Driver facing life sentence for helping ducks
Discussion
NiceCupOfTea said:
Very sad, and she is silly and undoubtedly culpable for stopping in a live lane, but does the motorcyclist not carry any responsibility for not being able to stop in the distance that he could see to be clear?
You'd think so wouldn't you? If he wasn't speeding, it should have been fairly clear the vehicle was stopped but then again, why did she stop in the outside lane? ( I'm assuming that by the comment that she was in the left lane of the highway.)Harsh; but fair.
I read the story on a different source.
She stopped for ducklings on the side of the road - not in the road.
She couldn't see the duck mum so was going to collect the duckings and take them home.
The bike was doing 65-80 mph.
I can only guess that she did a fairly sudden stop from +-70 mph down to zero.
It is criminaly dangerous to make a sudden emergency stop for no reason with no warning on a fast road.
That was always my opinion, but now seems to be Canadian law.
I read the story on a different source.
She stopped for ducklings on the side of the road - not in the road.
She couldn't see the duck mum so was going to collect the duckings and take them home.
The bike was doing 65-80 mph.
I can only guess that she did a fairly sudden stop from +-70 mph down to zero.
It is criminaly dangerous to make a sudden emergency stop for no reason with no warning on a fast road.
That was always my opinion, but now seems to be Canadian law.
newzpaypa said:
Pauline Volikakis, whose husband and daughter were killed in the collision, briefly fought back tears when she left the courtroom.
“I don’t wish misfortune on anyone,” Volikakis said. “It’s time that we go on. This will not bring [back] my loved ones.”
I don't understand if the wife/mother is disagreeing with the verdict here, everything she says indicates this but you'd think she'd be able to influence the sentencing? Life in jail seems a bit rough, surely intent should be a factor. If stupidity were a crime it'd be easier to brick up the borders and evacuate the 1-2% of non-idiots.“I don’t wish misfortune on anyone,” Volikakis said. “It’s time that we go on. This will not bring [back] my loved ones.”
Snowboy said:
Harsh; but fair.
I read the story on a different source.
She stopped for ducklings on the side of the road - not in the road.
She couldn't see the duck mum so was going to collect the duckings and take them home.
The bike was doing 65-80 mph.
I can only guess that she did a fairly sudden stop from +-70 mph down to zero.
It is criminaly dangerous to make a sudden emergency stop for no reason with no warning on a fast road.
That was always my opinion, but now seems to be Canadian law.
You don't know that bit. I read about this a few days ago and I don't know if that precise information has come to light. I think this sentence is unbelievably harsh, and I say that as a motorcyclist.I read the story on a different source.
She stopped for ducklings on the side of the road - not in the road.
She couldn't see the duck mum so was going to collect the duckings and take them home.
The bike was doing 65-80 mph.
I can only guess that she did a fairly sudden stop from +-70 mph down to zero.
It is criminaly dangerous to make a sudden emergency stop for no reason with no warning on a fast road.
That was always my opinion, but now seems to be Canadian law.
I've just googled and read several articles about this.
The car was parked in the fast lane, no hazard lights on.
There was other traffic around.
I can find any confirmation of time of day so don't know if it was dark.
From what I can gather the biker was either pulling out to overtake other traffic, or a car ahead if the biker pulled in and the biker didn't see the parked car till the last moment.
It's a situation where the reason for the stop make it criminaly negligent.
If she'd broken down it would have been a tragic accident.
But she chose to park in the fast lane.
(I've called it fast lane to prevent any right side driving confusion.)
The car was parked in the fast lane, no hazard lights on.
There was other traffic around.
I can find any confirmation of time of day so don't know if it was dark.
From what I can gather the biker was either pulling out to overtake other traffic, or a car ahead if the biker pulled in and the biker didn't see the parked car till the last moment.
It's a situation where the reason for the stop make it criminaly negligent.
If she'd broken down it would have been a tragic accident.
But she chose to park in the fast lane.
(I've called it fast lane to prevent any right side driving confusion.)
NiceCupOfTea said:
Very sad, and she is silly and undoubtedly culpable for stopping in a live lane, but does the motorcyclist not carry any responsibility for not being able to stop in the distance that he could see to be clear?
