PDA

View Full Version : Driver Charged with Criminal Negligence after Stopping for Ducks


RatherBeFlying
4th Jun 2014, 04:11
Emma Czornobaj, 25, of Châteauguay, faces two counts each of criminal negligence and dangerous driving causing death stemming from an accident on June 27, 2010, where she suddenly braked on Highway 30 in Candiac to avoid hitting a family of ducks.

Andre Roy, 50, and his 16-year-old daughter Jessie were riding on a motorcycle behind Czornobaj’s car and died as a result of the accident.

Quebec motorist on trial in two deaths amid allegations she was helping ducks (http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Quebec+motorist+trial+deaths+amid+allegations+helping+ducks/9903336/story.html)

Volikakis said ice cream was to be on the menu when they arrived home. Roy was driving and his daughter was riding pillion on his Harley-Davidson motorcycle, while Volikakis rode her own motorcycle behind them.
...

Volikakis testified she saw a woman walking dangerously along the narrow shoulder on the side of the highway. She also saw a car at a standstill in the passing lane.

...

She testified that Roy gestured to the accused as if to warn her it was dangerous for her to be there. Seconds later, his bike slammed into the stationary car, sending both of the occupants in the motorcycle flying...

Earlier on Tuesday, eyewitness Martine Tessier testified she was driving along the same stretch of highway on June 27, 2010. The weather was nice, the sun was setting and the road conditions were excellent.

Tessier said she was driving at about 110 km/h when she saw a woman along the side of the road seemingly trying to shoo along a family of ducks.

"I shouted to my kids (in the car) 'What is she doing there? She's going to get killed," Tessier told the jury.

She testified that, moments later, she was staring down a car, completely stopped with no hazard lights on, with the door open on the driver's side.

"It was close enough that I knew I didn't have time to brake," Tessier said. Instead, she swerved to get around the car. Then she looked back in her rear-view mirror and saw something else hit the vehicle.

"I saw a body go over the car, it was like a rag doll,"Would there be a charge if she had stopped for a flat tire or mechanical failure?

Would there be a charge if she had hit the ducks and they were thrown into the path of the motorcyclists causing an accident?

Are not drivers required to be watching the road ahead?

If the visibility is poor, are they not required to slow down so they can stop in time?

I do fault the defendant for credulity of the abilities of the average driver:=

Dushan
4th Jun 2014, 04:18
Not only did she stop, but she got out of the car and tried to "help" the ducks cross the road. These idiotic people who think that animal life is more precious than human life need the book thrown at them.

AtomKraft
4th Jun 2014, 04:26
I might have stopped to help ducks....I like ducks.

In any case, whatever the hazard, isn't it up to a following driver to avoid it?

If you collide with a static object, be it a stopped car or anything else, the blame is yours.
In this case she chose to stop. But she could just as easily have broken down.

500N
4th Jun 2014, 04:26
Most confusingly written article I have read in a long time.
I wish they would start at A and go to Z instead of chopping back and forth.


Anyway, I can understand stopping for animals but not on a 110 kmh Freeway which in this instance caused the death of 2 people.

landy01
4th Jun 2014, 04:37
Sorry but no sympathy :ugh:Not sure of Canadian law but here in Queensland, she would probably have been prosecuted.

If it is a flat tire/ mechanical issue then it's not your choice to stop in that position and you are required to put hazard lights and/or warning triangles out to warn other motorists. Voluntarily stopping in a moving carriageway with no warning devices is an offence.

The Queensland driving code states that drivers are not to swerve/stop/slam brakes on for animals(hence why most vehicles in rural areas have bull bars).
Large animals (cows/'Roos/horses)the procedure is brake heavily to reduce speed and let the bull bar do its job, small animals slow down but keep going.
If you stop or swerve and cause an accident you can and will be prosecuted.:ok:

trucks/road trains won't stop or swerve even if it's a car in front :eek:( it's too dangerous for them due to roll over risk) so if you break down in the outback pull well clear of the road or if not get everyone out and away off the road.because if your car is in the carriageway and they can't come to a complete halt in time, it's goodbye car:E

Oktas8
4th Jun 2014, 05:07
Demonstrating that there is in fact a first time for everything, I'm with Dushan. :eek:

The woman chose to stop on a road designed for high speed traffic. She chose not to pull over. She chose to be a distracting nuisance to other drivers at a point where the other drivers needed to be watching for a surprise obstacle (her car).

All the stuff about always watching the road, always being prepared for broken down vehicles etc, is a distraction. Yes, if the motorcyclist was alive, the police could prosecute for his failing to pay attention. But he isn't, so he takes his misdemeanour to the grave.

The duck lover also did something wrong. She is alive, so the police are quite right to want a chat with her. In court.

John Hill
4th Jun 2014, 06:05
Woman did stupid thing by stopping for ducks but that does not absolve the motorcyclist's responsibility to ride safely.

I am not aware of any example of road vehicles being rated for IFR operation.

