn't play a part in his and his daughter's death?

Edited July 7, 2014 by Boges

[Bonam]

Whether or not it may have been possible for someone to avoid death in an extremely dangerous situation is not relevant to the fact of whether the person who created the dangerous situation to begin with is guilty or not. Yes, I'm sure that some of the amazing drivers of MLW may have managed to swerve around the parked car or something, but the woman still parked it there, still created that situation which posed serious risk to others, and should be punished accordingly.

[Big Guy]

I believe that the benefits of discussing this case is NOT to assign guilt or innocence - that is for the courts to ultimately decide. I believe that the discussion benefits us all in investigating how this tragedy could have been either prevented or minimized and learn from others mistakes. It is unfortunate that discussion deteriorates again to a contest of which poster is right and which poster is wrong.

WHO CARES!?!

The mere fact that so many have contributed their opinions on this case have made everyone better informed and I assume more careful when they are on the road. That is one of the few positive things that can result from this tragedy.

[jacee]

That would indicate that he didn't leave enough time to safely stop.

No! He couldn't see the parked car because of the vehicle in front of him.

Some people haven't bothered to check the facts.

[Boges]

No! He couldn't see the parked car because of the vehicle in front of him.

Some people haven't bothered to check the facts.

No, we've discussed that at length as well. If the MC didn't have enough time to stop, or at least follow the SUV into the centre lane then it would indicate they didn't leave sufficient stopping distance from behind the SUV.

Again none of this is absolving the women from doing something completely idiotic. But drivers should drive assuming all drivers around them are going to do something wrong.