# Don't Stop For Animals on The Highway



## dogcom

For sure the woman should not have stopped on the highway but criminal negligence doesn't seem to fit what she had done. 

To me this was a tragedy that 2 people had died because she had stopped to save some young ducks but wasn't a criminal act, but maybe I am wrong here.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/jury-convicts-quebec-woman-stopped-ducks-guilty-death-145538320.html


----------



## Nemo2

If her car had broken down, fallen into a sinkhole, whatever, and someone had've run into her, she'd've been charged? I have always been under the impression that if you run into someone the onus is on you.


----------



## Just a Guy

As I recall from my long ago driving instruction, the law was pretty clear...if there was an animal on the road, you were not allowed to sweve, stop or even slow...you were supposed to hit it or any resulting accident would be deemed your fault. When it was a choice between animal and human, animal lost.

Of course, if you could avoid the animal without causing an accident, that was allowed...but otherwise, I was told, the law was clear.


----------



## Islenska

This is just a tragedy for all involved. You always have to be aware of conditions in front and be prepared to avoid or stop.

Following too close behind?


----------



## Nemo2

Just a Guy said:


> As I recall from my long ago driving instruction, the law was pretty clear...if there was an animal on the road, you were not allowed to sweve, stop or even slow...you were supposed to hit it or any resulting accident would be deemed your fault. When it was a choice between animal and human, animal lost.


I've driven on roads where there were elephants.......not so many in Canada, but running into 1,000 lbs of moose because you weren't supposed to stop or slow would likely write off both the vehicle and the driver.


----------



## Just a Guy

I expect driving laws vary depending on the country you live in...otherwise tourists would have real problems in England...I expect you should brush up on country specific rules before driving in them.

And, usually it's better to speed up when hitting a moose, they tend to be top heavy and will spin overtop of a car... That being said, I've seen a moose kill a semi.


----------



## Daniel A.

My understanding is that she stopped and parked in the lane no four way flashers on.

Imagine cresting a hill or coming around a curve to be faced with that.
Even when cars or trucks break down cones should be set up to warn far enough back to allow someone time to stop.

If she is parked in one lane and moving ducks in the other where is that guy to go.


----------



## uptoolate

Stopped car in middle of a highway (90 Km/h limit), in travel lanes, left driver's side door open (just in case someone was able to swerve in time to miss the back of the vehicle?). Clearly this is reckless. Tragedy for all involved.


----------



## m3s

As a motorcyclist I always try to be ready to stop for anything. I've been lucky to avoid countless accidents that would't have been my fault.

A car parked on the highway is not something you expect.. If the brake lights weren't on it might be easy to think it's still moving while closing at 130kmh..


----------



## bgc_fan

To clear things up: she was on the left lane of the highway, had the four way flashers on, and was out of the car when it happened, i.e. it's not like she suddenly stopped.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...rges+duck+linked+collision/9958641/story.html



> On June 27, 2010, Czornobaj stopped her car in the left-hand lane of Highway 30 in Candiac, exited the Honda Civic and tried to rescue a group of about seven ducklings. Within seconds, a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, driven by André Roy, 50, with his 16-year-old daughter Jessie on the back, slammed into the back of Czornobaj’s vehicle. Both died as a result of the collision.


http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/quebec-woman-who-stopped-for-ducks-guilty-in-2-deaths/



> Czornobaj testified that she turned on her hazard lights and put on the parking brake.


Not too mention the fact that the motorcyclist was speeding, as the speed limit was 90 km/h.



> A provincial police officer testified at the trial that Roy, whose speed was estimated to be from 113 km/h to 129 km/h when he applied his brakes, collided with Czornobaj’s car at between 105 km/h and 121 km/h.


Other articles mentionned that another car swerved to avoid her car, but the motorcyclist didn't see her car in time. The reason I read somewhere was that it was following a truck and had his vision obscured. Of course, to me, that would indicate that he was following way too closely to the truck to react to any issues on the road.


----------



## carverman

dogcom said:


> For sure the woman should not have stopped on the highway but criminal negligence doesn't seem to fit what she had done.
> 
> To me this was a tragedy that 2 people had died because she had stopped to save some young ducks but wasn't a criminal act, but maybe I am wrong here.
> 
> https://ca.news.yahoo.com/jury-convicts-quebec-woman-stopped-ducks-guilty-death-145538320.html


As a former biker I followed up on this one, because I know that drivers do stupid things on the highway..like staring at a motorcycle coming at them, then pulling out of the driveway
at the last second requiring emergency action on the rider's part to survive. Been there, done that.

I took a motorcycle survival course and on that course we had theory and practice to avoid being severely injured or killed. It definitely saved me in a couple cases.
The Acronym is *SIPDE* 
*S* = *Scan the road at least 10 seconds ahead based on your speed * Don't get distracted looking at objects that are not a threat..ie: bikini sunbather etc. 
*I *= Identify any and all threats to your safety
*P*= Predict what the threat may do (difficult, but at least you are thinking about it as you are coming up to it
*D*= Decided on a evasive manuoever as you approach the threat 3 seconds before you reach it, ie: cover your brakes for a full stop or swerve around if possible
*E*=Execute what you have decided when you are within a second or two and the threat is NOW REAL 

If you have enough time to execute your evasive maneouver safely, you should be ok..sometimes it is necessary to do a "stoppie" or lay it down and slide. If you aren't prepared
ahead of time, and grab a fistful of brake, the bike will "highside" you and you will be thrown off or slide down the road with lots of skin scrapped off

We don't know what the motorcycle rider was doing at the time or if he was paying attention/driving too fast to stop in time.

As far as the car driver's bad judgement..stop for a mother duck and her brood crossing the highway..people do make these decisions at a split second without thinking of the
consequences...as rear ender. i've had drivers jam on the brakes in front of me for no reason..no animal crossing the road..they were just brain dead and not concentrating on
their driving. 

The highway traffic act (at least in Ontario) says that you must keep your vehicle under control at all times on the public highways. Drivers can brake for moose, deer, or other
critters crossing the road...so this can happen and does happen, 
I think in this case the fault is with the motorcycle rider who should have perceived her vehicle as a threat when she applied the brakes (brakelights) and taken evasive action.

If he was following too close and going too fast.(NO reaction time + travelling time to stop safely) .and this happened,,well we know what happened..a rear ender and on a motorcycle, when that happens you are toast
because you go flying off and slamming into the vehicle infront or down the road into a solid object,


----------



## carverman

Nemo2 said:


> If her car had broken down, fallen into a sinkhole, whatever, and someone had've run into her, she'd've been charged? I have always been under the impression that if you run into someone the onus is on you.


Yes with a rear ender the driver that rear ends you IS at fault. Highway traffic acts states that you MUST have your vehicle under control at ALl times while on the highway/streets.


----------



## carverman

Islenska said:


> This is just a tragedy for all involved. You always have to be aware of conditions in front and be prepared to avoid or stop.
> 
> Following too close behind?


Yes. He did not allow enough time at speed to stop safely (read my other post)


----------



## cainvest

Hard to comment when the only evidence is bits and pieces of info from the media but if that person stopped on an open highway lane to help ducks they should be, at the very least, not be able to drive anymore.

As far as the motorcyclist goes, yup ... messed up and at fault as well IMO. What if it was an accident ahead blocking the lane instead of a stupidly stopped car, motorcyclist was riding beyond their limits.



carverman said:


> If you have enough time to execute your evasive maneouver safely, you should be ok..sometimes it is necessary to do a "stoppie" or lay it down and slide. If you aren't prepared
> ahead of time, and grab a fistful of brake, the bike will "highside" you and you will be thrown off or slide down the road with lots of skin scrapped off


Seriously ... stoppie or lay it down? With the average skill of a motorcyclist on the road today it's just likely they'll skid out one or both tires and slam to the ground. Also, maybe 1 out of a 1,000,000 times "laying it down" is an option but you might as well consider this never. Motorcyclists you just have to be alert of what's around them, practice to improve your riding skills and ride within your limits ... ya, it's that simple.


----------



## steve41

I haven't been following this, but it would be nice to know that the ducklings made it safely.


----------



## carverman

cainvest said:


> Hard to comment when the only evidence is bits and pieces of info from the media but if that person stopped on an open highway lane to help ducks they should be, at the very least, not be able to drive anymore.
> 
> As far as the motorcyclist goes, yup ... messed up and at fault as well IMO. What if it was an accident ahead blocking the lane instead of a stupidly stopped car, motorcyclist was riding beyond their limits.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously ... stoppie or lay it down? With the average skill of a motorcyclist on the road today it's just likely they'll skid out one or both tires and slam to the ground. Also, maybe 1 out of a 1,000,000 times "*laying it down" is an option but you might as well consider this never. *Motorcyclists you just have to be alert of what's around them, practice to improve your riding skills and ride within your limits ... ya, it's that simple.


