Scruit Posted July 2, 2014 Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 Cliffs: Driver stopped in left lane of highway to try to rescue ducklings that were in the roadway. Her stopped vehicle, with no hazard lights according to witnesses, was struck by two bikes. Father/daughter on one bike died. She was found guilty of their form of "negligent homicide", and the max sentence possible is life in prison. Thoughts? Firstly, the factors I consider to be relevant / irrelevant: Irrelevant:- The bikes. They were vehicles. They get no special sympathy for being bikers, nor do they get special criticism for driving a vehicle where death is a more likely outcome from a serious crash. They were driving, they were killed. - The ducks. I don't care that she was saving ducks. She stopped her vehicle in the left lane for a reason that was not an emergency and created an unreasonable risk of injury or death to other road users given the circumstances. What she was doing was not relevant. Relevant:- Why did the bikes hit the back of a stopped car? If she was stopped and out of he car then they should not have been taken by surprise, right? They should have seen the car. This happened during the day. Possibly she was standing in the other lane giving the bikers a choice between hitting her or hitting her car, but that is speculation on my part... I still don't understand why they did not see her and stop.- She stopped in the left lane of the highway for a non-emergency reason and created a danger that did not exist before she stopped. Sorry about the ducks, but human life is more valuable than a wild animals. Suck it, PETA. What could she have done instead?- Stopped on the shoulder (if no shoulder, keep going)- Continued driving and called the police I understand the guilty verdict and agree that she was criminally negligent. Don't forget that negligence is "the failure to consider the obvious risks created by what you are doing". What she was doing was very, very risky and it never entered her head. (If she continued despite being aware of the risk, that is recklessness) What would an appropriate punishment be? I'm torn between "sending a message" and having sympathy for a person who acted without a moment's ill will. Knowing that the victim's widow is against serious punishment makes it harder to "throw away the key", so to speak. I suspect a year or two in prison is a more fitting punishment. It's difficult to strike that balance. You have to imagine it was your spouse or child who stopped to "save the ducks", but you also have to imagine it was your spouse or child killed. I don't think any outcome is the "right" outcome for anyone involved. There is no right answer here, only the least-wrong one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
what Posted July 2, 2014 Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 Life is way too much. Negligent homicide yes, but I would expect life sentences to be given to people that were aware of the fact that they were killing someone and felt no remorse doing so. Life in prison means that the person is not nor ever will be able to live in society. This lady has to live with the fact that her actions led to the death of a father and son, I don't see the reason for much more than a hefty fine and a small amount of prison time. Was what she did stupid? yes, incredibly, but it wasn't malicious. I kind of wonder what her driving record looks like, though. If she has more accidents / injuries under her belt then that changes things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted July 2, 2014 Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 she was "negligent per se." I say let her out of jail so she can pay for the wrongful death judgment that is inevitably coming. I would have sentenced her as if it were a drunk driving offense though. 30-120 days for a first offense. Negligence per se is an interesting legal principle that says a jury MUST find that your behavior was negligent when you are 1) violating a law that was 2) designed to prevent the type of harm that you caused, and 3) designed to protect the class of victim that you injured. This is a textbook example. It's illegal to stop in the middle of the road because other motorists might rear-end you and be injured or killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted July 2, 2014 Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 she was negligent but doesn't need life in jail. Stopping in the middle of the road, let alone highway, is always moronic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubba Posted July 2, 2014 Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 Value Decision: potential loss of baby duck lives > potential loss of human life = stupid bimbo How about the offer of mandatory sterilization so she doesn't pass along her defective genes….just a thought. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted July 2, 2014 Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 Relevant:- Why did the bikes hit the back of a stopped car? If she was stopped and out of he car then they should not have been taken by surprise, right? They should have seen the car. This happened during the day. Possibly she was standing in the other lane giving the bikers a choice between hitting her or hitting her car, but that is speculation on my part... I still don't understand why they did not see her and stop. I hit a car stopped in the left lane of I-90 in March. In my case, there was a tall dividing wall, and the road curved to the left. It was also snowing hard. All three of those factors made it extremely difficult to see. It could have been dark or foggy. Stopping in a lane of travel on the highway is incredibly dangerous. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadTrainDriver Posted July 2, 2014 Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 Too bad this happened in Canada...because I'd use it for the reason that I mow down the fucking geese that are always around here, crossing the road, stopping traffic. I hate those fucking flying carp! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh1234 Posted July 2, 2014 Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 I thought it was the responsibility of each driver/rider to ensure they leave a safe stopping distance.... Is that not a rule in effect, or does it not matter because it was a stopped vehicle? Technically, the riders rear ended the car, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gixxus Christ! Posted July 2, 2014 Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 No josh. On a limited access divided highway there is no reason for a driver to expect someone to stop. If her car was in park without hazards on she would appear to be a moving vehicle until the brain registered that the closing speed between the two vehicles was too fast for her to be moving. While driving the brain relies on shortcuts that it has learned: brake lights for example. It takes too long for the brain to judge closing distance and speed, so we have brake lights to instantly alert the brain that it must slow down or move around the car in front of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted July 2, 2014 Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 firstly - i hate the title of this thread. same bullshit tactics the media uses to deceive about the real issue. its not life in prison for saving ducks. its possible life in prison for negligent homicide. "maximum" sentences are never carried out. she will get less 5yrs, if she even goes to prison at all. i suspect she will get a long probation term, 90 days in jail, and a ton of restitution. i was facing 18 months at one point for a traffic stop...that was my "maximum" sentence....i ended up with 18hrs in jail (when stop happened - time served after) and probation/community service 18 hours vs 18 months is a big gap. please stop playing this bs game ...."life in prison for saving ducks".....fuck. strikes a nerve. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted July 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 please stop playing this bs game ...."life in prison for saving ducks".....fuck. strikes a nerve. Glad someone else gets it too. I totally agree with you. I copied the headline directly from the news report, kept it in there to tie it with the way it is being reported on the news so we'd all kjnow it was the same story. I originally started the post with; "Sorry about the overly-dramatic title that gives you a false impression of what really happened, but it's verbatim from the news" but figured my post was too long already and that was one of the things cut out. Don't forget this tactic is used against police too; "Grandmother tased for speeding" (No, grandmother pulled over for speeding, refused to give id, refused to get out of the car for her id-refusal arrest and tased because she refused to get out of the car...) I generally don't hear people arguing against the dramatic BS titles when the police are the ones maligned by it...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted July 2, 2014 Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 i bitch about those titles too. just like all this fucking bs about "militarized police blow hole in 2yr old" instead of "mother moves 2yr old into house of drug dealer who sells drugs to undercover cops and gets raided, leading to injury" its all fucking bs....mainstream media is just a disease on society 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sporttour Posted July 2, 2014 Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 This in some ways is reminiscent of the crash that claimed Eddie James. Sad indeed. Road users must exhibit common sense at all times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent3012 Posted July 3, 2014 Report Share Posted July 3, 2014 While driving the brain relies on shortcuts that it has learned: brake lights for example. It takes too long for the brain to judge closing distance and speed, so we have brake lights to instantly alert the brain that it must slow down or move around the car in front of them.I do think many drivers and riders aren't aware just how dependent they have become on brake lights to warn them that a vehicle ahead of them is slowing or stopped. Our eyes rely heavily on the looming effect of objects changing size to determine speed of an object that is heading towards or away from us.The problem is that the change in size becomes very small as distance increases, which means that it's hard for a driver to determine the speed of a car just a few hundred feet away. It's only when the car is much closer that our eyes can accurately judge speed based on the looming effect.To see this in action, start at 2:15 in this video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted July 3, 2014 Report Share Posted July 3, 2014 It's life in prison (which I'll bet the farm she won't get) for being a stupid fuck and caring more about animals than humans. Who parks a car in the fast lane? Who expects to see a car parked in the fast lane?1989 a friend and I went to Cleveland to see the The Who final tour. (Yeah, it turns out it wasn't their final tour)After we were on out way to crash at my moms for the night in Lorain, I think. Anywho, we lose the only wiper on the car in a major gully washer. We pull off the road since we can't see shit and the kids that are following us follow us into the breakdown lane and blast our 86 Nova (corolla)Doing about 70mph. Our car lands in the middle of I 80 and, even though we're injured and stunned, all we can think of is getting the smashed car out of the middle of the highway so no one gets killed. Why did we worry so much about and risk our lives getting this destroyed hunk of steel out of the road?Because no one with even a shred of common sense or decency toward other human beings leaves a fucking car parked in the middle of a flowing freeway!All I know is if I hit a parked car in the middle if the freeway and die, go ahead and assume that I want the bitch that parked it there to fry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted July 3, 2014 Report Share Posted July 3, 2014 Story: 10-15 years ago a buddy got into an accident on 270. He was going south in the Tuttle Crossing, Cemetary Rd area. It's three lanes. He was following behind a box truck at around 65 mph in the middle lane. Suddenly the truck swerves. Buddy starts braking not knowing why the truck started swerving. Suddenly buddy slams into the rear end of a car. It was a lost elderly woman. She had stopped in the middle of the freeway to read a map. Buddy was charged with unassured clear distance. He tried to fight it, and lost. The ruling basically said it was his responsibility to maintain enough distance to stop for any reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh1234 Posted July 3, 2014 Report Share Posted July 3, 2014 Story: 10-15 years ago a buddy got into an accident on 270. He was going south in the Tuttle Crossing, Cemetary Rd