TexasCHLforum.com

jbarn wrote:
Mistake? She didn't intend to stop in the road?

Mistake? Yes, she made a mistake. Stopping was an error in judgement / action, which is the definition of mistake.

mis·take
məˈstāk/
noun
1.
an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong.

Two people are dead and for what? A couple of soulless creatures. I hope those ducks grow up to be great contributors to our society.

http://blog.chron.com/petshouston/2014/ ... d-traffic/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Different outcome in Houston.

jbarn wrote:

RPBrown wrote:In most cases here, if you rear end another vehicle, you are at fault. Granted what she did was not real bright, but the biker should have been paying more attention IMHO. And I am a motorcyclist as well.

that entirely depends on the circumstances.

Do you have access to a police report, diagram or photos of the accident scene to determine the motorcyclist "should have been paying more attantion"? How do you know the circumstances of his view?

Just a comment.
No access to a police report, just practical experience. In these times of cell phones, texting, and etc., you should be riding with your head on a swivel so to speak, or at least I do.

Like I said, what she did was not real bright and perhaps she should shoulder the majority of the blame. Without being there, we dont know either way. Were there no stopping, standing, parking signs? Who knows?

Jbarn, I don't have access to a police report. Neither do you. I have my opinion. You have yours. I won't say we will have to agree to disagree, because maybe we won't even agree to that. Regardless, we do disagree. And I think, whether you agree or not I believe it to be true, that anyone who went by my slow down to the environment principle, would have likely survived. My opinion. Disagreement welcome. I am done/last post on this topic.

gljjt wrote:Jbarn, I don't have access to a police report. Neither do you. I have my opinion. You have yours. I won't say we will have to agree to disagree, because maybe we won't even agree to that. Regardless, we do disagree. And I think, whether you agree or not I believe it to be true, that anyone who went by my slow down to the environment principle, would have likely survived. My opinion. Disagreement welcome. I am done/last post on this topic.

I agree. Something about this smells. Before posted speed limits in some western states, there was the caveat of 'reasonable and proper' speed on the highways. I don't see how she could have come to any screeching halt for which the following vehicle couldn't compensate.....UNLESS he was not paying attention and was not riding at a 'R&P' rate of speed' - maybe on her bumper...and, that's all I have to say about that.

Edit:
Given Canada's repressive gun laws, she would really be in trouble if she'd shot them off their bike ala "EASY RIDER".

Oldgringo wrote:I don't see how she could have come to any screeching halt for which the following vehicle couldn't compensate.....UNLESS he was not paying attention and was not riding at a 'R&P' rate of speed' - maybe on her bumper...and, that's all I have to say about that.

Generally true if he was following her, but I don't suggest anybody slam on their brakes the next time a cop is behind them.

Also, it's not clear to me from the story I read if she "parked her car" "in the left lane of a provincial highway" before the father and daughter came along, nor the speed of the non-parked vehicle.

RPBrown wrote:

jbarn wrote:

RPBrown wrote:In most cases here, if you rear end another vehicle, you are at fault. Granted what she did was not real bright, but the biker should have been paying more attention IMHO. And I am a motorcyclist as well.

that entirely depends on the circumstances.

Do you have access to a police report, diagram or photos of the accident scene to determine the motorcyclist "should have been paying more attantion"? How do you know the circumstances of his view?

Just a comment.
No access to a police report, just practical experience. In these times of cell phones, texting, and etc., you should be riding with your head on a swivel so to speak, or at least I do.

Like I said, what she did was not real bright and perhaps she should shoulder the majority of the blame. Without being there, we dont know either way. Were there no stopping, standing, parking signs? Who knows?

I tend to ride like the drivers on 4 wheels are purposely trying to run me over, I stay well back and try to find the empty spots where I can see them coming for me. If a bike hit the car it was WAAAAYYYYY to close and too fast

The "duck moron" was found guilty by 12 Citizens for two counts of "criminal negligence causing death" and two counts of "dangerous driving causing death" of two citizens.