UniFoxOs
4th Jun 2014, 06:22
Correct, John. Totally stupid to stop in the passing lane for a non-emergency when there was a shoulder, however both the motorcyclist and the eyewitness were driving too fast to stop in the distance they could see to be clear (Driving 101?) and should shoulder the responsibility for their actions.

I only ever brake or swerve for animals after a good look in the mirror and would certainly never stop on a motorway. On a country road I stop if it looks like a free dinner.

OFSO
4th Jun 2014, 06:46
The saddest thing i ever saw was here, on a dual carriageway with concrete barriers, a mother duck was desperately trying to get her brood of ducklings off the road but they couldn't climb the walls. No I didn't stop because it was just round a fast sweeping bend and an accident would have been certain.

Sometimes people have a common sense failure.

RatherBeFlying
4th Jun 2014, 16:24
In Canada we get quite a few fatal collisions with moose. The body hits the windshield to the great detriment of anybody in the front seat. Bull bars would have to reach over the windshield.

In urban areas bull bars are a hazard to pedestrians, especially children. I have heard that some EU jurisdictions restrict them. They also require hoods, grilles, and ornaments to be pedestrian friendly :ok:

500N
4th Jun 2014, 16:27
As you would expect from a soft cock organisation like the EU.
Wrap everyone in cotton wool.

con-pilot
4th Jun 2014, 16:38
Oh my God, life as we know it, has come to an end, I agree with John Hill in a non-aviation subject. :eek:

Woman did stupid thing by stopping for ducks but that does not absolve the motorcyclist's responsibility to ride safely.


I agree, the deaths of the motorcyclists is a terrible thing, but it is the responsibility of all drivers, cyclists to large truck drivers, to assure that they can stop and/or avoid any vehicle that is stopped or going slower than they are.

The woman that stopped made stupid decision, but the motorcyclists were the cause of their own demise.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
4th Jun 2014, 16:42
They should lock her up and throw away the key. then feed her duck for the rest of her life, seeing as she loves them beyond common sense.

mad_jock
4th Jun 2014, 16:45
It happens in the UK as well.

I went through a load of rabbits on a country road in an artic and then was chased by some mad woman shaking her fists and flashing lights and blowing her horn.

I nipped into the ARR CRAIB yard and drove round the back and then legged it when she stormed into there offices.

My boss wet himself laughing when I told him what I had done.

Emergency stop a 40 ton artic on a country road doing 40mph for some rabbits you have to be joking.

vee-tail-1
4th Jun 2014, 17:02
Well it's sad for the bike riders and their relatives. But in my experience following an accident here in UK the vehicle that ran into the back of another one is invariably at fault. Particularly on freeways where idiots tailgate at high speed with no possibility of stopping safely in an emergency.
If you travel too close too fast you are asking for trouble.

mad_jock
4th Jun 2014, 17:15
if you stop on the hard shoulder and your not broken down they will have you as well

Boudreaux Bob
4th Jun 2014, 17:49
I ride Harley's.

If you run into the rear of vehicle in front of you it is your own darn fault no matter how stupid a reason the other vehicle is going slow enough for you to over run it.

Now if that other vehicle turns in front of you or hits you head on in your lane there might be some sympathy but not if you rear end someone.

That two people died is tragic but the dead Biker bears some responsibility for his own demise.

Setting Sun causes vision problems and a cure is Park until it sets or slow right down and ride well within your stopping distance.

There is more to the story than the article discussed and some have considered.

RatherBeFlying
4th Jun 2014, 18:00
There seems to be some human factors at work. Both the driver of the truck and the motorcyclists behind focused their attention on the pedestrian on the hard shoulder and were then surprised by her stopped vehicle.

The truck narrowly missed the parked car. One has to think the motorcyclists were too close behind the truck to have time to avoid the parked car.

The sadder conclusion is that drivers are not looking very far ahead when doing 110 km/h:eek:

Right now my son is driving in preparation for his license test. My principal mantra is preserving margins for when things go wrong as in other drivers doing something stupid, or a slick patch, or ...

Fox3WheresMyBanana
4th Jun 2014, 18:20
Lesson 1 with motorcycles - everyone else is trying to kill you. Just as with aeroplanes, it's everyone else turning up at the inquiry to figure out how you died.

I was fortunate to have as my motorcycle instructor a fellow baby pilot in the RAF, so all the road lessons were reinforced in the air every day.

The motorcyclist paid with his life for his inattention. The female driver needs locking up.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
4th Jun 2014, 18:37
The motorcyclist paid with his life for his inattention. The female driver needs locking up.

I'd go along with that. The female driver did a very stupid thing that led to the deaths of the motorcyclists, and she got off scot free. The motorcyclist got the death penalty as a result of the stupid female driver's actions and his inattention.

She not only placed her car in his path where he wouldn't be expecting it, she distracted him so he didn't look where he should have been looking.

Hydromet
4th Jun 2014, 19:35
The Queensland driving code states that drivers are not to swerve/stop/slam brakes on for animals(hence why most vehicles in rural areas have bull bars).As in NSW.

reynoldsno1
4th Jun 2014, 23:46
I think it was AA Insurance in New Zealand who ran a TV advert featuring a driver running off the road to avoid a rabbit :mad:... a scenario I had difficulty in accepting as an 'accident'.

rh200
5th Jun 2014, 00:00
The Queensland driving code states that drivers are not to swerve/stop/slam brakes on for animals(hence why most vehicles in rural areas have bull bars).

