[PublicAnimalNo9]

Regina Regina:

My point is that I don't care what she stopped for. The fact is she did stop and a motorcycle that has an amazing stopping performance at any speed slammed into the back of her and yet no other vehicles did. The pictures also show the area where it happened is an ramp of some kind where speeds should be slower to merge. In all the accidents that I've heard of, this is the first one I've ever heard of where the person in front is at fault. Hitting a vehicle from behind usually leads to a charge of following too close. In this case she was charged because it was only ducks.

No, she was charged because she was illegally stopped on a highway and someone died as a result.
The dude on the bike absolutely deserves at least half of the blame, he should be paying attention and not speeding, especially with a child on the bike.
But you can't just come to a complete stop on a highway for no good reason, and I'm sorry but small wildlife just don't cut it.

[Xort]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

It's a passing lane, thus usually resulting in a faster speed.

It's only a passing lane if a sign says it is, limited to a small number of areas in hills or mountains. Everywhere else it's a left lane of travel.

$1:

You sound like one of those who get into the left lane and then drive the same speed as the vehicle beside you in the right lane.

If the other vehicle is doing the posted speed limit and conditions allow for travel at the speed yes.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

No, the message here is don't stop on the highway unless you can safely get over to the right shoulder.

The message the courts could have sent is that as a driver you must only drive at a speed where you can safely stop for changes in the road conditions ahead.

What we got is, drive as fast as you want you're not responsible for your safety, other people must ensure you have a safe lane to drive in.

[2Cdo]

Xort Xort:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

It's a passing lane, thus usually resulting in a faster speed.

It's only a passing lane if a sign says it is, limited to a small number of areas in hills or mountains. Everywhere else it's a left lane of travel.

Wrong. It's a designated passing lane period. you aren't supposed to pass in the right lane unless it's dipshits like you driving slowly in the passing lane.

[Regina]

I don't care about ducks at all but it's a good enough reason for me to stop, and there is nothing in the traffic code about what is ok to stop for and what is not ok to stop for. Although she wasn't charged with illegally stopping anyway. She was charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving.
In all honesty I think there has to be more to this whole thing than what has been reported. First off the punishment seems to be quite extreme based on what other nasty pieces of shit have done while driving. This could make her unemployable for at least 10 years. Next based on the pictures published the road ahead was a rising, slight curve which would have made it quite easy to see ahead. Plus a bike should be able to come to a complete stop almost instantly. Certainly MUCH faster than any car, even if they hit the binders full to a complete stop. Just doesn't seem to add up. One thing her lawyer commented on was that they made a big deal about her not being remorseful enough.
Oh well........it's done now.

[Jabberwalker]

It's only a passing lane if a sign says it is

In Quebec, it's a passing lane if you can pull it off.

As a matter of fact, it's perfectly normal to just make one up a the last second.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

As a matter of fact, it's perfectly normal to just make be up a the last second.

Did you smell burning toast, and lose feeling on one side while typing this?

[Jabberwalker]

murmlemurmlmurmlemurmle

[ShepherdsDog]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Xort Xort:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

It's a passing lane, thus usually resulting in a faster speed.

It's only a passing lane if a sign says it is, limited to a small number of areas in hills or mountains. Everywhere else it's a left lane of travel.

Wrong. It's a designated passing lane period. you aren't supposed to pass in the right lane unless it's dipshits like you driving slowly in the passing lane.

I guess the Trans Canada is just a tiny area, because that sign is posted all along it.

[Canadian_Mind]

Here's my take, if anyone cares:

Regardless of the reason, I think it's inappropriate to park your car in a lane of travel. By park I don't just mean stop. I mean you stop in the lane and get out, which she did. She could have pulled over to the side before disembarking her vehicle, but she didn't do that. Only in the most extrenous of cases should one park in a travelling lane, and this was not it.

n any event of a break down or stoppage, be it in a lane or not, it is the driver's utmost responsibility to ensure the hazard is well marked. Blinking lights is only a start. All truckers are required to carry safety triangles and flares for a reason and frankly every one else should to. She made no attempt to indicate to other motorists that her vehicle is a hazard. Strike two.

Both of these, in my mind, are enough to warrant a driving suspension, hefty fines, and community service.

But, despite it being as much his fault as it is hers, her actions resulted in fatalities. This warrants jail time in my mind, just as I expect a DUI that results in a fatality will be treated even more harshly than just a DUI.

