Woman Stops Car To Save Ducklings - Ends Up Facing Life In Prison

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
I've seen this story and just don't get it. Yeah, she probably bears some fault because of where she pulled over and if she didn't have her blinkers on, but if the cyclist was going above the speed limit and he hit her?

What would have been the difference if her car had stalled in that spot?

One is negligence, the other is a crisis with the vehicle.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
As was pointed out, Canadian and US traffic laws may differ in this situation.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
That's not what happened, by my reading. She stopped her car in the left hand lane of the highway, and got out. Then the motorcycle slammed into the car, after other cars had actually gone by.

This suggests cars coming up from behind her could not see her car clearly from a distance, either because of a curve or hill I'd bet.

It was a foolish thing for her to do, a dangerous thing, and she would certainly be at fault in the US, not the driver of the motorcycle.

That said, any kind of prison time seems harsh to me. Hopefully, the sentence will be as light as possible.

How do you figure she'd have been at fault in the U.S.? Not a good idea to stop there, but, again, it's not as if she stopped short and he plowed into her - in which case, in the U.S., I still think he'd be at fault honestly.

You're meant to leave room enough between you and the vehicle in front of you to be able to stop, given the relative speeds, and be prepared to stop at any point. At least that's what the instructor told me. Same as if you hit someone from behind, it's usually considered completely your fault, according to insurance, because see above.

You never know what can happen. It wasn't the brightest thing to do, but what if her car had stalled, her tire had blown and she couldn't steer to the right, or there was a mattress or something in the road that'd dropped off another vehicle, in front of her or in front of him?

If the 'from a distance' is far enough to stop, then how's it not his fault, and if it wasn't, then he shouldn't have been going that fast because you don't know what's around a blind curve or hill, hence you slow down.

To me, the cyclist is ay fault. How fast was he going that he ended up killing himself and his passenger? You need to be alert on the freeway. This could just as easily been a traffic jam and he'd still have slammed into the car because he was AT FAULT FOR NOT PAYING ATTENTION.

Should the woman have stopped where she did? No. Should she be facing life in prison because of an idiot cyclist? No.

This, imo. I feel badly especially for the kid on the back of the bike, who had no say in the matter, and the woman who somehow ended up on trial, and it's sad the guy died, as everyone does vaguely stupid shit (it's not, apparently, like he was drunk or something), but I don't see how this is anyone's fault but his.
 

cbenoi1

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
5,038
Reaction score
977
Location
Canada
> What would have been the difference if her car had stalled in that spot?

Regardless of how the car ended up in the left lane in the first place, it has to do with the difference between what she had done versus what the average Jane would have done in the same circumstances. The car was in perfect working order and there was no emergency immediate or looming (the ducks were off the highway and not presenting a danger). The jury decided that, according to our customs, laws, and driving habits, stopping in the left lane without a good enough reason is a criminal offense; it's an all-or-nothing thing. The penalty, as we shall see soon enough, might be more clement than what the verdict entails.

-cb
 
Last edited:

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
How do you figure she'd have been at fault in the U.S.? Not a good idea to stop there, but, again, it's not as if she stopped short and he plowed into her - in which case, in the U.S., I still think he'd be at fault honestly.

It's more than a bad idea. At least in Illinois, it's illegal:

Stopping, standing or parking is prohibited:
• On the roadway side of any parked vehicle (double parking).
• On a sidewalk, crosswalk or within an intersection.
• Between a safety zone and the adjacent curb.
• Beside or opposite any street excavation or obstruction if your vehicle would block traffic.
• On any bridge, overpass, railroad track or within a highway tunnel.
On any controlled access roadway — one you may enter or exit only at certain points.
• In the area between roadways of a divided highway, including crossovers.
On a paved roadway or highway outside business or residential districts when it is practical to stop or park off the roadway. In an emergency, you may stop and park only if there is a clear view for 200 feet in each direction. Turn on your emergency flashers and make sure there is enough space for other vehicles to pass.
• At any place where official signs prohibit stopping, standing or parking.

I think the two items I bolded above apply here. Depending on the highway, of course.

You're meant to leave room enough between you and the vehicle in front of you to be able to stop, given the relative speeds, and be prepared to stop at any point. At least that's what the instructor told me. Same as if you hit someone from behind, it's usually considered completely your fault, according to insurance, because see above.
As noted, she stopped beyond a curve. It's not always possible to stop in that circumstance at highway speeds.

You never know what can happen. It wasn't the brightest thing to do, but what if her car had stalled, her tire had blown and she couldn't steer to the right, or there was a mattress or something in the road that'd dropped off another vehicle, in front of her or in front of him?

None of that happened. Besides, look at my Rules of the Road quote above. No stopping "Beside or opposite any street excavation or obstruction if your vehicle would block traffic."

If the 'from a distance' is far enough to stop, then how's it not his fault, and if it wasn't, then he shouldn't have been going that fast because you don't know what's around a blind curve or hill, hence you slow down.



This, imo. I feel badly especially for the kid on the back of the bike, who had no say in the matter, and the woman who somehow ended up on trial, and it's sad the guy died, as everyone does vaguely stupid shit (it's not, apparently, like he was drunk or something), but I don't see how this is anyone's fault but his.

So far as I can tell, no one is holding the motorcycle driver blameless. But this woman's actions *did* lead to the accident, even if the motorcyclist's actions did as well.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
You're meant to leave room enough between you and the vehicle in front of you to be able to stop, given the relative speeds, and be prepared to stop at any point.

Not on the highway. Which is why stopping a vehicle on it, driving a scooter/buggy/bicycle on it, or crossing it on foot is illegal. Because if you do these things, you are likely to be hit--it is engineered in.

But to repeat, to be convicted it only had to be true that her car being there contributed to the death. Which is rather hard to argue against? You can argue perhaps that the law is unfair, but the jury seems to applied it correctly.

The next question is whether turning down a plea with a short custodial sentence and rolling the dice will pay off for her.
 
Last edited:

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
How do you figure she'd have been at fault in the U.S.?

She intentionally stopped her car--and left it, btw--in the left lane of a highway after a curve (thanks Xelebes for that info).

In the U.S., it is illegal to stop a car in a travel lane unless there is an emergency. And if there is an emergency, one is supposed to try to stop on a shoulder, not in the middle of the road, and to use some means to warn other drivers. I don't see anything in any of the stories that suggest she did any of this.

Other drivers had to swerve to avoid her, which suggests that where she stopped, she could not be easily seen from a safe distance.

What she did was illegal, idiotic, and dangerous.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
I've seen this story and just don't get it. Yeah, she probably bears some fault because of where she pulled over and if she didn't have her blinkers on, but if the cyclist was going above the speed limit and he hit her?

What would have been the difference if her car had stalled in that spot?

She pulled "inver" rather than over, to the center line, on purpose. It really was a bad choice even without any bad intent.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
She pulled "inver" rather than over, to the center line, on purpose. It really was a bad choice even without any bad intent.

In fact, I'd say she didn't pull at all. She just stopped.
 

DancingMaenid

New kid...seven years ago!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
460
Location
United States
I think this woman showed fairly poor judgment by stopping in the lane like that, though I also think that the cyclist shares a lot of the blame for the accident (one of the articles linked suggests that the cyclist's wife, who was riding on another bike behind him, saw the car before he ran into it, and that they both saw the woman walking along the side of the road before that. That gives me the impression that there might have been enough warning to avoid the car).

But in general, I've always found the rule of not stopping for animals very frustrating. It goes against human nature, not only because most people have some empathy for animals but because I think most people instinctively want to avoid running into something that darts into their path. I don't think stopping on the highway to herd ducks is a great idea, but around here, people regularly stop on suburban roads to let families of geese pass, and I think that causes a lot less chaos and damage than running them over would.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Not on the highway. Which is why stopping a vehicle on it, driving a scooter/buggy/bicycle on it, or crossing it on foot is illegal. Because if you do these things, you are likely to be hit--it is engineered in.

But to repeat, to be convicted it only had to be true that her car being there contributed to the death. Which is rather hard to argue against? You can argue perhaps that the law is unfair, but the jury seems to applied it correctly.

The next question is whether turning down a plea with a short custodial sentence and rolling the dice will pay off for her.

I'm torn on contributing. I see the point, but I also think you're meant to leave room and be aware and prepared to stop, because there may be an emergency or god knows what. He was exceeding the speed limit by a good bit and I'd argue wasn't aware - cars were able to avoid her, he was on a bike, which seems logically should have been better able to, not worse, as it's more maneuverable.

As to the stopping, I agree it wasn't the best choice, but she saw an emergency: ducks in danger. I get the prosecutor doesn't think that matters, but to her, it clearly did. Had she pulled over on the opposite shoulder and tried to dart across and back herself, with ducks, it may have been more disruptive, or she might have thought it'd have driven them into traffic, I dunno.

I know someone was once driving on a major highway in the U.S., at night, and saw a weird glint, so slowed down. It was lucky he did, as the glint was a car parked sideways across two lanes of the highway ahead of him - some moron had realized he was going north when he wanted to go south and thought he could make a U-turn, so tried it, then realized there was a concrete divider, so stopped. Headlights were aiming into the median and dulled by the grass along it. That, I'd say contributed, had there been an accident, because wtf.

This, in daylight, parked (yes, you're not meant to park there, but it can happen for universally-reasonable reasons), door open (I agree she should have had blinkers on, obvs.), I dunno, I'm conflicted.