Angel - from what I have read, she didn't stop suddenly to cause the accident. She was outside of her car and already stopped. Plus, the motorcyclists was behind a truck towing a trailer. If the driver of a truck towing a trailer has enough time and distance to avoid the stopped car, surely the motorcyclist should. What might be more likely is that the truck towing a trailer was driving too slow in the fast lane for the motorcyclists' liking. As soon as he saw the truck start to change lanes, he eagerly sped up to pass without seeing what was ahead of the truck before it was too late.

The leader.motocycle had time to signal to second bike.

Then promptly hits stopped car.

The owner of the car seems to have her life together, college grad, decent job, etc.

Sometimes you just have to chalk it up to fluff happens. Why take that from her and make a convicted felon?
Personally, i dont understand why this incident is a criminal case.

I did almost 5 years for killing a motorcyclist myself. He was tailgating a truck and i didnt see him when the truck passed thestop sign i was sitting at. I promptly pulled out and he clipped the front left fender. I was going 3mph.

Sometimes bad fluff happens.

I tend to agree with this -- you *should* be able to determine that you're rapidly approaching a non-moving object and stop before you get to it....

He was following too closely and didn't give himself time to avoid anything that could pop up. Defensive driving saves lives.

No, it prevents accidents, I hate that line... "saves lives"... NO, it prevents possible death.

The latest news on this is that she was convicted and is going to be sentenced to life in prison. That is very stupid, almost as stupid as American Justice.

Come on, Canuckia, I thought you guys were better than that.

The truck in front barely had enough time to avoid her in the first place. What makes you think a motorcycle can react just as fast if the vehicle in front of him suddenly swerves to avoid something he can't even see until it's too late? Motorcycles going at highway speeds can't even slow down as fast as cars unless they want to start sliding on the tarmac...which he inevidently did. Imo she deserves everything she's getting. Nobody should have to die for someone else's blatant stupidity. No hazard lights on. Blocking half a highway lane just to save some stupid animals. A total menace to society.

On reading more about this case, I am reminded of various quotes ascribed to US Supreme Court Justices in which they say that a prosecutor's job is to seek justice. Of course, this is Canada and not the US. However, I would have a hard time sending this person to jail for the rest of her life when culpability for these deaths does not fall completely on her shoulders. I have to question the prosecutor's decision to pursue a charge that could result in this defendant spending the rest of her life in jail.

If he had time to complain then he had time to avoid. Someone earlier said drive by looking ahead and I think that's the best strategy. I always anticipate all around me are idiots because most of them are and that the most bizarre things will happen. It's probably save me from serious injury a few times or maybe that's blind luck.

Is this girl stupid? Certainly. 14 yrs-to-life criminal? No chance. I think she should have her driving privileges suspended, a few months in jail, and the community service teaching about how dangerous roads are.

Trumper has it right. She should lose her driving privileges and have to serve some sort of community service so she'll learn not to stop in the fast lane of a highway anymore. And I believe it was me who said you must look far ahead to be prepared for what is coming as a part of my motorcyclist was partially responsible for his own death because he was probably just looking at what was immediately ahead of his front tire as a lot of poor motorcyclists do.

It was a sage point about looking down the road and applies to really all forms of commute. Yet I see so many people that will slam their brakes at the very last second when it was clear hundreds of feet before that traffic was at a standstill. I guess I've grown particularly acute to looking ahead as I mostly ride my bicycle to work (~36 miles roundtrip) rather than driving or taking the Metro. And the anticipatory factor of someone opening his or her door, making a right hook turn, needing to move over for a bus, etc etc, is sort of essential to my own safety (that and a little bit of dumb luck).

Aye, as a cyclist commuter these days, I agree with this -- you *really* have to look ahead when you're in a vulnerable position (like a bicycle... or even a motorcycle); I've definitely ridden in cars with drivers not looking at what's happening 10 seconds in front of them.... If the car in front of the car in front of you (ie 2 cars ahead) starts to slow down... you should probably ease off - if not slow down - even if the guy *in front of you* hasn't touched his breaks yet...

i usually flag it as prolonged suffering in this life, so doctors and lawyers can make some money. there is no prevention of death. it's a matter of time. or maybe just bad timing.

Must save turtles, to make more porn

Here in Missouri we have what is called a shared fault law. They determine who is fault by a percentage like it was x person fault 70% and y person 30%. I know because a girl going 80 in a 30 years ago ran a red light because of her speed and rammed my car , even though she had a red light to stop they partially blamed me for not seeing her coming. A van was blocking my view. Anyways , we also have the rear end law regardless of the situation if you hit someone from the rear it is 100% your fault. I know that because someone passed me going extremely fast and even though no traffic ahead he hit the breaks trying to get me to plow the truck. I looked it up later to find out would have been my fault. That said the biker was following the camper/trailer/whatever to close and is the blame.The most she should get is community service and or days in jail not years.

In our legal system, if you do something illegal, and as a result of that illegal act someone is accidentally killed -- that's generally treated as worse than either the illegal act on its own or accidentally killing someone in the same way without breaking the law. Accidentally hitting a pedestrian is tragic. Running from the cops is a crime. Accidentally hitting a pedestrian while running from the cops is murder.

She made the decision to stop in a highway traffic lane. She did not have to, there was no justification for it. That's illegal. The potential consequences (ie. someone crashing into her) were predictable by a reasonable person. She chose to stop anyway. That's negligence. Her negligent choice to take an illegal action caused someone's death. It sucks, but it's true.

And despite some comments, the following car is not always responsible in rear end collisions. Blame goes to the person most able to prevent the accident. That's usually the following driver, but in a case where the driver of the car in front did something so clearly against the law with such predictable results, that's not the case.

Having said all of that, I don't think anyone particularly benefits from this young lady serving jail time. Unfortunately, there's no litmus test for "who benefits" in our legal system.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Foog - criminal act vs traffic act. I feel that makes a big difference. Running from the cops is a criminal offense. Illegally stopping on the road is a traffic violation.

give her an obstruction of traffic ticket and make the motorcyclist's insurance pay for all damages.