[BigBri]

as a motorcycist and an a1 holder i think this sentence is most inapropiate..although her decision wasnt the wisest i really cant imagine her running over the ducks if she could avoid it..and i see the motorcyclist being more responsible for whats in front of him...moreso than emma being responsible for whats behind her..and if i had anyone as a passenger on my motorcycle i'd even be that more cautious

[Caelon]

BigBri BigBri:

as a motorcycist and an a1 holder i think this sentence is most inapropiate..although her decision wasnt the wisest i really cant imagine her running over the ducks if she could avoid it..and i see the motorcyclist being more responsible for whats in front of him...moreso than emma being responsible for whats behind her..and if i had anyone as a passenger on my motorcycle i'd even be that more cautious

The catch is people are making assumptions based on very limited reporting of the facts. We do not know what kind of bike was being ridden or its capabilities. Some can stop in shorter distances than others. We do not know how visible her car was while stopped. Were there hazard lights? Did the colour blend into the scenery, etc. We do not know if she was in the middle of the lane, sideways or partially on the shoulder. We do not know the volume of traffic or other visual obstructions at the time of the impact.

The judge had all the information available and made the decision based on his extensive legal training.

You might be able to say if A,B,C, and D conditions occurred then Y would be the result. In regards to Emma and the motorcyclist we are basing OPINIONS and what the press reported which is probably 50% wrong anyways.

[andyt]

IT was reported that she was partly on the shoulder, partly in the left lane. She didn't just stop for the ducks, she got out and was trying to herd them across the highway.

What she did was illegal. Someone was killed and she had to answer for that. She should be happy she didn't get the 9 months the prosecution asked for. The judge also commented that she did not show remorse or seem to understand what she did was wrong - hence the long driving suspension.

[Regina]

Here's an example of how fast a bike can stop. This one going 100kph stops in 102.1'. Going 60kpm it stops in 30.38'.

[BigBri]

andyt andyt:

IT was reported that she was partly on the shoulder, partly in the left lane. She didn't just stop for the ducks, she got out and was trying to herd them across the highway.

What she did was illegal. Someone was killed and she had to answer for that. She should be happy she didn't get the 9 months the prosecution asked for. The judge also commented that she did not show remorse or seem to understand what she did was wrong - hence the long driving suspension.

lol which goes to show you how much i generalize...i'd think that anyone who'd stop for some ducks would be wallowing in remorse about causing the death of a father and daughter...thanks for setting me straight

[andyt]

$1:

On June 27, 2010, Czornobaj stopped her car in the left-hand lane of Highway 30, in Candiac, and got out to attempt to gather a small group of ducklings she had spotted on the highway. She left her car in the left-hand lane and the sight of her trying to gather the ducks (her plan was to put them in her car and drive them to her home) distracted drivers who looked toward her and then suddenly noticed her car when they turned their eyes back to the highway. André Roy, a 49-year-old man riding on his Harley-Davidson, was unable to stop in time and his motorcycle crashed into the back of the Honda Civic.

Perreault said Thursday that Czornobaj’s testimony during the trial showed she considers what happened to be an accident and that Roy should have been able to see her car in enough time to avoid it.

Perreault included quotes from Czornobaj’s testimony to underline the parts that revealed Czornobaj felt she did nothing wrong before the collision occurred.

“There was nobody around,” Czornobaj said during her trial. “There was no risk of somebody running into my car when I stopped. I didn’t see anybody else. I knew that it was, well, safe.”


“This is not a case of stopping a car on a quiet (tree-lined) road were the speed limit is 30 kilometres per hour and where there is little traffic, if any. Although she never intended to cause the death of André and Jessie Roy, the accused must take full responsibility for having, by criminal negligence, caused the deaths of those two people,” Perreault said. “Emma Czornobaj perceived the risk but recklessly undertook that risk nonetheless. She knowingly engaged in risk-taking that she should have foreseen would put other drivers’ lives in danger.”

“The denial of her responsibilities is an element to be considered with respect to her future dangerousness towards other drivers on roadways. The sentence must deter the accused from reoffending. Emma Czornobaj, by her actions, has demonstrated a blatant irresponsibility and a total unawareness of the risks associated with her decisions.”

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-n ... d-thursday