Canadian woman who stopped car to help ducks faces life in jail after causing fatal crash
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.
Sure, it was completely stupid to stop and think that something needed to be done for these ducklings because their mother was not around. But it's even more stupid to hit a parked vehicle. This father is responsible for killing is daughter by driving recklessly.
The biker was following a large camper ,his daughter was on the back and his wife was following on another bike, obviously he was too close to avoid the collision when the camper suddenly swerved out of the way and he was confronted with a stopped car, however i dont think his driving was reckless as none of the witnesses said he was driving abnormally, i believe he was going with the flow of traffic on a high speed expressway and was following the camper at a normal distance for normal conditions.
Remember also that he was distracted at a critical moment at the site of the woman walking back to her car mere inches from highspeed traffic.
IMO it would be the rare driver who would drive a half mile behind a truck/camper on the off chance there was something stopped in front of it. the biker paid the highest price for not following that far back, what price does our duck lady pay for her stupidity
The biker was following a large camper ,his daughter was on the back and his wife was following on another bike, obviously he was too close to avoid the collision when the camper suddenly swerved out of the way and he was confronted with a stopped car, however i dont think his driving was reckless as none of the witnesses said he was driving abnormally, i believe he was going with the flow of traffic on a high speed expressway and was following the camper at a normal distance for normal conditions.
Remember also that he was distracted at a critical moment at the site of the woman walking back to her car mere inches from highspeed traffic.
The bolded part is driving recklessly. When you're driving on a highway, you leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that if the vehicle in front were to come to an immediate stop due to impact, you have time to stop. While this lady was stupid in her actions and absolutely careless herself, his reckless driving ultimately caused his, and his daughter's death.
She deserves maximum traffic violations for her ridiculous carelessness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101
IMO it would be the rare driver who would drive a half mile behind a truck/camper on the off chance there was something stopped in front of it. the biker paid the highest price for not following that far back, what price does our duck lady pay for her stupidity
You might be right it may be rare for a driver to not drive recklessly. I don't know the statistics on how many drivers drive recklessly.
The "duck lady" should pay the highest price for unlawfully coming to a stop in a moving lane on a highway. In most states it is a traffic violation and has a fine associated with it. I find it interesting that the wife/mother of the motorcyclists agree that the woman was not responsible for the death.
When you're driving on a highway, you leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that if the vehicle in front were to come to an immediate stop due to impact, you have time to stop.
Next time you are on an interstate and following a large vehicle with trailer drop back to the point where you are sure there is no stopped vehicle in front of that trailer,you'll be impressed at just how far back you need to get to rule out the possibility,.
Traffic flow just doesnt drive in a manner that leaves quarter to a half mile spacing between vehicles,the biker was traveling normally given normal circumstances.
.Reckless? IMO no but then i guess it depends on your definition of reckless,i dont believe every one who has an accident is driving recklessly.Imprudent might be a better term.
The duck womans penalty should be severe enough to send a clear message to her and other drivers that you dont stop in the middle of a highway unless its an absolute emergency that you have no control over. Consensus on local talk shows is long term license suspension and a stiff community service period, sending her to jail serves no purpose IMO as it was an unfortunate/tragic accident brought about by stupidity and not criminal intent
I will remind you that this occurred in Canada, not the USA. A different country, with a different Criminal Code, that will apply to this case. The duck lady has been convicted, of all the charges against her.
She will return in August, to be sentenced by the Justice that heard the case.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but the Quebec courts will have the final say in this situation.
If you had taken the time to READ the entire thread, from the beginning, you would know that the Criminal Code of Canada has minimum and maximum sentences. For the charge of "Criminal Negligence Causing Death " the minimum sentence is two years, and the maximum sentence is 14 years.
Not a life sentence. Do you understand that fact, now ?
The facts are clear. The duck lady did a stupid thing that resulted in the death of two people, through her actions. She will be sentenced in August, by the Justice that heard the trial evidence and convicted her on four counts. Two of Criminal Negligence Causing Death, and two of Dangerous Driving Causing Death.
At the minimum she will get 8 years, and with time off for "good behaviour " she will serve about six years in a Federal Prison.
For your information, in Canada, even a conviction for first degree murder, only carries a 25 year sentence, before parole is possible to apply for.
