Woman killed crossing Kirkland highway
A woman was killed this morning as she crossed a highway in Kirkland.
-
Kate
Reply
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- LJ on Aggressive dogs on the rise
- CE on Radio-Canada and its art collection
- jeather on Aggressive dogs on the rise
- Kate on Radio-Canada and its art collection
- EmilyG on STM bus map to change in West Island
- bob on PQ can win election – if they abandon a referendum
- Harvey on Radio-Canada and its art collection
Pages
Other levels of gov’t
Sideblog projects
Enviro Montreal is a Bluesky feed that follows local environment news. Also available on Mastodon.
Archives
Pages rescued from montreal.com
Meta
EmilyG 13:18 on 2019-08-27 Permalink
It’s so sad that this happened.
It’s also sad that the first news items about it just said that the accident involved vehicles and a pedestrian, and said which highways were open or closed, and didn’t mention anyone died.
Ian Rogers 15:54 on 2019-08-27 Permalink
Sweet Jebus, trying to cross the 40 on foot during rush hour? That’s not a good idea.
Blork 16:45 on 2019-08-27 Permalink
There’s gotta be more to this story than meets the eye. No sane person would try to cross that highway — it involves six lanes of highway, four lanes of service road, and climbing over two fences. Clearly she wasn’t just out for a stroll.
The most likely thing that comes to mind is she was driving and had a breakdown. Perhaps her car stalled on the outside lane and she was trying to get off the highway on foot. But that’s not hard to figure out as a reason, so why would the police say they don’t know why she was on the highway?
A less likely and more nefarious reason is that she fell, jumped, or was pushed from one of the Chemin Ste-Marie overpasses onto the highway below.
Otherwise, this is a mind-boggler.
Kate 20:46 on 2019-08-27 Permalink
I guess in a sense it isn’t a pedestrian death. I was uncertain about that but if she was darting among busy traffic, yes, something was wrong in a different way.
Bert 13:26 on 2019-08-28 Permalink
Blork, you seem to have no read the article. While not explicit, it is implied that there was no car: “Police do not know why she was on the highway”. I would think that if there was a car, there would have been mention o it .
Blork 13:58 on 2019-08-28 Permalink
Bert, I read the article. Like you say, it wasn’t explicit that there was no car, and this is obviously a hastily written article based on almost no research, so maybe there was a car maybe not. All I said was the obvious thing that comes to mind is that she came from a car. But then I questioned that assumption right there in my comment. In the end my thesis is simply that it is highly unusual for someone to be walking on that highway, so there must be more to the story.
Bert 22:41 on 2019-08-28 Permalink
Blork, if she was in a car, presumably broken down or otherwise disabled, why would the police be quoted with “Police do not know why she was on the highway”. If she had a car it would be a reason why she would be on the highway? Perhaps to get fuel, sure, but the article also says “was walking across the highway”. Would this not be an opportune time to say something like “was walking across the highway, to go to a nearby service station.”
“it wasn’t explicit that there was no car”. Why invent something that is not being reported? It wasn’t explicit that there was no (gun, hot air balloon, etc.) There are lots of things in life that don’t always make sense and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Blork 09:39 on 2019-08-29 Permalink
“… if she was in a car, presumably broken down or otherwise disabled, why would the police be quoted with “Police do not know why she was on the highway”.” For Pete’s sake, Bert. They might say that because for some reason we don’t know about, they are keeping quiet on details.
Or maybe that particular cop didn’t want to go on record with a speculation. Because if the woman is dead then she wasn’t able to give a statement, and seeing her car there would be SPECULATING that there was a breakdown or she was out of gas.
Or maybe the reporter was in a hurry and didn’t ask the right questions, or misinterpreted the answer. The article was very brief and short on details, and when you see an article like that you KNOW there is information missing, such as the presence or absence of a car. This kind of thing happens all the time.
My point was that a car breakdown is the ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION that comes to mind with such little info to go on. But since no car was mentioned, then that’s PROBABLY NOT the explanation, so WTF is the explanation? Unless she’s mentally ill, there is no other reason for her to be walking on that highway. It’s not like a country road out in the Laurentians. Only an insane person would try to walk across that highway unless they felt they had no choice.
Sad 17:50 on 2019-09-09 Permalink
There’s a back story to the accident. I got the story from my wife who works with one of her relatives.
She worked in one of the shops close to the Colisée movie theater and was running late for work. She had taken the wrong bus and landed on the opposite side of the highway with only a couple of minutes to report for her shift. Apparently her boss was a nightmare and had fired several employees that month for tardiness.
She’d gotten off the phone with her father in a panic and rather than walk along the overpass and risk arriving a couple of minutes late, she had told her father that she would run across the highway. You know the rest of the story.
Kate 19:34 on 2019-09-09 Permalink
Oh man. Thanks for telling us, but that’s such a horrible reason to lose a life.