zer0blivion
Member
Read post #74.
I was talking about the case in the OP. I thought you were defending her, my bad.
Read post #74.
Well the norm in some random high percentage of the US roads would probably max out at 6-8 lanes. Meaning 3-4 lanes per direction.You must have narrow highways. The ones here can be up to 12 lanes per side.
The lady is a goddamned moron, but that said, I don't see how she is responsible for these people's deaths.
The accident is the fault of the motorcyle operator who couldn't avoid a completely stationary obstacle. Either he was going too fast for the conditions or he panicked, target fixated and froze(or he was one of those rear brake only incompetents who should have never received a motorcycle license). If you can't avoid something that isn't moving, that is your fault. What if instead of a dumb lady trying to move some ducks there was a crashed or disabled vehicle around that corner, or a big fucking rock or something that fell off a truck. There are a thousand different possibilities, and the one sure way to avoid all of them is to know how to stop your vehicle in a swift and safe manner.
The fact that she didn't turn her hazard lights on would be a negligent act though, if that had lead directly to the accident. But it appears the stopped vehicle was visible even without the hazards on.
Well the norm in some random high percentage of the US roads would probably max out at 6-8 lanes. Meaning 3-4 lanes per direction.
If you're talking southern California or something, then I guess. 24 lanes is a massive outlier. Although how often is there free flowing traffic on a massive highway like that to where a stopped car is in an equivalent situation? Traffic is likely at a standstill regularly anyway.
The lady is a goddamned moron, but that said, I don't see how she is responsible for these people's deaths.
The fact that she didn't turn her hazard lights on would be a negligent act though, if that had lead directly to the accident. But it appears the stopped vehicle was visible even without the hazards on.
You're missing the fact that the obstacle was placed by the moron.
No doubt it could be different in that situation, but the vast majority of highway miles are 4 total lanes, I believe.I am talking about SoCal, but traffic moves a lot faster on average since they widened them. Over the limit at pretty much all times, even rush hour usually.
Weather was apparently fine. But at 7:20pm I think that's dusk. Depending on the car color, it can be a bit difficult to see. Sometimes with cars with no lights on at dusk, they can be a bit difficult to see.What exactly is low visibility in this case?
On the one hand you say she's not responsible for the deaths.
And on the other hand you admit she's negligent for being a moron and not putting on her hazards when she stopping her car in a overtaking lane in low visibility.
So she is responsible for causing harm via a negligent act.
People do dumb shit on the road all the time.
People who do dumb shit which causes the deaths of other people need to take responsibility for their actions.
That does not negate the responsibility of other drivers to operate their vehicles in a safe and cautious manner.
If your shortest possible stopping distance is farther than the range of your vision you are being completely reckless, to the point it completely overrides any other possible thing that someone could do to cause that situation.
People do dumb shit on the road all the time, or more important shit just happens sometimes. You have to be prepared for anything.
I said it would have if the fact that the hazard lights were the reason he didn't see her until to late. I'm not sure that is the case given the accounts of him waving at her before hitting the car.
If she wanted to play with ducks, she should have pulled over to the shoulder. She made a conscious decision to abandon her car in the middle of a freeway.
Keeping a safe stopping distance isnt always possible, especially on a highway. For example are you keeping a safe stopping distance when youre changing into someones lane? chances are if its 2-3 car lengths you consider that an 'opening.'That does not negate the responsibility of other drivers to operate their vehicles in a safe and cautious manner.
If your shortest possible stopping distance is farther than the range of your vision you are being completely reckless, to the point it completely overrides any other possible thing that someone could do to cause that situation.
People do dumb shit on the road all the time, or more important shit just happens sometimes. You have to be prepared for anything.
In the images, there is no shoulder, just a concrete barrier and like a foot of clearance.
Which is shitty unsafe infrastructure design(another one of the causes, but the state isn't going to put itself on trial for negligently putting a concrete barrier with no runoff area), but that's aside from the point..
Keeping a safe stopping distance isnt always possible, especially on a highway. For example are you keeping a safe stopping distance when youre changing into someones lane? chances are if its 2-3 car lengths you consider that an 'opening.'
When we have those crazy 20 car pileups on the highway its no ones fault but the person in front.
This is the kind of nonsense that is why we have tens of thousands of people killed on the highways every year.
It is completely possible to maintain a safe stopping distance, vehicles these days(motorcycles especially, even bigass harleys) have great stopping distances. We are not talking giant 5000 lb cars with drum brakes anymore.
And no 2-3 car lengths is not 'an opening'.
You keep downplaying how incredibly negligent this person was. Are you that dense?
I don't understand how you can say this and at the same time defend the woman who stopped her car in the middle of a fucking freeway.
Why on earth would you get out of your car instead of driving around them.
Would stop your car on the highway and start herding them?
I think that's the big difference here.
Because there was a greater negligence that is what directly cause the accident.
Someone stopping on the highway does not have to lead to an accident. It only leads to an accident if someone is going too fast for the combination of the conditions, vehicle, and skill level.
Because if people drove responsibly, people could stop in the middle of the freeway all they wanted and the worst that would happen is a hellacious traffic jam.
