Father and daughter killed in collision with car that stopped... for ducks

Link

Quote :

A woman who lost both her husband and teenage daughter in a tragic collision Sunday night says she doesn’t want to see charges laid against the young woman driving the car involved in the crash.

Pauline Volikakis survived the accident which claimed her two family members on Highway 30 near the 98 kilometre mark in Candiac on the South Shore. Her husband, André Roy, 50, and their 16-year-old daughter, Jessie, were killed when their motorcycle struck a car travelling ahead of them that stopped suddenly when the female driver spotted a family of ducks in the road. Volikakis was riding on a separate bike, which also struck the car, but she was not seriously injured.

It is illegal in Quebec to slam on the brakes in the middle of the highway — even to avoid hitting an animal.

Great. So to save some fucking birds (hell, since the female could presumably fly, she could have possibly lived, leaving only the ducklings as roadkill), two people ended up dying. Nice trade-off.

And if it's illegal, the driver should be charged, regardless of the widow's extremely charitable reaction.

Quote :

According to Volikakis, there was no time to react when the car screeched to a halt in the roadway in front of the two motorbikes. It was over in the blink of an eye, she explained, and she is convinced her daughter died on impact.

“I was trying to comfort Jessie, but there was nothing I could do. I couldn’t help her,” she recalled. “André opened one eye, but that was all.”

Malganis wrote:

Great. So to save some fucking birds (hell, since the female could presumably fly, she could have possibly lived, leaving only the ducklings as roadkill), two people ended up dying. Nice trade-off.

Doubt the driver really had time to process all that while driving. Seeing a living thing in your way and intentionally making no effort to avoid crushing it with your car is not exactly easy, even if it is considerably safer in most situations.

The whole situation is tragic, but I really do not blame the driver for it. I blame an irresponsibly dangerous and horrifically widespread lack of public transportation in North America. Some people were just not meant to be drivers.

Shit, poor lady. Poor driver. That's on her head. She saw something in the road, had too little time to process, and automatically slammed on the brakes. It's an understandable reaction. Unfortunately she made the wrong decision, and now she's got the deaths of two people on her head.

I wouldn't be surprised if she has a hard time driving after this.

The poor mother.

Malganis wrote:

Great. So to save some fucking birds (hell, since the female could presumably fly, she could have possibly lived, leaving only the ducklings as roadkill), two people ended up dying. Nice trade-off.

And if it's illegal, the driver should be charged, regardless of the widow's extremely charitable reaction.

How. . . humanist of you. What do you know of those birds and what they've been through? Just because it's not a person it can't have any value as a living, breathing creature. Nope. You make me sick.
I can't tell if I'm serious or sarcastic here.

Quote :

It is illegal in Quebec to slam on the brakes in the middle of the highway — even to avoid hitting an animal.

So if the car in front of you has an accident or spins out of control, you're supposed to swerve dangerously while barely touching the brakes and praying to God?

Also, how close were the motorbikes to the car? "No time to react" leads me to suspect that they were up her arse.

BTW, I was always told when learning to drive that a driver is not responsible for whatever vehicles are coming behind them. The onus is on the vehicle behind not to be tailgating/daydreaming/talking on a cellphone if you have to brake suddenly.

Also, I'm TOTALLY SURE the driver framed it exactly like "save the ducks or make sure the person behind me doesn't crash? I'LL SAVE THE DUCKS", you stupid asshole.

I'm going to be fairly unequivocal about this: Yes, stopping for ducks is illegal, but daddy was too close to the car in front of him to deal with an emegency situation.* "No time to react" = you were too close to it. As a matter of fact, if he's like most motorcyclists I encounter, he was probably hovering right off her tail waiting for a chance to whizz past.

It's as much his fault as the woman who stopped for the ducks.

*I know motor bikes can't stop as quickly as cars, but he should have accounted for that.

EDIT: Damn, Wulf got there first.

Since when can motorcycles not stop as quickly as cars? I was told the opposite and therefore to not follow motorcycles as closely as cars. They're significantly lighter, therefore have a lot less momentum, and are easier to stop.

Also, I can understand not being able to come to a complete stop before hitting the car in front of you. But motorcycles are fairly nimble vehicles. If you couldn't have at least swerved around it (whether or not you manage to stay upright isn't important) you are TOO CLOSE!

Also also, fuck Canada.

Also also also, I've never seen any small animal in the road and though "MUST SLAM ON BRAKES!" I tend to break or miss it, but I don't go flying out of my lane or lock the tires. That reaction's only acceptable if you're about to hit a moose.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Since when can motorcycles not stop as quickly as cars? I was told the opposite and therefore to not follow motorcycles as closely as cars. They're significantly lighter, therefore have a lot less momentum, and are easier to stop.

I assumed because it had half as much surface of brake disc and half as much tyre contact with the ground to stop the bike. And also if you stop really, really, quickly on a motorbike, you'll be thrown off it.

Then I remembered it was a comment in an episode of Top Gear when they were racing a superbike against a sports car. The sports car (being a sports car) was probably lighter than an ordinary road car and probably had uber-brakes, so it might not hold for ordinary cars and bikes.

Silly me. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Cyberwulf wrote:

Also, how close were the motorbikes to the car? "No time to react" leads me to suspect that they were up her arse.

That was exactly my thought as well.

Also, are the ducklings okay? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Cyberwulf already said it. A driver rear-ending another vehicle is always at fault unless the other vehicle was in reverse.

Re the bike brakes vs car brakes, the presence of a pillion dramatically alters the braking characteristics of the bike, because it places more weight on the brakes, but proportionally less on the forward brake. This means less braking power and an increased risk of a lowside fall.

The bit of Quebecois legislation sounds idiotical, at least in the form reported by the news. The same result can be obtained by stating a minimal safety distance between two vehicles (for the highway it's about 50 m), and it's easier to enforce, even automatically.

I'm a biker, and my automatic reaction was also: "How do you ride into the back of a car?"

Even if the car did perform a sudden stop, that's kinda why you should keep about a car's length between you and whatever is in front... Or longer if you're moving faster.


It sounds cruel, but running into the back of something is your fault, not the fault of whatever you ran into the back of. Unless that thing is reversing, of course.

Cyberwulf wrote:

BTW, I was always told when learning to drive that a driver is not responsible for whatever vehicles are coming behind them. The onus is on the vehicle behind not to be tailgating/daydreaming/talking on a cellphone if you have to brake suddenly.

Yep. Even with insurance companies that do anything they can to decrease payouts, getting rear-ended is entirely, or at least almost entirely, the fault of the person behind you.

There's a reason why "following distance" is drilled into people's heads in any competent drivers' ed course.

Quote :

Also, I'm TOTALLY SURE the driver framed it exactly like "save the ducks or make sure the person behind me doesn't crash? I'LL SAVE THE DUCKS", you stupid asshole.

That too.

You can kinda tell who in this thread drives and who doesn't, can't you?

I just want to say, there's so much we don't know about this case. How many ducks were there? Were the ducks especially pretty?

It always disgusts me when people put an animal's life first when driving. No, that's not to say you should floor it and start crushing them right, left and center - but what about the other road users? What about passengers in your car? Hell, what about you? Shouldn't that be taught more strongly in driving classes?

I am shocked that this widow, who lost her husband and daughter, doesn't want to see the woman at least put on trial.

DUCKS, goddammit. Two people's lives were sacrificed for goddamn DUCKS.

Penguin wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

BTW, I was always told when learning to drive that a driver is not responsible for whatever vehicles are coming behind them. The onus is on the vehicle behind not to be tailgating/daydreaming/talking on a cellphone if you have to brake suddenly.

Yep. Even with insurance companies that do anything they can to decrease payouts, getting rear-ended is entirely, or at least almost entirely, the fault of the person behind you.

I remember a mild fender bender from my childhood, where dad topped a hill and ran smack into the car in front of us. The other car was stalled in the middle of the road with no visible signs of distress, but dad was the one in trouble for following too close.

Also, Harley, shut up. Seriously. Some people just can't bring themselves to run something over, no matter how necessary it is. In middle school, I was crushed when the bus driver ran over a turtle for taking too long to cross, so I probably would have done the same thing this woman did.

Yeah Harley the driver totally decided to deliberately kill two people, you stupid shit. If they were anything like the motorcyclists I encounter, they were following too closely and weaving in and out of her blind spot.

ps you're another one who doesn't drive

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

I just want to say, there's so much we don't know about this case. How many ducks were there? Were the ducks especially pretty?

It always disgusts me when people put an animal's life first when driving. No, that's not to say you should floor it and start crushing them right, left and center - but what about the other road users? What about passengers in your car? Hell, what about you? Shouldn't that be taught more strongly in driving classes?

I am shocked that this widow, who lost her husband and daughter, doesn't want to see the woman at least put on trial.

DUCKS, goddammit. Two people's lives were sacrificed for goddamn DUCKS.

It surprises me how you can jump in after the matter's been discussed, and issue these sweeping statements as if you didn't bother to read any of the previous messages.

If you don't actually think the car driver thought, "Hmm... there's a motorbike after me that's going to end up compacted into my trunk, but ducklings are cuter and more important in the great scheme of things. Bikers be damned!", then it's better you revise your entry.

If you do... well, it wouldn't be the dumbest thing you've said.

I'm not after you in particular - I was going to write how today I was buzzed by a guy on a GSXR. He disappeared in my blind side for a good twenty seconds before overtaking - I knew he was somewhere but didn't know where, and he probably was waiting to see whether I was going to overtake the truck in front or not. Bad maneuver.

Lapin wrote:

Shit, poor lady. Poor driver. That's on her head. She saw something in the road, had too little time to process, and automatically slammed on the brakes. It's an understandable reaction. Unfortunately she made the wrong decision, and now she's got the deaths of two people on her head.

I wouldn't be surprised if she has a hard time driving after this.

The poor mother.

I agree. She saw animals in danger and stopped her car so she wouldn't kill them; I'm sure she must hate herself for how it ended.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

I just want to say, there's so much we don't know about this case. How many ducks were there? Were the ducks especially pretty?

It always disgusts me when people put an animal's life first when driving. No, that's not to say you should floor it and start crushing them right, left and center - but what about the other road users? What about passengers in your car? Hell, what about you? Shouldn't that be taught more strongly in driving classes?

I am shocked that this widow, who lost her husband and daughter, doesn't want to see the woman at least put on trial.

DUCKS, goddammit. Two people's lives were sacrificed for goddamn DUCKS.

Harley -

1. READ (not just the OP, but other posts as well)
2. COMPREHEND
then:
3. Reply

You've failed to do at least one out steps 1 or 2.

In other news, evolution still appears to be working.

The Unoriginal wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Harley Being
Harley

It surprises me how you can jump in after the
matter's been discussed, and issue these sweeping statements as if you
didn't bother to read any of the previous messages.

Then you haven't been paying much attention to Harley.

Not that I blame you, mind.

I always brake when a dog or a cat or a squirrel or something runs/walks in front of my car, but I don't slam on them. If I have room to swerve without hitting anyone, I will.

I never tailgate either; especially not behind motorcycles (always leave a good 2 car lengths between them and me). Not only do I know how annoying it can be to the other driver, but it's dangerous as shit as well. You never know how someone else is going to react. Maybe they don't want you on their tail? Ever heard of a brake check? What if there's something in the road they need to avoid and cannot swerve into the other lane for? They'll probably, and understandably, slam on their brakes.

I have to wonder, like it's been mentioned before, how a motorcycle slams into the back of a car. Either he was a) following too closely, b) not paying attention to the car in front of him, or c) wasn't terribly close, but also going fast and didn't have much reaction time to stop so quickly. If you've ever seen a collision like this, you'd understand. Sometimes the bike wobbles and goes out of control. Also, stopping like that might send the passengers forward and with no harness to restrain them from flying forward. They could tell by the skid marks, if there were any, whether any of these two possibilities were true. While it's a sad and unfortunate event, I have to question whether he was doing what he needed to do seeing as how he was driving a motorcycle, a much more dangerous mode of transportation than a car in terms of personal safety.

I don't know. Obviously, we'd need more details to determine who was at fault, but it sounds like it was just an unfortunate accident.

Hey, I remember you :D

*has nothing useful to contribute whatsoever*

Orly? Coooooool.

Nthing what most other people said. No one sane wants to hit a family of ducks, and if the motorcyclists didn't have time to register what was happening, they were too damn close to that car.

Also nthing the "motorcyclists are generally dipshit drivers," the ones around here tailgate off your tailpipe, zip around at first opportunity, wheelie and then jet down the road as fast as they can.

My general rule of thumb is to stay at least three seconds behind the vehicle in front of me. Pick a land mark ahead, let them pass it and if it takes you about three seconds to also pass it, you're golden. Someone told me humans can react in less than a second, but I like to have some leeway for instances like this. :|