Simply Grand Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) How sad. In Aus. if you run into the back of another car, it's your fault. Obviously different laws there. I think you can contest that if the other driver is negligent or deliberately does something to contribute to the accident, even in less extreme situations than this one. She obviously just wasn't thinking clearly about the risk she was creating and I don't think she deserves a life sentence either She was definitely negligent though. It's very easy to foresee the risk of this happening. Awful for the family of the two victims Edited June 23, 2014 by Simply Grand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I asked a friend in Canada about this. He said she'll probably get 5 and be out in 1. Screaming life in the article is just typical sensationalism. It was still an idiotic thing to do, and looking at the back of her car is horrifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redsonic Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I think the fact that she stopped in the left lane (Canada's fast lane) adds to her culpability. A pretty stupid thing to do, but she does deserve some leniency because there was no ill intent. I read a linked article that said the poor wife and mother was following on another bike and watched the whole thing happen in front of her. From the photo, it looked like she went down too, although she could have just dropped her bike in her hurry to get to her loved ones. It happened in daylight (7:20pm but summer days run long up there) and apparently a driver seconds ahead of the motorcycles nearly collided with the car too. The convicted woman had been walking up the highway to return to her car and may have caused a distraction, diverting the drivers' attention away from the road ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavNrott Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 If a following car was able to drive around the stationary vehicle and the convicted driver was seen walking along the road back to her car then her car had been there for a while. I can't fathom why the motor bike rider didn't steer clear and ride around the stationary vehicle. Seeing the extent of the damage to the vehicle indicates he probably collided with it at full speed. Either way this tragedy has resulted in the death of two people and woman who has lost her husband and her child. To be following behind and witnessing this makes her suffering so much worse. I don't think the convicted woman should spend time in prison. Surely her sentence could be served doing some form of community service. I'm sure she'll suffer a lifetime of guilt for the death of those two people. She's not a danger to the community so I can't see there's anything to be gained by putting her in prison. As an aside: That highway is dangerous. No emergency lane and no adequate shoulder of the highway on which to pull over in an emergency. Any car that had broken down would be just as dangerous a traffic hazzard as the convicted drivers vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trifecta Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 What an odd situation. I suppose that when someone else had a crash as a result of trying to swerve to avoid the ducklings they would have had to charge the ducklings with negligence too? Never swerve! This is how people end up wrapped around trees, upside down in paddocks or on the wrong side of the road...... I see it all too often, drivers swerving to avoid kangaroos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavNrott Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) Isn't it human nature to try to avoid hitting anything on the roads, including or especially live animals? I doubt I could steer straight ahead if I saw a live animal directly in front of my car. Instinct would kick in and I would try to swerve around it. If I did hit the poor animal chances are I would be rear ended anyway because for sure I would have hit the brakes. In any case if a car does collide with a large size animal would the car still be facing directly ahead? Unless of course if the animal was large enough to be seen as an immovable object. Edited June 23, 2014 by cavNrott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 You have to keep going straight if you are travelling at speed and an animal comes right out in front of you. If you run through it in your mind you prepare for if it happens. I've swerved when safe to do so and just braced and gone straight when I've had to as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simply Grand Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 The bike rider was probably at extreme risk whether he swerved or kept going straight at that speed. I'm no expert but doesn't a sudden course change at high speed make it incredible difficult for a bike rider to keep any kind of control? Maybe he tried but instantly lost control and the trajectory still took the bike into the back of the car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diva Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) As an aside: That highway is dangerous. No emergency lane and no adequate shoulder of the highway on which to pull over in an emergency. Any car that had broken down would be just as dangerous a traffic hazzard as the convicted drivers vehicle. There may be an emergency lane? It would be on the right side surely and none of the photos I have seen show that side as the car was stopped in the fast/left lane. Edited June 23, 2014 by Diva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pjrt Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 You have to keep going straight if you are travelling at speed and an animal comes right out in front of you. If you run through it in your mind you prepare for if it happens. I've swerved when safe to do so and just braced and gone straight when I've had to as well. [/quote Yes this. I have always been taught to stay on the bitumen at all costs and stay straight and brake straight. And I have hit things at speed several times. If you swerve at high speed you tend to overcorrect and lose control, or go straight off the road into a tree, or get onto the gravel verge and over you go. In reference to the op, it sounds as if another car traveling in front of the motorbikes swerved to miss the parked car at the last second leaving the motorbikes with little time to react to such an unexpected thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simply Grand Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Oh yes, that would make sense GrufLife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Yeah, bikes are different, I was talking about cars. You are in trouble if you swerve or hit something on a bike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denali Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Such good intentions but not very well thought out at all I think she was definitely negligent, but had no ill intentions so community service should suffice. At the very least her door should have been shut and hazard lights on! I would also like to know how the ducklings were walking, surely she could have changed lanes and left them be? A definite tragedy for all concerned. I didn't click on the link as I had read the story on FB. It was a motorway and there was no stopping lane. The only room on the side of the lane was about 1m wide so her car was more than halfway across the lane still. The woman stopped so she could save the ducklings. She didn't use hazard lights or anything else to indicate a warning. I think it may have happened at night too. She made a HUGE error of judgement which resulted in the death of two innocent people. Father and daughter. The daughter was only16. I'm feel bad for the baby ducks but human lives should be counted as more valuable than a duck's life. Just a it of a pet peeve of mine- but the death of the 50 year old father is no less tragic than the girl who was 'only 16'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now