"During the trial, witness Martine Tessier testified that she noticed parked car didn't have its hazards on and that the driver's door was open.
She also said she saw Czornobaj motioning to some ducks on the side of the road.
'I shouted to my [three] children: ‘What is she doing there? She’s going to get killed',' Tessier said, according to National Post.
'I saw a body go over the car. It looked like a rag doll. I shouted to my daughter to call 911."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eaths.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

philip964 wrote:I had a friend rear end a stopped driver ( you guess sex and everything else) at night in a rain storm on the other side of an overpass in the middle lane of interstate 10. The driver had the right turn blinker on. The driver wanted traffic to clear so they could make the exit they were sitting at.

My friend received a ticket for failure to control speed. The other driver was not ticketed.

Lady should not have mentioned ducks.

If the other driver was indeed stopped, waiting for an opening so she could make her exit, I am somewhat surprised that she wasn't ticketed for obstructing the highway. She can't just stop in the middle of the road like that....

The crime and the punishment are strange. Drivers are supposed to watching the road ahead for obstacles and generally receive a ticket for not avoiding obstacles, not keeping enough stopping distance to the vehicle in front, following too closely, etc. In this case, the person was the obstacle and is the guilty party. Creating/being a road hazard is wrong.

On the other hand, the driver that stopped for the ducks had the best of intentions to avoid killing the baby ducks. No one disputes her intentions. She was not thinking about being a road hazard. If she stopped for a person in the road such as a pedestrian, a broken down vehicle, an injured motorist, would she have even been charged with a crime? Would the outcome be completely different? Would the motorcyclists have any responsibility for not crashing in any of those circumstances? Should the reason she stopped be the difference between being free and life in prison? There is no clear answer to these questions.

Was she stupid to stop for ducks? Yes! Is she the type of person I want to lock up for life and remove from society as a danger? No! I don't even want to pay and use tax dollars to lock her up (I know she is in Canada). My point is that prison should be reserved for criminals that pose a real threat to society such as murderers, rapists, child molesters, arsonists, robbers, child molesters, embezzlers, batterers, swindlers, theives, child molesters, etc. She is nothing like any of these criminals. Locking her up will not bring the two people back who died and it is very unlikely that if she were set free that she would become a road hazard in the future.

Other possible punishments that are congruent with the crime would be loss of driving privileges and/or probation and/or shorter jail time (not prison). The victims families also have civil remedies such as lawsuits, etc.

What do you think?

OneGun wrote:The crime and the punishment are strange. Drivers are supposed to watching the road ahead for obstacles and generally receive a ticket for not avoiding obstacles, not keeping enough stopping distance to the vehicle in front, following too closely, etc. In this case, the person was the obstacle and is the guilty party. Creating/being a road hazard is wrong.

On the other hand, the driver that stopped for the ducks had the best of intentions to avoid killing the baby ducks. No one disputes her intentions. She was not thinking about being a road hazard. If she stopped for a person in the road such as a pedestrian, a broken down vehicle, an injured motorist, would she have even been charged with a crime? Would the outcome be completely different? Would the motorcyclists have any responsibility for not crashing in any of those circumstances? Should the reason she stopped be the difference between being free and life in prison? There is no clear answer to these questions.

Was she stupid to stop for ducks? Yes! Is she the type of person I want to lock up for life and remove from society as a danger? No! I don't even want to pay and use tax dollars to lock her up (I know she is in Canada). My point is that prison should be reserved for criminals that pose a real threat to society such as murderers, rapists, child molesters, arsonists, robbers, child molesters, embezzlers, batterers, swindlers, theives, child molesters, etc. She is nothing like any of these criminals. Locking her up will not bring the two people back who died and it is very unlikely that if she were set free that she would become a road hazard in the future.

Other possible punishments that are congruent with the crime would be loss of driving privileges and/or probation and/or shorter jail time (not prison). The victims families also have civil remedies such as lawsuits, etc.

What do you think?

http://www.click2houston.com/news/hfd-r ... k/26931230" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ok stopping for baby ducks is one thing. This guy backed up on the main lane of the Hardy toll road to get a better look at a truck fire on the shoulder.

It didn't say if the poor guy who rear ended him was ticketed. That guy is lucky to be alive.

The exact same happened in Houston recently, fortunately it ended completely different.

http://m.click2houston.com/news/ducklin ... d/26148308

philip964 wrote:http://blog.chron.com/petshouston/2014/ ... d-traffic/

Different outcome in Houston.

^^^ hadn't noticed this prior to posting my link