CdM is in love!

[grumbler]

If the driver of the motorcycle couldnt see the parked vehicle because another vehicle blocked his view and after that other vehicle swerved to miss the parked vehicle the motocyclist wasnt able to react in time then I am not sure how the motorcycle driver could be said to have the greater blame.   Based on the information in this thread there isnt enough information to make judgments about blame.  Certainly the Court had more information than we do.

If the rider of the motorcycle couldn't see objects in the road in time to stop for them (whether there was another car on the road ahead of him or not), he was going too fast.

The excuse that he was "blinded' or "blocked" by the vehicle ahead of him is asinine; if he couldn't see far enough ahead to stop because there was a vehicle too close in front of him to do so, he was following that vehicle too closely.

If the thing in the road had not been a a car, but rather a deer carcass, or a sofa that had fallen off a truck, or a tree branch, he was just as dead, and so was his daughter.  he was driving unsafely no matter what the woman driver did.

Now, that's not to say that the accident was all his fault; the woman was acting stupidly as well.  But the bulk of the responsibility for his death, it seems to me, lies on him.  His wife, who was riding with him, had no problem avoiding hitting the car.  That's because she was far enough back to react in the time available, even though she was speeding.

The court has more information, but the jury was a bunch of Quebecois...

[grumbler]

Yeah. Unless Canada operates its highways in a very inefficient fashion, you are supposed to keep enough distance with the vehicle in front of you, not an hypothetical vehicle stopped where it shouldn't and which you cannot see.

Obviously, that is what he failed to do.  You need to keep enough distance with the vehicle ahead of you to stop before hitting it.  He was so close to the stopped car by the time the vehicle ahead of his swerved that he couldn't even drop 20 kph from his speed before he hit.  That means he was very close -dangerously close - fatally close - to the vehicle ahead of him.

[Siege]

Fuck animal lovers!
They deserve to go to jail for ever, if only we could afford the bill.

[viper37]

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.

And I disagree.  He was driving as anyone would drive under those conditions.

And I disagree with this.  He was a dead man riding if there was ANYTHING in the road, because he was travelling too fast to stop in the space he could see.  That may be the way anyone in Quebec may drive, but it isn't the way any sane person would drive.  Hell, he was still going well above the speed limit on impact (i.e. after braking)!

Then, what you want, is highways with 20mph speed limit.  That way, everyone has time to break when someone decides to stop in the middle of the road for no reasons.

I remember a Canadian truck driver who rammed a line of cars stopped for a construction site.  The line was in excess of 3km, wich was the maximum the Transport department was required to advise drivers of a potential road block.

He never saw the line in time, couldn't break, killed 4 people, injured 11.  According to your rules, the guy should have been jailed for life, he was driving too fast since he couldn't stop in time.

Yet, the department was blamed for insufficient warnings to drivers and rules have been changed since then.

[crazy canuck]

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.

And I disagree.  He was driving as anyone would drive under those conditions.

And I disagree with this.  He was a dead man riding if there was ANYTHING in the road, because he was travelling too fast to stop in the space he could see.  That may be the way anyone in Quebec may drive, but it isn't the way any sane person would drive.  Hell, he was still going well above the speed limit on impact (i.e. after braking)!

Then, what you want, is highways with 20mph speed limit.  That way, everyone has time to break when someone decides to stop in the middle of the road for no reasons.

I remember a Canadian truck driver who rammed a line of cars stopped for a construction site.  The line was in excess of 3km, wich was the maximum the Transport department was required to advise drivers of a potential road block.

He never saw the line in time, couldn't break, killed 4 people, injured 11.  According to your rules, the guy should have been jailed for life, he was driving too fast since he couldn't stop in time.

Yet, the department was blamed for insufficient warnings to drivers and rules have been changed since then.

The thing that best explains Grumbler's position he has yet to try driving a horseless carriage and so knows not of what he speaks.

[The Brain]

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.

And I disagree.  He was driving as anyone would drive under those conditions.

And I disagree with this.  He was a dead man riding if there was ANYTHING in the road, because he was travelling too fast to stop in the space he could see.  That may be the way anyone in Quebec may drive, but it isn't the way any sane person would drive.  Hell, he was still going well above the speed limit on impact (i.e. after braking)!

Then, what you want, is highways with 20mph speed limit.  That way, everyone has time to break when someone decides to stop in the middle of the road for no reasons.

I remember a Canadian truck driver who rammed a line of cars stopped for a construction site.  The line was in excess of 3km, wich was the maximum the Transport department was required to advise drivers of a potential road block.

He never saw the line in time, couldn't break, killed 4 people, injured 11.  According to your rules, the guy should have been jailed for life, he was driving too fast since he couldn't stop in time.

Yet, the department was blamed for insufficient warnings to drivers and rules have been changed since then.

http://www.swedishroadsafety.se/general-traffic-rules.html

The speed should never be higher than the speed at which you can retain control of the vehicle and you should be able to stop on the part of the road or terrain you can see if an unexpected obstacle appears.

FWIW.

[viper37]

Obviously, that is what he failed to do.  You need to keep enough distance with the vehicle ahead of you to stop before hitting it.  He was so close to the stopped car by the time the vehicle ahead of his swerved that he couldn't even drop 20 kph from his speed before he hit.  That means he was very close -dangerously close - fatally close - to the vehicle ahead of him.

Had he been driving 60km/h, the minimum allowed, it is doubtful he would have avoided the crash.  Maybe he would be alive, but he would have hitted that car anyway.  It's a motorcycle, not a brand new car.
The wife, following a little behind, did not avoid the car, but she survived the impact.

During driving lessons, one of the things you learn, is that you can't stop on a highway, and if something happens in the left lane, you do your best to reach the right sidelane to stop.  Never, ever stop on the left side if you can avoid it.

Judging from the report, it seems the motorcycle saw the woman first, on the side of the road, and only too late her stopped car.

If idiotic so called animal lovers would learn to respect nature and let the animals fend for themselves, we wouldn't be discussing this.

[viper37]

http://www.swedishroadsafety.se/general-traffic-rules.html

The speed should never be higher than the speed at which you can retain control of the vehicle and you should be able to stop on the part of the road or terrain you can see if an unexpected obstacle appears.

FWIW.

As I said, then reduce the speed limit to 30km/h on highways.  You will always be able to stop in time if someone decides to use the road as parking.

[alfred russel]

I was taught the 2 second rule both in Driver's Ed and from the Highway Safety Department in Florida (I was required to take a defensive driving course once). At 60 mph you are covering 88 ft per second--that implies that 176 ft is considered by some powers that be a safe following distance. With a 176 ft following distance, if the car in front of you swerves at the last minute to reveal a previously stationary object in your path, it is very unlikely that you will be able to stop in time to avoid hitting the object.

Obviously though that is enough time to slow down a bit to lessen the impact.

[The Brain]

http://www.swedishroadsafety.se/general-traffic-rules.html

The speed should never be higher than the speed at which you can retain control of the vehicle and you should be able to stop on the part of the road or terrain you can see if an unexpected obstacle appears.

FWIW.

As I said, then reduce the speed limit to 30km/h on highways.  You will always be able to stop in time if someone decides to use the road as parking.

[Eddie Teach]

Most people on the highways drive too close to the car ahead of them regularly.

[crazy canuck]

Most people on the highways drive too close to the car ahead of them regularly.

Agreed.  But even if leaving the recommended gap between cars this accident would have been very hard to avoid.  But for the stupidity of someone parking their vehicle on a highway no deaths or injuries would have occurred.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I was taught the 2 second rule both in Driver's Ed and from the Highway Safety Department in Florida (I was required to take a defensive driving course once). At 60 mph you are covering 88 ft per second--that implies that 176 ft is considered by some powers that be a safe following distance. With a 176 ft following distance, if the car in front of you swerves at the last minute to reveal a previously stationary object in your path, it is very unlikely that you will be able to stop in time to avoid hitting the object.

Obviously though that is enough time to slow down a bit to lessen the impact.

The two-second rule is based on perception-reaction time and presumes you will be decelerating at the same rate as the vehicle in front of you.  A competent driver should be able to come to a complete stop in 2s after applying the brake, so assuming a two-second p-r time a driver should be able to stop in 4s, or about 350ft at 60mph.  These are approximate calculations, so the actual stopping distance of a particular vehicle at a particular speed in particular conditions will vary.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Most people on the highways drive too close to the car ahead of them regularly.

Agreed.  But even if leaving the recommended gap between cars this accident would have been very hard to avoid.  But for the stupidity of someone parking their vehicle on a highway no deaths or injuries would have occurred.

FWIW, that is a recommended minimum gap.  In situations with adverse weather conditions or restricted visibility, you should be opening that up.

[Razgovory]

Either Canadian law is screwy or the story is not right.  The back end of a car is sacrosanct.  You are supposed to keep a decent distance from the car ahead of you in case they have make an emergency stop or something.  If you run into the back of someone else's car you are almost always in the wrong.  Last month I had to hit the breaks in my neighborhood to avoid hitting a kid.  Goofy kid runs out in front of the car and I slam on the breaks.  Nearly gave me a heart attack.

Back end of a car is sacrosanct and you are presumed responsbile whenever you hit it.  However, if the driver commits a fault, say, stops suddenly without any reason, or decides to park on the left lane, then there's grounds for this person to be accused.

Then the back end of a car is not sacrosanct in Canada.