BillM Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Because if you just plowed right into a deer at 120 kph you'd probably be dead too, if you mow over a couple ducks at 120 the worst possible thing that could happen is you need a new bumper. No humans killed You're missing his point.. His point is, if a car is stopped for a deer and you plow into the back of it... You get charged. If you plow into the back of a car that stopped for a few ducks, what's the difference here? The reason for that person stopping doesn't make any difference. You've still gotta be paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookslav Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 northernpike5391, on 18 Dec 2014 - 7:29 PM, said: Because if you just plowed right into a deer at 120 kph you'd probably be dead too, if you mow over a couple ducks at 120 the worst possible thing that could happen is you need a new bumper. No humans killed You're missing his point.. His point is, if a car is stopped for a deer and you plow into the back of it... You get charged. If you plow into the back of a car that stopped for a few ducks, what's the difference here? The reason for that person stopping doesn't make any difference. You've still gotta be paying attention. Bingo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muskymatt Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Exactly, if you rear end someone, no matter what the situation, you are at fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookslav Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Gotta say if my wife stopped for a cat... And some one hit her from behind and died I wouldn't be crucifying her and thinking she's deserving of punishment. She tried to avoid hitting "somthing" Doesn't matter if its a big 'ol tree branch.... The driver who hit her was not paying attention. I can totally see her appealing and winning that apeal unless there is somthing I'm missing here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) she did not stop to avoid ducks or deer she stop on the highway because she saw ducks on the side of the road and thought to herself, I will block traffic and pick up the ducks and take them home.. it is 100% against the law to stop on the highway. if you hit a deer and end up stopped on the highway is one thing, a car accident ahead but not some random wild life on the side of the road. her action was the major reason for the accident and would be charged, the guy on the bike could be also charged but would only be a contributing factor and is often not charged Edited December 19, 2014 by Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 But a car in front of the bike was able to avoid her, why didn't the guy on the bike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bare foot wader Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Exactly, if you rear end someone, no matter what the situation, you are at fault. not according to the OPP in Fergus... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookslav Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Ok so she stopped on the "side" of the road? How'd she get hit??? Was she still in the lane, or did the bike Drive on the shoulder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirCranksalot Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 People grieve and deal with tragedy in different ways. For you to pass judgment on what you THINK others are feeling would be speculation on your part. Well, she's appealing the verdict!! I rest my case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuhaman Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 But a car in front of the bike was able to avoid her, why didn't the guy on the bike? Whatever the reason may be the fact that someone would stop on a highway in the passing lane for ducks just blows me away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misfish Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 But a car in front of the bike was able to avoid her, why didn't the guy on the bike? CARE AND CONTROL ON BOTH PARTIES HERE IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 she saw her and swerved without signaling or looking , she did not have time to stop the driver of the bike , was either not a quick minded as her or just took longer to realize she was stopped or there was a vehicle beside him or he just was not as luckly I have come up on a stopped car and it took my brain way too long to realize the car was stopped first I thought thought this car is going a lot slower then me, slow down a bit,, then it was holy crap it's stopped hit the brakes and I first saw it 40 car lengths away... the brain does not expect to see a car on a busy highway stopped for no reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bare foot wader Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 I'm not an expert rider, but my time riding a motorcycle vs a car/truck, sudden high speed manuevers felt MUCH more safe in a 4 wheeled vehicle vs a bike she didn't just stop, she parked on the highway without her hazard lights on...if she had her lights on that very well might have provided enough reaction time I was coming down a highway this summer and there were tourists taking pictures, no hazard lights flashing, it took me an extra second or two to realize what was going on, those couple of seconds make a big difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Well, she's appealing the verdict!! I rest my case! no she is not...unless they changed her mind minutes ago she had said she excepts the verdict and the 90 days but is appealing the 10 year ban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 CARE AND CONTROL ON BOTH PARTIES HERE IMO Agreed 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bare foot wader Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 I have come up on a stopped car and it took my brain way too long to realize the car was stopped first I thought thought this car is going a lot slower then me, slow down a bit,, then it was holy crap it's stopped hit the brakes and I first saw it 40 car lengths away... the brain does not expect to see a car on a busy highway stopped for no reason this was a huge factor, root cause IMO....a few seconds makes all the difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 You ever get rear ended while stopped at a light or a sign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookslav Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 Ya...I think there is a bit on both sides here the more I read into it. She stopped on the side of the road which by most standards would be fine. But she had no hazzard lights on...thats her mistake The motorcylce was also doing 129km hour.... I have to agree CARE AND CONTROL ON BOTH PARTIES HERE IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirCranksalot Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 no she is not...unless they changed her mind minutes ago she had said she excepts the verdict and the 90 days but is appealing the 10 year ban "Labelle has already indicated he is appealing the conviction." the 'bottom line' from that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookslav Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 if only the motor cycle had snow tires non of this would have happend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 On the side? I thought she stopped in the lane. Should be able to stop for ducks all day on the side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 people do even with all the signs telling people to stop like a cross road and stop signs and brake lights coming on you brain is trained to recognize these signs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 no she was in the lane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookslav Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 The woman had stopped her car in the left-hand lane of a provincial highway in Candiac, south of Montreal, to help the ducks cross the road.... ya its dumb, but...the girl got out of the car, tried to catch the ducks...time passed...cars passed... Then wham the bike hit... Long story made short, she's at fault....but the guy riding the bike doing 129km on a 90km zone was also not paying attention. Had the car broken down and been there it would have had the same result. the only difference is she should not have stopped vs a break down which seh could not control Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manitoubass2 Posted December 19, 2014 Report Share Posted December 19, 2014 oh gawd OFC is passing more legislation? 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