When I learned to drive it was impressed on us that it is the duty of a driver to follow at a safe distance in case the driver ahead makes a sudden stop and that in case you hit someone from behind, you are at fault 100% and guy you hit not at all.
Apparently this does not hold in Quebec. A driver came suddenly on a family of ducks crossing the road and stopped suddenly. Two motorcyclists hit her from behind and were killed. By definition, they had to have been tailgating. A Quebec Provincial Police officer told the reporter that they were investigating whether they should charge the driver because, “you do not stop unless it is perfectly safe to do so.” So if you see something in the road ahead, you must first check your mirrors and then, only if no one is tailgating, stop your car.
I don’t know the answer, but if the police is investigating whether criminal charges shall be filed, then it’s a matter of the Criminal Code of Canada (a federal law), so it applies to Canada as a whole.
I suppose braking unexpectedly on the road can be considered unpredictable (and potentially dangerous) driving.
IANAL, but I am guessing the issue was that since it was just a family of ducks making sure you can stop safely (by checking your rear view mirrors) trumps the concern about turning them into a family of duck pancakes regardless of what PETA might think. Yes, tailgating is illegal, but so is dangerous driving.
I would have to wonder if perhaps the question is whether the ducks ever existed at all, or if the driver decided to teach the tailgaters a lesson. Still, absent evidence that the driver did, I can’t see how he could possibly be charged.
Although I’ve been told that here in Ontario, it is illegal to run over Canadian Geese crossing a road. Can’t testify to the truth of that.
Assuming the facts that we are given, if the car driver had not stopped for the ducks, but instead had gone into the right lane and had driven on, then the motorcyclists would have probably hit the ducks. (If conditions were such that they could not see a car, how could they have seen the ducks in time?) That means there’s still a good chance of them suffering injury or death. So I don’t see how the car driver is really at fault here.
A couple of important facts are missing from your post - she stopped in the middle of a freeway, which is illegal all over Canada. You do not stop on a freeway unless it’s an emergency. Also, they didn’t hit her car when she was slowing, she was parked in the left lane (the fast lane). She had stopped and put her car in park on the wrong side of the road and gotten out of her vehicle to help the ducks cross. Of course she’s at fault.
You always pull off to the right in an emergency, and you never stop on a freeway unless it’s an emergency.
Tailgating is tailgating, and we’re told that it is illegal and unsafe to drive in that fashion. Vehicles have been known to stop on highways for whatever reason, and it is the duty of vehicles following to stop in a safe manner whenever that happens. Don’t forget that the first question in the minds of anyone who investigates car accidents is “Who hit who?”
I think they’re just trying to find a scapegoat here because there were deaths.
Stopping a car in the passing lane of a restricted access freeway is immensely dangerous and illegal in every jurisdiction in North America, so far as I’m aware.
That doesn’t absolve the motorcyclist of responsibility, since obviously one must wonder how aware he was of what was happening in front of him if he could plow into a car that had been stopped long enough to the driver to get out. However, the driver of the car did something that is both illegal and that any reasonable person would think dangerous. Why is it unreasonable to think BOTH parties are at fault here? And a party who is jointly at fault for two deaths should face charges.
Ok, taking the new facts into consideration, I’d say that she could potential face charges for stopping on a freeway, but there’s no way that she should bear any culpability for the deaths. If you kill yourself running into a stopped car, you have no one to blame but yourself.
That may depend on how the insurance laws. Not every state in the United States will automatically say “You hit them, so you’re 100% at fault.” Some states are “no-fault” states that will say “You didn’t move out of their way, so you’re partially responsible for being hit.”
I did read the thread. Why do you think I didn’t? Because it was on a freeway? Doesn’t change the answer, there could have been any number of reasons you’d have to stop on a freeway. Maybe ducks aren’t a great reason, but are you required to kill ducks if they are in your path rather than stop?
I think the issue was calling them “tailgaters,” who are people following too close to a moving vehicle. They’re usually not people who smack into a parked vehicle (whether due to inattention or poor visibility).
And yes, I know that at least in some places in the states, if you do something reckless to avoid killing an animal (this is just from what my driver’s ed teacher taught), you’re the one at fault. This may not include someone who’s tailgating you, because then they would be the one driving recklessly, but tailgating isn’t the case here. The woman could’ve stopped on a curve.
Plus it’s just common sense. Any stoppage on a highway is pretty damn dangerous. I’d risk my life to stop and get out of my car to get a child off the highway, but ducks? She could’ve been killed.
ETA: relevant statute. I don’t see an exception to stopping on the highway for animals.