Support NeoGAF

[zer0blivion]

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.

If she hadn't stopped there, they would still be alive.

 

[Maxwell House]

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.

Because everyone drives 55 MPH+ on the freeways. If you drive slower than that it is actually dangerous and a little below that, actually against the law. Have you never driven on the freeway?

 

[Oracle Dragon]

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.

I can't imagine any circumstance in which it is not possible. The distance kept between the front of your car and the back of the leading vehicle is one of the few conditions much more in your control on the road. All you have to do to have a safe distance is.... slow down.

Also, yes, you always plan for a safe stopping distance when passing someone? Not "when you can", but always. If said distance is not available you instead chose... not to pass. It is possible.

But then, what do I know? I'm one of those select few who believe that you're not being a total loser to hang out in the right lane, driving at a safe speed, only going into the passing lane to pass, and keeping cars away from all sides of your vehicle... especially when my family is in the car with me. Too many people drive like complete fools and seem to have the mentality of "accidents only happen to other people, not to me".

 

[Phoenix]

If she hadn't stopped there, they would still be alive.

There are a large chain of circumstances that could have resulted in them still being alive. While she is a contributing factor, she is not the ONLY factor. Did she do something ill-advised, certainly. Does that mean that other people are given a pass for not noticing that the vehicle was stopped (which could have been for any number of other legitimate reasons)? No. In this incident there is a lot of fault to go around. Its unfortunate that people died, but I'm certain that her lawyer will quickly bring up the duty that drivers have to be mindful of the situations on the road.

 

[Oracle Dragon]

If she hadn't stopped there, they would still be alive.

Of course. And the other part of the question is "if her car was stopped there because it was broken down, and not to save ducks, would the motorcyclists still be alive? Or did they also contribute to their own deaths?".

 

[Two Words]

This is why I hate tail-gaters.

 

[zer0blivion]

There are a large chain of circumstances that could have resulted in them still being alive. While she is a contributing factor, she is not the ONLY factor. Did she do something ill-advised, certainly. Does that mean that other people are given a pass for not noticing that the vehicle was stopped (which could have been for any number of other legitimate reasons)? No. In this incident there is a lot of fault to go around. Its unfortunate that people died, but I'm certain that her lawyer will quickly bring up the duty that drivers have to be mindful of the situations on the road.

She was the direct cause of this specific tragedy.

 

[Phoenix]

Because everyone drives 55 MPH+ on the freeways. If you drive slower than that it is actually dangerous and a little below that, actually against the law. Have you never driven on the freeway?

Drive on them all the time at far faster than 55MPH (40MPH is far far slower than 55MPH), but I'm also looking at my lane and if I'm all of a sudden getting close to a vehicle I know its time to slow the fuck down... not assume that I'm going to phase through them. If you can't do that, then you need to get off the freeway because you're a dangerous driver. Its your responsibility to make sure that you have a safe following distance at all times... that's like, the law.

 

[Phoenix]

She was the direct cause of this specific tragedy,

So if you run into the back of another vehicle for any reason its not your fault? Lunacy.

 

[Oracle Dragon]

Because everyone drives 55 MPH+ on the freeways. If you drive slower than that it is actually dangerous and a little below that, actually against the law. Have you never driven on the freeway?

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.

 

[Lamel]

It just comes down to the moral question, do we value people's lives over the ducks? If so, then she is responsible for this. If not, then she can't be blamed.

 

[zer0blivion]

So if you run into the back of another vehicle for any reason its not your fault? Lunacy.

That's not what I said, at all.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=114653392&postcount=139

 

[Oracle Dragon]

It just comes down to the moral question, do we value people's lives over the ducks? If so, then she is responsible for this. If not, then she can't be blamed.

That's a bit extreme, while there are no doubt those who would side with the animals, clearly most will not value the lives for the ducks over the humans. Duck lady did a very foolish, dangerous, and ultimately deadly thing. While it is good to play devils advocate for the car being stopped for a legitimate reason, the truth is that it wasn't. At the very least she broke the law by stopping wilfully on a roadway that had a speed limit of above 70 kph.

But the reason it's also good to play devils advocate and try to understand if, if the car was there legitimately, would the motorcyclists have lived... is to take it as a lesson that as mentioned earlier you must assume that everyone else on the road who is not you is dangerous, unpredictable, and irresponsible. How could they have avoided this vehicle? Any number of ways I suspect. Just because she stopped for ducks making it "her fault" doesn't make them any less dead.

 

[Phoenix]

That's not what I said, at all.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=114653392&postcount=139

That's fine, but this is that you replied to

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=114655648&postcount=157

 

[zer0blivion]

That's fine, but this is that you replied to

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=114655648&postcount=157

I stand by what I said.

While she is a contributing factor, she is not the ONLY factor.

What if we remove her as a factor? Everyone lives.

 

[Loofy]

I can't imagine any circumstance in which it is not possible. The distance kept between the front of your car and the back of the leading vehicle is one of the few conditions much more in your control on the road. All you have to do to have a safe distance is.... slow down.

Also, yes, you always plan for a safe stopping distance when passing someone? Not "when you can", but always. If said distance is not available you instead chose... not to pass. It is possible.

If I change lanes in front of you youre no longer at a safe stopping distance.

 

[Phoenix]

But the reason it's also good to play devils advocate and try to understand if, if the car was there legitimately, would the motorcyclists have lived... is to take it as a lesson that as mentioned earlier you must assume that everyone else on the road who is not you is dangerous, unpredictable, and irresponsible. How could they have avoided this vehicle? Any number of ways I suspect. Just because she stopped for ducks making it "her fault" doesn't make them any less dead.

And most importantly, as a good defense attorney would argue, other vehicles DID in fact avoid hitting her vehicle - so why couldn't these drivers. I can almost state his closing "yes she did break the law, but if other drivers were able to safely navigate around her - does she stand to be prosecuted with jail time for those who couldn't". I've seen that one in court on more than one occasion for an accident case with multiple cars.

But I know jack about Canadian law so it could be different there.

 

[zeemumu]

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

Yeah I didn't read it, edited the original, sorry

 

[Phoenix]

I stand by what I said.

You stand by debating an issue that wasn't being discussed by the person you replied to? And then using that unrelated issue to try and prove a point about something that isn't the subject of debate with that same person?

Okay. Carry on.

 

[Oracle Dragon]

If I change lanes in front of you youre no longer at a safe stopping distance.

For the brief moments while I am slowing down to create that safe stopping distance once more, this would be true. But, that's another reason to absolutely minimize the proximity of vehicles around you. If you are so close to a vehicle that if he were to pull into your lane it would no longer be safe, then you are too close. Technically that driver should not be switching into your lane, it is not clear and it is dangerous. But assuming that other drivers are dangerous and unpredictable, you do your best to imagine that this vehicle would pull in front of you, so you have that space already.

 

[Arthrus]

What if we remove her as a factor? Everyone lives.

Looks like this incident occurred because two drivers made negligent decisions. If either one of them had made more cautious and responsible decisions leading up to the accident, everyone could have lived.

The first was the woman who stopped on a highway and who didn't think to put her hazard lights on when she was capable of doing so. Given her reason for stopping on the highway, I think that constitutes 2 punishable offenses, which should involve large fines and a penalty of some kind (demerits or immediate suspension of her license, mandatory defensive driving lessons, etc.).

The second negligent driver was the man on his motorcycle. There are plausible circumstances where a car could be stopped like that and its hazard lights non-functional. The driver must be reasonably prepared for those circumstances at all times. This is particularly important for motorcycles. Had he been driving more defensively (slower speed, greater following distance, etc.) he would have been able to stop in this case. It's very sad that he and his daughter were killed in the accident, but that does not mean he was not partly to blame.

 

[Kitsunebaby]

It just comes down to the moral question, do we value people's lives over the ducks? If so, then she is responsible for this. If not, then she can't be blamed.

