OK I normally don't do this, but I'm gonna do a Sweetass and start a thread inspired by Paradox OT.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/10916470/Canadian-woman-who-stopped-car-to-help-ducks-faces-life-in-jail-after-causing-fatal-crash.html
QuoteCanadian woman who stopped car to help ducks faces life in jail after causing fatal crash
Emma Czornobaj sentenced over deaths of Andre Roy and 16-year-old daughter Jessie for parking car on busy road after seeing ducklings without their mother
By AP
10:47AM BST 21 Jun 2014
A Canadian woman who parked her car on a highway to help a group of ducklings on the side of the road has been found guilty of causing the deaths of a motorcyclist and his passenger daughter who slammed into her car.
Emma Czornobaj was convicted by a jury on Friday on two counts of criminal negligence causing death, a charge that carries a maximum life sentence, and two counts of dangerous driving causing death, which comes with a maximum of 14 years in jail.
The 25 year-old was charged in the deaths of Andre Roy, 50, and his daughter Jessie, 16.
She wiped away tears when the verdict was delivered to a packed courtroom in Montreal. Quebec Superior Court Justice Eliane Perreault said the 12-member jury voted unanimously.
Czornobaj was released until her pre-sentence hearing on August 8.
Related Articles
White House orders creation of 'Pollinator Health Task Force' to protect bees
21 Jun 2014
Watch: giraffe born at San Diego zoo
20 Jun 2014
'Once in a lifetime' rare white whale spotted off Sydney
20 Jun 2014
Scientists discover fish-eating spiders
19 Jun 2014
Roy's motorcycle slammed into Czornobaj's car, which was stopped in the left lane of a provincial highway south of Montreal in 2010.
Czornobaj, a self-professed animal lover, told the court that she did not see the ducklings' mother anywhere and planned to capture them and take them home.
Defence lawyer Marc Labelle said his client was stunned by the jury's decision.
"The fact that she was involved in the accident in the first place was a hard experience for her," he said. "The fact that she had to go through a trial with a lot of publicity was tough and to be confirmed by 12 citizens, the jury, that the conduct was criminal is a hard blow."
Pauline Volikakis, whose husband and daughter were killed in the collision, briefly fought back tears when she left the courtroom.
"I don't wish misfortune on anyone," Volikakis said. "It's time that we go on. This will not bring [back] my loved ones."
Prosecutor Annie-Claude Chasse had a message for motorists.
"What we hope is that a clear message is sent to society that we do not stop on the highway for animals. It's not worth it."
According to Swedish rules the motorcycle guy was speeding (since he couldn't stop on the stretch of road he could see), but still...
Animals are meant to serve man.
Life in prison for manslaughter? Seems excessive.
Quotecriminal negligence causing death, a charge that carries a maximum life sentence, and two counts of dangerous driving causing death, which comes with a maximum of 14 years in jail.
Wow. That's all kinds of fucked up, if this really happened as described. Yeah, she was a moron for stopping her car and thinking it was a good idea to kidnap some ducklings, but I'd argue that the guy was killed because he ran his motorcycle into a stationary object. The death of the daughter is on the head of the guy who rammed his motorcycle into a stopped car (but, given that he couldn't stand trial, I don't think prosecution was in order).
However, this is in Canada (and Quebec, no less), so fucked-upedness should be expected, I suppose.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 22, 2014, 07:50:19 AM
Life in prison for manslaughter? Seems excessive. Quotecriminal negligence causing death, a charge that carries a maximum life sentence, and two counts of dangerous driving causing death, which comes with a maximum of 14 years in jail.
I'll tell you what. You get the penalty reduced to a couple of weeks, and then send me your route to and from work.
Then every day after that I will leave my car stationary on that path just around curves while I look for ducklings to rescue. :P
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2014, 07:58:03 AM
Wow. That's all kinds of fucked up, if this really happened as described.
Just a bit.
Quote"What we hope is that a clear message is sent to society that we do not stop on the highway for animals. It's not worth it."
Funny, usually the clear message sent to motorcyclists in driver's education is to watch the road for obstacles, debris and other vehicles.
Free Czornobaj!
Seriously fucked up. Negligently causing car accident can equal life in prison? Are you fucking kidding me?
QuoteCzornobaj was released until her pre-sentence hearing on August 8.
Hope she has the guts to do what's good and necessary.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 22, 2014, 08:07:55 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 22, 2014, 07:50:19 AM
Life in prison for manslaughter? Seems excessive. Quotecriminal negligence causing death, a charge that carries a maximum life sentence, and two counts of dangerous driving causing death, which comes with a maximum of 14 years in jail.
I'll tell you what. You get the penalty reduced to a couple of weeks, and then send me your route to and from work.
Then every day after that I will leave my car stationary on that path just around curves while I look for ducklings to rescue. :P
Sounds reasonable. My car has these things called brakes. Also a steering wheel. Also it's a car and not a suicide machine.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2014, 08:43:48 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2014, 07:58:03 AM
Wow. That's all kinds of fucked up, if this really happened as described.
Just a bit.
Quote"What we hope is that a clear message is sent to society that we do not stop on the highway for animals. It's not worth it."
Funny, usually the clear message sent to motorcyclists in driver's education is to watch the road for obstacles, debris and other vehicles.
And don't speed. The guy was doing about 75 mph in a 55 mph zone.
Query: Why would a road with true blind curves have a 55mph speed limit, anyway?
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2014, 09:10:10 AM
And don't speed. The guy was doing about 75 mph in a 55 mph zone.
Too be fair to him, this was
criminal negligence, so she specifically stopped the vehicle with the specific aim of killing him. What with intent embedded in "criminal" and all.
Ducks. The greatest evil in the world. They travel in packs and shit everywhere.
And they don't wear pants.
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2014, 07:41:09 AM
OK I normally don't do this, but I'm gonna do a Sweetass and start a thread inspired by Paradox OT.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/10916470/Canadian-woman-who-stopped-car-to-help-ducks-faces-life-in-jail-after-causing-fatal-crash.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/10916470/Canadian-woman-who-stopped-car-to-help-ducks-faces-life-in-jail-after-causing-fatal-crash.html)
QuoteCanadian woman who stopped car to help ducks faces life in jail after causing fatal crash
Emma Czornobaj sentenced over deaths of Andre Roy and 16-year-old daughter Jessie for parking car on busy road after seeing ducklings without their mother
By AP
10:47AM BST 21 Jun 2014
A Canadian woman who parked her car on a highway to help a group of ducklings on the side of the road has been found guilty of causing the deaths of a motorcyclist and his passenger daughter who slammed into her car.
Emma Czornobaj was convicted by a jury on Friday on two counts of criminal negligence causing death, a charge that carries a maximum life sentence, and two counts of dangerous driving causing death, which comes with a maximum of 14 years in jail.
The 25 year-old was charged in the deaths of Andre Roy, 50, and his daughter Jessie, 16.
She wiped away tears when the verdict was delivered to a packed courtroom in Montreal. Quebec Superior Court Justice Eliane Perreault said the 12-member jury voted unanimously.
Czornobaj was released until her pre-sentence hearing on August 8.
Related Articles
White House orders creation of 'Pollinator Health Task Force' to protect bees
21 Jun 2014
Watch: giraffe born at San Diego zoo
20 Jun 2014
'Once in a lifetime' rare white whale spotted off Sydney
20 Jun 2014
Scientists discover fish-eating spiders
19 Jun 2014
Roy's motorcycle slammed into Czornobaj's car, which was stopped in the left lane of a provincial highway south of Montreal in 2010.
Czornobaj, a self-professed animal lover, told the court that she did not see the ducklings' mother anywhere and planned to capture them and take them home.
Defence lawyer Marc Labelle said his client was stunned by the jury's decision.
"The fact that she was involved in the accident in the first place was a hard experience for her," he said. "The fact that she had to go through a trial with a lot of publicity was tough and to be confirmed by 12 citizens, the jury, that the conduct was criminal is a hard blow."
Pauline Volikakis, whose husband and daughter were killed in the collision, briefly fought back tears when she left the courtroom.
"I don't wish misfortune on anyone," Volikakis said. "It's time that we go on. This will not bring [back] my loved ones."
Prosecutor Annie-Claude Chasse had a message for motorists.
"What we hope is that a clear message is sent to society that we do not stop on the highway for animals. It's not worth it."
According to Swedish rules the motorcycle guy was speeding (since he couldn't stop on the stretch of road he could see), but still...
Animals are meant to serve man.
Technically, he wasn't speeding, he was below 119km/h and you receive no speeding tickets for that, even though the limit is 100km/h.
The women was dumb. Stopping on the left side of the highway to let the ducks cross. :wacko:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2014, 08:43:48 AM
Funny, usually the clear message sent to motorcyclists in driver's education is to watch the road for obstacles, debris and other vehicles.
it is highly unexpected for a car to be stopped on the left lane. It is also illegal to stop on the left lane.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2014, 09:19:54 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2014, 09:10:10 AM
And don't speed. The guy was doing about 75 mph in a 55 mph zone.
Too be fair to him, this was criminal negligence, so she specifically stopped the vehicle with the specific aim of killing him. What with intent embedded in "criminal" and all.
criminal negligence needs you committed an illegal act, not specifically out of malice. Like driving under influence and killing someone. Like speeding (real speeding) and killing someone.
If he was going into a blind curve with 119km/h with his kid on the bike he's a massive arse speeding or not. But yes, the woman was a moron, and morons shouldn't be allowed to drive. Also, I feel it's completely fair that she should live with their lives on her conscience. But lifetime imprisonment for being dumb and careless?
Quote from: Ideologue on June 22, 2014, 09:11:27 AM
Query: Why would a road with true blind curves have a 55mph speed limit, anyway?
It's a 60mph speed limit, not 55mph. We need blind spots so that cops can hide and tax us for speeding.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 22, 2014, 09:11:27 AM
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.
Quote from: Liep on June 22, 2014, 09:46:48 AM
If he was going into a blind curve with 119km/h with his kid on the bike he's a massive arse speeding or not. But yes, the woman was a moron, and morons shouldn't be allowed to drive. Also, I feel it's completely fair that she should live with their lives on her conscience. But lifetime imprisonment for being dumb and careless?
It's kind the normal thing to do, driving 119 km/h on the highway. It most likely wasn't a true blind curve, but I don't know the exact spot where this happenned.
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2014, 07:58:03 AM
However, this is in Canada (and Quebec, no less), so fucked-upedness should be expected, I suppose.
I think Quebec is the keyword. Whenever I hear of some fucked up story out of Canada, it's always Quebec. As much as we like to mock Canadians, apart from their paltry mortgage options and dubious tastes in Olympic sports, their society seems to be relatively free of outrageous dysfunction.
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2014, 09:50:32 AM
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.
she was farther behind.
Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2014, 09:51:22 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2014, 09:50:32 AM
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.
she was farther behind.
That shouldn't matter if it was a blind curve. I can sort of forgive the man if he hadn't paid attention to a vehicle in front of him if he had judged the distance to be significant. But at 119km/h a stationary object just closes in extremely quick.
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.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 22, 2014, 09:24:19 AM
Ducks. The greatest evil in the world. They travel in packs and shit everywhere.
And they don't wear pants.
We have plenty of ducks on Jersey City waterfront as well. They constantly jaywalk in long packs and cause the entire four-lane road to stop for them, and they thoroughly shit every square foot of the sidewalk (though you'll have to know what to look for to see it).
Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2014, 09:44:01 AM
it is highly unexpected for a car to be stopped on the left lane. It is also illegal to stop on the left lane.
It's also completely irrelevant for someone driving legally in the right lane.
(Unless the dude on the motorcyle whacked her car while passing on a blind curve. :wacko:)
Where does this idea come from that it was a curve? Non-rhetorical.
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2014, 10:02:57 AM
Where does this idea come from that it was a curve? Non-rhetorical.
I'm inferring it. If you're on a 3 mile straightaway you can usually see a parked car in time.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2014, 10:05:04 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2014, 10:02:57 AM
Where does this idea come from that it was a curve? Non-rhetorical.
I'm inferring it. If you're on a 3 mile straightaway you can usually see a parked car in time.
And you usually don't park there. And yet here we are.
