Support NeoGAF

[zer0blivion]

Read post #74.

I was talking about the case in the OP. I thought you were defending her, my bad.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

You must have narrow highways. The ones here can be up to 12 lanes per side.

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.

 

[TAJ]

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.

I'm in the US, not Canada, but I know a dozen people who ride motorcycles and none of them even have motorcycle licenses.

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.

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.

 

[cyberheater]

The lady is a goddamned moron, but that said, I don't see how she is responsible for these people's deaths.

On the one hand you say she's not responsible for the 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.

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.

 

[Future PhaZe]

What exactly is low visibility in this case?

 

[iamblades]

You're missing the fact that the obstacle was placed by the moron.

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.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

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.

No doubt it could be different in that situation, but the vast majority of highway miles are 4 total lanes, I believe.
In Orlando in the heart of rush hour, traffic on Interstate 4 is bumper to bumper. We have electronic speed limit signs that change deepening on the traffic. In that situation, posted speeds are like 30 mph rather than the normal 55. With limited shoulders, cars have stopped in the travel lanes when broken down. But traffic was never free flowing really. This is a 3 lane highway in each direction.

What exactly is low visibility in this case?

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.

 

[iamblades]

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 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.

 

[cyberheater]

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.

 

[iamblades]

People who do dumb shit which causes the deaths of other people need to take responsibility for their actions.

People who drive faster than they can see need to take responsibility for their actions as well.

Her dumb shit /= negligent homicide, and does not deserve a felony conviction and a long prison sentence.

 

[zer0blivion]

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.

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.

 

[cyberheater]

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.

Driving a car is a serious responsibility. You are legally responsible for your actions when you drive a car.
Stopping your car in the overtaking lane of a motorway in low visibility conditions without bothering to put on your hazards without any thought for the safety of others is a legally reckless act. Her reckless act was a major contributor to the deaths of others.

 

[iamblades]

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.

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..

 

[Loofy]

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.

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.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

At first I thought I felt a little bad for the woman, and thought this was an unfortunate accident.... but the more I read. Holy shit. It was like one dumb decision after another. This shit was 100% avoidable, if she used her brain for even one moment.

 

[zer0blivion]

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..

You keep downplaying how incredibly negligent this person was. Are you that dense?

 

[iamblades]

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'.

 

[oneils]

That stretch of highway 30, I believe, is a belt that takes you around montreal (rather than through).

Pretty narrow (2 or 3 lanes each way), lots of curves (if I remember right) and there really is no where to stop (especially true in winter, this was in the summer though).

edit: found a timelapse video of someone going east bound on the 30 (from hawkesbury ontario to quebec city)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcFFvRy9Mfk

 

[zer0blivion]

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'.

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.

 

[iamblades]

You keep downplaying how incredibly negligent this person was. Are you that dense?

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.

 

[zeemumu]

Edit: due to not reading article.

 

[oneils]

lol, dude you should read the full article. two people dead. not such a funny joke when that is taken into account.

 

[iamblades]

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.

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.

 

[TheSeks]

Why on earth would you get out of your car instead of driving around them.

Worried someone else would hit the ducks. So she got out to try to scare the ducks off the road/make them rush off the road or something.

Logical line of thought but stupid/dangerous, definitely.

Shame two people lost their lives because she felt the need to attempt to save some animals/good intentions. :/

 

[MIMIC]

Would stop your car on the highway and start herding them?

I think that's the big difference here.

This is what she did? Damn.

 

[zer0blivion]

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.

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.

 

[zer0blivion]

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.

Drive responsibly. DON'T PARK YOUR CAR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FUCKING FREEWAY!

 

[iamblades]

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.

 

[zer0blivion]

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.

Distractions, like ducks?

 

[bomma_man]

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 guess that he is arguing that the deceased's contributory negligence significantly outweighs her initial negligent act.

 

[Zee-Row]

When i'm driving i could give a shit about animals if its going to compromise my safety. I had an issue at night where a cat ran across the street in front of me but there was no chance i was going to swerve away in a split second and possibly lose control of my car and hurt myself or somebody else. The cat was dead , moral of the story don't have an outside cat.

 

[Zoe]

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?

#2 except you're missing the bystander. The bystander swerved which didn't give the family enough time to react. They were following too close to the bystander.

 

[Cat Party]

Horrific story but absolute nonsense that the government is prosecuting the driver who stopped. Stopped/stalled cars are not a rare occurrence on highways.

 

[MogCakes]

There's no one party solely at fault for this incident. The woman who stopper her car was incredibly negligent, but the motorcyclist would have been able to safely stop had he been a safe distance from the car in front of him.

