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.
She didnt swerve to avoid hitting the ducks she actually stopped her car in the high speed passing lane and got out of her car to go tend the ducks, a motorcyclist and his daughter crashed into the back of her car killing him and his daughter.
Yes. She stopped to avoid hitting the ducks. No one said swerved.
Why is the motorcycle not responsible for striking a stopped vehicle?
Tragedy indeed.
Just wondering... if this had happened in the US, I am thinking it would have more a civil case rather than criminal?
Not sure if Canada distinguishes the 2.
Yes. She stopped to avoid hitting the ducks. No one said swerved.
Why is the motorcycle not responsible for striking a stopped vehicle?
As I said, tragic.
Stop your car on a high speed lane and an accident will ensue for sure, the biker who was driving normally according to witnesses was distracted at a critical moment by the woman walking down the highway as the 5th wheel trailer he was following swerved out of the way to avoid the stopped car leaving him with not enough reaction time to avoid the car, yes at 70mph he should have left one car length for every 10 mph he was traveling but thats not what happens in normal heavy high speed traffic where a 7 car length gap is almost impossible to maintain.
Did the thought never occur to this woman to pull over to the side of the road before stopping.
I'd lay blame 90% on her in this case 10% on the biker. .
Stop your car on a high speed lane and an accident will ensue for sure, the biker who was driving normally according to witnesses was distracted at a critical moment by the woman walking down the highway as the 5th wheel trailer he was following swerved out of the way to avoid the stopped car leaving him with not enough reaction time to avoid the car, yes at 70mph he should have left one car length for every 10 mph he was traveling but thats not what happens in normal heavy high speed traffic where a 7 car length gap is almost impossible to maintain.
Did the thought never occur to this woman to pull over to the side of the road before stopping.
I'd lay blame 90% on her in this case 10% on the biker. .
Almost impossible to maintain behind a huge truck?
I'm sorry, but anyone not maintaining a safe distance while traveling 70mph behind a truck is just stupid and/or extremely reckless.
Again I raise the question: Had it not been ducks, but a stalled engine instead that had caused her car to stop in the middle of the highway, would she STILL have been charged with a crime? The exact same situation would have occurred, due to the motorcyclist's negligence.
Almost impossible to maintain behind a huge truck?
I'm sorry, but anyone not maintaining a safe distance while traveling 70mph behind a truck is just stupid and/or extremely reckless.
Again I raise the question: Had it not been ducks, but a stalled engine instead that had caused her car to stop in the middle of the highway, would she STILL have been charged with a crime? The exact same situation would have occurred, due to the motorcyclist's negligence.
And of course you and every one else leave 7 car lengths between you and the car in front when doing 70 in the passing lane.yeah right.
Stopping because your car broke down is not the same as choosing to stop and park the car in the main passing lane of an expressway and while outcomes may have been similar in this case she had a choice and could have accomplished her goals in a much safer way.
Almost impossible to maintain behind a huge truck?
I'm sorry, but anyone not maintaining a safe distance while traveling 70mph behind a truck is just stupid and/or extremely reckless.
Again I raise the question: Had it not been ducks, but a stalled engine instead that had caused her car to stop in the middle of the highway, would she STILL have been charged with a crime? The exact same situation would have occurred, due to the motorcyclist's negligence.
Very highly unlikely that your hypothetical situation would result in a negligence charge, assuming that the breakdown was unexpected, and that the operator had taken reasonable care to move the vehicle out of traffic if possible. Negligence requires disregard for the nature, condition, use, and amount of traffic reasonably expected to be at that place at that time.
In this case, were it not for the actions of the girl, this accident would not have happened. The negligence was not shared because the motorcyclist was, according to witnesses, moving along with traffic. At that place and time, it was not reasonable to expect a parked vehicle in a lane of traffic.
In this case the vehicle was parked by a person who disregarded all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle was being operated, and the amount of traffic that at the time was or might have been reasonably expected to be at that place. That is Canada's definition of criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle. Aggravating factor was the death of the motorcyclist, which raised the maximum possible term.
And of course you and every one else leave 7 car lengths between you and the car in front when doing 70 in the passing lane.yeah right.
Stopping because your car broke down is not the same as choosing to stop and park the car in the main passing lane of an expressway and while outcomes may have been similar in this case she had a choice and could have accomplished her goals in a much safer way.
believe it or not but this can be done very easily. And this is not imaginary scenario - I do it everyday that too in DC metro area. Tailgaters do not get any sympathy for me even when they are so-called running for an emergency.
whats to say if she had gone ahead and flattened the ducks and then the motorcycle come along and crashed on the dead ducks .. some of the logic expressed here would still put her at fault ..a couple of my friends were killed a few years ago because of a squirrel ..
Since this has come up again, I'm going to repost something I worked out and posted in another forum a few months ago. It's still relevant, given that some people are once again blaming the motorcyclist for following so closely. I know it's a long read, but I urge people to take a few minutes and follow through it. I think it's a pretty good breakdown of what the motorcyclist would have had to do to avoid the accident, and how much time he would have had in which to do those things. The post was part of a discussion regarding the old "1 car length per 10 MPH" following rule, so if you think of it in that context it may "read" a little more smoothly.
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. Remember, he needs 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.
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.