If you have a point to make, feel free to do so.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2014, 09:59:50 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2014, 09:44:01 AM
it is highly unexpected for a car to be stopped on the left lane. It is also illegal to stop on the left lane.
It's also completely irrelevant for someone driving legally in the right lane.
(Unless the dude on the motorcyle whacked her car while passing on a blind curve. :wacko:)
I don't know without more circumstances.
If the road is heavily used, faster traffic tends to stay in the left lane and slower in the right. Plus if it is heavily used, drivers tend to focus on the traffic around them (or may have a view obstructed by the car in front of them). If there was some sort of weather, it may obstruct the views.
I'd consider it absurdly dangerous to stay in a broken down car on the highway. Even if broken down on the shoulder, I'd want to get out of the car because of the chance of a car crashing into it is too high (I almost experienced this as a kid).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2014, 10:05:04 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2014, 10:02:57 AM
Where does this idea come from that it was a curve? Non-rhetorical.
I'm inferring it. If you're on a 3 mile straightaway you can usually see a parked car in time.
Have you ever been in a situation where you're driving along a perfectly straight road, get distracted for just a second, and when you look up again after pressing the "send" button, you're somewhere completely different?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2014, 10:10:24 AM
If you have a point to make, feel free to do so.
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).
Quote from: alfred russel on June 22, 2014, 10:13:48 AM
I'd consider it absurdly dangerous to stay in a broken down car on the highway. Even if broken down on the shoulder, I'd want to get out of the car because of the chance of a car crashing into it is too high (I almost experienced this as a kid).
Interesting. In that situation, I'd rather stay in the car, because I figure I'll be more vulnerable outside of it. Having a car at full speed crash into a stationary car may look sudden and shocking, but it's actually not that dangerous compared to a head-on, especially to the car being hit. If some car is going to read-end my car, then a couple of cars are going to fly somewhere, and I may be in their path completely exposed.
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2014, 10:20:29 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 22, 2014, 10:13:48 AM
I'd consider it absurdly dangerous to stay in a broken down car on the highway. Even if broken down on the shoulder, I'd want to get out of the car because of the chance of a car crashing into it is too high (I almost experienced this as a kid).
Interesting. In that situation, I'd rather stay in the car, because I figure I'll be more vulnerable outside of it. Having a car at full speed crash into a stationary car may look sudden and shocking, but it's actually not that dangerous compared to a head-on, especially to the car being hit. If some car is going to read-end my car, then a couple of cars are going to fly somewhere, and I may be in their path completely exposed.
I don't think you have to expose yourself every time you get out of the car.
It's New Jersey custom.
A lot depends on how busy the highway is. On the highway through here, there is very heavy traffic. A woman at my old company was driving one day and someone stopped on the road to pick up a ladder that was dropped. She hit him and almost died. No one blamed her, because there is enough traffic to focus on that something as unexpected as a stopped car in the road is probably not going to register immediately (and other traffic blocks you view anyway).
If I go and park my car in the highway right now for no good reason right now, there is a high probability someone is going hit it. The speeds make a fatality very possible. Why shouldn't I get in a shitload of trouble for that? It is probably a lot more objectively dangerous than driving home after having 3-4 beers, and if someone gets killed after that I'm going to be in a lot of trouble.
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2014, 10:21:10 AM
I don't think you have to expose yourself every time you get out of the car.
You're right, you don't
have to.
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2014, 10:25:50 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2014, 10:21:10 AM
I don't think you have to expose yourself every time you get out of the car.
You're right, you don't have to.
Land of the free.
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2014, 10:20:29 AM
Interesting. In that situation, I'd rather stay in the car, because I figure I'll be more vulnerable outside of it. Having a car at full speed crash into a stationary car may look sudden and shocking, but it's actually not that dangerous compared to a head-on, especially to the car being hit. If some car is going to read-end my car, then a couple of cars are going to fly somewhere, and I may be in their path completely exposed.
I think this is completely wrong. Get out of the car, and stand well off the road (and obviously not in front of the car).
To illustrate the point to DGuller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McZHJ9-jYi8
Quote from: alfred russel on June 22, 2014, 10:30:58 AM
To illustrate the point to DGuller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McZHJ9-jYi8
that cop is a aryan
I don't see race. At least, not when the video quality is that low. They both look greenish grey.
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 22, 2014, 10:30:58 AM
To illustrate the point to DGuller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McZHJ9-jYi8
:huh: 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.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 22, 2014, 10:13:48 AM
If there was some sort of weather, it may obstruct the views.
Well, I'm sure there was
some kind of weather. :P
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2014, 10:17:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Liep on June 22, 2014, 09:56:15 AM
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)
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2014, 10:46:34 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 22, 2014, 10:30:58 AM
To illustrate the point to DGuller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McZHJ9-jYi8
:huh: 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).
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2014, 09:50:32 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 22, 2014, 09:11:27 AM
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".
QuoteIt 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2014, 10:48:23 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2014, 10:17:32 AM
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).
Passing lane of a 4 lane highway: that changes my perception a bit.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2014, 10:56:38 AM
Also the accused is rather attractive.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2663995/Canada-woman-stops-ducks-guilty-2-deaths.html
meh
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2014, 10:56:38 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2014, 09:50:32 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 22, 2014, 09:11:27 AM
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".
QuoteIt 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.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 22, 2014, 10:53:53 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2014, 10:46:34 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 22, 2014, 10:30:58 AM
To illustrate the point to DGuller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McZHJ9-jYi8
:huh: 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.
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2014, 11:15:18 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 22, 2014, 10:53:53 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2014, 10:46:34 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 22, 2014, 10:30:58 AM
To illustrate the point to DGuller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McZHJ9-jYi8
:huh: 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.
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.
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2014, 11:20:29 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2014, 11:23:23 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2014, 11:20:29 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2014, 11:15:18 AM
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.
Unless you order scrapple.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 22, 2014, 11:26:19 AM
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.
QuoteFWIW, 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.
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2014, 11:29:51 AM
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.
Elevated risk for 5 seconds vs. slightly less risk for half an hour.
Ok, another Google search. The term is "motorist in broken down car killed". I only looked through the first two pages. Only one person was actually killed inside the car, and that was when the truck crashed into the car, and it was in Britain (so it could've been a car smaller than anything a typical American drives). Most of the rest were killed when they were near their car, with the rest being murders.
I would guess that most people aren't so crazy to sit in their cars while on a highway. :P
Unless it's "rush hour".
Quote from: alfred russel on June 22, 2014, 11:45:22 AM
I would guess that most people aren't so crazy to sit in their cars while on a highway. :P
That all depends. If you are on the DC beltway and break down, your chances of living to cross the road are pretty small, so you should stay in the car with the emergency blinkers on, and wait for the cop to come along in five minutes or so. If you are on the Pennsy Turnpike, five miles from any junction, you'd be better off getting out of the car and well off the road.
With cell phones, breakdowns are much less of a hassle/danger, because you can immediately call for help.
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2014, 11:49:36 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 22, 2014, 11:45:22 AM
I would guess that most people aren't so crazy to sit in their cars while on a highway. :P
That all depends. If you are on the DC beltway and break down, your chances of living to cross the road are pretty small, so you should stay in the car with the emergency blinkers on, and wait for the cop to come along in five minutes or so. If you are on the Pennsy Turnpike, five miles from any junction, you'd be better off getting out of the car and well off the road.
With cell phones, breakdowns are much less of a hassle/danger, because you can immediately call for help.
You mean update FB.
There was a guy the other month who crossed I-126 in front of me on foot at night.
Super-illegal, but somehow I avoided killing him.
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2014, 11:56:04 AM
You mean update FB.
Well, I'd update Fireblade after the event, for sure.
If Quebec had been a stand-your-ground state she would have been fine.
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2014, 11:49:36 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 22, 2014, 11:45:22 AM
I would guess that most people aren't so crazy to sit in their cars while on a highway. :P
That all depends. If you are on the DC beltway and break down, your chances of living to cross the road are pretty small, so you should stay in the car with the emergency blinkers on, and wait for the cop to come along in five minutes or so.
:yes: And if you can't use you blinkers, you should always have flares or a reflective red triangle in the trunk. Some are even available to mount on your car.
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2014, 10:50:54 AM
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.
So how does negligence on part of the victim work in Canadian law, then? I mean, other than being ignored?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2014, 12:43:22 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2014, 10:50:54 AM
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.
So how does negligence on part of the victim work in Canadian law, then? I mean, other than being ignored?
Well Quebec and the civil code is a bit funny (which means fuck if I know), but in the rest of Canada you absolutely do have contributory negligence, so you can find the victim 75% responsible, but that still means the other person pays out 25%.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2014, 10:56:38 AM
Also the accused is rather attractive.
Ah, that's the crucial data point we've been missing up until now. :cool:
I do wonder if she would have been convicted in the US or even tried.
Quote from: mongers on June 22, 2014, 05:39:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2014, 10:56:38 AM
Also the accused is rather attractive.
Ah, that's the crucial data point we've been missing up until now. :cool:
I always cut to the heart of that matter.
Quote from: Barrister on June 22, 2014, 05:16:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2014, 12:43:22 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2014, 10:50:54 AM
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.
So how does negligence on part of the victim work in Canadian law, then? I mean, other than being ignored?
Well Quebec and the civil code is a bit funny (which means fuck if I know), but in the rest of Canada you absolutely do have contributory negligence, so you can find the victim 75% responsible, but that still means the other person pays out 25%.
This is a criminal case though. I don't think contributory negligence is a defence in a criminal context.
Anyway, the headlines are highly alarmist. The maximum sentence for criminal negliegence causing death is indeed life ... but it has no mandatory minimum, unless caused by a gun (in which case, the minimum is 4 years). It is very unlikely a woman guilty of parking her car stupidly is going to jail for the maximum possible time for this offence.
I suppose headlines reading "woman potentially faces no jail time at all!" would not sell as many papers. :lol:
Quote220. Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.
Yes, this is the broadest accusation in our criminal code. Also life in Canada means 25 years.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 23, 2014, 08:32:34 AM
Also life in Canada means 25 years.
:pinch: I knew life in Canada was hard, but not that hard.
Quote from: DGuller on June 23, 2014, 08:39:10 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 23, 2014, 08:32:34 AM
Also life in Canada means 25 years.
:pinch: I knew life in Canada was hard, but not that hard.
It's the hard knock life for us
It's the hard knock life for us!
Instead of treated, we get tricked
Instead of kisses, we get kicked
It's the hard knock life!
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2014, 10:40:24 AM
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.
In VT, the charge of Grossly Negligent Operation Causing SBI/Death could theoretically be brought against both drivers in a two-car crash, if they both survived with serious injuries. As I learned to my chagrin, the Driver B's negligence isn't relevant for the element of Driver A's negligence. It is still relevant, of course, as it bears on whose negligence was the proximate cause of the crash.
EDIT: Malthus essentially got it.
Quote from: Malthus on June 23, 2014, 08:23:56 AM
This is a criminal case though. I don't think contributory negligence is a defence in a criminal context.
Where you have a minimum in Canada, like the 4 years for a firearm, can it be suspended or split? VT has "minimums" like that, but they are different from the real US "mandatory minimums" where it has to be a to-serve prison sentence of that length. Our only real mandatory minimums are small jail bits for repeat DUI, I think.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2014, 09:59:50 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2014, 09:44:01 AM
it is highly unexpected for a car to be stopped on the left lane. It is also illegal to stop on the left lane.
It's also completely irrelevant for someone driving legally in the right lane.
(Unless the dude on the motorcyle whacked her car while passing on a blind curve. :wacko:)
Highway usually means 2 lanes in each direction seperated by a moat or wall.
Got more details on where it happenned:
Google link: intersections of highway #15 and #30 (https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Candiac,+QC/@45.3558022,-73.5235165,16z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x4cc90c2b832375a3:0x77f6d97a32f4674b)
RDI news report (French) (http://ici.radio-canada.ca/regions/Montreal/2014/06/20/002-canard-emma-czornobaj-coupable.shtml)
Not a blind curve, but a curve, in an heavy traffic area, during day. Most likely, there was another car in front, probably the car that narrowly avoided the collision. The bike being blinded never saw the car in time. It's easy to see in front of a bike, not so in front of a car. CdM's girlfriend had stopped her car on the left lane with no parking lights whatsoever.
The surviving wife&mother says they were driving 85km/h because she was a beginner, the defense lawyer has raised the point they were driving much faster, police seems to estimate a little above 100km/h.
And driving on the left lane in this situation would not be anormal, given there's the interchange for highway #15 right there, you'd want to avoid cars slowing down to enter #15 and those coming in to #30.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2014, 10:40:24 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2014, 10:50:54 AM
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).
As I said, default speed limit is 100km/h, roughly 60mph. This is the standard for such highways.
Secondary roads are also called highways in english, I believe, those usually have only one lane in each direction with a line seperating traffic in the middle, and those are 90km/h, roughly 55mph.
Quote
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2014, 12:43:22 PM
So how does negligence on part of the victim work in Canadian law, then? I mean, other than being ignored?
You mean like that girl who wore a mini-skirt in the park at night? Yeah, she deserved to be raped.
...
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2014, 06:04:29 PM
I do wonder if she would have been convicted in the US or even tried.
Depends. If she was black in Texas, that would warrant the death penalty for sure.
Quote from: viper37 on June 23, 2014, 10:01:54 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2014, 12:43:22 PM
So how does negligence on part of the victim work in Canadian law, then? I mean, other than being ignored?
You mean like that girl who wore a mini-skirt in the park at night? Yeah, she deserved to be raped.
...
Yes, I mean
exactly like that. Thanks! :yeah:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 23, 2014, 08:55:27 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2014, 10:40:24 AM
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.
If someone is impaired by their prescribed drugs, then they ought not to be driving. :mellow:
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2014, 10:59:33 AM
If someone is impaired by their prescribed drugs, then they ought not to be driving. :mellow:
That's a very inconsiderate and intolerant perspective. :mellow:
Quote from: viper37 on June 23, 2014, 09:56:32 AM
Quote
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)!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2014, 11:58:07 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2014, 10:59:33 AM
If someone is impaired by their prescribed drugs, then they ought not to be driving. :mellow:
That's a very inconsiderate and intolerant perspective. :mellow:
So is banning blind people from driving. :huh:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 23, 2014, 08:55:27 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2014, 10:40:24 AM
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.
What does prescribed matter if it impairs your driving?
Whether or not the motorcycle dude should have been going that fast, coming to a dead stop in a blind curve is just stupid.
Anyway, had an oddly similar experience (though no fatalities) Saturday night driving home from a late dinner. On a windy road some girl stopped her car to help a couple fawns off the road. Stopped traffic both ways, and annoyed me a bit-- she could have just honked the horn to scare them off.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 23, 2014, 12:12:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2014, 11:58:07 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2014, 10:59:33 AM
If someone is impaired by their prescribed drugs, then they ought not to be driving. :mellow:
That's a very inconsiderate and intolerant perspective. :mellow:
So is banning blind people from driving. :huh:
You engineers and your self-driving cars. :wacko:
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2014, 12:16:05 PM
What does prescribed matter if it impairs your driving?
When it doesn't, maybe? My emergency painkillers tell me not to drive after taking them and I don't. But they don't impair my judgment one bit.
Quote from: derspiess on June 23, 2014, 12:16:47 PM
Whether or not the motorcycle dude should have been going that fast, coming to a dead stop in a blind curve is just stupid.
:mad:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2014, 11:58:07 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2014, 10:59:33 AM
If someone is impaired by their prescribed drugs, then they ought not to be driving. :mellow:
That's a very inconsiderate and intolerant perspective. :mellow:
That's me. :)
Quote from: derspiess on June 23, 2014, 12:18:05 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2014, 12:16:05 PM
What does prescribed matter if it impairs your driving?
When it doesn't, maybe? My emergency painkillers tell me not to drive after taking them and I don't. But they don't impair my judgment one bit.
Elaborate.
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2014, 12:19:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 23, 2014, 12:18:05 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2014, 12:16:05 PM
What does prescribed matter if it impairs your driving?
When it doesn't, maybe? My emergency painkillers tell me not to drive after taking them and I don't. But they don't impair my judgment one bit.
Elaborate.
I don't notice any judgment impairment after taking them.
Quote from: derspiess on June 23, 2014, 12:21:09 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2014, 12:19:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 23, 2014, 12:18:05 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2014, 12:16:05 PM
What does prescribed matter if it impairs your driving?
When it doesn't, maybe? My emergency painkillers tell me not to drive after taking them and I don't. But they don't impair my judgment one bit.
Elaborate.
I don't notice any judgment impairment after taking them.
Is there a point in there trying to get out or should I give up hope?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 23, 2014, 12:17:11 PM
You engineers and your self-driving cars. :wacko:
:lol:
We just design stuff like that because it's great fun (if an engineer tells you he does it for the money he's lying to you - there are plenty of awfully boring yet profitable careers for someone with an engineering degree).
But it'll be insurance execs that'll bar real folk from driving in the not so distant future.
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2014, 11:59:12 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 23, 2014, 09:56:32 AM
Quote
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)!
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.
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.
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2014, 12:22:43 PM
Is there a point in there trying to get out or should I give up hope?
Dunno, man.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 12:23:06 PM
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...
Quote from: Iormlund on June 23, 2014, 12:26:03 PM
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.
Fuck animal lovers!
They deserve to go to jail for ever, if only we could afford the bill.
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2014, 11:59:12 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 23, 2014, 09:56:32 AM
Quote
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.
Quote from: viper37 on June 23, 2014, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2014, 11:59:12 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 23, 2014, 09:56:32 AM
Quote
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.
Quote from: viper37 on June 23, 2014, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2014, 11:59:12 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 23, 2014, 09:56:32 AM
Quote
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
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2014, 02:06:19 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2014, 03:01:35 PM
http://www.swedishroadsafety.se/general-traffic-rules.html
QuoteThe 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.
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.
Quote from: viper37 on June 23, 2014, 03:05:14 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2014, 03:01:35 PM
http://www.swedishroadsafety.se/general-traffic-rules.html
QuoteThe 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.
:wacko:
Most people on the highways drive too close to the car ahead of them regularly.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 23, 2014, 03:26:45 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2014, 03:07:20 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 03:29:57 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 23, 2014, 03:26:45 PM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on June 23, 2014, 09:53:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2014, 10:40:24 AM
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. :mellow:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on June 23, 2014, 08:55:27 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2014, 10:40:24 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 03:29:57 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 23, 2014, 03:26:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 23, 2014, 03:26:45 PM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on June 23, 2014, 02:51:39 PM
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"?
QuoteI 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.
QuoteYet, 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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2014, 03:44:20 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2014, 03:44:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 03:29:57 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 23, 2014, 03:26:45 PM
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? :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2014, 03:49:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2014, 03:44:20 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2014, 03:44:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 03:50:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2014, 03:49:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2014, 03:44:20 PM
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. :hmm:
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 03:50:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2014, 03:49:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2014, 03:44:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 23, 2014, 03:52:12 PM
Dude is apparently dead, so his "guilt" is kinda irrelevant. :hmm:
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?
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2014, 03:01:35 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 23, 2014, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2014, 11:59:12 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 23, 2014, 09:56:32 AM
Quote
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
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteSpace 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
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 04:02:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 23, 2014, 03:52:12 PM
Dude is apparently dead, so his "guilt" is kinda irrelevant. :hmm:
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.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 04:02:35 PM
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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:05:29 PM
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?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 04:14:35 PM
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?
That isn't the way the law works though. Attempted murder is not punished as severely as successful murder.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2014, 04:06:51 PM
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?
I think was language was imprecise; my reply to CC is more clear. I was not suggesting an either-or situation. I was questioning why the punishment of one should change drastically based on the actions of the other.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 04:14:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:05:29 PM
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?
The law punishes people more harshly when death ensues from a negligent act than when it doesn't.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2014, 04:17:58 PM
That isn't the way the law works though. Attempted murder is not punished as severely as successful murder.
I know that. I think it
should be, though. If I shoot you because I want you dead, my punishment should not depend on how good a shot I am or how good a trauma center the area has.
Edit: fixed a negation
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 04:14:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:05:29 PM
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?
Punishment is always based in part on outcome. The legal principle is that the sentence must be "proportionate to the gravity of the offence".
You might punch one person and they suffer no injury, while you punch another and they fall down, crack their skull and die. The action was the same in both cases, but the outcomes couldn't be more different, and as a result so are the sentences.
Quote from: Malthus on June 23, 2014, 04:18:48 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 04:14:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:05:29 PM
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?
The law punishes people more harshly when death ensues from a negligent act than when it doesn't.
Yes, it does, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense, at least if you view criminal punishment as a disincentive rather than as an act of vengeance.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 04:14:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:05:29 PM
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
The law views it differently. If the idiot was lucky enough that she didnt kill or injure anyone as a result of her negligent act then she would have gotten off with as little as a ticket - or perhaps not even that if the police did not see her. But unfortunately her stupidity, as you so aptly commented, created the situation which caused others to die. For that the law creates significant legal sanctions. It is hard to imagine a system that would do otherwise. The alternative is a kind of Minority Report judicial system where we punish for things that didnt actually occur but might have occurred. That would be a dangerous path indeed.
Quote from: DGuller on June 23, 2014, 04:22:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 23, 2014, 04:18:48 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 04:14:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:05:29 PM
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?
The law punishes people more harshly when death ensues from a negligent act than when it doesn't.
Yes, it does, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense, at least if you view criminal punishment as a disincentive rather than as an act of vengeance.
Really? You would rather have a system which judges actions by what might have occurred?
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2014, 04:21:03 PM
Punishment is always based in part on outcome. The legal principle is that the sentence must be "proportionate to the gravity of the offence".
The first doesn't follow from the second. The gravity of the offence is the same, the gravity of the outcome stemming from the offence is different.
Quote from: DGuller on June 23, 2014, 04:24:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2014, 04:21:03 PM
Punishment is always based in part on outcome. The legal principle is that the sentence must be "proportionate to the gravity of the offence".
The first doesn't follow from the second. The gravity of the offence is the same, the gravity of the outcome stemming from the offence is different.
How is your actions causing someone to die the same as your actions which cause someone to skin their knee? The outcome is significant.
Quote from: DGuller on June 23, 2014, 04:24:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2014, 04:21:03 PM
Punishment is always based in part on outcome. The legal principle is that the sentence must be "proportionate to the gravity of the offence".
The first doesn't follow from the second. The gravity of the offence is the same, the gravity of the outcome stemming from the offence is different.
No. The first example the offence would be simple assault. The second example is manslaughter.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:24:45 PM
Really? You would rather have a system which judges actions by what might have occurred?
No, I would rather have a system with judges actions by the expected outcome of them. That's very different from "might have", "might have" is worst case outcome and not expected outcome.
Quote from: DGuller on June 23, 2014, 04:22:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 23, 2014, 04:18:48 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 04:14:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:05:29 PM
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?
The law punishes people more harshly when death ensues from a negligent act than when it doesn't.
Yes, it does, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense, at least if you view criminal punishment as a disincentive rather than as an act of vengeance.
"Disincentive" is only one of the functions of a criminal sentence. Another is, indeed, punishment.
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2014, 04:27:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 23, 2014, 04:24:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2014, 04:21:03 PM
Punishment is always based in part on outcome. The legal principle is that the sentence must be "proportionate to the gravity of the offence".
The first doesn't follow from the second. The gravity of the offence is the same, the gravity of the outcome stemming from the offence is different.
No. The first example the offence would be simple assault. The second example is manslaughter.
Well, it's tautological. The legal offences are different because the legal system ensures that same actions with different outcomes are treated differently. The actual wrong acts are the same.
Quote from: DGuller on June 23, 2014, 04:27:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:24:45 PM
Really? You would rather have a system which judges actions by what might have occurred?
No, I would rather have a system with judges actions by the expected outcome of them. That's very different from "might have", "might have" is worst case outcome and not expected outcome.
So, I shoot a gun at you and you die. The expected outcome, on average, of me shooting a gun at someone is that I miss - I'm a lousy shot. So my sentence, to properly deter gun-shooters like me, should be a short sentence for reckless gun-shooting. :hmm:
Quote from: viper37 on June 23, 2014, 02:51:39 PM
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.
