Quebec Woman Sentenced to Jail After Helping a Family of Ducks Cross a Highway

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike

Did anyone not notice that the person on the other bike avoided the accident because they were traveling at a slower rate of speed? That alone tells me that this guy was traveling faster than he was able to react.

And Kanda, I've had people jump in front of me and slam on their brakes. Every single time, I avoided collision by being cautious and attentive. I've also avoided collisions with people who were stopped or travelling well below the minimum highway speed, because I never traveled faster than my reaction time.

You can cite all the ordnances you want, but inattention is inattention. Traffic laws are designed so that the responding officers can cite pretty much anyone involved for pretty much anything. The fact still remains that if the guy on the motorcycle had been a better rider, he and his daughter would still be alive.

that's fuckin ridiculous. my wife's family is full of cops... all traffic (With the exception of her dad... he became the head of the motorcycle division after he left SWAT).... i assure you, traffic laws are in place for public safety reasons. if you are being tailgated and you slam on your brakes to 'teach them a lesson', you are at fault for acting negligently.

seriously, if you are ever in a situation where you cant stop in time (they do happen... trust me), dont admit fault. you have rights, there is traffic court for a reason. being cited by a cop doesnt mean the game is over... that's why there are laws.

[Kelseecat65]

I agree with Bob, no one wins in this situation.

[Megamel29]

I dunno. It seems to me the guy on the motorcycle should have been driving slow enough to stop if there was suddenly an obstacle up ahead. What if her car suddenly stopped due to a mechanical failure? He would have slammed into her then too most likely. It's a sad situation but I don't see that this woman did anything warranting prison time.

We learn in driver's ed to be cautious of things in the road. Fallen tree branches, animals, kids, cars, pot holes, etc. You can't just fly into the obstacle and blame someone else.

[Kelseecat65]

Originally Posted by Megamel29

I dunno. It seems to me the guy on the motorcycle should have been driving slow enough to stop if there was suddenly an obstacle up ahead. What if her car suddenly stopped due to a mechanical failure? He would have slammed into her then too most likely. It's a sad situation but I don't see that this woman did anything warranting prison time.

We learn in driver's ed to be cautious of things in the road. Fallen tree branches, animals, kids, cars, pot holes, etc. You can't just fly into the obstacle and blame someone else.

The driver is responsible for keeping control of their vehicle. So if he crashed into her car, he was not in proper control of his vehicle. Was he not paying attention? I'm curious if she had her flashers on. Unless he was driving like a bat out of hell, I would think he would have had time to slow down.

As for her, I get wanting to save the babies, but stopping on a major road, its not ok. I don't agree with her sentence, that is a bit harsh.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by Megamel29

I dunno. It seems to me the guy on the motorcycle should have been driving slow enough to stop if there was suddenly an obstacle up ahead. What if her car suddenly stopped due to a mechanical failure? He would have slammed into her then too most likely. It's a sad situation but I don't see that this woman did anything warranting prison time.

We learn in driver's ed to be cautious of things in the road. Fallen tree branches, animals, kids, cars, pot holes, etc. You can't just fly into the obstacle and blame someone else.

you also learn in drivers ed not to stop in the middle of moving traffic. when you do, like when you have a mechanical issue, you are expected to put out flares or those triangular cones to warn oncoming traffic that there is an obstacle ahead.

also, as a note: if a person were to follow the two second rule, like we are taught in drivers ed, that would 'equivalent to one vehicle-length for every 8 km/h (5 mph) of the current speed'.... freeways out here reach 65mph... 65/5=13 car lengths of separation behind every car on ideal conditions to ensure safe stopping distance. while this is a great tool we all should use everyday, the reality is that not many are willing to slow down on a freeway to allow for room every time somebody enters that thirteen car length gap in traffic. if you personally arent staying that far back, then you are simply not giving enough room for you to reasonably be able to respond in the manner you are suggesting.

also keep in mind that the car parked on the highway in this case had no hazard lights on and no road flares out... the door was open. this would mean that, from the perspective of an oncoming driver, there was no way to indicate that the car was stopped other than the open door.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by Kelseecat65

The driver is responsible for keeping control of their vehicle. So if he crashed into her car, he was not in proper control of his vehicle. Was he not paying attention? I'm curious if she had her flashers on. Unless he was driving like a bat out of hell, I would think he would have had time to slow down.

As for her, I get wanting to save the babies, but stopping on a major road, its not ok. I don't agree with her sentence, that is a bit harsh.

the article quoted above said:

She testified that, moments later, she was staring down a car, completely stopped with no hazard lights on, with the door open on the driver’s side.

she was parked on a highway with traffic going 70mph with no warning lights and no road flares out. this is the definition of negligence, sadly. she didnt do it intentionally... it was a horrible accident and she was trying to do good... but she was acting negligently and justice is a completely different thing than mercy.

[jesse]

This is horribly sad. I can't imagine the grief and anger. I feel for everyone.

[Soar]

Originally Posted by Kelseecat65

I agree with Bob, no one wins in this situation.

Hey man, I said that.

Originally Posted by Kanda444

if you are being tailgated and you slam on your brakes to 'teach them a lesson'

That sure is tempting at times!

[Kelseecat65]

Originally Posted by Kanda444

the article quoted above said:



she was parked on a highway with traffic going 70mph with no warning lights and no road flares out. this is the definition of negligence, sadly. she didnt do it intentionally... it was a horrible accident and she was trying to do good... but she was acting negligently and justice is a completely different thing than mercy.

Missed that! Thank you.
She is an idiot.

I wonder if the ducks made it!?!?

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by Illusion

You were not at the crime scene. Everything you just stated was your opinion. You can argue all you want that the deaths were the result of an unfortunate accident but the fact remains that when this lady stopped her vehicle on a busy highway she had reckless disregard for the safety of others and is undoubtedly criminal behaviour.

Ms. Tessier's statement as quoted in your post seems to indicate that she became distracted by the woman on the side of the road shoo-ing the ducks. She had time to notice what the woman was doing, and to shout at her kids. Then, "moments later," she was staring down a stopped car. Yet she claims that it was "close enough" that she didn't have time to stop?

So which was it? "Moments later;" or "too close" for her to stop? Because a window that is "moments later" in length at that speed is not "too close" for one to stop.

If Ms. Tessier had kept her eyes on the road, she wouldn't have had to swerve. Instead, she rubbernecked and almost hit the stopped car before the motorcyclist did. Then, right after swerving, she saw the motorcyclist hit the car. Sounds to me that: 1.) she would have had time to come to a safe stop if she had been paying attention to instead of diverting her attention from the road; 2.) the motorcyclist would have been prompted by her brake lights once she began to stop, and no collision would have occurred unless said motocyclist had been following Ms. Tessier herself too closely; and 3.) said motorcyclist was quite possibly following Ms. Tessier herself too closely if he did not have time to stop after she swerved around the defendant's vehicle.

That analysis isn't based on the most detailed account of the scene, but the statement as given in your quote prompts such consideration.

I do agree that it was stupid of the woman to stop on a high-speed thoroughfare, but the negligence of others may have also come into play. Indeed she could be considered the first principle of the accident; but negligence on the part of others, if proven, would qualify as at least a partially-mitigating factor.