Oh, I thought he was driving a Prius or something.
Woman faces life sentence for traffic deaths.
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Certainly the cyclist's speed is relevant. If the rider had been going 15-20 mph slower, the legal speed limit, he very well may have stopped before hitting the car. In any event, the impact would have been extremely lessened possibly resulting in only injury and not death. It certainly is not totally her fault. The cyclist riding 20% or so above the legal speed limit has definitely responsibility and fault as well.
Buzzzzzzzzzzzzz, sorry, wrong, answer!
This situation was caused 100% by stopping in a traffic lane.
End of story.
Yes, the situation was caused by the twit, the speeding and likely following too close was still the fault of the cyclist. They were contributing factors.
Yes, the twit caused it, the rest were contributing factors.
Ding Ding Ding Ding, correct answer. The woman stopping in a traffic lane is a causative factor but not the only factor. Speeding ~20% above the legal limit was a significant causative factor as well. Stopping distance from 75-80mph is almost double the distance required at 60mph. The cyclist was significantly at fault in his own right.
Agree, there is some fault with the cyclist due to the speed he was traveling. It would be considered reckless,especially being on a motorcycle where there is much less protection. I see it on freeways quite often, motorcyclists flying at warp speed. It only takes another vehicle driver to do something stupid and they won't have much time to react.
One must stop for another car and a human baby is FAR different than ducks.
Again, what the woman did by stopping her car on the highway was not smart, but how does a driver not see a vehicle stopped on the roadway? Your first action when there is a road hazard up ahead, should be to slow down and put your hazard lights on. In the OP article there is a link of the accident. The wife of the cyclist was traveling behind her husband at a LOWER SPEED and was able to avoid the collision.
Yep, no reason to rear end someone in a fog or a white out condition or even a parked car on the freeway.The driver has to slow down for the conditions and be able to stop from hitting the vehicle in front of them.
No brake lights, no emergency flashers, easy to not assume the vehicle is stopped. Happens all the time. Especially with all of the distractions of a busy highway, which is where she stopped. People have been stopped on the shoulder with no flashers, brake lights illuminated or triangles out and have been rear ended because people thought the vehicle was in a moving lane. Happens even more at night, when drivers see lights ahead and think that they belong to a car traveling in the right lane, only to find out too late that the lights are on a disabled vehicle on the shoulder. That's why it's illegal to stop your car in a travel lane, because people will think you're traveling in a travel lane.
Twelve percent of all Interstate highway deaths are pedestrians on the shoulder. They're not even on the road, yet they get run over by a motor vehicle.
In any event, she was found guilty, unanimously, by 12 of per peers, of two counts of "criminal negligence causing a death," and two counts of "dangerous driving causing death."
More than likely she'll end up being sentenced to probation and not spend any time in jail. If there was intent she'd do serious time, but usually when someone is just stupid they get a break.
That's a straw man logical fallacy. If her car had just quit, then it would have been totally his fault (he's not blameless in this). But that's not what happened. She stopped her car intentionally, causing a traffic hazard. You can come up with all kinds of alternate scenarios, like a stopped car in front of her car, a deer in the road, a sofa laying in the middle of the lane, a break dancing baby in the road, but those are all different cases with different circumstances. The only facts and circumstances that matter in this case are the ones in this case.
What is the law where this happened? Some laws state it is illegal to intentionaly hit an animal. Maybe the person at fault is the one that failed to recognize the fact they needed to put up duck crossing signs to alert drivers that cars may be slowing down or stopping in that stretch of road.
If there is water, there can be waterfowl. When there is waterfowl, or any wildlife, there will be interaction with them.
As far as I know laws that prohibit deliberate hitting, or running over, of wildlife, are not aimed at unintentional interactions. but at deliberated attempts to kill wildlife with a vehicle.
As far as I know laws that prohibit deliberate hitting, or running over, of wildlife, are not aimed at unintentional interactions. but at deliberated attempts to kill wildlife with a vehicle.
The ducks weren't in the road, they were over on the side of the road, in the grassy median (on hwy 30, just south of Montreal on the South Shore). She stopped her car, in the fast lane, to herd the ducks up and take them home. The law where it happened is no stopping in a lane of traffic unless it is an emergency, and no dangerous driving which could cause an accident.