For Canadians, that may be as fast as they can safely drive. What I want is safe speeds, which, as you say, may be as low as 20 MPH for primitive folk. All I know is that this guy, at from 119-129 kph, was going too fast to stop in time to save his daughter's life.
QuoteI 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.
Of course. One is always at least partially responsible when one drives a vehicle into a stationary vehicle.
QuoteYet, the department was blamed for insufficient warnings to drivers and rules have been changed since then.
Well, good for them. But so what? The responsibility for being able to control your vehicles remains, and that means being able to stop if you see a hazard like something in the road. Maybe not total responsibility, depending on circumstances, but some.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:23:48 PM
[The law views it differently. If the idiot was lucky enough that she didnt kill or injure anyone as a result of her negligent act then she would have gotten off with as little as a ticket - or perhaps not even that if the police did not see her. But unfortunately her stupidity, as you so aptly commented, created the situation which caused others to die. For that the law creates significant legal sanctions. It is hard to imagine a system that would do otherwise. The alternative is a kind of Minority Report judicial system where we punish for things that didnt actually occur but might have occurred. That would be a dangerous path indeed.
I agree that a Minority Report-type system is a dangerous path and is not something we want, ever. I'm not talking about going down that path, however. I'm talking about pulling the concept of shared negligence in civil law into criminal law. If party B's negligence amplified the effects of party A's negligence, party A should not have to absorb the punishment for both just because they survived and party B didn't. That's about distributing blame for what actually happened, not predicting what might.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:26:01 PM
How is your actions causing someone to die the same as your actions which cause someone to skin their knee? The outcome is significant.
Again your argument is tautological. "It's different because it's different." You have to be able to separate the deterministic wrongdoing part from the random chance part that is set in motion once you do something wrong. If I play a game of Russian roulette with someone's head, the wrongfulness of my act is the same regardless of whether the live round is fired when I pull the trigger.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 04:34:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:23:48 PM
[The law views it differently. If the idiot was lucky enough that she didnt kill or injure anyone as a result of her negligent act then she would have gotten off with as little as a ticket - or perhaps not even that if the police did not see her. But unfortunately her stupidity, as you so aptly commented, created the situation which caused others to die. For that the law creates significant legal sanctions. It is hard to imagine a system that would do otherwise. The alternative is a kind of Minority Report judicial system where we punish for things that didnt actually occur but might have occurred. That would be a dangerous path indeed.
I agree that a Minority Report-type system is a dangerous path and is not something we want, ever. I'm not talking about going down that path, however. I'm talking about pulling the concept of shared negligence in civil law into criminal law. If party B's negligence amplified the effects of party A's negligence, party A should not have to absorb the punishment for both just because they survived and party B didn't. That's about distributing blame for what actually happened, not predicting what might.
Sounds like your putting the victim on trial. No thanks.
Quote from: Malthus on June 23, 2014, 04:31:22 PM
So, I shoot a gun at you and you die. The expected outcome, on average, of me shooting a gun at someone is that I miss - I'm a lousy shot. So my sentence, to properly deter gun-shooters like me, should be a short sentence for reckless gun-shooting. :hmm:
:hmm: If on average you miss, then you would never hit me.
Quote from: DGuller on June 23, 2014, 04:27:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:24:45 PM
Really? You would rather have a system which judges actions by what might have occurred?
No, I would rather have a system with judges actions by the expected outcome of them. That's very different from "might have", "might have" is worst case outcome and not expected outcome.
Lol, the expected outcome? So rather than judge as to what actually happened we would like it to accountants to tell us what an expected outcome ought to have been?
Quote from: DGuller on June 23, 2014, 04:41:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 23, 2014, 04:31:22 PM
So, I shoot a gun at you and you die. The expected outcome, on average, of me shooting a gun at someone is that I miss - I'm a lousy shot. So my sentence, to properly deter gun-shooters like me, should be a short sentence for reckless gun-shooting. :hmm:
:hmm: If on average you miss, then you would never hit me.
Maybe he was aiming at someone else.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:43:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 23, 2014, 04:27:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:24:45 PM
Really? You would rather have a system which judges actions by what might have occurred?
No, I would rather have a system with judges actions by the expected outcome of them. That's very different from "might have", "might have" is worst case outcome and not expected outcome.
Lol, the expected outcome? So rather than judge as to what actually happened we would like it to accountants to tell us what an expected outcome ought to have been?
Well, that's no surprise, comming from DG. :D
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 04:34:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:23:48 PM
[The law views it differently. If the idiot was lucky enough that she didnt kill or injure anyone as a result of her negligent act then she would have gotten off with as little as a ticket - or perhaps not even that if the police did not see her. But unfortunately her stupidity, as you so aptly commented, created the situation which caused others to die. For that the law creates significant legal sanctions. It is hard to imagine a system that would do otherwise. The alternative is a kind of Minority Report judicial system where we punish for things that didnt actually occur but might have occurred. That would be a dangerous path indeed.
I agree that a Minority Report-type system is a dangerous path and is not something we want, ever. I'm not talking about going down that path, however. I'm talking about pulling the concept of shared negligence in civil law into criminal law. If party B's negligence amplified the effects of party A's negligence, party A should not have to absorb the punishment for both just because they survived and party B didn't. That's about distributing blame for what actually happened, not predicting what might.
Yes, and it should be distributed based on what a reasonable person might have been able to assume about the consequences of their actions. If a car is stopped on the road, even for bad reasons, does the person who stopped it have a reasonable assumption that the traffic which comes up on it will stop? Not that this was the case in Quebec; the woman there seemingly took no reasonable steps to ensure that other drivers would be in less danger from her reckless acts. However, in general, liability and punishment should be based on what a reasonable person would expect to result from a behavior, not what did result. I use CheapEEZ Brand brake pads on my cars brakes, and they fail and I knock someone down, give them a concussion, and send them to the hospital. I am morally responsible for his actions, not the deaths of 300 million people because the guy I knocked down was rushing to tell the president of the US "Oops! We made a mistake; this isn't a Russian nuclear strike after all!"
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 04:34:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:23:48 PM
[The law views it differently. If the idiot was lucky enough that she didnt kill or injure anyone as a result of her negligent act then she would have gotten off with as little as a ticket - or perhaps not even that if the police did not see her. But unfortunately her stupidity, as you so aptly commented, created the situation which caused others to die. For that the law creates significant legal sanctions. It is hard to imagine a system that would do otherwise. The alternative is a kind of Minority Report judicial system where we punish for things that didnt actually occur but might have occurred. That would be a dangerous path indeed.
I agree that a Minority Report-type system is a dangerous path and is not something we want, ever. I'm not talking about going down that path, however. I'm talking about pulling the concept of shared negligence in civil law into criminal law. If party B's negligence amplified the effects of party A's negligence, party A should not have to absorb the punishment for both just because they survived and party B didn't. That's about distributing blame for what actually happened, not predicting what might.
Someone made a joke a while back in this thread about the woman who dresses "provocatively" and so the rape is her fault. I am not saying that is what you had in mind. I am certain you didnt. But that is the kind of logic that follows from your example.
Quote from: DGuller on June 23, 2014, 04:41:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 23, 2014, 04:31:22 PM
So, I shoot a gun at you and you die. The expected outcome, on average, of me shooting a gun at someone is that I miss - I'm a lousy shot. So my sentence, to properly deter gun-shooters like me, should be a short sentence for reckless gun-shooting. :hmm:
:hmm: If on average you miss, then you would never hit me.
Your example, though badly constructed, does bring up another point. If you fire at someone and you miss, you face the reckless gun-shooting charges, you're not getting off. So, in a sense, you do face the punishment for an action that had a worse expected outcome than actual outcome. I assume reckless gun shooting is illegal because it may kill someone. So the concept of figuring expected outcome into punishment isn't as alien as you make it sound, we're just disagreeing on whether its application should be biased.
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2014, 04:46:19 PM
Yes, and it should be distributed based on what a reasonable person might have been able to assume about the consequences of their actions. If a car is stopped on the road, even for bad reasons, does the person who stopped it have a reasonable assumption that the traffic which comes up on it will stop?
So the idiot who did what nobody would expect her to do is not at fault. It is the guy who didnt anticipate that she would do such a stupid thing?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:43:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 23, 2014, 04:27:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:24:45 PM
Really? You would rather have a system which judges actions by what might have occurred?
No, I would rather have a system with judges actions by the expected outcome of them. That's very different from "might have", "might have" is worst case outcome and not expected outcome.
Lol, the expected outcome? So rather than judge as to what actually happened we would like it to accountants to tell us what an expected outcome ought to have been?
I agree that this ideal is not practical, but it is nevertheless both more fair, and more effective at discouraging wrongful behavior. And impractical ideals do have their uses, they can serve as something to shoot for to the extent possible.
Quote from: DGuller on June 23, 2014, 04:51:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:43:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 23, 2014, 04:27:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:24:45 PM
Really? You would rather have a system which judges actions by what might have occurred?
No, I would rather have a system with judges actions by the expected outcome of them. That's very different from "might have", "might have" is worst case outcome and not expected outcome.
Lol, the expected outcome? So rather than judge as to what actually happened we would like it to accountants to tell us what an expected outcome ought to have been?
I agree that this ideal is not practical, but it is nevertheless both more fair, and more effective at discouraging wrongful behavior. And impractical ideals do have their uses, they can serve as something to shoot for to the extent possible.
You have gone mad in your lust for power :P
Quote from: DGuller on June 23, 2014, 04:48:05 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 23, 2014, 04:41:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 23, 2014, 04:31:22 PM
So, I shoot a gun at you and you die. The expected outcome, on average, of me shooting a gun at someone is that I miss - I'm a lousy shot. So my sentence, to properly deter gun-shooters like me, should be a short sentence for reckless gun-shooting. :hmm:
:hmm: If on average you miss, then you would never hit me.
Your example, though badly constructed, does bring up another point. If you fire at someone and you miss, you face the reckless gun-shooting charges, you're not getting off. So, in a sense, you do face the punishment for an action that had a worse expected outcome than actual outcome. I assume reckless gun shooting is illegal because it may kill someone. So the concept of figuring expected outcome into punishment isn't as alien as you make it sound, we're just disagreeing on whether its application should be biased.
:hmm:
I think the part you are not understanding is that punishments for criminal behaviour are not merely intended to rationally regulate and deter socially incorrect behaviour, but also to punsh people for actually succeeding at doing bad things. That's why if I shoot at you and miss my punishment isn't as severe as if I shoot at you and hit.
The strange thing is that he was "gesturing" at the woman. I don't know exactly what that means, maybe he was waving or flipping the bird or something. So he saw her, was doing something with her hands and focusing on the woman who was outside of the car and speeding all at once. I'd say criminal guilt should lie with the motorcyclist.
Quote from: Malthus on June 23, 2014, 04:57:22 PM
:hmm:
I think the part you are not understanding is that punishments for criminal behaviour are not merely intended to rationally regulate and deter socially incorrect behaviour, but also to punsh people for actually succeeding at doing bad things. That's why if I shoot at you and miss my punishment isn't as severe as if I shoot at you and hit.
No, I understand that vengeance is part of the criminal system. My family will be out for your blood, and in civilized countries we have the courts handling that for them to keep the process from getting out of hand. That doesn't mean that the thirst for vengeance results in a better society.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:46:33 PM
Someone made a joke a while back in this thread about the woman who dresses "provocatively" and so the rape is her fault. I am not saying that is what you had in mind. I am certain you didnt. But that is the kind of logic that follows from your example.
Yes, there is a danger of taking this concept too far. I would not extend it beyond actions that would receive civil or criminal citation. Obviously some would argue for doing so, but I don't think that is a sufficient reason not to ever consider the actions of others.
Also, to answer Beeb's post above:
Yes, if the victim committed a citable offense that exacerbated the effects of the accused's offense, they absolutely should be on trial. To not do so is an injustice to the accused and results in one person being punished for the actions of others.
