Support NeoGAF

[Delta Assault]

I was all ready to condemn this dumb woman, but after reading the details of the case... I really can't.

I mean yeah, she's dumb for stopping on a highway to shoo away some ducks. That's something you shouldn't do.

But at the same time... I've often found myself stopped on a highway. Cause of traffic. Ya know, that shitty stop and go traffic where you park for 10 seconds, move forward at 5 mph for a few seconds, then park for 10 seconds, repeat. And every time I've had to stop my car because of this traffic, there's never been a single instance of someone ramming into the back of my car killing himself.

And this woman wasn't just driving at 70 mph before suddenly hitting the brakes as hard as possible, as if she was trying to snag someone in insurance fraud or something. She parked her car and then had time to get out and shoo the ducks. This implies that there was some span of time between the park and the fatal impact. So they should've seen it coming and slowed down, just as you do when you run into traffic.

And I still can't picture why the motorcycle couldn't thread the two lanes. Okay, we know the duck lady car parked in the passing lane. That means the left lane. There are 2 lanes on this road. And the car door was open. Since the driver got out, that means the car's left door was open. So the car in the left lane had the left door open. Well, that still leaves the space between the two lanes open. I see motorcycles threading the needle all the time while I'm driving. If there's a car driving on the right lane and preventing them from changing lanes to the right lane, they should still be able to drive down the middle of the road, between the lanes.

 

[zer0blivion]

True. But one could also make the point that if the other driver had been driving responsibly and paying attention to the conditions ahead of him, then quite likely this discussion would also not be necessary. There seems to be plenty of recklessness to go around.

It would be great if everyone drove responsibly. I wish defensive driving training was mandatory. I think you should be required to know that you should not stop in the middle of the highway before you get your license. Duck lady broke the law by parking in the passing lane. Two people died as a result. Why do you want to blame the victims?

 

[Nilaul]

You pull over to the side of the road.

And leave yourself and the person unprotected? I would had stopped before the person on the lane turned on the emergency lights and pulled out the warning traingle thing.

 

[Boss Mog]

I hope she gets jail time or help from a medical facility if she needs it, because either she's really stupid or really mentally ill.

 

[zer0blivion]

And leave yourself and the person unprotected? I would had stopped before the person on the lane turned on the emergency lights and pulled out the warning traingle thing.

I need to get a warning triangle thing. My instinct and driver training says get off the road first.

 

[opticalmace]

In my experience motorcycles are anything but.

They over-take whenever they feel like it and treat queues of traffic like some sort of maze they can zip in and out of.
I see them all the time and they are so reckless.

Is this the generalization we're going with? All motorcyclists are reckless?

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

I hope she gets jail time or help from a medical facility if she needs it, because either she's really stupid or really mentally ill.

I feel that I meet people all day who say they get more sad when a dog dies than when a human being dies. There is some dissonance that exists in our culture when it comes to cute or noble animals. It's a tragedy when a whale or some ducks dies, but fuck 10 million cows with a bolt gun in the mouth every day living in inhumane conditions.


Once you have seen a human being dying a violent death in traffic I don't think anyone would dear to say such things. It's a massive tragedy, and it still haunts me after these years.
That being said, I think the lady should have done something with emergency lights. I don't think it was right to get out of the car in the passing lane on a highway, unless it had been a more extreme emergency, but it doesn't sound right to me that proper conduct is to not be allowed to stop for wild life crossing.





My stepfathers new wife lost her life on a motorcycle while he and his two kids watched from further back on another motorcycle. A truck had not seen her passing him, and she just got crushed under the wheels, while her husband (my stepfather) and her two kids watched.

She was a really nice lady too!

 

[StayDead]

This is completely horrible, I don't think the woman should be prosecuted purely because if she had a chance to stop, get out of the car and go stand on the edge of the road then the fault of them dying sadly is entirely in the hands of the motorcyclist. It's a very, very horrible situation but the woman stopping for the ducks didn't cause the death of those people.

Although admittedly she should've had her emergency lights on, but how did the cyclist not see the fact the car was stopped long before he collided with it? I realise this isn't what people want to hear, but if that was something like a deer or a cow then the woman would've had to stop anyway or lose her own life. The motorcyclist still would've been in the same situation but the woman wouldn't be in as much trouble.

