A woman who wanted to save ducks faces 14 years in prison for causing death of two motorcyclist. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45188459] She stopped in the middle of the left fucking lane, the passing lane, the "fast lane" [b]as idiots call it[/b], [/QUOTE] Right, so the entire state of Pennsylvania is a big collective idiot for the left lane technically being a passing lane only? Cus yano, "passing lane" doesn't inherently imply that the vehicles in said lane are traveling faster than those in the right lane. Should the bikers have been able to stop? Yeah probably, but the weight of legal obligation definitely falls on this girl. It would be one thing if her vehicle ceased to function and she had no other choice, but she decided to endanger every single person on that stretch of roadway to "save" flight-capable birds. Either way, she probably won't serve close to half that sentence with good behavior and all that.

I'd disagree - in the majority of cases, the highest onus is on the moving vehicle not to hit a stationary vehicle, for whatever reason. That however does not change someones liability for negligence when stopping on a high speed road for no good reason,

[QUOTE=Sungrazer;45198173]Looks like she's right over with plenty of room left in the lane. Had they not been speeding and watching whatever the hell they were watching instead of the road (well ahead), they would be alive. [editline]24th June 2014[/editline] If they were obeying the law, they may be alive today. What does the number matter? They had absolutely no collision protection on those bikes, they should have been twice as careful as someone in a car.[/QUOTE] First off, a motorcycle slamming into a car at those speeds will push the car. The car won't just stay still and the bike flip over like in hollywood movies. Laws of physics..... Secondly, if she had been obeying the law, they would definitely be alive, however, even if they were not speeding, there is still a very high probability that they would have died from this accident. Her actions were the ones that created the hazard to other drivers. Their actions didn't.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45198526]First off, a motorcycle slamming into a car at those speeds will push the car. The car won't just stay still and the bike flip over like in hollywood movies. Laws of physics..... Secondly, if she had been obeying the law, they would definitely be alive, however, even if they were not speeding, there is still a very high probability that they would have died from this accident. Her actions were the ones that created the hazard to other drivers. Their actions didn't.[/QUOTE] Most of the blame is on her but if somebody kills themselves while speeding, you can't just wave it off as that they had zero contribution on it. The moment you start speeding, you are taking a risk. The speed limits are not there only to protect you from your vehicle and the environment, but from other drivers; to create room for error and so on. I am not saying takes any guilt off the woman who parked there, but if you speed and crash, you fucked up as well, regardless of how the other participants influenced you. If you drive under influence and somebody else ignores red light and rams your side, you still get into trouble as well. Somebody fucking up harder in the situation doesn't void your own responsibility. [editline]24th June 2014[/editline] Both participants of the crash broke some laws. She probably fucked up harder, yes, but that doesn't change they fucked up as well.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45198526]First off, a motorcycle slamming into a car at those speeds will push the car. The car won't just stay still and the bike flip over like in hollywood movies. Laws of physics..... Secondly, if she had been obeying the law, they would definitely be alive, however, even if they were not speeding, there is still a very high probability that they would have died from this accident. Her actions were the ones that created the hazard to other drivers. Their actions didn't.[/QUOTE] if they weren't speeding would the accident have happened?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;45198597]if they weren't speeding would the accident have happened?[/QUOTE] Based on this quote: [QUOTE]A provincial police officer testified at the trial that Roy, whose speed was estimated at 113 km/h and 129 km/h when he applied his brakes, collided with Czornobaj's car at between 105 km/h and 121 km/h.[/QUOTE] It's pretty safe to conclude, all else being the same, that they wouldn't have been able to avoid the accident even if they had been going the speed limit. However, if she hadn't been stopped in that lane, all other factors being the same, the accident would not have happened. Her being stopped in the lane was the determining factor.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45198685]Based on this quote: It's pretty safe to conclude, all else being the same, that they wouldn't have been able to avoid the accident even if they had been going the speed limit. However, if she hadn't been stopped in that lane, all other factors being the same, the accident would not have happened. Her being stopped in the lane was the determining factor.[/QUOTE] If they were going slower, they would have had more time to notice the car and start breaking earlier. Kinetic energy also doesn't grow linearly but with second power of velocity, so the 8kmh they managed to slow down by could have again been far more had they been going slower, not to mention being able to break harder without losing traction yadda yadda

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45198685]It's pretty safe to conclude, all else being the same, that they wouldn't have been able to avoid the accident even if they had been going the speed limit. However, if she hadn't been stopped in that lane, all other factors being the same, the accident would not have happened. Her being stopped in the lane was the determining factor.[/QUOTE] How can you possibly conclude that? For a car travelling at 130km/h, with a 1.5s reaction time, it would take a car approximately 135m to come to a complete stop. For a car travelling at 90km/h (the speed limit), with a 1.5s reaction time, it would take a car approximately 75m to come to a complete stop. That's almost double the distance for a 40km/h speed difference. Note that it would take a motorcycle longer to brake than a car. How can you possibly conclude that, all factors being the same, the accident would still have happened? This is of course forgoing the fact that they should've seen a car that had already come to a complete stop, so it wouldn't have been sudden.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;45199039]How can you possibly conclude that? For a car travelling at 130km/h, with a 1.5s reaction time, it would take a car approximately 135m to come to a complete stop. For a car travelling at 90km/h (the speed limit), with a 1.5s reaction time, it would take a car approximately 75m to come to a complete stop. That's almost double the distance for a 40km/h speed difference. Note that it would take a motorcycle longer to brake than a car. How can you possibly conclude that, all factors being the same, the accident would still have happened? This is of course forgoing the fact that they should've seen a car that had already come to a complete stop, so it wouldn't have been sudden.[/QUOTE] ah yes but they were distracted by the woman trying to gather the ducks... aka they weren't keeping their eyes on the road?

