U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-28-2015, 06:56 PM
 
Location: Suburb of Chicago
20,813 posts, read 10,079,044 times
Reputation: 20253

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by griffon652 View Post
I completely disagree with your notion that its "unreasonable/difficult" to keep that type of distance. I think if an individual has a hard time with this then itís their driving skills that are lacking and has absolutely nothing to do with being on a big city expressway.

I live in S. Florida which has been consistently rated as one of the worst places to drive with the worst drivers. Also, the expressways here rival the hustle and bustle of major expressways across the country. I have NEVER had trouble keeping a consistent safe distance from the car in front while driving 80 mph. So anyone who can't keep that distances either isnít trying or are seriously lacking in driving skills.
That's not how it is in Chicago. People lane hop and will tuck themselves in between two cars in an attempt to reduce their 55 mph commute.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-28-2015, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
1,421 posts, read 1,205,313 times
Reputation: 1751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
Because she was a freekin' moron with no consideration for the lives of others? I haven't re-read the entire thread but did this jackass even turn on her emergency flashers? Kill 2 people and get 90 DAYS? Absurd.
Fact: She did not kill anybody. Her actions caused an unfortunate series of events that lead to the death of two others, but she did not kill anybody.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2015, 08:37 PM
 
1,294 posts, read 611,774 times
Reputation: 587
A few months back, I was driving at 45 mph down a two lane road when I noticed a family of geese waddling across the street. You don't have a lot of time to think about this type of thing... It was either floor it and kill all the baby goslings and their mother or try to brake and risk the guy behind me not stopping in time. What are you supposed to do?
I ended up stopping and the guy behind me couldn't stop in time and swerved around me. Half of me felt like an ******* and the other half felt like he should have been watching the geese get ready to move into the road. Ugh. Moral choices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2015, 10:32 PM
 
3,723 posts, read 4,594,338 times
Reputation: 4746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyl3r View Post
A few months back, I was driving at 45 mph down a two lane road when I noticed a family of geese waddling across the street. You don't have a lot of time to think about this type of thing... It was either floor it and kill all the baby goslings and their mother or try to brake and risk the guy behind me not stopping in time. What are you supposed to do?
I ended up stopping and the guy behind me couldn't stop in time and swerved around me. Half of me felt like an ******* and the other half felt like he should have been watching the geese get ready to move into the road. Ugh. Moral choices.
I would have ran over the geese rather than risk the person behind me being killed or permanently disabled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2015, 11:14 PM
 
6,791 posts, read 7,116,187 times
Reputation: 6970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyl3r View Post
A few months back, I was driving at 45 mph down a two lane road when I noticed a family of geese waddling across the street. You don't have a lot of time to think about this type of thing... It was either floor it and kill all the baby goslings and their mother or try to brake and risk the guy behind me not stopping in time. What are you supposed to do?
I ended up stopping and the guy behind me couldn't stop in time and swerved around me. Half of me felt like an ******* and the other half felt like he should have been watching the geese get ready to move into the road. Ugh. Moral choices.
There's no way I could have floored it to kill a bunch of geese either. Few people can do that. I used to live in an area where Geese crossing was a regular occurrence, everyone stops.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2015, 06:44 AM
 
3,275 posts, read 3,701,115 times
Reputation: 5438
Quote:
Originally Posted by trishguard View Post
I would have ran over the geese rather than risk the person behind me being killed or permanently disabled.

???

If they are driving behind you at a safe following distance, they can stop without rear-ending you.

If they are driving so close behind you that they cannot stop in time, they deserve whatever they get.

I would stop for the geese. Not MY problem if people follow me too closely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2015, 06:57 AM
 
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
2,540 posts, read 3,276,508 times
Reputation: 6774
Jerseygirl415.


You asked for my opinion on this matter, so here it is.


She created a situation that resulted in two people being killed, through her negligent actions.


She was charged and convicted of two counts of criminal negligence, causing death.


Now, at this point I will make a few observations about the law in Quebec, versus the rest of Canada.


