Support NeoGAF

[darkazcura]

I remember this one time..I was driving home at night..about midnight..going about 70 mph in the center lane when all of a sudden right in front of me there was a car just stopped in the middle lane. I swerved out of the way just in time. It was incredibly close. At the same time there was another car going in reverse at about 45 mph in the emergency lane. It was honestly the weirdest thing I've ever seen.

Anyway my point is...when you are driving on the highway at high speeds and a car is parked (no brake lights then), it is incredibly difficult to know whether a car is stopped or moving. The only thing you got is depth perception and sometimes it doesn't register all the way because it is really unexpected for a car to be stopped on the highway. I was paying full attention to the road, and it didn't register until the very last second that "holy crap that car isn't moving". No brake lights and all will do that to you.

Really unfortunate that this happened.

 

[CitizenVectron]

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

It sounds like the first passer didn't swerve out of the way until they were right on the car. This left the trailing motorcycles the same amount of time to swerve, only they didn't. The first passing car had more opportunity to see the parked car, but didn't. If they would have changed lanes even a few seconds earlier it's likely that the motorcyclists would have seen the car as well, in time.

Impossible to say, however.

 

[MogCakes]

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...

This is BS. A motorist should always be on the lookout for potential hazards and be driving at a speed and distance safe enough to stop before hitting them. The woman is an idiot and deserves penalties, but she is not wholly responsible for the motorcyclist's crash.

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.

Mentally ill/sociopathic no, incredibly and punishably stupid yes. But to lay the entire blame on her is moronic. I'm sure a lot of GAFfers follow close to other vehicles' tails, but remember that at the end of the day if a hazard of any kind pops up unexpectedly and you crash into it because you couldn't see past the car in front for being too close or were going over the limit and couldn't stop in time, that's on you. Whoever caused the hazard should also be punished, but theirs would be for causing a road hazard (and their poor judgment in doing so), not the crash that resulted from your being distracted (which is also on you as the driver; "I was distracted it wasn't my fault!" is a BS excuse, all drivers should know not to allow themselves to become distracted). I do agree that the woman's punishment should be more severe for her decisions resulting in a deadly crash, but again, she's not wholly responsible for that crash.

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.

In any driving situation the actions of all drivers need to be evaluated; to ignore that is to introduce bias and personal feelings. Here is what people who aren't wholly attacking the woman are saying, in no confusing terms: The woman is an idiot and should be punished, the motorcyclist allowing himself to be distracted and follow close enough to the car in front that he couldn't see the stopped car (even without hazard lights, the road conditions were stated to be excellent) was also at fault for his crash. I'd love to see a proper defense for his being distracted. Considering he hit the car moments after the other car swerved it's arguable he was too close to its tail as well.

It's a tragic situation no matter how you look at it but there is fault and stupidity to go around, it isn't just one person here. The scary part is people drive like this all the time.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Maybe like 6 months in jail, permanent loss of license. What an idiot.

 

[anarckitty]

It sounds like the first passer didn't swerve out of the way until they were right on the car. This left the trailing motorcycles the same amount of time to swerve, only they didn't. The first passing car had more opportunity to see the parked car, but didn't. If they would have changed lanes even a few seconds earlier it's likely that the motorcyclists would have seen the car as well, in time.

Impossible to say, however.

You work in insurance, don't you? Most of us that work in auto insurance will see it differently than someone else.

 

[Anion]

You should never stop on the main road, let alone on a passing lane. Wtf

Heck, if no one is on the right lane, you shouldn't even be on the left

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.

Seriously. I don't get how the motorcyclist gets the blame

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Considering how the car was completely stopped and that the woman was outside of her vehicle, I can't see this being anymore than an unfortunate accident. At most, she should be charged with stopping her vehicle on a highway without necessity (as the article mentioned), but I think the charges against her dealing with the crash should be dropped.

Pretty awful situation all around, though.

In any driving situation the actions of all drivers need to be evaluated; to ignore that is to introduce bias and personal feelings. Here is what people who aren't wholly attacking the woman are saying, in no confusing terms: The woman is an idiot and should be punished, the motorcyclist allowing himself to be distracted and follow close enough to the car in front that he couldn't see the stopped car (even without hazard lights, the road conditions were stated to be excellent) was also at fault for his crash. I'd love to see a proper defense for his being distracted. Considering he hit the car moments after the other car swerved it's arguable he was too close to its tail as well.

At first my thought was "How do you hit a parked car?"

But if you're going 70 and there is someone behind you also going 70 (and that someone is your wife on a motorcycle), your first instinct isn't to slam on your breaks when you see something amiss like someone chilling on the median. Next thing you know, the car in front of you suddenly swerves (you can't see why because you're on a bike) and...splat. Had they been in a car, it might have only been a minor fender bender. You don't get that margin of error in a motorbike. And the distraction she caused by being on the median probably contributed to the driver's lack of attentiveness. We are all also trained to respond to break lights when trailing. A car with no break lights is a hazard for good reason even when moving. The "attentive" driver in front of them was inches away from the same mistake.

 

[Joni]

I can see why people blame the woman, but everyone is to blame in this situation. if she had made the same decision for something like a deer - hitting a deer would have certainly caused an accident - the accident would still have happened considering the way it was described. The other drivers failed to notice a non-moving vehicle, something that could happen due to valid reasons like traffic congestion, bigger animals or general failure so they weren't paying attention either. They wouldn't be able to see she stopped for ducks, only that she was stopped. I think my local country laws would put the blame on everyone involved.

 

[Archaix]

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.

Being realistic is you realizing that you're a terrible driver. That stopping distance is absolutely to be expected at highway speeds, and following safe stopping distances decreases traffic jams, not increases. Insufficient room to stop also causes problems with people merging and leads to more sudden stops, which leads to slower speeds overall, causing jams. Safe distance between cars at highway speeds is two seconds of time between you and the car in front of you. This driver clearly wasn't giving enough space, and he lead to his own death. Idiot in front of him helping ducks or not, the dead driver is the driver at fault in this scenario.

 

[Blue Submarine No. 6]

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?

I threaded my way between a van and a pickup one night on the highway on my bike - they'd collided and were sitting in the road with their lights out, and it was a damned miracle I didn't hit them, but I got lucky....

The simple fact of the matter is that motorcycles are REALLY DANGEROUS. You have to drive super defensively all the time, and often even that won't save you. If you are driving a motorcycle and you hit ANYTHING in the road at 60mph or above - whether it be a stopped car, a deer carcas, a ripped up truck tire, someone's old washing machine or a couple of two by fours - you are likely dead. You have to take responsibility for looking where the hell you're going.

No she should not have been there, but what if her car had broken down or there was an accident or a traffic jam? Or just a moose? (very common out there). I get the impression that he was waving at the woman at the side of the road - looking at her rather than the road ahead - and drove into her parked car presuming (incorrectly) it was moving...

Yes, the driver of the car should not have stopped. Yes, she should have put on her hazards. Yes, it's heartbreaking that two people lost their lives. No, she is not entirely culpable for this tragic outcome.

 

[AnathemicOne]

As sad as the story is, I don't believe the parked car is 100% at fault here. Yeah sure parking in the first (passing/fast/etc.) lane is pretty dumb especially without hazard lights on, but with like any obstacle spotted from a distance one should be able to maneuver out of the way with ease. But then (like many have pointed out) the motorcyclists couldn't see the parked vehicle because another (I assume larger) vehicle was in front of them and only had just then switched lanes to avoid said parked vehicle.

This is where it gets tricky in that how close were the motorcyclists following said vehicle in front of them? There's two scenarios I depict here:

1) Car in front swerved to the other at the last moment. However freeway traffic dictates the faster you go the further you should be away from vehicles in front of you. I can only forsee that said motorcyclists were in close proximity to the rear end of the front vehicle hence the lack of reaction time.

2) Car in front spotted the parked vehicle in advance and thus switched lanes accordingly. Motorcyclists from behind still crashed into parked vehicle for whatever reason.

I'm more into believing scenario one, and again the story is sad and a parked vehicle shouldn't be parked in any lane of the freeway but according to the story this isn't entirely the fault of the operator of the parked vehicle.

 

[Elfforkusu]

A car stopped in the passing lane on a highway for any reason (other than mechanical failure... and even then, isn't it usually the law to gtf off the road?) is criminal negligence, imo.

The lady is lucky it was a motorcycle that hit her. She'll lose the case, but if it had been a normal car there she'd probably have lost her life.

Awful for the family. Example of why I don't ride a motorcycle. You can do everything right and still end up dead from some dumbass driver.

 

[Leona Lewis]

My immediate reaction: The accident happened in 2010. It took this long to get all the facts of the case in order and begin the trial?

Odd.

 

[echoshifting]

My immediate reaction: The accident happened in 2010. It took this long to get all the facts of the case in order and begin the trial?

Odd.

Not really. Doling out justice is typically an (appropriately) slow process.

 

[Dougald]

Being realistic is you realizing that you're a terrible driver. That stopping distance is absolutely to be expected at highway speeds, and following safe stopping distances decreases traffic jams, not increases. Insufficient room to stop also causes problems with people merging and leads to more sudden stops, which leads to slower speeds overall, causing jams. Safe distance between cars at highway speeds is two seconds of time between you and the car in front of you. This driver clearly wasn't giving enough space, and he lead to his own death. Idiot in front of him helping ducks or not, the dead driver is the driver at fault in this scenario.

Kind of harsh don't you think? 2 seconds which is what I generally try to leave is about 60m at 110kmh. As the braking distance I quoted is higher than that AND did not include reaction time, I'd say my point stands

You could (and should) leave more if possible but there is no way you can maintain a 4 second gap at rush hour, its just not happening. Doesn't matter how "terrible" a driver you seem to think I am, that gap is gonna get filled by other cars as much as you drop back

 

[Nose Master]

Well thank God this article about the death of a father and his teenage daughter has duck puns as the first few replies.

Get some fucking decorum and empathy ffs.

You're right, we should be reduced to tears with every sad news article we read.

 

[charsace]

5 years in jail and should never be allowed to drive again. Anyone dumb enough to endanger the lives of human beings for some ducks is a danger to society.

 

[1044]

I agree with a lot of other posters here that the woman should not have stopped her vehicle, but the accident itself should have been avoided unless there was unsafe driving going on.

The proper safe following distance should be at least 3 seconds away from the vehicle in front of your. At 75mph, that means a distance of at least 333+ ft.

So we know that the motorcycle was following another vehicle, so their view of the parked car was blocked. Lets assume the view-blocking vehicle changed lanes at the last possible second. If they were a safe distance from the view-blocking vehicle, that means there is at least 333 ft. between the motorcycle and the parked car. At 75mph, the required stopping distance according to the calculator site linked earlier says 268.81 ft is needed for a full stop.

Of course, the motorcycle probably did not react instantly, so maybe he did not begin to stop until 200-250 ft. But that should be sufficient distance to decelerate to anywhere below 25mph. With proper safety equipment, the chances of death should not be that high from a sub-25mph crash barring outside factors like pre-existing injuries or medical conditions.

That's all assuming the view-blocking car changed lanes at the very last possible moment, which in itself is very unsafe.

So I believe the motorcycle was traveling far too close behind the view-blocking vehicle that changed lanes or they were going much faster than 75mph or a combination of both. Of course there could be other factors not mentioned in the story that could cause a different scenario, such as the motorcycle speeding up trying to change lanes to avoid the parked car but were boxed in by another car.

 

[Archaix]

Kind of harsh don't you think? 2 seconds which is what I generally try to leave is about 60m at 110kmh. As the braking distance I quoted is higher than that AND did not include reaction time, I'd say my point stands

You could (and should) leave more if possible but there is no way you can maintain a 4 second gap at rush hour, its just not happening. Doesn't matter how "terrible" a driver you seem to think I am, that gap is gonna get filled by other cars as much as you drop back

Unless I wildly misinterpreted your post (in which case, yeah, it was harsh and an overreaction so if so I apologize for that bit) you implied that it isn't realistic to leave 68 meters distance between the next car and you at 110KPH when really it's just a slight extra cushion beyond what should be standard. My conversion wasn't all that good because I had it at around 65 meters for two seconds so it was a little farther off than I thought, but he didn't need to come to a full stop. There was a free lane (my assumption based on the article stating the driver in front moved to that lane) which he didn't go to, instead he went full speed into a stationary object while yelling at somebody standing on the shoulder of the road according to his wife. He didn't need to have 68 meters to stop before hitting the car that was stopped, that would be to avoid the car in front of him. And no matter how little space that car left, there was more time between him and the obstacle than him and the car that swerved out of the way.


I'm not at all saying that it's excusable to stop your car for ducklings on a freeway because that's the sort of thing a crazy person would do or absolve, but the point stands that it could have been any obstacle and he collided with it because he was not driving safely himself. You should always, and especially when driving a motorcycle, drive with the assumption that everybody else is not only going to do something dumb, but is actively antagonistic with you. Drive assuming that somebody will slam on the brakes just to ruin your day at all times and you don't need to worry about some lunatic who wants to save a duck crossing a 4 lane street. And for what it's worth, that philosophy on driving is mostly why I called you terrible. I assume everybody else driving is not only terrible but also a complete jackass. I'm right more often than not and it results in never causing a traffic accident.

 

[TimmmV]

I almost went into the back of a car that had stopped in the motorway without its hazard lights on, sometimes its a lot harder than it sounds to tell whether a car is stopped or just going slightly slower than you - got quite lucky in the end that I was able to slam my brakes and stop just in time.

Yes people should drive at a safe speed, and yes people should leave a safe distance between themselves and the car in front, but lets face it - these things happen all the time, and by being negligent enough to stop your car in the passing lane, you make it much more likely that an accident will happen because of those things

The woman shouldn't be allowed to drive again (if you lack that much common sense to stop for ducks, let alone putting hazards on, you aren't capable to handle the responsibility of a car) and should be punished under whatever laws they have in Canada that cover criminal negligence

 

[kehs]

Everyone should take note that speeds are in its KPH and not MPH, this is why stopping for small animals is stupid. Might be heartless but fuck it.

Lady putting on her hazards would have probably prevented all this. =(

 

[Maxwell House]

The people blaming the victims in this case are the same type of people who show no sympathy for people who die from cancer, saying they should have exercised more or eaten better. The same type of people who blame a rape victim for dressing too provocatively.

Why the hell would do people point their fingers at victims? That is so fucking obnoxious and shows no empathy/compassion on your part. The people who died in this accident were not at fault what so ever. Placing blame on them at all is a complete dick move.

 

[Outlaw]

The people blaming the victims in this case are the same type of people who show no sympathy for people who die from cancer, saying they should have exercised more or eaten better. The same type of people who blame a rape victim for dressing too provocatively.

Why the hell would do people point their fingers at victims? That is so fucking obnoxious and shows no empathy/compassion on your part. The people who died in this accident were not at fault what so ever. Placing blame on them at all is a complete dick move.

You people can't be serious. You hit someone from behind it's your own fault. Pay attention. There is nothing else to discuss regardless of why she stopped. Everyone now days just want to blame someone else for their own mistakes.

 

[Beerman462]

You people can't be serious. You hit someone from behind it's your own fault. Pay attention. There is nothing else to discuss regardless of why she stopped. Everyone now days just want to blame someone else for their own mistakes.

First of all read this.

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...

Second: Educate yourself on Target Fixation

Third: think critically about this. Everyone keeps talking about safe following distance, which all fine and good, but when the vehicle in front of you swerves and you're faced with a non moving object in the fast lane and nowhere to go you don't have time to stop. Safe following distance assumes the car in front is traveling relatively the same speed as you and is hitting their brakes. The distance is to give you the reaction time to hit your brakes soon enough to stop before you hit the other vehicle which is also decelerating. Safe following distance does not account for a vehicle to go from traveling speed to a complete stop in that distance.

Another thing to think about is that safe following distance only really works in a one on one situation. Meaning one car following another car at a safe distance has time to stop, but as you add multiple cars the reaction times add up to the point that eventually someone can't stop in time, that's why they have laws telling you not to stop in the middle of the road.

I'll add my own anecdote. I was driving down the freeway and a dog was crossing. This was leaving Vegas in the afternoon so there was a lot of traffic. I saw the dog and made up my mind that if it came into my lane I was hitting it. If I slammed on my brakes I would have been part of the huge pile-up that occurred, because the guy in the lane next to me locked his brakes. Sorry, but that animals life is not worth mine, my families or the lives of everyone else on the road.

 

[zer0blivion]

Update:Czornobaj was prepared to plead guilty if no jail time

The jury ended its third day of sequestered deliberation on Thursday by asking the presiding judge, Justice Éliane Perreault, a series of three questions. The questions indicated that there is a lone holdout among the jury who is not convinced she is guilty of criminal negligence causing death, a serious Criminal Code offence that carries a maximum life sentence.

The first question put to Perreault read: "If a juror agrees that the stopped car of Emma Czornobaj was a significant cause of the death of André Roy and Jessie Roy, but will not acknowledge the responsibility of Emma Czornobaj for stopping the car as not sufficiently significant to convict her of criminal negligence, how do we proceed?"

The second question was of a similar nature. The third read: "How do we proceed if there are jury members who refuse to follow the process as outlined by the judge?"

To address the first question, Perreault reread a section of her instructions that covered criminal negligence causing death.

"For an act or omission to cause someone's death it must be at least a contributing cause — one that is beyond something that is trifling or minor in nature. So it cannot be trifling or minor in nature. It has to be a contributing cause," Perreault said. "Criminal law does not recognize contributory negligence (for example Roy's speed) nor does it have any mechanism to apportion responsibility for the harm occasioned by criminal conduct."

To address the third question, Perreault reminded the jurors of the oath they took after they were selected for the jury. She also reminded them that they have the right to disagree and that if they can't reach a unanimous decision, the case will end in a mistrial and a new trial would be ordered.

The jury will resume its deliberation Friday morning.

 

[kehs]

newly discovered video of the duck crossing.

 

[Dunlop]

You people can't be serious. You hit someone from behind it's your own fault. Pay attention. There is nothing else to discuss regardless of why she stopped. Everyone now days just want to blame someone else for their own mistakes.

Please tell me you are joking, holy fuck

Anyhoo guilty on all 4 charges

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...d+guilty+four+charges+duck/9958641/story.html

Which I don't think is right either

 

[Irishmantis]

This is one of the reasons i refuse to drive i would of done the same thing

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Good verdict.

You don't stop in the middle of a highway for bullshit reasons. You pull over to the side.

This is one of the reasons i refuse to drive i would of done the same thing

Pull over to the side. Problem solved.

 

[hiroshawn]

I ran over some baby ducks the other day. I was on the highway when they and the mother came out in front of me. I slowed down and tried to time it so I went over them but I caught two of them then the semi behind me finished them off.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I ran over some baby ducks the other day. I was on the highway when they and the mother came out in front of me. I slowed down and tried to time it so I went over them but I caught two of them then the semi behind me finished them off.

"You should have stopped and possibly gotten rammed by the semi in back of you!"

In all seriousness it happens. It sucks but it is what it is. I've run over animals before and unfortunately there were cars behind me and I'm not risking my life over a racoon. My first instinct when I see an animal in the street is to check what's behind me. If another vehicle close enough I generally keep driving. If there's no car behind me I brake for the animal. But I don't just slam wildly. Or randomly stop on a road known for cars travelling fast.

 

[J-Rod]

Just about a month ago someone screeched to a halt to avoid hitting geese crossing the road and the cars behind them all collided. I was the fourth car and managed to stop in time and thankfully the person behind me stopped in time before hitting me. Pointless story, but I made up my mind then that it is safer to take my chances plowing on through any geese than trying to stop.

 

[N.Domixis]

Hmm, so if a group of kids unexpectedly cross a highway. We are supposed to run them over?

 

[Senoculum]

Hmm, so if a group of kids unexpectedly cross a highway. We are supposed to run them over?

:/


Apples and Oranges, I'd say...

 

[kehs]

Hmm, so if a group of kids unexpectedly cross a highway. We are supposed to run them over?

Only if they're dressed as ducks.

 

[N.Domixis]

:/


Apples and Oranges, I'd say...

But its either them or the people driving behind me. What would be the best action? I either run over the kids, or suddenly stop, possibly killing me and the driver behind me.

 

[Heshinsi]

Good verdict.

You don't stop in the middle of a highway for bullshit reasons. You pull over to the side.



Pull over to the side. Problem solved.

There was no side, there was a concrete barrier.

Just a question, but how do people drive during stop and go traffic on the highway? The car in front of the motorcycle should have had ample enough time to see a parked car and change lanes early, and not tell the jurors that she couldn't even brake in time.

There's a section of the Anthony Henday here in Edmonton, where during rush hour you go from driving 100-110km to almost 5-30km in a short amount of time. There are no flashing hazard lights, and yet you don't hear about people rear ending each other. The motorcycle seeing the parked car for the first time after the other car swerved and not having time to avoid it, should never of happened if that first driver paid any attention to the road and not swerve at the last possible moment.

 

[Rockandrollclown]

But its either them or the people driving behind me. What would be the best action? I either run over the kids, or suddenly stop, possibly killing me and the driver behind me.

If it was kids, you'd likely do what this lady did, with one huge difference, put on your damn hazard lights. For smaller animals though, you do not come to a complete stop on a highway, especially in the passing lane.

 

[J-Rod]

I guess if you value the life of children as being equal to fowl.