There was no reason for her to stop in the middle of the passing lane. She could have pulled over to the shoulder. She could have put on her hazard lights. She could have said "Oh neat, ducks, and kept driving." If I'm reading the article correctly, the driver of the car that was directly in front of the motorcyclists was distracted by the woman on the side of the road and only noticed her car in the road in time to swerve. Yet, you blame the motorcyclists, who were behind the car, and likely also distracted by the woman at the side of the road didn't have time to react.
There was no shoulder, as I already posted.
there are always distractions, and ignoring the distractions and focusing on operating your vehicle safely is part of the responsibility of driving.
On the one hand you say she's not responsible for the deaths.
And on the other hand you admit she's negligent for being a moron and not putting on her hazards when she stopping her car in a overtaking lane in low visibility.
So she is responsible for causing harm via a negligent act.
I'm honestly struggling really hard to understand the article.
There's a few scenarios:
#1: She stops. Gets out of the car. Leaves door open. The family behind her is going so close that they can't respond in time and crashes (this is unlikely because she wouldn't have time to get out of the car).
#2: She stops. Gets out of car. Leaves door open. The family was at a safe distance away, but don't (for whatever reason) notice that she has stopped. This is unusual as they should be able to see that they are quickly closing in (unless the highway is bent).
#3: She stops. Gets out of car. Leaves door open. The family is on the other lane. The highway is so narrow that they have NOWHERE to go because of the open door. They crash into the door/narrowly avoid it. Some people die.
Can someone please clarify?
The lady is a goddamned moron, but that said, I don't see how she is responsible for these people's deaths.
The accident is the fault of the motorcyle operator who couldn't avoid a completely stationary obstacle. Either he was going too fast for the conditions or he panicked, target fixated and froze(or he was one of those rear brake only incompetents who should have never received a motorcycle license). If you can't avoid something that isn't moving, that is your fault. What if instead of a dumb lady trying to move some ducks there was a crashed or disabled vehicle around that corner, or a big fucking rock or something that fell off a truck. There are a thousand different possibilities, and the one sure way to avoid all of them is to know how to stop your vehicle in a swift and safe manner.
The fact that she didn't turn her hazard lights on would be a negligent act though, if that had lead directly to the accident. But it appears the stopped vehicle was visible even without the hazards on.
Between this thread and the "Can I get out of my texting while driving ticket" thread I'm convinced that defensive driving education ought to be mandatory.
I've had a car fail completely and instantly on a highway before. I happened to be in the slow lane and was able to coast onto the shoulder, but it could just as easily have happened in the fast lane. I see people stuck in the fast or middle lanes who haven't been hit from behind all the time. People need to be ready for this sort of situation in front of them, and usually are.
The only difference here is that the stop was by choice.
How would this play out differently if her car had broken down? Maybe the electrical system was shot and thus no hazards in that situation either. Would she be responsible then for the deaths of the others? I'm not saying what she did was smart, obviously it was not. But it seems like people are forgiving the motorcyclists when there are multiple other situations in which her car could have legitimately been in that condition in that position on the road and the motorcyclists would have been expected to avoid it. And if the car in front of them going 110 kph swerved quickly to avoid the car, leading to the motorcycles hitting it moments after for lack of visibility, then I am guessing they were quite close to the car in front of them.
Just a tragedy all around, two lives lost, a family extinguished, and certainly this young woman's life is to be ruined as well. there is no good outcome to this scenario. The fact that she stopped her vehicle wilfully and contributed to this will have some out for her blood as well.
If her car had broken down, and she turned on her hazard lights, she wouldn't be negligent. If I'm reading correctly, she also wouldn't have distracted the driver of the car that was in front of the motorcyclists. Presumably the driver of the car would have seen the hazard lights of the car and been able to signal and change lanes to avoid it.
Absolutely, she should have had her hazards on at the minimum (not that it would make what she did OK). But there are situations in which they could legitimately have been non functional, and in this case I think more blame would be being placed on the motorcyclists.
The biggest problem to me in the report is that they were so close to the car in front of them, when it swerved to avoid the stopped vehicle they didn't even have time to react. That's crazy, why on earth would you be that close to the vehicle in front of you? Especially on a motorcycle? It would have been the same outcome if the car in front had of slammed on the brakes, except they would have collided with someone different.
Absolutely, she should have had her hazards on at the minimum (not that it would make what she did OK). But there are situations in which they could legitimately have been non functional, and in this case I think more blame would be being placed on the motorcyclists.
The biggest problem to me in the report is that they were so close to the car in front of them, when it swerved to avoid the stopped vehicle they didn't even have time to react. That's crazy, why on earth would you be that close to the vehicle in front of you? Especially on a motorcycle? It would have been the same outcome if the car in front had of slammed on the brakes, except they would have collided with someone different.
Show her mercy. It's a tragedy. Although that facebook pic thing...
They were distracted by the crazy lady herding ducks, if the article is to be believed.
Keeping a safe stopping distance isnt always possible, especially on a highway. For example are you keeping a safe stopping distance when youre changing into someones lane? chances are if its 2-3 car lengths you consider that an 'opening.'
When we have those crazy 20 car pileups on the highway its no ones fault but the person in front.
Horrific story but absolute nonsense that the government is prosecuting the driver who stopped. Stopped/stalled cars are not a rare occurrence on highways.