Actually it comes down to the question of whether their own reckless driving contributed more to their deaths than her negligence. I'm inclined to think yes, due to the fact that I've often encountered a stationary vehicle or debris blocking the fast lane of a highway and been able to avoid it with ease. If the vehicle in this scenario had been legitimately broken down there would be no doubt that the motorcyclists were responsible for their own deaths. So while what she did was stupid and deserving of some kind of punishment, I still believe that they are responsible for their own deaths.

 

[Phoenix]

If I change lanes in front of you youre no longer at a safe stopping distance.

One of the reasons why your head is on a swivel when you're driving. You should be making some basic assumptions about what other people might do. If the car in front of them suddenly brakes and this dude swerves into my lane - can I slow down. Is he looking into my line or gliding into my lane suggesting he's going to do that (since people rarely use signals when changing lanes a >60MPH speeds).

If a car makes a lane change in front of me, I need to slow down - one so that they can fit, and two so that I have enough space so that if he slows down (due to the car in front of him) I can still stop without hitting him.

Driving, for me at least, isn't a passive activity - it a very active environment were you're gauging what other people might do, or you're accelerating away from them so you don't have as many people in nearby proximity. Far safer to speed past/through a cluster of cars and have a buffer 360 than not IMO.

 

[zer0blivion]

Looks like this incident occurred because two drivers made negligent decisions. If either one of them had made more cautious and responsible decisions leading up to the accident, everyone could have lived.

The first was the woman who stopped on a highway and who didn't think to put her hazard lights on when she was capable of doing so. Given her reason for stopping on the highway, I think that constitutes 2 punishable offenses, which should involve large fines and a penalty of some kind (demerits or immediate suspension of her license, mandatory defensive driving lessons, etc.).

The second negligent driver was the man on his motorcycle. There are plausible circumstances where a car could be stopped like that and its hazard lights non-functional. The driver must be reasonably prepared for those circumstances at all times. This is particularly important for motorcycles. Had he been driving more defensively (slower speed, greater following distance, etc.) he would have been able to stop in this case. It's very sad that he and his daughter were killed in the accident, but that does not mean he was not partly to blame.

Purely hypothetically, what if the driver of the car in front of the motorcyclist wasn't distracted by the lady herding ducks at the side of the road and was able to change lanes properly instead of having to swerve suddenly?

 

[GraveHorizon]

"Lady causes road collision to save ducks crossing the road"

 

[Oracle Dragon]

Purely hypothetically, what if the driver of the car in front of the motorcyclist wasn't distracted by the lady herding ducks at the side of the road and was able to change lanes properly instead of having to swerve suddenly?

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.

 

[zer0blivion]

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.

One could say the exact same thing about the lady and the ducks.

 

[Oracle Dragon]

One could say the exact same thing about the lady and the ducks.

No ones saying anything different about the lady with the ducks. She should not have done what she did. But just because she did something dangerous and foolish doesn't suddenly absolve all of the other drivers on the highway of operating their vehicles safely and responsibly.

 

[zer0blivion]

No ones saying anything different about the lady with the ducks. She should not have done what she did. But just because she did something dangerous and foolish doesn't suddenly absolve all of the other drivers on the highway of operating their vehicles safely and responsibly.

I think you mean victims.

 

[Oracle Dragon]

I think you mean victims.

No, I mean "drivers" in the plural sense of all of the other vehicles on the road during the time of the incident. If you cause an (additional) accident because you are gawking at someone else on the side of the road doing something foolish, it is not suddenly "their fault".

 

[Vincent Alexander]

Actually it comes down to the question of whether their own reckless driving contributed more to their deaths than her negligence.

Serious question...sorry if I missed....why was their driving reckless?

 

[zer0blivion]

No, I mean "drivers" in the plural sense of all of the other vehicles on the road during the time of the incident. If you cause an (additional) accident because you are gawking at someone else on the side of the road doing something foolish, it is not suddenly "their fault".

No, it isn't, but, if you intentionally park your car in the passing lane of a highway, I would argue that it is your fault if someone runs into it.

 

[lethial]

Bikes may have not been able to change lanes due to them driving in passing lane due to vehicle in regular lane.

 

[Oracle Dragon]

Actually it comes down to the question of whether their own reckless driving contributed more to their deaths than her negligence./QUOTE]
Serious question...sorry if I missed....why was their driving reckless?

Reading the articles will lead you to believe:

1) Motorcyclist was so close to the vehicle in front of him that he could not see around it.
2) Motorcyclist was going about 110 kph in the passing lane.
3) Motorcyclist waved and yelled at the crazy duck lady on the side of the road while continue to drive forward at 110 kph while (presumably) also no longer looking ahead but looking in the direction of crazy duck lady.

I don't think you can reasonably call those conclusions from the information we have in the articles alone. It's unlikely we'll ever know the full story, though the outcome of the trial will give us a pretty good idea.

 

[Phoenix]

Serious question...sorry if I missed....why was their driving reckless?

Not sure about Canada, but in much of the US - following too close and/or distracted driving is considered reckless driving. If you're involved in an accident where you hit the rear of another vehicle you're most likely getting a ticket for following to close or similar. Its a general assumption that regardless of the road conditions (you can't say 'but it was raining'), you will be prepared to stop and not hit the vehicle in front of you.

 

[zer0blivion]

Not sure about Canada, but in much of the US - following too close and/or distracted driving is considered reckless driving. If you're involved in an accident where you hit the rear of another vehicle you're most likely getting a ticket for following to close or similar. Its a general assumption that regardless of the road conditions (you can't say 'but it was raining'), you will be prepared to stop and not hit the vehicle in front of you.

What does the US say about parking on a highway? I'm 100% sure it's illegal here.

 

[tranciful]

No, it isn't, but, if you intentionally park your car in the passing lane of a highway, I would argue that it is your fault if someone runs into it.

...not if the driver could easily avoid it but doesn't. You're basically saying that if someone stops their car on the highway, it gives everybody else free reign to act like idiots and all the blame lies with the stopped car.

Stop with the extreme reductionist stance -- it's not so black and white and it's not productive to the conversation.

 

[Phoenix]

What does the US say about parking on a highway? I'm 100% sure it's illegal here.

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.

 

[tranciful]

"There can be no doubt that, generally speaking, when a car, in broad daylight, runs into the rear of another which is stationary on the highway and which has not come to a sudden stop, the fault is in the driving of the moving car."
(Rintoul v. X-Ray and Radium Industries Ltd., [1956] SCR 674 at 677).

This is from a supreme court ruling that took place in Canada.

 

[zer0blivion]

...not if the driver could easily avoid it but doesn't. You're basically saying that if someone stops their car on the highway, it gives everybody else free reign to act like idiots and all the blame lies with the stopped car.

Stop with the extreme reductionist stance -- it's not so black and white and it's not productive to the conversation.

You're right, that was a poor choice of words. I should have said, "If you intentionally park your car in the passing lane of a highway, you're criminally negligent and an asshole."

 

[Effect]

No, it isn't, but, if you intentionally park your car in the passing lane of a highway, I would argue that it is your fault if someone runs into it.

Not completely and only. She's in the wrong here and everyone agrees to that. However to the other drivers it could have been there for a number of reasons as said. It was there just as a number of different things could have been there. At that point, how other drivers respond is on them and how they are driving. Just because someone died does not absolve them of their own actions in a situation like this.

 

[Arthrus]

Purely hypothetically, what if the driver of the car in front of the motorcyclist wasn't distracted by the lady herding ducks at the side of the road and was able to change lanes properly instead of having to swerve suddenly?

If the motorcycle driver would have a safe stopping distance from the car that changed lanes, he would be able to stop well ahead of the stationary car.

Are you suggesting that maybe he was also partially responsible for what happened? I think he could've driven more defensively, but ultimately he successfully performed an evasive maneuver. In this circumstance, his last-minute swerve does not contribute to the motorcyclist's lack of a safe stopping distance.

 

[Oracle Dragon]

No, it isn't, but, if you intentionally park your car in the passing lane of a highway, I would argue that it is your fault if someone runs into it.

