Agree. And I find it surprising that the women in the article was sentenced to anything. It is certainly a moronic decision to stop on the motorway on the wrong line to protect ducklings, but what about a motorcycle that hits a static object? If it didn't have the visibility to have the time to stop then it was going too fast.

In a lot of places, there is a minimum speed on the freeway. In a lot of places, it's illegal to stop on the freeway. You may see cars broken down along the highway with tickets on the windshield and then getting towed after a period of time.

Freeways are very safe as long as traffic is moving at a more-or-less steady speed. That's why the speed limits can be so high, higher than would be safe if you needed to regularly stop. And people are not used to stopping on the freeway. It takes a long time to come to a stop from 70, 75, even 80mph, and if you're not expecting to have to stop, it can take longer than normal to realize you have to stop. Even in easily-recognizable traffic jams, many people have to emergency brake because they don't realize how long it takes to stop when you're going at freeway speeds.

Freeways are very dangerous places for stopped traffic. It is your responsibility to keep moving in traffic, and if you have to stop, to make sure you stop safely and only when absolutely required.

It was not absolutely required for this woman to stop, it was illegal for her to stop, and this terrible and unnecessary decision cost someone else their life. The fact that the motorcyclist also made a bad judgement call doesn't negate the fact that this driver made a completely unnecessary and illegal decision that cost the cyclist his life.

That's why I linked to an article where a woman went to jail for stopping on the freeway for a small animal. There is a problem with braking, and it's not always the fault of the car behind you if they hit you.

The law disagrees with you, and that's what matters.

> There is a problem with braking, and it's not always the fault of the car behind you if they hit you.

The driver is too close if they cannot stop in time. It's not complicated. It is always the following driver's fault, unless the car in front has defective brake lights.

You guys keep saying that like your opinion on the law outweighs that of a judge.

It obviously is not always the following driver's fault, or that woman wouldn't have gone to jail. You're wrong. It doesn't matter your argument. I provided proof that you're wrong and you're still arguing your wrong argument wrongly and continuing to be wrong.

You can argue with me until I give up and then you can declare victory but you're still wrong, and not only that, you're completely oblivious to the idea that you're wrong. The fact that a woman went to jail for literally this exact thing proves that you are wrong.

Hopefully that makes it clear, even to those of you who didn't read the link that I took the time to find and provide to you. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you're so obviously wrong and yet still arguing against the law that I feel like I have to make it very clear that you are wrong. Go back and read the link I provided. You're wrong.

She wasn't braking. She was parked. The car was stopped, there were no brake lights. She had no hazard lights on.

The article is about a woman literally parking on the freeway and trying to ferry ducks off the road.

There is a significant difference between that and braking sharply.