Is that actually law or a recommendation? That has been an recommendation as far as I know over here as far as I can remember. The problem is most of these cases are reactionary.

Also as someone who grew up in the north there's a few animals you don't want to run into. The fact is is, if your doing 110 and in the small family sedan, and several hundred kilograms of beef runs out, the last thing you want to do is plough into it.

As for this accident, she's a muppet, no doubt about it, that said the motorcyclists where also at fault. Most driving rules require you to travel at a speed that will allow you to stop for certain predictable events. We seem to be systematically ignoring that.

A vehicle being stopped in the middle of the road is an expected event, and there are various reasons that could be so. In this case it was for a stupid reason, but that doesn't negate the fact the people coming up behind her should have been able to see the vehicle and stop, they where negligent in their driving, like most people these days.

The fact is most of us on freeways etc are negligent in our driving, that is why we get pile ups and other various multi car accidents.

ehwatezedoing
5th Jun 2014, 03:03
The Crown said in its opening statement that Czornobaj wasn't physically in her car and that the vehicle was stopped, with the engine running and without any emergency lights, in the left lane of Highway 30, south of Montreal.

She stopped her car next to a concrete wall in a left lane, left as passing lane of a highway! Walking back to clear some ducks out of the way! She should have been the one being hit first by a vehicle. Instead, she caused a big distraction.
What kind of a brainless person would do that !?

This remind me a skid braking I had to do one time.
Canadian country side road, 90km/h speed limit, a turn with a blind spot (which made me slow down before anyone jump at me)
Two cars were stop in line, right there, no warning light nothing. And two ladies standing up in between! :eek:
Filling up what I think was a statement of mutual automobile accident, completely oblivious of their surrounding.
I passed to their right (emergency stopping lane by the way) and yelled to move away before they get killed or kill somebody else.

From this time, I still have no idea why they did not pull their cars on the side (no obvious damages)
And why they choose to stand in between, waiting to be sandwiched by a third vehicle ramming the 'train'.

sms777
5th Jun 2014, 03:03
"Duck season......Rabbit season.......Duck season.......Rabbit season.......Rabbit season....BOOOOOM. You are dispecible. :)

Hydromet
5th Jun 2014, 03:22
Is that actually law or a recommendation? That has been an recommendation as far as I know over here as far as I can remember. The problem is most of these cases are reactionary. It's the law in NSW, and under the uniform traffic code, is probably so in the other states.

landy01
5th Jun 2014, 07:13
"Quote:
Is that actually law or a recommendation? That has been an recommendation as far as I know over here as far as I can remember. The problem is most of these cases are reactionary. It's the law in NSW, and under the uniform traffic code, is probably so in the other states."


As per hydromet, as I understand it it's law in Qld.


RBF-"In Canada we get quite a few fatal collisions with moose. The body hits the windshield to the great detriment of anybody in the front seat. Bull bars would have to reach over the windshield"

No moose in Qld (that I'm aware of anyway) but bull bars designed to Australian standards by reputable manufactures are designed so that when you hit the lager animals (cows/horses/camels/roos) as the bar collapses back into the vehicle it will push said beastie down and under the vehicle and prevent it coming through the windscreen, vehicle stuffed but people should be ok. As a firey I've been to 7 car vs animals, 3 without bull bars of wich, 2 fatal and one with serious injuries The other 4 had bull bars that worked and the people got out ok ( before you ask 2 horses, 2 cows and 3 roos).

onetrack
5th Jun 2014, 10:51
So .. what would the result have been, if there had been a horrendous smash and there were cars stopped across the freeway/motorway - and the ducks were human bodies catapulted from the vehicles??

I was taught from day one you never travel that fast, you cannot stop in the distance you can see ahead. Alertness is what it's all about.

I've done a couple of million kms of driving and encountered some amazing stuff on the road - and I've avoided virtually all of it - apart from those few animals that darted out without warning, from thick vegetation, and which I couldn't possibly avoid.

'Tis true, she should not have stopped for ducks on a freeway.
However, anyone who has driven on Egyptian highways knows that Egyptians stop their cars in the middle of the freeway, to have arguments, or to investigate something by the side of the freeway.
That makes for interesting driving, and a vastly increased state of alertness!

SawMan
5th Jun 2014, 11:27
Two wrongs don't add up to a right, but the courts are right to prosecute anyway- one does not create a road hazard unnecessarily. 1- The ducks were a hazard, but she made a bigger one from it. 2- The riders should have been able to avoid the wreck but weren't paying attention to that detail. 3- We don't want this to happen again.

Just learned that here in SC USA they're about to pass a law forbidding texting while driving. I also just met a guy who was ticketed for pulling well off the highway onto a hard shoulder to take a phone call more safely. We're headed for disaster in a court backlog here!

When I learned to ride a motorcycle, the old timers all told me that there were two kinds of car drivers- those that don't see you and those that don't care. My own experiences proved them right :(

Ancient Observer
5th Jun 2014, 11:40
She had to be prosecuted.
She was quackers.

The Nip
5th Jun 2014, 11:56
I passed my driving test in Germany and my bike test in Cyprus.

I believe that as in Germany, there are no 'accidents' just someone's fault and they should be held responsible. No grey area, you know the rules.

Driver was wrong. Bikers we're careless. No winners here.

ehwatezedoing
5th Jun 2014, 13:25
Onetrack, This not Egypt but the more "relaxed" Canada.
Even if you should, you know you just don't expect this sort of things here.

The Nip: Driver was wrong, no doudt. To call the biker careless? That's a statement!
Biker was totally distracted by someone walking in a place where nobody should be!
Unfortunately, this someone was a driver who had left his car standing still with no warning in a left lane.

Here is a pic of the accident scene, good "perspective" of where she was wandering....

http://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.1850852!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_960/image.jpg

In between a concret wall and a hwy's left lane. Where the [email protected] she wanted to hush those ducks! :*
Darwin awards took the wrong people this day.


Some were wondering what the biker was doing in the left lane at an alledged 85 to 91km/h in an area of low traffic?
Probably a giving way anticipation to people merging from an entry.

rotornut
20th Jun 2014, 21:47
After 4 days of deliberation the jury found her guilty. Rightly so, in my opinion.

airship
20th Jun 2014, 22:02
I've often braked suddenly (if relatively gently) doing 100-120kph on the motorway here to "avoid" butterflies and less frequently birds. No accidents so far, but if one day you're following too close behind me... so sue me (and prove I did something wrong - ie. what butterfly / bird?).

I once also stopped quite rapidly and completely on a 70kph limited "rapidway" road because there was a pheasant prancing about in the middle of the road. Honestly, it looked like a real wild pheasant (not common in these here parts), pardner and I've never tasted roadkill (nor wanted to)...

Of course, I understand the view-points of all those who consider their vehicles a mere physical extension of their dicks...?! :ok:

10Watt
20th Jun 2014, 22:03
Some years ago l hired a car in Malta, right hand drive.

"so we drive on the left ?"

You drive in the shade Sir.

pigboat
20th Jun 2014, 22:20
To call the biker careless? That's a statement!
Biker was totally distracted by someone walking in a place where nobody should be!
The biker was still doing 105 km/hr when he ran into the back the car. This was after leaving 30 feet of rubber trying to get stopped. I presume the 30 is a divided highway so the minimum speed is 80 and the max 100 km/hr. The woman is guilty as hell of stupidity and negligence, but the biker is also partly the author of his own demise.

airship
20th Jun 2014, 22:36
...the minimum speed is 80. This must be a USA invention. Here in France, to be allowed to use a motorway normally, your vehicle should be capable of sustaining a minumum speed of I believe about 60-70kph (have to check that though).

Hey, that might explain all those pile-ups? I knew it was foggy, and I'd have preferred to be doing 20mph, but I thought I was obliged to maintain the minimum speed officer?! Whaddya mean you're arresting me for not giving way to a flock of butterflies traversing the highway in limited visibility? Who do ya think I am, James Bond, capable of instantaneous responses? And who do ya think you are - Sheriff J.W. Pepper?! FFS, get real! :ok:

10Watt
20th Jun 2014, 22:39
l have never met, socially, a driving examiner.

They seem to be keeping a low profile.

A couple of weeks ago l made a mistake driving quite a large bus around

the Marsh Farm area of Luton. l overtook a learner driver and then saw

people at the next stop and had to slow. There was no suggestion of

collision but l did inconvenience the driving school car. A mistake.

My mouth fell open when the driving school car went by with the pupil

sounding the horn and both occupants leaning over towards me

giving me the finger.

Such is life these days.

Joker's Wild
21st Jun 2014, 02:04
After 4 days of deliberation the jury found her guilty. Rightly so, in my opinion.

On what charge(s), Motor Vehicle Act or otherwise, was she specifically found guilty?

pigboat
21st Jun 2014, 02:22
Here ya go.

Quebec driver who stopped for ducks guilty in fatal crash | Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/06/20/woman_who_stopped_car_for_ducks_guilty_in_fatal_crash.html)

Pravda has the best coverage of the verdict.

Dushan
21st Jun 2014, 02:36
Was she adhering to the Atkinson* doctrine while rescuing the ducks? If so the Star will give it full coverage and condemn Rob Gord for the outcome.













* Pigboat knows, the rest of you google it.

pigboat
21st Jun 2014, 03:13
Dushan the Atkinson Doctrine has given way to the William Griffin Doctrine, or better yet the Generoso Pope Jr. Doctrine. :D:D

rh200
21st Jun 2014, 04:45
I believe over here the vast majority of time you rear end some one, it is the one behind who is at fault. They are talking about putting markers on the road to try and stop tailgating.

The fact is, the bimbo did a stupid thing, but you have care to drive in such away as to be able to stop in time. There are scenarios where that doesn't apply, but frankly a car stopped on the road is obvious if driving with reasonable care, it is incompetence by the people coming up the rear.