The biker was following a large camper ,his daughter was on the back and his wife was following on another bike, obviously he was too close to avoid the collision when the camper suddenly swerved out of the way and he was confronted with a stopped car, however i dont think his driving was reckless as none of the witnesses said he was driving abnormally, i believe he was going with the flow of traffic on a high speed expressway and was following the camper at a normal distance for normal conditions.
Whatever happened to the rule that you allow one car- (or bike-)length between you and the car in front for every 10 mph of speed? Clearly he was tailgating, if he couldn't stop in time even when the car/camper in front swerved out of the way, thereby giving him EXTRA time and space to stop! As soon as he saw the camper swerving, he should have hit the brakes. That's what people normally do when someone in front makes an unusual move.
Whatever happened to the rule that you allow one car- (or bike-)length between you and the car in front for every 10 mph of speed? Clearly he was tailgating, if he couldn't stop in time even when the car/camper in front swerved out of the way, thereby giving him EXTRA time and space to stop! As soon as he saw the camper swerving, he should have hit the brakes. That's what people normally do when someone in front makes an unusual move.
That's what I was taught when I started driving decades ago. Problem is no one follows that rule. Most accidents (if not all) are the result of more than one mistake, or a series of errors that come together at the same point in time. Clearly this woman made a huge mistake doing what she did, and initiated the accident and must assume responsibility for it. But had the cyclist not been following too close (if he was), then that particular accident could not have happened. The lady made a mistake, but I think it's likely the guy on the bike contributed his own mistake to the event as well.
Whatever happened to the rule that you allow one car- (or bike-)length between you and the car in front for every 10 mph of speed? Clearly he was tailgating, if he couldn't stop in time even when the car/camper in front swerved out of the way, thereby giving him EXTRA time and space to stop! As soon as he saw the camper swerving, he should have hit the brakes. That's what people normally do when someone in front makes an unusual move.
That rule of thumb has been obsolete and disregarded for many years now, mostly because it's so complicated it's almost impossible to apply. What they teach you now is simply to leave yourself a certain number of seconds between your vehicle and the vehicle in front of you - anywhere from 2 to 4 seconds, depending on driving conditions.
But even that wouldn't have made any difference in this case, and it's not clear at all that he was tailgating. He could very well have been following 2 or 3 seconds behind the camper in front of him, and still not had time to react.
Assume that the motorcyclist was traveling 70 miles per hour. Testimony indicates that he was actually traveling faster, but let's just use the slower speed for the sake of discussion. It actually helps out your side of the argument, and you'll see why in a moment. So let's just say 70 MPH. He is traveling at a little over 100 feet per second. At that speed, he needs about 400 feet to stop his vehicle, from the time he first realizes he needs to stop.
Assume the camper in front of him was halfway between the motorcycle and the stopped car when the camper changed lanes to avoid the car. The motorcyclist would have had at the very most 4 seconds to recognize that there was a car stopped dead in the highway directly ahead of him and to bring his own vehicle to a complete stop. 4 seconds, tops. He now has about 400 feet in which to stop his vehicle, and he is already not much more than 400 feet away from the stopped car. In order to stop his vehicle, he needs to already be applying his brakes.
But now consider that the stopped vehicle had no brake lights or emergency flashers. All he sees is the back end of a car several hundred feet in front of him. "Oh, OK. There's a car in front of me." You have to know that it's going to take him some time - easily a second or two - before he is able to realize that the car is not even moving. "Oh, &&&^%. That car is stopped!" He's now used up half of his 4 seconds, and he hasn't even begun to react yet. He still needs almost 400 feet to stop, but now he already has only 200 feet left in which to do it.
Now he recognizes the situation, and begins to react. Again, human reaction time can be anywhere from 1 to 2 seconds, so by the time his foot is even touching the brake pedal, he has already traveled another 150 to 200 feet. He is basically right on top of the car before he even has a chance to hit the brake.
In this scenario, he has done everything exactly the way he was taught to do it - traveling the proper speed limit, leaving himself an appropriate following distance behind the vehicle in front of him, and paying complete attention to everything around him - but he still has no time to stop his motorcycle, because that "one car length" or "two-second rule" is simply not meant to apply to situations like this. The guy could have been doing everything right, but still died because that idiot woman created a hazard by stopping her car in the middle of the freeway to adopt some ducks. The fact that he was going faster than the speed limit certainly didn't help him, but even if he'd been going only 70, it's very unlikely he would have had time to stop his motorcycle under these circumstances.
Last edited by Mr. In-Between; 07-09-2014 at 12:58 PM..
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.
