jbailey Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 (edited) I believe the guilty verdict is a direct result of no hazard lights activated. Stopping was a poor choice, not putting on her hazards when stopped was almost setting a trap for people. The price is unmeasurable for both parties involved and I'm sure that is how the court will handle the sentencing. I will be surprised if there is a heavy sentence for her, but do belive she is responsible for the accident. very true, agreed. Edited June 25, 2014 by jbailey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Cliff Posted June 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 I believe the guilty verdict is a direct result of no hazard lights activated. Stopping was a poor choice, not putting on her hazards when stopped was almost setting a trap for people. The price is unmeasurable for both parties involved and I'm sure that is how the court will handle the sentencing. I will be surprised if there is a heavy sentence for her, but do belive she is responsible for the accident. OK, I would go along with partially responsible, in fact I think I have been fairly clear on that right from my original post. The factors that I believe are relevent are: the car ahead of the motorcycle managed to avoid her; (I do believe a motorcycle is more manouverable than a car). The motor cycle hardly slowed down before impact, was he paying attention? We will never know because he can't tell us! It is a tradgy for all involved, I just hope that it doesn't continue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdougy Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 Sorry but I feel she is solely responsible. And the motorcycle driver is a victim of the unexpected due to no hazard lights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henricus Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 What if the car in front of and behind the bike were able to change lanes because the adjacent lane was clear but the motorcycle was not able due to a car in the adjacent lane? Would knowing that change anybody's opinion? Without all the facts, it is impossible to judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 Sorry but I feel she is solely responsible. And the motorcycle driver is a victim of the unexpected due to no hazard lights. Was he riding with his eyes shut? This is the only way he doesn't see a parked car in broad daylight. The car before him saw it, the bike after him saw it.. He apparently didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 The root cause of the accident was a car parked in the left lane of a highway with no flashers on. With out this root cause, the accident wouldn't have happened. She bears sole responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 The root cause of the accident was a car parked in the left lane of a highway with no flashers on. With out this root cause, the accident wouldn't have happened. She bears sole responsibility. It's your responsibility to pay attention when you're operating a motor vehicle, no one else's.... Why did the first car miss her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 (edited) Like others have pointed out, it's not always possible to swerve due to other traffic. The car in front said she didn't have time to brake, so she swerved, it very likely the motorcyclist didn't have that option, and it still doesn't alter the fact that, if she hadn't abandoned her car in the left lane of a highway with no flasher on, then the accident would not have occurred. Her actions are the root cause of this accident and her actions lead to the deaths of two people. As for punishment, that's up to our legal system to work out. Edited June 26, 2014 by Old Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grimsbylander Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 All I know is that tonight when I'm buzzing along the QEW on my way home, and a bunch of ducks, chicken, or the cutiest little bunnies you ever saw are in the middle of the road, the feathers or fur is going to fly. That's the bad news...the good news is all the people in the lanes beside me and behind me get to go home and nobody will spend the next year trying to determine is my "good heart" was worth the lives of other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 Like others have pointed out, it's not always possible to swerve due to other traffic. The car in front said she didn't have time to brake, so she swerved, it very likely the motorcyclist didn't have that option, and it still doesn't alter the fact that, if she hadn't abandoned her car in the left lane of a highway with no flasher on, then the accident would not have occurred. Her actions are the root cause of this accident and her actions lead to the deaths of two people. As for punishment, that's up to our legal system to work out. Don't make assumptions as to why he couldn't avoid the car... There's zero facts to support there was a car in the lane besides him not allowing him to pull over. No one is disagreeing with anyone that she didn't start this whole scenario. But when you slam into the back of a parked car, some responsibility is placed on your shoulders as well, especially when other people avoided it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bare foot wader Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 (I do believe a motorcycle is more manouverable than a car). only in the movies at highway speeds....4 wheels are more stable than 2, especially riding with 2....the witness that swerved said she didn't have time to brake either, so it's hard to speculate why he couldn't avoid it, but a jury that had more facts than the public unanimously decided a guilty verdict the link below has a good pic, there is no shoulder there http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canadian-woman-who-stopped-to-save-ducks-on-highway-faces-jail-over-crash-9554721.html interesting video on the sentencing, I don't believe she'll see jail time http://www.autoblog.com/2014/06/20/emma-czornobaj-guilty-death-stopping-car-save-ducks-video/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 I hate the fact that a lot of the 400SB has almost zero shoulder to the right of the far left lane. Always collisions there when someone pops a tire and has like 3ft of shoulder to park on.. Silly design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 Don't make assumptions as to why he couldn't avoid the car... There's zero facts to support there was a car in the lane besides him not allowing him to pull over. No one is disagreeing with anyone that she didn't start this whole scenario. But when you slam into the back of a parked car, some responsibility is placed on your shoulders as well, especially when other people avoided it. Well Bill, you're making assumptions as to why he should have. Goes both ways. The point is, no stop car in left lane of a major highway with no flashers = no accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 (edited) Well Bill, you're making assumptions as to why he should have. Goes both ways. The point is, no stop car in left lane of a major highway with no flashers = no accident. What assumptions am I making? The guy slammed into a parked car in broad daylight which was avoided by both a car in front of him and a motorcycle behind him. I'm not making excuses (ie he couldn't pull over because there was a car there). I'm simply stating a car in front of him missed the parked car, and a motorcycle behind him also missed it. I wonder what they did right that he did wrong? (Speed? Not paying attention?) Edited June 26, 2014 by BillM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misfish Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 Such a beauty of a day and you guys are not out fishing or golfing?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 (edited) That he could have avoided it. You weren't on that bike, you weren't operating it in those exact conditions and circumstances but yet you assume he should have been able to swerve and miss it. I call that an assumption. Lets not forget, the lady in the 1st car that swerved only had the stopped vehilce to focus attention on, The driver of the bike behind was dealing with a car in front of him suddenly swerving plus a stopped vehicle in the road. More information to process, maybe a split second longer to process it, a split second he didn't have because of this woman's careless act of stopping a car in a highway's left lane without even putting the flashers on. Edited June 26, 2014 by Old Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 Such a beauty of a day and you guys are not out fishing or golfing?????? Just finishing lunch and about to go get in the boat to get some walleye for supper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 (edited) That he could have avoided it. You weren't on that bike, you weren't operating it in those exact conditions and circumstances but yet you assume he should have been able to swerve and miss it. I call that an assumption. Lets not forget, the lady in the 1st car that swerved only had the stopped vehilce to focus attention on, The driver of the bike behind was dealing with a car in front of him suddenly swerving plus a stopped vehicle in the road. More information to process, maybe a split second longer to process it, a split second he didn't have because of this woman's careless act of stopping a car in a highway's left lane without even putting the flashers on. So we was following too closely to the car and speeding? Is that what you're saying? I'd tend to agree with you. You still think this lady is 100% at fault? I don't.... More like 80/20, maybe even 70/30. If you're driving in front of me in a truck and I'm on a motorcycle and you swerve to avoid a moose and I hit it, who's fault is it? The moose? Edited June 26, 2014 by BillM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 The moose won't do jail time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbailey Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 Well it was said he was following too closely and speeding, as well several other cars passed the stopped vehicle without an issue. It was a tragic scenario and she must be held responsible for her actions, but there were many factors at play that contributed to the unfortunate outcome, so jail time under these circumstances does not reflect the legal definition of proportionality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 (edited) There was only one factor that contributed to this accident. A car abandoned by it's driver in a passing lane on a busy highway without even hazard flashers. Without that car stopped there, none of this would have happened. Edited June 26, 2014 by Old Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Cliff Posted June 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 Ok, you know what; everyone has had an opportunity to express their opinion and it is obvious that there are a variety of opinions and it is going to remain that way regardless! In light of the recent incident where an experienced rider hit a goose and is now in hospital in serious condition (but I am happy to report that while the recovery is going to be a long one he is expected to survive). My take on this is that "if your number is up, it is up". I would respectfully like to ask that this thread just gets locked as I can see no further constructive input on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 I think you're right, Cliff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts