Driver stops for a family of ducks, two motorcyclists die.

[Aggie]

Story below, additional info on the video clip:

A driver in her early 20s faces two charges of criminal negligence causing death after she came to a complete stop on a highway to allow a family of ducks to cross, causing a collision that killed a teenaged girl and her father.

Andre Roy, 50, and his 16-year-old daughter, Jessie, were riding a motorcycle on Highway 30 in Candiac when they slammed into the car stopped on the road ahead of them.

Roy was pronounced dead at the scene, while his daughter later died in hospital.

The teen's mother, who had been driving a second motorcycle, also collided with the vehicle and suffered serious injuries.

She remains in hospital in serious condition.

Surete du Quebec Sgt. Ronald McKinnis said the young woman who stopped on the highway actually got out of her car to help the ducks.

Stopping a vehicle on a highway is prohibited in the province of Quebec.

http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100628/mtl_motorcycle_crash_100628/20100628/?hub=MontrealHome


Was the driver right or wrong to stop for the ducks in the left lane of the highway?

Was the driver to blame for the motorcyclists' deaths, given that she had been stopped long enough to get out of her car?

[Griffin NoName]

Yes she was wrong to stop as the law was no stopping.

No she wasn't responsible for the motorcyclists' deaths as the driver should have been driving with a decent stopping distance.

[Aggie]

On the former, is it morally wrong to break the law to protect non-human life?

On a broader scale, should law have any influence on moral decisions, or simply be part of the cost / benefit analysis when one chooses to break a law?

[Darlica]

 
Sad.

A highway is a highway, and, one is not supposed to stop there unless the car is breaking down and then, you are supposed to get as much out of the way as possible. If you drive on a highway you should know this.

If you (under good driving conditions) collide with a vehicle that has already stopped or is about stop you are either going too fast or tailgating or both... 
 
I think the girl was negligent yes, but IMHO the drivers of the motorcycles can't be totally freed of responsibility them self. If you hit another vehicle from behind you are usually the one being negligent. The responsibility not to collide with the car in front of you is always yours.

The reason she stopped is not that important, they would have collided if she had stopped due to a blown tyre or a overheating engine too. 

That said stopping the car and stepping out on the left lane of a highway is so stupid it's a crime. I'm amazed she didn't got killed by another car.   



I've must have stopped for animals on the roads hundreds of times by now, I've also gotten out of the car to shoo rabbit and other various animals of the road but not in a situation where I would risk my own life or someone else's. Risk assessment is always a part of driving, knowing when to stop and when not to is a part of that. She should have known better, saving a family of ducks is a good thing, but she should have given the possible consequence a though before she stopped.


For the father and daughter and for the recovery of the mother.
   

[ivor]

Quite possible that they would have died hitting the ducks if they didn't see the car...  Why is it that you can run over a bicyclist and get away with it???

[Sibling DavidH]

Most of it has been said:

i. The young car-driver was foolish and broke the law, albeit with a good motive.

ii.  It looks as if the motorcyclists should have had some time to take action.  The precise sequence of events is still not clear, though as Griffin said, the car-driver seems to have been out of the car when they hit.  It might be - just for example - that the riders were looking at each other rather than the road.

On the former, is it morally wrong to break the law to protect non-human life?

Seems to me that's always going to depend on the circumstances.

On a broader scale, should law have any influence on moral decisions, or simply be part of the cost / benefit analysis when one chooses to break a law?

Sorry, Aggie, I don't see the mutual exclusion there.  But in general it's hard to see how any hard-and-fast rule could fit every case in this area.

It's good to have something like this to make one think things through.  Fascinating.

[Swatopluk]

Just a few things thta look fishy to me
If the car driver saw the ducks and was able to stop before running them over, the viewing conditions could not have been that bad. The car should have a higher visibility than a family of walking ducks => the motorcyclists should have seen it. Also what were they doing in the left lane, unless they were overtaking another car? And if that was the case, didn't they look first, whether the left lane was free?
Ironically, if a car has to stop on the highway and for whatever reason cannot go again, the people in it are encouraged to get out and off the road instantly to be safe when some other vehicle rams their's.

Over here the law is clear in case of animals that can be 'safely' overrrun. If there is a risk of collision with another vehicle by evading the animal(s) or stopping, then it's (legal) bad luck for the critters. Large animals (e.g. deer, moose or cows) are a different thing. I am not sure what the law says there, since ramming those may prove equally lethal to the driver.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Questions with no answer:

• Was the accident after a bend, overpass or hill?
• Did she had time to leave the car before the crash?
• Did she used the parking lights?
• Were the ducks in the scene of the incident?
• Is a left shoulder available at that point of the highway?

As said before, if the lady had time to see the ducks and stop the motorcyclists can't claim they didn't see the car. A different tale would be that the lady did a hard brake with the motorcycles tailgating and claim after the fact that it was due to the alleged ducks.

