Even victims have to learn

[bramfrank]

While I understand the sentiment, I do not agree with the widow.

I suspect she is still in shock - but the driver of a car that slammed on it's brakes while travelling in the left lane of a highway because there were ducks crossing the road should NOT be let off, no matter the remorse - the driver was either not paying attention or over reacting, or was simply inexperienced. She SHOULD have been able to slow down and/or could simply have honked her horn. she made the split second decision that ducks were worth more than the lives of two human beings.

I suppose it might be argued that the riders were following too close to the offending vehicle - but that will depend on the circumstances, which only an investigation can determine.

There is no valid reason, beyond that of an impassable barrier blocking the highway, for stopping on the roadway. Ducks are quite 'passable' (and tasty, too).

The ducks will live (for a while), but a productive member of society and his teen aged daughter are dead as a consequence and the responsible individual should be held accountable for her actions.

I know that others who have caused deaths often feel remorse - should we let all of them off with a wrist-slap for that reason alone?

https://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Three+...4375/story.html

https://www.montrealgazette.com/Crash+survivor+forgives/3218622/story.html

https://www.montrealgazette.com/Crash+survi...8622/story.html

 

[Duezzer]

No matter how I look at it

The rider was to close

 

[fjrchooser]

Too close is also my guess. I try to keep enough space that even were someone to lock them up in front of me..

And yes, people need to be held accountable. It was a ******* move on the drivers side, likely due to lack of situational awareness. My guess - she would have done the same thing even if a semi was behind her. :blink:

 

[FJRBluesman]

This is so tragic. Very sad.

I must concur, the rider should be in control at a safe distance. The thing not mentioned is, did the car suddenly slam on it's brakes, then I can see the rider not having adequate time to brake, especially if they could not see why the cage was braking. None the less, the rider should be at a safe distance and pay attention.

 

[mike_123]

be it ducks a deer a cow horse or even another vehicle you have to be able to stop yourself and hold yourself acountable for your own actions

where im from if you rear end another vehicle your 100% at fault no matter why the vehicle in front of you is stopping

i dont think its a question of the ducks being worth more then the lives of 2 humans its just a bad judgment call on the driver part stopping for the ducks and a lack of experience in a panic situation like that

can you put 100% on the driver for causing the accident

i dont think so in my opinion

 

[Potential]

The driver didn't veer into the motorcyclists so she certainly didn't decide between duck lives and human lives. The motorcycles were at fault for failing to observe proper following distance, but apparently the woman broke the law by stopping on the highway. But if she had stopped due to some legitimate unavoidable circumstance, the motorcyclists would have been equally dead. The father and mother were simply unsafe riders, especially with their daughter with them.

 

[bramfrank]

They may well have been the accepted norm of 10 feet or one car length per 10 mph away from the driver - no one has suggested that they were tail gating in anything I've read.

Assuming that they were at the requisite distance, they would likely have slammed into her. Why? Because this was a panic stop and virtually no one can react to that at what are the accepted norms for spacing - they could probably have stopped without any contact at all had it been a 'normal' stop.

Had there been a barrier across the road, they'd have seen it too - but this was a group of ducks and the woman saw it at the last instant and paniced - and that was the mistake.

But the point of the post was that the widow wanted to let the driver off without prosecution or investigation because she was remorseful. Now I know that almost anyone who does something they get caught for or that goes wrong is 'remorseful' - as such, I don't believe that remorse is a good excuse for letting people who do things that are illegal off the hook.

 

[BkrK12]

This is certainly a tragic accident. But, I'm sorry, there is absolutely no quantifiable evidence in either of those stories to indiate that this was a "panic stop" situation. What the wife thinks she heard in the middle of an accident in which she was involved doesn't qualify as evidence. There are also no facts relevant to speed or following distance. There is nothing to be angry about here, until an investigation is completed. BTW, where I grew up, accepted norm for following distance is two car lengths for every ten mph. With todays cars, that's about 30 to 35 feet, not ten. Being 60 feet behind, at 60mph, is way too close and is exactly the way people drive around here, during rush hour. If you leave more than about 40 feet between you and the car in front of you, regardless of speed, some Masshole will cut you off.

 

[Bounce]

Tragic as it is, the person in the trailing vehicle is usually at fault in those wrecks (in most states). "Following too closely" is usually the reason.

 

[Potential]

Nobody said anything about a panic stop. The woman probably stopped fairly quickly though. Anyway in high school we were taught to maintain a two-second following distance. At 60 mph that works out to 176 feet which is an average of 30 feet per 10 mph but who counts that way? It's really easy to measure a two-second distance; after the car in front passes some spot on the road, it should take the vehicle behind two seconds to reach that same spot.

I also wonder if the motorcyclists actually know how to brake. I ride with some cruiser riders that exclusively use the rear brake like idiots, even locking up the rear wheel while barely slowing down.

 

[Duezzer]

Did a little more thinking on this

It doesn't matter if someone stopped for a familly of Ducks

Or an object that just fell off a truck

If you run into the back end of them it ain't their fault

You F(&*ed U$

Not Them

 

[Patriot]

should we let all of them off with a wrist-slap for that reason alone?

it's not "we", it's the next of kin's, the widow's sole decision to do as her conscience leads