 

[zer0blivion]

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.

 

[Trojan X]

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.

It's all about the breaking distance of both vehicles. How soon or immediate did she apply the breaks for the ducks and how far away was the motorcyclist?

 

[Oracle Dragon]

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 her 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.

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.

It really should be, and considering the danger that poor drivers put others in, I'm surprised it is not. The road is not a playground... you simply must assume that every other driver on the road is a dangerous and inattentive. Stay away from them at all times, space in front, no one on the sides whenever possible. Passing other cars is dangerous, it only takes 3 seconds for the other driver to just casually drift into your lane because they are not paying attention and think it is clear, and life is over. I've also seen multiple times near collisions because of very quick and aggressive lane changes with drivers avoiding slow obstacles. City buses where I am are a prime example, if a bus begins to slow for a stop in front of you, suddenly people have no patience, and desperate to not have to wait that 15 seconds behind a stopped bus quickly veer into the next lane with little notice and don't even check to see if it is clear. How much faster did you get home now that your car is wrecked and people are hurt/dead? Insanity!

 

[Effect]

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.

I think this is this case people shouldn't be fixated on the fact she parked by choice. That's just one element of the situation and is easily replaceable. Doesn't change what she did was beyond stupid but not ultimately the only thing at play. It just as easy could have been broken down car as said. People do not like to put blame on a victim but when it comes to driving the actions of all drivers have to be looked at. Especially when people drive far to fast (beyond the speed limit) and to closely to other cars, trucks, etc that they can not react in time or properly to situations on the road.

 

[zer0blivion]

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.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

You don't intentionally stop in the middle of the road. Either go around the sucks safely or drive through them. You don't clog up the road like that.

Humans first. Other species second.

I've run over animals unfortunately and it sucks but I'm not swerving and getting myself killed over a squirel.

 

[Oracle Dragon]

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.

 

[daw840]

As an ex auto adjuster for a few different major companies in the US, this lady's insurance should pay out the max on her policy to the other family. It is negligent to stop your car on the highway for most reasons. If you do have to for mechanical breakdowns or another accident, etc, you really need to put on your blinkers. That said, running into a parked car lays more than 50% of the negligence on the vehicle that's moving. Every single time.

This should not be criminal, this should be civil and handled via the insurance companies.

 

[zer0blivion]

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.

They were distracted by the crazy lady herding ducks, if the article is to be believed.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

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.

Which is why brake checkin is typically illegal. But if you really did need to brake you wouldn't be held liable.

If she had a legit emergency to stop in the middle of a highway would be one thing. But just stopping for some ducks is really really poor judgement. And it's more difficult to ban one thinks to be able to see a completely stopped car on a highway when no brakes/blinkers are on.

 

[Wag]

Show her mercy. It's a tragedy. Although that facebook pic thing...

There's something so wrong with this for this topic.

 

[Oracle Dragon]

They were distracted by the crazy lady herding ducks, if the article is to be believed.

I believe it, it even says the father was yelling and waving at her (while presumably driving so close to the car in front of him doing 110 kph that he couldn't see around it). But again... lunacy. He has even his daughter riding with him going that speed, your eyes are not anywhere but ahead.

And if you check out on Google maps Highway 30 between Châteauguay and Montreal, this is a pretty big highway. I didn't see any obvious places (especially with the described medians) where there were sudden sharp corners and no visibility, it has long stretches.

Obviously crazy duck lady never should have stopped her car and left the vehicle, but I just don't think (admittedly, based only on the two articles) it is fair to place 100% of the blame on her for the deaths. She was definitely a contributing factor, but the charges should imply that if she had of stopped her car in a different, legitimate way (broken down, hazards on, etc.) those motorcyclists would have not suffered the collision. I'm not sure that is the case, but I guess we will never know.

 

[Maxwell House]

Are you people crazy? This idiot was PARKED in a freeway lane. How could this POSSIBLY be anyone else but her fault? Christ, so stupid.

Yeah, people on the freeway are supposed to be driving at a crawl while on a FREEWAY, right???

 

[Phoenix]

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.

How is that not possible? I'm not understanding that at all. If you're following behind someone and not keeping a SAFE distance, you're actually driving recklessly.

 

[jet1911]

It's not "negligent" to stop your car on a highway here, it's illegal. The lady is dumb as fuck and she is responsible or the death of two people. I hope the du ks were worth it...

 

[Maxwell House]

Horrific story but absolute nonsense that the government is prosecuting the driver who stopped. Stopped/stalled cars are not a rare occurrence on highways.

Yes, they are, on a FREEWAY lane. On the shoulder, sure, but she was parked in the middle of the FAST LANE.