 

[CitizenVectron]

Everyone keeps blaming the motorcyclists here, but they are failing to read the actual articles (not a big surprise). Here is a key detail:

She parked her car in the passing lane and left no emergency lights on. Then, another car came up behind her car and changed lanes to avoid hitting it (as most would be able to do). However, 2 motorcycles were following this second car, and they only saw the parked car for the first time when the second car swerved to avoid it. So they had no knowledge it was there until the car in front of them swerved, which left them only a second or two until they hit it, and he was unable to turn in time going at highway speeds.

It is completely the woman's fault for parking on the highway because of this exact sort of situation. Yes, someone at the front of a column of cars would see her car in time, but someone else might be passing someone and not see it until they get in that lane, etc. And she didn't even put her hazard lights on, which is just adding stupidity on top of stupidity.

This accident was 80% the fault of the parked car and 20% the fault of the second car who didn't notice it until they swerved at the last second. It is 0% the fault of the 2 dead motorcyclists who weren't even aware the car was there until it was too late.

Now, it's another argument entirely if 2 parents should be travelling on the highway with their kids riding on the back of motorcycles considering the rate of personal injuries involved with those types of vehicles (I work in insurance, I see the stats).

 

[zer0blivion]

This is completely horrible, I don't think the woman should be prosecuted purely because if she had a chance to stop, get out of the car and go stand on the edge of the road then the fault of them dying sadly is entirely in the hands of the motorcyclist. It's a very, very horrible situation but the woman stopping for the ducks didn't cause the death of those people.

Although admittedly she should've had her emergency lights on, but how did the cyclist not see the fact the car was stopped long before he collided with it?

Are you ignoring the fact that it's not only illegal, but also incredibly dangerous to park on a highway?
Also, if she had time to do that, she had time to pull over and put on her hazard lights.

 

[SRG01]

This case makes no sense. Judging by how another driver drove past at 110 km/h, the speed difference of the motorcyclist at 80 km/h would've definitely been enough to stop. (For reference, the stopping distance for a vehicle according to Google is around 56-69m.) Even with visibility issues at sunset, it was a clear day without obstruction so there should've been at least 100m of visibility.

Unless of course the motorcycle was traveling faster than 80 km/h, which is within the realm of possibility.

 

[Dougald]

In my experience motorcycles are anything but.

They over-take whenever they feel like it and treat queues of traffic like some sort of maze they can zip in and out of.
I see them all the time and they are so reckless.

This shit needs to stop right here. A two people have died due to a road accident, and you're immediately blaming them knowing nothing about the facts of the case other than the fact she was on a motorcycle.

Let's look at what we know shall we:

Tessier said she was driving at about 110 km/h when she saw a woman along the side of the road seemingly trying to shoo along a family of ducks.

"I shouted to my kids (in the car) 'What is she doing there? She's going to get killed,'" Tessier told the jury.

She testified that moments later, she was staring down a car — completely stopped with no hazard lights on — with the door open on the driver's side.

"It was close enough that I knew I didn't have time to brake," Tessier said. Instead, she swerved to get around the car. Then she looked back in her rear-view mirror and saw something else hit the vehicle.

A woman driving a car is followed by two motorcycles. She almost slams into a parked car on the outside lane of a motorway, where it is illegal to stop, and testifies that she was unable to brake in time and had to swerve. Immediately after she swerves she sees the vehicle behind hit the car.

When you consider that it's much easier to swerve in a car than a motorcycle, then it is likely the two who died suffered from target fixation due to shock of the obstacle suddenly appearing in front of them after the car swerved out of the way, and hit it. Now I don't know the facts of the case, but this is why this is going to trial. Luckily, random internet commenters like you guys who think that motorcyclists deserve it because they're "reckless", and should anticipate a car stopped in the middle of a freeway when traffic is clear won't be prosecuting - that will be left to those with all the actual evidence.

It's attitudes like this that lead to cases like these. An no, not all motorcyclists are reckless, there is a community of us here on GAF and this hits close to home for me.

 

[cyberheater]

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.

I'm not saying you're an idiot. But what you keep writing is moronic and idiotic. Just stop.
If you really do believe what you are saying then please don't drive. You're not responsible enough.