I don't agree. I had to lay down a bike because of a problem (won't go into the details now) AT SPEED and bailed off the bike. It went on it's side and slide down an embankment into the ditch.
Bit of broken plastic on the left side fairing but the bike survived and so did I because I BAILED OFF the bike at the instance of laying it down. Scratched up full face helmet and my leather
boots but no broken bones or cuts . IT CAN BE DONE. If you grab the front brake, you lose steering control and the bike will go down...and depending on what is happening with the
rear brake, the back end of the bike can come whipping around and that is as highside..you get thrown off the bike!


----------



## tygrus

If you own a motorcycle, you WILL have a scary close call or serious injury accident sometime in your life. Its that simple. Two wheels and too much power and no protection.

That doesn't excuse the women who stopped her car, but traveling with protection around me like a metal roll structure, air bags, and traction control far outweighs the need to have my hair in the wind. 

40-50,000 people die in vehicle accidents every year and we just accept that. What if that many people died testing out new life saving drugs for us all? Nope, doesn't happen. Only a matter of time before tech takes over and make our roads safer. Likely that means the motorcycle will either be banned or be so expensive to insure that people won't.


----------



## kcowan

Truly a tragedy. I can't argue against the verdict but I feel sorry for the woman. I have a suspicion that the bike rider would also have been charged if he had survived (speeding, inadequate care and caution).


----------



## OurBigFatWallet

I came across this exact situation yesterday. A woman had stopped (on the road) to rescue some baby ducklings. They were on the side of the road, their mother had tried crossing the street but had been killed by an oncoming vehicle. There were about 6 of the little ones and they looked scared. Luckily no one was hurt. The woman scooped them up and (I assume) took them away to safety. Traffic in that area was pretty bad so luckily there wasn't the opportunity for a high speed collision since all vehicles were going slowly


----------



## cainvest

carverman said:


> I don't agree. I had to lay down a bike because of a problem (won't go into the details now) AT SPEED and bailed off the bike. It went on it's side and slide down an embankment into the ditch.
> Bit of broken plastic on the left side fairing but the bike survived and so did I because I BAILED OFF the bike at the instance of laying it down. Scratched up full face helmet and my leather
> boots but no broken bones or cuts . IT CAN BE DONE. If you grab the front brake, you lose steering control and the bike will go down...and depending on what is happening with the
> rear brake, the back end of the bike can come whipping around and that is as highside..you get thrown off the bike!


Hey, maybe your "lay it down" was the 1 in a 1,000,000. 
The main problem with the "lay it down" idea is you are commited and without control from that point forward which is a bad thing. If you're already (or going) into a ditch, jump off if you like ... personally I'd try to ride it out. 

And no, using the front brake does NOT make you lose steering control unless you lock up the tire which is totally rider error.


----------



## cainvest

carverman said:


> What did I say? you are saying the same thing. I rode motorcycles for several years and yes, I know how to apply the brakes on a motorcycle effectively, and yes locking up the front wheel will cause loss
> of steering...sheesh!!!!





carverman said:


> If you grab the front brake, you lose steering control


Didn't read that as "lock up the front tire".

Most riders on the road think they have good control of their bikes but in reality, a fair number do not. Most often it's the new riders, after doing a safety course, that are at the greatest risk as they think they're prepared. I've spent a number of hours teaching some of those riders, some learn while others just can't get it. I do wish there was a higher level of mandatory training required to get a bike licence as it seems many don't take it onto themselves to keep learning.


----------



## carverman

cainvest said:


> Didn't read that as "lock up the front tire".
> 
> Most riders on the road think they have good control of their bikes but in reality, a fair number do not. Most often it's the new riders, after doing a safety course, that are at the greatest risk as they think they're prepared. I've spent a number of hours teaching some of those riders, some learn while others just can't get it. I do wish there was a higher level of mandatory training required to get a bike licence as it seems many don't take it onto themselves to keep learning.


Are you teaching MSF?

I realize that grabbing the front brake in a panic will cause you to lose your steering..and that is generally what most riders will do if the reaction time is less than 1 second. 
Most bikes have dual disks on the' front which does most of the braking. The rear disk can be used effectively, but it might take longer to stop. 
It's a tough call when dealing with split second reaction times. If you can't swerve and have to rely on the brakes..its the luck of the draw. Not sure how many years of riding experience on the motorcycle he had, but chances are he didn't see the car (due to the setting sun) until it was too late to stop safely. 



> It was a nice, relaxed Sunday and 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.
> 
> The tragedy occurred suddenly.
> 
> 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.
> 
> "I wondered what she was doing there, it was not the place to be," Volikakis said.
> 
> 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.
> 
> They were later declared dead in hospital.





> 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," Tessier said. "I shouted to my daughter to call 911 with my cellphone."
Click to expand...

Now about those ducks...even if they survived by crossing the road blocked by her car, in the fall ...chances are... most would not survive anyway ....due to duck hunters.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

Four Pillars said:


> But there are legitimate reasons why a car might be parked on the road. Mechanical issue, medical issue, accident etc.


Yes, but those are unavoidable reasons for stopping, and even then you are expected to take reasonable precautions (within your powers) to identify the obstruction to following traffic. But in this case the accused stopped voluntarily for reasons that were deemed far less important than the hazard her stopping presented to public safety. That's why it becomes criminal negligence.


----------



## MoneyGal

Harper changed the criminal code to remove discretion from judges in imposing conditional sentences for "serious personal injury offences", which is the conviction in this case. Since she cannot serve a jail sentence outside of jail (conditional sentence) she is going to jail.

She refused to enter into a plea bargain with the state, because it would have involved *some* jail time. Instead, she made her case to a jury of her peers, who found her guilty. 

The fact that the stopped driver was found criminally negligent does not mean that the driver of the motorcycle was blameless.


----------



## carverman

MoneyGal said:


> Harper changed the criminal code to remove discretion from judges in imposing conditional sentences for "serious personal injury offences", which is the conviction in this case. Since she cannot serve a jail sentence outside of jail (conditional sentence) she is going to jail.
> 
> She refused to enter into a plea bargain with the state, because it would have involved *some* jail time. Instead, she made her case to a jury of her peers, who found her guilty.
> 
> The fact that the stopped driver was found criminally negligent does not mean that the driver of the motorcycle was blameless.


M.G. with the latest info from a biker discussion forum,(see my excerpts from my previous post), it appears that the woman was very careless and deserves the punishment she got.
1. Stops in the LEFT lane of a FOUR lane DIVIDED highway (posted speed 100kph..normal speeds110kph)and doesn't put on the hazard lights. see AutoRoute 30.


www.google.com/maps/place/Autoroute...2!3m1!1s0x4cc91fdc55060ee9:0xe39fd57cda07d130


2. Leaves the driver's door open , impeding traffic coming the other way and any traffic behind her to swerve into the opposing lane to get around the open door, while she is walking on the side of the road shooing a bunch of ducks totally oblivious to the disaster that is about to happen. :stupid:
3.She had total disregard for the safety of others...basically a "brain dead" driver, and who knows how long she had been driving at that.


----------



## carverman

carverman said:


> M.G. with the latest info from a biker discussion forum,(see my excerpts from my previous post), it appears that the woman was very careless and deserves the punishment she got.
> 1. Stops in the traffic lane of a two lane highway and doesn't put on the hazard lights.
> 2. Leaves the driver's door open , impeding traffic coming the other way and any traffic behind her to swerve into the opposing lane to get around the open door, while she is walking on the side of the road shooing a bunch of ducks totally oblivious to the disaster that is about to happen. :stupid:
> 3.She had total disregard for the safety of others...basically a "brain dead" driver, and who knows how long she had been driving at that.


The driver of the motorcycle may have been driving with some impaired vision because of the setting sun. Lets face it, normally you don't expect people to do stupid things like that..so he was unprepared to stop ....until it was too late.