Quote from: Malthus on June 23, 2014, 04:57:22 PM
:hmm:
I think the part you are not understanding is that punishments for criminal behaviour are not merely intended to rationally regulate and deter socially incorrect behaviour, but also to punsh people for actually succeeding at doing bad things. That's why if I shoot at you and miss my punishment isn't as severe as if I shoot at you and hit.
Can't speak of DGuller, but the position I am trying to communicate is that level of success, as much as possible, should not be a factor in punishments for criminal behavior. Vengeance, in all forms, should be removed from the criminal justice system.
Like I said earlier in this thread, the difference between attempted murder and first degree murder should not be the quality of the local trauma center.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:49:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2014, 04:46:19 PM
Yes, and it should be distributed based on what a reasonable person might have been able to assume about the consequences of their actions. If a car is stopped on the road, even for bad reasons, does the person who stopped it have a reasonable assumption that the traffic which comes up on it will stop?
So the idiot who did what nobody would expect her to do is not at fault. It is the guy who didnt anticipate that she would do such a stupid thing?
I don't know why you are quoting me in this response; ask the person who is arguing she is not at fault. :contract:
My impression is there are two sets of fault and they don't have to be connect and could be 'dealt' with separately; the woman broke the Canadian road traffic laws and created a hazard to all users on that road and the motorcyclist was at fault for failing to drive his bike in a safe manner, that is driving slow enough that he can react to the diverse range of hazards you can encounter on a road.
As Grumbler and others have said, keeping a safe stopping distance between you and other road uses is a key requirement. It's been 25 years since I passed our driving test, but knowning and driving 'within' the stopping distance of your speed was an important part of the test.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 03:50:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2014, 03:49:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2014, 03:44:20 PM
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.
The circumstances of which should be taken into consideration when, if not by the jury who are handcuffed by the specifics of whatever the charges are, at least it comes to sentencing.
Motorcyclists must be a protected legal class up there, completely incapable of any behavior which could conceivably be considered as possibly contributory or even foreseeable.
I saw some ducks trying to cross highway in CT, today. Thankfully car scared them and they ran back towards woods.
CT also seemed all about unmarked police cars with radar guns.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 05:13:08 PM
the position I am trying to communicate is that level of success, as much as possible, should not be a factor in punishments for criminal behavior. Vengeance, in all forms, should be removed from the criminal justice system.
I don't agree with removing vengeance, but there are a lot of practical problems with what you suggest.
First, in practice it is difficult to determine to what extent you caused a risk. A truck driver isn't paying attention after staying up all night, barrels through a red light, and kills a family in a car. Another guy has also had a really long day, comes to an intersection in the middle of the night when no one is around, the light stays red for an abnormal sign, so he just goes, with no one in any danger. The violation seems the same--running a red light, not getting proper rest before driving, even though one caused a life threatening situation, and the other didn't put anyone at risk.
Second, it creates perverse incentives. Suppose I'm an asshole that just wants to kill someone. I decide I'll park on a really busy interstate in or around Atlanta, and tell the cops I'm looking to rescue turtles or some bullshit. Maybe people like grumbler that always follow the speed limit and leave like 5 seconds of following distance won't be in danger, but I'm guessing there is a good chance someone is going to plow into my car almost right away (very possibly before I get out of the car :( ). Should I really just get a parking ticket?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2014, 08:53:35 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 05:13:08 PM
the position I am trying to communicate is that level of success, as much as possible, should not be a factor in punishments for criminal behavior. Vengeance, in all forms, should be removed from the criminal justice system.
I don't agree with removing vengeance, but there are a lot of practical problems with what you suggest.
First, in practice it is difficult to determine to what extent you caused a risk. A truck driver isn't paying attention after staying up all night, barrels through a red light, and kills a family in a car. Another guy has also had a really long day, comes to an intersection in the middle of the night when no one is around, the light stays red for an abnormal sign, so he just goes, with no one in any danger. The violation seems the same--running a red light, not getting proper rest before driving, even though one caused a life threatening situation, and the other didn't put anyone at risk.
Second, it creates perverse incentives. Suppose I'm an asshole that just wants to kill someone. I decide I'll park on a really busy interstate in or around Atlanta, and tell the cops I'm looking to rescue turtles or some bullshit. Maybe people like grumbler that always follow the speed limit and leave like 5 seconds of following distance won't be in danger, but I'm guessing there is a good chance someone is going to plow into my car almost right away (very possibly before I get out of the car :( ). Should I really just get a parking ticket?
Since you foolishly mentioned me in you strawman argument, I'd just note that your intention to kill someone make the rest of you absurd hypothetical moot. You don't get a parking ticket for intending to murder someone. :contract:
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2014, 09:00:50 PM
Since you foolishly mentioned me in you strawman argument, I'd just note that your intention to kill someone make the rest of you absurd hypothetical moot. You don't get a parking ticket for intending to murder someone. :contract:
Your honor, I didn't get out of the car to kill anyone, I wanted to save the turtles or ducks or some other bullshit.
If you killed an Atlantan, I don't see why you should be punished.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 23, 2014, 09:19:50 PM
If you killed an Atlantan, I don't see why you should be punished.
:yeahright:
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2014, 08:53:35 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 05:13:08 PM
the position I am trying to communicate is that level of success, as much as possible, should not be a factor in punishments for criminal behavior. Vengeance, in all forms, should be removed from the criminal justice system.
I don't agree with removing vengeance, but there are a lot of practical problems with what you suggest.
First, in practice it is difficult to determine to what extent you caused a risk. A truck driver isn't paying attention after staying up all night, barrels through a red light, and kills a family in a car. Another guy has also had a really long day, comes to an intersection in the middle of the night when no one is around, the light stays red for an abnormal sign, so he just goes, with no one in any danger. The violation seems the same--running a red light, not getting proper rest before driving, even though one caused a life threatening situation, and the other didn't put anyone at risk.
Second, it creates perverse incentives. Suppose I'm an asshole that just wants to kill someone. I decide I'll park on a really busy interstate in or around Atlanta, and tell the cops I'm looking to rescue turtles or some bullshit. Maybe people like grumbler that always follow the speed limit and leave like 5 seconds of following distance won't be in danger, but I'm guessing there is a good chance someone is going to plow into my car almost right away (very possibly before I get out of the car :( ). Should I really just get a parking ticket?
How is that a perverse incentive? Perverse incentive is when you get rewarded for doing something bad. Here you're merely being punished insufficiently for the crime, presumably because the real crime (attempted murder) remains undetected.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 23, 2014, 09:19:50 PM
If you killed an Atlantan, I don't see why you should be punished.
Be careful, I know the vague region where you live. I might look for turtles there. From what I know about your driving, you don't need any obstacles appearing on the roads. :P
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2014, 04:46:19 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 04:34:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2014, 04:23:48 PM
[The law views it differently. If the idiot was lucky enough that she didnt kill or injure anyone as a result of her negligent act then she would have gotten off with as little as a ticket - or perhaps not even that if the police did not see her. But unfortunately her stupidity, as you so aptly commented, created the situation which caused others to die. For that the law creates significant legal sanctions. It is hard to imagine a system that would do otherwise. The alternative is a kind of Minority Report judicial system where we punish for things that didnt actually occur but might have occurred. That would be a dangerous path indeed.
I agree that a Minority Report-type system is a dangerous path and is not something we want, ever. I'm not talking about going down that path, however. I'm talking about pulling the concept of shared negligence in civil law into criminal law. If party B's negligence amplified the effects of party A's negligence, party A should not have to absorb the punishment for both just because they survived and party B didn't. That's about distributing blame for what actually happened, not predicting what might.
Yes, and it should be distributed based on what a reasonable person might have been able to assume about the consequences of their actions. If a car is stopped on the road, even for bad reasons, does the person who stopped it have a reasonable assumption that the traffic which comes up on it will stop? Not that this was the case in Quebec; the woman there seemingly took no reasonable steps to ensure that other drivers would be in less danger from her reckless acts. However, in general, liability and punishment should be based on what a reasonable person would expect to result from a behavior, not what did result. I use CheapEEZ Brand brake pads on my cars brakes, and they fail and I knock someone down, give them a concussion, and send them to the hospital. I am morally responsible for his actions, not the deaths of 300 million people because the guy I knocked down was rushing to tell the president of the US "Oops! We made a mistake; this isn't a Russian nuclear strike after all!"
:lol: I missed this the first time through.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2014, 09:09:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2014, 09:00:50 PM
Since you foolishly mentioned me in you strawman argument, I'd just note that your intention to kill someone make the rest of you absurd hypothetical moot. You don't get a parking ticket for intending to murder someone. :contract:
Your honor, I didn't get out of the car to kill anyone, I wanted to save the turtles or ducks or some other bullshit.
Umm
QuoteSuppose I'm an asshole that just wants to kill someone.
You go to jail, asshole (your term, not mine), because we already know your motive.
The concept of the hypothetical seems to have escaped grumbler. :(
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2014, 09:46:53 PM
The concept of the hypothetical seems to have escaped grumbler. :(
Like the hypothetical "people like grumbler that always follow the speed limit and leave like 5 seconds of following distance?" :lmfao:
Pick your hypotheticals better, and avoid the hyperbole. :lol:
I stopped on the side of the road today to get a dumbass deer off of a fence. :) The thing was freaking out like deer tend to do while I was driving up, ran one way (with about 10 buddies), then stopped and ran back in front of me, went to jump the fence on that side, and got it's leg caught. Poor fucker was just hanging there with its face about 2 feet off the ground making deer noises, so I pulled over, got out, and helped it off. Didn't want it to break it's leg or something.
Being a deer and thus retarded, it didn't wait until I had pulled it all the way off before trying to sprint away at full speed and stuck itself pretty good on the top of the fence. Seemed okay, or at least the deer colored blur seemed okay. Not too much blood on the fence.
Anyway, no motorcycles ran into my car. Granted, there weren't any other cars at all on the road, but hey.
Don't you feel like a complete fucking monster, though?
I'm amazed at the number of posters who are all death-wishy about thundering through fog, blind curves etc at full speed.
Quote from: The Brain on June 24, 2014, 12:47:30 AM
I'm amazed at the number of posters who are all death-wishy about thundering through fog, blind curves etc at full speed.
Apparently it's a sacrosanct right in Canada, like our 2nd Amendment.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2014, 08:20:56 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 24, 2014, 12:47:30 AM
I'm amazed at the number of posters who are all death-wishy about thundering through fog, blind curves etc at full speed.
Apparently it's a sacrosanct right in Canada, like our 2nd Amendment.
Whereas in the US, it is a sacrosanct right to erect barriers on the highway. AH NO MAH RATS!
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:22:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2014, 08:20:56 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 24, 2014, 12:47:30 AM
I'm amazed at the number of posters who are all death-wishy about thundering through fog, blind curves etc at full speed.
Apparently it's a sacrosanct right in Canada, like our 2nd Amendment.
Whereas in the US, it is a sacrosanct right to erect barriers on the highway. AH NO MAH RATS!
No, just a level of expectation to slow down and drive around them. Silly Jew.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2014, 08:20:56 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 24, 2014, 12:47:30 AM
I'm amazed at the number of posters who are all death-wishy about thundering through fog, blind curves etc at full speed.
Apparently it's a sacrosanct right in Canada, like our 2nd Amendment.
You get the state you deserve. :(
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:22:29 AM
Whereas in the US, it is a sacrosanct right to erect barriers on the highway. AH NO MAH RATS!
The plucky tough pioneer spirit of Americans helps them find ways around those barriers while the royalist pansy Canadians cannot handle them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2014, 08:23:50 AM
No, just a level of expectation to slow down and drive around them. Silly Jew.
The thing you are not getting is that the dumbass motorcycle dude isn't actually on trial, what with him being slightly dead and all. I guess being only a silly Jew, I'm not a believer in the ressurection of the flesh, in order to do justice on traffic violations. :P
The issue is this: should the shit for brains duckie-loving chick walk free, because dumbass motorcycle dude was (perhaps) going too fast ... or be charged for creating a foreseeable hazard that, in fact, killed someone?
Or, is it okay to do whatever the fuck you want on the highway, because hey, if motorists were doing what they should, literally nothing they ought to be able to see could hurt them? Because so far, that's what you seem to be saying.
So what happens in Canada if say your car broke down and perhaps there might have been time* for you to steer it into a shoulder but you failed to act. In the interim, someone smacked into you on a motorcycle and died. Would you be doomed to suffer the same blame and shame as this woman?
*hard to see how this could easily be determined after the fact apart from I guess witness statements?
Google AI motorcycle wouldn't hit that car.
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:31:45 AM
Or, is it okay to do whatever the fuck you want on the highway, because hey, if motorists were doing what they should, literally nothing they ought to be able to see could hurt them? Because so far, that's what you seem to be saying.
I don't think anyone is saying that. In fact, has anyone said that this woman should get nothing?
I think as you noted earlier, the open law that could allow her to get an extreme penalty is the big attraction here.
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2014, 08:32:36 AM
So what happens in Canada if say your car broke down and perhaps there might have been time* for you to steer it into a shoulder but you failed to act. In the interim, someone smacked into you on a motorcycle and died. Would you be doomed to suffer the same blame and shame as this woman?
*hard to see how this could easily be determined after the fact apart from I guess witness statements?
The issue would no doubt be decided on a case by case basis based on whether or not you were "negligent". That is, did you meet the standard expected of a reasonable person in that particular situation. Fall far enough below that standard, and someone dies as a result, you risk being charged with "criminal negligence causing death".
You know, with witnessses and facts and all. In what we in Canada quaintly call a "trial", evidently a form of proceeding totally unknown in the US. :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:31:45 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2014, 08:23:50 AM
No, just a level of expectation to slow down and drive around them. Silly Jew.
The thing you are not getting is that the dumbass motorcycle dude isn't actually on trial, what with him being slightly dead and all. I guess being only a silly Jew, I'm not a believer in the ressurection of the flesh, in order to do justice on traffic violations. :P
The issue is this: should the shit for brains duckie-loving chick walk free, because dumbass motorcycle dude was (perhaps) going too fast ... or be charged for creating a foreseeable hazard that, in fact, killed someone?
Or, is it okay to do whatever the fuck you want on the highway, because hey, if motorists were doing what they should, literally nothing they ought to be able to see could hurt them? Because so far, that's what you seem to be saying.
Nobody's exonerating the dead guy and his dead kid, but the mitigating circumstances of a two-party event in which, while not splitting 50-50 culpability, bears some responsibility in contributing to the entire event.
And no, he's not on trial, but he is part of the fucking evidence.
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2014, 08:33:52 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:31:45 AM
Or, is it okay to do whatever the fuck you want on the highway, because hey, if motorists were doing what they should, literally nothing they ought to be able to see could hurt them? Because so far, that's what you seem to be saying.
I don't think anyone is saying that. In fact, has anyone said that this woman should get nothing?
CdM appears to be saying exactly that.
QuoteI think as you noted earlier, the open law that could allow her to get an extreme penalty is the big attraction here.
It's an attraction based purely on ignorance of how sentencing works in Canada. "May get life" is journalistic bullshit, intended to tease the readers. The possible sentencing range is from, literally, nothing, to life. In short, it is a charge that gives total discretion to the judge - meaning, to the common law precedents. There is no way in hell that an accident of this sort would attract the maximum sentence, which in Canadian sentencing law is reserved for "the worst possible offence of that type". A lady stopping to help the cute little duckies may be a dumbass and may be worthy of being charged, but only a complete moron would think this is the worst possible case of ciminal neligence causing death ever.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2014, 08:38:26 AM
And no, he's not on trial, but he is part of the fucking evidence.
Yeah I am confused about Malt's constant mention of trial for the man. I don't think anyone has suggested putting a dead man on trial. I guess that's what happens when you are lawyer - you take your work with you everywhere.
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:43:30 AM
CdM appears to be saying exactly that.
Odd because he has made statements to the contrary.
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:43:30 AM
It's an attraction based purely on ignorance of how sentencing works in Canada. "May get life" is journalistic bullshit, intended to tease the readers. The possible sentencing range is from, literally, nothing, to life. In short, it is a charge that gives total discretion to the judge - meaning, to the common law precedents. There is no way in hell that an accident of this sort would attract the maximum sentence, which in Canadian sentencing law is reserved for "the worst possible offence of that type". A lady stopping to help the cute little duckies may be a dumbass and may be worthy of being charged, but only a complete moron would think this is the worst possible case of ciminal neligence causing death ever.
Ignorance - what a loaded word. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2014, 08:38:26 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:31:45 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2014, 08:23:50 AM
No, just a level of expectation to slow down and drive around them. Silly Jew.
The thing you are not getting is that the dumbass motorcycle dude isn't actually on trial, what with him being slightly dead and all. I guess being only a silly Jew, I'm not a believer in the ressurection of the flesh, in order to do justice on traffic violations. :P
The issue is this: should the shit for brains duckie-loving chick walk free, because dumbass motorcycle dude was (perhaps) going too fast ... or be charged for creating a foreseeable hazard that, in fact, killed someone?
Or, is it okay to do whatever the fuck you want on the highway, because hey, if motorists were doing what they should, literally nothing they ought to be able to see could hurt them? Because so far, that's what you seem to be saying.
Nobody's exonerating the dead guy and his dead kid, but the mitigating circumstances of a two-party event in which, while not splitting 50-50 culpability, bears some responsibility in contributing to the entire event.
And no, he's not on trial, but he is part of the fucking evidence.
I don't think you mean "exonerating".
Contributory negligence is a civil law concept. We are dealing here with criminal law. Sure, the fact that motorcycle dude was (perhaps) going too fast is part of the evidence ... but what it is not, is a
complete defence to the charge, right?
It would certainly be relevant if the dead guy's estate sued the woman. Maybe BB could fill you in on whether the Judge would take it into account in sentencing as a mitigating factor.
Malthus, I am not sure why you think the dead should be resurrected for trial, nor is anyone saying the woman was not negligent (the fact that she never turned on her emergency blinkers alone should tell you she was negligent - in fact, had her axle broken and stopped her like that, she would still be negligent for failing to turn on the emergency blinkers).
the point I made, which appears to have started all of this, is that the motorcycle guy appears to have acted just as stupidly as the woman, and in fact probably bears more blame for the deaths than the woman does. ANYTHING in the road would have killed him and his daughter, from the facts that we have. I stand by that assessment, even if it isn't relevant to the woman's trial.
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2014, 08:44:25 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2014, 08:38:26 AM
And no, he's not on trial, but he is part of the fucking evidence.
Yeah I am confused about Malt's constant mention of trial for the man. I don't think anyone has suggested putting a dead man on trial. I guess that's what happens when you are lawyer - you take your work with you everywhere.
Because your "side" seems to be arguing about - well, nothing. You apparently don't disagree that the woman should be charged. WTF is your beef then?
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2014, 08:45:57 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:43:30 AM
CdM appears to be saying exactly that.
Odd because he has made statements to the contrary.
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:43:30 AM
It's an attraction based purely on ignorance of how sentencing works in Canada. "May get life" is journalistic bullshit, intended to tease the readers. The possible sentencing range is from, literally, nothing, to life. In short, it is a charge that gives total discretion to the judge - meaning, to the common law precedents. There is no way in hell that an accident of this sort would attract the maximum sentence, which in Canadian sentencing law is reserved for "the worst possible offence of that type". A lady stopping to help the cute little duckies may be a dumbass and may be worthy of being charged, but only a complete moron would think this is the worst possible case of ciminal neligence causing death ever.
Ignorance - what a loaded word. :)
Apparently, the accurate one. :)
Quote from: grumbler on June 24, 2014, 08:51:09 AM
Malthus, I am not sure why you think the dead should be resurrected for trial, nor is anyone saying the woman was not negligent (the fact that she never turned on her emergency blinkers alone should tell you she was negligent - in fact, had her axle broken and stopped her like that, she would still be negligent for failing to turn on the emergency blinkers).
the point I made, which appears to have started all of this, is that the motorcycle guy appears to have acted just as stupidly as the woman, and in fact probably bears more blame for the deaths than the woman does. ANYTHING in the road would have killed him and his daughter, from the facts that we have. I stand by that assessment, even if it isn't relevant to the woman's trial.
I have no idea whether that is actually true or not; maybe it is. In any case, we both agree it is irrelevant.
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:52:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2014, 08:44:25 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2014, 08:38:26 AM
And no, he's not on trial, but he is part of the fucking evidence.
Yeah I am confused about Malt's constant mention of trial for the man. I don't think anyone has suggested putting a dead man on trial. I guess that's what happens when you are lawyer - you take your work with you everywhere.
Because your "side" seems to be arguing about - well, nothing. You apparently don't disagree that the woman should be charged. WTF is your beef then?
What g said.
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:53:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2014, 08:45:57 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:43:30 AM
CdM appears to be saying exactly that.
Odd because he has made statements to the contrary.
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:43:30 AM
It's an attraction based purely on ignorance of how sentencing works in Canada. "May get life" is journalistic bullshit, intended to tease the readers. The possible sentencing range is from, literally, nothing, to life. In short, it is a charge that gives total discretion to the judge - meaning, to the common law precedents. There is no way in hell that an accident of this sort would attract the maximum sentence, which in Canadian sentencing law is reserved for "the worst possible offence of that type". A lady stopping to help the cute little duckies may be a dumbass and may be worthy of being charged, but only a complete moron would think this is the worst possible case of ciminal neligence causing death ever.
Ignorance - what a loaded word. :)
Apparently, the accurate one. :)
There are less loaded terms. Besides, I think it is pretty obvious that most posters here do not know how Canadian sentencing works. We generally aren't even that informed about sentencing in our own countries.
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2014, 08:59:13 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:52:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2014, 08:44:25 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2014, 08:38:26 AM
And no, he's not on trial, but he is part of the fucking evidence.
Yeah I am confused about Malt's constant mention of trial for the man. I don't think anyone has suggested putting a dead man on trial. I guess that's what happens when you are lawyer - you take your work with you everywhere.
Because your "side" seems to be arguing about - well, nothing. You apparently don't disagree that the woman should be charged. WTF is your beef then?
What g said.
Does not compute. How do you get from an observation that the motorcycle dude was driving badly to slanging on the Canadian legal system? :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2014, 09:00:06 AM
There are less loaded terms. Besides, I think it is pretty obvious that most posters here do not know how Canadian sentencing works. We generally aren't even that informed about sentencing in our own countries.
If you are ignorant about a subject, it is a bad idea to work yourself into a tizzy over it. :)
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 09:04:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2014, 09:00:06 AM
There are less loaded terms. Besides, I think it is pretty obvious that most posters here do not know how Canadian sentencing works. We generally aren't even that informed about sentencing in our own countries.
If you are ignorant about a subject, it is a bad idea to work yourself into a tizzy over it. :)
You think this is me worked up? :huh:
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:55:23 AM
I have no idea whether that is actually true or not; maybe it is. In any case, we both agree it is irrelevant.
:huh: This whole board is irrelevant. Why should relevance even need to be considered?
Quote from: grumbler on June 24, 2014, 09:28:26 AM
:huh: This whole board is irrelevant.
Woah, hold on there. :mad:
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:52:31 AM
Because your "side" seems to be arguing about - well, nothing. You apparently don't disagree that the woman should be charged. WTF is your beef then?
Speaking for myself, and I believe I stated this already, I am arguing that contributory negligence
should be a concept applied to criminal law. At least it should be insofar as other parties' negligence was itself a violation of the law. While I implied such earlier, I do not consider this "putting the victim on trial".
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 24, 2014, 09:41:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:52:31 AM
Because your "side" seems to be arguing about - well, nothing. You apparently don't disagree that the woman should be charged. WTF is your beef then?
Speaking for myself, and I believe I stated this already, I am arguing that contributory negligence should be a concept applied to criminal law. At least it should be insofar as other parties' negligence was itself a violation of the law. While I implied such earlier, I do not consider this "putting the victim on trial".
YOu can "consider" it whatever you want. But I'm telling you that as an experienced prosecutor that would have the effect of putting the victim on trial.
Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2014, 09:47:07 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 24, 2014, 09:41:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:52:31 AM
Because your "side" seems to be arguing about - well, nothing. You apparently don't disagree that the woman should be charged. WTF is your beef then?
Speaking for myself, and I believe I stated this already, I am arguing that contributory negligence should be a concept applied to criminal law. At least it should be insofar as other parties' negligence was itself a violation of the law. While I implied such earlier, I do not consider this "putting the victim on trial".
YOu can "consider" it whatever you want. But I'm telling you that as an experienced prosecutor that would have the effect of putting the victim on trial.
OK, then if we accept that the victim should be on trial in cases where the victim is criminally negligent. To not account for the criminal negligence of all parties is to punish one person for the actions of others just because those others are labelled as "victims".
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 24, 2014, 09:51:58 AM
OK, then if we accept that the victim should be on trial in cases where the victim is criminally negligent. To not account for the criminal negligence of all parties is to punish one person for the actions of others just because those others are labelled as "victims".
No, we punish people for their own actions. When one person is on trial, we generally don't concern ourselves with what other people did.
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2014, 08:33:52 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:31:45 AM
Or, is it okay to do whatever the fuck you want on the highway, because hey, if motorists were doing what they should, literally nothing they ought to be able to see could hurt them? Because so far, that's what you seem to be saying.
I don't think anyone is saying that. In fact, has anyone said that this woman should get nothing?
I said that. That's because I don't believe that torture brings people back to life.
Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2014, 10:06:31 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 24, 2014, 09:51:58 AM
OK, then if we accept that the victim should be on trial in cases where the victim is criminally negligent. To not account for the criminal negligence of all parties is to punish one person for the actions of others just because those others are labelled as "victims".
No, we punish people for their own actions. When one person is on trial, we generally don't concern ourselves with what other people did.
Nonsense. Contributory negligence is an affirmative defense that depends crucially upon the actions of the victim, just like self-defense, which you litigate all the time.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2014, 10:50:02 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2014, 10:06:31 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 24, 2014, 09:51:58 AM
OK, then if we accept that the victim should be on trial in cases where the victim is criminally negligent. To not account for the criminal negligence of all parties is to punish one person for the actions of others just because those others are labelled as "victims".
No, we punish people for their own actions. When one person is on trial, we generally don't concern ourselves with what other people did.
Nonsense. Contributory negligence is an affirmative defense that depends crucially upon the actions of the victim, just like self-defense, which you litigate all the time.
In tort law. Generally speaking, contributory negligence of the victim is not a defence in criminal law.
No, but there's no reason it oughtn't be if you're going to make ordinary negligence a crime. And in any event, I'm referring narrowly to Beeb's statement that he never concerns himself with what other people did, which is a non sequitur unless SD is not a defense in Canada.
Which maybe it isn't. You people deny human rights.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2014, 10:56:32 AM
No, but there's no reason it oughtn't be if you're going to make ordinary negligence a crime.
Because the purposes of criminal law and tort law are quite different, even though both are called "negligence".
For example, in my jurisdiction the purpose of contributory negligence is to determine the degree of fault for the purposes of assigning damages. If I harm you through my negligence, and the court finds you partly at fault, the amount I owe you in damages is less. The state is only involved as the referee between us, as it were. There is no "punsihment" involved, the point is to determine who should bear the costs of this event.
In criminal law, the relevant relationship is not between the victim and perp, but between perp and the state. The state is punishing the perp for falling below a recognized standard of care, in part to deter others from doing the same, in part because as a society we have determined that dumbasses should be punished if their dumbassery harms others. The state cares not that some other person was also negligent, as long as your individual negligence was actually the proximate cause of the harm.
I think we can all agree that Canadian law is stupider.
Quote from: The Brain on June 24, 2014, 11:07:16 AM
I think we can all agree that Canadian law is stupider.
Bork bork bork.
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 11:11:17 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 24, 2014, 11:07:16 AM
I think we can all agree that Canadian law is stupider.
Bork bork bork.
Your language-shaming hurts me.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2014, 10:56:32 AM
No, but there's no reason it oughtn't be if you're going to make ordinary negligence a crime.
I think this is where you and many other of the American posters are getting confused. The Canadian offence of criminal negligence is different from the the test in civil negligence - ie we are not making "ordinary negligence" a crime.
Criminal Negligence requires a higher standard than civil negligence. The Prosecution must prove, as one of the elements of the offence, that the accused showed wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. That standard has nothing to do with the conduct of the person who was killed.
The Baron is the only American poster who seems to understand this distinction. He is arguing for a different criminal standard while the rest of you are importing civil law concepts into a criminal analysis.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2014, 10:56:32 AM
No, but there's no reason it oughtn't be if you're going to make ordinary negligence a crime. And in any event, I'm referring narrowly to Beeb's statement that he never concerns himself with what other people did, which is a non sequitur unless SD is not a defense in Canada.
Which maybe it isn't. You people deny human rights.
But we don't make ordinary negligence a crime. :contract:
Ordinary negligence is failing to do something that an reasonable person would do in similar circumstances.
In order for something to constitute criminal negligence however, the person's actions must show "wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons", a much higher standard.
BY the way, I'm surprised this lady was found guilty of crim neg causing death. I would have thought she'd be found guilty of the offence of dangerous driving causing death instead.
Edit: CC beat me to the punch. <_<
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 24, 2014, 09:51:58 AM
OK, then if we accept that the victim should be on trial in cases where the victim is criminally negligent. To not account for the criminal negligence of all parties is to punish one person for the actions of others just because those others are labelled as "victims".
I don't think you can start the trial with the conviction that the victim is criminally negligent, which is what your standard would require. If we were looking at the 'victim is criminally negligent" angle, how is the daughter criminally negligent? She didn't do anything. And I don't think that the father can be criminally negligent in his own death. That just leaves the father possibly criminally negligent in the death of the daughter, but that seems moot at the point of the woman's trial.
I would agree with you that the woman's guilt should probably be considered less because of the reckless driving of the father. But her actions
were criminally negligent, especially in not activating her emergency blinkers (yeah, stopping was also criminally negligent, but even in the hypothetical that she was stopped involuntarily, she still didn't exercise reasonable judgement). Whether or not she should have considered the possibility of a reckless driver when deciding what actions to take is beyond my understanding of negligence; perhaps that is a factor for the jury, perhaps it isn't.
I don't see any evidence that she is being judged more harshly than the law allows or requires (my digs on Quebecois and Canadian law were just that: digs). My observations on the stupidity of the father don't change what she did and didn't do, which is hopefully what she was tried for. An accident was a reasonably foreseeable outcome of her actions/inactions.
Quote from: grumbler on June 24, 2014, 08:51:09 AM
Malthus, I am not sure why you think the dead should be resurrected for trial, nor is anyone saying the woman was not negligent (the fact that she never turned on her emergency blinkers alone should tell you she was negligent - in fact, had her axle broken and stopped her like that, she would still be negligent for failing to turn on the emergency blinkers).
Or, if her alternator immediately died and she had no power at all, even for blinkers. Catastrophic electrical failure = criminally negligent? Rough crowd, that Canada.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2014, 11:59:39 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 24, 2014, 08:51:09 AM
Malthus, I am not sure why you think the dead should be resurrected for trial, nor is anyone saying the woman was not negligent (the fact that she never turned on her emergency blinkers alone should tell you she was negligent - in fact, had her axle broken and stopped her like that, she would still be negligent for failing to turn on the emergency blinkers).
Or, if her alternator immediately died and she had no power at all, even for blinkers. Catastrophic electrical failure = criminally negligent? Rough crowd, that Canada.
If stopping and failing to put on her emergency signals were for reasons out of her control then she could not be convicted of having wanton or reckless disregard ;)
I have to say I'm with the Canucks on this one. Perhaps the deceased should not have been driving so fast around a blind curve, but a majority of the blame goes to Ms. C.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2014, 11:18:13 AM
The Baron is the only American poster who seems to understand this distinction. He is arguing for a different criminal standard while the rest of you are importing civil law concepts into a criminal analysis.
Maybe it's because what is a civil law concept to you is actually applied to criminal standards down here, and we forget that you're a weirdo foreign country.
Depending on the state and the circumstances, striking and killing a pedestrian with a vehicle for not crossing at the crosswalk or on a pedestrian-banned roadway is pedestrian error, not criminal negligence on the part of the driver. But circumstances are at least taken into consideration when it comes to prosecution, unlike that draconian wasteland up there.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2014, 12:05:21 PM
If stopping and failing to put on her emergency signals were for reasons out of her control then she could not be convicted of having wanton or reckless disregard ;)
Sure as shit wouldn't want to take any chances with it up there. Not with your hang-'em-high crowd.
Quote from: derspiess on June 24, 2014, 12:07:32 PM
I have to say I'm with the Canucks on this one. Perhaps the deceased should not have been driving so fast around a blind curve, but a majority of the blame goes to Ms. C.
The Canucks aren't talking majority, they're talking 100%.
Well I say she bears a *large* majority. Most of those arguing the other side seem to think her culpability is <50%.
Quote from: derspiess on June 24, 2014, 12:12:34 PM
Well I say she bears a *large* majority. Most of those arguing the other side seem to think her culpability is <50%.
Everybody seems to be coming to that conclusion but nobody has said anything of the sort.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2014, 12:13:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 24, 2014, 12:12:34 PM
Well I say she bears a *large* majority. Most of those arguing the other side seem to think her culpability is <50%.
Everybody seems to be coming to that conclusion but nobody has said anything of the sort.
Actually Grumbler started us off on this line when he stated:
Quote"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."
He seems to be changing his view now so I dont blame you for missing it.
Quote from: derspiess on June 24, 2014, 12:12:34 PM
Well I say she bears a *large* majority. Most of those arguing the other side seem to think her culpability is <50%.
I believe that i am the only one specifically arguing that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2014, 12:25:04 PM
He seems to be changing his view now so I dont blame you for missing it.
i explicitly said a few posts above
Quotethe point I made, which appears to have started all of this, is that the motorcycle guy appears to have acted just as stupidly as the woman, and in fact probably bears more blame for the deaths than the woman does. ANYTHING in the road would have killed him and his daughter, from the facts that we have. I stand by that assessment, even if it isn't relevant to the woman's trial.
reading posts requires reading comprehension, though, so I don't blame you for missing that and using a strawman argument instead.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2014, 12:08:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2014, 11:18:13 AM
The Baron is the only American poster who seems to understand this distinction. He is arguing for a different criminal standard while the rest of you are importing civil law concepts into a criminal analysis.
Maybe it's because what is a civil law concept to you is actually applied to criminal standards down here, and we forget that you're a weirdo foreign country.
Depending on the state and the circumstances, striking and killing a pedestrian with a vehicle for not crossing at the crosswalk or on a pedestrian-banned roadway is pedestrian error, not criminal negligence on the part of the driver. But circumstances are at least taken into consideration when it comes to prosecution, unlike that draconian wasteland up there.
You may want to avoid Wisconsin. :D
Quote939.14 Criminal conduct or contributory negligence of victim no defense. It is no defense to a prosecution for a crime that the victim also was guilty of a crime or was contributorily negligent.
http://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2012/chapter-939/section-939.14
Quote from: grumbler on June 24, 2014, 12:35:19 PM
reading posts requires reading comprehension, though, so I don't blame you for missing that and using a strawman argument instead.
Meh, you are the only one arguing a daft position. Bonus points to you I guess.
Well shit Malthus, that's no different from avoiding states with creepy ass crackers and their legal right to shoot you "just because."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2014, 01:07:01 PM
Well shit Malthus, that's no different from avoiding states with creepy ass crackers and their legal right to shoot you "just because."
What, and take refuge in ... Baltimore? :D
You aint in the game, you gots nothing to worry about.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2014, 01:05:46 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 24, 2014, 12:35:19 PM
reading posts requires reading comprehension, though, so I don't blame you for missing that and using a strawman argument instead.
Meh, you are the only one arguing a daft position. Bonus points to you I guess.
:lmfao: Actually, i have explained my position quite well, and it is hardly "daft." In fact, if you are arguing against my position, then that pretty much confirms that I am correct. :smarty:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2014, 01:11:32 PM
You aint in the game, you gots nothing to worry about.
That might work with Omar, but Marlo wouldn't hesitate to put a cap in his ass.
Quote from: grumbler on June 24, 2014, 01:40:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2014, 01:05:46 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 24, 2014, 12:35:19 PM
reading posts requires reading comprehension, though, so I don't blame you for missing that and using a strawman argument instead.
Meh, you are the only one arguing a daft position. Bonus points to you I guess.
:lmfao: Actually, i have explained my position quite well, and it is hardly "daft."
Your explanations illuminate the folly of your position quite well. :)
Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2014, 11:21:16 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2014, 10:56:32 AM
No, but there's no reason it oughtn't be if you're going to make ordinary negligence a crime. And in any event, I'm referring narrowly to Beeb's statement that he never concerns himself with what other people did, which is a non sequitur unless SD is not a defense in Canada.
Which maybe it isn't. You people deny human rights.
But we don't make ordinary negligence a crime. :contract:
Ordinary negligence is failing to do something that an reasonable person would do in similar circumstances.
In order for something to constitute criminal negligence however, the person's actions must show "wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons", a much higher standard.
[/quote]
So the standard for criminal negligence is recklessness? Good work. :P
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 23, 2014, 05:13:08 PM
Vengeance, in all forms, should be removed from the criminal justice system.
What the hell are you talking about?
Vengeance is the ONLY form of justice, whether is the State eliminating terrorists or the individual getting justice for grivances committed against him/her.
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2014, 04:32:08 PM
For Canadians, that may be as fast as they can safely drive. What I want is safe speeds, which, as you say, may be as low as 20 MPH for primitive folk. All I know is that this guy, at from 119-129 kph, was going too fast to stop in time to save his daughter's life.
There was an accident in a small town this week. A car changed lane abruptly and was hit by a big truck, who then crashed into a nearby house.
According to your standards, the truck driver is at fault, he was driving too fast to avoid the car ramming his truck.
I still think that's bullshit.
Quote
Of course. One is always at least partially responsible when one drives a vehicle into a stationary vehicle.
It's a highway, where the minimum is 60km/h. Last I checked, parked car = 0km/h < 60km/h.
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2014, 04:46:19 PM
However, in general, liability and punishment should be based on what a reasonable person would expect to result from a behavior, not what did result.
And if you decide to stop your car on the left lane of a double lane highway in the middle of the day, what would a reasonable person like you expect the result would be?
Quote from: mongers on June 23, 2014, 05:48:07 PM
My impression is there are two sets of fault and they don't have to be connect and could be 'dealt' with separately; the woman broke the Canadian road traffic laws and created a hazard to all users on that road and the motorcyclist was at fault for failing to drive his bike in a safe manner, that is driving slow enough that he can react to the diverse range of hazards you can encounter on a road.
That would account for slowing in a forested area, where deers or moose could come out of the woods. Driving cautiously, even below the authorized speed limit in a storm (rain or snow) to avoid hitting something you can't see but for wich you have reasons to expect would be there (another car).
It doesn't account for someone doing something cracy like stopping in the middle of the road, driving way below the speed limit of 60km/h or driving in the wrong direction of the highway.
It's a concept many of you seem to willfully ignore, for reasons unknown.
Quote
As Grumbler and others have said, keeping a safe stopping distance between you and other road uses is a key requirement. It's been 25 years since I passed our driving test, but knowning and driving 'within' the stopping distance of your speed was an important part of the test.
Of course. It applies under normal traffic conditions. Not when someone stops in the middle of the road for no reason, without any flashers.
Quote from: viper37 on June 27, 2014, 01:45:12 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2014, 04:32:08 PM
For Canadians, that may be as fast as they can safely drive. What I want is safe speeds, which, as you say, may be as low as 20 MPH for primitive folk. All I know is that this guy, at from 119-129 kph, was going too fast to stop in time to save his daughter's life.
There was an accident in a small town this week. A car changed lane abruptly and was hit by a big truck, who then crashed into a nearby house.
According to your standards, the truck driver is at fault, he was driving too fast to avoid the car ramming his truck.
I still think that's bullshit.
Your strawman is, indeed, bullshit. Further, I think you are smart enough to know it was bullshit when you said it. Why don't you argue against my arguments, rather than arguing against arguments YOU are making, not me?
QuoteQuoteOf course. One is always at least partially responsible when one drives a vehicle into a stationary vehicle.
It's a highway, where the minimum is 60km/h. Last I checked, parked car = 0km/h < 60km/h.
Stricken as immaterial.
Quote from: viper37 on June 27, 2014, 01:48:48 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2014, 04:46:19 PM
However, in general, liability and punishment should be based on what a reasonable person would expect to result from a behavior, not what did result.
And if you decide to stop your car on the left lane of a double lane highway in the middle of the day, what would a reasonable person like you expect the result would be?
Lots of cars and motorcycles stopping, and perhaps an accident if following drivers are careless or inattentive. What would a non-reasonable person like you expect?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 23, 2014, 11:02:10 PM
I stopped on the side of the road
Anyway, no motorcycles ran into my car. Granted, there weren't any other cars at all on the road, but hey.
bold part emphasized. Conditions are different than aforementionned. Try it again, but this time, stop right n the middle of your lane, don't use hazard flashers, see what happens. :)
Quote from: viper37 on June 27, 2014, 01:55:21 PM
Of course. It applies under normal traffic conditions. Not when someone stops in the middle of the road for no reason, without any flashers.
Dead aniumals on the road, tree branches on the road, fallen objects on the road, large potholes on the road... all of these, and more, are "stopped" objects, on the road, don't have flashers, and are part of normal traffic conditions. It's a concept you seem to willfully ignore, for reasons unknown.
Any of those things would have killed the guy and his daughter. It's another concept you seem to willfully ignore, for reasons unknown.
While I have no doubt that the duck-loving woman was stupid and negligent, both to a criminal degree, I wonder how the motocyclist managed to do nothing at all to avoid ramming her car. Was there a bend or rise in the highway that prevented him from seeing her in time? Was he just not paying attention?
Fallen women on the road.
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2014, 08:32:36 AM
So what happens in Canada if say your car broke down and perhaps there might have been time* for you to steer it into a shoulder but you failed to act. In the interim, someone smacked into you on a motorcycle and died. Would you be doomed to suffer the same blame and shame as this woman?
*hard to see how this could easily be determined after the fact apart from I guess witness statements?
Depends. If your car breaking down is the result of a gross negligence in maintaining it, you knew there was a problem but never bothered to fix it, you might be liable.
If it's a heavy truck you are driving in Quebec, the owned of the truck is definately criminally liable if he can't prove his truck was well maintained through regular inspections and proof of repairs.
Quote from: Malthus on June 24, 2014, 08:50:02 AM
It would certainly be relevant if the dead guy's estate sued the woman. Maybe BB could fill you in on whether the Judge would take it into account in sentencing as a mitigating factor.
No fault. Can't happen in Quebec.
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2014, 02:03:12 PM
While I have no doubt that the duck-loving woman was stupid and negligent, both to a criminal degree, I wonder how the motocyclist managed to do nothing at all to avoid ramming her car. Was there a bend or rise in the highway that prevented him from seeing her in time? Was he just not paying attention?
It appears* that he was tailgating the vehicle ahead of him (a car pulling a camper, so he couldn't see around it). He was also speeding.** When the camper and car swerved into the right lane to avoid the stopped car, he was too close to the stopped car to even significantly slow.** His wife, also on a bike with him, had no problem stopping in time.**
From what i have read from people who claim to know the area, there was no blind curve or rise or anything, which fits the idea that the woman was able to see the ducks in time to (criminally-stupidly) stop and try to assist them.
*from the outcome, not the testimony
** from the testimony
Quote from: viper37 on June 27, 2014, 01:58:37 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 23, 2014, 11:02:10 PM
I stopped on the side of the road
Anyway, no motorcycles ran into my car. Granted, there weren't any other cars at all on the road, but hey.
bold part emphasized. Conditions are different than aforementionned. Try it again, but this time, stop right n the middle of your lane, don't use hazard flashers, see what happens. :)
Something tells me he would have gotten the same results. :P
Hmmm... Seems like the motorcyclist was a bit of a dickhead.
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2014, 02:03:12 PM
While I have no doubt that the duck-loving woman was stupid and negligent, both to a criminal degree, I wonder how the motocyclist managed to do nothing at all to avoid ramming her car. Was there a bend or rise in the highway that prevented him from seeing her in time? Was he just not paying attention?
The wife said he was was trying to gesture at the woman on the side of the road, so I think we can infer that he was focused on the driver of the car and did not have both hands on the handlebars. I suspect the wife was going the same speed as the husband otherwise she wouldn't have been able to witness the incident.
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2014, 02:03:12 PM
While I have no doubt that the duck-loving woman was stupid and negligent, both to a criminal degree, I wonder how the motocyclist managed to do nothing at all to avoid ramming her car. Was there a bend or rise in the highway that prevented him from seeing her in time? Was he just not paying attention?
As was established early on in the thread, we dont know enough about the facts. But that didnt stop Grumbler in his one man crusade to establish that the motorcycle driver was clearly the one with the majority of blame and that Quebec legal judgments are subpar. The rest of us posed hypotheticals to might explain the motorcyclists behaviour. Since they conflicted with Grumbler's proclamation he denounced them as being "assinine".
So, everything was as usual while you were away. :)
Quote from: grumbler on June 27, 2014, 02:02:17 PM
Dead aniumals on the road, tree branches on the road, fallen objects on the road, large potholes on the road... all of these, and more, are "stopped" objects, on the road, don't have flashers, and are part of normal traffic conditions. It's a concept you seem to willfully ignore, for reasons unknown.
Quote
Any of those things would have killed the guy and his daughter. It's another concept you seem to willfully ignore, for reasons unknown.
Did you even look at the road? I'm guessing not.
Quote from: grumbler on June 27, 2014, 01:58:15 PM
Lots of cars and motorcycles stopping, and perhaps an accident if following drivers are careless or inattentive. What would a non-reasonable person like you expect?
I expect to see brake lights well in advance. I certainly do not expect a car to be stopped in the middle of the highway, on the left lane.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2014, 02:34:01 PM
The wife said he was was trying to gesture at the woman on the side of the road, so I think we can infer that he was focused on the driver of the car and did not have both hands on the handlebars. I suspect the wife was going the same speed as the husband otherwise she wouldn't have been able to witness the incident.
He was gesturing at his wife to slow down. The wife also hit the stationary car.
Quote from: viper37 on June 28, 2014, 09:25:07 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2014, 02:34:01 PM
The wife said he was was trying to gesture at the woman on the side of the road, so I think we can infer that he was focused on the driver of the car and did not have both hands on the handlebars. I suspect the wife was going the same speed as the husband otherwise she wouldn't have been able to witness the incident.
He was gesturing at his wife to slow down. The wife also hit the stationary car.
Must run in the family.
Quote from: DGuller on June 28, 2014, 09:59:58 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 28, 2014, 09:25:07 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 27, 2014, 02:34:01 PM
The wife said he was was trying to gesture at the woman on the side of the road, so I think we can infer that he was focused on the driver of the car and did not have both hands on the handlebars. I suspect the wife was going the same speed as the husband otherwise she wouldn't have been able to witness the incident.
He was gesturing at his wife to slow down. The wife also hit the stationary car.
Must run in the family.
They marry family members up there? That explains somethings.
I think the most important question here is if the accused is an anglophone and if the victims were francophones.
Quote from: viper37 on June 28, 2014, 09:24:21 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 27, 2014, 01:58:15 PM
Lots of cars and motorcycles stopping, and perhaps an accident if following drivers are careless or inattentive. What would a non-reasonable person like you expect?
I expect to see brake lights well in advance. I certainly do not expect a car to be stopped in the middle of the highway, on the left lane.
Wait... what? Your hypothetical was about "if you decide to stop your car on the left lane of a double lane highway in the middle of the day" and your answer is that you expect a lot of brake lights well in advance? That sounds like you are arguing that the woman should have expected brake lights, not an accident. And it is absurd to state that, if you were to "decide to stop your car on the left lane" then you "certainly do not expect a car to be stopped in the middle of the highway, on the left lane;" you just put one there! :lol:
Unless, of course, you mean that if you were to "decide to stop your car on the left lane" then you "certainly do not expect
another car to be stopped in the middle of the highway, on the left lane." That's probably true; I mean, what are the odds?