How many have done this? (Sentenced)

As far as I know in Europe, should a car/bike smash into the car infront it is entirely the fault of those behind for being too fast/close/not being attentive. Of course every case has its own evidence but what if those ducks had been children?

Once this case goes to trial (if it hasn’t already) more details should come out in the press. If such should become available, the posting of same here would be appreciated. A lot of people have expressed opinions on this tragedy, some assigning responsibility and others exonerating therefrom. Absent details, one imagines what might have happened and forms opinions, perhaps inadvertently colored by one’s predispositions. Circumstances and details matter, and the fact that charges have been brought suggests that the legal system views those details, unknown to us, to be of significance. It would be helpful to finally know what really happened.

Until more is known, those who are curious might follow the link to the news article below which identifies the location of the accident, and then Google the intersection where it happened: Candiac, Quebec, intersection of Highways 30 and 15, on the south bank of the St. Lawrence River. Zoom in with satellite view. The status of the intersection is uncertain depending on the date of the photo, but both are significant multi-lane divided highways just at the edge of a developed area.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010 ... 48891.html

1. Using high beam improperly is one of the highest offences in Ontario.
It carries 9 penalty points. At 12 you will have your license suspended.
2. With tailgating, I just simply ignore the tailgaters.
3. So far I have never hit any animals in my life (40+ years of driving) except one Sparrow at 30 km/h in the City and one Am. Robin at
85 km/h on the highway. There was no way to stop.
Seeing all those run over animals along the road I wonder why people can't slow down or stop.
4. Hitting the break comes without thinking. It is automated. I feel sorry for those people died in the accident and their
families but unfortunately your foot does what it learned to do automatically; hit the break in situation like this.

Karl Egressy wrote:1. Using high beam improperly is one of the highest offences in Ontario.
It carries 9 penalty points. At 12 you will have your license suspended.

I had no idea using the high-beam improperly carried such a high penalty. I'll have to look that one up. That and the really bright headlights of some vehicles is what makes driving at night less and less enjoyable. Tinted windows help to some degree.

As for braking, it is always prudent to be aware of who is driving behind you and alert to what is up ahead on the road (of course we all know that already). Reason I say that is because seeing what's up ahead will allow someone to manouever ahead of time (provided they have the luxury of seeing it in time) ....so they might not neccessarily come to a full stop but perhaps slow the vehicle down a bit and move toward the side or something....only if it's possible of course. Two years ago, a car ahead of me swerved on the 417 and this alerted me to do the same as a roll of carpet was laying across on the highway. Initially I did not see the carpet roll because it was blocked by the car ahead...one more reason not to tail-gate...you never know.

Karl, be careful if you ever drive to the Prince Edward Point bird banding station in October. A few years ago, I did just that and the narrow country road was lined with rabbits jumping in front of my car every so often. You'd figure if the rabbit sees your car coming they will stay still or at least retreat. Nope. They wait until the last moment and dash right across the road.

While others go out of the way to avoid killing wildlife on the road, some do just the opposite. He says only "stray" cats but with an attitude like that, who knows what else.

"Quebec Mayor Stephane Gendron says he deliberately runs over cats, SPCA investigates".

"First of all, cats have no business being in the road, if it’s a stray cat in the road, bang, I accelerate," he said recently during his French-language radio show, according to CTV News.

“The other day, I backed up on one, it was a newborn,” he said on-air. “I’m sure he didn’t feel anything. The pickup truck ran on it like nothing. I was so happy, yes! One less.”

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-p ... 13491.html

^ ^ ^ ^
Domestic cats are a huge threat to native wildlife, especially to nesting birds and the resultant hatchlings. Cats are fine as pets, so long as people keep them confined to their homes and yards at all times. Once they are able to roam free they kill native animals. If more people had Stephane Gendron's attitude, perhaps there would be a few more songbirds, game birds, ducklings, and rabbits around.

Regrettably I've had to plough through a moorhen and a troupe of chicks which inexplicably started to cross a busy, fast road in the rush hour.

A quick check of my mirror showed there was no way I could stop or swerve without causing an accident and it was heart wrenching to hear a series of little bumps under the van.

It's hard but sometimes you just have to keep going.

I feel really sorry for all involved in this incident, really tragic.


I've also hit owls on two occasions which again was unavoidable but both times when I stopped and went back to look for the birds there was no sign to be seen???