----------



## cainvest

carverman said:


> Are you teaching MSF?
> 
> I realize that grabbing the front brake in a panic will cause you to lose your steering..and that is generally what most riders will do if the reaction time is less than 1 second.
> Most bikes have dual disks on the' front which does most of the braking. The rear disk can be used effectively, but it might take longer to stop.
> It's a tough call when dealing with split second reaction times. If you can't swerve and have to rely on the brakes..its the luck of the draw. Not sure how many years of riding experience on the motorcycle he had, but chances are he didn't see the car (due to the setting sun) until it was too late to stop safely.


No, I don't teach any motorcycle courses, just do it informally. 

The things you're talking about above is the reason motorcyclists need to practice them. Stopping effectively, quick turns and reducing the thought problems of panic/fear and target fixation. Just for fun ask all of your motorcyle friends if they practice any those things, I bet less than 1% do on any regular basis.


----------



## MoneyGal

I don't disagree with the sentence; I agree with it. The standard for criminal negligence is a 'marked and substantial departure from what a reasonable person would do'.
In this situation a reasonable person would have foreseen that stopping on a highway posed a risk, including a risk of death and it was also foreseeable that someone might be speeding (regardless of posted speed limits) and therefore less able to avoid the crash.


----------



## carverman

cainvest said:


> No, I don't teach any motorcycle courses, just do it informally.
> 
> The things you're talking about above is the reason motorcyclists need to practice them. Stopping effectively, quick turns and reducing the thought problems of panic/fear and target fixation. Just for fun ask all of your motorcyle friends if they practice any those things, I bet less than 1% do on any regular basis.


The ones that have hit deer (and other small animals (dogs/raccoons etc) on the road and managed to survive sure do. The ones that have been t-boned...not sure about them. I suppose it
somewhere between .05% and 1% percent that conciously practice SIPDE all the time..the rest and the "squids" I see going down the road in shorts, tshirts and sneakers (but wearing a full face helmet)..
well lets say..Darwins' law probably applies to some of them too.


----------



## RBull

Daniel A. said:


> I've been riding now for 43 years, bikes today have integrated brakes front and back work together.
> 
> Yes I have had to lay a bike down on more than one occasion as long as one does not hit anything it works out just like on the track.
> 
> Without knowing the riders level of experience it is hard to comment.


Most bikes do not. Some have ABS which works well to avoid lock up.


----------



## carverman

RBull said:


> Most bikes do not. Some have ABS which works well to avoid lock up.


I know that the BMW and the Goldwing bikes have had integrated ABS for quite a long time now, and PROVIDED you have sufficient braking distance, they work very well to keep the wheels from locking up and skidding.

However, from some research on other biker forums, he was riding a Harley..they didn't mention if it was a Big Twin which probably has the old separate braking system,
where the foot brake controls the rear wheel only. 
I know from experience riding one of these Harley Sportsters in Arizona in a snowstorm...when I got caught in one on my way to the Grand Canyon...(butt puckering to say the least)
you had to do threshold braking and gentle gear downs. 

Harleys AFAIK don't have integrated braking systems, so you really need to be prepared and have adequate braking distance with these "HOGs".


----------



## Beaver101

MoneyGal said:


> I don't disagree with the sentence; I agree with it. The standard for criminal negligence is a 'marked and substantial departure from what a reasonable person would do'.
> In this situation a reasonable person would have foreseen that stopping on a highway posed a risk, including a risk of death and it was also foreseeable that someone might be speeding (regardless of posted speed limits) and therefore less able to avoid the crash.


 ... how is 'reasonable' defined and how is 'foreseeable' defined? These definitions should have been applied to the deceased motorcyclist also. Only if he was reasonable and driving within the speed limit, he may have had enough time to see the stalled car and avoid crashing into it. Certainly his wife wasn't following his lead. An unfortunate set of circumstances all around for sure. 

Again, not sure what good will a jail sentence do for the deceased's wife, society, let alone that poor gal who made an unfortunate mistake to stop her car trying to do good and rescue some animal(s)?


----------



## 6811

Beaver101 said:


> .
> Again, not sure what good will a jail sentence do for the deceased's wife, society, let alone that poor gal who made an unfortunate mistake to stop her car trying to do good and rescue some animal(s)?


I agree that anything more than a short jail sentence would be a waste but IMHO "unfortunate mistake" is a bit of a stretch. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the Judge thinks is a suitable punishment.


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ... how is 'reasonable' defined and how is 'foreseeable' defined? These definitions should have been applied to the deceased motorcyclist also. Only if he was reasonable and driving within the speed limit, he may have had enough time to see the stalled car and avoid crashing into it. Certainly his wife wasn't following his lead. An unfortunate set of circumstances all around for sure.


He was at some speed on a 4 lane divided highway with a grassy median in between. It was AR30 out of Montreal. The posted speed limit is 100kph. This is similar to the 401 with posted limits of 100kph, and the speed cops will let you go, as long as your are at 110 kph or lower. He was going at least 110kph. The setting sun was in his eyes limiting his long distance visibility. Not sure if he had sunglasses on at the time, but I have found that the setting sun at certain point, if you are heading into it (as he was) will cause partial blindness. 
Usually not a problem if the lane in front is clear or traffic is moving normally. I was a formeR biker so I can relate to this.

The stupid woman stopped the car in the left lane (which would mean to me...the passing lane), a dead stop with the drivers door open..no hazard flashers ,
and she's off herding the ducks. 
Not sure if there was a shoulder on the left lane, probably was one, , but she didn't pull over onto the left shoulder....just stopped the car...very stupid!



> Again, not sure what good will a jail sentence do for the deceased's wife, society, let alone that poor gal who made an unfortunate mistake to stop her car trying to do good and rescue some animal(s)?


The woman was convicted of criminal negligence use of a motor vehicle...that carries an automatic jail sentence. Good deed or not..she stopped without thinking of the consequences that her car posed in a freeway in the wrong lane to stop and did not even pull over. ..certainly deserves some kind of jail sentence,which will not bring back the husband biker and his daughter. Even a lawsuit and compensation FROM the the car driver's insurance won't bring back the dead.


----------



## Beaver101

carverman said:


> ... The stupid woman stopped the car in the left lane (which would mean to me...the passing lane), a dead stop with the drivers door open..no hazard flashers ,
> and she's off herding the ducks.
> Not sure if there was a shoulder on the left lane, probably was one, , but she didn't pull over onto the left shoulder....just stopped the car...very stupid!
> 
> 
> The woman was convicted of criminal negligence use of a motor vehicle...that carries an automatic jail sentence. Good deed or not*..she stopped without thinking of the consequences that her car posed in a freeway in the wrong lane to stop and did not even pull over*. ..certainly deserves some kind of jail sentence,which will not bring back the husband biker and his daughter. Even a lawsuit and compensation FROM the the car driver's insurance won't bring back the dead.


 . .. obviously, she wasn't 'thinking' of what the consequences otherwise there wouldn't be that chain of events. We don't know exactly what she was thinking at that time for her to take that kind of action - stopped the car on the left lane. She was certainly most focused on the ducks or by instinct, not to hit them (or an animal/human/object) in her path for her to do what she did. Even without an automatic jail sentence, that conviction will weight on her for the rest of her life.


----------



## Nemo2

At the other end of the spectrum, albeit in another jurisdiction:



> Perla Ibeth Vazquez, 27, is now on trial in these parts. On Oct. 21, 2011 (a mere two-and-a-half-years ago?), she was drunk, drove, and killed, according to the Fresno Bee, one “Frank Winslow, 54, a family man and truck driver for Foster Farms who was only a few miles from home when he was killed on Highway 168 near Ashlan Avenue.”
> 
> The Bee added that the local prosecutor, Steven Wright:
> 
> [L]aid the groundwork by telling the jury that Vazquez had pleaded guilty to drunken driving in Tulare County in 2006 and again in Fresno County in 2010. Each time, a judge warned her that if she got drunk and killed someone, she could be charged with murder, Wright said.
> 
> Should we laugh or cry at those long-ago judicial “each time” warnings — given that they assumed that two felony drunk driving convictions were not necessarily reason to think there would be a fated third or fourth? A judge warns her about her own murdering to come? Might he have warned all of us about being her murdered victims to come? He is warning her of consequences, but not us of our shared danger of having her on the streets? Can we not have an Amber Alert when serial drunk drivers are cut loose?
> 
> Some of you are wondering how someone, who in the last eight years has been convicted of two DUIs, can still be on the road. Brace yourself. The truth gets worse in our current lawless society that has become a veritable Road Warrior apocalyptic nightmare.
> 
> The Bee account continues:
> 
> Wright also told the jury about another incident. In August 2010, just 11 days after she pleaded guilty to her second DUI, the California Highway Patrol caught Vazquez driving 120 mph on a local highway. Her breath smelled of alcohol, her speech was slurred, and she did poorly on a sobriety test, so the officer arrested her, Wright said. *But she was never charged.*


http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/decline-of-western-civilization/?singlepage=true


----------



## Just a Guy

Had people only listened to this woman, lives may have been saved. 

http://youtu.be/RFCrJleggrI

By the way, it was real, there is even a follow up where she learned the truth finally.


