Last edited:
|
|
|
Quebec Trial - Car Stops to help ducks, Motorcycle hits car (fatality)
- Thread starter DECIMIS
- Start date
dasiffy
Well-known member
There are 36 HTA offenses which could give jail time. (nothing over 6 months)
Driving is serious business. More people need to be aware of this.
DUI and dangerous driving are criminal offenses while in care and control of a vehicle. What are the other HTA offenses that draw jail time?
@nobbie48 and happycrappy - Stopping at the side of the road was a violation of the Quebec Highway Safety Code. I refer to it as a 'criminal act' because it is breaking the law, but it is not so in the sense of the Criminal Code of Canada. The criminal act, that resulted in the woman's conviction, was a failure to consider the extreme danger that she was placing other road users in by stopping in the way that she did. With or without the stopping itself being illegal, she would have been convicted.
dasiffy stated that there are 36 things that can see you jailed, in the HTA. I don't know the number but I know that there are such things, and not just involving HTA 172.
dasiffy stated that there are 36 things that can see you jailed, in the HTA. I don't know the number but I know that there are such things, and not just involving HTA 172.
What punishment would you suggest that would be serious enough give a wake-up call to people that they have to think beyond the ends of their noses?
How many things do we do every day that if done carelessly could result in death? As I understand it, the Lac Megantic train crash was the result of a incorrectly set brake. Oopsie?
If you look at serious or fatal industrial "Accidents" some end up with criminal charges as well although there was no intent to kill or maim.
I wonder if the tense attitude on this case is because we see so much in the way of bad and inconsiderate behavior that we're getting paranoid to the point of being trigger happy with justice.
Last edited:
dasiffy
Well-known member
Code:
7.3 (13)
7.10 (2)2
9 (1)
12 (1)
21 (2)
21 (3)
21 (4)
41.4 (19)
47 (5)
47 (6)
47 (7)
47 (8)
48.4 (19)
51
53 (1)
53 (1.1)
55.1 (34)
55.2 (19)
59 (6)
82.1 (36)
107 (15)
112 (3)
130
159 (6)
171 (4)
172 (2)
172 (17)
172.1 (3)
175 (17)
177 (4)
184
187 (8)
200 (2)
214.1 (7)
216 (2)
225 (6)some of them are inspection/paperwork/fraud stuff. There's defacing a license plate / using one car's plate on another. Failing to stop for a cop.
Last edited:
I would say that you're on to something there. You may have seen me refer to what I call "the new sociopathy." Every week I see people pull moves in traffic that could result in serious injury, or even death of other people, without a single thought given to that possibility.
I'd say you're 100% right with this remark. In fact, that is exactly why we have 172 as well. People want a pound of flesh to correct human behavior. Nothing gets votes better than the proverbial hanging judge, instead of the costly, lengthy, boring investment at the source, which is training. People tend to think of driving as a Right to mobility, so rubber stamping at the test facility is a much bigger issue IMHO.
Slight modification to your statement: Training doesn't help when there's no ongoing testing, and people only use it to pass the initial tests.
Sometimes I think about the American system where judges, sheriffs and DAs etc get elected. Throwing people in jail seems to get votes, even if they're innocent. Might be worse than HTA 172.
The hard part here is getting people to think straight. Squids die because they think they're as good as Rossi. Drunks kill people, thinking they're OK because they feel fine. Duck lady killed people because she target fixated mentally on being a good samaritan to some ducks. Countless crashes have been caused by people erroneously thinking they can text and drive. One just about got me last summer as he ran a red.
I've seen people drive right through red lights staring through the windshield like they had blinkers on, fixated on something at the destination. Maybe a sick child, death in the family whatever.
AND some people just can't drive. My wife (Sorry dear) could never control a motorcycle. If you have to ask when you should shift maybe the car is your thing.
The answer is more stringent driving tests. The party that puts that on their platform might as well use the plank for their coffin.
Last edited:
More stringent testing will likely make it harder and more expensive for people to pass the initial test, but I doubt that it would actually stop many people from getting their license. As I said people currently use training to pass the test, then throw it out the window because they never get tested again. Unfortunately the only form of 'retesting' that we currently have is enforcement, and a whole lot of basic road laws aren't enforced nearly enough.
Wide turns, failure to signal, making left turns well after a light has turned amber/red or dragging out an advanced green, failure to come to a complete stop before executing a turn at a controlled intersection... All of these things present a very real danger to other road users, and yet almost no one is ticketed for them. Enforcement of these things is so lax that more people do them, than not. As a result police are insufficient to the task and we get things like red light cameras.
Although I am not speaking directly of this case. But I find it interesting that so many cry that 172 should be abolished, (not only because of the pre trial punitive aspects), but also they state that there were "pre existing" sections of the HTA which dealt with most of the items covered under 172. As has been pointed out there is also a section under the Quebec equivalent of the HTA, which deals with the infraction of stopping a vehicle on a highway.
Putting this woman into the penal system is not going to deter anyone, as I said earlier this type of incident is sooo rare. It isn't going to "rehabilitate" her. I doubt she will ever again contemplate such a stupid act. (that is IF she is even permitted to ever again hold a drivers licence). Even if she was able to hold a drivers licence I know of at least 3 people who after being involved in a fatal vehicle crash never again drove, (even though they could have).
Putting this woman into the penal system is not going to deter anyone, as I said earlier this type of incident is sooo rare. It isn't going to "rehabilitate" her. I doubt she will ever again contemplate such a stupid act. (that is IF she is even permitted to ever again hold a drivers licence). Even if she was able to hold a drivers licence I know of at least 3 people who after being involved in a fatal vehicle crash never again drove, (even though they could have).
The prison deterrent would largely be based on publicity. If the case ends up on page 27 it won't be much of a deterrent but front page maybe. Also it will take more such convictions to show that it isn't a one off.
The bigger problem:
Driving in traffic is somewhat like playing chess where you constantly have to re-assess your situation to keep from hearing "Checkmate" or crash as the case may be. If you naively think the other players are going to follow the rules you are sadly mistaken. If you think everyone is playing the same game you are beyond hope.
IMO duck lady grew up in an overprotected fantasy world where everything goes to plan. In duck lady's world of traffic chess she sees ducklings and stops to rescue them. Because she saw them and stopped she assumes everyone will do the same thing. She also missed the point that the ducklings weren't playing traffic chess. They were playing get away from big two legged creature. Looking forward, what did she plan to do if the ducklings jumped into her arms? Drive them to McDonalds for burgers?
Duck lady did not think and I have serious concerns that she may be one of the many that do not have the capacity to think outside of their chosen profession. The highways are full of them. To get a driver's license you have to be able to be able to see and understand rules. Cars today almost drive themselves. You don't have to be able to think.
Rehabilitation for duck lady means her learning to think. Teaching her to think is oxymoronic. Is it possible for people to learn to think?
I can't confirm the accuracy of my stats but I suspect more people get murdered in Canada than win big lottery prizes. Hardly anyone worries about getting murdered but millions think they're going to win the big one. The brain bar is set pretty low. Gotta work with that.
Perhaps "scatterbrained" might be applicable. "Oh, look at the little duckies, I have to stop and help them." It's rather likely that she put NO thought into what the consequences of her actions might be. Probably never even crossed her mind. I'm not even convinced that she recognizes that she has done something wrong, even now.
Keep in mind, folks, that although she has been convicted, she has not yet been sentenced. I actually rather doubt that she will see jail time, or if so, it will be for a nominal amount. Hopefully she gets a lengthy drivers license suspension. I'm not sure whether that would make her any less scatterbrained, though.
If you are driving, you should be thinking about only one thing - DRIVING. Not little ducks, not your phone, not your passengers.
Keep in mind, folks, that although she has been convicted, she has not yet been sentenced. I actually rather doubt that she will see jail time, or if so, it will be for a nominal amount. Hopefully she gets a lengthy drivers license suspension. I'm not sure whether that would make her any less scatterbrained, though.
If you are driving, you should be thinking about only one thing - DRIVING. Not little ducks, not your phone, not your passengers.
Having your vehicle breakdown, forcing you to stop on the side of the highway is normal and reasonable. Seeing ducks and being compelled to stop on the side of the highway to help them is not. What she did, was, to use your words, an overt act that completely deviates from what a normal and reasonable person may do.
Thanks for reading the entire post. Please do not be so narrow in your reply; I'm pretty sure I qualified my viewpoint. For the umpteenth time, a vehicle being pulled over is a scenario than can easily be expected; the reason has no impact whatsoever on the outcome. Do you understand now? As a matter of fact, I would argue that it is not even rare for people to stop and do stupid **** on behalf of animals. I don't like it, it's stupid, but I don't think these people reside at the top of the list that should be incarcerated.
I agree,If he wasn't gesturing to the duck lady but signaling to the bike behind him to slow down ,sneezing,checking his mirrors or adjusting his visor would he still be have fault?It's not illegal to gesture while riding a bike.Saying he wasn't paying attention is just nitpicking a dead mans final moments.The operator of the parked car that he hit was in fact the distraction. Following that logic maybe we need to stop waving to and back at other bikes as they pass by?
I also dont buy that he was speeding in a socially unacceptable manor,the fact is 10kph is expected by most drivers around you on the highway and 15 over will not get you ticketed by the police conducting speed traps.No one will ever know exactly how fast he was going or what he was thinking but we do know a car was parked illegal with out good reason on the highway It should be clear that an informed jury of her peers believes nothing that he did makes her any less culpable in this situation.
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|