Tom Reichner wrote:^ ^ ^ ^
Domestic cats are a huge threat to native wildlife, especially to nesting birds and the resultant hatchlings. Cats are fine as pets, so long as people keep them confined to their homes and yards at all times.  Once they are able to roam free they kill native animals.  If more people had Stephane Gendron's attitude, perhaps there would be a few more songbirds, game birds, ducklings, and rabbits around.

There is no denying that both feral and domestic cats do kill their share of birds.  But so do predators such as raptors, other birds (Jays, crows, etc.) and wildlife that feed on birds.  It doesn't mean the next time I see a Coopers Hawk sitting on a post, I go and kill it. First, I would not do such a thing and they are also protected by laws.  As for that guy who deliberately runs down stray cats and even going out of his way to back up his truck to kill a kitten.....I don't know, it takes a "special type" of individual to do that.  There's no way I could even possibly imagine doing something like that even in my wildest dreams.


----------------------------------


But here is a bird killer I do not mind getting rid off:  https://www.wind-watch.org/newsarchive/2007/05/30/study-shows-hundreds-of-dead-birds-bats-at-wind-turbines/

They're even thinking about putting these up on Amherst Island and even a few near the famous "Owl Woods" known for its wintering owl population.  "Wind turbines on Wolfe Island in eastern Ontario are responsible for the second highest bird kill rate in North America." reads the headline.  http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/06/28/small_island_no_place_for_giant_turbines.html

It seems no good deed goes unpunished. Driver swerves on wet road to avoid cat, crashes into house, ruptures natural gas line.


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottaw ... story.html

4 years later, trial is finally under way.  Emma Czornobaj, now a 25 year old Montreal Concordia University graduate, a member of the dean's list, faces two charges (2 counts each) that stem from stopping her car to let some ducks cross a busy highway resulting in the death of two motorcyclist could face up to life imprisionment if found guilty.

Video:
http://globalnews.ca/news/1371681/accused-reckless-driver-allegedly-stopped-car-on-highway-to-help-family-of-ducks/

"A fine line between recklessness and compassion" 
"On a beautiful Sunday evening in June four years ago, Emma Czornobaj stopped her car to let a family of ducks cross the road.
Who among us wouldn’t have been tempted to do the same?
And who among us would do it now?"
"What makes the case now unravelling at the Montreal courthouse so compelling is that it introduces a new list of acts, and another type of driver, deemed to be irresponsible behind the wheel of a car.
Someone who could be any one of us."  - Curran

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Curran+fine+line+between+recklessness+compassion/9904035/story.html

Weird laws, in the US, it is the responsibility of the rear driver to know what is happening in front of them, hear she would have a case of being rear ended.

Mike in O wrote:Weird laws, in the US, it is the responsibility of the rear driver to know what is happening in front of them, hear she would have a case of being rear ended.

Mike in O, I don’t know what state you live in, but here in Virginia the relevant code reads, “No person shall stop a vehicle in such manner as to impede or render dangerous the use of the highway by others, except in the case of an emergency, an accident, or a mechanical breakdown.” I have no legal qualifications whatsoever, but I personally would be loath to test the theory that a) Virginia prosecutors would view stopping and exiting one’s car in the left lane of a limited access divided highway for underage ducks as a qualifying emergency, accident or mechanical breakdown, and b) if one or more deaths resulted from such an action, a prosecutor would choose not to bring indictments of a very serious nature against the responsible person.  In view of this, prudence might suggest that before anyone is tempted to stop in a travel lane of a busy limited access highway, for any reason other than the three listed above, under the impression that if they thereby cause the death of another human being it will be legally the deceased’s fault rather than theirs, they might want to check the laws of their own state to see for themselves what is actually written into its code.

In contrast, here's a recent high profile accident in NJ, in which the driver of the vehicle which rear-ended the one ahead has been charged with death by auto, and four counts of assault by auto --- no ducks involved though.

The Gazette article about the duck case cited above doesn't seem to be quite objective in stating as fact "...There wasn’t time for Roy to brake, no way to swerve to avoid Czornobaj’s Honda Civic.." A witness is quoted as saying the Civic driver was already out of her vehicle waving at the ducks before the collision, which must have taken several seconds, which in turn seems to raise the possibility of inattention by the motorcyclist.

Whether it's a rock, a tree, a deer (dead or alive) or a stopped vehicle, if you are traveling too fast to stop for an object already immobile in the road ahead of you, you are the one driving irresponsibly! It's called driving too fast for the conditions. That's why we're taught to allow at least one car length for every 10 miles an hour of speed we are traveling between us and the car ahead. If you drive around a blind corner and hit a boulder in the road because you couldn't stop, it's your fault for driving too fast for the conditions (visibility), not the boulders!

Joe

Police are tasked with accident reconstruction. I don't know if it's an exact science but they do their best.  Here is one police officer's testimony today on the possible speed the motorcycle was going when it collided with the stopped car.

"The driver of the Harley-Davidson (Roy) was surprised by the presence of the Honda in the left lane and was not able to come to a complete stop or take evasive action to avoid a collision."

"Beaudet, the final Crown witness, said Roy was going between 113 and 129 km/h at the moment he applied his brakes. Beaudet said Roy managed to slow down to between 105 and 121 km/h at the time of impact."

"Roy and his daughter, who was riding on the back seat, were propelled from the motorbike. The girl was caught under the car, which itself was launched nearly 20 metres (60 feet) on impact."  --  http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Hum ... story.html

To have an impact at around 75mph with a stopped vehicle tells me he was definitely going too fast! To move a vehicle, even a Honda, 60' upon impact shows the same thing. Modern accident reconstruction is a pretty accurate science.

Joe

According to the article, the speed limit dropped from 100 kph to 90 kph at that point on the highway.

I think traffic laws were created with the human factor in mind. The human factor being we humans are not perfect and will make mistakes. Sure, we're all supposed to be 100% attentive behind the wheel and for the most part we are or strive to be, but humans being humans things happen and we may at times not be 100% attentive for whatever reason.  Yes, by law we are supposed to obey the speed limits on highways but how many of us really do?  Usually drivers pad it between 10 to 20 kilometers over the posted limit.  The limit was likely chosen partially due to the human factor, knowing people will mostly go over it by a certain amount.  Although many of our 4 lane highways are 100 km/hr, I can assure you most drive well over that. The no stopping on a roadway except for emergencies was put in place as a buffer for the human factor.  So is no speeding.  However, under certain driving conditions such as bad weather or road conditions including busy traffic many will adjust driving speed closer to the posted limit or even below. 

Now that the police are testifying in the case, we learn more details about what lead up to the accident. Police testified that her car was parked partially in the left lane and partially on the narrow left shoulder. The yellow blinking hazard lights were on contrary to earlier eye-witness accounts. Police could not confirm whether the hazard lights were on at the time of the accident or turned on afterwards. So, it would appear she did make "some attempt" to take precautions to ensure she put her vehicle as far left as possible. I assume there was still a good portion (how much was not mentioned) of the vehicle still in the left lane. A number of vehicles were able to pull into the right lane after spotting her car. I do not know what speed they were driving at. Why was the motorcycle not able to do the same?  Not sure if there were any vehicles in the right lane at the time preventing it from doing so or other factors were involved.  Still, it is interesting to note that a number of vehicles saw her stopped vehicle in time to change lanes and that the second motorcycle was also able to stop.  Without really having visited the scene of the accident, it is hard to tell how far ahead the visibility would have been to the stopped vehicle (were there any curves or was it a straight stretch of road).  

Interesting about the disproportionate makeup of the jury members. Ten men and only two women. I wonder how that came about? Would men be more sympathetic in this case? I assume they would have dismissed any motorcycle riders during the selection process.


Emma Czornobaj testifies in her defence.
"Czornobaj testified about how she reacted to seeing the ducklings in the left-hand lane. She said one of the first things she did was to turn on her hazard lights." 
http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Accused+takes+stand+duck+linked+crash+trial/9924731/story.html

"Czornobaj told her jury trial in Montreal on Tuesday that she was returning from housesitting for a boss when she happened on several ducklings on the side of a highway. She told the court she decided to pick up the ducklings and pulled over as far as she could in the left lane, even though there was no full shoulder allowing her to move over completely."
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Woman+trial+Montreal+says+going+take+ducks+place/9925607/story.html


Jury starts deliberations.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Czornobaj+trial+judge+opens+door+lesser+offence+jury/9946931/story.html

This is a shocker.  She was found guilty on all 4 charges. Since she has a clean record and otherwise upstanding citizen, hope they go light on the sentencing.  It must have been a very stressful 4 years. 

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Dri ... story.html

Even if the court goes light on the sentencing, she will most likely undergo more stress, because of the civil action
that will follow, if it has not already. It does show, just how one quick decision, can be a life changing event.
What probably shocks us the most in this case, is most of us have done similar things, something for us to think about when we make that next decision.