He does, but that doesn't erase the responsibility the driver bears for stopping in an obviously dangerous place. And the motorcyclist couldn't be prosecuted over his own role in the accident, on account of being dead.Similar case in the UK - http://www.keepmeontheroad.co.uk/blog/death-by-car... and http://www.keepmeontheroad.co.uk/blog/death-by-car...
mike-r said:
I don't understand if the wife/mother is disagreeing with the verdict here, everything she says indicates this but you'd think she'd be able to influence the sentencing? Life in jail seems a bit rough, surely intent should be a factor. If stupidity were a crime it'd be easier to brick up the borders and evacuate the 1-2% of non-idiots.
Life is the maximum sentence for what seems to be the Canadian equivalent of manslaughter. While I don't know much about sentencing in Canada, I'd be surprised if the actual sentence was life, or anything like it, in this case.Seems like a fair verdict on the limited information given - stopping on a high speed road for such a stupid reason is negligent and (regardless of anyone else's culpability) was a primary factor in the death of two people.
Note that the Telegraph's first line is incorrect. She hasn't been sentenced, she's been found guilty with sentencing to follow. If a life sentence is imposed then that would be beyond harsh but I suspect that's not likely, especially given the comments by the widow.
Note that the Telegraph's first line is incorrect. She hasn't been sentenced, she's been found guilty with sentencing to follow. If a life sentence is imposed then that would be beyond harsh but I suspect that's not likely, especially given the comments by the widow.
Extremeley stupid woman. I hooe she gets a long sentence. IMHO The motorcyclist wasnt culpable. 100% blame is on the moron who parked in the 'fast' lane of a motorway.
With regards to travelling only as fast as you can see. Are all the people travelling at 70mph on unlit sections of the motorway driving without due care and consideration?
I ask this because if you are travelling at 70mph in a car with halogen headlights on an unlit section of the motorway, I am sure you would be travelling faster than the speed at which you would be able to stop if an obstruction is suddenly illuminated by your headlights.
With regards to travelling only as fast as you can see. Are all the people travelling at 70mph on unlit sections of the motorway driving without due care and consideration?
I ask this because if you are travelling at 70mph in a car with halogen headlights on an unlit section of the motorway, I am sure you would be travelling faster than the speed at which you would be able to stop if an obstruction is suddenly illuminated by your headlights.
I think this one is anywhere between 60-40 and 80-20, both to the detriment of the driver. While I am fully aware of just how hard it can be to deal with a stationary vehicle on a high speed road (spotting that it's not moving is often the hardest bit, the brain initially almost refuses to believe it), I don't think the motorcyclist can avoid taking a share of the blame in this.
What makes this so stupid is the reason that the woman stopped. What else does she stop for? An apparently parentless child? A cat on the loose? Things only she can see?
Anyone else reckon she's somehow mentally ill and should never have been given a licence in the first place?
Simon.
What makes this so stupid is the reason that the woman stopped. What else does she stop for? An apparently parentless child? A cat on the loose? Things only she can see?
Anyone else reckon she's somehow mentally ill and should never have been given a licence in the first place?
Simon.
Aretnap said:
Life is the maximum sentence for what seems to be the Canadian equivalent of manslaughter.
- ding*. She isn't faced with a life sentence for any "motoring offence". She's facing a (possible) life sentence for two counts of manslaughter. I don't quite understand the apparent "Guilty" to two death-by-dangerous... I can see those as a backup charge, but surely it's an either-or?
The original news reports of the collision say that the wife/mother of the dead was on another bike and badly injured, and that they "didn't have time" to react.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/28/two-killed...
Eclassy said:
Extremeley stupid woman. I hooe she gets a long sentence. IMHO The motorcyclist wasnt culpable. 100% blame is on the moron who parked in the 'fast' lane of a motorway.
With regards to travelling only as fast as you can see. Are all the people travelling at 70mph on unlit sections of the motorway driving without due care and consideration?
I ask this because if you are travelling at 70mph in a car with halogen headlights on an unlit section of the motorway, I am sure you would be travelling faster than the speed at which you would be able to stop if an obstruction is suddenly illuminated by your headlights.