 

[Arthrus]

Everyone keeps blaming the motorcyclists here, but they are failing to read the actual articles (not a big surprise). Here is a key detail:

She parked her car in the passing lane and left no emergency lights on. Then, another car came up behind her car and changed lanes to avoid hitting it (as most would be able to do). However, 2 motorcycles were following this second car, and they only saw the parked car for the first time when the second car swerved to avoid it. So they had no knowledge it was there until the car in front of them swerved, which left them only a second or two until they hit it, and he was unable to turn in time going at highway speeds.

The motorcyclists should have been a safe stopping distance behind the car that swerved. If they had been, then obviously they would have been able to stop before colliding with the parked car. It's not the norm that people keep safe following distances, but this sort of circumstance is one of the many reasons we are told to do so.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, there are conceivable circumstances where a car could be stopped like this with no hazard lights (ones that don't involve an irresponsible driver). It's a real risk that everyone should be prepared for when driving.

The motorcyclist and the duck lady both made negligent decisions here, and if either one had taken a correct course of action the accident wouldn't have happened. Both parties are to blame, although I understand why you feel the duck lady is more responsible.

 

[Boss Mog]

I feel that I meet people all day who say they get more sad when a dog dies than when a human being dies. There is some dissonance that exists in our culture when it comes to cute or noble animals. It's a tragedy when a whale or some ducks dies, but fuck 10 million cows with a bolt gun in the mouth every day living in inhumane conditions.


Once you have seen a human being dying a violent death in traffic I don't think anyone would dear to say such things. It's a massive tragedy, and it still haunts me after these years.
That being said, I think the lady should have done something with emergency lights. I don't think it was right to get out of the car in the passing lane on a highway, unless it had been a more extreme emergency, but it doesn't sound right to me that proper conduct is to not be allowed to stop for wild life crossing.





My stepfathers new wife lost her life on a motorcycle while he and his two kids watched from further back on another motorcycle. A truck had not seen her passing him, and she just got crushed under the wheels, while her husband (my stepfather) and her two kids watched.

She was a really nice lady too!

I don't have any idea why you're quoting my statement in your post. It doesn't seem to be related to what you're saying or at least I don't get it. I obviously am not one of those people that value animals over human beings, hence why I think she deserves punishment for her reckless actions that caused a human fatality. Also I've witnessed two people dying violently, one a motorcyclist 9 years ago and one a pedestrian just a couple of months ago. She was struck so violently that she was knocked out of her socks. So again I don't know if the second part of your comment is addressed to me, but if it is then you're obviously in error.

 

[Dougald]

The motorcyclists should have been a safe stopping distance behind the car that swerved. If they had been, then obviously they would have been able to stop before colliding with the parked car. It's not the norm that people keep safe following distances, but this sort of circumstance is one of the many reasons we are told to do so.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, there are conceivable circumstances where a car could be stopped like this with no hazard lights (ones that don't involve an irresponsible driver). It's a real risk that everyone should be prepared for when driving.

The motorcyclist and the duck lady both made negligent decisions here, and if either one had taken a correct course of action the accident wouldn't have happened. Both parties are to blame, although I understand why you feel the duck lady is more responsible.

http://forensicdynamics.com/stopping-distance-calculator

He was travelling 110km/h, which provides for a stopping distance of 68.04m - even assuming he has superhuman reactions and we don't add any distance for time taken to see and start braking, I hate to see the traffic jams if everyone at highway speed was 70 metres apart. Be realistic here.

 

[lemonade]

I had to run over a family of ducks on the highway a few years ago.

I was driving on a 2 lane highway going 55-65mph early in the morning. There were no cars in front of me and a couple of vehicles about 50 yards behind me. I saw the mother duck and 6 or 7 ducklings crossing the highway slowly in a line. I slowed down as much as I thought I could on a highway (10-15mph) but never considered stopping. By the time I got to them the mother had made it across but I plowed straight over most of the ducklings.

I felt bad about it for a while and my wife was pretty horrified but there is no real choice when you are on a highway, you don't stop.

Exactly. Feel the same way.

 

[Arthrus]

http://forensicdynamics.com/stopping-distance-calculator

He was travelling 110km/h, which provides for a stopping distance of 68.04m - even assuming he has superhuman reactions and we don't add any distance for time taken to see and start braking, I hate to see the traffic jams if everyone at highway speed was 70 metres apart. Be realistic here.

Sure, I'll agree with that. That said, the speed limit on Quebec highways is 100kmh, and not exceeding that limit is at least a reasonable precaution.

Let's take the parked car out and replace it with a moose. The situation emerges the same way and the motorcycle has to swerve or stop. For the passengers, the outcome is the same. They collide with the object and die. Obviously, you can't hold the moose responsible for that like you can if a human parks her car there. What matters is: what could the motorcyclist do proactively to protect himself from an unpredicted obstacle?

The only answer I know of is to drive slower and more cautiously. I don't have any reasonable solution to propose here, since it's not as though we could just drive 80kmh on the highway from now on (and people would still follow dangerously closely). We are stuck with a horrendously stupid driving system where no small number of deaths are inevitable due to chance alone. At least we can prosecute people after the fact to try and reduce the human errors.

 

[lemonade]

Everyone keeps blaming the motorcyclists here, but they are failing to read the actual articles (not a big surprise). Here is a key detail:

She parked her car in the passing lane and left no emergency lights on. Then, another car came up behind her car and changed lanes to avoid hitting it (as most would be able to do). However, 2 motorcycles were following this second car, and they only saw the parked car for the first time when the second car swerved to avoid it. So they had no knowledge it was there until the car in front of them swerved, which left them only a second or two until they hit it, and he was unable to turn in time going at highway speeds.

It is completely the woman's fault for parking on the highway because of this exact sort of situation. Yes, someone at the front of a column of cars would see her car in time, but someone else might be passing someone and not see it until they get in that lane, etc. And she didn't even put her hazard lights on, which is just adding stupidity on top of stupidity.

This accident was 80% the fault of the parked car and 20%the fault of the second car who didn't notice it until they swerved at the last second. It is 0% the fault of the 2 dead motorcyclists who weren't even aware the car was there until it was too late.

Now, it's another argument entirely if 2 parents should be travelling on the highway with their kids riding on the back of motorcycles considering the rate of personal injuries involved with those types of vehicles (I work in insurance, I see the stats).

You lost me there. How is it the first passer fault at all?

 

[Dougald]

Sure, I'll agree with that. That said, the speed limit on Quebec highways is 100kmh, and not exceeding that limit is at least a reasonable precaution.

Let's take the parked car out and replace it with a moose. The situation emerges the same way and the motorcycle has to swerve or stop. For the passengers, the outcome is the same. They collide with the object and die. Obviously, you can't hold the moose responsible for that like you can if a human parks her car there. What matters is: what could the motorcyclist do proactively to protect himself from an unpredicted obstacle?

The only answer I know of is to drive slower and more cautiously. I don't have any reasonable solution to propose here, since it's not as though we could just drive 80kmh on the highway from now on (and people would still follow dangerously closely). We are stuck with a horrendously stupid driving system where no small number of deaths are inevitable due to chance alone. At least we can prosecute people after the fact to try and reduce the human errors.

I would argue in the case of a moose is different, as it does not have the capacity to judge not to walk across a 4-lane highway

However, I will agree with you - as a motorcyclist myself I ride on a single philosophy - it doesn't matter whose fault it is if I'm dead. There is not enough information given here on this case for us to assign blame, or even if this was preventable from the riders perspective, but the fact remains that someone died - driving and riding defensively should always be your number 1 priority on the road.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

I'm going with the theory that while I'm sure it was difficult to resist, the driver had no business being distracted by some lady on the side of the road, and should have kept his eyes on where he was going while operating his vehicle. This would mean that he would have the same chance of avoiding her vehicle safely as if it was a legitimately broken down vehicle with no one wandering around outside of it.

I'm not so sure. Pedestrians on freeways are generally prohibited and illegal. It isn't a normal or expected event. I was recently driving on I95 in South Carolina when I randomly saw someone walking on the highway. Yeah I was focused on them because two main questions occur. 1. Why the hell are they walking on the highway? 2. This is a weird action. Are they going to do anything stupid and dart into traffic or something? So yeah, its reasonable to be distracted by someone randomly near the road. Especially if they are coming across as doing something abnormal. Like herding ducks.

Hitting a parked vehicle is actually illegal here in the US as well. But to answer your specific question, vehicles are often in the road for various reasons (sometimes abandoned) and in Georgia, Louisiana, California, and Texas there is a reasonable expectation that you don't run into them. Not sure about the laws where you are.

They're usually abandoned on the side of a road, though. Having one stopped in the middle of a travel lane is not a normal or reasonable occurrence for someone to anticipate. It would be like someone stopping at a green light on a regular road. I've seen this before and had to barely avoid a collision. Drivers also have an expectation to make predictable decisions so issues with drivers around them are minimized.

 

[poppabk]

That's crazy, you don't maintain a safe distance to the vehicle in front of you because everyone is speeding? To keep a safe distance in front of you, you don't need to go 30 mph while everyone else whips around you. If the guy in front of you is doing 55, you do 53 for 10 seconds, then resume your speed of 55, you will have your safe gap. If he is doing more than 55, then you stick at 55, there's your safe gap. You have no control over the vehicle in front of you, you do have control over the speed of the vehicle behind you.

I am always shocked that people don't understand that two cars separated by 50 feet driving at 55mph are going the same speed as two cars separated by 10 feet. That said safe stopping distance at 55 mph for just the reaction time is about 50 feet, and in any significant amount of traffic leaving more than the 100+ feet you would need to stop safely is almost impossible.

 

[pompidu]

I am always shocked that people don't understand that two cars separated by 50 feet driving at 55mph are going the same speed as two cars separated by 10 feet. That said safe stopping distance at 55 mph for just the reaction time is about 50 feet, and in any significant amount of traffic leaving more than the 100+ feet you would need to stop safely is almost impossible.

That's your own fault if you don't give yourself enough braking distance, regardless of traffic.

 

[Omnii-chan]

I remember being told by my driving instructor not to do this unless it was a large animal, like a horse, in which case unless something clears and there are people behind you, there will be an accident anyway.

A duck once flew in front of my dads car on a cliffside road, broke his headlight, rolled over the bonnet and off the side, taking the radio antenna with it.
Better than someone behind him taking him off the cliff if he had slammed on the breaks though.

 

[Violet_0]

shouldn't the motorcycles keep enough distance to avoid hitting the car in case of an emergency braking?

 

[Sato Koiji]

she can't save jon jones forever

 

[John Dunbar]

any of the articles mention did the ducks survive?

 

[Tom_Cody]

Well this is sadder than I expected from the thread title.

 

[Exotoro]

IT'S EITHER DUCKS OR ME

 

[RoadHazard]

Sounds like an accident to me, and also like the motorcycle drivers were rather careless. Otherwise, why wouldn't they have had time to stop or go around the car instead of plowing into it? The other woman that got there before them obviously did. At the same time, the stopped car should definitely have had its hazard lights on. So she probably deserves some sort of penalty for this. But being sent to prison for years for causing these people's deaths? Doesn't really sound right to me.

EDIT: Ok, so the motorcyclists were right behind the car that swerved out of the way, and therefore didn't see the parked car until it was too late? Makes more sense, I guess. But yeah, they should have kept a safer distance then. Shit like this suddenly happening without warning is exactly WHY you keep a safe distance. So they are at least partly to blame for their own unfortunate deaths.

 

[GungHo]

http://forensicdynamics.com/stopping-distance-calculator

He was travelling 110km/h, which provides for a stopping distance of 68.04m - even assuming he has superhuman reactions and we don't add any distance for time taken to see and start braking, I hate to see the traffic jams if everyone at highway speed was 70 metres apart. Be realistic here.

You be realistic. I'm a biker. I don't drive so close to vehicles that I can't see what's in front of them because I don't know what shit might be on the road. Then again, I'm in Houston, so I'm used to shit like couches, mattresses, air conditioner central units, and hoopty Impalas without wheels laying in the middle of the goddamn road because shit falls off trucks and people break down. Hell, even a turtle can send a biker flying. Or even those fucking ducks.

