Quebec Trial - Car Stops to help ducks, Motorcycle hits car (fatality) | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

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

I believe Quebec has a law prohibiting stopping in an active traffic lane on a limited-access highway (presumably with an exception for congestion). Ontario doesn't.

Years back, one of the shop trucks where I worked got rear-ended right in front of the shop (80 km/h main road with two lanes each way). The truck was slowing down and signalling right to turn into the driveway, doing nothing wrong. The driver of the car immediately behind wasn't paying attention and swerved into the left lane at the last second, revealing the nearly-stopped truck to the next driver behind - but they couldn't make the lane change. Ka-BOOM. The shop truck ended up upside down in the ditch with the car that hit it on top. The car that swerved to the left lane wasn't involved in the collision, kept on going and was never found.

I also know someone who T-boned a police car that was in the process of making a U-turn ... just beyond the blind crest of a hill. No time for braking, no time to react, came over the hill and BANG.

I'm not normally one to say "there oughtta be a law" ... but there oughtta be a law against stopping in an active traffic lane on any limited-access highway except if due to congestion, and also within a certain distance beyond the (blind) crest of a hill on any road.
 
does anyone if there is a minimum age for motorcycle passengers?

im trying to find it on the ministrys website but no luck
 
Brian P said:
I believe Quebec has a law prohibiting stopping in an active traffic lane on a limited-access highway (presumably with an exception for congestion). Ontario doesn't.

Years back, one of the shop trucks where I worked got rear-ended right in front of the shop (80 km/h main road with two lanes each way). The truck was slowing down and signalling right to turn into the driveway, doing nothing wrong. The driver of the car immediately behind wasn't paying attention and swerved into the left lane at the last second, revealing the nearly-stopped truck to the next driver behind - but they couldn't make the lane change. Ka-BOOM. The shop truck ended up upside down in the ditch with the car that hit it on top. The car that swerved to the left lane wasn't involved in the collision, kept on going and was never found.

I also know someone who T-boned a police car that was in the process of making a U-turn ... just beyond the blind crest of a hill. No time for braking, no time to react, came over the hill and BANG.

I'm not normally one to say "there oughtta be a law" ... but there oughtta be a law against stopping in an active traffic lane on any limited-access highway except if due to congestion, and also within a certain distance beyond the (blind) crest of a hill on any road.
Click to expand...

The "Shop truck" scenario is common in the city. Ma and Pa Kettle drive to the mall and Pa stops just inside the entrance to let Ma out and then sits there optimizing a parking spot.

This has happened before in Ontario. Hwy 50 IIRC near Bolton years back. A family of four out for a drive stopped in the middle of the road to let some geese cross. A truck coming over the hill behind them couldn't stop. Two dead, two seriously injured.

Re Driving beyond your line of vision and the obvious "Why didn't the rider take evasive action?"

A) Our brain takes a bit more time to process an unusual object. It would take longer to react to an elephant jumping out in front of you than a child. The brain has to sort out the unusual situation.

B) The rider may have the safety of the following bike in his mind as well. There may have been other traffic as well.

Someone I casually knew had a similar crash when they rammed the back of a car stopped on the 400 at an on ramp. IIRC he collected some coin after the injuries healed.

My main question is what determines the degree of the charge. There have been numerous cases of bikers killed by cagers making lefts. The cager gets a "Turn not in safety" and a few hundred dollars in fines. If they have accident forgiveness the biker's life was worth $500.00.

The logic of that charge is that one gets charged for what they did and not the consequences. Why is this different? I'm not saying the dumb B**** shouldn't spent time in jail but why does the left turn slob get a virtual freebie?

The one thing I really miss about my HD with really loud pipes is sound blasting the grassshitters when they strolled across the road in front of me.

How do you handle geese / ducks on the road?
 
nobbie48 said:
How do you handle geese / ducks on the road?
Click to expand...

Honestly... I don't know what to do now. What if it were a dog? People are hero's for rescuing dogs off the road, right? Forget geese/ducks on the road - what should you do if there is any hazard on the road, presenting a risk?

I guess you should pull off the road, onto the proper shoulder (so you're not blocking a lane). Then proceed on-foot (on the shoulder) back in the direction of traffic, and notify oncoming traffic of an up-coming hazard? Then you end causing an accident because people distracted by you?

This is tough and troubling, because honestly I don't know what to do in these situation.

I love animals, and admit I could potentially be an idiot and slow/stop for animals on the road. Even little ones...

I'm still not exactly sure what I'd do.

But I won't stop and leave my vehicle abandoned in a live lane. I can promise you that much now, at least. :)
 
Oh, and this incident is truly a tragedy, with no one winning, and everyone losing.

People lost their lives - families lost husbands, daughters, uncle, cousin, etc.
The wife witnessed her husband and daughters deaths.
The driver will never be the same. She was obviously a caring and empathetic person.
So many people will never be the same, everyone is a victim.
The jurors. I've never been a juror, and hope I never have to be. They have weight and pressure - maybe this will affect them for their lives.
The courts tied-up with this case.
A girl may go to jail. She was likely a good person, who would contribute to society. Sending her to jail, now is a burden to society.
Tax payers footing a lot of these bills/expenses.

Incidents like this destroy the fibers of society. We all lose. :(
 
nobbie48 said:
How do you handle geese / ducks on the road?
Click to expand...

Be aware of your surroundings. Avoid them if you can. If doing so would put human lives at risk, then run over the damned ducks. Don't stop on a limited access highway, where no one is expecting you to do so.
 
Albeit, this woman used very poor judgement in this case. Her actions were in no way influenced by malicious intent or outright negligence.
This was an accident, and I assure you the outcome will see it as such.

The catalyst to this event was compassion, not stupidity. Which is why the prosecution is desperately avoiding that fundamental point.


My .02
d
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Be aware of your surroundings. Avoid them if you can. If doing so would put human lives at risk, then run over the damned ducks. Don't stop on a limited access highway, where no one is expecting you to do so.
Click to expand...

Absolutely +1 ----> If there is no other safe alternative (and it has to be safe for you and others, don't get yourself killed over these birds), then run over the ducks.

Derek Paisley said:
Albeit, this woman used very poor judgement in this case. Her actions were in no way influenced by malicious intent or outright negligence.
This was an accident, and I assure you the outcome will see it as such.

The catalyst to this event was compassion, not stupidity. Which is why the prosecution is desperately avoiding that fundamental point.


My .02
d
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with you. Basically, they want to jail her for her stupidity.

But the prosecution is working the other angle (very valid), asking the question, would a reasonable person stop on the highway and endanger others for no good reason?

So, she was not reasonable, she was careless, reckless and stupid. Does it ammount to dangerous driving causing death? Yes.

Does it amount to the more serious charge of criminal negligence causing death? I do not know.

</SPAN></SPAN>
 
I was always taught to only stop or swerve if its safe to do so.

Unless its a moose. Then do anything to avoid it. (Instructor actually said "hit the gas and hope you clear the ditch")

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
 
I'm sure this is exactly how it went down. Couple this with the motorcycle driver waiving his hand at the lady on the side of the road, as well as possibly checking his mirror to see if she acknowledged him... you look up, car in front swerves at the last second, boom, stationary car right there. From the time he first saw the lady on the side of the road to impact, probably only a few seconds. He never saw the stationary car until it was WAY too late.
Click to expand...

Make that micro-seconds once the car swerves....

We "caused" a 34 car pileup on the QEW in that we hit a farm wagon that was parked across the fast lane and median at about the same time of dusk and relatively high volume of traffic.
The car ahead went up on two wheels to avoid the situation and by the time our eyes went back forward we saw what he avoided.

My friend driving could not even hit the brakes before impact.
Fortunately the front wheel jammed and we stopped in a straight line from circa 75 mph to zilch in very short order. Did you know seat belts stretch ;) - felt like mine did but really just likely digging in to me to stop my hitting the windshield ( no shoulder belts then ).

This was just before the QEW turned to restricted access and idjit tractor with trailer operator tried to cross on a busy night at near dusk from field to field.

There simply is no time to react.
My right hand got up to cover my eyes but my left hand did not quite get there and I got some glass in that eye from flying debris ( the wagon had planks and beach stones on it which much of ended up in the back seat).

So the difference in my two hands coming up was the reaction time we had.

I'm sure the motorcyclist likely never even hit the brakes. Such a shame.

But seriously bad judgement on the part of the duck herder as it was with the tractor driver....."wtf were they thinking!!!!!"

What a horror for the mother.....
 
I was always taught to only stop or swerve if its safe to do so.
Click to expand...
I figure the bike will take out most things up to about 30 lb - I hit racoon and it just went crunch.....better to nail square on .

Unless its a moose. Then do anything to avoid it. (Instructor actually said "hit the gas and hope you clear the ditch")
Click to expand...

Well I know my model bike can kill a deer at 60 mph and the driver stay upright and ride home ( tho the bike was written off ).





moose tho??? - into the ditch on a low side if time - duck and hope if no time.
I will prefer not to be faced with that decision thank you.
 
Last edited:
I know this was already posted before, but here it goes how the testimony went in court:

Tessier, the first witness to testify in the trial of Emma Czornobaj, 25, said she was driving her truck — with a camper in tow — in the left-hand lane of Highway 30 in Candiac when she saw the accused on the left-hand side of the highway, bent over and motioning to some ducks.
Click to expand...

She was driving her truck with a camper in tow. Motorcycles were behind this truck and camper.


