Quebec Trial - Car Stops to help ducks, Motorcycle hits car (fatality) | Page 5 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Quebec Trial - Car Stops to help ducks, Motorcycle hits car (fatality)

LoneRonin said:
seriously?? If I see that I'm coming up on something and its getting bigger...and bigger and not moving, I get the **** outta the way.
Click to expand...

That makes sense only from the standpoint of an armchair quarterback. The reality is that the mind has delays built into it and every mind has different reaction times under different situations with different distractions. You can improve your chance of survivability if you ride totally paranoid like a fighter pilot over enemy territory. However if you do that you don't enjoy the scenery and sensations of the road.

I don't like "Rides" because I find that thinking about what the other riders are doing or how they will react to different situations affects my reactions.

Did the rider look in his rear view mirror to check on his wife? Was he thinking of where to stop for dinner?

Like most bad events, there are numerous contributing factors. Had Miss Ducksaver stopped because her engine blew she would be guilty of nothing and the rider / passenger just as dead. The degree of guilt relates to the why the driver stopped. You stop for moose and deer not ducks. What about a dog? A chihuahua or a great dane?
 
I would like to know how the expert determined that the hazard lights were on, in contrast to the statements by the witnesses? Is it because they were on when first responders attended the crash scene? Did he 'read' the bulbs to determine their state if/when they blew? If the latter then that can only be used to determine what I said, not whether they were actually lit at the time of the collision. A bulb filament will be blown and stretched if the light was on when you backed into a pole, just as it will be in a crash with another vehicle.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I would like to know how the expert determined that the hazard lights were on, in contrast to the statements by the witnesses? Is it because they were on when first responders attended the crash scene? Did he 'read' the bulbs to determine their state if/when they blew? If the latter then that can only be used to determine what I said, not whether they were actually lit at the time of the collision. A bulb filament will be blown and stretched if the light was on when you backed into a pole, just as it will be in a crash with another vehicle.
Click to expand...

After an unusual collision I made sure my turn signal was "On" before the police arrived. May not apply to the duck case.
 
matt123 said:
She would be negligent for not putting on the hazards either way.A shoulder check I would hope is second nature and was absolutely required.Furthermore from experience the time it takes to stop an ingrained reflex and make the decision not shoulder check while bearing down on an stationary object at 110 kph is inconsequential.
MOST IMPORTANTLY consider that he knew the second bike was bearing down on him as illustrated by his gesturing to slow.He probably had no idea where the trailing bike was going to go and was likely braking hard.
If you ask me he may have saved his wife's life while avoiding a cutting her off and killing all three of them.In this instance there is a very strong indication he had no safe escape route,no time to process the situation in entirety, and no time to react.
I think what he did was all he could do and is a victim of sear stupidity on the duck chasers part.

There are two questions to be asked

Had she not stopped on the road would he and the daughter still be alive?

Had she had her hazards on would the leading car have recognized the situation sooner and left enough time and real estate for both bikes to react?

I would say yes to both.
Click to expand...

He was gesturing to the duck herder, not the other bike!!!
I wonder what that "gesture" was...?
If the rider had any sort of survival instinct.. than the sight of that girl should have sent alarm bells off in his head and made him pay extra attention.... esspecially to what was infront of him.... but, nope, not this guy... his reaction is to make gestures.
Cold Truth..... If you see a person on the side of the left lane on a highway, while your riding in that lane... and your first reaction is to "gesture" the person... it's probably just a matter of time.

Had the rider left proper space between the bike and the "leadin car"... a truck towing camper... than he should have easily had enough time to avoid when he saw the "leading car" avoid. Ofcoarse, he'd have to be looking forward... and not be gesturing at the time.
 
Last edited:
Further update from Wednesday trial (Prosecution Closing Statement):

There is a difference between an accident and negligent behaviour, the prosecutor in the Emma Czornobaj trial told the jury as the case was coming near its end.<o:p

Prosecutor Annie-Claude Chasse pulled the definition of an accident out of a dictionary for her closing arguments. The definition includes terms like unexpectedly and without warning,she said, arguing that Czornobaj caused a collision based on her decisions.<o:p

On June 27, 2010, Czornobaj stopped her car in the left-hand lane of Highway 30 in Candiac to rescue some ducklings. While she was trying to gather the seven or eight young ducks, a motorcycle slammed into the back of her Honda Civic. Andre Roy, the driver of the motorcycle, and his daughter, Jessie, who was riding on back, died as a result of the crash.<o:p

Czornobaj, 25, is charged with two counts of criminal negligence causing death and two counts of dangerous driving causing death.<o:p

Chasse argued that if Czornobaj’s actions involved a reflex action, by merely braking to avoid the ducks, it could have been considered an accident.<o:p

“Don’t you believe that is an accident? Those are not the facts in this case,” Chasse said. “She made choices. She made decisions.”

(http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/montreal/Collision+accident+prosecutor/9932053/story.html)</o</o</o</o</o
 
Last edited:
raginduck said:
He was gesturing to the duck herder, not the other bike!!!
I wonder what that "gesture" was...?
If the rider had any sort of survival instinct.. than the sight of that girl should have sent alarm bells off in his head and made him pay extra attention.... esspecially to what was infront of him.... but, nope, not this guy... his reaction is to make gestures.
Cold Truth..... If you see a person on the side of the left lane on a highway, while your riding in that lane... and your first reaction is to "gesture" the person... it's probably just a matter of time.

Had the rider left proper space between the bike and the "leadin car"... a truck towing camper... than he should have easily had enough time to avoid when he saw the "leading car" avoid. Ofcoarse, he'd have to be looking forward... and not be gesturing at the time.
Click to expand...

Maybe i am wrong regarding the gesture but the fact is he knew there was another bike behind him and a shoulder before changing lanes and is always required and takes time.Also seeing a person the walking on the shoulder does not mean there is imminent danger ahead.Do you know distance between the woman and the parked car? Do you know the distance between the parked car and the bike once it came into view?I have seen people walking up and down those highways checking animal traps in the past and I doubt he could see threw the vehicle in front of him.
Regardless of his skills or where his mind was at the time I have to wonder why you would defend the duck chaser and attack the rider when it is clearly obvious what she was doing was something no reasonable person would do.Any mistakes he made are minor in comparison and the fact remains had she not left her car where she did no one would have died.
Good luck trying recognize a hazard,make a decision and stop a loaded bike at 110,90 or even 80kph in under 6.9 seconds.And even more luck to ya trying hold that 6.9 second gap at 100kph in traffic.
Her very presents on the road side would cause enough distraction and apparently did Also realize he would have had to do all of the above after the parked car came into view.I see you didn't define "the proper space between the bike and the leading car

This is a very interesting article from the Motorcycle Safety Site
http://www.msgroup.org/Tip.aspx?Num=031

It takes most people about 4.5 seconds to read this sentence.

4.5 seconds is not a lot of time - but it could be the rest of your life. 4.5 seconds is also (not really a coincidence) about how long it SHOULD take you to stop your motorcycle after applying your brakes at 60 MPH!

At 60 MPH you travel 88 FEET in 1 second,73.5 feet is about four car-lengths

If, however, the road is dry, it would take you only a total of 6.9 seconds to stop, (including the 1 second recognition/reaction delay.) and the distance traveled until you came to rest would be 346 feet.
 
Last edited:
Nothing new to report from the courts today.