----------



## wendi1

I'm not sure the conviction will "weigh on her for the rest of her life". She doesn't seem to think any of this was her fault.

In fact, she seems a little immature to be driving at all. Every car or truck driver should know they could kill someone with a moment's inattention, a single bad decision, or even a bit of bad luck. 

Motorcyclists rarely kill someone who's not on the bike.


----------



## MoneyGal

Beaver101 said:


> ... *how is 'reasonable' defined and how is 'foreseeable' defined? *These definitions should have been applied to the deceased motorcyclist also. Only if he was reasonable and driving within the speed limit, he may have had enough time to see the stalled car and avoid crashing into it. Certainly his wife wasn't following his lead. An unfortunate set of circumstances all around for sure.
> 
> Again, not sure what good will a jail sentence do for the deceased's wife, society, let alone that poor gal who made an unfortunate mistake to stop her car trying to do good and rescue some animal(s)?


This is the *essence* of "a jury of one's peers." A jury of 12 people concluded that it was reasonable and foreseeable that this person's actions put other people in harm's way. This is the definition of criminal negligence. 

As I said, the finding of guilt for the driver of the stopped car does not mean the motorcycle driver did not play a role in his own demise. But! There's no one to put on trial there - he already paid the ultimate price.


----------



## KaeJS

They are both at fault.

If it were me deciding.... She wouldn't go to jail. But she definitely would never drive again. Sort of goes with the whole "driving is a privilege, not a right" thing.

Ducks? Seriously? 
Give me a break.

I'd run right into a dog before I ever put my life, or someone else's life in danger.

If you're dealing with a bigger animal, such as a deer, then yes. By all means. Stop, swerve, whatever. You'd be stupid not to. Nobody wants to have a deer come flying through the windshield.

But... ducks?
If she drove well enough, at 100kph with her tires being probably only 7 inches wide, she (and other motorists) might have been able to just go more or less straight and not even have hit a single duck.


----------



## m3s

She probably should have taken the plea bargain.. I wonder how the lawyer influenced her decision to refuse it. Does the lawyer have a financial incentive for one or the other?

She could have easily been killed herself if the next driver was in an 18-wheeler or car looking at their iPhone. Then the driver of that vehicle could have been charged with manslaughter.

So why is DUI immediately a criminal offence and yet texting while driving is a small fine (that is usually ignored)


----------



## MoneyGal

DUI is a concurrent offense - prohibited by the HTA *and* the Criminal Code. Texting while driving is a HTA offense only. Over time I expect we *might* see distracted driving as a Criminal Code offense.


----------



## carverman

m3s said:


> *She probably should have taken the plea bargain.. I wonder how the lawyer influenced her decision to refuse it*. Does the lawyer have a financial incentive for one or the other?
> 
> She could have easily been killed herself if the next driver was in an 18-wheeler or car looking at their iPhone. Then the driver of that vehicle could have been charged with manslaughter.
> 
> So why is DUI immediately a criminal offence and yet texting while driving is a small fine (that is usually ignored)


oK,gots some more info from the Monttreal Gazette. She was on a divided highway (Auto Route 30) and in the inside lane when a mother duck and some ducklings were at the guard rail trying
to get across the two lanes. She stopped in the inside lane but did not put her hazard flashers on. Because she stopped tight to the guard rail, she couldn't open her drivers door, so she slid
out on the passenger side, opened the passenger door and left it open, partially blocking the outside lane...one car managed to swerve around the door that was sticking into the right lane.
She went off shooing the ducks off the highway.

According to measurements taken, the motrocyclist was travelling between 107 and 129 kph when he rear ended her parked car. He was driving a Harley-Davidson motorcycle and his daughter
was riding pillion on the back. 

She thought she wouild beat the wrap since the motorcyclist ran into her parked car, but the jury did not see it her way. She is planning to appeal as she could be spending some time
behind bars.


----------



## carverman

MoneyGal said:


> DUI is a concurrent offense - prohibited by the HTA *and* the Criminal Code. Texting while driving is a HTA offense only. Over time I expect we *might* see distracted driving as a Criminal Code offense.


What do you think the charge would be if the texter cause a serious accident where someone was killed?


----------



## 6811

carverman said:


> What do you think the charge would be if the texter cause a serious accident where someone was killed?


Probably 'Dangerous Driving' charge would be added to the 'Texting while driving' charge.. 

Just for interest, this is a link to a chart listing the various penalties for driving offenses: http://www.defencelaw.com/penalty-driving.html


----------



## humble_pie

carverman may i please intervene. After all, this is my turf & you are making too many mistakes!

first, your map shows the autoroute at Beauharnois, some 30 km west of the accident site at Candiac, which is pictured in the photo below. The beauharnois map is not relevant.

the same photo below shows a six-lane highway - not a 4-lane - divided by a metre-high concrete median barrier, not a grassy median.

next, the 4 drivers were not proceeding "out of montreal." They were westbound on an autoroute heading for Valleyfield, a route that would bypass montreal entirely by sticking to the south shore. In the photo, they were driving on lanes 2 & 3. The first lane to the right - ie to the east - is about to hive off towards a bridge to downtown montreal.

next, Emma parked her car on the narrow paved shoulder to the left of the left or passing lane, as close to the median as she could get. Her vehicle straddled the solid yellow line dividing the shoulder from the passing lane & projected some distance into the passing lane. However, the photos below show that she did not fully occupy or totally block the passing lane.

in fact, the photo below of the rear of emma's smashed car shows the dotted line between the passing lane & the driving lane to its immediate east. It's clearly visible that there was enough space in the passing lane for a motorcycle to pass.

witness Martine Tessier, who was driving a truck that was pulling a camper trailer immediately in front of motorcycle rider Andre Roy, was able to swerve safely away from Emma's car, even though her vehicle was many times wider than a motorcycle plus she was towing a brakeless trailer, which would have torqued heavily into the swerve. Yet Martine passed without a scratch.

to hit Emma's car so squarely from behind - where it was parked far over to the left, part in the shoulder lane, part in the passing lane - Andre the motorcyclist would have had to have been tail-gating, or speeding, or driving recklessly, or disabled by sudden illness, or possibly a fatal combo of all four.

so far, the testimony doesn't appear to have revealed whether the caravan of 3 drivers - martine, andre, andre's wife pauline on a separate motorcycle behind - were driving illegally in the passing lane, or whether they were proceeding correctly in the driving lane immediately to the east but Andre failed to check the road ahead properly before blindly pulling out to pass.

as for Emma's driver side car door being open, everyone can see from the photo that the same is not possible. Emma's car is squashed bang up against the metre-high concrete median barrier. It would not have been possible to open the driver door more than a few centimetres. Since Emma appears to be slender & petite, presumably this was just enough space for her to be able to squeeze herself out. But there was no harm to oncoming traffic since there was no oncoming traffic - all eastbound or oncoming traffic was on the far side of the median - plus traffic approaching from the rear would have passed only the closed passenger side door.

in its own way, the nonsense about the "open driver door" is a strike against the credibility of witness Martine's testimony. Just as folks express skepticism that Emma would have been able to observe that the ducklings were motherless as she sped along the autoroute, so the same skepticism can be expressed that Martine could have noticed or even seen what was going on with Emma's hidden driver side car door, as she, Martine, swerved in a desperate attempt to steer her truck plus its camper trailer out of harm's way.

other observations:

- the media reported that the defendant & her lawyer had thought a trial by jury might produce a more favourable judgment than the jail-time deal offered by the crown prosecutor in april. But the harsher outcome of the jury trial may have been affected by the fact that the victim's name was André Roy - c'est de la vieille souche - while the owner of the offending car was named Emma Czornobaj;

- the crown prosecutor is reported in francophone media as having a noticeably vengeful stance towards Emma. At one point she even suggested to french-speaking reporters that the accident had been deliberately staged. To anglophone reporters, her somewhat smug remarks suggest an overly-ambitious young lawyer competing to notch up courtroom victories while performing for the media;

- it's premature for parties to this thread to speak of Emma's "sentence" or her "punishment." Emma hasn't been sentenced yet, won't be sentenced until august at the earliest;

- imho it's ghoulish for parties to this thread to try to egg on poor anguished mme Volikakis to sue Emma for millions of $$;

- in terms of sentence, surely a great deal would depend on how deeply emma perceives that her thoughtless & immature mistake gave rise to so much unspeakable & ghastly tragedy. Surely suspending her license for at least several years plus prolonged community service would help to heal, not cause further harm;

- possible hypothesis re attorney Marc Labelle: i doubt he's in this for the money, he's one of the best defence attorneys in the whole of canada. It's the creation of fresh jurisprudence he's interested in je pense.

i'm thinking that from the get-go there has been a problem with the overly-aggressive flap-mouthed junior crown prosecutor ... i'm thinking maitre Labelle anticipated that she'd make mistakes in her pleadings ... because someone with Labelle's experience knows every barrister he pleads against like a book ... "mistakes" in pleadings or judgment automatically open the avenue to appeal ... i'm thinking Labelle went for the crass jury trial exactly so he'd have the opportunity to take the case to the appeal level if need be, where he will certainly receive a full & fair hearing ...
.









.










.








.


----------



## m3s

humble_pie said:


> so far, the testimony doesn't appear to have revealed whether the caravan of 3 drivers - martine, andre, andre's wife pauline on a separate motorcycle behind - were driving illegally in the passing lane, or whether they were proceeding correctly in the driving lane immediately to the east but Andre failed to check the road ahead properly before blindly pulling out to pass.


MSC teaches motorcyclists to ride on the inside tire track (the right tire track in the left lane). This gives you more options to avoid any sudden obstacle. Emergency braking in the left lane is dangerous for a motorcycle as well.

The last thing a motorcyclist wants is for these camper trailers and 18-wheelers to be passing and boxing them in, blocking their view or kicking up debris. He may have tried to pass impatiently and boxed himself in, or panicked and fixated on the obstacle (the motorbike follows your eyes..) 

The risk for motorcyclists goes up exponentially in heavy traffic. It's best to avoid busy highways but in Montreal you don't have much choice.. Better training for both riders and drivers would go a long way.


----------



## humble_pie

m3s said:


> MSC teaches motorcyclists to ride on the inside tire track (the right tire track in the left lane). This gives you more options to avoid any sudden obstacle. Emergency braking in the left lane is dangerous for a motorcycle as well



surprising, it seems to me a bike rider would be most at risk there, of all places. How does he get out of the way when a fast car really really wants to pass him?

idk, whatever happened to car drivers like me who were taught to accelerate to pass only when it's safe, then get back into the right or driving lane & stay there.

i still think André Roy had room to pass Emma's parked car, if he had not been riding somewhat out-of-control. The photo shows far more room in the rest of the passing lane - to the east or right of her car - than there is for a motorcycle driver who's filtering between lanes in slow-moving heavy traffic.
.


----------



## cainvest

humble_pie said:


> i still think André Roy had room to pass Emma's parked car, if he had not been riding somewhat out-of-control. The photo shows far more room in the rest of the passing lane - to the east or right of her car - than there is for a motorcycle driver who's filtering between lanes in slow-moving heavy traffic.


Just a general observation here ... ya think maybe the car moved a bit after getting hit by a motorcycle at over 100 km/h?
BTW, did she get out of the passenger side door or the drivers door?


----------



## m3s

humble_pie said:


> surprising, it seems to me a bike rider would be most at risk there, of all places. How does he get out of the way when a fast car really really wants to pass him?
> 
> idk, whatever happened to car drivers like me who were taught to accelerate to pass only when it's safe, then get back into the right or driving lane & stay there.


*When in the left lane, ride in the right tire track. Otherwise, stay in the right lane (left tire track) This gives the option to swerve left/right, more room when a vehicle or animal enters from the side of the road, and makes the rider more visible etc


----------



## humble_pie

m3s said:


> *When in the left lane, ride in the right tire track. *Otherwise, stay in the right lane (left tire track)* This gives the option to swerve left/right, more room when a vehicle or animal enters from the side of the road, and makes the rider more visible etc


ah, this makes perfect sense


----------



## humble_pie

ca won't u please look at the pictures & think about the dynamics. 

car was hit straight-on from the rear. One side is no more crumpled/wrecked than the other.

but the profile photo of the car shows the passenger side in perfect condition. Not even a scratch.

dynamics says the car rolled/was pushed forward. Car did not move even a millimetre sideways.

as for the driver side door/passenger side door uproar, the only witness has testified it was the driver side door. Was she confused? was she fudging the truth? what about her testimony that the flashers were not on? was that also confused? fudged a little?

oh, my, appeals court, here it comes ...


----------



## m3s

Maybe the car's steering was pointed somewhat left as in the picture, or the car was pointed somewhat toward the wall. The highways are also crowned to the sides so that water drains. The road could veer slightly to the right. Chances are the car moved into the wall. I can only hope she wouldn't park so close to the median that she had to climb out the passenger side.


----------



## cainvest

humble_pie said:


> ca won't u please look at the pictures & think about the dynamics.
> 
> car was hit straight-on from the rear. One side is no more crumpled/wrecked than the other.
> 
> but the profile photo of the car shows the passenger side in perfect condition. Not even a scratch.
> 
> dynamics says the car rolled/was pushed forward. Car did not move even a millimetre sideways.
> 
> as for the driver side door/passenger side door uproar, the only witness has testified it was the driver side door. Was she confused? was she fudging the truth? what about her testimony that the flashers were not on? was that also confused? fudged a little?
> 
> oh, my, appeals court, here it comes ...


Well I don't know how dynamics work in your world but I'm going to say the car moved a fair bit, it even has a rear tire now up on the edge of the barrier. I'd also like to see someone get out the drivers side door that close to the barrier, ya, good luck with that if it didn't move.


----------



## carverman

m3s said:


> MSC teaches motorcyclists to ride on the inside tire track (the right tire track in the left lane). This gives you more options to avoid any sudden obstacle. Emergency braking in the left lane is dangerous for a motorcycle as well.


Yes. MSF (Motorcycle Safety Foundation) teaches you the proper track for single riders and double track staggered riding for groups.



> The last thing a motorcyclist wants is for these camper trailers and 18-wheelers to be passing and boxing them in, blocking their view or kicking up debris. He may have tried to pass impatiently and boxed himself in, or panicked and fixated on the obstacle (the motorbike follows your eyes..)


18 wheel vortex and fixation...I have had some butt puckering rides on ground up pavement and 18 wheeler passing me on the 401....with the bike shimmying...I'm glad I had packed a change of
underwear. :biggrin:



> The risk for motorcyclists goes up exponentially in heavy traffic. It's best to avoid busy highways but in Montreal you don't have much choice.. Better training for both riders and drivers would go a long way.


Agreed..but we don't know the deceased rider training or riding history and why he was going westward (towards Valleyfield) on a multilane...maybe they were going on vacation..who knows.
A lot of middle aged men get those urges at 50+ (including me) to feel the wind and sun in their face. I wrote a poem about that ..the way I feel (or felt) on my Iron horse...'yeehaa'!


----------



## carverman

humble_pie said:


> carverman may i please intervene. After all, this is my turf & you are making too many mistakes!


Thanks for any clarification you have found on this H.P. Yes, I must agree, I am not perfect (hate to admit to that..because I am a man and I don't take directions very well..maybe that's
why I am divorced at this stage of my life?) :biggrin:



> first, your map shows the autoroute at Beauharnois, some 30 km west of the accident site at Candiac, which is pictured in the photo below. The beauharnois map is not relevant.
> 
> the same photo below shows a six-lane highway - not a 4-lane - divided by a metre-high concrete median barrier, not a grassy median.
> 
> next, the 4 drivers were not proceeding "out of montreal." They were westbound on an autoroute heading for Valleyfield, a route that would bypass montreal entirely by sticking to the south shore. In the photo, they were driving on lanes 2 & 3. The first lane to the right - ie to the east - is about to hive off towards a bridge to downtown montreal.


Holy **** Batman..did I ever get my directions wrong! I guess women back seat drivers have their place after all! :biggrin:



> next, Emma parked her car on the narrow paved shoulder to the left of the left or passing lane, as close to the median as she could get. Her vehicle straddled the solid yellow line dividing the shoulder from the passing lane & projected some distance into the passing lane. However, the photos below show that she did not fully occupy or totally block the passing lane.


Details,,details..we don't need no steenken details...we is Harley boys...we call them as we see them. :biggrin:



> in fact, the photo below of the rear of emma's smashed car shows the dotted line between the passing lane & the driving lane to its immediate east. It's clearly visible that there was enough space in the passing lane for a motorcycle to pass.


Ok, maybe so..but the 'dumb-a*s" did a very stupid thing and the man on his Harley *may* have been blinded by the setting sun. Youse cage drivers have visors to pull down..we bikers ain't got that luxury!



> witness Martine Tessier, who was driving a truck that was pulling a camper trailer immediately in front of motorcycle rider Andre Roy, was able to swerve safely away from Emma's car, even though her vehicle was many times wider than a motorcycle plus she was towing a brakeless trailer, which would have torqued heavily into the swerve. Yet Martine passed without a scratch.


So the bike rider was a) going too fast for the road condition ahead (stopped car) or b) distracted or c) blinded by the sun set...the car driver pulling the trailer may have had the
sun visors pulled own and saw the illegally stopped car in time..had the dumb-a** driver put on her 4-way flashers..maybe we wouldn't be discussing this tragic story today?



> to hit Emma's car so squarely from behind - where it was parked far over to the left, part in the shoulder lane, part in the passing lane - Andre the motorcyclist would have had to have been tail-gating, or speeding, or driving recklessly, or disabled by sudden illness, or possibly a fatal combo of all four.


Who knows what happened, he may even have hit the binders and lost control at the speed he was going?



> so far, the testimony doesn't appear to have revealed whether the caravan of 3 drivers - Martine, Andre, Andre's wife Pauline on a separate motorcycle behind - were driving illegally in the passing lane, or whether they were proceeding correctly in the driving lane immediately to the east but Andre failed to check the road ahead properly before blindly pulling out to pass.


Maybe so, but neither you nor I were there, so we can only speculate on the eyewitness accounts and speculate afterwards. 



> as for Emma's driver side car door being open, everyone can see from the photo that the same is not possible. Emma's car is squashed bang up against the metre-high concrete median barrier. It would not have been possible to open the driver door more than a few centimetres. Since Emma appears to be slender & petite, presumably this was just enough space for her to be able to squeeze herself out. But there was no harm to oncoming traffic since there was no oncoming traffic - all eastbound or oncoming traffic was on the far side of the median - plus traffic approaching from the rear would have passed only the closed passenger side door.


H.P...<sigh!>... the media got it wrong..at first they mentioned she got out of the drivers door, but then corrected that she must have gotten out of the passenger door. Ok there was no
oncoming traffic since it was a divided 4 or 6 lane highway. Again we weren't there..so we can only go by what she told police and in court. 



> in its own way, the nonsense about the "open driver door" is a strike against the credibility of witness Martine's testimony. Just as folks express skepticism that Emma would have been able to observe that the ducklings were motherless as she sped along the autoroute, so the same skepticism can be expressed that Martine could have noticed or even seen what was going on with Emma's hidden driver side car door, as she, Martine, swerved in a desperate attempt to steer her truck plus its camper trailer out of harm's way.


Ok, details...but the point is that Emma made a stupid brain dead decision to stop on a well travelled highway to herd a bunch of immature ducks. What would you have done in this case?

other observations:



> - it's premature for parties to this thread to speak of Emma's "sentence" or her "punishment." Emma hasn't been sentenced yet, won't be sentenced until august at the earliest;
> 
> - *imho it's ghoulish for parties to this thread to try to egg on poor anguished mme Volikakis to sue Emma for millions of $$;*


What are you a "bleeding heart" for Emma making a stupid decision to save a bunch of ducks that either could have taken their chances crossing the highway or facing the hunter's guns
in the fall...same odds at survival. 



> - in terms of sentence, surely a great deal would depend on how deeply emma perceives that her thoughtless & immature mistake gave rise to so much unspeakable & ghastly tragedy. Surely suspending her license for at least several years plus prolonged community service would help to heal, not cause further harm;


Naw! Throw her in the slammer..she needs to learn from her mistakes and this case should be an example to other brain dead drivers!




> i'm thinking that from the get-go there has been a problem with the overly-aggressive flap-mouthed junior crown prosecutor ... i'm thinking maitre Labelle anticipated that she'd make mistakes in her pleadings ... because someone with Labelle's experience knows every barrister he pleads against like a book ... "mistakes" in pleadings or judgment automatically open the avenue to appeal ... i'm thinking Labelle went for the crass jury trial exactly so he'd have the opportunity to take the case to the appeal level if need be, where he will certainly receive a full & fair hearing ...


I see we like playing judge and jury? 
.


----------



## humble_pie

ca dynamics are fine in my world. 

those tires you see are up in the air. One might look to be "on the edge of the barrier" but it isn't. The rear tires are dangling because the car has been propped on blocks. The front tires are being propped on that step apparatus. It was the firemen who turned the front wheels to the left on the step apparatus, as m3s has mentioned.

do u know why the firemen propped the car up like that? the reason is horrifying, tragic. I'm not going to repeat. Because it breaks the heart.

returning to the simple part of the story - what the machines did - i'm sticking to my knitting. The car rolled forward, which is what the firemen & the police said. It did *not* move laterally or obliquely from a position in or near the middle of the passing lane, to a new position at the extreme left hugging the concrete median barrier.

the greater part of the passing lane was unobstructed at all times. A less reckless rider would likely have passed safely, exactly as martine was able to do in her truck.

the knitting says that, in order to hit the rear of the car straight-on as the motorcycle obviously did, the bike rider had to have been driving his machine - significantly faster than the speed limit - virtually upon the solid yellow do-not-cross shoulder line, at the extreme far left of the roadway. This is not prudent or reasonable.

turning now to the concrete barrier & the driver car door, there are visibly 20-30 centimetres of space between the 2. Any slender girl could shimmy out of that door. Could it be possible that you're just not acquainted with any slender limber women each:

plus we must remember the all-important witness testimony. It was the driver door, the witness testified. Is she now to be discredited? you might want to tread carefully here, this was sworn testimony, stated under oath ...

(aside to m3) the road is not veering to the right. Won't you please look again at the landscape photo. The Chateauguay/Valleyfield lanes are veering to the left, towards the southwest.


----------



## carverman

cainvest said:


> Well I don't know how dynamics work in your world but I'm going to say the car moved a fair bit, it even has a rear tire now up on the edge of the barrier. I'd also like to see someone get out the drivers side door that close to the barrier, ya, good luck with that if it didn't move.


A Harley Big Twin weighs in around 900lbs. With a rider and passenger..add another 200 + 150 = 350 lbs...at speed the kinectic energy at point of impact is FOUR TIMES THE SQUARE OF THE SPEED, 
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3897/14304204229_7b0c24a970_b.jpg

so hitting the rear end of her small car, (you can see the point of impact in the "V" shape of what was the rear deck of her small car), would cause the rear suspension to
bounce, more than likely would move her car somewhat.


----------



## carverman

humble_pie said:


> c
> returning to the simple part of the story - what the machines did - i'm sticking to my knitting. The car rolled forward, which is what the firemen & the police said. It did *not* move laterally or obliquely from a position in or near the middle of the passing lane, to a new position at the extreme left hugging the concrete median barrier.


I'm not sure what model of car this was, but lets say, she had it in Park while idling and herding the ducks..a severe hit from behind could even through the transmission out of Park...nobody was in the car
at time of impact. 

the greater part of the passing lane was unobstructed at all times. A less reckless rider would likely have passed safely, exactly as martine was able to do in her truck.



> the knitting says that, in order to hit the rear of the car straight-on as the motorcycle obviously did, the bike rider had to have been driving his machine - *significantly faster than the speed limit - virtually upon the solid yellow do-not-cross shoulder line, at the extreme far left of the roadway. This is not prudent or reasonable. *


*
You weren't there..you don't ride a motorcycle..we don't really know what the rider was trying to do 1 second before impact, maybe he was trying to brake or even swerve...who knows. Speed is only relevant to braking reaction time + braking distance required by the Harley fully loaded to stop safely. Many motorcycle riders drive at those speeds..so what? 
*


> turning now to the concrete barrier & the driver car door, there are visibly 20-30 centimetres of space between the 2. A*ny slender girl could shimmy out of that door. Could it be possible that you're just not acquainted with any slender limber women each:*


Ya..slender girls...send some over to me..:biggrin:



> plus we must remember the all-important witness testimony. It was the driver door, the witness testified. Is she now to be discredited? you might want to tread carefully here, this was sworn testimony, stated under oath ...


Witnesses can have memory lapses as well...it all happened so fast..and she WAS out of the car. Did any witness see her getting out of the car... and which door before the accident happened?


(


----------



## cainvest

humble_pie said:


> f the story - what the machines did - i'm sticking to my knitting. The car rolled forward, which is what the firemen & the police said. It did *not* move laterally or obliquely from a position in or near the middle of the passing lane, to a new position at the extreme left hugging the concrete median barrier.


Sorry, did read what the police or firemen said from the picture ... I'll take your word for it, just not saying it's correct. 



humble_pie said:


> turning now to the concrete barrier & the driver car door, there are visibly 20-30 centimetres of space between the 2. Any slender girl could shimmy out of that door.


I don't know about your estimates of space between the car and barrier (police or firemen again?) but I'd guess the average car door is 20cm thick so no, I'd don't think you're squeezing out of that, maybe 40-45cm. Hey, maybe she went out the window?


----------



## carverman

Ok, one thing that is puzzling me...if there was a concrete barrier at that point...where were these so called ducks that she was chasing? Huddled against the concrete barrier?
Doesn't make sense here...ducks usually have their nest and brood close to water. She was extremely stupid for getting out the car on a busy express way with 100 kph posted speed limits.

Not only did she put herself at risk but by stopping right there in the fast lane, she contributed to the deaths of two people. I would say that the jury got this verdict right..criminal negligence use of a motor vehicle. I doubt that an appeals court will overturn her judgement.

For an appeal court to overturn a lower court ruling (especially with a jury)....the verdict and judgement would be the result of"
A) error in law
b) error in process
of which based on what we know so far, neither A) nor B) applies for stupidity on the car driver's part.


----------



## Homerhomer

it went from well meaning to a tragedy for everyone involved, really sad story.


----------



## Nemo2

Homerhomer said:


> it went from well meaning to a tragedy for everyone involved, really sad story.


+1


----------



## m3s

Apparently banned from driving for 10 years, community service and weekends in jail for 90 days (probably with chance to appeal). That has to impact her employment opportunities..

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emma-czornobaj-gets-90-days-in-jail-for-duck-stopping-deaths-1.2877437


----------



## sags

Gotta say..............I am not fully comfortable with this judgement.

Jail time....................what does that accomplish ?

Could 90 days in jail possibly make the driver feel any worse than she already does ?

A terrible lapse in judgement.........without realizing the consequences of what might happen.............but a criminal matter ?


----------



## Nemo2

^ +1


----------



## 6811

sags said:


> Gotta say..............I am not fully comfortable with this judgement.
> 
> Jail time....................what does that accomplish ?
> 
> Could 90 days in jail possibly make the driver feel any worse than she already does ?
> 
> A terrible lapse in judgement.........without realizing the consequences of what might happen.............but a criminal matter ?


I've been following this tragic story and I have to disagree with you on this one. IMHO, while I was not at the trial to hear the evidence first hand, it was reported that Ms. Czornobaj insisted that she hadn't done anything wrong. Well this sentence confirms that she did. And maybe the time served (on weekends BTW), not to mention the ten year license suspension, will convince her and others that you don't stop in the passing lane of a highway on a whim.


----------



## Toronto.gal

6811 said:


> ....it was reported that *Ms. Czornobaj insisted that she hadn't done anything wrong*.... And maybe the *time served (on weekends BTW)*, not to mention the ten year license suspension, will *convince her and others that you don't stop in the passing lane of a highway on a whim.*




Exactly, the jail sentence is just on the w/ends, big deal; 2 people lost their lives because of her actions! And probably got jail only because of her rotten attitude. Did not even apologize to the families until only this year, according to reports. 

"In passing sentence, Quebec Superior Court Justice *Eliane Perreault noted that Czornobaj, now 26, showed no remorse during the trial* and had described the tragedy as an accident. Perreault said the accused showed a "reckless disregard for the safety of others" when she left her vehicle to tend to the ducklings."


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Gotta say..............I am not fully comfortable with this judgement.
> 
> Jail time....................what does that accomplish ?
> 
> Could 90 days in jail possibly make the driver feel any worse than she already does ?
> 
> A terrible lapse in judgement.........without realizing the consequences of what might happen.............but a criminal matter ?


Oops I killed someone, a sorry doesn't cover it.

What she did is explicitly illegal, and any reasonable person would have known what she was doing was very dangerous and irresponsible.

I think a big factor in the stronger sentence is that she insisted she didn't do anything wrong. I don't want that kind of person on the road.


----------



## Islenska

Not quite the same storyline but last week we were coming back from Winnipeg and hit a caribou. Around 6pm, blowing snow, dark and out of the blue (or snow) was a pack of caribou crossing in front!

In reaction I swerved but couldn't avoid clipping the rear buck which resulted in a nasty crunch, my wife and I were fine, the Acura MDX will be in for repairs.

Happened so fast and I was doing only around 90km, makes esp night driving something to avoid but that is not always the case. Have to be on your toes and this was a quiet northern highway.


----------



## sags

The judgement will create some sobering situations though.................

In the small city I used to live in, there was a highway overpass built right through the middle of a wetlands area, full of ducks, geese and other wildlife.

Every day, a tribe of geese would cross the highway a couple of times..........and cars would be backed up..........stopped on the highway to let them pass over.

What some of you are suggesting...............the legal and prudent action would be to plow right through them, so as to avoid any liability.

I remember newspaper photos of cars lining up.............waiting for the geese or ducks to pass over. It was considered quite a quaint idea by the residents.

I can only imagine the public uproar that would ensue............if someone drove right through them.


----------



## sags

Toronto.gal said:


> [/B]
> 
> Exactly, the jail sentence is just on the w/ends, big deal; 2 people lost their lives because of her actions! And probably got jail only because of her rotten attitude. Did not even apologize to the families until only this year, according to reports.
> 
> "In passing sentence, Quebec Superior Court Justice *Eliane Perreault noted that Czornobaj, now 26, showed no remorse during the trial* and had described the tragedy as an accident. Perreault said the accused showed a "reckless disregard for the safety of others" when she left her vehicle to tend to the ducklings."


A lot of people would rather serve their sentence in one lump than on weekends for several reasons.

Weekenders are often expected to carry out messages and run errands for other inmates stuck on the inside. They may also pressure her to bring contraband in from the outside. It would also require almost 2 years to serve the 90 days.

She will serve the time in a regional detention center, housing everything from those accused and awaiting a bail hearing or trial date..........and those awaiting sentencing or transfer to federal or provincial prisons.

Detention centres are very dangerous, very ugly places................far worse than prisons.


----------



## sags

sags said:


> A lot of people would rather serve their sentence in one lump than on weekends for several reasons.
> 
> Weekenders are often expected to carry out messages and run errands for other inmates stuck on the inside. They may also pressure her to bring contraband in from the outside. It would also require almost 2 years to serve the 90 days.
> 
> She will serve the time in a regional detention center, housing everything from those accused and awaiting a bail hearing or trial date..........and those awaiting sentencing or transfer to federal or provincial prisons.
> 
> Detention centres are very dangerous, very ugly places................far worse than prisons.


She will suffer in there............if that is the objective.


----------



## donald

I think the thing is sags and we have this problem in Winnipeg is the geese get conditioned to move freely and without consequences.
If motorists didn't give them the right away something tells me these geese would figure out pretty quickly it is not a good idea to cross at a certain location(these birds have been on planet earth nearly as long as human and have the same abilities to adapt and survive)
Nothing drives me more crazy than a bleeding heart making a spectacle and causing a traffic jam
I am getting tired of this social movement where animals are put above humans
Seems like society would rather help a bunch of birds cross a road than help a handicapped person across the road.


----------



## nathan79

donald said:


> I think the thing is sags and we have this problem in Winnipeg is the geese get conditioned to move freely and without consequences.
> If motorists didn't give them the right away something tells me these geese would figure out pretty quickly it is not a good idea to cross at a certain location(these birds have been on planet earth nearly as long as human and have the same abilities to adapt and survive)
> Nothing drives me more crazy than a bleeding heart making a spectacle and causing a traffic jam
> I am getting tired of this social movement where animals are put above humans
> Seems like society would rather help a bunch of birds cross a road than help a handicapped person across the road.


So you would rather risk damage to your vehicle and put your own safety in jeopardy (a goose through the windshield could injure or kill you).

This story has nothing to do with putting animals above humans. I would stop out of instinct, the same way I would if a disabled person was in the road.