Bikes are fun, but they're also serious shit, and you don't over-drive your sight lines. I feel bad for the family and the woman who stopped in the road was a fucking idiot, but there's a reason people on bikes have to be constantly wary. If they're not capable of patiently keeping that distance, then they need to pick another form of recreation.

 

[MogCakes]

It would be great if everyone drove responsibly. I wish defensive driving training was mandatory. I think you should be required to know that you should not stop in the middle of the highway before you get your license. Duck lady broke the law by parking in the passing lane. Two people died as a result. Why do you want to blame the victims?

Victims aren't always blameless in traffic accidents. They were victims of the motorcyclist's own reckless driving and negligence, not the woman who stopped on the side of the road. Her actions are negligent and stupid, but are not the cause of their deaths. She's simply part of the context in relation to their accident, the father's recklessness is his own doing and the real cause of his and his daughter's end.

Everyone agrees the woman is stupid for what she did. That doesn't mean she's solely responsible for their deaths. Situations out of your control can and do happen, and for the driver of that motorcycle it happened when he wasn't (and should have been) prepared. The woman is the cause of that situation, but that doesn't mean the motorcyclist's dangerous proximity to the car in front is justified or absolved of fault. Pinning all responsibility on the woman is not only mistaken but lacks rationality. Your persistence on deflecting all blame onto the woman and acquitting the motorcyclist of his actions is questionable, especially the defense of his being distracted.

 

[zer0blivion]

Victims aren't always blameless in traffic accidents. They were victims of the motorcyclist's own reckless driving and negligence, not the woman who stopped on the side of the road. Her actions are negligent and stupid, but are not the cause of their deaths. She's simply part of the context in relation to their accident, the father's recklessness is his own doing and the real cause of his and his daughter's end.

Everyone agrees the woman is stupid for what she did. That doesn't mean she's solely responsible for their deaths. Situations out of your control can and do happen, and for the driver of that motorcycle it happened when he wasn't (and should have been) prepared. The woman is the cause of that situation, but that doesn't mean the motorcyclist's dangerous proximity to the car in front is justified or absolved of fault. Pinning all responsibility on the woman is not only mistaken but lacks rationality. Your persistence on deflecting all blame onto the woman and acquitting the motorcyclist of his actions is questionable, especially the defense of his being distracted.

She did not stop at the side of the road. She stopped in the center of the passing lane on a highway. If she had stopped at the side of the road, the motorcyclist and his daughter would still be alive.

I think this will be my last post on the matter. I'm getting far too angry and I just need to walk away.

 

[MogCakes]

She did not stop at the side of the road. She stopped in the center of the passing lane on a highway. If she had stopped at the side of the road, the motorcyclist and his daughter would still be alive.

I think this will be my last post on the matter. I'm getting far too angry and I just need to walk away.

It doesn't matter where she stopped. Motorists should always be on the lookout for potential threats and drive defensively to pre-empt them. What she did was stupid, but I'll reiterate: the motorcyclist's crash is his own doing for being too close to the car in front and allowing himself to be distracted. Her car being there is merely the context for his crash, as idiotic as her actions were. Responsibility for his and his daughter's death does not rest upon her. What she is responsible for is being a huge road hazard. The crash itself: that's on the father.

 

[Palmer_v1]

It doesn't matter where she stopped. Motorists should always be on the lookout for potential threats and drive defensively to pre-empt them. What she did was stupid, but I'll reiterate: the motorcyclist's crash is his own doing for being too close to the car in front and allowing himself to be distracted. Her car being there is merely the context for his crash, as idiotic as her actions were. Responsibility for his and his daughter's death does not rest upon her. What she is responsible for is being a huge road hazard. The crash itself: that's on the father.

I agree. She could have stopped where she was because of an accident or any number of valid reasons, and this still would have happened because the person in the car behind her, and the motorcyclists behind her, were not driving defensively. If we really need to assign blame at all.

Why can't it just be a tragic accident without needing to assign blame?

 

[Samara]

From the video I saw this morning, it looked as if she was im the fast lane. For some freaking ducks, on on regular street i have no problem, but on the freaking highway

What was she going to do? Stop all imcoming traffic so they could pass?