It most assuredly is, which is why she is being charged. My point is if you plan for other drivers to be the danger that they are to you, you would have been driving better in the first place and avoided the accident altogether. It is your responsibility to operate your vehicle safely and properly at all times, no one else's.

It's tragic that these two people died. Duck lady never should have stopped. But, why were these people so close to the car in front of them? Why were they not in the right lane, going 100 kph, with plenty of visibility and distance for cars all around them? If they were driving in a more safe manner, perhaps they would have been talking about that "crazy lady out of her car, and were those ducks??" over their planned ice cream.

Drive safe people. Always assume that every other driver within your sight is at any second going to do something stupid that will get you killed. The accident doesn't care about whose "fault" it is, only lawyers and insurance companies do. The accident only cares about physics, and when your car is a wreck, your wife is paralysed, your children are dead, the fact that it was "the other guys fault" will be of very small comfort indeed.

 

[zer0blivion]

No. That's not how it works. The how or why the car was stopped isn't the issue at this point. She's in the wrong here and everyone agrees to that. However to the other drivers it could have been there for a number of reasons as said. It was there just as a number of different things could have been there. At that point, how other drivers respond is on them and how they are driving. Just because someone died does not absolve them of their own actions in a situation like this.

It most assuredly is, which is why she is being charged. My point is if you plan for other drivers to be the danger that they are to you, you would have been driving better in the first place and avoided the accident altogether. It is your responsibility to operate your vehicle safely and properly at all times, no one else's.

It's tragic that these two people died. Duck lady never should have stopped. But, why were these people so close to the car in front of them? Why were they not in the right lane, going 100 kph, with plenty of visibility and distance for cars all around them? If they were driving in a more safe manner, perhaps they would have been talking about that "crazy lady out of her car, and were those ducks??" over their planned ice cream.

Drive safe people. Always assume that every other driver within your sight is at any second going to do something stupid that will get you killed. The accident doesn't care about whose "fault" it is, only lawyers and insurance companies do. The accident only cares about physics, and when your car is a wreck, your wife is paralysed, your children are dead, the fact that it was "the other guys fault" will be of very small comfort indeed.

I'm sorry, I got fired up. What I meant to say was: If you intentionally park your car in the passing lane of a highway, you're criminally negligent and an asshole.

 

[XT Vengeance]

Yeah, I read it as just the girl. Man, that is awful. Motorcycles suck.

Yes, because obviously the motorcycles are to blame for this idiot woman stopping on a HIGHWAY for some fucking ducks.

 

[zer0blivion]

If the motorcycle driver would have a safe stopping distance from the car that changed lanes, he would be able to stop well ahead of the stationary car.

Are you suggesting that maybe he was also partially responsible for what happened? I think he could've driven more defensively, but ultimately he successfully performed an evasive maneuver. In this circumstance, his last-minute swerve does not contribute to the motorcyclist's lack of a safe stopping distance.

I'm not suggesting that the driver of the car was partially responsible. I was only trying to make the point that had she not parked in the passing lane of the freeway, this discussion would not be necessary.

 

[Dalthien]

I'm not suggesting that the driver of the car was partially responsible. I was only trying to make the point that had she not parked in the passing lane of the freeway, this discussion would not be necessary.

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.

 

[OuterLimits]

Article is a bit confusing. The fact another car barely missed the parked car makes me believe it wasn't perhaps easily noticed from a distance?

Regardless, the lady is an idiot for parking her car on the highway and getting out of the car.

Not sure whether she should face serious criminal charges, but I imagine she may be sued in a civil court as well.

 

[Nilaul]

What if it wasn't ducks but a human being unconscious (potentially unable to move) on the highway lane for some reason? She saves a life; but two others kill themself. Dunno. Its a weird situation; I don't think she should go to jail, she should be fined for not having emergency lights on but I think thats about it.

 

[zer0blivion]

What if it wasn't ducks but a human being unconscious on the ground for some reason. Dunno. Its a weird situation; I don't think she should go to jail, she should be fined for not having emergency lights on but I think thats about it.

You pull over to the side of the road.