RatherBeFlying
21st Jun 2014, 06:33
From the Montreal Gazette articles and looking at some photos:
She had stopped the car next to the barrier, but most of it (3-4') was in the lane
her flashers were on, but the sun was directly ahead
The impact seemed to be just inside the white line
At least one car and a pickup truck pulling a trailer avoided her
the dead motorcyclist began braking one second before impact
Allowing a generous full second for reaction time, the motorcyclist could not have been looking more than two seconds ahead. You -- and others on the road -- won't live very long on two wheels or four at speed if you are looking only two seconds ahead.

What looks likely to me is that the motorcyclist decided to overtake the truck-trailer combination when the truck pulled right and failed to look ahead of the truck to see if the way was clear. Once alongside the truck, he could not go right.

Why her lawyer did not put that to the jury, I do not know unless the judge prevented that argument.

Agreed she did a dumb move, but a blown tire or engine problem could have led to the exact same result. Once you're coasting in the passing lane and traffic is passing on the outside lane, you will be very lucky to find a gap to make it to the outside shoulder.

Joker's Wild
21st Jun 2014, 09:12
Here ya go.

Quebec driver who stopped for ducks guilty in fatal crash | Toronto Star

Pravda has the best coverage of the verdict.


Thanks pigboat

ehwatezedoing
21st Jun 2014, 14:46
What looks likely to me is that the motorcyclist decided to overtake the truck-trailer combination when the truck pulled right and failed to look ahead of the truck to see if the way was clear. Once alongside the truck, he could not go right.

I still think he got massively distractred by her walking in the left lane with some ducks.
Any parked car on the left lane due to some mechanical failure would not have this massive hole cheese of an accident waiting to happen like that.

And this truck trailer (blocking any biker's foward view in front of it) swerved at the last moment on the right to avoid her parked car.
That does not leave much time to overtake anything.

dubbleyew eight
21st Jun 2014, 14:53
dont laugh.
volvo recently advertised that their cars had pedestrian airbags now.

RatherBeFlying
21st Jun 2014, 17:11
I still think he got massively distracted by her walking in the left lane with some ducks.
Any parked car on the left lane due to some mechanical failure would not have this massive hole cheese of an accident waiting to happen like that.

And this truck trailer (blocking any biker's forward view in front of it) swerved at the last moment on the right to avoid her parked car.
That does not leave much time to overtake anything.It seems both the truck driver and motorcyclist took their attention off the road ahead when they saw her at the side of the road. Human factors at work in not a good way:(

Bottom line the biker was so close behind the trailer he could not see ahead to avoid in time.

When I'm following a large vehicle I can't see around, I stay farther back.

Oktas8
22nd Jun 2014, 16:28
Good for you RatherBeFlying. Wise words for all drivers.

But, the law being what it is, it focusses on one thing only. The motorcyclist is not on trial. Only the driver of the parked car is.

Was the woman criminally negligent, or criminally reckless, to stop where she did and for the reason she did (not for a blown tyre)?

On the facts reported, I say yes. So, apparently, did the jury.

It's possible for RatherBeFlying and the jury to be simultaneously correct. Complicated world that we live in!

fitliker
22nd Jun 2014, 17:57
Any news on what happened to the ducks ?

Wholigan
22nd Jun 2014, 21:20
Dear Mr Dushan sir, please make your picture smaller and then re-post.

Ta.

radeng
22nd Jun 2014, 21:27
One wonders what the situation would have been had she not stopped, had a duck hit and/or come through the windscreen, which was a possible scenario? And other ducks ended up doing something similar to other vehicles?

You don't doubt it could come through the windscreen? Back in 1961, when the BR DMUs had replaced the majority of steam hauled local trains, at 65mph, the DMU I was travelling in behind the driver's compartment hit a pheasant with the drivers windscreen, just after passing Chequer House signal box between Retford and Worksop. It came through.......fortunately without hitting the driver, but we did do an emergency stop! DMUs had reinforced glass windscreens......

But she should have pulled over, but the other road users deserved a warning of the possible dangers.

Dushan
22nd Jun 2014, 21:43
Many years ago, on a rural road, doing about 85 km/h a dog crossed the road. My survival instinct kicked in and I consciously avoided braking, killing the dog. Stooped the car to survey the damage and only the license plate holder was broken.

To this day my wife accuses me of being a "dog killer". I ask her if she would have preferred that I panic braked, rolling the car with her in the front seat and two kids in the back.

RatherBeFlying
23rd Jun 2014, 01:52
Is it criminal negligence when you stop with your vehicle partially in the driving lane for :
ducklings - yes
cat
skunk
small dog
porcupine
goose
large dog
sheep
pig
deer
cow
bear
horse
elk
moose
I have attempted to order this list by weight. As weight increases the damage and human injury / fatality potential increases. While little mechanical damage may be incurred hitting a skunk, it will be expensive:uhoh:

I do my best to avoid animals subject to traffic conditions and vehicle maneuverability. With a glider trailer behind, there will be no energetic steering.