 

[Mobius 1]

You be realistic. I'm a biker. I don't drive so close to vehicles that I can't see what's in front of them because I don't know what shit might be on the road. Then again, I'm in Houston, so I'm used to shit like couches, mattresses, air conditioner central units, and hoopty Impalas without wheels laying in the middle of the goddamn road because shit falls off trucks and people break down. Hell, even a turtle can send a biker flying. Or even those fucking ducks.

Bikes are fun, but they're also serious shit, and you don't over-drive your sight lines. I feel bad for the family and the woman who stopped in the road was a fucking idiot, but there's a reason people on bikes have to be constantly wary. If they're not capable of patiently keeping that distance, then they need to pick another form of recreation.

This is the most sensible reply so far. By far. This accident would have been avoided or minimized if the riders had taken the minimal, basic precaution of riding from a safe distance of the vehicle in front relative to their speed.

 

[Zoe]

From the video I saw this morning, it looked as if she was im the fast lane. For some freaking ducks, on on regular street i have no problem, but on the freaking highway

What was she going to do? Stop all imcoming traffic so they could pass?

She had probably seen videos praising cops for doing the same thing.

 

[Takuan]

Criminal negligence

219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

Stopping and getting out of your vehicle on the highway in a non-emergency situation seems to meet above definition. Not sure how the defense could argue against criminal negligence causing death in this case.

 

[satori]

Something similar happen before, except no deaths. I was on the freeway when the car in front of me all of a sudden slammed on the breaks. I barely had enough time to react and swerve avoid hitting that car in front of me. The car behind me did not get so lucky. It was obvious my car blocked the view of car behind me giving them less time to react than I did.

More than likely this happend to the motorcyclist.

Anyways regardless what a crappy situation...

 

[MogCakes]

Stopping and getting out of your vehicle on the highway in a non-emergency situation seems to meet above definition. Not sure how the defense could argue against criminal negligence causing death in this case.

She's likely criminally negligent (criminally stupid I would most certainly agree), but her actions did not directly cause the death of the motorcyclist and his daughter nor are they the sole or even the biggest contributing factor to the crash. That part is on the father for not driving defensively and being prepared for such a scenario.

 

[beta_fuse]

It doesn't matter where she stopped. Motorists should always be on the lookout for potential threats and drive defensively to pre-empt them. What she did was stupid, but I'll reiterate: the motorcyclist's crash is his own doing for being too close to the car in front and allowing himself to be distracted. Her car being there is merely the context for his crash, as idiotic as her actions were. Responsibility for his and his daughter's death does not rest upon her. What she is responsible for is being a huge road hazard. The crash itself: that's on the father.

I agree. I can't believe the amount of people that are saying this girl deserves to be punished for being stupid. This woman's intent was to save a living creatures life even though she went about it poorly. I fully understand what she did wasn't smart, but the motorcyclists need to be aware of their surroundings. If that girl's car was instead a car that just got into an accident in the same lane and was stationary, the cyclist would have still crashed into it.

 

[Rockandrollclown]

I agree. I can't believe the amount of people that are saying this girl deserves to be punished for being stupid. This woman's intent was to save a living creatures life even though she went about it poorly. I fully understand what she did wasn't smart, but the motorcyclists need to be aware of their surroundings. If that girl's car was instead a car that just got into an accident in the same lane and was stationary, the cyclist would have still crashed into it.

Being stupid has consequences when your stupidity leads to the death of others. Maybe the cyclist would have crashed into an accident if it was there, but it wasn't an accident or disabled vehicle. It was some moron who parked her car in the fast lane without so much as even putting on her hazard lights to warn those around her.

 

[beta_fuse]

Being stupid has consequences when your stupidity leads to the death of others. Maybe the cyclist would have crashed into an accident if it was there, but it wasn't an accident or disabled vehicle. It was some moron who parked her car in the fast lane without so much as even putting on her hazard lights to warn those around her.

I don't know about you but when I suddenly see an animal in front of me I break out of instinct and reaction. When you have a few seconds to decide if you are going to kill or save this animal, you are not thinking about the following minute. You are thinking about that instant, and as I said before, sure she went about it the wrong way, but her stopping their wasn't the direct cause of these deaths. The driver should have been more cautious.

We all have our own opinions and I don't see everyone being happy with however this turns out. Shitty all around.

