Stopping on the road

[Barbaraok]

I think the article clearly shows why the judge gave the sentence:

 

 

“This is not a case of stopping a car on a quiet (tree-lined) road were the speed limit is 30 kilometres per hour and where there is little traffic, if any. Although she never intended to cause the death of André and Jessie Roy, the accused must take full responsibility for having, by criminal negligence, caused the deaths of those two people,” Perreault said. “Emma Czornobaj perceived the risk but recklessly undertook that risk nonetheless. She knowingly engaged in risk-taking that she should have foreseen would put other drivers’ lives in danger.”

“The denial of her responsibilities is an element to be considered with respect to her future dangerousness towards other drivers on roadways. The sentence must deter the accused from reoffending. Emma Czornobaj, by her actions, has demonstrated a blatant irresponsibility and a total unawareness of the risks associated with her decisions.”

 

Barb

[Pat & Pete]

I think the article clearly shows why the judge gave the sentence:

 

 

Barb

 

That may be what the judge said , but not necessarily why the ruling .

[exploRVistas]

Wow...that stirred up a hornet's nest! I personally have run over ducks, rabbits and even a black lab in that situation, but I will tell you I was on the brakes. My curiosity was with the fact that I perceived the law to be fairly clear on this, and I wasn't sure if Canada had different laws than the US, in regards to someone rear ending a vehicle. It really was short sighted of her to get out of that vehicle on a multilane road.

[rv-voyager]

The only thing I know about this situation is the Duck had better Duck because I am not going to stop much less brake!

[DuffMan]

What if she had broken down? The result would have been the same. It isn't as if she slammed on her brakes and the cyclist didn't have time to react. Had he been paying attention, her car was just another obstruction in the roadway and he should have been watching for and taken defensive action to avoid. Sorry but the cyclist should carry the blame on this one.

[rv-voyager]

Don't worry about poor Emma, PETA is taking real good care of her while she is in jail!

[Guest Pensauncola]

What if she had broken down? The result would have been the same. It isn't as if she slammed on her brakes and the cyclist didn't have time to react. Had he been paying attention, her car was just another obstruction in the roadway and he should have been watching for and taken defensive action to avoid. Sorry but the cyclist should carry the blame on this one.

 

If she had broken down, I doubt she would have been convicted of criminal negligence even though the results may have been the same. Same if there was a baby in the road or a wreck or a rock slide, etc. I don't think anyone here is defending the motorcycle rider, he definitely was at fault. However, that does not exclude others from being at fault. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. There's plenty of blame to go around.

 

A reasonable person would have recognized that stopping in a traffic lane on a multi-lane highway creates a hazardous condition which might result in injury, death and/or property damage. The court evidently felt that the duck lady chose to ignore that danger in favor of the ducks and that her actions constituted negligence. I applaud their decision.

[freestoneangler]

Obstruction of traffic, yes but not criminal negligence. Some punishment is in order, possibly even the 90 day sentence, but 10 years of suspended license...................... I think that most reasonable people would consider that a bit stiff.

Would have to agree. They OP did mention "speeding motorcycle"... might that have contributed? It would seem that getting to the side of the road, when taking action like this, the most logical and safe thing to do but perhaps she couldn't. One can argue stopping for ducks isn't worth the risk, but as someone already suggested, what if it had been a dog, or a child? IMO, the following traffic has the responsibility to keep a safe distance from whatever is in front of them.

[lappir]

Instead of discussing who was wrong, who wants to argue with on another, how about everyone learning from the very hard lesson the people involved have had to endure.

 

Yesterday I was driving and riding down multi lane roads in South Florida. First on my motorcycle and then in my Volvo bob tail. I traveled the same roads a couple hours apart. I am a right lane driver. I keep right except to pass and try to not pass on the right side unless traffic is stopped at an intersection or the remaining lanes are all full and it would be hazardous to continue maintaining pace with the slower traffic. Very often I will find drivers pull out from an intersection go directly to the far left lane and then cruise at several mph under the speed of the surrounding traffic. Therefore there is a line of traffic in the "passing" lane and the only place left to pass is on the right. It's simple "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS"

 

Then next thing that happened while in the truck was a car doing a U turn from the middle lane heading one way into the middle lane the opposite direction and then stopping for no reason in that middle lane. I watched the effect in my rear view mirrors as cars were forced to avoid the hazard. The rule is "NO STOPPING IN THE TRAVELED PORTION OF THE ROAD" except at signed or signaled areas.

 

I often see Law Enforcement with people pulled over on the left side of I 95 I just don't understand it. I was taught to allow emergency vehicles to pass on the left. If they didn't pass and continued to follow you should pull off on the right shoulder of the road where safe and wait for the officer to inform you of the reason of pulling you over. How then does it happen that vehicles are all the way to the median????

 

One last example of "How does is this person still allowed to drive?" Small town Iowa 4 lane road in town, pickup truck with LEO following flashing lights on left lane. Pickup stops in the left lane just over the crest of a hill and the driver gets out and walks back to the LEO who stopped at the crest of the hill to warn oncoming traffic.

 

My request after all of this is to share the rules of the road with your friends and family. I don't mean the "NO TEXTING WHILE DRIVING" which is what everyone seems to think is all important. IN reality texting while driving wouldn't even be a concern if the simple rules were followed.

 

1. Driving is a privilege and not a right.

2. You are responsible for anything and everything that happens while you are in control of the vehicle and it is on a roadway.

3. Pay attention to the road and the other vehicles on the road. Allow for merging traffic without impeding the traffic flow. Merge with moving traffic with no impediment.

4. Keep Right except to Pass.

5. Pass with a purpose. Do not match the speed of the person beside you.

 

If we follow those simple rules we will have no time to text while driving. My youngest daughter had "Drivers Ed" less than 3 years ago and it seemed to me that none of the rules were mentioned in the classroom or driving sessions, but she can sure say "No Texting While Driving" if anyone asks her what the most important rule of the road is.

 

Rod

[DuffMan]

However the OP's original post raised the question as to what level of living thing is it acceptable to block traffic to protect? Consider the continuum of a person lying in the road to an insect - where is the line?

[Pat & Pete]

However the OP's original post raised the question as to what level of living thing is it acceptable to block traffic to protect? Consider the continuum of a person lying in the road to an insect - where is the line?

 

Just depends on which religion you practice or participate in / with .

[Dave O]

Hi All

 

This in an interesting philosophical discussion, but IMO "you can't fix Stupid". Even though the Judge did the best he could.

 

Dave O

[Chris-n-Dennis]

To answer the original post, the question is can you articulate your reasoning behind stopping in a travel lane in such a manner that a reasonable person would agree? In the example given, stopping in a travel lane for a non hazardous condition and leaving the vehicle unattended is criminally negligent as it directly creates a hazardous condition contrary to common traffic laws. Sorry Kirk I see it plainly as knowingly and purposefully creating the hazard with total disregard for the safety of others.

 

Responsibility in the example was shared. The young driver was not charged with the equivalent of manslaughter which she could have been had the motorcyclist been following all traffic laws. She has to serve only 90 days and about 2 months of community service. The 10 years no driving is a bit harsh. More acceptable would have been a shorter ban with a deferred judgement for 10 years.

 

Worry about stopping? No, just exercise prudent judgement and as I said, be able to articulate it. In her case not really a wise thing to tick the judge off with an attitude while in court.

[DuffMan]

 

Just depends on which religion you practice or participate in / with .

 

So the courts should take religious beliefs into account - i.e. an atheist should be charged for stopping for a duck but a Buddhist should not?

 

And that is the issue that everyone on this thread is ignoring - where should society place that line?

[DuffMan]

Interesting comment to an article on this:

 

In New York a following driver is bound to not follow closely, to anticipate any and all stops no matter how sudden, and to take into account lighting and weather conditions; and is always 100% at fault in any rear end collision with no exceptions whatsoever: a judgment on undisputed facts may be obtained summarily, as a matter of law, without a jury trial. I believe the law is the same in most of the 50 states. I think the only genuine possible exception would be if a driver improperly and without warning cuts close in front of you seconds before the collision. I do not agree that non working brake lights provide an exception. "If a driver's vehicle is struck from behind by another vehicle, the resulting accident is nearly always the striking driver's fault. This holds true regardless of the reason for the first driver's stop or slow down. Why? Because basic traffic laws mandate a driver must be able to come to a safe stop if the vehicle(s) ahead stops or slows down. Incidentally, this traffic rule also governs sudden stops. If the subsequent driver cannot come to a safe stop, chances are he or she is not driving in a safe manner and probably not as safely as the driver in front of him or her." http://www.attorneys.com/auto-... "as a general proposition, the driver of the rear-ending car is normally at fault for rear-end collisions. This means that the driver of the rear-ending car will likely be liable for the damage caused in the collision." http://accident-law.freeadvice... Much as I hate to have to say it but if you were the following vehicle and want to pursue a case the attorney likely will take it and tell you there are exceptions. Apparently controlling law in this case was to a different effect, But notice the dis-ingenuousness of the prosecutor and judge who each pursued this conviction yet clearly saw the injustice.

[Guest Pensauncola]

Joe Chit the rag man awakes from his nightly sleep under the overpass, calls for Fido, his trusted companion and heads down the shoulder to start his day looking for a bottle of wine to enrich his spirits. Joe gets about a 1/4 mile into his walk and Fido bolts from him into the roadway. Joe runs onto IH95 during rush hour to save Fido. Joe gets to Fido in the inside lane just in time to save Fido and himself.

 

The resulting 17 car pileup kills six and injures 23. By law, each and every driver who slammed into the car ahead is at fault. So, multiple folks at fault is common in an accident. Is there anyone on this forum who believes that Joe Chit is without fault?

[bigjim]

Been a lot of speculating and feelings involved here including me farther up but nothing beats have all the facts that the judge and jury had and knowledge of the laws of the area before we make our final judgement.

[DuffMan]

Is there anyone on this forum who believes that Joe Chit is without fault?

 

Yes. And if Joe Chit gets killed the driver is also probably w/o fault if no reasonable person could have stopped in time. It's all a question of reasonableness and defensive driving.

[Guest ticat900]

Joe Chit the rag man awakes from his nightly sleep under the overpass, calls for Fido, his trusted companion and heads down the shoulder to start his day looking for a bottle of wine to enrich his spirits. Joe gets about a 1/4 mile into his walk and Fido bolts from him into the roadway. Joe runs onto IH95 during rush hour to save Fido. Joe gets to Fido in the inside lane just in time to save Fido and himself.

 

The resulting 17 car pileup kills six and injures 23. By law, each and every driver who slammed into the car ahead is at fault. So, multiple folks at fault is common in an accident. Is there anyone on this forum who believes that Joe Chit is without fault?

BUT!!! that's not what happened.This French women stopped in the middle of a extremely busy throughfare to help fido+joe chit which caused the pileup. except there was no joe only some dumb ass ducks

[DuffMan]

To some they're "dumb ass ducks" to others they're "Fido" to others they're "my children" - Where does society draw the line?

 

Per that article comment - it is the responsibility of the follow-on drivers to maintain an assured clear distance and stop in time.

[Kevin H]

BUT!!! that's not what happened.This French women stopped in the middle of a extremely busy throughfare to help fido+joe chit which caused the pileup. except there was no joe only some dumb ass ducks

 

What if this had happened in Oregon??