Seriously-injured B.C. woman awarded $3.2M after husband drove into moose

This... smells like fraud.

"He also said Knight should have braked when he saw the headlights of Thomas�s vehicle blacked out briefly, since a reasonable driver would have thought there was a �material risk,� that it was an animal standing in the headlights."

I wonder if that judge has ever been a driver of a motor vehicle. I'm a cautious driver and I'm always aware of the road, but to connect a brief flicker of headlights to an animal is not something I think any reasonable driver would think. I doubt anyone even an exceptional driver that only drives on back roads would reach that conclusion.

You don't connect a flicker with something amiss ahead?

What do you think caused the flicker...there is not a lot of options.

A) Somebody is in distress...so you should be slowing down.
B) Something obstructed the light...so you should be slowing down.

You don't need to be aware of the exact nature of the problem to be well aware that 'something' ahead is wrong, and that you should be slowing down.

If the husband was negligent, he should be charged with such under criminal law.

This is why my highbeams (which seem to bother people up to 5 miles away)are on. I want to see what's coming. Along Hwy 16 you seem to see an animal trying to cross the road every other trip.... momma bear with 3 cubs a week ago, deer and a tiny fawn last month.
I'll flash the headlights several times to warn others.

And him not being charged is where the the fraud starts to smell.

Depends on the animal, which makes it fun, since you are only going to hit if you have too little time to react and brake, so most likely, too little time to ID the animal.

Moose + car = hit the gas, and pray she goes over you. If you break, you may end up with 300+ kg coming through your windshield.

Moose + anything tall enough to hit the body = meh, you probably wont die, but your vehicle is probably a right off.

Bison + anything = two foot the breaks and kiss your ass goodbye...

All in all, best to avoid if possible via adequate lighting (see herbie's post)and adjusting speed to conditions...less visibility at night, drive slower.

My PO, any way.

Myth Busters busted that one.

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythb ... -moose.htm

Myth Busters busted that one.

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythb ... -moose.htm
I stand corrected.

I do have a question though, and it pertains to the following:



My most common vehicle, for highways, is very low (approx 45" from ground to top of roof), with a very low nose...should I accelerate or brake?

I'm thinking that pretty much everybody will react the same way... foot off accelerator and going to the brake while trying to avoid. The time it takes your brain to kick in and tell you something different, you're probably better off following your first instinct. Depending on what's around you though, sometimes avoidance is near impossible.

A few years ago, a dog came out of the ditch right in front of me. Didn't even have time to hit the brake, but I did flex my hands to turn the wheel before I stopped myself... better the dog than the ditch or incoming traffic at 90kh.

Lol, true enough, by the time I figure it out, it is all over any ways.

While driving down the road a flicker of head lights isn't going to cause me to adjust any pattern of driving. I doubt that in real world conditions anyone else would either.

In hindsight it seems like a reasonable and logical thing to do, but in a short handful of seconds it's not something people would take action on.

We could set up a test, and I think 100% of the population wouldn't react. Get a vehicle and wire a headlight kill switch button, drive down the road at night and flash your lights off of a few milliseconds. No one is going to slow down because of that.