General Question

flo's avatar

What is the speed that is considered so dangerous on a highway that makes the speeder 100% responsible for thier own death?

Asked by flo (7369 points ) 1 month ago

Title OP edited.
If a person X thought they had to stop off to the side on a highway, and did with the hazard light on, and person Y crashes into the car going way over the speed limit, and is person Y dies, is person Y 100% responsible or not?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

39 Answers

gailcalled's avatar

Yes. Why would he not be? A stationary vehicle always has the right-of-way, so to speak. But even if driver Y were going at the speed limit, he’d still be at fault.

(Your new wording is even more confusing than your original question.)

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

Yes, if you run into someone from behind you are always responsible. The only time it might be questionable is if they pulled out in front of you. But a good driver watches the eyes of the driver and brake lights of other cars.

josie's avatar

It is a version of the Assured Clear Distance principle

flo's avatar

Here is the story. The helmets (were?) of poor quality may have also been part of the problem.

flo's avatar

Different sources have different things to say about the helmets and hazard light. Let me see if I can get some other articles.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

The story clarifies it. They weren’t in control of their bikes if they couldn’t stop. Sucks to be them, but they did it to themselves. Not guilty.

flo's avatar

I agree it is a no brainer. Why she is being put through this I don’t know.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

Sometimes people need a scapegoat. The victims are dead, so the only alternative is her. Buttheads. They were the one’s not in control.

josie's avatar

BTW the not-enforced “advisory” speed limit on the German Autobahn is 80mph for automobiles and bikes. As I said, not enforced. Driver assumes responsibility.

dappled_leaves's avatar

What the woman did is completely crazy – she stopped her car in the passing lane of a highway, then got out of the car? I’m surprised only two people died.

@flo She did not pull “off to the side.” Does that change your apparent judgment that the people on motorcycles were at fault for their own deaths here?

zenvelo's avatar

@dappled_leaves got it, she’s under prosecution because she stopped in the middle of the damn road in the fast lane! But in California, she wouldn’t be charged.

In California, the motorcyclists would have been automatically at fault for following too closely to stop. Whenever you run into the back of another vehicle, it means you aren’t allowing enough room to stop.

Coloma's avatar

Tragic but…I am biased, I’d stop and try to help a family of ducks or geese across the road too…I would try to pull over safely and put my flashers on, but jeez….poor girl, just an unfortunate turn of events. Talk about killing someone with kindness. :-(

RocketGuy's avatar

Avoiding a crash is very high on my priority list when driving. Stopping for ducks?! No. I would only stop for people or large animals.

flo's avatar

The simple facts should be the same everywhere but I got from different news sources anywhere from the 110, 115, 129km re.the speed that the man was going at. Also whether or not she pulled off from to the side.

“Prosecutor Annie-Claude Chasse said witness and police testimony will show _she was on a narrow patch next to the passing lane, tending to a family of ducks on the roadway.“_ I suppose the reporter thought the car was off on the narrow patch.

@dappled_leaves The dead man was ninety something percent responsible (I take back my “100%” in my OP) for his and his daughter’s death. He could have avoided it just like the car ahead of him avoided it. The fact that she stopped for ducks as opposed to her car dying on her, or to avoid a big animal doesn’t reduce his part of the responsibility.

Another article

dappled_leaves's avatar

@flo I don’t understand your position at all. The fact that one car was able to avoid the parked car does not mean that every vehicle coming up on it could do the same; the driver had to swerve to avoid it. The woman interviewed had to react quickly to in order not hit the car – the motorcycles behind her would have had even less time to react, because they could not see what was ahead of her.

The reason that people are saying they would stop for a big animal is that hitting a big animal can kill humans. Hitting ducks is far less likely to even cause any damage, let alone injury or loss of life to people.

I stand by what I said earlier. The woman undeniably acted negligently, and should face serious consequences.

flo's avatar

@dappled_leaves What percentage of responsiblity on the speeders, and speeders who don’t keep enough distace?

dappled_leaves's avatar

It doesn’t work like that. There’s no equation for responsibility. And there’s no expectation that anyone, travelling at any speed, “keep enough distance” from a car parked in a passing lane. That makes no sense.

flo's avatar

@dappled_leaves I’m not for giving medals to the speeders just so you know.

zenvelo's avatar

@dappled_leaves In California, the stopped vehicle would bear no liability for someone going too fast and too close to stop. There is an equation for responsibility- rear end someone = 100% your fault.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

@dappled_leaves If you’re following the car in front of you so closely you can’t see them avoid the other car and you do the same, then it sucks to be you.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

Considering the information in @flo‘s link, it seems the woman is not particularly sensible behind the wheel, but I’m not sure if she is culpable. The bike riders should’ve been able to stop, but they shouldn’t have had to stop.

flo's avatar

Right on the money all of you except @dappled_leaves and @RocketGuy

@RocketGuy Everyone says she was wrong wrong wrong 100% guilty for or stopping for the ducks. The question is she the one who caused the death of the 2 people. It is a case of simple math. No she is not. The motorcyclist is.

Theunbelievableverdict

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

Bullshit, if I come around a corner too fast and there is a boulder in the road, and I hit it because I can’t stop, the boulder is guilty? Give me a fucking break.

flo's avatar

Exactly @Adirondackwannabe
@RocketGuy I assumed in my last post that you are saying she is guilty of their death. I shouldn’t have.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

It is so sad that this nice lady killed a couple of bikers because she was too stupid to pull her car off the road before attempting to rescue the widdle duckies.
She is 100% responsible as no reasonable person would ever suspect the vehicle ahead in the fast lane of a major highway was at a standstill to rescue ducks.

However, she is not criminally responsible, merely guilty of criminal negligence. She should get no more than 2 – 5 years for her stupidity.

flo's avatar

How easy as pie was this case for the defence lawyer win?

@Dan_Lyons I hope this is just your immediate reaction.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

I neglected to answer the actual question. If the bikers were exceeding the speed limit there would be contributory negligence.

I was not joking regarding the incredible stupidity of the woman to stop in the fast lane of a highway to help ducklings. Sorry, that is just too stupid.

flo's avatar

EDITED: He was limit doing 105km at the time of contact with her stationary car. He must have been doing 129 km (from the articles) And he was too close, so he is completerly responsible. Please the posts above @Dan_Lyons

Dan_Lyons's avatar

Yes, I read the posts.
What were the other conditions?
time of day? Weather?

And this is Canada too, right? I have no idea what the laws in Canada are regarding this sort of tragedy.

flo's avatar

@Dan_Lyons Two? cars just ahead of him kept from crashing into her statioinary car(very important factor she didn’t back up on him, she didn’t suddenly brake on him) How did they manage to do that? Weather and time of day were no problem for them. The fact that she was on the dean’s list, that she has no prior record blah blah have no relevance here. This is such an open and shut case.

Dan_Lyons's avatar

The fact that other cars missed her is also irrelevant. What is relevant is Canadian laws regarding stopping your vehicle in the middle of a highway for a non emergency and causing an accident which results in death.

dappled_leaves's avatar

The woman was stopped after a curve, and left her vehicle, with no lights on, at dusk.

@flo You chose the speeds that you reported a bit conveniently. When the motorcyclist who was killed hit his brakes, his speed was anywhere from 113 to 129 kph. When he hit the stationary car, his speed was anywhere from 105 to 121 kph. In other words, he had time to reduce his speed by about 8 kph after seeing the vehicle. It’s no wonder that his speeding was not taken into consideration in this case.

@Dan_Lyons She violated section 384 of the Quebec Highway Safety Code: 385. No person may stop a road vehicle on the roadway of a public highway where the maximum speed allowed is 70 km/h or more, unless in a case of necessity or when authorized to do so by signs or signals. 1986, c. 91, s. 384; 1990, c. 83, s. 149.

flo's avatar

@Dan_Lyons What is the whole purpose of speed limits? The law everywhere says do not go over the speed limit.to prevent “causing an accident which results in death.”

Dan_Lyons's avatar

This is true @flo. And I what wonder what is the purpose of making it illegal to stop in the fast lane for no good reason at all.

dappled_leaves's avatar

^ Section corrected.

RocketGuy's avatar

@flo – I was talking about the ducks. I would not stop for any ducks. I think she pulled over and stopped in the emergency lane, so the guy who ran into her car was in the wrong lane.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@RocketGuy No, she stopped in the middle of the passing lane, not an emergency lane. There was no emergency lane.

flo's avatar

@dappled_leaves “You chose the speeds that you reported a bit conveniently”

How about he was doing all those speeds (129…115…113… 110…105) at different segments of the road.

After he braked for 9 meters he eded up at 105 km at the time of contact, is what I read or heard somewhere.

flo's avatar

@Dan_Lyons It is not like a premeditated thing, she seems like she was overcome. She obviously is not one of those people who don’t like animals.

@dappled_leaves “He had time to reduce his speed by about 8 kph after seeing the vehicle. Because he was going too fast, too close. And he failed to see her because his eyes were not on the road? Not her fault. His estate should pay for the damage to her car.

His widow sees things straight.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther