Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was referring to looking at how negligent her act was in determining her sentence. A court can’t be emotional in determining a sentence. They have to be objective and carry out just punishment for an individual’s act. If you look at my next post you will see that even the prosecutor agreed that her sole actions (not the result of her actions) should only amount to a maximum of 9 months in jail.
If most people were only told "a lady caused the death of two people by her actions" and that was the only information given; almost everyone would say she deserves much more than 9 months in jail. But that would be an unfair sentence since looking at the situation as a whole; her actions don't fit the definition of something that should be punished severely. At the end of the day the judge agreed that her actions deserve even less punishment (3 months). I think that was fair punishment based on the totality of the circumstance.
Whatever her punishment for being stupid is, it is.
What I have a problem with is the manufactured baloney that leads to blaming the victim.
Had the wannabe duckling saver had a functioning brain in her head she would have pulled off to the right. If no shoulder or off road safe place to park her car was available? She should have kept driving, gotten over the fact that ducks have a hard life when trying to cross a highway, and adopted a duckling or two when she got home... from Craigslist.
Whatever her punishment for being stupid is, it is.
What I have a problem with is the manufactured baloney that leads to blaming the victim.
Had the wannabe duckling saver had a functioning brain in her head she would have pulled off to the right. If no shoulder or off road safe place to park her car on the right side? She should have kept driving, gotten over the fact that ducks have a hard life when trying to cross a highway, and adopted a duckling or two when she got home... from Craigslist.
Exactly this.
I get it. I feel bad when I see an animal in a precarious situation. I love animals, and I have a dog.
If I decide to park my car in the middle of a busy I95...to save a puppy...and two people crash into my car, I deserve to be severely punished...regardless of my intentions.
Whatever her punishment for being stupid is, it is.
What I have a problem with is the manufactured baloney that leads to blaming the victim.
Had the wannabe duckling saver had a functioning brain in her head she would have pulled off to the right. If no shoulder or off road safe place to park her car was available? She should have kept driving, gotten over the fact that ducks have a hard life when trying to cross a highway, and adopted a duckling or two when she got home... from Craigslist.
I think everyone is in agreement here that she is to blame and is guilty of the offense. Most people just have a differing opinion on what her punishment should be.
He ran into the stopped car because the vehicle in front of him swerved out of the way at the last second and he didn't have time to stop. He's clearly guilty of following too closely, but the court determined, rightfully so, that the car stopped IN THE MIDDLE OF A HIGHWAY contributed to the accident. You sound like a great driver (not).
I suspect that if the article hadn't mentioned he was on a motorcycle, some of you wouldn't be nearly so quick to blame him. Inflammatory phrases like "donor cycle" reveal you for the petty, hateful people you are.
To add/
That vehicle in front of him being a truck pulling a large camper. so i doubt he was going that fast,his distraction before the accident was seeing the woman on the side of the road.
Another point to ponder he was middle aged family man driving a Harley with his daughter on the back and his wife following him on her Harley, obviously in this case he was traveling too close to the vehicle in front but IMO he was at a normal distance from that vehicle in front under the conditions of that expressway and like every one else on that highway may have been doing 10kms an hour over the speed limit.
Those of you thinking the biker was at fault the next time you are traveling a busy expressway observe your distance between the car in front of you,is it a car length for every 10kph you are traveling? probably not as on busy expressways it virtually impossible to leave a gap of 6-7 car lengths between you and the car in front. then imagine the vehicle in front of you swerves out of the way at the last minute to avoid a stopped car,you think you could have avoided what some are expecting the biker to avoid?
Keeping up with traffic is not illegal or hazardous.
The victim is not to blame.
If it weren't for the duck lover - this wouldn't be an issue.
Put the blame where it's due, and it's not on the victim.
You don't get to pull your car off in the "fast lane" and up against the divider (where there is one) on 287 or 22 or Rt 1 or Rt 9…. to rescue some ducklings and blame everyone who crashes in to you for not seeing your car/ driving in a reckless manner.
Contrary to your incorrect belief, speeding 30mph above the speed limit while recklessly failing to leave proper distance between yourself and the person in front of you is illegal and hazardous.
I agree that the passive victim here deserves no blame. That would be the daughter who experienced an unfortunate fate due to the recklessness of this lady and her father.
No one disagrees that the lady made a reckless mistake. But it's pathetic to ignore the carelessness and recklessness of the father who killed his daughter and himself. He's already serving the worst punishment possible and brought is sharing it with his whole family. Likewise, this woman who stopped her car should be reasonably punished for her hazardous traffic violation.
To add/
That vehicle in front of him being a truck pulling a large camper. so i doubt he was going that fast,his distraction before the accident was seeing the woman on the side of the road.
Another point to ponder he was middle aged family man driving a Harley with his daughter on the back and his wife following him on her Harley, obviously in this case he was traveling too close to the vehicle in front but IMO he was a normal distance from that vehicle in front under the conditions of that expressway.
The police reported that he was going in excess of 129km/hr. To put it in context of mph, the motorcyclist was traveling at about 80-85mph in a 55mph zone. We can only go off of what the investigation produced.
The police reported that he was going in excess of 129km/hr. To put it in context of mph, the motorcyclist was traveling at about 80-85mph in a 55mph zone. We can only go off of what the investigation produced.
That must have been one hot rod 5th wheel camper he was following.
From the actual police report=
Quote:
A provincial police officer told the court that Roy was driving at an estimated speed of 113 km/h to 129 km/h when he applied his brakes.
IMO a normal speed for that particular roadway. Also IMO theres no way the wife riding on her Harley would have allowed the daughter to ride on the back of Dads bike if she thought he was a reckless driver.
That must have been one hot rod 5th wheel camper he was following.
From the actual police report=
IMO a normal speed for that particular roadway. Also IMO theres no way the wife riding on her Harley would have allowed the daughter to ride on the back of Dads bike if she thought he was a reckless driver.
I feel your blame is misplaced. You can't blame the mom for not knowing that her husband's actions were reckless. There's plenty of people in this thread who won't admit that driving 30mph above the speed limit without adequate distance to accommodate road hazards is reckless. That doesn't mean that they would be responsible if someone else they knew was driving reckless on the roadway. Frankly, it shows how accepting people are of such reckless behavior. Perhaps the mother was just as accepting. That's how people die.
Had the two participants (the woman who created a hazard and the father who was driving recklessly) followed by the law and not been recklessly stupid, that poor mother would still have her family.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one NJ.
IMO the guy wasnt driving recklessly, He was out for an evening cruise with his family and was just driving with the flow of traffic. Also no witness has come forth to say he was driving recklessly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
