chidizzle
Well-known member
False, loud pipes would have made the driver aware of the rider before all this would have happened.
wasn't there a rider wrote on the forum he laid it down cuz a car turnde left in front of him. the bike never made contact with the car. and when a cop came he charged the rider with careless. i wonder how the driver was caught in OP's case. yeah guys like that should not drive period.
I should've asked the cop when he stopped by, but at the time I was in the ER, had not yet been given any pain medication and not in a talking mood. It's entirely possible the guy clipped me, that's what would make the most sense.exactly what im wondering and why i asked that.
Loud pipes would have helped you avoid this situation.
Has anyone been in an accident where they successfully sued the at-fault driver for negligence or emotional distress or pain & suffering? Anyone know a lawyer in the GTA who specializes in this stuff, or should I just give it up
unfortunately it also sounds like the offender will most likely get off (most charges), esp. with a decent lawyer. i have good knowledge of 3 different "failure to remain" where they got off b/c they or their rep. succesfully argued that they were not aware an accident had happened.
You say that he cut you off because he failed to check his mirrors or do a decent shoulder check. If this is the case, he didn't see you before the crash.The fact is, it's hard to miss a person flying in the air and landing on the roof of a car. He saw it, I know he did, and he just kept on driving. He didn't even know if I was alive or dead. How can you almost kill someone and not even slow down?
lol...I think we need a "Installing a Stebel Nautilus 101" video on youtube.
There's a ton of posts on other forums. Google is your friend
Unless you actually made contact with his car, then why would you expect that he would have seen you crash into a parked car that would also be behind him and out of his direct line of sight?
This happens all the time.This is ridiculous, why would the law allow ignorance to be an excuse? It's the responsibility of a driver to make sure what they're doing is safe. By this logic I could just drive around not checking my mirrors anywhere and be able to get off scot free for any accidents I cause.
Nah, a black spidi jacket.Sorry to hear this Oxymoron,
Btw - did you have a Michael Jordan leather jacket ? I used to see a CBR 125 rider everyday on the Danforth .
The convolutions of law frustrate me. I suppose next time I have an accident I should plow into the offending vehicle instead of an uninvolved partyIf the Crown can't offer up convincing evidence that the other driver was actually aware of the crash, that set of charges could easily be dismissed. Any admission by the driver that he didn't see you prior to changing lanes will only add credence to the further argument that he also didn't see you crash. It's quite difficult to be convicted for leaving the scene of a collision that you were never aware of in the first place.
As for the careless driving charge, it could easily get pled down to an improper lane change or fail to yield right of way conviction. Minimal points, minor ticket, minimal fine.
Didn't I read a story last season where someone said they had to swerve into the oncoming traffic lane to avoid a major collision because someone in front of them cut them off or something, got into a much more minor accident, then got charged and was found at fault and the cop actually told the person they should've just slammed into the person in front of them (in a much worse accident) instead? Or maybe they avoided the accident but still got charged for something... I don't remember but it was kind of stupid.The convolutions of law frustrate me. I suppose next time I have an accident I should plow into the offending vehicle instead of an uninvolved party![]()
lol...I think we need a "Installing a Stebel Nautilus 101" video on youtube.