 

[TSM]

Some of the logic in this thread is confusing. By some of the arguments people are making I could intentionally lay a refrigerator across the passing lane of the highway and it's not really my fault if someone hits it and dies. They should have been driving more safely...

This is basically what happened. She didn't break down, She didn't have an accident. She didn't pass out at the wheel. She intentionally parked her car with the hazards off in the passing lane of a highway, then constricted the highway even more by leaving her car door open and proceeded to walk around on it providing an additional danger to the other drivers. This is the act of a mentally ill person or a sociopath. She had not one concern for any other human being on that road as demonstrated by the lack of hazard lights. Your hazard lights are for other people more then yourself most of the time.

 

[Takuan]

Being stupid has consequences when your stupidity leads to the death of others. Maybe the cyclist would have crashed into an accident if it was there, but it wasn't an accident or disabled vehicle. It was some moron who parked her car in the fast lane without so much as even putting on her hazard lights to warn those around her.

What people seem to be missing is that there were two hazards on the road: the idiot outside of her vehicle, and the vehicle itself. We do not know how far away from her vehicle she was at the time of her accident. What we do know is that the first witness saw the woman first. Simply processing the notion that a person would be on a highway trying to get ducks to safety was enough of a distraction that she had to swerve dangerously to avoid the stopped vehicle.

It stands to reason that when there are two hazards in quick succession unbeknownst to the driver, the mind instinctively focuses on the immediate one, i.e. the dummy and her ducks. It seems incredibly short-sighted to fault the cyclists for driving carelessly when in all likelihood, they were paying attention to the wrong hazard. If her hazard lights were on, they may have been drawn to the right one...

 

[TSM]

What people seem to be missing is that there were two hazards on the road: the idiot outside of her vehicle, and the vehicle itself. We do not know how far away from her vehicle she was at the time of her accident. What we do know is that the first witness saw the woman first. Simply processing the notion that a person would be on a highway trying to get ducks to safety was enough of a distraction that she had to swerve dangerously to avoid the stopped vehicle.

Three hazards if you were the motorcycle rider. 1 lane was the stopped car with no hazards. The other lane had woman braking and swerving in it. Then you have the idiot walking around on the highway. Look at the situation. About 70 yards to stop at that speed. That's most of a football field. He couldn't pass on the left of the stopped car since the woman left her car door open. He couldn't use the passing lane since it had a car in it. Then you have another driver swerving and breaking in the only other lane. This isn't even taking into account that this was during the day on a highway. I'm sure they weren't the only 3 vehicles on the road. There may have literally no way for the guy to safely avoid the accident other then a full stop. I'm sure none of the people blaming the motor cyclist have ever hesitated in a crisis situation of any kind...

 

[Takuan]

Three hazards if you were the motorcycle rider. 1 lane was the stopped car with no hazards. The other lane had woman braking and swerving in it. Then you have the idiot walking around on the highway. Look at the situation. About 70 yards to stop at that speed. That's most of a football field. He couldn't pass on the left of the stopped car since the woman left her car door open. He couldn't use the passing lane since it had a car in it. Then you have another driver swerving and breaking in the only other lane. This isn't even taking into account that this was during the day on a highway. I'm sure they weren't the only 3 vehicles on the road. There may have literally no way for the guy to safely avoid the accident other then a full stop. I'm sure none of the people blaming the motor cyclist have ever hesitated in a crisis situation of any kind...

True, I discounted the swerving vehicle (with a trailer in tow, no less). So that's three things for your brain to absorb while going at high speed. Not everyone is going to be able to process everything AND respond with the one action that results in their safety.

 

[Messofanego]

She is like the ultimate version of people who care about animals' lives more than humans.

 

[Maxwell House]

I can't believe how many people in this thread are blaming the poor victims who died because of this idiot. Seriously, WHY are you guys blaming the victims? Read the article. They weren't tailgating or driving recklessly. They ran into a PARKED vehicle in the PASSING LANE of the freeway and couldn't avoid the vehicle in time. How the hell can you guys blame the dead victims in this situation? That is disgusting.

It is 100% entirely the idiot woman's fault for parking her vehicle in the PASSING LANE of a FREEWAY. You DO NOT blame the victims in this case..entirely a jackass thing to do.