It's a great excuse, works everytime. "I was distracted by the police on the other side of the road, and ran into the back of your car. It's not my fault" [editline]24th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;45199168]ah yes but they were distracted by the woman trying to gather the ducks... aka they weren't keeping their eyes on the road?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;45199168]ah yes but they were distracted by the woman trying to gather the ducks... aka they weren't keeping their eyes on the road?[/QUOTE] There's an idiot waving on the side of the road, people are going to look, even people that are normally good drivers. Curiosity is quite powerful.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;45199039]How can you possibly conclude that? For a car travelling at 130km/h, with a 1.5s reaction time, it would take a car approximately 135m to come to a complete stop. For a car travelling at 90km/h (the speed limit), with a 1.5s reaction time, it would take a car approximately 75m to come to a complete stop. That's almost double the distance for a 40km/h speed difference. Note that it would take a motorcycle longer to brake than a car. How can you possibly conclude that, all factors being the same, the accident would still have happened? This is of course forgoing the fact that they should've seen a car that had already come to a complete stop, so it wouldn't have been sudden.[/QUOTE] And judging by police reports there was less than 75m when he saw the vehicle. The jury isn't fuckin stupid like you all seem to assume. They know the variables like stopping distance, the distance he had and wether or not he could get into the other lane(there may have been a car there). The details we don't know are the ones that decide the case Also the distraction thing is valid in Canada. Creating a distraction to highway drivers is illegal as well. My friend almost got a ticket for it but the cop decided not to and took his "honk if you like cookies" sign away. She created an unmarked road hazard and made a distraction in the median to draw driver's attention away from the road and the hazard she created. This is yet another reason why it is negligence.

[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;45199503]And judging by police reports there was less than 75m when he saw the vehicle.[/QUOTE] Where did you read this? I kinda doubt this. If there was only 75m distance, then its very clear that 130km/h is waaaay too fast. You would clear 75m of distance in two seconds. [QUOTE=A_Pigeon;45199503]The jury isn't fuckin stupid like you all seem to assume. They know the variables like stopping distance, the distance he had and wether or not he could get into the other lane(there may have been a car there). The details we don't know are the ones that decide the case[/QUOTE] I think that's more of an assumption you're making, that I think the jury is stupid. I don't. They were there to decide on criminal negligence and dangerous driving causing death, which I have no doubt occurred. This isn't a case in tort, so I doubt contributory negligence is a defence in criminal negligence (in Canada, don't know, not from Canada).

Did she have her hazard lights on? IMO it comes down to that. An officer can stop in the middle of the road to save an animal, because his car is armed with an array of bright ass lights that you can literally see from a mile away.

[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;45199503]And judging by police reports there was less than 75m when he saw the vehicle. The jury isn't fuckin stupid like you all seem to assume. They know the variables like stopping distance, the distance he had and wether or not he could get into the other lane(there may have been a car there). The details we don't know are the ones that decide the case Also the distraction thing is valid in Canada. Creating a distraction to highway drivers is illegal as well. My friend almost got a ticket for it but the cop decided not to and took his "honk if you like cookies" sign away. She created an unmarked road hazard and made a distraction in the median to draw driver's attention away from the road and the hazard she created. This is yet another reason why it is negligence.[/QUOTE] But nobody isn't arguing it [I]wasn't[/I] a negligence on her end! We are just saying that a car crash can have more than one cause and that if you are speeding, you are realistically increasing the risk you and everyone else are in and the fact that somebody else fucked up harder than you doesn't mean you are automatically guilt free. And actually if you read the post you are quoting, if they were going the speed they should have been going, 75m would have been ALMOST as much as they needed to come to full stop, and even if they crashed into her, they would have likely survived it.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;45199168]ah yes but they were distracted by the woman trying to gather the ducks... aka they weren't keeping their eyes on the road?[/QUOTE] she was the road

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;45199372]There's an idiot waving on the side of the road, people are going to look, even people that are normally good drivers. Curiosity is quite powerful.[/QUOTE] I don't for this very reason. Whatever is going on over there is not as important as what's going on up ahead. One of the things I took away from driver's ed. [editline]25th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=DylanWilson;45199742]Did she have her hazard lights on? IMO it comes down to that. An officer can stop in the middle of the road to save an animal, because his car is armed with an array of bright ass lights that you can literally see from a mile away.[/QUOTE] It still doesn't matter. When you're on the road, you have a responsibility to pay attention and drive safely, not only for others, but for yourself as well. It's [b][i]dangerous[/i][/b] on a highway, you can't just coast along daydreaming. People change lanes in front of me without signalling all the time, but I am able to react because I am paying attention. People run red lights when I'm in the intersection waiting to turn, but I don't just make my turn on the assumption that they're going to do what they're supposed to do. You have to pay attention and you never rely on people to do the right thing.

[QUOTE=Sungrazer;45212266]I don't for this very reason. Whatever is going on over there is not as important as what's going on up ahead. One of the things I took away from driver's ed. [editline]25th June 2014[/editline] It still doesn't matter. When you're on the road, you have a responsibility to pay attention and drive safely, not only for others, but for yourself as well. It's [b][i]dangerous[/i][/b] on a highway, you can't just coast along daydreaming. People change lanes in front of me without signalling all the time, but I am able to react because I am paying attention. People run red lights when I'm in the intersection waiting to turn, but I don't just make my turn on the assumption that they're going to do what they're supposed to do. You have to pay attention and you never rely on people to do the right thing.[/QUOTE] I never claimed you do, but many people do. Go to the scene of a wreck and look at the cars going by, and see how many heads flip to stare at the crash momentarily. Any abnormality on or by the road will receive the attention of some people.