What if she'd broken down and was unable to move her car? The motorcyclist has (would have had) to bear some responsibility for not making adequate observations. The percentage attributed to each party is down to interpretation but there is no way she can be held 100% at fault for that.With regards to travelling only as fast as you can see. Are all the people travelling at 70mph on unlit sections of the motorway driving without due care and consideration?
I ask this because if you are travelling at 70mph in a car with halogen headlights on an unlit section of the motorway, I am sure you would be travelling faster than the speed at which you would be able to stop if an obstruction is suddenly illuminated by your headlights.
this is one of those things where i don't understand why the law works how it does or why people apportion blame the way they do.
If the woman had been broken down, there would be absolutely zero blame.
All she would have had to say was a small lie that her engine cut out that was why she was there, then got out to help the ducks and she'd have got off scot free, honesty is clearly not the best policy
If the woman had been broken down, there would be absolutely zero blame.
All she would have had to say was a small lie that her engine cut out that was why she was there, then got out to help the ducks and she'd have got off scot free, honesty is clearly not the best policy
hornetrider said:
You don't know that bit. I read about this a few days ago and I don't know if that precise information has come to light. I think this sentence is unbelievably harsh, and I say that as a motorcyclist.
She has been convicted. She has not been sentenced to anything. The pre-sentence hearing is not until 8 April. The sentences described in the newspaper article will be the maximum sentences available under law and are unlikely to be the sentence applied in this case.
Centurion07 said:
What if she'd broken down and was unable to move her car? The motorcyclist has (would have had) to bear some responsibility for not making adequate observations. The percentage attributed to each party is down to interpretation but there is no way she can be held 100% at fault for that.
It's a good question.I think it's the key point of the case.
She chose to do something that resulted in deaths.
It's not a matter of trying to split the blame for an insurance claim, it's a matter if deciding if her actions were criminally negligent.
She is 100% responsible for parking in the fast lane of a motorway for no good reason.
If the car broke down she'd be 0% responsible for her car being there. (Notwithstanding hazard lights, maintenance, pulling over etc).
As silly as it is to 'needlessly' stop on a 'fast' moving carriageway, why these days, is there little responsibility for drivers to be paying attention to what is in front of them?
I don't see the case from the little text I've read on here, that she faces 100% of the blame. It would make more sense to me if she faced 50% and the drivers who failed to notice a blocked carriageway to also face 50% (be it that they are now dead - unfortunately).
I remember seeing a vid whereby icy conditions caused a pile up on an american highway, with numerous cars piling in to the back of the 'queue'. I don't recall the drivers of the initial crash from sliding on ice in to the barrier being charged with anything, (would this have changed though if everyone who crashed in to the back of the 'queue' died?).
I don't see the case from the little text I've read on here, that she faces 100% of the blame. It would make more sense to me if she faced 50% and the drivers who failed to notice a blocked carriageway to also face 50% (be it that they are now dead - unfortunately).
I remember seeing a vid whereby icy conditions caused a pile up on an american highway, with numerous cars piling in to the back of the 'queue'. I don't recall the drivers of the initial crash from sliding on ice in to the barrier being charged with anything, (would this have changed though if everyone who crashed in to the back of the 'queue' died?).
AA999 said:
As silly as it is to 'needlessly' stop on a 'fast' moving carriageway, why these days, is there little responsibility for drivers to be paying attention to what is in front of them?
I don't see the case from the little text I've read on here, that she faces 100% of the blame.
As has been previously pointed out, being found guilty does not mean she shoulders 100% of the blame. The motorcyclist may shoulder part of the blame, but then there is no point prosecuting the motorcyclist as he is dead. I don't see the case from the little text I've read on here, that she faces 100% of the blame.
She has been found guilty of manslaughter not because the motorcyclist shared no part in the cause of the crash, but because parking on an active high speed highway for ducks is f
king stupid and likely to cause a crash, regardless of the amount of blame which would under civil law be apportioned to a vehicle which crashes into you. Summary: she is thick as two planks. Two people are dead, who would not otherwise be dead. I hope she thinks the ducks were worth it.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff