Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Toronto Sun)   Why did the woman help the ducks cross the road? To get convicted for causing the deaths of a motorcyclist and his daughter   (torontosun.com) divider line 264
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

10184 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jun 2014 at 7:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



264 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-20 05:56:51 PM  
I'm thinking the possible sentence may be excessive.  But at the same time.  Stopping your car in a traffic lane to try and chase ducklings into your car?  STUPID!
 
2014-06-20 06:21:46 PM  
Wow, that's dumb.

That said, I'm not too sympathetic to the other drivers who weren't in control enough to safely stop and avoid hitting her. They could have met the same fate at the hands of a broken down car or fallen tree, etc. if you can't see ahead of your own stopping range, you're going too fast.
 
2014-06-20 07:14:00 PM  

serial_crusher: Wow, that's dumb.

That said, I'm not too sympathetic to the other drivers who weren't in control enough to safely stop and avoid hitting her. They could have met the same fate at the hands of a broken down car or fallen tree, etc. if you can't see ahead of your own stopping range, you're going too fast.


One car had to swerve quickly because of her stupidity and the motorcycle had nowhere to go. Nothing will bring back the man and his daughter.
 
2014-06-20 07:23:57 PM  
Who are we to say that those two human lives are worth more than the lives of those ducks?

One of those ducks might grow up to cure cancer.
 
2014-06-20 07:29:01 PM  
Loud pipes!
 
2014-06-20 07:32:28 PM  

Kevin72: One car had to swerve quickly because of her stupidity and the motorcycle had nowhere to go. Nothing will bring back the man and his daughter.


You should always maintain sufficient stopping distance from the car in front of you. They can stop suddenly for all kinds of reasons, including the driver being a jackass. Hence you need to be far enough back to have time to react and time for your breaks to do their thing, so farther back the faster you are going. If you aren't, well then you are being unsafe and that can have deadly consequences.

Here, the law is such that if you rear-end someone it is your fault in basically all cases. Doesn't matter if they just suddenly stomp on the brakes, you should have been far enough back to avoid the collision. Failure to Reduce and Control Speed Resulting in Collision is the ticket you get.
 
2014-06-20 07:32:30 PM  
Was the 2 life's worth even one of those duck's?

One of those ducks could grow up to be a community organizer, of course we would have to forge the ducks birth certificate to say he was born in Hawaii or somewhere.
 
2014-06-20 07:34:51 PM  

sycraft: Kevin72: One car had to swerve quickly because of her stupidity and the motorcycle had nowhere to go. Nothing will bring back the man and his daughter.

You should always maintain sufficient stopping distance from the car in front of you. They can stop suddenly for all kinds of reasons, including the driver being a jackass. Hence you need to be far enough back to have time to react and time for your breaks to do their thing, so farther back the faster you are going. If you aren't, well then you are being unsafe and that can have deadly consequences.

Here, the law is such that if you rear-end someone it is your fault in basically all cases. Doesn't matter if they just suddenly stomp on the brakes, you should have been far enough back to avoid the collision. Failure to Reduce and Control Speed Resulting in Collision is the ticket you get.


What color is the sky in your world?
 
2014-06-20 07:36:12 PM  
on the bright side there will be more ducks to shoot during duck season
 
2014-06-20 07:37:38 PM  
GOOSE!
 
2014-06-20 07:37:42 PM  
Sounds like she pulled over into the oncoming lane to collect the ducks so she could bring them home. No word if she had her hazards on.
 
2014-06-20 07:37:55 PM  

sycraft: Kevin72: One car had to swerve quickly because of her stupidity and the motorcycle had nowhere to go. Nothing will bring back the man and his daughter.

You should always maintain sufficient stopping distance from the car in front of you. They can stop suddenly for all kinds of reasons, including the driver being a jackass. Hence you need to be far enough back to have time to react and time for your breaks to do their thing, so farther back the faster you are going. If you aren't, well then you are being unsafe and that can have deadly consequences.

Here, the law is such that if you rear-end someone it is your fault in basically all cases. Doesn't matter if they just suddenly stomp on the brakes, you should have been far enough back to avoid the collision. Failure to Reduce and Control Speed Resulting in Collision is the ticket you get.


What about when there are no brake lights or hazard lights to indicate the car is stopped? It is significantly more difficult to determine a car is stopped in the lane without those lights. Which is exactly the situation this woman created.
 
2014-06-20 07:38:05 PM  

KidneyStone: What color is the sky in your world?


Blue, because I live in the real world: Where people sometimes do stupid shiat, and you need to look out for your own safety or it may cost you. I'm not trying to argue that this woman is right for what she did, I'm saying that it is on you to stay far enough back from the car in front of you. Only you have control over that and only that can prevent you from hitting them if they stop suddenly. Saying "Well they shouldn't do that," doesn't make it not happen.
 
2014-06-20 07:38:07 PM  
Leave ducks alone?
 
2014-06-20 07:39:01 PM  
Stopping in the left lane with no hazard lights on is pretty stupid, I'm not saying she isn't wrong. However, Quebec drivers are pretty horrible. You can't legally make a right hand turn on a red light in that province, WTF?
 
2014-06-20 07:39:09 PM  

HotGore: Sounds like she pulled over into the oncoming lane to collect the ducks so she could bring them home. No word if she had her hazards on.


you should have your hazards on when you are being a hazard
 
2014-06-20 07:39:42 PM  
You guys quack me up
 
2014-06-20 07:40:16 PM  

Kevin72: serial_crusher: Wow, that's dumb.

That said, I'm not too sympathetic to the other drivers who weren't in control enough to safely stop and avoid hitting her. They could have met the same fate at the hands of a broken down car or fallen tree, etc. if you can't see ahead of your own stopping range, you're going too fast.

One car had to swerve quickly because of her stupidity and the motorcycle had nowhere to go. Nothing will bring back the man and his daughter.


Also, she hadn't turned her hazard lights on. Broken down or not, if you are posing a hazard to other motorists you should at least make them aware of it.
 
2014-06-20 07:40:41 PM  

KidneyStone: sycraft: Kevin72: One car had to swerve quickly because of her stupidity and the motorcycle had nowhere to go. Nothing will bring back the man and his daughter.

You should always maintain sufficient stopping distance from the car in front of you. They can stop suddenly for all kinds of reasons, including the driver being a jackass. Hence you need to be far enough back to have time to react and time for your breaks to do their thing, so farther back the faster you are going. If you aren't, well then you are being unsafe and that can have deadly consequences.

Here, the law is such that if you rear-end someone it is your fault in basically all cases. Doesn't matter if they just suddenly stomp on the brakes, you should have been far enough back to avoid the collision. Failure to Reduce and Control Speed Resulting in Collision is the ticket you get.

What color is the sky in your world?


You have an apt name.
 
2014-06-20 07:41:54 PM  

sycraft: Kevin72: One car had to swerve quickly because of her stupidity and the motorcycle had nowhere to go. Nothing will bring back the man and his daughter.

You should always maintain sufficient stopping distance from the car in front of you. They can stop suddenly for all kinds of reasons, including the driver being a jackass. Hence you need to be far enough back to have time to react and time for your breaks to do their thing, so farther back the faster you are going. If you aren't, well then you are being unsafe and that can have deadly consequences.

Here, the law is such that if you rear-end someone it is your fault in basically all cases. Doesn't matter if they just suddenly stomp on the brakes, you should have been far enough back to avoid the collision. Failure to Reduce and Control Speed Resulting in Collision is the ticket you get.


How do you maintain a sufficient stopping distance for a stopped car that you can't see just over the crest of a hill?
 
2014-06-20 07:42:37 PM  
You know the whole time this bubble-headed oxygen thief was thinking about how cool her post to twitter/instagram about it would be.

Anybody lacking basic common sense to the point that their poor judgment kills someone deserves to get bowel cancer and die slow.
 
2014-06-20 07:43:57 PM  
Pretty sure we had this story on Fark when it happened back in 2010
 
2014-06-20 07:44:05 PM  

moike: You know the whole time this bubble-headed oxygen thief was thinking about how cool her post to twitter/instagram about it would be.

Anybody lacking basic common sense to the point that their poor judgment kills someone deserves to get bowel cancer and die slow.


^this
 
2014-06-20 07:44:47 PM  
Not turning on her hazard lights was a horrible, horrible oversight and is probably what got her convicted. There's a reason they're important -- yes, you're supposed to be able to slow down in time if you see a car stopped in front of you, but seeing the hazard lights is what lets you know in time that it HAS stopped. I can't even imagine what she was thinking. I mean, even if there hadn't been an accident then, there would definitely have been one later when she was trying to drive with eight or nine ducks flapping around inside her car.
 
2014-06-20 07:45:29 PM  
sycraft: You should always maintain sufficient stopping distance from the car in front of you.

This. Especially if you choose a method of roadway use that puts you into a much more vulnerable position.

I still think the girl should get some kind of sentence, clearly (and wish we took our traffic deaths here in good old USofA as seriously), for stopping unsafely in a traffic lane, but the deaths themselves are the fault of the motorcyclist who either wasn't looking at his lane ahead or was following too closely. If she had stopped suddenly because there was a giant sinkhole or a boulder in the road, the end result would have been the same for the Roys.

/Rider
//but not on highways. Too many crazy farks on highways.
 
2014-06-20 07:46:06 PM  

SuperDarly: Stopping in the left lane with no hazard lights on is pretty stupid, I'm not saying she isn't wrong. However, Quebec drivers are pretty horrible. You can't legally make a right hand turn on a red light in that province, WTF?


You can, but not on the Montreal island and where signage prohibits.

And yes we have our share of stupid drivers, but it's not all that bad.
 
2014-06-20 07:46:09 PM  

sycraft: Kevin72: One car had to swerve quickly because of her stupidity and the motorcycle had nowhere to go. Nothing will bring back the man and his daughter.

You should always maintain sufficient stopping distance from the car in front of you. They can stop suddenly for all kinds of reasons, including the driver being a jackass. Hence you need to be far enough back to have time to react and time for your breaks to do their thing, so farther back the faster you are going. If you aren't, well then you are being unsafe and that can have deadly consequences.


I think his point was that the car in front of the biker jumped lanes because IT didn't have time/room to stop without plowing the defendants stationary car. The motorcycle may have left enough room to stop if the car in front of him nailed the brakes, because he would have had his reaction time and stopping distance IN ADDITION to the time/distance it took the car in front of him to decelerate from ~65mph to 0mph. By the time the car in front of the biker cleared his vision, he had a stationary object at the same distance from him as the car he was (safely) following.

Just a possibility of course; we don't have video of the event. Take into consideration, though, that the victims were a 50 year old man and his 16 year old daughter out on a Sunday cruise. That doesn't fit the same profile as a squid on a crotch rocket weaving lanes during rush hour on a weekday.
 
2014-06-20 07:46:15 PM  

mjjt: Pretty sure we had this story on Fark when it happened back in 2010


Then why is my news article about it 6 hours old?
 
2014-06-20 07:46:41 PM  
by some of the comments here, it sounds like I should be able to slam on my brakes at any time, for any reason, and be able to get away with it scott free?  Give me a break.

Two people died because of her direct selfish and stupid actions, i hope the biatch rots in prison or if she "gets away" with it... has something similar happen to her. Karma is a biatch.
 
2014-06-20 07:47:18 PM  
/O S A R
//C M Wangs
///L I B...SMASH!
 
2014-06-20 07:47:32 PM  

mjjt: Pretty sure we had this story on Fark when it happened back in 2010


She just got convicted today.
 
2014-06-20 07:47:35 PM  

LoneVVolf:  squid on a crotch rocket


Can I change my fark handle?
 
2014-06-20 07:48:13 PM  

KidneyStone: sycraft: Kevin72: One car had to swerve quickly because of her stupidity and the motorcycle had nowhere to go. Nothing will bring back the man and his daughter.

You should always maintain sufficient stopping distance from the car in front of you. They can stop suddenly for all kinds of reasons, including the driver being a jackass. Hence you need to be far enough back to have time to react and time for your breaks to do their thing, so farther back the faster you are going. If you aren't, well then you are being unsafe and that can have deadly consequences.

Here, the law is such that if you rear-end someone it is your fault in basically all cases. Doesn't matter if they just suddenly stomp on the brakes, you should have been far enough back to avoid the collision. Failure to Reduce and Control Speed Resulting in Collision is the ticket you get.

What color is the sky in your world?


Blue, just like yours.  The motorcyclist hit an inanimate object.  How is that the driver's fault?

Yes, she's a dumbass for stopping in the road, but that's not criminally negligent.  If stupidity has been criminalized, I need to get into the prison business.
 
2014-06-20 07:49:11 PM  

accelerus: by some of the comments here, it sounds like I should be able to slam on my brakes at any time, for any reason, and be able to get away with it scott free?  Give me a break.


Yes, you should.  What's wrong with that?  She wasn't slamming on the brakes, she was stopped just over a crest where she was invisible to cars in her lane.  When you slam on the brakes, it's the other driver's fault if they hit you, because they were following too closely.  If you are parked and hidden and they hit you, it is your fault.

Two people died because of her direct selfish and stupid actions, i hope the biatch rots in prison or if she "gets away" with it... has something similar happen to her. Karma is a biatch.
 
2014-06-20 07:49:25 PM  

SuperDarly: Stopping in the left lane with no hazard lights on is pretty stupid, I'm not saying she isn't wrong. However, Quebec drivers are pretty horrible. You can't legally make a right hand turn on a red light in that province, WTF?


The drivers here are pretty horrible but the red light thing is only the island of Montreal.

What the girl did was stupid but I see a blind eye turned to the incredibly agressive and stupid things Quebec drivers do all the time. Seems kind of a shame someone might make an example of her.
 
2014-06-20 07:49:41 PM  
Coming to a complete stop IN a lane on a highway without hazard lights. It is reasonable to foresee this causing a deadly accident.

The motorcycle could have been tailgating her the whole time but she should still be found guilty. If the motorcyclist had been doing something poorly AS WELL, then consider the punishment for their contributory negligence served, however this would not excuse her actions, it would merely reduce her sentence (which will likely be very low regardless).

So regardless of the motorcyclists position in the accident she should still be guilty for the poor decision she made. I would recommend a punishment that sets an example to the wider public, though, and not have her rot in jail. Maybe speaking at school seminars or something about how simple actions can have fatal consequences. Or a TV ad.
 
2014-06-20 07:49:51 PM  

kevinboehm: KidneyStone: sycraft: Kevin72: One car had to swerve quickly because of her stupidity and the motorcycle had nowhere to go. Nothing will bring back the man and his daughter.

You should always maintain sufficient stopping distance from the car in front of you. They can stop suddenly for all kinds of reasons, including the driver being a jackass. Hence you need to be far enough back to have time to react and time for your breaks to do their thing, so farther back the faster you are going. If you aren't, well then you are being unsafe and that can have deadly consequences.

Here, the law is such that if you rear-end someone it is your fault in basically all cases. Doesn't matter if they just suddenly stomp on the brakes, you should have been far enough back to avoid the collision. Failure to Reduce and Control Speed Resulting in Collision is the ticket you get.

What color is the sky in your world?

Blue, just like yours.  The motorcyclist hit an inanimate object.  How is that the driver's fault?

Yes, she's a dumbass for stopping in the road, but that's not criminally negligent.   If stupidity has been criminalized, I need to get into the prison business.


Have you heard of "manslaughter"?  No, it isn't mans-laughter!
 
2014-06-20 07:50:18 PM  

accelerus: by some of the comments here, it sounds like I should be able to slam on my brakes at any time, for any reason, and be able to get away with it scott free?  Give me a break.

Two people died because of her direct selfish and stupid actions, i hope the biatch rots in prison or if she "gets away" with it... has something similar happen to her. Karma is a biatch.


Problem is that she didn't slam her brakes on the highway. She just stopped there, no hazard lights and got out of her car. Eventually a bike came by and didn't notice the car wasn't moving in time.

Had she put on her hazards on she might have escaped being "criminally" negligent.
 
2014-06-20 07:51:01 PM  

aimtastic: Who are we to say that those two human lives are worth more than the lives of those ducks?

One of those ducks might grow up to cure cancer.


Who would trust a cancer cure from a quack like any of those ducks?

Since when do we care about people on motorcycles anyway?  The only good biker is a dead biker.  And fark them for not being in control of their bike in the first place.

She did a stupid thing.  It's too bad she didn't perish along with the bikers.

The ducks were innocent in all of this.  I hope they don't still have them in the evidence locker.
 
2014-06-20 07:51:19 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Kevin72: serial_crusher: Wow, that's dumb.

That said, I'm not too sympathetic to the other drivers who weren't in control enough to safely stop and avoid hitting her. They could have met the same fate at the hands of a broken down car or fallen tree, etc. if you can't see ahead of your own stopping range, you're going too fast.

One car had to swerve quickly because of her stupidity and the motorcycle had nowhere to go. Nothing will bring back the man and his daughter.

Also, she hadn't turned her hazard lights on. Broken down or not, if you are posing a hazard to other motorists you should at least make them aware of it.


Actually, stopping on a highway without good reason like mechanical failure (in the actual lane, hazard lights on or not) is enough to get you a ticket. Since you are already breaking the law, you start to forfeit your privileges. For example, I was in a vehicular accident (not serious) where the driver pulled right to turn left. To top it off, he didn't have a functioning turn signal. I started to pass the van, and he turned left into my car. Fortunately nothing but bent metal all around.

Unfortunatley for him, and his insurance, he lost his presumptive innocence (it was a single lane with parking) when he 'failed to signal'.

People would be surprised all the fun things in traffic law that negate another portion.
 
2014-06-20 07:51:44 PM  
Also, where the hell are you people getting that she was trying to get the ducks "into her car"?  The article says she was trying to get them out of the road.
 
2014-06-20 07:51:54 PM  
I think what the woman did was tragic.  I think its more tragic humans lost lives over this.
/is it bad however that Im not surprised they were hardley ableson riders?
 
2014-06-20 07:52:26 PM  

sycraft: You should always maintain sufficient stopping distance from the car in front of you.


True, but very difficult in reality. I try to do this, but other people just see my space cushion as a gap in traffic and merge in front of me. Rinse repeat. Unless you're driving during off hours or on sparsely driven roads, leaving enough stopping space in front of you is just an invitation for everyone else to jump in front of you. The only real way to pull it off is just to drive slower than traffic, and then you just end up being tailgated or chastised on Fark for being "that asshole who's driving too slow".
 
2014-06-20 07:52:35 PM  

moeburn: sycraft: Kevin72: One car had to swerve quickly because of her stupidity and the motorcycle had nowhere to go. Nothing will bring back the man and his daughter.

You should always maintain sufficient stopping distance from the car in front of you. They can stop suddenly for all kinds of reasons, including the driver being a jackass. Hence you need to be far enough back to have time to react and time for your breaks to do their thing, so farther back the faster you are going. If you aren't, well then you are being unsafe and that can have deadly consequences.

Here, the law is such that if you rear-end someone it is your fault in basically all cases. Doesn't matter if they just suddenly stomp on the brakes, you should have been far enough back to avoid the collision. Failure to Reduce and Control Speed Resulting in Collision is the ticket you get.

How do you maintain a sufficient stopping distance for a stopped car that you can't see just over the crest of a hill?


Maybe you should slow down then.  I frequently have come across a blind corner / blind hill while driving and come upon wildlife, a downed tree, a prior accident, stopped traffic due to congestion, or any number of other reasons or non-reasons to need to rapidly slow down or stop.  It sucks that he died and killed his daughter but the idiot going too fast to safely control or stop his vehicle is 100% at fault.

And as for the hazards not being on, I have also been driving in a car where the alternator died and then the car stalled once the battery was depleted with no electrical power remaining to even run the hazards. Thankfully I was in the right hand lane with a wide shoulder so I didn't cause a problem, but if the situation had been different I could very easily have stalled and been unable to turn my hazards on.
 
2014-06-20 07:52:56 PM  
Commies, the lot of 'em.  Even the goddamned ducks.
 
2014-06-20 07:53:57 PM  

Eps05: SuperDarly: Stopping in the left lane with no hazard lights on is pretty stupid, I'm not saying she isn't wrong. However, Quebec drivers are pretty horrible. You can't legally make a right hand turn on a red light in that province, WTF?

You can, but not on the Montreal island and where signage prohibits.

And yes we have our share of stupid drivers, but it's not all that bad.


Not as bad as Toronto during rush hour.
 
2014-06-20 07:54:29 PM  

sycraft: KidneyStone: What color is the sky in your world?

Blue, because I live in the real world: Where people sometimes do stupid shiat, and you need to look out for your own safety or it may cost you. I'm not trying to argue that this woman is right for what she did, I'm saying that it is on you to stay far enough back from the car in front of you. Only you have control over that and only that can prevent you from hitting them if they stop suddenly. Saying "Well they shouldn't do that," doesn't make it not happen.


I agree. As someone who rides a motorcycle every day, in Dallas, my safety is exactly that. Mine. It's incumbent upon me to assume everyone else on the road is out to kill me in inventive ways, not out of malice, but because they are incompetent.  Which, in this case, means maintaining enough distance from the leading vehicle to safely stop in an emergency.

And frankly, if I have my daughter on the bike with me, I'm going to do whatever the fark it takes to protect her as much as possible. Now:

A) No mention of safety gear for either rider. Rag-dolling off a high side means survival is low odds anyway, but I'm willing to bet they were wearing the equivalent of a 5$ half helmet and nothing else.

B) The 25 year old car driver had THREE YEARS of driving experience? WTF?  People here would have had 9 or 10.

C) It's a tragedy that people lost their lives so one woman could save the lives of ducks. I also think it's a tragedy she's getting 14 years in prison for non-intentional double homicide where the victim is to blame almost as much as she is.

D) For motorcycling: buy the god damned safety gear. Jacket, pants, helmet, gloves, and at least some leather boots (and no, jeans aren't safety gear, they disintegrate the same as polyester slacks). You can trick out the gear for summer/winter riding with liners and such. I'm a 280 lbs fat fark living in Dallas, and it's NEVER too hot for me to wear my gear.  Insurance companies will write you a check to completely replace your safety gear in case of a wreck.  And it takes a couple minutes to put on. Especially if you have overpants, you just slide them on.

CSB:
I work with a guy who rides. He said, I shiat you not, 'I won't spend more than 10$ on safety gear because if I have a wreck it's just going to get destroyed anyway'.  His idea of 'safety gear' was...a windbreaker.  He's also a firm believer in 'loud pipes save lives'.
 
2014-06-20 07:55:14 PM  
How about this shiat?  If bikers and retarded animal rights people can exclude each other from society, maybe there is hope for this world. If she was struck by the flying harley it would have been perfect.
 
2014-06-20 07:55:17 PM  
I'm against the ruling on the basis that she's relatively attractive

//not really.  I ride, and I'm happily married
 
2014-06-20 07:55:17 PM  

moeburn: kevinboehm: KidneyStone: sycraft: Kevin72: One car had to swerve quickly because of her stupidity and the motorcycle had nowhere to go. Nothing will bring back the man and his daughter.

You should always maintain sufficient stopping distance from the car in front of you. They can stop suddenly for all kinds of reasons, including the driver being a jackass. Hence you need to be far enough back to have time to react and time for your breaks to do their thing, so farther back the faster you are going. If you aren't, well then you are being unsafe and that can have deadly consequences.

Here, the law is such that if you rear-end someone it is your fault in basically all cases. Doesn't matter if they just suddenly stomp on the brakes, you should have been far enough back to avoid the collision. Failure to Reduce and Control Speed Resulting in Collision is the ticket you get.

What color is the sky in your world?

Blue, just like yours.  The motorcyclist hit an inanimate object.  How is that the driver's fault?

Yes, she's a dumbass for stopping in the road, but that's not criminally negligent.   If stupidity has been criminalized, I need to get into the prison business.

Have you heard of "manslaughter"?  No, it isn't mans-laughter!


Have you ever heard of "Self-Preservation"? It's your job to make sure you don't kill yourself by hitting an inanimate object, not mine.  I have no control over your vehicle.

This ruling suggests the tree is at fault if a driver goes off the road and hits it.
 
Displayed 50 of 264 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report