My guess would be that you never read the initial post, and simply want to make a blanket idiot post. Just how loud do you think a 4 stroke 125 is? A proper horn is louder. So it should be " a loud horn saves lives ".
Lane change w/o a shoulder check and broken bones
- Thread starter oxymoron
- Start date
My guess would be that you never read the initial post, and simply want to make a blanket idiot post. Just how loud do you think a 4 stroke 125 is? A proper horn is louder. So it should be " a loud horn saves lives ".
niagara_ridder
Well-known member
Not true. You don't need to be involved in a collision to be at fault for the accident. I am an insurance adjuster and have come accross claims such as these.
OP you need to meet a certain threshold to sue the at fault party, but with broken bones that should not be a problem
GWS
That's great to know. I assumed the opposite.
Many HTA offences are absolute liability offences. To be convicted, there is no need to prove the you willfully intended to do it. The Crown just needs prove that you did it, and no excuses for why you did it would matter.
Other offences require the Crown to prove that you actively intended to commit the act, in other words, that you had mens rea or guilty mind. Failure to remain and failure to render aid fall into this category. If you know you are in a crash, you have a duty to stop and if necessary render aid. However, if you were not even aware that a crash had occurred, then how could you be guilty of deliberately choosing to leave the crash scene or not render aid? The Crown will have to somehow prove that he was aware a crash had happened.
This is different from you driving around and not checking your mirrors. You have a duty to be aware of traffic around you. Being ignorant of the presence of other traffic is not a defence if you hit them because you failed to take reasonable care, such as checking mirrors and blind spots. This is where a careless driving charge can come in.
However, there is a potential out even on this charge if you can manage to show to the court that you DID take reasonable care to look for traffic around you, but the person you hit was driving/riding well outside the realm of what you would reasonably be expected to look out for. Probably the most common example of this is a left-turner making a turn in what he thought was enough room, only to run into oncoming warp-boy travelling at speeds high above the speed limit and above what would be reasonably expected at that location.
With respect to this particular crash and the careless driving charge, it's even possible that a JP might side with the driver if the driver's lawyer is able to successful argue that there was no reasonable expectation for a moving vehicle to be at the driver's right rear in a lane occupied with parked cars. As far as charges and prospect of conviction go, this one is not as cut and dry as some might think.
Last edited:
No. It should be loud horn wired permanently on saves lives, assuming you go by the rationale provided by the loud pipe contingent here.
derailleur
Well-known member
Get Well Soon.
You will be able to get some money from this, it will come out of the other driver's insurance (liability) and also your own insurance will cover your gear and lost income due to the accident (accident benefits). Get a lawyer as soon as possible, if you're in school of some sort get every possible accomodation you can for your injuries and make sure that they are documented (believe or not this can & does come into play).
I've been through the process. It's long and tedious and the lawyer will probably end up with around a third of the money you get, but you will most likely get a reasonable chunk.
You will be able to get some money from this, it will come out of the other driver's insurance (liability) and also your own insurance will cover your gear and lost income due to the accident (accident benefits). Get a lawyer as soon as possible, if you're in school of some sort get every possible accomodation you can for your injuries and make sure that they are documented (believe or not this can & does come into play).
I've been through the process. It's long and tedious and the lawyer will probably end up with around a third of the money you get, but you will most likely get a reasonable chunk.
Thank you for posting up your experience. It's sad that this happened to you, you seem like a sensible person who tried to do the right thing but got screwed by someone who should not have been on the road. I hope your recovery is smooth and the preson gets their license suspended.
Not trying to blame the victim here, but 1 word. defensive driving, u were going too fast, how on a 125? it's a mystery but if u can't brake faster than the car in forn, you are going too fast.
Would u rather be right and have broken bones or be safe ... it's your choice really
Would u rather be right and have broken bones or be safe ... it's your choice really
Venom01
Well-known member
But him blaring his horn still couldn't hmmmmmmmm..... what logic.
Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk
adamwest
Well-known member
Sorry to hear of your fate and hope you recover soon. The details of your incident lead me to believe that this is a classic misjudgment brought on by panic that new riders often succumb to. Usually the car coming over, unless colliding with the parked cars, would have left room for you to squeeze or just even come to a stop between the parked car (or just behind) and the idiot who obviously didn't see you in their blind spot (or at all). Anyhow, this is a scenario that occurs often, and new riders should prepare to deal with it. As far as suing, it is usually an investment most people can't afford, and certainly not worth the investment of the other driver is either not at fault, or of little means. Cheers!
suzuki2000
Well-known member
...
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
...
Sadly true... Many years ago my wife was in a situation where she had a choice of a head on colission or swerve out of her lane in a snow storm. She chose the latter, and slid into a parked car. She became at fault, fairly costly damge, the other car did not stop.
Unfortunate lesson at least from an insurance perspective is that she should have held her line and taken the head on collision.
In practice, her avoiding the colission served for her to walk away relativley unhurt, but our insurance took a short term hit.
Luckily the attending police did not charge her, but could do nothing as there were no other witnesses to seek out the other driver
This aspect could come into play if the OP decides to launch a civil law suit against the other driver. To what extent did the OP's own riding prior to the crash contribute to the crash occurring, and did the OP do all that he could to avoid collision?
Note that this has nothing to do with whether the OP was riding legally or not, but whether the OP was riding as prudently as possible. There is a difference, and the other driver's lawyer would attempt to exploit that difference.
Unlike criminal court where you are either convicted or not, a big part in civil suits involving injury claims involves apportioning each party's contribution to the end result. A judge might decide that the OP suffered damages worth X amount in compensation, but then reduce that amount by say 25% or 50% if he believes that the OP's own acts contributed 25% or 50% to the crash happening.
Unless something has recently changed, any award under $100,000 is also automatically reduced by a $30,000 deductible, and that's assuming you even meet the necessary threshold of injury required to sue in the first place. The Insurance Act of Ontario makes that threshold quite high, as Rukus mentioned. Permanent and/or disfiguring injury is a pretty high bar to meet, as are injury-related medical and loss of income expenses incurred that are not covered by your own insurance insurance policy and are beyond the $30,000 automatic deductible.
Last edited:
niagara_ridder
Well-known member
Tubro you are right there is a $30k deductible applied on all tort actions.
As for the threshold you are fairly correct. There is also mental injury that is considered. With a broken pelvis there is no way the OP doesn't meet the threshold. Have seen far less injuries make the threshold thanks to a 'creative lawyer' and questionable medical reports. The OP's insurer will provide benefits benefits such as therapy and lost income of $400 a week if he's working. The basis of the tort claim will likely be pain and suffering as well as any expenses not covered by the first party insurer.
As for contributory negligence shouldn't be an issue here with the charges laid against the other vehicle. The OP was established in his lane the duty of care is on the other vehicle to merge in a safe manner.
Cheers,
As for the threshold you are fairly correct. There is also mental injury that is considered. With a broken pelvis there is no way the OP doesn't meet the threshold. Have seen far less injuries make the threshold thanks to a 'creative lawyer' and questionable medical reports. The OP's insurer will provide benefits benefits such as therapy and lost income of $400 a week if he's working. The basis of the tort claim will likely be pain and suffering as well as any expenses not covered by the first party insurer.
As for contributory negligence shouldn't be an issue here with the charges laid against the other vehicle. The OP was established in his lane the duty of care is on the other vehicle to merge in a safe manner.
Cheers,
I wouldn't go so far as to say that he valued 5 seconds of his time more than your life. Yes, what he did was stupid, but in fairness their was a very good chance that you could have avoided the collision had you had more riding experience.
Accountable for his actions? Absolutely. He's been charged with 3 serious offenses, and there's a good chance that he'll be held accountable in some capacity based on these charges alone.
Lawsuit? That's where you lose my sympathy. Broken bones are bad yes, but it could have been ALOT worse, as the cop told you. Be happy you're alive, learn for the experience, and do your best to help bring this guy to justice on the charges he's currently facing.
Ordinarily, this would certainly be the case. However, the OP riding in the narrow left-overs of a lane occupied by parked cars adds a wrinkle that the other driver's lawyer could easily exploit.
invictus43
Well-known member
I thought about that as well. I'm Mr. Defensive and I can still see situations where there's trouble. I take it as a given that someone is going to pull out from behind a turning car in that situation..I'm off the gas and hovering the brake as soon as I see that situation. But even then, if the car moves fast and stupid enough, they can still hit you..you'd basically have to stop in the right lane and wait to see what happens. Not saying the OP was being as careful as he could have been, I wasn't there..but I think it's possible to be super-defensive and still be put in an un-winnable situation.
Venom01
Well-known member
Very true. When I'm downtown Toronto I'm always giving tons of space, keep the speed down a bit, and I always find myself hovering on the brakes and horn. That's how I city ride. Check this whole unfortunate situation under gained experience. hope you fell better soon.
Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk
