Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Women stops for ducks convicted of dangerous driving
#21
I have heard reports that the hazard lights were on. I don't know who to believe about the car door. One thing that is clear, is the fact that the motorbike was going to fast and too close. There are many reasons why a car can stop suddenly or go out of control. The driver behind them must always be ready to stop.

That is a very scary message about not stopping for animals. It sends a message that is cold and uncaring. What is a good reason for stopping? A child on the road, is that a good enough reason. What about an adult, should we stop for an adult. You have to make the best decision you can when you are driving. Emma certainly had no intent to hurt the people behind her. I thought intent was always important.
[Image: IMG_9091.JPG]
Catherine

Reply
#22
I think this is good news. It is certainly better than the long sentence the prosecution wanted. Even better is the fact that she can still appeal this.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/prison-on-h...-1.2181443

I am hoping that things will gradually fade and she will end up serving no time at all.
[Image: IMG_9091.JPG]
Catherine

Reply
#23
She may have a case for appeal anyway. Because although she (technically) committed a misdemeanour by stopping her car in the passing lane, the approaching motorists, including the two bikers who sadly, lost their lives, were responsible for slowing their vehicles to a controllable speed, as a road hazard was ahead! Unless, of course, their view of the road ahead was impaired by a sudden bend or something. All motorists have a duty to drive according to road conditions, not necessarily just at the speed limit, and have a duty to control their vehicles.
It strikes me she is guilty of a lesser driving fault (legally speaking) I think as the charges stand, the case should be thrown out of court.
Reply
#24
All the vehicles had a responsibility to be able to stop given the road conditions. She stopped for ducks, but her car could have stopped for any number of reasons, even mechanical failure. If her engine had failed and her car had stopped, the bike would still have hit her, but how could they charge her. She is not responsible for mechanical failure.
So how can they charge her for stopping for ducks. I think the prosecutor went crazy with charges and the judge seemed to have issues. How can the speed of the bike not be a factor, but he refused to consider it.

In spite of being found guilty the sentence is mild and can be appealed. She still has her licence. Who knows the whole thing could be dropped. A ninety day sentence would be served in a very minimum security facility anyhow. Maybe they will suspend the whole sentence and have her on probation. She will still probably have to do the community service. I doubt they will over turn that. This is better than the 14 years they wanted her to serve.
[Image: IMG_9091.JPG]
Catherine

Reply
#25
Well I don't know the intricacies of the driving laws there, but here in the UK, if a car goes into the back of another -for any reason whatsoever, it is the fault of the driver behind -always.
Reply
#26
Quote:Well I don't know the intricacies of the driving laws there, but here in the UK, if a car goes into the back of another -for any reason whatsoever, it is the fault of the driver behind -always

I always thought that was the law. That is how they sort things out in these big multicar pileups. No one talks about fault even thought the first car to stop probably set off the whole accident. The car stopped for some reason.
I am really hoping things turn out okay for her. Ruining her life will not bring back the dead. It doesn't even send a message about safe driving.
[Image: IMG_9091.JPG]
Catherine

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Created by Zyggy's Web Design