[xerxes]

Well, given BC's notoriously lax justice system...

[Xort]

Here is the crash location. Not a lot of room to get out of the way in any direction. Stopped in a side lane, with the 4 ways on is sufficent to make an emergancy stop.



You can see the HOV lane markers in the background, over the left most travel lanes.

This is why people need to drive attentively. As it was the weekend traffic would have been light, so you can't say that heavy traffic forced the driver to follow to close, that vehicles in front of him blocked his view. With a fraction of the weekday traffic you have lots of room to drive.

Again do we have a published report of the SUV driver's speed before the crash?

EDIT The Province paper reported:

"Miller had been driving illegally in the HOV lane — he was alone in his vehicle — and although he was exceeding the 80 km/h speed limit he was travelling the speed of traffic."

So he was above the posted limit. I think that a criminal charge would have been proper in this case then.

"Miller had changed lanes shortly before seeing Moeller’s van. He hit his brakes and slid on the wet pavement into the back of the van, where three of the boys were seated."

So this guy was using the HOV lane to pass already speeding traffic.

"However, Miller does have a driving record that includes infractions such as not wearing a seatbelt, excessive speeding, driving without reasonable care or attention, speeding and failing to obey signals or signs."

Can't expect anything better when we fail to properly punish people for their actions. The best indication of future actions are past ones. I think his record makes what kind of a driver he is clear.

[andyt]

xerxes xerxes:

Also, the accident took place on a Saturday. The HOV lane rules don't apply on the weekend.

That was only introduced this February, so doesn't apply here. I didn't know that myself. Good to know, since most of my driving is on weekends.

[andyt]

Xort Xort:

Here is the crash location. Not a lot of room to get out of the way in any direction. Stopped in a side lane, with the 4 ways on is sufficent to make an emergancy stop.



You can see the HOV lane markers in the background, over the left most travel lanes.

This is why people need to drive attentively. As it was the weekend traffic would have been light, so you can't say that heavy traffic forced the driver to follow to close, that vehicles in front of him blocked his view. With a fraction of the weekday traffic you have lots of room to drive.

Again do we have a published report of the SUV driver's speed before the crash?

EDIT The Province paper reported:

"Miller had been driving illegally in the HOV lane — he was alone in his vehicle — and although he was exceeding the 80 km/h speed limit he was travelling the speed of traffic."

So he was above the posted limit. I think that a criminal charge would have been proper in this case then.

"Miller had changed lanes shortly before seeing Moeller’s van. He hit his brakes and slid on the wet pavement into the back of the van, where three of the boys were seated."

So this guy was using the HOV lane to pass already speeding traffic.

Looks like lots of room to get off the HOV on the left there, and out of the way of traffic. Just had the case of the guy in Winnipeg who got off even tho he was doing 100 in a 60 because the Judge said everybody speeds there. So if this guy was moving with traffic, he wasn't speeding excessively. A lot of that stretch is 80 and I routinely do 100 or even 110 when safe.

[Xort]

andyt andyt:

Looks like lots of room to get off the HOV on the left there, and out of the way of traffic. Just had the case of the guy in Winnipeg who got off even tho he was doing 100 in a 60 because the Judge said everybody speeds there. So if this guy was moving with traffic, he wasn't speeding excessively.

I was trying to match to location to the picture in the link. Just a short distance futher east that area to the left is gone. The link said the crash was just west of the United Boulevard turn off. While the picture in the link is over 1km away.

Either way we don't know if the van struck was on or off the road compleatly or if it had any room. It seems unreasonable for someone to just stop in the lane they are in if they had room to pull off.

$1:

A lot of that stretch is 80 and I routinely do 100 or even 110 when safe.

I can only hope that if you do crash the only person you kill is yourself.

[OnTheIce]

Xort Xort:

Here is the crash location. Not a lot of room to get out of the way in any direction. Stopped in a side lane, with the 4 ways on is sufficent to make an emergancy stop.

As Andy said, there's plenty of room to pull off the HOV lane.

What if this story had been turned around. The man in the SUV sitting in the live lane and mom hits the SUV and her kids pass away? Would mom be at fault or the SUV driver for not pulling off the road?

Either way, it's a tragedy to lose children.

[QBall]

Strutz Strutz:

Yes, yet another sensible decision brought to you by our "justice" system.



So why not, at the very least, was the maximum not handed down? Shouldn't there be more to the charges considering the "without due care and attention" resulted in 2 deaths?

Might have been his first offence. Judges are loathe to hand out maximum sentences unless there were extenuating circumstances or the guy has a history. Granted running away to another country doesn't help your case but like I said if all the guy has on his record is parking tickets then the chances of getting a maximum penalty are slim.

[Gunnair]

QBall QBall:

Strutz Strutz:

Yes, yet another sensible decision brought to you by our "justice" system.



So why not, at the very least, was the maximum not handed down? Shouldn't there be more to the charges considering the "without due care and attention" resulted in 2 deaths?

Might have been his first offence. Judges are loathe to hand out maximum sentences unless there were extenuating circumstances or the guy has a history. Granted running away to another country doesn't help your case but like I said if all the guy has on his record is parking tickets then the chances of getting a maximum penalty are slim.

Apparently running away for three years didn't hurt him either.

Idiotic justice system we have. No wonder some decide to take justice into heir own hands.

