Only question I have for her is “Why a duck?”
She deserves every minute of jail time they give her. Stopping in the left lane?
This verdict suggests that the motorcyclist was operating his bike in a reasonable,responsible and lawful way.Assuming that he was,in fact,doing so I have no problem with the charges...or the verdicts.
professed animal lover?....................
Maybe the Motorcyclist should have been watching the road.
HE was responsible for the accident, not this lady.
The ultimate fruits of excusing lack of culpability on the part of the actor is excemplified here. But then this is Canada and Canadian law on such things may be as bizaar as their view on self defense and freedom of expression.
What a DUMB ASS!
Innocent!
Be kind to your web footed friends,
For that duck may be somebody’s mother
She lives in a hole in a swamp
Where the weather is always damp
You may think that this is the end:
Well it is, but to prove that we’re all liars
We’re going to sing it again,
But only this time we will sing a little higher
Too many drivers just have faith that the road ahead is clear of hazards even if they can't see it.
Next time you're on a hilly road, observe all the skid marks just on the other side of hills near intersections. Often times it's school buses that are being hit. It's so bad that many governments are now putting up signs warning that a bus stop is ahead on the other side of a hill or around a corner.
An all male jury...
A few buttons undone on that white blouse....
This verdict could have gone in her favor.
So, how are the ducks?
Freaking dumbass Froganadians.
This post is interesting.
One of the issues in this article is the animal. If this had been puppies or kittens, I think there would have been many in support of her, but nobody loves a duck............
The other is legal. In a conversation with my insurance agent, I was informed that if I cause an accident by turning into a farm (field) drive way, I am in the wrong because it is not a recognized legal access to the road. A driver would only expect turning at a legal access.
However, the prosecutor claimed a swerving truck in front of the motorcycle obstructed Roy's view until it was too late. The Gazette article stated:
“No matter what speed he was travelling at, he had a fraction of a second to react,” [Prosecutor] Chassé said while adding Roy couldn’t have anticipated where the Civic was parked. “Would anyone have expected that?”
Apparently not when one is traveling at 70-80 mph (speed limit = 62 mph).
She did something criminally negligent and deserves punishment for it but her actions seem to have been motivated by incredible stupidity, not malice. She needs to pay for what she did but I wouldn’t cruxify her.
100% the car driver’s fault, imo.
Total negligence on her part.
Not even a doubt in my mind.
Does Quebec apply the same sentencing measures to illegals, drunks, tired drivers...
NOT GUILTY!
She stopped in the fast (left) lane of a multi-lane road with a (from what I have read) 100 km/h (60 mph) speed limit. Without putting her 4-way flashers on, again from what I have read. A busy inter-urban highway at that. She’s just lucky that it wasn’t a tractor trailer that rear-ended her at speed. As to why the motorcyclist wasn’t able to avoid her: it’s possible that there was another vehicle ahead of him blocking his view which changed lanes to the right at the last moment without slowing, catching him off guard.
Yes, a driver or rider should be able to stop and avoid something on the road if necessary, even on a multi-lane divided highway at speed. Back in reality land, though, you don’t expect someone to stop and park in the fast lane - it wasn’t by any definition an emergency, and the motorcyclist certainly wouldn’t have hit her if she didn’t stop there.
I don’t want to see this woman’s life ruined for her stupid mistake, but when you do something this stupid, with those sorts of consequences, I think something a little more severe than raised insurance rates, a traffic ticket and a fine is in order.
Hope she gets life without parole!