Some day the practice may come in handy if the animal is a small human.

Dushan
23rd Jun 2014, 02:01
If you hit some of these (moose) you are not going anywhere, ever...

onetrack
23rd Jun 2014, 03:06
And if you hit a moose and your car stops dead in the middle of the freeway, and someone runs into your vehicle and kills themselves - that then makes you criminally negligent for stopping on a freeway??
I'm glad I don't have to put up with Canadian law.

I was always taught to drive to the conditions, to allow enough room for braking - and to watch out for stopped vehicles on a freeway.
Here in West Oz, our main North-South freeway is 100kmh speed limit - but due to congestion and freeway accidents, you nearly always find, at some point in your trip, all the traffic is stopped dead, and going nowhere.
If you run into the rear of a vehicle here in West Oz, whether stopped or moving, you are at fault.

We're even that duck-friendly here in Oz, we even have "ducks crossing" signs! :)

rh200
23rd Jun 2014, 03:31
We're even that duck-friendly here in Oz, we even have "ducks crossing" signs!

yep and tortoise crossing and ..... crossing.

What really peeves me is the psychological message your sending. yes it was stupid, two was it the root cause, no. We have stated before we have a systematic issue with drivers not using basic driving practices.

What this says is if your a moron who can't drive correctly and to a basic standard and get killed because someone else makes a simple mistake, there the ones who are at fault. This is not a good message.


One of the things happening over here is hoon behavior getting out of control, The present fad is cars loosing control and going though fences and houses. Oh but they where very apologetic, poor things as they where help from the car. No instead what should happen is they are dragged from the car and beaten senseless.

Behavior in society and its control is a major issue, sending the wrong message doesn't solve the problem.

Dushan
23rd Jun 2014, 03:41
The correct message was sent. Human life is more valuable than duck's life. She
acted criminally because she made a conscious decision to stop in a dangerous place for a very stupid reason. Her concern was that the ducks don't get killed while she completely ignored he fact that humans could be in jeopardy. She will now pay for her stupidity.

fitliker
23rd Jun 2014, 03:47
www.road-kill-cafe.com
You kill it ,they grill it .

ehwatezedoing
23rd Jun 2014, 05:21
onetrack:

I still think he got massively distracted by her walking in the left lane with some ducks.
Any parked car on the left lane due to some mechanical failure would not have this massive hole cheese of an accident waiting to happen like that.

Change mechanical failure to:
Some moose though a wind-shield.

:p

anotherthing
23rd Jun 2014, 05:43
OnetrackIf you run into the rear of a vehicle here in West Oz, whether stopped or moving, you are at fault.

It is generally the same here in the UK, though the increase in number of scam artists who deliberately try to get you to run into them t make a claim has meant dashboard cams seem to be on the up...

I was involved in a 5 way shunt on the motorway; the car in front of me smacked into the car ahead of him which had stopped suddenly for a legitimate reason. I managed to stop about a foot from the car ahead; looked in my rear view mirror and saw the car behind slow down and look like it would stop easily. Unfortunately the car behind him hit hiim with sufficient force to make him hit me.

Although pushed forward I was still six inches from the car ahead and I took photos at the time to prove it.

No police involvement after the paramedics had arrived, and the woman at the back copped for the whole accident, even the two cars in front f me even though in essence it was two seperate accidents.

Just lazy insurance companies who automatically blame the rearmost driver

John Hill
23rd Jun 2014, 05:57
I ask her if she would have preferred that I panic braked, rolling the car with her in the front seat and two kids in the back.

We have rules in our country that ensure drivers have the skills and cars are maintained to a standard that allows full braking without loss of control.

rh200
23rd Jun 2014, 06:40
We have rules in our country that ensure drivers have the skills

Yes John and what fantasy Utopia do you live in, Oh thats it, New Zealand where every driver is a Peter Brock.

vulcanised
23rd Jun 2014, 11:45
Without having studied all the detail in depth, I suspect I would have done what the woman did, possibly in a different manner.

Dushan
23rd Jun 2014, 12:59
We have rules in our country that ensure drivers have the skills and cars are maintained to a standard that allows full braking without loss of control.

So do we.

To qualify, it was a brand new Audi with ABS and I was actively involved in rallying at the time and had about 20 years of regular driving experience. The odds of ending up in the ditch were very slim, yet I still think higher than if I panic braked.

The point of the statement is that when you see a small animal on the road it becomes road kill instead of making the passengers minced meat.

John Hill
23rd Jun 2014, 20:24
World famous rally driver panics when braking!:sad:

BTW, when we see a small animal on the road we make every effort, even change direction if necessary, whenever the small animal is a possum.

10Watt
23rd Jun 2014, 21:45
After very careful consideration l think l will cry.

Dushan, you must know that you are talking to a tumble dryer.

Who that may be escapes me. Of course.

Chin up, tits out, employed better elsewhere.

Dushan
23rd Jun 2014, 22:26
Yep, I think I'll laugh. After all I don't want to feud with anyone.

rh200
24th Jun 2014, 00:16
BTW, when we see a small animal on the road we make every effort, even change direction if necessary, whenever the small animal is a possum.

The general rule as sprouted by most driving authorities here is, you don't swerve to miss wildlife. This is the cause of a significant amount of accidents, regardless of your skill level and the state of your vehicle.

Its all well and good sprouting training, but human nature is what it is, we don't drive along primed for instant action.

John Hill
24th Jun 2014, 00:18
Oh, we dont swerve to miss possums, we swerve where necessary to squish them.

chuks
24th Jun 2014, 06:34
I just did an ADAC (German automobile club, sort of like the RAC or AAA) "Intensiv" training course on Sunday, with our daughter and our son.

The expert advice given was to squash whatever is out in the road, unless it's big enough to be dangerous: cow, horse, moose ... that sort of animal, or a human being, of course. (The moose is very dangerous because of its long legs, its massive body and, allegedly, its insane devotion to Kim Jong Un.)

We were practicing heavy braking combined with rapid swerving, which was pretty interesting. The instructor used columns of water shooting up out of the track for obstacles, so that if you failed to avoid the obstacle, your car just got a free wash.

The risk of going off the road doing an avoidance maneuver is too high compared to killing a family of ducks, say. A lot of German roads are lined with trees, big old oaks, and, every week, we can read of people having heavy crashes trying to avoid animals. There's a sort of small deer, called the roe deer in English, I believe, that's a real bother here in Germany because it's not big enough to be dangerous to a motorist but big enough to total a car. They get out in the road to stand there fixated by the headlights, and then people spot them too late, try to dodge them and end up smacking one of these big trees, or even colliding with on-coming traffic. Hitting one on a motorcycle, of course, can injure or kill you.

I was faced with this very situation once on the Autobahn in heavy traffic, when I saw a mother duck with her ducklings trying to cross three lanes of heavy, fast traffic. I saw them soon enough to stop, even starting to brake, but then I looked in the mirror, at the guy right on my tail at about 100 mph, and just kept going. I don't think the ducks made it, actually.

John, do a lot of these training courses yourself, do you? And I suppose you drive something that brakes and handles better than a crappy old ute, yes?

How many sheep can you fit in the back of the new BMW 330D Touring, anyway?

rh200
24th Jun 2014, 11:07
How many sheep can you fit in the back of the new BMW 330D Touring, anyway?
In Kiwi land they sit in the front, actually on the laps preferred:E

John Hill
24th Jun 2014, 20:14
Aussie on a hot date..

http://www.seabreeze.com.au/Img/Photos/Stand_Up_Paddle/3145995.jpg

N.B. Note the red earth, Akubra and merino. No doubt about it that picture is from the West Island, also known as NZ's penal colony.

SARF
24th Jun 2014, 20:44
If your on a motorbike you have to assume no one can see you.. Rear ending anything is your own fault.. Oh you could technically be correct, but that aint worth much if your leg is 200 yards behind you

chuks
25th Jun 2014, 06:41
Here in Germany drivers have easy access to training meant to maintain or enhance their driving skills, assuming that they can afford the cost. I was intrigued to be told that in New Zealand there are "rules" that "ensure" that drivers are skilled, and also that vehicles can do "full braking" without losing control.

How does that work, then, avoiding the normal degradation of skills by imposing rules? I have always thought that recurrent training is the only sure way to keep the skills up, but those clever Kiwis seem to have found another way. Is there recurrent skills testing, perhaps? And nailing the brakes in a curve on a slimy stretch of road ... that, too, is against the rules?

Are there a lot of these rules? Is it, for instance, forbidden to put a sheep in the front seat unless it's wearing its seat belt? What Aussies get up to, well, yes, of course! Goes without saying really, that the "No worries, Mate!" mindset rules in Oz ... but it's the Kiwis we want to know more about.

You learn something every day. I always had this simple image of a tiny, backward land populated by bucolic rustics, exiles from Mother England driving rusty, battered utes crammed with a bleating cargo of sheep, but then I am a Yank. Must their utes, perhaps, all have stickers on the back reading, "Warning! I stop for sheep!" Is that one of the rules referred to, an example of rule-based, forward thinking?

airship
25th Jun 2014, 16:57
John Hill / rh200 et al,

Would a OZ or NZ lamb/sheep worry very much about who was f***ing them in their countries of origin? Or be more concerned at finding itself on a ship destined for the middle-east, perhaps not in the best of conditions (no individual cabins with air-conditioning, satellite TV, etc.) and at the mercy of those at destination?! :ugh:

Dushan
25th Jun 2014, 20:42
I always had this simple image of a tiny, backward land populated by bucolic rustics, exiles from Mother England driving rusty, battered utes crammed with a bleating cargo of sheep, but then I am a Yank.

Is this who you meant, chuks?


http://images.pitchero.com/ui/154009/1317680921_0.jpg

Checkboard
25th Jun 2014, 21:07
And if you hit a moose and your car stops dead in the middle of the freeway, and someone runs into your vehicle and kills themselves - that then makes you criminally negligent for stopping on a freeway??