[Regina]

I know nothing about this case other than the posts made, but something else to consider is the amount of evidence and it's credibility. I have two friends that are judges, one a Superior Court Judge and the other a Provincial Court Judge. While having a bite to eat current news topics were being discussed as usual. I'll admit I'm a bit of a redneck when it comes to administering justice and have had to show a little restraint in our chats. A few weeks ago a local case was in the news which neither were involved with. Some local thug was found with guns, drugs and lots of cash and received only a "slap on the wrist" with most charges being dropped. My question to them was.......How the fuck does that happen? Oddly to me, they agreed with my question when they first heard about it and also had a quest for an answer. As it turns out the local thug had a clean slate. Although he was found with a shit load of evidence, there was a question of how the evidence was legally obtained to make the charge. The Crown felt the case was so flimsy that he could get off free of anything. Since he had no record and could possibly walk away but obviously guilty as hell, they had to make a deal to put a "mark" on him. It's all they could do to guarantee he got something.

[xerxes]

andyt andyt:

xerxes xerxes:

Also, the accident took place on a Saturday. The HOV lane rules don't apply on the weekend.

That was only introduced this February, so doesn't apply here. I didn't know that myself. Good to know, since most of my driving is on weekends.

Oh. I didn't know that. My mistake.

$1:

This is why people need to drive attentively. As it was the weekend traffic would have been light, so you can't say that heavy traffic forced the driver to follow to close, that vehicles in front of him blocked his view. With a fraction of the weekday traffic you have lots of room to drive.

True enough. But there is always traffic on that stretch of the highway for just about most of the day. I can't remember the last time I drove into Vancouver and didn't have to stop or slow down because of traffic at some point.

$1:

"Miller had been driving illegally in the HOV lane — he was alone in his vehicle — and although he was exceeding the 80 km/h speed limit he was travelling the speed of traffic." So he was above the posted limit. I think that a criminal charge would have been proper in this case then

If you're going 80kph when everyone else is going 100kph, you're the one being unsafe.

[andyt]

Xort Xort:

$1:

A lot of that stretch is 80 and I routinely do 100 or even 110 when safe.

I can only hope that if you do crash the only person you kill is yourself.

I'm sure it will involve others, since some of them are going faster than me. Unlike them, I'm not darting in and out of traffic, just riding in the fast lane and speeding up if the lane opens up. And I keep my eyes on what's happening in front, back and sides, I'm paying attention. My guess is I'm safer than the guy doing the speed limit and totally oblivious. In fact if I was doing the speed limit in the fast lane I would be more dangerous with the frustrated drivers piling up behind me.

[xerxes]

$1:

In fact if I was doing the speed limit in the fast lane I would be more dangerous with the frustrated drivers piling up behind me.

That would be me.

[Xort]

xerxes xerxes:

If you're going 80kph when everyone else is going 100kph, you're the one being unsafe.

No, the safe speed for each vehicle is dependant on it's stopping distance, maneuverability, skill of the driver, and the prevailing conditions.

If the posted max limit is 80km/hr people going faster than 80 are breaking the law, and creating unsafe conditions for others.

If you have a stream of sports cars drive well above the speed limit a semi loaded with a max load isn't being unsafe by going much slower. Those cars can stop much faster than a truck can, so that truck needs to either go slower, or leave a huge amount of room so it can stop.

Your implied statement that absolute speed has no safey impact and that only relative speed to other cars is important, is wrong on at the level of highschool physics.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

What if this story had been turned around. The man in the SUV sitting in the live lane and mom hits the SUV and her kids pass away? Would mom be at fault or the SUV driver for not pulling off the road?

The person hitting the vehicle in front of them is the one at fault. Which is why you always travel at a speed and keep a distance so you can stop in time.

$1:

Either way, it's a tragedy to lose children.

I'd say it's criminal.

[OnTheIce]

Xort Xort:

The person hitting the vehicle in front of them is the one at fault. Which is why you always travel at a speed and keep a distance so you can stop in time.

People rarely leave the proper distance to stop when driving on a freeway. I'm betting you're in the group too. We drive within a few car lengths of people because we're all going in the same direction at roughly the same speed.

For example:

If this guy was driving at 80km/h in normal conditions his reaction distance alone would be 50ft. Distance to stop would be 124ft and total stopping distance would be 172ft.

Driving in wet conditions would have pushed his total stopping distance to 267ft!

If you expect people to stay 17 car lengths between one another in good weather and 26 in wet weather, it just doesn't make sense.

In the end, he SHOULD have been able to see the van from a much greater distance if he was paying attention as most of the other drivers were able to do. It's a horrible accident that no parent, myself included, could even imagine.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

People rarely leave the proper distance to stop when driving on a freeway. I'm betting you're in the group too. We drive within a few car lengths of people because we're all going in the same direction at roughly the same speed.

For example:

If this guy was driving at 80km/h in normal conditions his reaction distance alone would be 50ft. Distance to stop would be 124ft and total stopping distance would be 172ft.

Driving in wet conditions would have pushed his total stopping distance to 267ft!

If you expect people to stay 17 car lengths between one another in good weather and 26 in wet weather, it just doesn't make sense.

In the end, he SHOULD have been able to see the van from a much greater distance if he was paying attention as most of the other drivers were able to do. It's a horrible accident that no parent, myself included, could even imagine.

I generally leave 3 - 6 car lengths between me and the next person, but what often happens is that someone passes you and then zips in there, leaving you to either slow down to bring that gap back or just accept it and maintain your speed.

If you maintain your speed, it's not very safe. If you choose to slow down, what happens is everyone passes you and then zips in front of you and it just becomes a catch-22.

I slow down, but that's mostly because once I started a family, I stopped caring about getting there as fast as possible and now prefer arriving alive and 10 minutes later.