CdM is in love!

[Razgovory]

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.

The sad thing is, Raz, if you get into an accident through no fault of your own that results in serious injury or death, there's a good chance you are going to end up charged with DUI manslaughter due to the psychiatric meds you take.  Or charged with DUI if you end up in a single car accident and make the mistake of honestly answering police questions about what medication you take.  I've worked on several cases where people were charged solely on the basis of their prescribed medications, taken at prescribed dosages.

I did not know that.  Legally restricting my driving privileges but not telling me they are doing so seems somewhat unfair.

[CountDeMoney]

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.

If the motorcyclist was driving to the conditions of the road like all motorists should, then he would've been able to see it.

Just because the posted speed limit for a road with a bend in it is 55 mph doesn't absolve you of driving to those conditions.  It just means you don't get cited for speeding.  A bend in the road limiting your visibility?
Slow the fuck down.

Bit this is Soviet Canuckistan, and that concept is apparently ignored. 

[DGuller]

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

Often times that requirement is just impossible to fulfill.  If you leave out enough space ahead of you on a crowded highway, it just means that someone else sees a gap that he can fill.  So you're back to tailgating.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

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 know you just pulled a number out of your ass, but on every stretch of road I have ever driven on with a 60mph speed limit I can see more than 350ft in front of me, and I am regularly scanning much farther than that.

Also, drop the obsession with parking in the road and address the case of a tree limb.  If that had been a tree limb instead of a tree hugger, this whole incident would just be, "Too bad, so sad"?

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.

Abso-fucking-lutely right that he was going too fast and should have been held responsible.  Life in prison might be steep, but he damn well better never be allowed to get behind the wheel of a rig again.  He has demonstrated dangerous inattention.

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

The driver should not be relying on department warnings to optimize his runs.  Yes, if the department issues such warnings they should cover all cases.  That should not absolve the trucker of responsibility for causing the accident.

[Barrister]

Bit this is Soviet Canuckistan, and that concept is apparently ignored.

The motorcycle driver might have been able to avoid the vehicle, but that does nothing to absolve the guilt of the lady who essentially parked her vehicle in the middle of the highway.

[Malthus]

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.

If the motorcyclist was driving to the conditions of the road like all motorists should, then he would've been able to see it.

Just because the posted speed limit for a road with a bend in it is 55 mph doesn't absolve you of driving to those conditions.  It just means you don't get cited for speeding.  A bend in the road limiting your visibility?
Slow the fuck down.

Bit this is Soviet Canuckistan, and that concept is apparently ignored.

So, if I get pissed off at all these damn speeders and lousy punk drivers these days, and I deliberately put a tree trunk barrier across a road to fuck with them and someone smashes into it and dies, I'm not guilty of anything because they ought to have been able to avoid smashing into it had they been driving properly? 

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Bit this is Soviet Canuckistan, and that concept is apparently ignored.

The motorcycle driver might have been able to avoid the vehicle, but that does nothing to absolve the guilt of the lady who essentially parked her vehicle in the middle of the highway.

I don't think anyone is trying to absolve the guilt of the lady.  A bunch of people seem to be trying to absolve the guilt of the motorcyclist, though.

[crazy canuck]

Bit this is Soviet Canuckistan, and that concept is apparently ignored.

Thats because we assume that other people wont be so stupid and reckless as to leave a vehicle parked in the left lane of a highway, an act which apparently isnt viewed as utterly stupid by some.

[Malthus]

Bit this is Soviet Canuckistan, and that concept is apparently ignored.

The motorcycle driver might have been able to avoid the vehicle, but that does nothing to absolve the guilt of the lady who essentially parked her vehicle in the middle of the highway.

I don't think anyone is trying to absolve the guilt of the lady.  A bunch of people seem to be trying to absolve the guilt of the motorcyclist, though.

Dude is apparently dead, so his "guilt" is kinda irrelevant. 

[crazy canuck]

Bit this is Soviet Canuckistan, and that concept is apparently ignored.

The motorcycle driver might have been able to avoid the vehicle, but that does nothing to absolve the guilt of the lady who essentially parked her vehicle in the middle of the highway.

I don't think anyone is trying to absolve the guilt of the lady.  A bunch of people seem to be trying to absolve the guilt of the motorcyclist, though.

Naw, this all comes from Grumbler's rather odd conclusion that the motorcycle driver has more blame than the idiot who parked her car on a highway.  might a court conclude the the motorcycle driver had some contributory negligence if this were a civil matter?  Probably.  Would a Court conclude he was the cause of the accident.  Certainly not, following the but for test used in civil cases.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Dude is apparently dead, so his "guilt" is kinda irrelevant. 

From a legal standpoint, I agree.  From a moral standpoint, I don't.

This idiot woman is responsible for creating a dangerous situation on a public highway.  She created the situation that got the motorcyclist and his daughter killed, but the motorcyclist is responsible for their actual deaths.  Why should the difference between reckless endangerment and two counts of manslaughter for the woman be based on the actions of someone else?

[grumbler]

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.

Rules are the same in the US.

Space around your vehicle gives you distance to react in
emergencies and avoid a crash. Create a space cushion
around your vehicle by staying in the middle of your lane.
Make sure there is enough room ahead of your vehicle and
behind it for other vehicles to pass or stop safely.
Use the two-, three- and four-second rule to determine if
you are following far enough behind the vehicle ahead of
you.
Following Distance
At these posted speeds and on dry surfaces,
this distance, in seconds, allows the driver to steer and
brake out of a problem areas.

2 seconds   Under 35 MPH
3 seconds   36-45 MPH
4 seconds   46-70 MPH
...

Increase your following distance when driving:
 behind a large vehicle that blocks your vision
 in bad weather or heavy traffic
 when exiting an expressway
 behind a motorcycle
 when being tailgated

http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/pdf/dmv39.pdf

[crazy canuck]

Dude is apparently dead, so his "guilt" is kinda irrelevant. 

From a legal standpoint, I agree.  From a moral standpoint, I don't.

This idiot woman is responsible for creating a dangerous situation on a public highway.  She created the situation that got the motorcyclist and his daughter killed, but the motorcyclist is responsible for their actual deaths.  Why should the difference between reckless endangerment and two counts of manslaughter for the woman be based on the actions of someone else?

How can you go from "she created the situation that got the motorcyclist and his daughter killed" to the motorcycilist is responsible for their deaths?  If she created the situation that "got" them killed.  That is the reason she was convicted.

[alfred russel]

From a legal standpoint, I agree.  From a moral standpoint, I don't.

This idiot woman is responsible for creating a dangerous situation on a public highway.  She created the situation that got the motorcyclist and his daughter killed, but the motorcyclist is responsible for their actual deaths.  Why should the difference between reckless endangerment and two counts of manslaughter for the woman be based on the actions of someone else?

Why does it have to be an either / or situation? Had motorcycle driver been driving recklessly, and survived the accident, why not charge both of them?

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

How can you go from "she created the situation that got the motorcyclist and his daughter killed" to the motorcycilist is responsible for their deaths?  If she created the situation that "got" them killed.  That is the reason she was convicted.

Morally, I don't think punishment should be based on outcome, but rather the action itself, particularly when the outcome is affected by the improper actions of another.  Stopping in the middle of a highway is endangering people and should be punished.  Why should the severity of that punishment change depending on whether or not someone else is independently driving recklessly?