Quebec's law system is based on the French Napoleonic code, not the British Common Law, so there are some basic differences in how a case is decided. The Judge who heard the evidence, also heard the sentencing suggestions put forth by the Crown Attorney, and the defence attorney, before passing his sentence, after rendering his judgement of guilt. The Judge is not bound to side with one opinion or the other, but generally the sentence is somewhere in between the two opinions.


As it happens, the sentence is being appealed by the woman and her lawyer, so everything is in a state of suspended animation, while the appeals court hears the case on appeal. Now, about the idea of serving a sentence in short bits, on weekends. It allows the convicted person to meet their legal obligation to serve the sentence, but at the same time to continue to be employed, and maintain their connection to their family. A mixture of punishment and sympathy, at the same time.


This case obviously has stirred strong emotions on both sides of the question..... Was she acting in a legal and safe manner, or did she commit a criminal act, that resulted in deaths ? On the basis of the accident investigation by the QPP, she was negligent in her actions. The argument about the motorcycle operator being " too close " is laid aside by the Judge's written opinion, in which he stated that if the accused had NOT stopped on the active lanes of the highway, no one would have died.


In my personal opinion, the woman should have received a longer sentence, of perhaps two years. That would have satisfied the need for condemnation of her dangerous actions, while leaving the door open for a civil action by the surviving Wife against the woman driver.


In Canada, civil suits have a lower threshold for proving guilt than in a criminal case. On the other hand, if you sue some one in a civil trial and the court rules in favour of the other party, YOU pay their costs, as well as your own, so you had better be very sure of your facts, before you go to court.


It was a sad and unfortunate case, which I hope will be a cautionary tale for the future. In summation, remember that your actions can be held to account, in a criminal court. Especially if a death occurs as a result of what you did.


Jim B.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2015, 06:59 AM
Status: "Kamala/Pete 2020!! Make it happen, people." (set 21 days ago)
 
7,356 posts, read 2,938,499 times
Reputation: 6212
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctic_gardener View Post
???

If they are driving behind you at a safe following distance, they can stop without rear-ending you.

If they are driving so close behind you that they cannot stop in time, they deserve whatever they get.

I would stop for the geese. Not MY problem if people follow me too closely.
On the effing interstate?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2015, 07:24 AM
 
Location: Southeast Michigan
2,839 posts, read 1,697,580 times
Reputation: 4521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Doll View Post
On the effing interstate?!
This. People don't expect cars to stop on an interstate freeway unless it's an emergency and if you deliberately create an emergency you will be held responsible for this. Just because a person driving behind you did not react in time to the emergency that you deliberately created does not absolve you from responsibility.

It's illegal to deliberately stop on a freeway in the US unless you have a good reason for it (car trouble or to avoid hitting an obstacle that you can't drive over or around without putting your life or the life of others in danger). I am pretty sure that Quebec has similar laws. After breaking that law, she doesn't get to put the blame on another person for not being careful enough to avoid the situation she illegally created.

Just imagine that there was no ducks and she stopped because she was too drunk to drive any further. How many people would be still defending her ? Yet it's the same situation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2015, 07:47 AM
Status: "Kamala/Pete 2020!! Make it happen, people." (set 21 days ago)
 
7,356 posts, read 2,938,499 times
Reputation: 6212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
This. People don't expect cars to stop on an interstate freeway unless it's an emergency and if you deliberately create an emergency you will be held responsible for this. Just because a person driving behind you did not react in time to the emergency that you deliberately created does not absolve you from responsibility.

It's illegal to deliberately stop on a freeway in the US unless you have a good reason for it (car trouble or to avoid hitting an obstacle that you can't drive over or around without putting your life or the life of others in danger). I am pretty sure that Quebec has similar laws. After breaking that law, she doesn't get to put the blame on another person for not being careful enough to avoid the situation she illegally created.

Just imagine that there was no ducks and she stopped because she was too drunk to drive any further. How many people would be still defending her ? Yet it's the same situation.

I agree with everything you said. There are serious wackos in this world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:47 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top