My general thoughts are that the motorcyclists were either tailgating (illegal and/or plain stupid) or totally distracted. Add to that how inherently dangerous is You can accuse the lady of a moving violation (stopping in the left lane) but I have trouble getting the negligent homicide charge, unless... (see below). If my memory serves well, the speed limit in Canada is 100Km/h in the highway or less (please correct me if I'm wrong), quite different from the German autobahn where a 200 Km/h car can't reasonably stop even if the driver sees the car ahead.

Regarding the lady, if the story checks, she should've pulled at the left shoulder. If her intention was to leave her car as an obstacle to save the ducks then she is guilty of negligent homicide regardless of her good intentions.

As for the morality of saving ducks above the chance of injuring people it is conceivable that a Hindu/Buddhist could've seen the life of the ducks as sacred and forget to think on the consequences of her actions, nevertheless there is a level of stupidity by not contemplating the possible outcome. Personally I wouldn't like being in that position, as it's a very quick decision on something uncomfortable, with bad potential outcomes and having to choose the lesser evil.

[Sibling DavidH]

I did many years of motorcycling, so I'll pontificate:  I see far too many  motorcyclists tailgating these days.  It's even more stupid than doing it in a car.  Maybe these people were doing that, but not if the woman was out of the car by the time they hit.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

As a motorcyclist of the past, most of the blame goes to the 'cyclists, IMO.

You must continuously look far, far ahead of your position-- for a cycle cannot stop like a 3 or 4 wheeled vehicle can-- with only two wheels, you cannot lock your wheels for the ultimate in stopping power (you fall over, obviously, and metal-to-asphalt is not nearly as good as rubber-to-asphalt is at creating friction--- or leather/flesh-to-asphalt for that matter).

More than one time, I had to go into the ditch, to avoid striking something I did not wish to hit.  Better the ditch, than a solid object-- but no matter how fast I went, I always kept an eye ahead with enough time to actually go into the ditch, should I need to.

This meant, when I was on the high-speed roads, I slowed for the blind curves, and was prepared to shoot off into the countryside if something was in my way.

Complacency is the enemy of any driver; all the more so with 2 wheeled vehicles.   Just because you've lost your healthy fear of a situation, does not mean the situation has lost it's imminent danger..... just ask anyone who routinely works with high voltage electricity.

... or on top of tall ladders, for that matter.

[The Meromorph]

The comments posted on that story reflect badly on the commenters, IMO.

The fact that a stopped car at that point would have been dangerous whatever the reason for the stopping, does not absolve the driver who, illegally and thoughtlessly, stopped and created the danger.

Nor is it a given that the motorcyclists were negligent.

This event has been the subject of discussion on a motorcycle safety forum I am heavily involved with. I quote one of the more cogent posts

The circumstances of the stop are important to consider in reconstructing how the accident happened. I don't believe it's enough to say that the motorcyclists were following too close, or were inattentive, case closed. What distracting factors were present to take their attention away? Did they have a clear sight line? Was the stopped car screened by other vehicles, etc.? It is in knowing those things that I am better prepared to avoid the same trap when I encounter it.

According to the online comments on one article, the place where the car stopped was in the passing lane of a four lane divided highway, around a blind curve. The right lane merges left 500 feet past that point. Those who customarily take that route usually move into the left lane before or on their way around the curve in anticipation of the merge.

So you have a case where traffic is funneling into the left lane precisely at the point where the stopped car came into view. Which means that the riders' attention may have been divided between the lane ahead and cars merging from the right. Or they themselves may have been merging from the right lane while doing a simultaneous shoulder check.

The other implication is that the merging activity may have momentarily created a situation of higher traffic density until the merged cars had a chance to spread themselves out. The motorcycles may have been maintaining proper space from the car in front until another vehicle inserted itself into the intervening space. What if that car had then slammed on the brakes?

Other factors to consider: one should always slow around a blind curve, but on a busy road there is always a pressure to keep ahead of following traffic. On a controlled access highway with concrete dividers one is not mentally prepared to see any obstruction. So there is the temptation to make an exception.

For example, it is wise/necessary to perform 'shoulder checks' (a turn of the head over the appropriate shoulder, for a full vision look) when riding a motorcyle in quite a lot of situations. While it is vital (it is often called a 'lifesaver') it is not without cost, it takes time to do and you can't be also looking ahead at the time...  From what I have read, this event may have required one, or even two, 'lifesavers' . This could well critically shorten available reaction time/space.

I have been involved in one such situation about two years ago. In a similarly complex road arrangement (no shoulder on either side, concrete barriers on both sides, and traffic merging from the right., and a general traffic speed of about 70 mph), an unloaded flat-bed truck performed a tire smoking emergency stop (for no apparent reason) in front of me. I performed a 'lifesaver' check on my (pre-planned) escape route into the right hand lane, and found a car in the process of overtaking me (at a speed of at least 90-100 mph). I reverted to performing an emergency stop in my own lane, but the 'lifesaver' had considerably shortened the available stopping distance. I did, in fact, stop with  three feet to spare, but it was somewhat exciting in the process.

Not every motorcyclist is as highly trained, or as safety oriented, as I am, and I had the advantage of seeing and hearing the truck start his emergency stop. It is much more difficult than you might think to spot (from behind)  that a car in the high speed lane of a highway has actually stopped. This is just one good reason for the explicit prohibition in the law.

BTW, the generally accepted 'rule of thumb' for motorcyclists is 'if an animal is small enough to eat at one sitting, it is safer to run it over (if necessary) than to try to avoid it'. The corollary is 'if it's bigger than that, aim for where it is when you spot it, and brake as hard as you can'. The chance of it staying there is even smaller than your chance of predicting where it will go.

[Aggie]

It is much more difficult than you might think to spot (from behind)  that a car in the high speed lane of a highway has actually stopped.

I nearly collided with a stopped truck in front of me on the highway once when I was younger.  Admittedly, I was distracted and fooling around with the car sterio, but kept looking up every second or so.  I didn't notice the truck ahead had stopped dead in the middle of the highway until I noticed it getting close very quickly (80 km/h).  I stopped less than a car length off the truck's back bumper, with much skidding of tires (but generally in control of the car if not perhaps my bowels). 

A car in front of this truck was making a left turn, and the driver of the truck had apparently taken his foot off the breaks after coming to a stop, so the brake lights weren't visible (or perhaps they were deficient, or perhaps it was too sunny to see them).  To me, taking short-interval glances, it was not immediately apparent that the truck wasn't actually moving, at least from a distance.

I have heard nothing to indicate that the driver of the car had her emergency flashers on, so a motorcyclist performing 'lifesavers' in a short visibility / complex traffic situation may have had the similar disadvantage of not readily determining that the car wasn't moving.  Morality issues aside, the failure to use the flashers while stopped in a travel lane would be enough to merit the charge of criminal negligence, IMHO.

[Swatopluk]

I can't see anyone actually defending the car driver. As far as I can see it we were talking about additional factors that might put also some blame on the motorcyclists without in any way exculpating the car driver.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

With the details from Mero (no shoulder, after a curve, with a merge right by, no mention of parking lights), the driver was thoughtless, stupid and negligent, but I don't wish to be in her pants at the moment she saw the ducks at all. At this point I only ran over a critter (a cat) once, and despite the fact that there was physically nothing I could've done to avoid it (he decided to cross right at the moment the car was passing by, getting caught by the rear wheel of my small car) I felt miserable after it happen. The idea of almost intentionally run over a critter makes me cringe and I can only hope it never happens to me.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Agreed with Zono, 100%-- I wouldn't want to be the woman who stopped for the ducks, only to have her decision ultimately the cause of the death of two other people.

Years ago, in my previous house, kids were playing in the street, and I had to drive past-- since there were kids, I was going 10mph or slower-- slower than you can walk fast, in fact.

Stupid kids-- one idiot threw a Frisbee in front of my van, and another stupid kid chased it right in front of me-- and I hit him.

Knocked him down, but unfortunately the left-front tire ran over his foot, damaging it.  He lived, but likely has permanent damage to that foot. 

Typical poor kids, one step "parent", not paying any attention to her step kids, father barely working, no insurance, etc.

I finally had to move away-- the vandalism to my home from the older brother got too severe.... as if it were *my* fault-- and *I* was the only person thinking clearly-- *I* called 911, *I* called the police, *I* had them move him out of the street, etc.  (leg/foot was not broken, but there was pretty severe abrasion damage)

The "father" actually had the balls to come around to my house, begging for money...

.... and yes, I'm still mad about it, and yes I'm still guilt-ridden about it, and yes I still cringe when I think about it too much.

The police officer complimented me on my quick thinking, and my slow speed-- she could tell from my skid marks (short) I was moving very slowly-- far more slowly than was typical on that street, which was one of the few through streets in the area-- most treated it like a speedway, going 40-50 mph. 

I occasionally still wake up from thoughts of that-- although it's been 10 years or so, not so much now as before.

No, I would not wish to be in the shoes of the woman who stupidly stopped for some not-at-all endangered ducks... and failed to move her vehicle into a safe position.

I've narrowly avoided hitting animals, but I'm always 'at ready' to honk, and honking nearly always gets them out of the way-- if you had time to come to a stop, you had more than enough time to slow-and-honk, together with avoidance activity.

[ivor]

I wouldn't feel guilty about that.  How do you know that the kid wouldn't be dead now if he didn't have a healthy respect for the street now?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I wouldn't feel guilty about that.  How do you know that the kid wouldn't be dead now if he didn't have a healthy respect for the street now?

You have made both an excellent point and have made me smile about it-- thank you.

I hadn't thought about teaching the little stinker a valuable lesson about how fragile life is-- especially to people who are not paying attention.

As Don Henley quipped, many [most] folk are driving with their eyes closed. lyrics