If you are hit by a bolt of lightning in a storm, it's one thing - but if someone jams two household power supply wires onto each of your ears it's another.

... so yes - we do differentiate between deaths & injury caused by people and those caused by nature, even if the mechanism is the same. One we accept we can do nothing about, and one we can.

In this case in almost every jurisdiction, Freeways (Motorways in the UK, Autobahn in Germany etc etc) are provided with several safety features (15-foot lane width, physically separated opposite traffic, crossing traffic on over/underpasses, laws preventing slow vehicles like farm traffic & scooters and laws against stopping a vehicle).

A voluntary stop on a Freeway/motorway etc is against the law for a very good reason - to prevent accidents like the one which occurred here.

chuks
26th Jun 2014, 05:57
Here in Germany, according to our ADAC trainer, hitting wildlife with your vehicle is covered by insurance. Storks, foxes, deer, kiwis, moose ... all are included. Livestock as well: cows, horses, sheep, goats ... but not domestic animals such as dogs and cats: house pets.

I wanted to ask him, "So what about a guy I think I know who owns some pet sheep?" but my daughter kept kicking me. Kids today!

Dushan
27th Jun 2014, 00:47
Chuks, are there a lot of kiwis on German highways?

rh200
27th Jun 2014, 04:24
Aussie on a hot date..

Sorry John, there's that many Kiwi's over here, there's only two ways to determine who is, and who isn't one, the picture is one way:E.

@airship

Would a OZ or NZ lamb/sheep worry very much about who was f***ing them in their countries of origin?

Oh you mean providing seasoning for the end user, no wonder the middle east finds our sheep tasty.:E

Or be more concerned at finding itself on a ship destined for the middle-east, perhaps not in the best of conditions (no individual cabins with air-conditioning, satellite TV, etc.) and at the mercy of those at destination?!

I suppose if said sheep understood what was going to happen to it, they might be a bit more friendly in the hope they might get kept.:p

John Hill
27th Jun 2014, 04:43
NZ has not exported live sheep for slaughter for more than ten years or so. Australia still exports live sheep..

More than 4000 sheep, including animals from WA, have died from heat exhaustion after 21 days on board a live export ship bound for Qatar from Fremantle.

Read more: More than 4000 sheep perish on live export ship (http://www.watoday.com.au/environment/animals/more-than-4000-sheep-perish-on-live-export-ship-20140116-30wf2.html#ixzz35oMsY5qK)

airship
27th Jun 2014, 17:23
John Hill wrote: NZ has not exported live sheep for slaughter for more than ten years or so. Australia still exports live sheep... Thanks for that clarifying the current situation JH.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I have enough difficulties in coming to terms with "farming" animals generally anyway (I'm a confirmed meat-eater). I don't like the general concept but acknowledge that there is no other easy solution for us billions who inhabit the planet. But like President Obama, I would like to draw "a firm line in the sand". A country producing fresh meat for the consumption of their own population is one thing. Exporting frozen meat to other markets (the animals having been "properly raised and despatched" under our control is another. But exporting live animals for eventual consumption by third countries where all our own installed norms are neither respected or controlled is a whole other ball-game...?!

I don't understand why the oil-rich Gulf states and Saudi Arabia import these "infidel" sheep. Surely they can raise their own sheep for local consumption. Using their cheap oil and gas to produce cheap fresh water using RO desallination plants, and converting huge swathes of desert to green pastures (for the sheep)? Or perhaps their fragile economies and governments, entirely-reliant on a minimum 5 times the numbers of indigenous citizens compared to the numbers of foreign workers is the key...?! And imagine all those unemployed Arabs, unfit for normal jobs, who instead might be put back to good use in their economies as shepherds (this is not said intending any insult BTW but as a way of "re-connecting" some Arabs with their past culture and origins).

What does the average Qatari or other middle-eastern sheikh /prince "pray for" before going to sleep every night? I doubt that sheep feature very often...?! Baaaaaaaahhhhh! :sad:

magpienja
27th Jun 2014, 18:34
Thee thing that caused 2 deaths was unfortunately not being able to stop in time,

Sad but you always have to be prepared for the unexpected....

G-CPTN
27th Jun 2014, 19:51
A fair while ago, I came upon a motorcycle wedged between a car and trailer caravan.
It was a long dead-straight and level two-way road.

At the point of impact, the caravan was turning into the entrance to a farm (where caravans were stored), and the motorcyclist had attempted to get through the gap between the car and caravan.

The rider was still in situ on the bike, and when I arrived he was unconscious.
It was some time before the people who came out from the farm discovered the pillion passenger some distance away in the ditch (probably as far as 80 feet).
As the rider regained semi-consciousness he tried to get off the bike and I had to tell him to stay on (neither police nor ambulance had arrived).

I heard afterwards (from the police - I gave my details and was visited at home for a witness statement) that the rider didn't make it though the pillion passenger did - just . . .

It was obvious that the motorcycle had been travelling at considerable speed and, probably didn't have time to react to the car and caravan turning across his path.

I doubt that the car driver saw the motorcycle until it struck the towbar.