# A lesson for all drivers



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

The first thing I told both my kids when they started driving was "Do not endanger yourself for animals" if you cannot safely slow down or stop you run them down, pure and simple. How many people have been killed over the years trying to avoid an animal. I love dogs, have 3 of them. But if it's me or a dog the dog is going down.

http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/...r-ducks-not-criminal-defence-lawyer-1.1125518


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

In an abstract sense, you're obviously right.

The problem is that, in the majority of such instances, the amount of reaction time allowed is insufficient to go through that reasoning process. People just slam on the brakes because there is something in front, and the response that comes out within that 400msec is sudden object = danger = brakes. If they hit it, it's likely because they didn't even have enough time to step on the brakes. There's reasoning...and there's reflex, and the two are often incompatible. That's no reason to NOT offer the same advice to young drivers that you gave your kids. But, realistically, we tend not to do much of our driving while pondering lists of what to do and not do.

I'm not sure I'd want to be a pedestrian in the vicinity of any driver whose automatic reflex, when any living thing unexpectedly pops up in front of their vehicle, is to just drive straight through it.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

People who just slam on the brakes or swerve to avoid something are poorly trained drivers. I'm a believer that ALL drivers should be forced to take a defensive driving course. When you know what to do in a situation when a animal runs out in front of you then your training takes over. Sure there are times when you have no other choice but to hit the object or animal but at least you will come away with your life. I would rather be fixing a dent on a car then spend a few weeks in the hospital or worse.


----------



## kat_ (Jan 11, 2007)

The article says she was pulled over to the side, parked, with her hazard lights flashing and 2 other vehicles had passed by her safely. If anyone in this situation is guilty of dangerous driving shouldn't it be the guy who hit the parked car? If the first driver had gotten a flat tire she would have been pulled over in the same place. The lesson to all drivers is slow down and look in front of you. Unfortunately both he and his daughter paid the ultimate price for his mistake so now people want to blame someone else.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

TA462 said:


> People who just slam on the brakes or swerve to avoid something are poorly trained drivers. I'm a believer that ALL drivers should be forced to take a defensive driving course. When you know what to do in a situation when a animal runs out in front of you then your training takes over. Sure there are times when you have no other choice but to hit the object or animal but at least you will come away with your life. I would rather be fixing a dent on a car then spend a few weeks in the hospital or worse.


I don't know that they are poorly trained. There are some things one has more experience with and the reflexes come easy. And there are other things that could come relatively easy, if they happened more often or if you had an additional 1-2 seconds to ponder it.

I've knowingly hit animals twice in my life. One was a raccoon, and the other a porcupine. Neither, of course, leapt out in front of me. But in both instances I was driving on a highway in the dark, couldn't use my highbeams to see ahead, and driving on a road that curved. So in both instances, the event was pretty much a "What the? Is that a .......WHUMP!"


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

kat_ said:


> The article says she was pulled over to the side, parked, with her hazard lights flashing and 2 other vehicles had passed by her safely. If anyone in this situation is guilty of dangerous driving shouldn't it be the guy who hit the parked car? If the first driver had gotten a flat tire she would have been pulled over in the same place. The lesson to all drivers is slow down and look in front of you. Unfortunately both he and his daughter paid the ultimate price for his mistake so now people want to blame someone else.


+1.
other than if there was a visibility issue, its hard to fathom that someone wouldn't be able to take evasive action of some sort. Cars break down, things happen, they don't usually result in deaths.
heck I once saw someone come to a stop on the highway and reverse, because they had missed their exit. As crazy and dangerous as that was, ppl didn't die, because other drivers left safe following distances and were looking well ahead.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Well, apparently her defence case was unconvincing. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...way-deaths-after-stopping-for-ducks-1.2682200


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

mhammer said:


> Well, apparently her defence case was unconvincing. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...way-deaths-after-stopping-for-ducks-1.2682200


it would be interesting to hear the rationale for the conviction.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

She didn't just park her car on the shoulder with the 4 ways on. She stopped her car in a live lane, got out and tried to persuade the ducks to get off the highway. She blocked a lane to protect the ducks. Nobile, yes. She was stupid to put her life at risk and the others that use the same highway. Unfortunately a man and his daughter lost their lives because of her stupid noble act. Never ever stop in a live lane and never ever get out of your car on a major highway.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

TA462 said:


> She didn't just park her car on the shoulder with the 4 ways on. She stopped her car in a live lane, got out and tried to persuade the ducks to get off the highway. She blocked a lane to protect the ducks. Nobile, yes. She was stupid to put her life at risk and the others that use the same highway. Unfortunately a man and his daughter lost their lives because of her stupid noble act. Never ever stop in a live lane and *never ever get out of your car on a major highway*.


What about a minor highway? 
its funny to me how much is missing from this story...what highway was it? they said the biker was suspected of going 105kph, but what was the speedlimit? 80? 100? why wasn't there a shoulder on the road?
Although it wasn't smart what she did, there are reasons why a lane may be obstructed at times, and in such a case, it would seem the bikers would still be dead, which implies some wrong doing on their part as well.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

TA462 said:


> She didn't just park her car on the shoulder with the 4 ways on. She stopped her car in a live lane, got out and tried to persuade the ducks to get off the highway. She blocked a lane to protect the ducks. Nobile, yes. She was stupid to put her life at risk and the others that use the same highway. Unfortunately a man and his daughter lost their lives because of her stupid noble act. Never ever stop in a live lane and never ever get out of your car on a major highway.


As Emily Litella would say "Oh, that's different. Never mind!".
I was trying to figure out just how a bike would slam into the back of a car parked on the shoulder. No two ways about it. This was dumb...and fatal.

Like I keep saying, much of the misery in the world begins with "But I was just gonna...".


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

kat_ said:


> The article says she was pulled over to the side, parked, with her hazard lights flashing and 2 other vehicles had passed by her safely. If anyone in this situation is guilty of dangerous driving shouldn't it be the guy who hit the parked car? If the first driver had gotten a flat tire she would have been pulled over in the same place. The lesson to all drivers is slow down and look in front of you. Unfortunately both he and his daughter paid the ultimate price for his mistake so now people want to blame someone else.


I agree with you. When I first heard of this story I thought she slammed the brakes on and the motorcycle hit her from behind. To me, this is a shining example of how people follow too close for the speed they are traveling. How did the motorcycle driver not see the 4 way flashers?

Anyway, it's a sad story but following too close is one of the worst offences out there among drivers. I hear so many say "if you do follow at the right distance then people pull in front of you". I say "let them" and you'll still get where you are going.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

kat_ said:


> The article says she was pulled over to the side, parked, with her hazard lights flashing and 2 other vehicles had passed by her safely. If anyone in this situation is guilty of dangerous driving shouldn't it be the guy who hit the parked car? If the first driver had gotten a flat tire she would have been pulled over in the same place. The lesson to all drivers is slow down and look in front of you. Unfortunately both he and his daughter paid the ultimate price for his mistake so now people want to blame someone else.


she was parked in the left lane. Not off the road. the others got by her using the right lane. Based on what I can figure out there are no shoulders big enough to fit a car. She was 100% in the wrong and two people got wasted for her stupidity. The moral of the story is f&%$ the ducks


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I don't think any of us have any idea how straight that segment of the road was. If it was a highway in southern Saskatchewan, where you can see 20min ahead and 20min behind, that would be one thing. But if the stopped vehicle is around a bend, and anyone behind wouldn't be able to tell they were NOT a safe distance behind until it was too late, that's quite another.



> I hear so many say "if you do follow at the right distance then people pull in front of you". I say "let them" and you'll still get where you are going.


I generally try to abide by that rule, as much as possible. But there are often circumstances where drivers' intent to fit into whatever little space lies between oneself and the vehicle in front, in a rather rash, impulsive, and generally unsignalled, manner poses risk. I can try really hard to just hang back and let them do whatever they're gonna do, but there is a universe of folks out there who are drawn to even the tiniest spaces as if it was some sort of golden opportunity. Hanging back simply results in the space between oneself and the car behind being reduced.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

mhammer said:


> I'm not sure I'd want to be a pedestrian in the vicinity of any driver whose automatic reflex, when any living thing unexpectedly pops up in front of their vehicle, is to just drive straight through it.


Animals, not humans. The human brain can process the difference. The lesson I taught was simple, if its you or an animal, you come first. Your instinct is "not to kill or harm" but you need to train yourself to overcome that on the roads. There are people in the graveyard for saving a squirrel. I have squashed dozens along with a few racoons, cats and a couple of Canadian Geese. Pile drived one right through my front grill one time. Had to dig it out of the fan belt


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

How quickly can a motorcycle stop? Is it as slow as stopping an 18 wheeler? The other motorcycle in tandem stopped fine. Police said he was going 105 when he actually hit the car (and he was stopping at the time). The speed limit is 90. Is the car one of those cars with a Klingon cloaking device?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Accept2 said:


> How quickly can a motorcycle stop? Is it as slow as stopping an 18 wheeler? The other motorcycle in tandem stopped fine. Police said he was going 105 when he actually hit the car (and he was stopping at the time). The speed limit is 90. Is the car one of those cars with a Klingon cloaking device?


Does not really matter if he was going 200 KPH the girl should not have stopped her car there. If the dude wants to act like a fool on his motorcycle he will get whats coming to him eventually (and perhaps he did that night). It's just a real dumb ass move to stop your car on a highway unless it ether stops itself or you have a real big emergency. Think about this girl now who may have to sit in a prison cell for a few years for ducks. I guarantee you the next time she sees any animals on the highway she will run them down without hesitating.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Of course I value human life higher than animals, but it seems that some people have better luck than others in avoiding hitting animals.

I swerve and/or slow down to avoid hitting animals all the time.

If I ever have to make that choice, I'll make it, but I have never hit any animal with a car. I recall a bird hitting a truck I was driving once but that's it.

I will swerve or slow down even for a toad unless I'm ging to put me or another person at risk by doing so.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Animals, not humans. The human brain can process the difference. The lesson I taught was simple, if its you or an animal, you come first. Your instinct is "not to kill or harm" but you need to train yourself to overcome that on the roads. There are people in the graveyard for saving a squirrel. I have squashed dozens along with a few racoons, cats and a couple of Canadian Geese. Pile drived one right through my front grill one time. Had to dig it out of the fan belt


Of course we can process the difference, but I think you are overestimating the human brain, the amount of decision time and reaction time available. The number of instances where 200msec made the difference between life and death or severe injury is immense. Some of us can have the reaction time of a forward who spots a rebound off a pad, but only if we have been involved in that activity constantly. Most will not have that degree of expert automatized processing for very many things in life. A few hundred extra milliseconds will be required.

If you want people to be able to just keep driving, then what you need to do is offer training where live animals are released into the path of the oncoming vehicle and the instructor says emphatically "JUST KEEP GOING!", and calmly says "There now, that wasn't so bad. Well done." after the red splotch has been created. A big part of the reaction (and this is entirely i_rrelevant t_o the court case that prompted this thread) is that many folks have never, or very rarely, ever been presented with such a scenario. Much of their reaction stems from unfamiliarity. It's surprise that accounts for the brake application in many instances, not a conscious desire to not hurt the wee little boo-boo kitty.


----------



## kat_ (Jan 11, 2007)

mhammer said:


> I don't think any of us have any idea how straight that segment of the road was. If it was a highway in southern Saskatchewan, where you can see 20min ahead and 20min behind, that would be one thing. But if the stopped vehicle is around a bend, and anyone behind wouldn't be able to tell they were NOT a safe distance behind until it was too late, that's quite another.


Back when I learned to drive we were taught to slow down on bends and cresting hills. We were taught to assume everyone else is an idiot and leave ourselves enough time and space to keep ourselves alive. If you hit something hard enough you're going to be dead and arguing that whatever you hit shouldn't have been there won't change that. Quite often the animal in the road isn't a duck or squirrel, it's a moose or deer or cow. It's no good being right if you're dead right.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Does not really matter if he was going 200 KPH the girl should not have stopped her car there. If the dude wants to act like a fool on his motorcycle he will get whats coming to him eventually (and perhaps he did that night). It's just a real dumb ass move to stop your car on a highway unless it ether stops itself or you have a real big emergency. Think about this girl now who may have to sit in a prison cell for a few years for ducks. I guarantee you the next time she sees any animals on the highway she will run them down without hesitating.


Yes, it is dumb to do that. She's a young girl and she did something stupid. The guy who was driving the motorcycle should have been driving more carefully as he had his own daughter on board. So, if he was doing the speed limit, I am damn sure that he would have been able to avoid the collision. 

Horrible tragedy but even if the girl was stopped where she shouldn't have been stopped, the driver of the motorcycle failed to drive the way that he should have been driving. Speed makes everything more difficult and the guy was speeding regardless. Like someone else said...what if it would have been a mechanical breakdown? The obstacle still would have been there. I drove a motorcycle for a long time and one quickly learns to drive defensively because everything is more dangerous. That guy, if the zone is 90 and he was doing 105 at impact, he's lucky he made it that far in life IMO.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

smorgdonkey said:


> Yes, it is dumb to do that. She's a young girl and she did something stupid. The guy who was driving the motorcycle should have been driving more carefully as he had his own daughter on board. So, if he was doing the speed limit, I am damn sure that he would have been able to avoid the collision.
> 
> Horrible tragedy but even if the girl was stopped where she shouldn't have been stopped, the driver of the motorcycle failed to drive the way that he should have been driving. Speed makes everything more difficult and the guy was speeding regardless. Like someone else said...what if it would have been a mechanical breakdown? The obstacle still would have been there. I drove a motorcycle for a long time and one quickly learns to drive defensively because everything is more dangerous. That guy, if the zone is 90 and he was doing 105 at impact, he's lucky he made it that far in life IMO.


let's face it. 105 is not fast in today's world. if you drive 105 on the 400 series you will be driven down into the pavement. The idea of her being stopped is secondary IMO to why she was stopped. You don't stop on a highway to help ducks. we can't speculate on what the m/c rider was thinking at the time. he's dead . 

I guess we chalk it up to an unfortunate accident .


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2014)

Emma Czornobaj found guilty for causing deaths of two 
bikers when she stopped to save ducks on highway.

Emma Czornobaj decided to take her chances with a jury and her gamble failed.
On its fourth day of deliberation, the jury found the 25-year-old Quebec woman 
guilty on all four charges she faced, including criminal negligence causing death 
and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

I can see dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, but the criminal negligence causing death is a bit hard to swallow. Given that the onus is on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knowingly, recklessly and wantonly, with full knowledge that her actions would most probably result in serious injury or death, did proceed with her actions, prove this, then I would agree with a finding of Criminal negligence. Apparently stopping your car foolishly is criminal in Quebec. She made a very serious mistake, nothing indicated she did this with criminal intent. Now maybe in Quebec the onus is on the accused and not on the prosecutor to prove their innocence or guilt. Laws across Canada do differ province to province. I always, maybe mistakenly assumed criminal charges were Federal jurisdiction not provincial and that we all played by basically the same rule book.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

The accident scene. 









Speed limit was 90 kms per hour.


----------



## Waterloo (Dec 25, 2012)

The charge she's been found guilty of doesn't surprise me when I think about it. The crown convinced the jury that stopping in the left lane for the reason she gave was reckless to the point of putting others in grave peril; that she had a duty to consider the safety of other motorists but didn't. I usually think of a charge of criminal negligence for someone who just doesn't give a f..k about others so that's what makes this case particularly sad.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I don't know about the dangerous operation charge since it was stopped. Maybe that fits. But the negligence hits the nail on the head 

Clearly a strong message needs to be sent to these kids. Anyone really. Use your head when your out there


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

The point is you never ever stop on a highway. Ever. If you absolutely must stop you pull to the right as far over as you possibly can and never get out of your car. EVER. Wait for the police or a tow truck to arrive. Every long weekend the police on TV tell us this but people just don't listen. Imagine stopping on the 401 or any major highway in the passing lane? Its called the passing lane for a reason. You don't park in it and think its ok to do so. Honestly what would you think would happen? Someone is going to hit you but its just a matter of when. I really feel sorry for the girl because if she could take it back she would in a second. The thing is her actions killed a husband and daughter right in front of the wife/mother all because of a few ducks. I really feel sorry for the mother more then anything. Her family gets killed because of a girls stupidity and she will have to live with that for the rest of her life. She will be reminded of it every time she sees a duck. 


GC, she was in control of the vehicle. That's why the Dangerous Operation charge. She made the choice to stop.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I don't know about the dangerous operation charge since it was stopped. Maybe that fits. But the negligence hits the nail on the head Clearly a strong message needs to be sent to these kids. Anyone really. Use your head when your out there


Not just "the kids".I think the equally important message needs to be sent to EVERYONE that they ultimately are responsible for their own safety by driving at whatever speed and whatever following distance allows them to safely react to an unexpected situation.If you entrust your life to depend on others never doing something stupid/ unsafe you won't live long. And it does you little good to be "legally correct" but dead.The way you said "...it doesn't matter if they had been going 200kph..." It could just as easily be said "it doesn't matter of it were stopping for ducklings, a flat tire, a fallen tree, or some bricks that fell off a truck" you gotta be able to react to save your own life.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Diablo said:


> Not just "the kids".I think the equally important message needs to be sent to EVERYONE that they ultimately are responsible for their own safety by driving at whatever speed and whatever following distance allows them to safely react to an unexpected situation.If you entrust your life to depend on others never doing something stupid/ unsafe you won't live long. And it does you little good to be "legally correct" but dead.The way you said "...it doesn't matter if they had been going 200kph..." It could just as easily be said "it doesn't matter of it were stopping for ducklings, a flat tire, a fallen tree, or some bricks that fell off a truck" you gotta be able to react to save your own life.


I take it you are putting the blame on this on bike rider? he was not following too close because a minimum of two cars went around her first. Speed may have been a factor but certainly not a case of following too close

It's moot really because she was rightfully charged and convicted


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I take it you are putting the blame on this on bike rider? he was not following too close because a minimum of two cars went around her first. Speed may have been a factor but certainly not a case of following too close


The motorcycle could have been right on the bumper of the second car that went around her. If he wasn't following too close then WTF was he doing? Horrible driver. Fact is that 2 poor drivers met and this is what happened.


Speed limits? They should have cameras there taking pics of everyone doing 10 kmph over and sending them tickets. Provincial debt gone in a year.

As to the conviction...well, the machine works the way that it works...O.J. got off.


----------



## kat_ (Jan 11, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> he was not following too close because a minimum of two cars went around her first.


Do you not consider it to be relevant that those drivers had the time to react to the unexpected obstacle in their path, yet a driver farther back didn't?


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

kat_ said:


> Do you not consider it to be relevant that those drivers had the time to react to the unexpected obstacle in their path, yet a driver farther back didn't?


There are a multitude of reasons why he and his daughter got launched. Including, sometimes, there's nothing else you can do. From the looks of the pics he couldn't go to the left. There was traffic coming up behind him and to his right......among others his wife which means being the lead bike he was on the left hand side of the lane. He was probably keeping up with the flow of traffic and noticed the car in front of him change lanes, By then it was too late. No body wins. He might have had time to lay the bike over.....maybe. Even at the posted speed by the time he realized the car was stopped he didn't have a chance.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Electraglide said:


> There are a multitude of reasons why he and his daughter got launched. Including, sometimes, there's nothing else you can do. From the looks of the pics he couldn't go to the left. There was traffic coming up behind him and to his right......among others his wife which means being the lead bike he was on the left hand side of the lane. He was probably keeping up with the flow of traffic and noticed the car in front of him change lanes, By then it was too late. No body wins. He might have had time to lay the bike over.....maybe. Even at the posted speed by the time he realized the car was stopped he didn't have a chance.


Gotta disagree...if he was doing the posted limit, he would have been in the right hand lane.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I take it you are putting the blame on this on bike rider? he was not following too close because a minimum of two cars went around her first. Speed may have been a factor but certainly not a case of following too close
> 
> It's moot really because she was rightfully charged and convicted


blame? No. Ultimate responsibility for ones own safety? Yes. 
Blame is of little value to the dead.
if he drove in such a way that assumes shit happens, he'd still be alive. That is all that matters.
when I drive my atv with daughter on it, I drive with such heightened awareness and buffered safe zone that I'd always have time to react to an unexpected avoidance situation. Because as soon as she gets on that bike IM RESPONSIBLE for her safety NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS. Just saying....

its not really moot anyways, courts get things wrong all the time. For a long time OJ was on the golf course while Martha Stewart sat in jail.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

kat_ said:


> Do you not consider it to be relevant that those drivers had the time to react to the unexpected obstacle in their path, yet a driver farther back didn't?


We cannot speculate on the bike drivers frame of mind. We don't know what he was doing or thinking or looking. Not sure. We can sit here and say that "we" would have seen the car, clearly he did not and there is no way to ask him now. All I know is that if the stupid twit did not stop her car to save some ducks the dude and his kid would still be alive. There is no debate about that, none.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Diablo said:


> blame? No. Ultimate responsibility for ones own safety? Yes.
> Blame is of little value to the dead.
> if he drove in such a way that assumes shit happens, he'd still be alive. That is all that matters.
> when I drive my atv with daughter on it, I drive with such heightened awareness and buffered safe zone that I'd always have time to react to an unexpected avoidance situation. Just saying....


You can be as safe as you think you can be. Every time you get on a road either in a car or bike, it could be your last. One of the other things I used to drive into my kids heads was "NEVER assume the other guy is going to do what he is SUPPOSED to do"

That's why they call them accidents. She did a really stupid thing and it cost two lives.

You THINK you are being safe. Case in point. Two brothers here in town this past winter on their snowmobiles. Coming down the same back road they had 100 times. Was getting a bit dark, had the headlights on. Only thing was the previous night or perhaps during the day a tree had fallen over and was across the road with fresh snow on it. They never seen it until it was too late. Both dead. Shit happens.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> You can be as safe as you think you can be. Every time you get on a road either in a car or bike, it could be your last. One of the other things I used to drive into my kids heads was "NEVER assume the other guy is going to do what he is SUPPOSED to do"
> 
> That's why they call them accidents. She did a really stupid thing and it cost two lives.
> 
> You THINK you are being safe. Case in point. Two brothers here in town this past winter on their snowmobiles. Coming down the same back road they had 100 times. Was getting a bit dark, had the headlights on. Only thing was the previous night or perhaps during the day a tree had fallen over and was across the road with fresh snow on it. They never seen it until it was too late. Both dead. Shit happens.


You don't seem to get it, "accidents" like that are COMPLETELY PREVENTABLE when you don't have the throttle pinned.
unfortunately, snowmobile accidents are often a whole new category of stupidity, usually involving alcohol, speed and recklessness. But if it feels better to blame trees for being in a forest, go ahead.

dude I'm not some city slicker that has never lived....I've owned sports cars, a sled, dirt bikes, street bikes, quads, jet skis, and boats. And I've realized that in most of those situations, I have to take responsibility for my own safety while on such a vulnerable vehicle and assume that other drivers will do something stupid, as they often do. And so far, I'm still alive to post about it.

and any idiot should know a bike is waaaay less manoeuvrable with a passenger on it, and should drive accordingly.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Diablo said:


> You don't seem to get it, "accidents" like that are COMPLETELY PREVENTABLE when you don't have the throttle pinned.
> unfortunately, snowmobile accidents are often a whole new category of stupidity, usually involving alcohol, speed and recklessness. But if it feels better to blame trees for being in a forest, go ahead.
> 
> dude I'm not some city slicker that has never lived....I've owned sports cars, a sled, dirt bikes, street bikes, quads, jet skis, and boats. And I've realized that in most of those situations, I have to take responsibility for my own safety while on such a vulnerable vehicle and assume that other drivers will do something stupid, as they often do. And so far, I'm still alive to post about it.
> ...


I am 52. road bikes for years and have been driving since I was 16 and for 14 years put on 60k a year driving on some of the most congested roads in North America. I have yet to have an accident but I am not arrogant enough to think that it's my abilities alone that have made that happen. like I said. you can be as safe as you possibly can. shit happens and it could be your turn tonight. 

I maintain that this accident was the girls fault and her fault alone. if she did not stop it would not have happened. period. Apparently the courts agree with me and that's good for all the rest of us


----------



## kat_ (Jan 11, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I take it you are putting the blame on this on bike rider?


I don't think most of us are looking to place blame. I know I'm not. I'm looking for "a lesson for all drivers" and I believe that lesson is to leave space to react to anything that might happen. You're the one who is focused on blaming "the stupid twit". We're having two different conversations.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

We'll have to agree to disagree then (GC).
and for the record, I wasn't saying that greater abilities would have saved this couple. Quite the opposite. Greater respect for the uncertain would have ie not driving 25kph above the speed limit on a share motorcycle with presumably either poor visibility up the road or an unsafe following distance.
this accident was created by 1) the unsafe stop of the car 2) the bikes speed 3) the bikes following distance/ visibility of the car ahead. Take any one of those factors out, and 2 more people are alive today. If I'm the biker, I can control the latter 2, not the first, so I drive according to that reality.

and I don't think the courts have done any favours. They took one idiot off the road, but there are hundreds of thousands still on the road that evidently bikers have no idea to prepare for.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

kat_ said:


> I don't think most of us are looking to place blame. I know I'm not. I'm looking for "a lesson for all drivers" and I believe that lesson is to leave space to react to anything that might happen. You're the one who is focused on blaming "the stupid twit". We're having two different conversations.


you have to admit that was a dumb move. would you do it?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Diablo said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree then (GC).
> and for the record, I wasn't saying that greater abilities would have saved this couple. Quite the opposite. Greater respect for the uncertain would have ie not driving 25kph above the speed limit on a share motorcycle with presumably either poor visibility up the road or an unsafe following distance.
> this accident was created by 1) the unsafe stop of the car 2) the bikes speed 3) the bikes following distance/ visibility of the car ahead. Take any one of those factors out, and 2 more people are alive today. If I'm the biker, I can control the latter 2, not the first, so I drive according to that reality.
> 
> and I don't think the courts have done any favours. They took one idiot off the road, but there are hundreds of thousands still on the road that evidently bikers have no idea to prepare for.


no hard feelings man. I get your position and let's agree that bad judgement was made on both parties part . I am leaning more heavily on the girl though


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

It's all cool, GC.

and if it hasn't already been said, RIP to the 2 bikers, and best wishes to the driver, who I really do think in her own way had meant well, and isn't the sort of person I think prisons are meant for.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

In the second link, experts say he was doing between 113km/h and 129km/h and was at 105km/when _he hit_. It was a 90km/hour zone. 

If he left the wife behind, she was probably doing closer to the limit and he was probably speeding pretty good.

To me, they're all dumb, less the guy's wife.

fwiw, bugatti sexarosa's stop on a dime.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Diablo said:


> It's all cool, GC.
> 
> and if it hasn't already been said, RIP to the 2 bikers, and best wishes to the driver, who I really do think in her own way had meant well, and isn't the sort of person I think prisons are meant for.


I am positive she meant no harm. just a real dumb move and a very hard life lesson.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

smorgdonkey said:


> Gotta disagree...if he was doing the posted limit, he would have been in the right hand lane.


Not knowing that section of road I can't say if he would have been in the right hand lane or not. He and the vehicles in front of him could have been passing slower vehicles.....maybe one of the lanes was an exit, i don't know. And, I didn't say he was in the left hand lane, I said that he was on the left hand side of the lane. Any one who rides bikes knows that that is the best position for the lead bike to be in for drivers in front of you to see you clearly in their mirror. The rest of the bikes stagger their position accordingly.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

This is a tough situation all around.
On one hand, the guy was speeding, but on the other he died, as did his daughter.
So I feel bad for their family and their friends--especially the wife who lost her husband & daughter.

As for the woman who stopped, on one hand it wasn't a smart thing to do, on the other hand she did try to be safe, and while I can see her getting a huge traffic violation, a criminal record seems harsh as would any sentence of that sort.
If the guy on the bike was right behind her & she did this--I could see the penalty being worse, but he wasn't.

People have done much worse and got away with it.
I hope she appeals the conviction and it's overturned.
And I hope all involved get help they need.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

adcandour said:


> In the second link, experts say he was doing between 113km/h and 129km/h and was at 105km/when _he hit_. It was a 90km/hour zone.
> 
> If he left the wife behind, she was probably doing closer to the limit and he was probably speeding pretty good.
> 
> To me, they're all dumb, less the guy's wife.


That's more where I am. Sure the girl did something stupid and there were probably many stupid drivers there that day...just so happens that speed kills. In this particular incident, the girl who did the stupid thing by stopping on a highway happened to coincide with the motorcycle driver who didn't think it was a safety hazard to speed with his daughter on the back. 

Even if they were both good drivers prior to this, the synchronicity of their poor choices at the time caused a very bad result. The one thing remains that many people don't know that you can't stop on a highway but everyone knows that you are supposed to drive under the speed limit. 

The general rule is to follow 2 seconds behind the vehicle in front of you. If you think about it, that 2 seconds means a greater distance as speed increases.

Anyway. Lots of differing opinions on this one. I think I have said just about everything that I can say on it but I can't help but think: Criminal negligence? I don't know...somewhere there is someone who was drunk behind the wheel, killed someone and got off with probation.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

People often do really stupid things with the intentions of being a good samaritan or just a stand up guy.

Yielding your right of way at a four way stop is a typical one. Or, worse yet stopping to let a car in the oncoming lane cross in front of you, when there are two lanes per side. A car in the outside lane of your side comes along and bam!

I've seen two T-bones at the exact same location because of this.


----------



## Waterloo (Dec 25, 2012)

The sentence has been handed down...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...ys-in-jail-for-duck-stopping-deaths-1.2877437


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I had a similar experience coming home to Ontario for a visit years ago.

It was somewhere around the Great Lakes region, I was following a car that suddenly jammed the brakes on.
I could tell that they had the binders on as the rear of the vehicle raised up in the air.
Meanwhile, there are tractor trailers and big RVs on the road behind me.

As I started to apply the brakes, trying to figure out what these people are doing, 
since there was nowhere to turn off in the vicinity.
As I was coming up on the vehicle, it was a straight away and nothing was coming in the other direction,
so I just zipped around the car.

It was a mother duck and her ducklings making their way across the road.
I flew over top of them, still not knowing if I wiped them out or not, I didn't really care.
Of course, I was called the duck killer for the rest of the trip.
Better than a human killer, was my retort.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Waterloo said:


> The sentence has been handed down...
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...ys-in-jail-for-duck-stopping-deaths-1.2877437


If anyone has that lack of sense about highway safety, they should never be allowed to drive again......IMO, of course.

- - - Updated - - -



Steadfastly said:


> If anyone has that lack of sense about highway safety, they should never be allowed to drive again......IMO, of course.


I was pulling my 30' trailer down the highway in Kitchener last year and some guy had stopped his car (on the side of the highway) and was flagging people down to get them to stop to let some duck or geese cross the highway. I'm glad I was the first vehicle in line because if someone ahead of me had jammed the brakes on, things would have got very dicey for me as we were already on top of the birds.


----------

