CdM is in love!

[grumbler]

I hadn't read that it was a highway (our speed limit there is 130km/h), but if that's the case then it's extremely stupid to stop in the left lane.

It was a provincial highway; four lanes and divided, but not limited access.  People claiming to be familiar with it claimed that it had the default Quebec speed limit for such roads, 90 kph (roughly 55 mph).

No question that it is extremely stupid to stop in the left lane, and no question but what the woman is negligent to a degree, but the negligence of the motorcycle rider, particularly with his daughter on board, seems to me to be the greater.

Edit:  fixed type (90 kph, not 70)

[alfred russel]

To illustrate the point to DGuller:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McZHJ9-jYi8

What exactly does that illustrate?  Yes, if you are going to get out of your car, you need to really be away from it, and definitely not stay between two  stopped cars.  So what?

If anything, this shows you how much more vulnerable you are out of the car that you need to pick your spot carefully.  Her car was a mess after it was hit, but it was the back of her car.  She would be risking a whiplash at worst staying in her car, whereas out of the car she could've been seriously hurt if the crash happened 10 seconds before.

Yeah, you need to pick a spot away from the highway. Which is the key thing: a broken down car on the highway (or just off of it) is more likely to be hit than a person standing a bit further from the road.

FWIW, this almost happened to me when I was a kid. On a highway through Atlanta, our left tire blew sending us into the divider between the two sides of the road. We were broken down on the shoulder off the left lane. My grandfather got us out of the car, we ran across the highway, and stayed off the road under an overpass. While there, a car driving in the left lane shoulder very nearly took the broken down car out (it was able to stop in time, but barely).

[Razgovory]

Query: Why would a road with true blind curves have a 55mph speed limit, anyway?

According to other accounts I have read, this wasn't on a curve at all.  After all, the woman saw the ducks in plenty of time to stop, and there was a car that swerved to miss her before the motorcycle hit her (which was about a minute after she stopped).

The motorcyclist was only able to shed about 10 mph from his speed before impact, so doesn't seem to have been paying attention.  His wife, who was riding another bike with him, had no trouble avoiding the stopped car.

I looked at another story about this as well.  Apparently the motorcyclist was "gesturing at the accused".

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.

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.

Also the accused is rather attractive.

[The Brain]

Seems to me that if it had been a blind curve it is reasonably likely it would have been mentioned, and considering that people lose focus all the time in traffic it seems reasonably likely that the guy simply wasn't paying attention. His speed also indicates to me that he likely wan't going through a blind curve at the time (but of course it's possible that he was so distracted that he didn't notice the curve).

They didn't mention it was a straightaway either, which would have been as natural to mention as a blind curve.

We know he was on a motorcycle, with his 16 year old daughter as a passenger, and that he hit a car in the other lane.  Those factors all suggest he wasn't the most cautious driver.

Surely what was the correct lane depended on local traffic of which I know little.

He certainly was in violation of reasonable traffic regulations (which may or may not mean he was in violation of local regulations).

[Admiral Yi]

Passing lane of a 4 lane highway: that changes my perception a bit.

[Admiral Yi]

Also the accused is rather attractive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2663995/Canada-woman-stops-ducks-guilty-2-deaths.html

meh

[The Brain]

Query: Why would a road with true blind curves have a 55mph speed limit, anyway?

According to other accounts I have read, this wasn't on a curve at all.  After all, the woman saw the ducks in plenty of time to stop, and there was a car that swerved to miss her before the motorcycle hit her (which was about a minute after she stopped).

The motorcyclist was only able to shed about 10 mph from his speed before impact, so doesn't seem to have been paying attention.  His wife, who was riding another bike with him, had no trouble avoiding the stopped car.

I looked at another story about this as well.  Apparently the motorcyclist was "gesturing at the accused".

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.

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.

Also the accused is rather attractive.

I know someone who was in an accident once because he was checking out a babe. He was only driving 1 mph though so there was no damage.

[DGuller]

To illustrate the point to DGuller:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McZHJ9-jYi8

What exactly does that illustrate?  Yes, if you are going to get out of your car, you need to really be away from it, and definitely not stay between two  stopped cars.  So what?

If anything, this shows you how much more vulnerable you are out of the car that you need to pick your spot carefully.  Her car was a mess after it was hit, but it was the back of her car.  She would be risking a whiplash at worst staying in her car, whereas out of the car she could've been seriously hurt if the crash happened 10 seconds before.

Yeah, you need to pick a spot away from the highway. Which is the key thing: a broken down car on the highway (or just off of it) is more likely to be hit than a person standing a bit further from the road.

FWIW, this almost happened to me when I was a kid. On a highway through Atlanta, our left tire blew sending us into the divider between the two sides of the road. We were broken down on the shoulder off the left lane. My grandfather got us out of the car, we ran across the highway, and stayed off the road under an overpass. While there, a car driving in the left lane shoulder very nearly took the broken down car out (it was able to stop in time, but barely).

Instead of exchanging hypotheticals, I decided to Google it, and see what the proper thing to do is.  There is no clear answer, but judging from the first page results, the most common advice is to say in the car if you manage to pull off on the shoulder, especially if the page is an informational pamphlet from some police department.

That makes sense to me.  Yes, your car is more likely to get hit than you are, but frequency is not everything.  If you do get hit while you're out of the car, you are almost always going to be seriously injured.  Anecdotally, I also never heard of a news story where someone staying in the broken down car got killed, but I heard a number of stories of motorists outside of their broken down car getting killed (though, to be fair, they usually do something stupid like trying to fix their flat).  So, unless I have someone in the back seat of my car, I'm turning my front wheels away from the road and staying right where I am, with the seat belt still fastened.

[The Brain]

To illustrate the point to DGuller:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McZHJ9-jYi8

What exactly does that illustrate?  Yes, if you are going to get out of your car, you need to really be away from it, and definitely not stay between two  stopped cars.  So what?

If anything, this shows you how much more vulnerable you are out of the car that you need to pick your spot carefully.  Her car was a mess after it was hit, but it was the back of her car.  She would be risking a whiplash at worst staying in her car, whereas out of the car she could've been seriously hurt if the crash happened 10 seconds before.

Yeah, you need to pick a spot away from the highway. Which is the key thing: a broken down car on the highway (or just off of it) is more likely to be hit than a person standing a bit further from the road.

FWIW, this almost happened to me when I was a kid. On a highway through Atlanta, our left tire blew sending us into the divider between the two sides of the road. We were broken down on the shoulder off the left lane. My grandfather got us out of the car, we ran across the highway, and stayed off the road under an overpass. While there, a car driving in the left lane shoulder very nearly took the broken down car out (it was able to stop in time, but barely).

Instead of exchanging hypotheticals, I decided to Google it, and see what the proper thing to do is.  There is no clear answer, but judging from the first page results, the most common advice is to say in the car if you manage to pull off on the shoulder, especially if the page is an informational pamphlet from some police department.

That makes sense to me.  Yes, your car is more likely to get hit than you are, but frequency is not everything.  If you do get hit while you're out of the car, you are almost always going to be seriously injured.  Anecdotally, I also never heard of a news story where someone staying in the broken down car got killed, but I heard a number of stories of motorists outside of their broken down car getting killed (though, to be fair, they usually do something stupid like trying to fix their flat).  So, unless I have someone in the back seat of my car, I'm turning my front wheels away from the road and staying right where I am, with the seat belt still fastened.

You don't have to put up warning signs in Jersey? Hard to do from the car.

[Iormlund]

The rule of thumb is, if risk of collision is high you should stay in the car as that affords you the best possible protection. Otherwise you put on your vest and put up the signs to alert other drivers.

[DGuller]

You don't have to put up warning signs in Jersey? Hard to do from the car.

I've never seen anyone do that.  If you break down, you turn your flashers on and wait for police cruiser to pull up behind you and turn on its lights.  Whenever I see warning triangles on the highways, they're most likely put there by state troopers.

[The Brain]

You don't have to put up warning signs in Jersey? Hard to do from the car.

I've never seen anyone do that.  If you break down, you turn your flashers on and wait for police cruiser to pull up behind you and turn on its lights.  Whenever I see warning triangles on the highways, they're most likely put there by state troopers.

Third, meet world.

[alfred russel]

Instead of exchanging hypotheticals, I decided to Google it, and see what the proper thing to do is.  There is no clear answer, but judging from the first page results, the most common advice is to say in the car if you manage to pull off on the shoulder, especially if the page is an informational pamphlet from some police department.

That makes sense to me.  Yes, your car is more likely to get hit than you are, but frequency is not everything.  If you do get hit while you're out of the car, you are almost always going to be seriously injured.  Anecdotally, I also never heard of a news story where someone staying in the broken down car got killed, but I heard a number of stories of motorists outside of their broken down car getting killed (though, to be fair, they usually do something stupid like trying to fix their flat).  So, unless I have someone in the back seat of my car, I'm turning my front wheels away from the road and staying right where I am, with the seat belt still fastened.

It is one thing if we are talking about the shoulder of the road. But in the case you are broken down on the highway where the other cars are going at highway speeds, staying in the car seems really stupid.

FWIW, I'm not sitting in a car on the shoulder of a highway. The universe of space defined by "away from the road" is quite large. It could be in a Waffle House a half mile away. That must be safer than sitting in the car.

[Admiral Yi]

Unless  you order scrapple.

[DGuller]

It is one thing if we are talking about the shoulder of the road. But in the case you are broken down on the highway where the other cars are going at highway speeds, staying in the car seems really stupid.

Yes, it's counterintuitive, but not all counterintuitive things are stupid.

FWIW, I'm not sitting in a car on the shoulder of a highway. The universe of space defined by "away from the road" is quite large. It could be in a Waffle House a half mile away. That must be safer than sitting in the car.

To get to the point half a mile away from your car, you first have to start from the point right next to your car.  During that window, you're a goner in an accident.