Cager F.U of the day kills two
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Henry on 30 Jun 2010 09:58 Ben Kaufman wrote: > http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/06/28/14548891.html > > CANDIAC, Que. A 16-year-old girl and her 59-year-old father were killed when > their motorcycle collided with the car of a woman who had stopped to allow ducks > to cross a highway. ..... "The driver involved in a fatal accident on a highway south of Montreal Sunday could face two charges of criminal negligence causing death. Quebec law prohibits stopping a vehicle on a highway." Interesting. I wonder if it's illegal to stop for moose on the highway. Seems like a better option than hitting them... -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Datesfat Chicks on 30 Jun 2010 09:59 "Ben Kaufman" <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars(a)pobox.com> wrote in message news:ekhm265aih7745qbibchvdr6e2u687gbvn(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:34:56 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> > wrote: > >>On 6/29/2010 10:26 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote: >>> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/06/28/14548891.html >>> >>> CANDIAC, Que. A 16-year-old girl and her 59-year-old father were killed >>> when >>> their motorcycle collided with the car of a woman who had stopped to >>> allow ducks >>> to cross a highway. ..... >> >>I hate to say it, but hitting a _stopped_ car is not a "cager F.U.", >>it's a rider F.U. >> > > If you voluntarily do something that is expressly prohibited then it is > your > F.U. In this case the article states: Quebec law prohibits stopping a > vehicle > on a highway. I can understand that she didn't want to hit the birds, > she > should have pulled over rather than stopping in the middle of the road. > > This is not to say that the rider was presented with an impossible to > avoid > situation but it was the cager's action that created the dangerous > situation. Inadequate logic. She might just as well have stopped for something more serious in the road (a large car part, lost cargo, a child) or due to mechanical failure of her vehicle. The rider was responsible for stopping or avoiding. Period. I live in Marshall, Michigan. Every once in a while, there are geese or ducks crossing the road. Everybody stops. It would be very hard psychologically to just plow over mama duck and the little ducklings following her. The Canada law was probably designed to prevent stopping without a tangible reason (although they might not have had the good sense to write that into the law). She had a tangible reason. Even the Canadians aren't stupid enough to bring charges in this case. Datesfat
From: S'mee on 30 Jun 2010 10:04 On Jun 30, 6:58 am, brad herschel <bradhersc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 29, 10:26 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000- > > doll...(a)pobox.com> wrote: > >http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/06/28/14548891.html > > > CANDIAC, Que. A 16-year-old girl and her 59-year-old father were killed when > > their motorcycle collided with the car of a woman who had stopped to allow ducks > > to cross a highway. ..... > > Obviously, the 59 year old father was defective. No the stupid cage monkey was...I'd be a plugged penny that there was a curve involved.
From: J. Clarke on 30 Jun 2010 10:28 On 6/30/2010 9:40 AM, Ben Kaufman wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:34:56 -0400, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> On 6/29/2010 10:26 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote: >>> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/06/28/14548891.html >>> >>> CANDIAC, Que. A 16-year-old girl and her 59-year-old father were killed when >>> their motorcycle collided with the car of a woman who had stopped to allow ducks >>> to cross a highway. ..... >> >> I hate to say it, but hitting a _stopped_ car is not a "cager F.U.", >> it's a rider F.U. >> > > If you voluntarily do something that is expressly prohibited then it is your > F.U. Doesn't matter what the stationary object is or how it got there or how illegal it is for it to be there, there is NO excuse for hitting something that big and that visible. > In this case the article states: Quebec law prohibits stopping a vehicle > on a highway. I can understand that she didn't want to hit the birds, she > should have pulled over rather than stopping in the middle of the road. Doesn't matter. It was still a highly visible stationary object. > This is not to say that the rider was presented with an impossible to avoid > situation but it was the cager's action that created the dangerous situation. Doesn't matter. If you hit a stationary object then YOU are the one who screwed up regardless of the nature of the stationary object.
From: Datesfat Chicks on 30 Jun 2010 10:53
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:i0fkdr0jqq(a)news2.newsguy.com... > > Doesn't matter. If you hit a stationary object then YOU are the one who > screwed up regardless of the nature of the stationary object. Well, with one exception. If Wonder Woman parks her invisible plane on the highway, that would be a no-no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_plane Datesfat |