To make caboose's experiment more interesting, arrange for the lane adjacent to the truck/trailer in front to be clear so that it has a clear path to swerve right, but arrange for another vehicle to be adjacent to the driver being experimented upon, so that they can't swerve to the right without hitting it. Give the experimentee 10 seconds to take the correct action of either speeding up or slowing down so that they are not adjacent to the other vehicle. Most people won't take the opportunity, most people won't even recognize the hazard of being directly beside another vehicle, and I betcha most people will hit the foam/concrete block.
|
|
|
Quebec Trial - Car Stops to help ducks, Motorcycle hits car (fatality)
- Thread starter DECIMIS
- Start date
To make caboose's experiment more interesting, arrange for the lane adjacent to the truck/trailer in front to be clear so that it has a clear path to swerve right, but arrange for another vehicle to be adjacent to the driver being experimented upon, so that they can't swerve to the right without hitting it. Give the experimentee 10 seconds to take the correct action of either speeding up or slowing down so that they are not adjacent to the other vehicle. Most people won't take the opportunity, most people won't even recognize the hazard of being directly beside another vehicle, and I betcha most people will hit the foam/concrete block.
you can't forget to add the distraction of a woman frantically trying to herd ducks on the right side of the road.
Fixed it for you. The world won't change over one event but if this sets a pattern of charges and convictions it could be the first clang of the alarm clock. It's time for the world to wake up and realize that we can't keep getting dumber and dumber every day and get away with it.
You say "distraction"....
I'll say "huge red flag"
The sight of that girl would have had the same effect on me as if someone was frantically waving a red flag in my face.
And... How many people are going to volunteer to be looking to their left while having one hand off the bars, gesturing, as the experiment begins?
My guess... not many.
I see them.. not look at them.
While this is generally true in THIS case that 20 - 30 km/ h deviation "MAY" have been a significant factor. Had the rider not been exceeding the limit his chances of a more favorable outcome would have no doubt increased. I am NOT saying what she did was anything other than completely utterly stupid. It was also IMHO negligent, was it criminally negligent? The Jury has ruled it has. I must accept that ruling, (weather I agree with it or not is immaterial and not relevant, as I have not heard all the evidence.
I suspect that there will be an appeal of the case and the sentence, (once imposed), hinged upon the fact that the judge declined to permit the jury to consider any or all contributing factors. I doubt we have seen the last of this case.
As for the comments about not paying attention. Perhaps it is just me but if I were to see a person on the shoulder of a controlled access highway, MY first reaction is to highten my attentiveness NOT to take a hand off the bars to gesture. The vehicle in front was a truck pulling a trailer, so one can assume it was at least 30' long unless it was a travel trailer in which case it could have been much longer. The combination of the person on the highway and the "sudden" maneuver, of that vehicle, (as SOON as it started to swerve), would have caused me to be on my brakes rather than wait to see what may lie ahead. But again that is just me.
He and his daughter paid for this incident with their lives which is tragic.
Then you need to try BrianP's test.
... at some randomly determined moment that you aren't expecting it.
Kinda like 172
I never said anything about punishment BEFORE conviction
I think Happy meant kind of like 172 was "designed" to be a significant deterrent, to those who weren't getting the message of the current laws. As we know 172 has not deterred anyone, ask the guy clocked at 136 in the 50 zone in Markham, a few wekks ago. So if one looks at the number of 172 charges laid and the continued behaviour, then how can one assume that by throwing this person in jail is going to be any stronger a deterrent??? For THIS type of behaviour.
Also this is a pretty unique situation, not like we get reports of this, type of incident, weekly or even monthly, as we do with 172 charges. So if one thinks throwing the person in jail will send a strong message then it would be lost by the time the next incident likely even happens
Thanks Hedo; that is precisely what I was driving at. Many of the people here that love her sentence are also vehemently against the severity of a 172 charge, which makes little sense to me. I would also argue that making it criminal case in many ways DOES in fact make it punishment before a conviction, what with the legal fees, bail, etc.
Again, I am not confused about the ruling, I disagree with it. There is a certain expectation of risk and responsibility in a given activity, which I don't believe was adequately argued here. In sporting events for example, people are not charged with assault for every contact that results in another players injury. Ski hills are not shut down and people arrested if a less-competent skier takes someone out and they die. Yes, she should be punished and many things need to happen to satisfy the debt to society and to deter others, but this sentence fails on every level.