The judge told the jury they will receive their instructions on Monday, and be sequestered Tuesday.
 
matt123 said:
Maybe i am wrong regarding the gesture but the fact is he knew there was another bike behind him and a shoulder before changing lanes and is always required and takes time.Also seeing a person the walking on the shoulder does not mean there is imminent danger ahead.Do you know distance between the woman and the parked car? Do you know the distance between the parked car and the bike once it came into view?I have seen people walking up and down those highways checking animal traps in the past and I doubt he could see threw the vehicle in front of him.
Regardless of his skills or where his mind was at the time I have to wonder why you would defend the duck chaser and attack the rider when it is clearly obvious what she was doing was something no reasonable person would do.Any mistakes he made are minor in comparison and the fact remains had she not left her car where she did no one would have died.
Good luck trying recognize a hazard,make a decision and stop a loaded bike at 110,90 or even 80kph in under 6.9 seconds.And even more luck to ya trying hold that 6.9 second gap at 100kph in traffic.
Her very presents on the road side would cause enough distraction and apparently did Also realize he would have had to do all of the above after the parked car came into view.I see you didn't define "the proper space between the bike and the leading car

This is a very interesting article from the Motorcycle Safety Site
http://www.msgroup.org/Tip.aspx?Num=031

It takes most people about 4.5 seconds to read this sentence.

4.5 seconds is not a lot of time - but it could be the rest of your life. 4.5 seconds is also (not really a coincidence) about how long it SHOULD take you to stop your motorcycle after applying your brakes at 60 MPH!

At 60 MPH you travel 88 FEET in 1 second,73.5 feet is about four car-lengths

If, however, the road is dry, it would take you only a total of 6.9 seconds to stop, (including the 1 second recognition/reaction delay.) and the distance traveled until you came to rest would be 346 feet.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe he ran into the back of that car because he was worried about the bike behind him????

Shoulder checks are not "required"... esspecially if the other option is plowing into a stopped car... by the way, you don't need to change lanes to get around a car (esspecially one that isn't blocking the whole lane)

Seeng a person on the side of the highway is not normal and should certainly make you more aware of your surroundings....

So was the rider.. gesturing in that situation was not reasonable....

Minor mistakes...? Really? I wouldn't call them "minor mistakes" if they get you and your kid killed.

Very interesting article.... Can you post one about paying attention to the road in front of you, safe distances and may be one about counter steering.
Not really sure why you are so focused on braking...?
If braking is the only tool in your bag of tricks... I suggest your broaden your skills or give up riding for your own safety.
 
I'm now thinking that it played out like this:

- Idiot gets out of her car and parks it partially (mostly?) blocking the passing lane, while she gets out to 'help the poor duckies.'
- Traffic comes up on her. Rider is behind another vehicle, that screens him from seeing the parked car.
- Rider sees the momentary distraction of a pedestrian illegally on the side of a limited access highway, as the screening vehicle moves.
- Rider turns attention back to the road, but too late to deal with the just revealed obstacle.
- Collision occurs.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I'm now thinking that it played out like this:

- Idiot gets out of her car and parks it partially (mostly?) blocking the passing lane, while she gets out to 'help the poor duckies.'
- Traffic comes up on her. Rider is behind another vehicle, that screens him from seeing the parked car.
- Rider sees the momentary distraction of a pedestrian illegally on the side of a limited access highway, removes left hand from handle bar and gestures the pedestrian, as the screening vehicle moves.
- Rider turns attention back to the road, but too late to deal with the just revealed obstacle.
- Collision occurs.
Click to expand...

And... this is how I see it.
 
I'd make a couple of slight modifications to describe how I think it played out:

- Idiot gets out of her car and parks it partially (mostly?) blocking the passing lane, while she gets out to 'help the poor duckies.'
- Traffic comes up on her. Rider is tailgating another vehicle, that screens him from seeing the parked car.
- Rider sees the momentary distraction of a pedestrian illegally on the side of a limited access highway, as the screening vehicle moves.
- Rider turns attention back to the road, but tries to brake instead of swerve .
- Collision occurs.

The reason I mention the braking is the following quote from the initial article:

"It was close enough that I knew I didn't have time to brake," Tessier said. Instead, she swerved to get around the car


Rob MacLennan said:
I'm now thinking that it played out like this:

- Idiot gets out of her car and parks it partially (mostly?) blocking the passing lane, while she gets out to 'help the poor duckies.'
- Traffic comes up on her. Rider is behind another vehicle, that screens him from seeing the parked car.
- Rider sees the momentary distraction of a pedestrian illegally on the side of a limited access highway, as the screening vehicle moves.
- Rider turns attention back to the road, but too late to deal with the just revealed obstacle.
- Collision occurs.
Click to expand...
 
Robp said:
Really? The side is all grass. I was imagining a concrete wall and that's why she was somewhat in a live lane.

If I based it on that picture she should be shot.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if the area where the collision occurred is similar but, as I said, that's a pretty representative image of the highway as a whole.
 
There is a concrete wall.
This is the car after the collision.

Now imagine when she parked it.... with room enough to swing the driver door open, so she could exit the car...

Her car was basically parked on the highway, blocking 80% or so of the left lane...

Emma_Czornobaj_car_01.jpg
 
This is the motorcycle.

Please try to imagine the shoulder width.
It is very, very narrow. Not a place to park a car.

Emma_Czornobaj_car_02.jpg
 
Emma_Czornobaj_car_05.jpg



A wider shoulder, and grass, is available on the right side... (that lane exits the hwy, it is an exit ramp - photo does not show if there is, or not, a similar shoulder next to the right lane in the hwy). But it is conceivable that she could had pulled over on the right shoulder, and park safely.

Emma_Czornobaj_car_06.jpg
 
Last edited:
raginduck said:
Do you really believe he ran into the back of that car because he was worried about the bike behind him????

Shoulder checks are not "required"... esspecially if the other option is plowing into a stopped car... by the way, you don't need to change lanes to get around a car (esspecially one that isn't blocking the whole lane)

Seeng a person on the side of the highway is not normal and should certainly make you more aware of your surroundings....


So was the rider.. gesturing in that situation was not reasonable....


Minor mistakes...? Really? I wouldn't call them "minor mistakes" if they get you and your kid killed.


Very interesting article.... Can you post one about paying attention to the road in front of you, safe distances and may be one about counter steering.
Not really sure why you are so focused on braking...?
If braking is the only tool in your bag of tricks... I suggest your broaden your skills or give up riding for your own safety.
Click to expand...

His wife was on the other bike.Why involve her in the accident and risk her life too when he knows she behind him.I wonder what she would have to say about your comments.

Shoulder checks are always required especially if you are riding with another bike.Why would it be in the other lane and not sharing tire tracks in the same lane.Who takes both lanes when riding in pairs or groups.That's a SQUID move,where did you learn to ride?

It was a natural reaction,he was screened by the car and probably wouldn't be able to see the parked car until the last few seconds.Where you there?

The car didn't attempt to brake and I was showing that the bike wouldn't be able to either.If you think your riding is infallible you need to stop.I'm qualified to teach the Gearing Up program and have attended the advances courses at ST CLAIR COLLEGE as taught by OPP instructors.Putting other riders lives at risk in an attempt to save your own skin without so much as a shoulder check is not okay.

Do you hold a 7 second gap in traffic?How do you do it without other cars cutting in on that gap? I should have said common mistake but in reality it's impossible to always keep a safe distance.


Apparently you think its okay not to shoulder check in and emergency and endanger others around you if they happen to be in your way.This occurred at highway speed,a side swipe on a bike a speeds as low as 20kph can take a leg and cause you to bleed out in 10 minutes. A collision at 40 can easily kill you.You are not motorcyclist anyone would want to ride with.

This is how chain reaction accidents occur.An ESCAPE ROUTE is not An ESCAPE ROUTE if it's already occupied.Why should others pay the price because you want move into their without looking space to get yourself out of a bad situation.Had he move into her tire track or lane and killed his wife what would that accomplish.You are somebody nobody should ride with and your mentality here is the definition of a SQUID.There is no qualified instructor on the planet that would condone doing what you say you would do in this situation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom