Don't stop on a highway for ducks!
- Thread starter dcbogey
- Start date
You should stop for animals crossing the road if it does not pose any danger to other motorists and/or no other vehicles on the road.
If there a a lot of vehicles, obstructing traffic is an offence.
Now if it's a large animal that's going to cause a lot of damage to your vehicle upon impact, that's another story.
If there a a lot of vehicles, obstructing traffic is an offence.
Now if it's a large animal that's going to cause a lot of damage to your vehicle upon impact, that's another story.
The accident was in June 2010 and trial is set for June 2014. Shit there are rapists, thieves, drug dealers, murders etc that get their cases thrown out of court for delays in less time then the 4 yrs it will take to just get her to trail. The accident was tragic but if someone has the "heart" to try and save ducks then it is pretty reasonable to think she would have the "hearty" to be upset and feel guilty, regret, sadness etc about what has happened. To prolong it by delaying trail for 4yrs plus time of trail and any extra time to consider sentencing (if found guilty) is fucked up. Before people begin to scream about the "victims" etc I normally have a lot of compassion for the victims however to drag this out 4 yrs seems a little extreme. Point I am trying to make is we seem to give more compassion for drug dealers and rapists. Shit drunk drivers seem to get less for killing people. But hey what the fuck do I know I am not a lawyer
To me, this sounds like a crock.
Of course, there is a rule about no stopping on the highway. But the proviso is "unless it's necessary".
There is another very basic rule of responsibility for road accidents: We all have a duty to drive at such speed that we can stop in the distance we can see ahead to be clear. So, in this case, this driver "thought it was necessary" to stop. Anyone behind who is travelling so fast that they can't stop, is responsible for their own demise.
It is barely debatable whether it was necessary for her to stop. What does necessary mean? She thought it was necessary, in order to avoid killing the living creatures. As far as the danger to other road users is concerned, we all have a duty to drive in such manner that, if the car ahead stops (for whatever reason, good or bad), we can stop too.
Of course, there is a rule about no stopping on the highway. But the proviso is "unless it's necessary".
There is another very basic rule of responsibility for road accidents: We all have a duty to drive at such speed that we can stop in the distance we can see ahead to be clear. So, in this case, this driver "thought it was necessary" to stop. Anyone behind who is travelling so fast that they can't stop, is responsible for their own demise.
It is barely debatable whether it was necessary for her to stop. What does necessary mean? She thought it was necessary, in order to avoid killing the living creatures. As far as the danger to other road users is concerned, we all have a duty to drive in such manner that, if the car ahead stops (for whatever reason, good or bad), we can stop too.
There are several things not mentioned such as did her car have the four-way flashers turned on, what were the weather and road conditions and the light level (7:30 p.m. in June it should have been daylight). What about any negligence on M. Roy's part, how far was his line of sight, what was his speed etc. . . .
Tell you what, I don't know about Québec but in a great many other jurisdictions unless you the vehicle in front "panic stop" (and even then it isn't a "given") it is the duty of the vehicle following to avoid the collision.
I'll be happy to represent the driver you rear-end in these parts.
we have closed the entire collectors at times to allow a family of geese to cross....but we have the vehicles and manpower to do it...
I do not recommend it to a civie....
I do not recommend it to a civie....
You're right in asking those questions. However, the article states she is alleged to have stopped her car in the passing lane. Not very smart
Not only did she stop the car in the passing lane, but she parked it there and went for a walk to go see the ducks. Not a smart move on her part, and it shows no consideration for other drivers.
She stopped in the passing lane so why didn't the bike change lanes? Was he not paying attention and looking far enough ahead? Guess we won't know the answers because it's his wife that survived so she is going to blame the woman that stopped for the ducks
Pretty soon we'll see people getting mowed down everywhere, not just the highway but secondary roads as well.
The defense will resort back to the precedent set in this case.
There's no excuse for mowing anything down or running into the back of cars if you are prudently looking ahead assessing what's down the road.
The defense will resort back to the precedent set in this case.
There's no excuse for mowing anything down or running into the back of cars if you are prudently looking ahead assessing what's down the road.
I was driving in my hometown - about 3 years ago - and a squirrel was perched up on the road as i drove toward it with my car. I thought it would move, but it didnt. I realized it wasnt going to as I got very close, but I refused to move my car and potentially cause an accident (and hurt a human being) just to avoid hitting the squirrel. My wife was with me and became so upset that I had hit and killed the squirrel.
It is against the law to stop or park your car in the passing lane, or any other lane on the highway without reason. She did it, 2 people died. Yes, the bike driver should have seen the car and realized it was parked in the passing lane on the highway because some lady wanted to go look at the ducks. However, when a driver is not expecting something like this, it sometimes takes the brain a few seconds to realize what is happening, and by that time it is too late.
There was obviously a reason KBear. The question becomes: was it a justified reason?
Why didn't she pull to the side? How fast did these events happen? I don't get a clear picture of what happened from that article.