This lady probably has more compassion than most. Even though she could have acted in a safer manner, I'd be more concerned about the people that would just do nothing.


----------



## james4beach

Did this person stop on the left shoulder/emergency lane, or did she stop in the *fast lane*? My understanding of the story was that she stopped in the fast lane.

I've been on the 401 and seen how dangerous it is when you round a corner and there's someone going 60 km/hr in the fast lane. You have to slam on the brakes to rapidly slow from 120 kph to 60 kph. Imagine traffic approaching full speed with a car that's stopped in the fast lane!


----------



## humble_pie

some commentators are indeed spreading a story that emma had left her car in the middle of the left or passing lane of a divided four-lane highway. Others fantasize that a blind corner or a steep hill obstructed the view.

at candiac, autoroute 30 is straight as an arrow & flat as a board. I've driven this highway thousands of times. Visibility is perfect. 

a problem is that there is no full shoulder, only a high concrete median barrier, with the opposite 2 lanes on the other side of the median. Emma had parked her small car half on the narrow shoulder strip, as close to the median barrier as she could get, & half in the passing lane itself.

the photographs - i posted several upthread, they've vanished but it's easy to google for these photos - show that there was still ample room in the lane for a vehicle to pass. Only seconds before the motorcycle, a truck towing a camper-trailer had passed. The driver, Martine, was to become an important witness.

my thought is that some sort of sudden medical emergency must have harmed the motorcycle driver. Even a momentary TIA would have paralyzed his judgment. A stroke or heart attack would have done the same.

evidently he had a good record as a motorcyclist, but the police testified that, at the time of impact, he was speeding well above the speed limit. I am still baffled that autopsies are not required when this kind of very grave highway death occurs.

the photographs & the police testimony show that the motorcycle rider was speeding on the yellow demarcation line of the shoulder, at the farthest left edge of the passing lane. He hit the rear of the parked car head-on, not sideways.

the rest of the story turns even more tragic. His 16-year-old passenger daughter was catapulted straight forward by the impact, over her father & over the car itself, which was rolling forward from the powerful impact. Jessie landed on the pavement in front of the still-rolling car, which rolled right over her & pinned her far beneath. She was still alive.

for the next 90 minutes, the police & firemen laboured to raise the vehicle onto blocks in the rear, onto a stepped device in front. Finally, they were able to rescue Jessie from underneath. She was still barely alive, dying only an hour or 2 later. 

her poor mother & brother had to watch all this, something they will likely never forget for the rest of their lives. May peace be on all their souls. It is so tragic that i can't write any more about this part of the event.

if the motorcycle had struck the car on its lane side, not only would there have been side damage to the vehicle (in reality, there was no damage to the side of the car, while the rear end was crumpled,) but also the daughter would have been thrown forward in a diagonal trajectory across the car. This would have been gravely serious indeed, but at least the firemen would have been able to rescue her quickly. She would not have been pinned for an hour and a half underneath the vehicle.

emma's lawyer has explained to the media that emma is a shy & somewhat timid person who has difficulty dealing with media or even with public situations. She's also very young. This is why i believe that driver license restriction for a number of years plus community service should be sufficient punishment. Possibly the community service hours should be extended beyond the 240 hours set by judge perreault. But i'm at a loss to understand how jail time can improve any aspect of the tragedy.


----------



## 6811

Humble and Sags I commend your compassion and have found your comments on the jail time very thought provoking. I have no criminal defence legal training or experience so I do wonder what Justice Eliane Perreault's reasons were for sentencing Ms Czornobaj to jail time. Is it perhaps that a proven charge of Criminal Negligence requires some period of detention? 

I'd like to hear comments from a CMF member who does have training in criminal law and can perhaps enlighten us.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> The judgement will create some sobering situations though.................
> 
> In the small city I used to live in, there was a highway overpass built right through the middle of a wetlands area, full of ducks, geese and other wildlife.
> 
> Every day, a tribe of geese would cross the highway a couple of times..........and cars would be backed up..........stopped on the highway to let them pass over.


In a small city sure.. Montreal is not a small city though. If this happens twice a day and we don't want them getting run over.. then build them a pass!! Out east there are tunnels built for wildlife and Europe has its famous wildlife overpasses.

I would rather do 90 days straight than 45 weekends by far. I imagine she will appeal this jail sentence anyways. It is a message that needed to be sent.




humble_pie said:


> some commentators are indeed spreading a story that emma had left her car in the middle of the left or passing lane of a divided four-lane highway. Others fantasize that a blind corner or a steep hill obstructed the view.
> 
> at candiac, autoroute 30 is straight as an arrow & flat as a board. I've driven this highway thousands of times. Visibility is perfect.
> 
> a problem is that there is no full shoulder, only a high concrete median barrier, with the opposite 2 lanes on the other side of the median. Emma had parked her small car half on the narrow shoulder strip, as close to the median barrier as she could get, & half in the passing lane itself.
> 
> the photographs - i posted several upthread, they've vanished but it's easy to google for these photos - show that there was still ample room in the lane for a vehicle to pass. Only seconds before the motorcycle, a truck towing a camper-trailer had passed. The driver, Martine, was to become an important witness.
> 
> my thought is that some sort of sudden medical emergency must have harmed the motorcycle driver. Even a momentary TIA would have paralyzed his judgment. A stroke or heart attack would have done the same.


I don't think it would take a medical emergency. It just takes several unfortunate holes to line up at once (swiss cheese model)

When you said the motorbike was riding on the yellow demarcation line I imagined he was following a nefarious left-lane-camper. Sure enough it was a truck pulling a camper trailer, the quintessential left-lane-camper. The camper trailer driver admitted they were distracted by the sight of someone gathering ducklings and when they looked back they were surprised by a parked car in their lane. Of course they had time to move but those following would have less time.

A police officer testified the motorbike was traveling at 113-129 kmh when he applied the brakes. The motorbike probably sped up to pass the left-lane-camper and did not maintain enough space to see and stop so not entirely innocent either. In Europe left-lane-camping is a serious offence and it is also illegal in Canada but almost never enforced. Many progressive American states enforce this law and BC is looking into it as well.

A professional transport truck driver would not be camping in the left lane. It's illegal and dangerous to pass on the right. Just another hole in the swiss cheese.


----------



## humble_pie

m3 you are right, i'd already thought of the closely-following-camper theory but didn't write about it ... because my message was already too long ... & who bothers to read hubbity pie anyhow ...

however, if Andre Roy was tail-gating the camper trailer being trailed from Martine's truck - & if he'd been properly alert - he would have seen the trailer swerving as Martine passed emma's car. Torque would have swung the trailer even more than the truck itself, if alert he would or should have known that.

in such a situation, if he'd been fully alert, why would Roy have tail-gated on the extreme left side of the lane? even if he mistakenly believed he could pass Martine on her left, he would have known - or should have known - that it was a hopelessly dumb idea to attempt such a pass from the far left shoulder demarcation line of the laneway.

nor could he have been thinking of passing Martine's truck on the right (illegal as you mention) since he chose instead to drive on the farthest left of the passing lane.

perhaps it was a combination? some medical emergency or sudden condition occurred, Roy was confused, not reacting alertly, for some unknown reason drove on the far left shoulder demarcation stripe, bingo there was emma's car.

lastly, re the jail sentence "sending a message" but anticipating appeal, may i please disagree here. The judge & the crown prosecutor are also officers of the court, charged with maintaining proper civil law in society at large.

there will *never* be any precedent that needs to be set here, so why plan to go to the costs of appeal? why commit more valuable court time & more police time on a maverick case appeal that means nothing to jurisprudence? why hand out a draconian sentence now with the expectation that it will be overturned later?

there are already citizens complaining about the time wasted on an isolated case without sequelae or significance in jurisprudence. I glimpsed someone saying that recently a father was sentenced to the same 240 hours of community service but only 60 days in jail ... for beating ... his daughter ... to death. If this is true, then justice went hog-wild over emma.

i rather think madame justice perreault should have rendered a workmanlike sentence that would have been promptly accepted by all, no need to appeal. I also think Emma needs to be watched for a few years, via community service work & via restriction of driving privileges, so she can grow to be more responsible.


----------



## LBCfan

After almost not stopping for a moose on the highway, I think I will stop for the next one I see. I may even leave my car in the left lane and try to help it off the road. Hope I stay out of jail.


----------



## praire_guy

What she did was stupid but ultimately the motorcycle driver was a moron,and as is so typical with these idiots, he was driving to fast and too close. 

End of story, mods please close this ridiculous thread


----------