HTA 172 raises simple vehicular infractions to the to the level of Criminal Code charges, with the heavy handed way it deals with them. It does not wait until a finding of guilt before levying some very real penalties. It's swatting a fly with a howitzer.
A charge under the Criminal Code is a more serious bit of business and the method of dealing with it is well laid out. In this case the actions of someone were seen as the proximate cause of two deaths. This is not a trivial matter and the process through which it is dealt with must be more rigorous by orders of magnitude, from a simple Provincial Offences Act charge.
Have you ever been to a motorcycle race in which someone has died? I have, on too many occasions. The track is closed. OPP come in to investigate, to see if any criminal act or criminal negligence was involved.
Has anyone ever been arrested at a motorcycle race where someone has died? Let me elaborate; the sport of racing has many more opportunities of risk and death, and the participants have an increased level of culpability as a result. Like in many sports, the person who shows an error in judgement does not suffer legal consequences at all. Of course they investigate; why would you assume I am arguing that they shouldn't do that? The only way someone would be arrested in these examples is if there was specific intent to do harm, beyond the scope of the understood risk (think hockey fight). A hockey player can effectively legally commit assault, within a certain scope of what is reasonable within the scope of a game. If he waited to continue it in the parking lot, or beat up the Ref, not so much.
She showed no such intent. Some ******* doing 50 over the limit, IS showing intent to break a serious law. She clearly had no evidence of, nor a pattern of intent to harm anyone, so in this case her penalty should be within the scope of the HTA and civil court.
Last edited:
I'm dodging nothing. I don't agree with HTA 172 and I think that it's in breach of our fundamental rights under The Charter. Politicians dreamt it up, media pushed it, and the public clambered for it. That doesn't make it right and, to me, it puts it outside what is reasonable. For me, that puts it beyond the scope of this discussion.
You brought up skiiing. I brought up something that has more direct bearing on what we are discussing here, that met your criteria.
Intent is relatively meaningless, in the context of a criminal negligence trial. What we have here is not an overt act, but rather a failure to do that which is legally required. I believe I've said something like that, perhaps several times now.
At the risk of sounding repetitive myself, word for word, this is how I feel about criminal negligence being used in this case. Opinions are fun aren't they? We all have 'em
Rob, I have always been impressed with your posts when it comes to the law and the charter vs the drama, keep it coming with the facts! You have been 100% right on the money on this thread and many others.
Yup, opinions are a wonderful thing.
This person committed an illegal act (stop at the side of a limited access highway). She was negligent in doing so. People died. A trial was required to determine if her negligence rose to the level of criminality. That's how the law is supposed to work. In my opinion.
Thanks, but remember that it's only the view of a layman. I have no formal legal education, nor training.
Breaking down your reply:
"This person committed an illegal act (stop at the side of a limited access highway)."
If I understand correctly she stopped ON the highway due to the narrow shoulders. Had there not been a wreck she would have a non criminal HTA offence to deal with. There was no intent to cause harm. She didn't run the biker off the road to prevent him from harming the ducklings.
"She was negligent in doing so. People died."
The deaths are a fact but negligence can be a judgement call. IMO had this never happened and people were discussing a hypothetical situation of a similar stop on a highway even duck lady would admit it wouldn't be wise. She didn't think and the negligence charge is IMO appropriate.
"A trial was required to determine if her negligence rose to the level of criminality."
The trial was needed but people disagree with the outcome. The outcome could be due to many factors, a particularly good prosecutor, a poor defense team, too many duck hunters on the jury etc.
I don't think the verdict would have been different if the following vehicle was a small car that burst into flames killing the father and daughter. This isn't a bike vs car issue.
If this type of verdict becomes common anyone causing death or life altering injuries in an at-fault collision can expect jail time and a criminal record. Be careful what you wish for.
Under the criminal code you go to jail, have a record for life, massive trial costs.
Under HTA you get a fine, have a record for 6 or 7 years mostly affecting your insurance, license suspension possibly affecting your job for the suspension period. Money cures all of those.
Time will heal the HTA wounds but not the criminal ones.
I dislike the term "accident" being used for most crashes because most crashes could have been prevented if the driver thought but how much lack of thought is needed to turn a collision into a crime? We have all had Ooopsies.
"That's how the law is supposed to work. In my opinion."
Agreed. Some trials are trials of the law.
I am concerned about an unintended action being labeled criminal but am also bothered by the lack of deterrent under the HTA. Possibly stiffer HTA deterrents are the answer. Are there any provisions under the HTA for jail? I think not.
|
|
|
|
|