The point of not stopping is to save people from getting hurt or dying. Obviously if it is a person in the road, and your priority is still people, then your are better off trying to stop and risking a wreck. Also, hitting a person would likely cause a wreck, as would hitting a larger animal like a cow or deer, whereas a small critter wouldn't. Seems like common sense.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

There was no side, there was a concrete barrier.

Just a question, but how do people drive during stop and go traffic on the highway? The car in front of the motorcycle should have had ample enough time to see a parked car and change lanes early, and not tell the jurors that she couldn't even brake in time.

There's a section of the Anthony Henday here in Edmonton, where during rush hour you go from driving 100-110km to almost 5-30km in a short amount of time. There are no flashing hazard lights, and yet you don't hear about people rear ending each other. The motorcycle seeing the parked car for the first time after the other car swerved and not having time to avoid it, should never of happened if that first driver paid any attention to the road and not swerve at the last possible moment.

You cover a lot of ground above 100kph, you look away for a second and all of a sudden that car in the distance is a heck of a lot closer than it was before. I've been in several situations where I've been following someone on a highway and watched them swerve to miss a stopped vehicle, leaving me to brake and dodge at the very last second.

It happens; and if the car in front is larger than the vehicle behind, obstructing their view of the road, it leaves little time for the driver behind to react, even if they're at a safe following distance.

 

[Heshinsi]

I guess if you value the life of children as being equal to fowl.

The point of not stopping is to save people from getting hurt or dying. Obviously if it is a person in the road, and your priority is still people, then your are better off trying to stop and risking a wreck. Also, hitting a person would likely cause a wreck, as would hitting a larger animal like a cow or deer, whereas a small critter wouldn't. Seems like common sense.

So the difference between being criminally negligent of homicide or not boils down to how big the animal/human is? If you stopped because there's a deer or a human on the road, and that caused someone else to lose their lives, would the charges still be the same?

 

[J-Rod]

I think stopping is one thing and parking in the highway, getting out with no hazards or anything to shepard them are another.

 

[SonnyBoy]

She's definitely partly responsible for their deaths. Unless your car fails, there's absolutely no reason to park your vehicle on a highway.

 

[Rockandrollclown]

So the difference between being criminally negligent of homicide or not boils down to how big the animal/human is? If you stopped because there's a deer or a human on the road, and that caused someone else to lose their lives, would the charges still be the same?

Well in the case of a human, yes we value the lives of humans more than ducks. In the case of a deer its self protection, hitting an animal that big going highway speed is likely to injure or possibly even kill you, especially if its a buck. Antlers will tear your car to pieces, and pierce your windshield.

 

[Bisnic]

This is one of the reasons i refuse to drive i would of done the same thing

So you refuse to drive because of the small risk of hitting an animal? Lol.

 

[Illusive_Juan]

Only if they're dressed as ducks.

I'm going to hell for laughing at this.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

Hmm, so if a group of kids unexpectedly cross a highway. We are supposed to run them over?

Any person crossing a highway on foot is 100% taking their lives into their own hands. Whether the driver deems it safe to stop and avoids harming them, or decides it's too dangerous to slam on the brakes, the kids are at fault. It's tragic and unfortunate, but just because it's kids in your example doesn't magically make it the driver's responsibility.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

So the difference between being criminally negligent of homicide or not boils down to how big the animal/human is? If you stopped because there's a deer or a human on the road, and that caused someone else to lose their lives, would the charges still be the same?

A car stopped by brakes will still have brake lights on and the same distance and time limits of deceleration as everyone else on the road.

You don't often see people plowing into the back of other cars at toll booths or at the beginning of a traffic jam.

In the split second it takes you to process that the car in front of you has no lights AND isn't moving, you make up a huge amount of ground traveling at 60-70 MPH. There is zero defensible reason to leave a car abandoned on a highway unless you've been seriously injured.

 

[zer0blivion]

There was no side, there was a concrete barrier.

Look on the right side of the road, where the emergency vehicle is. She absolutely could have pulled over.

 

[marsomega]

They hit a parked car. It may as well been a rock, their actions would have caused them the same outcome.

Peoples emotional responses with this "don't blame victims" mantra are just that, Emotional. Not objective at all.

They charged her with "Dangerous Driving"?! Her car was parked. Can't be guilty of a moving violation if your car is not in motion while driving it. Miss trial, Jury Incompetence..

Edit: Saw more pictures, horrific stuff. Unfortunate all around, however those charges I do not agree with it. She's not a criminal and she's not a cold heartless killer who thinks nothing of life lost to lock away 15 to life.