[ShocknAwe]

When I was younger I would have answered yes. As I get older I find I give less of a shit about anything not under my possession or care. I would give zero thought and drive by any wild animal in the road, giving it a wild berth, and wishing it well in it's road crossing endeavors.

That being said, I would probably stop to help a dog. But I'm a dog owner so I can relate. However, that includes parking in a properly safe place and taking measures to ensure my own survival, call me selfish but I put my own life at higher value than pretty much anything else (there is a list of those things, but I won't share).

[grimlock]

I think the woman was being really dumb and irresponsible by stopping in the fast lane and not putting on hazards.
I was surprised they could charge her for this, but seeing the facts it makes sense.. especially if you take out the saving of the ducks from consideration (given that some people have an abnormal affinity to saving little insignificant animals, yet at the same time don't give as much of a crap about another human being, and have probably comsumed thousands of chickens and scores of cows in their lifetime, but that's not the issue here)

[user2688]

Just to clear things up here...

She was stopped on the left lane with the HAZARDS ON, during the evening and in a straight stretch.

Another car passed and she realized it was dangerous. Before she had time to get back in the guy smashed into her. Court says he was doing 113km/h - 129 km/h (speed limit is 100 km/h).

How did he not see a parked car over 1 km ahead of him? How come a car had time to avoid the obstacle but not him?

I say it's a load of crap!


One more thing, had she not stopped, who knows what the reaction of the motorcyclyst would have been? If the ducks were in the fast lane and he was driving there he would either run them over (ouch) or swerve (on a motorcycle) and could've fallen. I'm just speculating here... but his 16 year old daughter was riding beside him. What would have been her reaction?

Yes it's stupid to stop in the fast lane... but how CAN YOU NOT SEE A CAR WITH THE HAZARDS ON??? I say he was speeding big time and/or not looking ahead. The accident couldn't have been caused by her fault alone and the proof is that another car avoided her.

[ddk632]

As a motorcycle rider, I will take running over baby ducks vs. hitting a stopped parked car any day, any time, under any circumstance.

I've ran over a squirrel one time, and another time hit a giant pothole while leaned over that bent both of my rims, and another time hit a rock in a dark canyon at night which caused a flat tire and bent rim... and still didn't crash in any of those situations (admittedly many riders would crash in those situations but I think running over a small animal, as long as the rider doesn't panic and grab a fistful of brakes, even a relatively modest-skilled rider can handle that without crashing a bike).

That being said, (and my condolences to his family), there is certainly a Darwinian aspect of someone hitting an inanimate object with a long line of sight in the middle of the freeway at relatively normal speeds. The motorcyclist should have been aware. Hazards or not.

In fact I ride expecting shit like that to pop up at any time. Part of why I'm still alive, I like to think.

[grimlock]

Labelle said that he was unsure how she would be sentenced because it is so rare for negligence cases without what he called ‘bad elements’, such as racing or drunk driving. Czornobaj has no previous offences.

I don't know how the law sees 'intent' wrt to negligence.. is there really a difference with a drunk driver or racer who did the same thing?
In my view they are equally bad.
Unless she was stopped there to save another human.. no one would fault her for that. But ducks? Perhaps why this is a test case.
You could argue Hitler had good intentions (for the German people)..

Originally Posted by ddk632

That being said, (and my condolences to his family), there is certainly a Darwinian aspect of someone hitting an inanimate object with a long line of sight in the middle of the freeway at relatively normal speeds. The motorcyclist should have been aware. Hazards or not.

hence negligence

[954Stealth]

The poll is 50/50 right now

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by user2688

Just to clear things up here...

She was stopped on the left lane with the HAZARDS ON, during the evening and in a straight stretch.

Another car passed and she realized it was dangerous. Before she had time to get back in the guy smashed into her. Court says he was doing 113km/h - 129 km/h (speed limit is 100 km/h).

How did he not see a parked car over 1 km ahead of him? How come a car had time to avoid the obstacle but not him?

I say it's a load of crap!


One more thing, had she not stopped, who knows what the reaction of the motorcyclyst would have been? If the ducks were in the fast lane and he was driving there he would either run them over (ouch) or swerve (on a motorcycle) and could've fallen. I'm just speculating here... but his 16 year old daughter was riding beside him. What would have been her reaction?

Yes it's stupid to stop in the fast lane... but how CAN YOU NOT SEE A CAR WITH THE HAZARDS ON??? I say he was speeding big time and/or not looking ahead. The accident couldn't have been caused by her fault alone and the proof is that another car avoided her.

I tend to agree with this sentiment. This could have easily been a broken down car and regardless of why it was stopped, you need to watch where you are going and avoid obstacles. It is a reasonable expectation to see a stopped vehicle on a road. If it was a washing machine on the road, I would fault the person who dropped it there, but cars can stop on a highway for various reasons and it is up to the driver to avoid such objects, especially when they have their lights on and most definitely when they have their hazard lights on. That's why they're on the fucking car - to warn of hazards in the road!

[jaco]

Geese, aim for them.
Mallards, avoid.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

I tend to agree with this sentiment. This could have easily been a broken down car and regardless of why it was stopped, you need to watch where you are going and avoid obstacles. It is a reasonable expectation to see a stopped vehicle on a road. If it was a washing machine on the road, I would fault the person who dropped it there, but cars can stop on a highway for various reasons and it is up to the driver to avoid such objects, especially when they have their lights on and most definitely when they have their hazard lights on. That's why they're on the fucking car - to warn of hazards in the road!

You know this is not true.
A user of a highway does not have a reasonable expectation that a car would be stopped there - I believe this is why it is illegal to do so.
Hazards are for the purpose if your car has broken down - does not mean you are PERMITTED to do so without reason. It is an offence.

No one is faulting good intentions, however if you go about it in an irresponsible, dangerous manner, your intentions should matter little unless it is to save another life. I just don't get why some people value a duck life so highly as to put other humans in danger..
Guess this is the animal vs. human life debate.

[Devious21]

I like to throw on my hazards and stop in the left lane to text. I try to drive responsibly.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by grimlock

You know this is not true.
A user of a highway does not have a reasonable expectation that a car would be stopped there - I believe this is why it is illegal to do so.
Hazards are for the purpose if your car has broken down - does not mean you are PERMITTED to do so without reason. It is an offence.

No one is faulting good intentions, however if you go about it in an irresponsible, dangerous manner, your intentions should matter little unless it is to save another life. I just don't get why some people value a duck life so highly as to put other humans in danger..
Guess this is the animal vs. human life debate.

I don't think it has anything to do with the life of a duck. My logic is that regardless of the reason why the vehicle was stopped, this guy had plenty of room to avoid this car and he didn't.

[KingOfJericho]

The speed limit on the road was 55mph (90kph) and the motorcycle was going 70-80mph (113-129kph) when the brakes were applied.

As an aside, speeding with your daughter on the back of a vehicle with a fatality rate 35 times that of a car (per mile traveled) is also not the brightest or most responsible course of action, but that's just the father in me talking.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

I don't think it has anything to do with the life of a duck. My logic is that regardless of the reason why the vehicle was stopped, this guy had plenty of room to avoid this car and he didn't.

It's about negative externalities.
It is against the law to: store explosive materials close to residences, litter, walk your dog without a leash etc. because of the potential to negatively affect the well being of another member of society.

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

The speed limit on the road was 55mph (90kph) and the motorcycle was going 70-80mph (113-129kph) when the brakes were applied.

As an aside, speeding with your daughter on the back of a vehicle with a fatality rate 35 times that of a car (per mile traveled) is also not the brightest or most responsible course of action, but that's just the father in me talking.

Sure. 9 other responsible drivers drove past without an issue, the one unalert one didn't.
Depending on law systems, there is a divying up of the proportionality of negligence.. it so happens in this case the judge/jury thought the defendent deserved some portion of the blame and should serve time.. EVEN if the dad and daughter speeding, drunk, doing wheelies.. they can both be responsible.

It's only faultless in my mind if you didn't choose to be there, and you toke all necessary precautions to prevent an accident - both fail in this case.

[Never Convicted]

You guys are really harsh. I live on a lake, and my wife (who would not hesitate to stop to save a mama duck and ducklings, and wouldn't even think about putting on her hazard lights) leaves pieces of bread out in our yard for ducks. To the point where one pair of them come to our kitchen window and knock on the window when there's nothing there. She should go to prison for stopping? If ANY of you run down a duck family, I will hunt you down on my motorcycle and purposely kill myself! Say hello to Big Bubba, your Cellie.

[MrPrena]

Last week.....

[chris82]

Is this a test?

[P1]

I've read somewhere that it's difficult for the human brain to calculate how far away an object is when it's coming straight towards us. Think about standing on the train tracks, and a train coming straight towards you. Calculating how fast the train is going or exactly how far away it is from you, is difficult at best.

[BMW F22]

Didn't read the whole thread but yes I would. I once stopped on a highway on Maui to avoid running over a stupid bird that wouldn't fly away. Glad I didn't cause an accident but all I could think about at that moment was not crushing that bird to mulch.

[BzsBimmer]

Originally Posted by MrPrena

Last week.....

Last night...

[Small Yellow]

Let natural selection do its thing.

[gtron]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

Dog? Absolutely.

Ducks? I would try to herd them by honking my horn until they reached safety but if a car came flying up on me I would have to peace out. Simply put, ducks are not worth getting myself hurt/killed.

same.

although, i recently saw a video of troopers practically shutting down a highway and it was nice feeling.

[954Stealth]

Now what?