area. It's three lanes. He was following behind a box truck at around 65 mph in the middle lane. Suddenly the truck swerves. Buddy starts braking not knowing why the truck started swerving. Suddenly buddy slams into the rear end of a car. It was a lost elderly woman. She had stopped in the middle of the freeway to read a map. Buddy was charged with unassured clear distance. He tried to fight it, and lost. The ruling basically said it was his responsibility to maintain enough distance to stop for any reason. That's how I wrecked my second Stealth Following someone who swerved away late, revealing stopped traffic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted July 3, 2014 Report Share Posted July 3, 2014 sounds like Swinger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phreon Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 (edited) "Following too close" and fault / no fault are bullshit concepts. Go ahead and try to maintain a proper distance in rush hour traffic - some idiot will immediately jam in front of you, ruining the safety zone you're trying to maintain. About 10 years ago I was driving I-471 towards DT Cincinnati on my way to work after dropping my son off at daycare. Heading down the hill with the city in sight, traffic came to a quick, but manageable stop, leaving about 4 feet between my car and the Firebird ahead of me. Unfortunately, the woman behind me was messing with her lipstick or phone and never touched her brakes. She drove her minivan into the back of my *BELOVED* 1985 Audi Coupe GT, hitting it with such force that I totalled the 'bird in front of me. The GT's trunk had visible beams/channels in the floor I never quite appreciated until that day - the trunk was smashed flat and the engine compartment lost about a foot, but aside from having to give the door a kick to get it open, the passenger compartment was fully intact. I stumbled out of my car to the median in (mental) shock - the full extent of this woman's concern over the carnage she created was to say, "Damn, I broke my coffee mug". Had I not been in shock, I would have given her the verbal equivalent of a savage beating, but as it was, I just sat down in a daze. Because I was in Kentucky, she was found liable for both my car and injuries as well as the car in front of me. If this same accident had happened across the bridge in Ohio, I would have been liable for the totalled Firebird, despite having left reasonable distance and being at a *complete stop*. That accident is why to this day, I always glance up in the mirror when caught in a sudden stop situation; the tactic has saved my bacon multiple times over the years. It's also why the extremely modest forward leaning position my Nighthawk 750 creates is enough to start neck pain. Moral of the story? There are bloody morons around you every second you're on the road and every driver is a potential accident waiting to happen. Drive and ride as such. Or to put it a different way, never, ever underestimate the power of stupid. Edited July 8, 2014 by Phreon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Butters Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 My mom was in an identical situation in Ohio. Parked at light, reasonable distance back from car in front of her, and got hit behind by a woman doing 50 that never touched her brakes.. My mom's car got hit and went forward into front car.. Driver in the back was liable for everything and my mom didn't get cited and her insurance never paid out, the rear driver paid everything ... that's not just a Kentucky thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phreon Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 Hmm, this was about 10 years ago. Have the laws changed in that time? Or perhaps the cop who took my statement was incorrect? The "different in Ohio" bit came from his mouth. I do know KY is a "no fault" state and Ohio is not. Either way, there are idiot drivers everywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 Story: 10-15 years ago a buddy got into an accident on 270. He was going south in the Tuttle Crossing, Cemetary Rd area. It's three lanes. He was following behind a box truck at around 65 mph in the middle lane. Suddenly the truck swerves. Buddy starts braking not knowing why the truck started swerving. Suddenly buddy slams into the rear end of a car. It was a lost elderly woman. She had stopped in the middle of the freeway to read a map. Buddy was charged with unassured clear distance. He tried to fight it, and lost. The ruling basically said it was his responsibility to maintain enough distance to stop for any reason. that's unfortunate. I'd have fought that as well, and I'm extremely surprised at the result. My understanding of the law is not that you need to leave an assured clear distance for any scenario, but rather enough room so that if the vehicle in front of you panic-brakes, you are able to avoid contact with that vehicle. The difference between avoiding a stationary object that is suddenly visible and an object that is traveling your current speed, and must also brake to 0 mph is insanely different. Frankly, I don't believe the former is humanly possible with any other traffic on the road. It takes even the highest performance vehicles around 100 feet to stop from 60mph. Realistically, people on the highway are driving 70mph, and most vehicles are going to take 150 feet or more to stop from that speed. That's ignoring reaction time. Leaving 150+ feet between vehicles is ludicrous. The standard "one car length for every 10 mph" is more reasonable, and still unrealistic. As a motorcyclist, and as someone who was recently involved in a 25+ car pileup on the highway, I leave a lot more following room than most drivers. I might actually be close to that 150 feet, but the people behind me don't. If I actually panic-braked, I'm sure I would be rear-ended 95% of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFlash Posted July 13, 2014 Report Share Posted July 13, 2014 (edited) I try to drive in such a manner that if the vehicle in front of me stoppedinstantly, right now, I would have plenty of room to come to a stop justlike I was approaching a stop sign. And with that in mind, I want theperson behind me to be aware that I am slowing, and so I'll pump mybrake pedal or even flip on my flashers to get their attention so thatI don't get smashed in the rear if traffic is stopped on the freeway. . Edited July 14, 2014 by JackFlash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.