The Duck Lady In Canada

[Rageaholic]

There's this weird case involved a woman who stopped her car to help duck cross to street. Unfortunately, a motorcyclist and his daughter had hit her car and were killed. Because of this, she's facing criminal negligence and might end up with life in prison. here are several links to the story

-I think what she did was really stupid. Stopping in the middle of a highway? WTF were you thinking lady?
-On the other hand, I think the motorcyclist shares some blame too (though it depends on a few factors).
-While I think she should get some punishment (for being an idiot), prison time for a first offense seems overkill ESPECIALLY the max sentence. Ruining her life for this feels wrong. At the very least, take her license away and make her take some driving safety classes, but don't throw a non violent offender in prison for such a long time.

The sentencing is set to take place in August so we'll have to see what comes of this.

[Greenday]

Pretty sure, based on local laws by me, the people who crashed would be to blame since they were travelling too fast to stop in time for danger.

What she did was stupid, but worthy of jail time? Not a chance in hell.

[siead_lietrathua]

there are few factors that kinda conflict. while yes, the car behind is the one responsible for leaving distance and etc, you are also not supposed to stop your car on the left lane of a highway. if it's a divided hishway with the median down the middle, then left SHOULDER is occasionally permitted( if it's an emergency breakdown or a police pulls you over and there's no other place to stop). but otherwise you need to be on the right. especially if you're leaving your vehicle. it's for your own and everyone else's safety.
plus, hubs reminded me, anything smaller than a dog you aren't supposed to stop for on a highway. evade if it's safe to yes, but stop no.

i told him "it was ducks" and he replied "yeah she's fucked then."

edit: watched one of the videos. no left shoulder and a concrete barrier right there. yeah she shouldn't have stopped. criminal negligence is the fair charge to use. if not the biker, someone else would have hit her.

[Titi]

Pretty sure, based on local laws by me, the people who crashed would be to blame since they were travelling too fast to stop in time for danger.

What she did was stupid, but worthy of jail time? Not a chance in hell.

They were traveling in the fast lane BEHIND another car that barely missed crashing into her and swerved cutting off someone else. They didn't have the chance to avoid the accident. Had it happened because she had mechanical failure okay, it is just an accident, BUT she purposely stopped at night, did not have her hazard lights on and when the Motorcycle saw the other car move, he could not move in time because there were cars in the way. Had the car in front of him slowed down then he may have known that there was a danger in front of him. All for some ducks?

[Gravekeeper]

This will come down to the sentencing, honestly. But its hard to argue with the verdict. It was amazingly illegal of her to stop her vehicle there and more so if her hazards were not on. The one who hit her does carry some responsibility for his speed, but ultimately she created the deadly situation to begin with.

She stopped in a place you simply are not allowed to stop barring mechanical failure and failed to turn on her hazards. Then got out of her car, apparently left her door open as well, and started wandering around the highway after ducks.

For reference the definition of criminal negligence in Canada is:

(1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or

(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

Definition of “duty”
(2) For the purposes of this section, “duty” means a duty imposed by law.

So what she did is pretty much a textbook definition. Given she has no record and this was sheer stupidity, not malice, I imagine the sentencing will be lenient. But she's still likely looking at at least 10-14 years.

You don't just lose your license and get send for driving lessons after inadvertently killing two people.

[Nyoibo]

So what she did is pretty much a textbook definition. Given she has no record and this was sheer stupidity, not malice, I imagine the sentencing will be lenient. But she's still likely looking at at least 10-14 years.

You don't just lose your license and get send for driving lessons after inadvertently killing two people.

The cynic in me wants to add "unless you were drinking"

[Rageaholic]

Update, she was sentenced today.

She got 90 day prison term (which she will serve on the weekends, WTF?) + 240 hours of community service + no driving for 10 years. All things considered, seems like a fair sentence.

[Andara Bledin]

Honestly, I don't think a single person involved in that fiasco was blameless.

The woman was stupid for stopping her car on the highway.

The driver of the car that swerved and avoided hitting her car wasn't paying attention like he should have been, but at least was paying enough to avoid contributing his own car to the accident.

The driver of the motorcycle was speeding and not paying proper attention to the road ahead. A motorcycle has better handling than a car; if the car ahead was capable of avoiding the stopped vehicle, then the motorcycle was very much capable of it. But the driver had to be paying attention to the road in order to do so.

The only people innocent of wrongdoing were the girl, and the wife, who was paying enough attention to the road to not hit anything, despite being in nearly the exact same situation as her husband.

I strongly suspect that the 10 year prohibition on driving is likely a direct result of the woman's failure to show any personal responsibility for her part in the accident. Apparently the judge was utterly unimpressed with her continued insistence that what she did was safe.

The weekend detention for serving sentences is a thing that's being done, now, so that non-violent offenders can continue to be productive citizens while still receiving incarceration for their misdeeds. It's really a win-win for all of society.

[Jetfire]

Yeah, Weekend sentencing is (and IIRC has been) fairly common; I remembering hearing of some "X days, served on weekends" for decades now. It lets them serve their time while still keeping their job.

The main problem with it, is that it can cram the jails up more on the weekend, leading to doubling or tripling up in cells on the weekends, so it's not quite a win-win all around. But in theory, it isn't a bad idea IMO.

[EricKei]

I don't have an issue with the sentence being Weekends only, though it feels rather short o_O

As for taking away her license -- well -- here's a question for our friends up in Canadialand: Suspending a driver's license in the US is basically meaningless; nobody will care until the driver gets pulled over in the future, and even then, the penalty is often light. In somewhere like Germany, for example, the opposite is true -- getting a license is a long, involved, expensive (around 3000DM back in the 80's) process, and losing it is a MAJOR penalty (you can't just take a half-assed defensive driving class and get it back); afaik, you only ever get ONE license there, and it has to be displayed such that it is visible in your windshield.

I'm just wondering where "losing your license in Canada" falls along that scale of "Who cares?" to "You're proper fucked" ...?

[Rageaholic]

Ah the weekend sentencing thing makes sense now. I wonder if they do things like that in the US (probably not).

I'm really just so confused to all the bumfuckery resulting from this. The more I read on this, the more I think this woman is a fucking idiot. I don't think she deserves 10 years, as that wouldn't accomplish much, but damn. Some people shouldn't drive.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm just wondering where "losing your license in Canada" falls along that scale of "Who cares?" to "You're proper fucked" ...?

Proper fucked all things considered. It varies a bit from province to province but basically goes:

First offence:
$500ish fine and they will not let you leave the scene with the vehicle. You have to have someone come get you, call a cab and have your car towed, whatever.

Second offence:
Big ass fine and they impound your car on the spot ( 30 days ) regardless of whether it is your car or not.

Third offence:
Big ass fine, 6 months jail and they impound your car on the spot ( 60 days ) regardless of whether it is your car or not ( and you are liable for the towing and storage fees ).

If you have any previous convictions for anything driving related on record you go directly to third offence. In this woman's case she has such a conviction now so if she got caught driving it would be Driving While Prohibited and immediately go to third offence. Fine, 6 months jail, take her car.

The big ass fine amount is based on the status of your license and what you did to lose it. Like if you lost it temporarily and get caught its not as bad as if you had it revoked and got caught. So if your license was completely revoked like this woman it could be in the neighbourhood of $3000.

[Andara Bledin]

Suspending a driver's license in the US is basically meaningless; nobody will care until the driver gets pulled over in the future, and even then, the penalty is often light.

You might want to read up on your local laws.

In California, driving without a valid license, regardless of reason, is supposed to be an automatic 90-day impound of the car, no matter whose car it is. The only defense against the 90-day impound (and the storage fees for that 90 days), is to make a legal statement that the car was stolen, in which case the driver will also be charged with that offense as well.

Now, an officer can choose to let the driver off with a warning and admonishment to get whatever the problem is fixed, which I've actually had happen to me recently (mystery suspension for reasons I have yet to discover). However, in cases where the driver is unlicensed at all or where the license was revoked for a traffic offense (both cases leaving them also without valid insurance) are far less likely to walk away. Or, rather, they're more likely to be walking away than driving.

[Andara Bledin]

I don't think she deserves 10 years, as that wouldn't accomplish much, but damn. Some people shouldn't drive.

From the articles I read, the reason she got 10 instead of the recommended 5 years was because of her complete and unwillingness to assume any responsibility for the accident.

She repeatedly declared that she didn't see anyone behind her, so it was perfectly safe for her to stop her car in the middle of the lane and get out to try to wrangle the ducklings.

Basically, they're declaring her as being far too immature to be allowed the responsibility that comes with the privilege of driving and are declaring that, in their estimation, it'll take her another decade to grow up.

I imagine that she could appeal the decision down the line when she stops being so immature and clueless and get her driving privileges returned sooner, if the Canadian system is similar to that in the US.

[Rageaholic]

^

I meant 10 years behind bars. Some in the comments of the article I posted thought she got off easy, but I think 10 years in prison is too much. On the other hand, considering what a dumbass she is, 10 years with no license seems appropriate.