Tessier said of how she managed to swerve into the right-hand lane to avoid crashing into Czornobaj’s car.
Click to expand...

Last second, truck is able to avoid a collision with the parked car.

As she looked back in her rear-view mirror, Tessier said, she could see the back end of Czornobaj’s car lift up in the air.
“I saw a body go over the car. It looked like a rag doll,” Tessier said. “I shouted to my daughter to call 911.”
Click to expand...

Motorcycle cannot swerve, collision ensues.




Is the "duck lady" solely to blame?
I say yes.

Or does the driver behind, with the truck and camper, share the blame?
Or even the motorcycle rider behind, is he to blame?


So sad overall. So f&*^*^& sad.
 
noor said:
does anyone if there is a minimum age for motorcycle passengers?

im trying to find it on the ministrys website but no luck
Click to expand...

No law regarding age. The passenger must be able to have their feet on the pegs. MPP Helena Jazniac (sp) tried to make a law regarding min. age and it thankfully didn't get any traction.
 
nobbie48 said:
My main question is what determines the degree of the charge. There have been numerous cases of bikers killed by cagers making lefts. The cager gets a "Turn not in safety" and a few hundred dollars in fines. If they have accident forgiveness the biker's life was worth $500.00.

The logic of that charge is that one gets charged for what they did and not the consequences. Why is this different? I'm not saying the dumb B**** shouldn't spent time in jail but why does the left turn slob get a virtual freebie?
Click to expand...

Because the person making the left is driving normally and makes a mistake, not to minimize the outcome but that is the situation. This case involves someone doing something plainly negligent and completely out of the norm; stopping in the fast lane of a busy highway, then getting out of the car and proceeding down the road to actually present the distraction that will limit people having the time to react to the real danger ahead.
 
Last edited:
MarcosSantiago said:
Yes, I agree with you. Basically, they want to jail her for her stupidity.

But the prosecution is working the other angle (very valid), asking the question, would a reasonable person stop on the highway and endanger others for no good reason?

So, she was not reasonable, she was careless, reckless and stupid. Does it ammount to dangerous driving causing death? Yes.

Does it amount to the more serious charge of criminal negligence causing death? I do not know.
Click to expand...

No, they want to try her for the appropriate charge. Dangerous doesn't apply as she wasn't operating the vehicle at the time. Had she stopped the vehicle to allow the ducks to pass then you could look at dangerous, but the vehicle is parked and unoccupied.
 
Last edited:
She should be given a medal for attempting to save ducks. It could have looked freaking sweet on Instagram. You guys worry about people? Seriously, get your heads straight. We are here to care for nature and that charge trumps all else. And also you get pictures of cute duckies!
 
coyo said:
No, they want to try her for the appropriate charge. Dangerous doesn't apply as she wasn't operating the vehicle at the time. Had she stopped the vehicle to allow the ducks to pass then you could look at dangerous, but the vehicle is parked and unoccupied.
Click to expand...

Are you sure Dangerous does not apply?
Like, 100% sure?

'Cause she is charged with both.
Go back and read the reports yourself, I am only going by the articles prepared by the news sources.



"Emma Czornobaj has pleaded not guilty to two counts each of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing the deaths of Roy, 50, and their 16-year-old daughter. "
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...o-deaths-said-she-was-helping-ducks-1.2663840



"Czornobaj is accused of two counts each of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death. The trial is being heard by a jury at the Montreal courthouse."
Source: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...tness-recalls-ducks-and-deadly-highway-crash/



"The charges she faces are very serious. She is accused under a section of the Criminal Code that calls for a maximum life sentence if she is convicted of criminal negligence causing death. The other charge, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, carries a maximum 14-year prison term upon conviction. "
Source: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...+dangerous+driving+charges/9900686/story.html
 
Fair enough, I missed the dangerous as I read the story of events. I still see crim neg as the appropriate charge. I don't see how dangerous applies to a parked vehicle; the section specifically states that a person is operating a vehicle. Perhaps it's there to give her an avenue to plea down to?

MarcosSantiago said:
Are you sure Dangerous does not apply?
Like, 100% sure?

'Cause she is charged with both.
Go back and read the reports yourself, I am only going by the articles prepared by the news sources.



"Emma Czornobaj has pleaded not guilty to two counts each of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing the deaths of Roy, 50, and their 16-year-old daughter. "
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...o-deaths-said-she-was-helping-ducks-1.2663840



"Czornobaj is accused of two counts each of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death. The trial is being heard by a jury at the Montreal courthouse."
Source: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...tness-recalls-ducks-and-deadly-highway-crash/



"The charges she faces are very serious. She is accused under a section of the Criminal Code that calls for a maximum life sentence if she is convicted of criminal negligence causing death. The other charge, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, carries a maximum 14-year prison term upon conviction. "
Source: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...+dangerous+driving+charges/9900686/story.html
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom