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

[Kelseecat65]

Originally Posted by Soar

Hey man, I said that.

DOH!!

[Shakey]

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.

I agree with Mikey.

[peema]

I never stop for small animals. Rock'n'roll baby!

[pbaj12]

So why didn't she just pull over to the shoulder?

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by Shakey

I agree with Mikey.

that it's safe to park in the middle of a highway with traffic going 70 mph with no warning flashers or flares so you can shoo ducks off a road....and that other drivers should be able to reasonably avoid you?

cause, that's his basic argument....

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike

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.

this, i would agree with... but she seems to have went through the trial process and negligence on the part of other drivers was, apparently, not proven.

sad shit all around, if you ask me. she certainly wasnt being malicious or acting in a manner where she was purposefully being reckless... she just made a very, very poor choice.

you are also correct... if other drivers had been following the two second rule, this might not have been fatal.... but really consider how realistic it is to assume that people will give every car 14 car lengths (2 second rule at 70 mph) on the freeway. also consider, if you were to give that much space and a car was to cut in front of you (say, in the middle of your 14 car length gap... so 7 car lengths ahead) you would no longer have adequate time to stop at 70 mph... if they cut you off with no blinker (giving you no indication of their intentions) then slammed on their brakes, you think that you (in this case) would be to blame? rear end collision fraud is a real form of insurance fraud. somebody does exactly what i just described to you and then tries to put the fault on you, so your insurance pays and you take the blame (raising your insurance rates and possibly ending with you getting a traffic citation).

[Shakey]

Originally Posted by Kanda444

that it's safe to park in the middle of a highway with traffic going 70 mph with no warning flashers or flares so you can shoo ducks off a road....and that other drivers should be able to reasonably avoid you?

cause, that's his basic argument....

I agree that some numbnut shouldn't be speeding along down the highway and not be cognizant enough to observe that traffic has stopped in front of him (for whatever reason) and he just plows into it basically at full speed.

[Shakey]

I would add this: I am a professional driver who is approaching 3,000,000 miles at the wheel and I have probably hit virtually every animal that exists. Not that I wanted too. I cringe every time I am put in the position to have to take their lives but it is an inevitable part of the job. Animals are stupid and put themselves in dangerous situations and I am not about to put myself or the motoring public around me in a bad position to save their life.

[Illusion]

Originally Posted by Shakey

I agree that some numbnut shouldn't be speeding along down the highway and not be cognizant enough to observe that traffic has stopped in front of him (for whatever reason) and he just plows into it basically at full speed.

She stopped her car in a passing lane of a "busy highway", did not put on hazard lights, left the door wide open, and got out and tried to lead the ducks to the car. That was absolutely insane to do on a highway. She was done for criminal negligence. Sickening people defending her stupidity and calling the father on the motorcycle a speeding nutjob without any fucking evidence of any wrong doing. He probably had no where to go by the time he saw that car. And his wife was driving behind him, got to see her husband and daughter killed.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by Kanda444

this, i would agree with... but she seems to have went through the trial process and negligence on the part of other drivers was, apparently, not proven.

sad shit all around, if you ask me. she certainly wasnt being malicious or acting in a manner where she was purposefully being reckless... she just made a very, very poor choice.

you are also correct... if other drivers had been following the two second rule, this might not have been fatal.... but really consider how realistic it is to assume that people will give every car 14 car lengths (2 second rule at 70 mph) on the freeway. also consider, if you were to give that much space and a car was to cut in front of you (say, in the middle of your 14 car length gap... so 7 car lengths ahead) you would no longer have adequate time to stop at 70 mph... if they cut you off with no blinker (giving you no indication of their intentions) then slammed on their brakes, you think that you (in this case) would be to blame? rear end collision fraud is a real form of insurance fraud. somebody does exactly what i just described to you and then tries to put the fault on you, so your insurance pays and you take the blame (raising your insurance rates and possibly ending with you getting a traffic citation).

It's incredibly realistic to expect drivers to follow the 2-second rule, because it takes a minimal amount of effort to do so. That's part of why there are traffic laws against tailgating. But even at closer distances, proper vigilance allows one make the most out of even milliseconds.

Here in Louisiana, I drive I-12 between Baton Rouge and Hammond around 3 times a day; and I've been along that route countless times since 2005. If something stupidly catastrophic is going to happen on a Louisiana interstate highway, it's going to happen on that stretch. I've seen every type of accident, and I've had to deal with every type of stupid driver. Just last week, I was 3 or 4 cars behind a rear-end accident in the passing lane while it was raining, and I was certainly following closer than 2 seconds when traffic came to a very sudden halt. But I don't take my eyes off the road, I don't speed in shitty weather, I don't tailgate, and I don't run on bald or flat tires; so I didn't hit the vehicle in front of me. It doesn't take much effort to predict what other drivers are going to do, and any one who gives the road their undivided attention at those speeds will 9 times out of 10 have a choice in whether or not they and their vehicle make it to their destination in one piece.

Based on everything I've read in this thread, the incident in question was in all likelihood very avoidable despite the retarded duck lady's stupidity. Defensive driving assumes that all other drivers are complete morons who will at any given moment and without the slightest hint of warning choose the stupidest course of action available when in close proximity to your vehicle.