OT: Johnny Gaudreau and Matthew Gaudreau killed in drunk driving incident

[ERYX]

Not a lawyer, but there's two ways to serve multiple convictions: consecutively or concurrently.

Consecutively the sentences are served in order, which is what was described.

Concurrently the sentences are served at the same time, so in this example 10 x 2 would still be 10 years total.

The laws governing concurrently or consecutively varies by state. I think some states allows the judge to decide.

Here, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled consecutive sentences are unconstitutional, so there can only be concurrent sentences. That can be overruled, but it would require parliament to use the Non Withstanding clause to pass a law that would otherwise contradict the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I am a lawyer, albeit a Canadian one so I can't really comment on American law. I am surprised that 10 years is the max for vehicular homicide, usually US sentences are much higher than Canadian. Up here, the max for impaired driving causing death is life. However, the maximums are reserved for "the worst offender and the worst set of circumstances" so usually people get something lower ... Marco Muzzo was sentenced to 10 years for killing a family of four in Ontario few years back. Which seems way too low to me but that tends to be how Canadian criminal justice rolls -- personally I find that minor or marginally criminal offences are given too harsh of sentences, whereas truly horrific crimes get too low. But I digress ...

As for consecutive sentences being unconstitutional, not exactly, and it depends on the circumstances. The Supreme Court has said that if offences arise out of a "single transaction" the sentences are to be concurrent. Courts can and absolutely do dole out consecutive sentences when the convictions arise out of separate incidents.

 

[GeorgeJETson]

I am a lawyer, albeit a Canadian one so I can't really comment on American law. I am surprised that 10 years is the max for vehicular homicide, usually US sentences are much higher than Canadian. Up here, the max for impaired driving causing death is life. However, the maximums are reserved for "the worst offender and the worst set of circumstances" so usually people get something lower ... Marco Muzzo was sentenced to 10 years for killing a family of four in Ontario few years back. Which seems way too low to me but that tends to be how Canadian criminal justice rolls -- personally I find that minor or marginally criminal offences are given too harsh of sentences, whereas truly horrific crimes get too low. But I digress ...

As for consecutive sentences being unconstitutional, not exactly, and it depends on the circumstances. The Supreme Court has said that if offences arise out of a "single transaction" the sentences are to be concurrent. Courts can and absolutely do dole out consecutive sentences when the convictions arise out of separate incidents.

I learned something new. (Actually, quite a few things but I digress). Thanks for that.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Read the research. It's overwhelming. People going 30% under the speed limit cause 6X more accidents than people going 15% over

If you're gonna talk in such absolute terms, then at least post a reference or two. This has been studied extensively

"Cause the accident" is your moral judgment, not an actual indicator of the person at fault. To say that a person going slower "causes more accidents" would lead to conclusions like "if only I had been going 30kph faster, I could have stopped in time!", or the like.

And if you're going 30kph faster than the person in front of them, and you rear end them, you are to blame. Drivers are expected to adjust stopping time based on the traffic in front of them, irrespective of its speed.

And surely you're not going to deny the direct correlation between "speed the collider is travelling" and "damage done by the collision", so I'm not even going to go there.

People going too slow cause the people who are driving the limit to pass them, which is where the risk of accidents go up - especially on two lane roads where you have to pull out to pass

In other words, one idiot going way over the speed limit will pull out to pass a few cars. One idiot going way under the speed limit will cause everyone else to pull out and pass them

And if you pass a driver in an unsafe manner because you take umbrage at not being allowed to break the speed limit, and you get in an accident, you are the one that is to blame. Legally, ethically, and morally. Anything else is speed demon cope.

 

[Buffdog]

That

"Cause the accident" is your moral judgment, not an actual indicator of the person at fault. To say that a person going slower "causes more accidents" would lead to conclusions like "if only I had been going 30kph faster, I could have stopped in time!", or the like.

And if you're going 30kph faster than the person in front of them, and you rear end them, you are to blame. Drivers are expected to adjust stopping time based on the traffic in front of them, irrespective of its speed.

And surely you're not going to deny the direct correlation between "speed the collider is travelling" and "damage done by the collision", so I'm not even going to go there.



And if you pass a driver in an unsafe manner because you take umbrage at not being allowed to break the speed limit, and you get in an accident, you are the one that is to blame. Legally, ethically, and morally. Anything else is speed demon cope.

What exactly are you trying to say aside from "I'm wrong but won't admit it"?

If you're traveling 80km/h on Bishop in the right lane and person is doing 65km/h ahead of you, you're likely to change to the left lane to pass them. It's that lane change that leads to increased accidents, whether by a lawful driver going around a slow poke or an idiot going around a lawful driver

The stats show than one slow poke in the left lane causes more of those accident inducing lane changes (because everyone has to go around the slow poke). For a guy who seems to have a grasp on probabilities, I'm not sure how you can't understand that

Consequences are obviously worse when someone passes on a two lane highway

 

[Eyeseeing]

RIP boys
Condolences to their families, life is never going to be the same again for them

 

[Jets 31]

RIP boys
Condolences to their families, life is never going to be the same again for them

Just awful, i feel for everyone involved except for the ass that killed them. The Gaudreau's sister must be devastated, both of her brothers die the day before her wedding, just awful.

 

[Gil Fisher]

Read the research. It's overwhelming. People going 30% under the speed limit cause 6X more accidents than people going 15% over

If you're gonna talk in such absolute terms, then at least post a reference or two. This has been studied extensively

Buffdog with his fancy stats. smh.

 

[SensibleGuy]

That

What exactly are you trying to say aside from "I'm wrong but won't admit it"?

If you're traveling 80km/h on Bishop in the right lane and person is doing 65km/h ahead of you, you're likely to change to the left lane to pass them. It's that lane change that leads to increased accidents, whether by a lawful driver going around a slow poke or an idiot going around a lawful driver

The stats show than one slow poke in the left lane causes more of those accident inducing lane changes (because everyone has to go around the slow poke). For a guy who seems to have a grasp on probabilities, I'm not sure how you can't understand that

Consequences are obviously worse when someone passes on a two lane highway

sure, but nobody is ever "forced" to pass someone. Somebody who is going too slow...whether they should be or not, doesn't require that you pass them. You could just drive slowly behind them. The point is, nobody is forced to make an unsafe lane change. Wait, drive slow for a while boo hoo hoo and then when there is a safe opportunity to lane change go for it. Saying that "he was driving 20 kph below the speed limit so I chose to make an unsafe lane change and drove into another car so the slow guy caused the accident" is ludicrous. I mean if there is somebody sitting in a stalled car in the lane (aka - going 0kph) and you get stuck sitting behind them and you pull into the next lane and hit a guy, you are the reason for the accident...not the stalled guy.

 

[Buffdog]

LIke I told another poster, I suggest you read the science behind speed limits

It's not a random number they pull out their asses... it's based on the safest speed that traffic should flow at on any given roadway. Any deviation (above OR below) causes safety issues

Flow of traffic is also a concern... so to suggest that everyone just lines up and follows a car doing 65 in an 80 is ridicoulous. After a certain number of cars tap their breaks to slow down behind that guy, traffic would come to a complete standstill

 

[SensibleGuy]

LIke I told another poster, I suggest you read the science behind speed limits

It's not a random number they pull out their asses... it's based on the safest speed that traffic should flow at on any given roadway. Any deviation (above OR below) causes safety issues

Flow of traffic is also a concern... so to suggest that everyone just lines up and follows a car doing 65 in an 80 is ridicoulous. After a certain number of cars tap their breaks to slow down behind that guy, traffic would come to a complete standstill

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. I also totally agree that people driving too slow are super annoying. But again, if you change lanes to get around someone and you run into another car or cut them off or whatever, you are to blame.

 

[Buffdog]

Its not that people driving slowly are annoying (whichbthey are), it's that they're creating an unsafe driving condition

In terms of who is at fault if someone gets in an accident passing someone, maybe you're technically correct (which has more to do.with an insuramce company decoding who pays for what). But the entire thing wouldn't have happened if someone just wanting to go the speed limit (which is perfectly legal) needs to pass a person going way too slow.

Once my father was sideswiped by a guy running a red light. Just driving along, and out of nowhere a guy hit him. Autopac deemed my dad partially responsible because he "should have seen him". I'm pretty sure it was only so they could make both parties pay their deductible

 

[SensibleGuy]

Yeah 50/50 insurance can be that way. But, it depends. I mentioned my accident several years back - run off the road by a guy changing lanes. He took the blame...and MPI covered me for the full value of my brand new car. More recently, I got run off again by a woman pulling out of a Mcd's drive thru (right turn only and she went left) through a row of cars and into my lane right the hell in front of me. Luckily the guy behind me stopped and left his info as a witness and she was found 100% at fault. $12000 worth of repairs! Interestingly, it turned out she didn't have insurance! MPI called me at some point to say "uhhh, well she has no insurance so you're on the hook for your deductible even though she's at fault." I argued my case, lol. I said "wait, you're telling me this woman does everything wrong, destroys my car and doesn't even have insurance and I have to pay for it? Meanwhile my own insurance is fully paid for the year every year, plus I had somehow managed to avoid contact with her car (swerved violently into the snow bank) so mine was the only damage...that don't seem fair!" They let me off the hook! Now that I think about it I'm kind of amazed lol...

 

[Board Bard]

A slow driver can (and does) create a condition whereby drivers following want to make a lane change to get past. It's annoying, and super easy to think people who are that afraid of driving should stick to cabs and buses. But assuming the slow driver maintains that speed and stays in that lane, no fault goes to the slow driver if an accident ensues. The fault goes to the dumbass who doesn't bother doing a proper lane change with shoulder and mirror checks, or does not leave enough safety margin for unexpected conditions ahead (or behind for that matter). The dumbass might also want to learn what blinkers are for.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Its not that people driving slowly are annoying (whichbthey are), it's that they're creating an unsafe driving condition

In terms of who is at fault if someone gets in an accident passing someone, maybe you're technically correct (which has more to do.with an insuramce company decoding who pays for what). But the entire thing wouldn't have happened if someone just wanting to go the speed limit (which is perfectly legal) needs to pass a person going way too slow.

Once my father was sideswiped by a guy running a red light. Just driving along, and out of nowhere a guy hit him. Autopac deemed my dad partially responsible because he "should have seen him". I'm pretty sure it was only so they could make both parties pay their deductible

I mean, I think we can both agree that MPI, nationwide disgrace that it is, almost invalidates any discussion by its presence. My MPI story involved me pulling over to the curb when I saw someone speeding on an icy road, they skidded right into me, smashed up my car. The other party even *lied*, saying that the other driver of my car was an elderly man who was in the wrong lane. This despite pictures showing the curb to my front right side. This despite me giving the phone number of someone at the game store a block away who would testify I was at that store like ten minutes prior.

Guy said "no evidence, 50/50, take it to court if you want"

In retrospect, I should have. I was really busy with work and slammed and didn't need the distraction, but it's been almost 20 years and I just get more pissed off every time I tell that story, so I guess I missed something.

As for going under the limit:

Sometimes (I'd even wager quite often) the person going below the speed limit is driving correctly; as taught in driver's school, the speed limit is an upper limit for the road under ideal conditions; rain, sleet, snow, or fog, then drivers should reduce speed to whatever maintains necessary stopping distance.

Or if they're on an emergency spare, for another very common example.

Yes, I'm aware I sound like the fat kid in the back seat of the car in Better Off Dead, but been driving all my life and I ain't dead yet, so I gotta be on the right track at least somewhat.

 

[10Ducky10]

Its not that people driving slowly are annoying (whichbthey are), it's that they're creating an unsafe driving condition

In terms of who is at fault if someone gets in an accident passing someone, maybe you're technically correct (which has more to do.with an insuramce company decoding who pays for what). But the entire thing wouldn't have happened if someone just wanting to go the speed limit (which is perfectly legal) needs to pass a person going way too slow.

Once my father was sideswiped by a guy running a red light. Just driving along, and out of nowhere a guy hit him. Autopac deemed my dad partially responsible because he "should have seen him". I'm pretty sure it was only so they could make both parties pay their deductible

Was he making a left turn?

 

[ERYX]

I mean, I think we can both agree that MPI, nationwide disgrace that it is, almost invalidates any discussion by its presence. My MPI story involved me pulling over to the curb when I saw someone speeding on an icy road, they skidded right into me, smashed up my car. The other party even *lied*, saying that the other driver of my car was an elderly man who was in the wrong lane. This despite pictures showing the curb to my front right side. This despite me giving the phone number of someone at the game store a block away who would testify I was at that store like ten minutes prior.

Guy said "no evidence, 50/50, take it to court if you want"

In retrospect, I should have. I was really busy with work and slammed and didn't need the distraction, but it's been almost 20 years and I just get more pissed off every time I tell that story, so I guess I missed something.

As for going under the limit:

Sometimes (I'd even wager quite often) the person going below the speed limit is driving correctly; as taught in driver's school, the speed limit is an upper limit for the road under ideal conditions; rain, sleet, snow, or fog, then drivers should reduce speed to whatever maintains necessary stopping distance.

Or if they're on an emergency spare, for another very common example.

Yes, I'm aware I sound like the fat kid in the back seat of the car in Better Off Dead, but been driving all my life and I ain't dead yet, so I gotta be on the right track at least somewhat.

I really didn't want to detract anymore from the tragedy the Gaudreau family has faced here, but just had to mention, having lived in both Manitoba and Ontario, I've come to really appreciate MPI. Manitobans love to complain about and hate on MPI, and I hated it when I lived in Winnipeg ... but man MPI is still 1000x better and cheaper than private insurance with their supposed "competition". Grass is always greener on the other side of the fence and nothing is perfect -- appreciate what you have!

 

[Holden Caulfield]

I really didn't want to detract anymore from the tragedy the Gaudreau family has faced here, but just had to mention, having lived in both Manitoba and Ontario, I've come to really appreciate MPI. Manitobans love to complain about and hate on MPI, and I hated it when I lived in Winnipeg ... but man MPI is still 1000x better and cheaper than private insurance with their supposed "competition". Grass is always greener on the other side of the fence and nothing is perfect -- appreciate what you have!

Yup. I dealt with private insurance in Alberta. You pay waaaaaay more for far less coverage. OK if your 50+ with 30 years off no traffic tickets, no reported accidents (to insurance)it can ever so slightly cheaper. But in the end it just encourages people to spend out of pocket. And for 95% of ppl, MPI will end up way cheaper and you actually get covered. Trust me, MPI is one of the few things that is hugely beneficial to living in MB vs places like ON or AB. The stories I could tell about private insurance...I once had someone pay me 3k out of pocket to repair my car rather than file with insurance, cause their rates would have gone up by more than 3k PER YEAR if they reported the accident. Among other things.

 

[Buffdog]

I mean, I think we can both agree that MPI, nationwide disgrace that it is, almost invalidates any discussion by its presence. My MPI story involved me pulling over to the curb when I saw someone speeding on an icy road, they skidded right into me, smashed up my car. The other party even *lied*, saying that the other driver of my car was an elderly man who was in the wrong lane. This despite pictures showing the curb to my front right side. This despite me giving the phone number of someone at the game store a block away who would testify I was at that store like ten minutes prior.

Guy said "no evidence, 50/50, take it to court if you want"

In retrospect, I should have. I was really busy with work and slammed and didn't need the distraction, but it's been almost 20 years and I just get more pissed off every time I tell that story, so I guess I missed something.

As for going under the limit:

Sometimes (I'd even wager quite often) the person going below the speed limit is driving correctly; as taught in driver's school, the speed limit is an upper limit for the road under ideal conditions; rain, sleet, snow, or fog, then drivers should reduce speed to whatever maintains necessary stopping distance.

Or if they're on an emergency spare, for another very common example.

Yes, I'm aware I sound like the fat kid in the back seat of the car in Better Off Dead, but been driving all my life and I ain't dead yet, so I gotta be on the right track at least somewhat.

The speed limit is actually set at 85% of the safe speed for the road

Obviously, people need to slow down to drive safely according to road conditions. That's not what I'm talking about

Was he making a left turn?

Nope, they were both driving straight