Durham police report a rise in serious motorcycle collisions

Forum Sponsor
Dohhh said:
Ya i have a few of these so called witnesses living on my street. I would drive my camaro with a loud exhaust in first gear slowly accelerating as they run out of their house waving their hands and yelling at me to slow down... as i peak down at my speedometer and notice im doing 20 km/h in a 50 zone hahaha

These same "witnesses" will hear a bike accelerate from 40-80 km hard in 1st gear and will swear the bike was doing atleast 200km/h...
Click to expand...

But that's not at issue here. What's at issue is a crash with physical evidence in the form of damaged vehicles, debris, fluid, and skid trails on the road surface, and so on. So let's get back to the question that you haven't answered with respect to the Dixon Rd crash:
then what caused the car to suddenly change direction and literally jump sideways to land 20 to 25 feet away from where it was hit? Do you think a little low-speed love tap would cause that 400-pound bike to make that sort of impression on 3400 pounds worth of car and driver?
Click to expand...
Exhaust noise didn't move that car to where it landed.
 
turbodish said:
But that's not at issue here. What's at issue is a crash with physical evidence in the form of damaged vehicles, debris, fluid, and skid trails on the road surface, and so on. So let's get back to the question that you haven't answered with respect to the Dixon Rd crash:

Exhaust noise didn't move that car to where it landed.
Click to expand...

\damage didnt look that bad on the car, maybe our left hand turner in this case, like many other individuals in this ****ed up city think they can take any path across the intersection as they chose, or just maybe she was making a u-turn, everyone knows you dont need to look if anything is coming, just go ahead, make the turn, save a few seconds...
 
turbodish said:
Ok, what sort of accuracy would YOU put on their crash investigation outcomes? And back it up please.
Click to expand...

I dont need to back anything up, your the one making claims. By your account these people know how it works and can make a failry good assessment of what happen. That's no certainty or Turboproof. its what they to the best of their knowledge "might" of happen.

It's your claim that it's worst but you and I know that you dont have **** to back up what your trying to spawn as the turbotruth.

If you plan to build your case of facts then build it on facts of keep your fanboy bum in the Opp forums where they'll appreciate you brown nosing them.

Here's a great example of a person that was deemed the best in their profession, how much do you think they will change investigating practises after a person like this messes up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Randal_Smith)

So the balls in your court pal, not mine but be aware that before you make stats up to Turboproof yourself that you need to take allot more into account. First would be the number of riders on the road. start there but wait....you cant get that number ti'll next year at least so I'll keep checking to see if you polished up your Turbomath to show us all up.
 
DaFrEnCh-TiCkLeR said:
I dont need to back anything up, your the one making claims. By your account these people know how it works and can make a failry good assessment of what happen. That's no certainty or Turboproof. its what they to the best of their knowledge "might" of happen.

It's your claim that it's worst but you and I know that you dont have **** to back up what your trying to spawn as the turbotruth.

If you plan to build your case of facts then build it on facts of keep your fanboy bum in the Opp forums where they'll appreciate you brown nosing them.

Here's a great example of a person that was deemed the best in their profession, how much do you think they will change investigating practises after a person like this messes up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Randal_Smith)

So the balls in your court pal, not mine but be aware that before you make stats up to Turboproof yourself that you need to take allot more into account. First would be the number of riders on the road. start there but wait....you cant get that number ti'll next year at least so I'll keep checking to see if you polished up your Turbomath to show us all up.
Click to expand...

Don't you think its a bit ridiculous to use Charles Smith to support an idea that trained professionals as a whole are somehow all unreliable? Thats kinda what I read.

Please keep in mind that the accident reconstruction people aren't biased and have no reason to be. They simply determine the facts, how fast someone was going, if their wheels locked up, was the light green, point of impact, etc etc.

The interpretation of those facts are left to cops/lawyers/insurance people. Then they argue about whether 15 over is "excessive" or not and the determination of at fault is really something completely different than the forensic fact finding.
 
Dohhh said:
\damage didnt look that bad on the car, maybe our left hand turner in this case, like many other individuals in this ****ed up city think they can take any path across the intersection as they chose, or just maybe she was making a u-turn, everyone knows you dont need to look if anything is coming, just go ahead, make the turn, save a few seconds...
Click to expand...

It's plain to see that you're in complete willful denial. Marks and debris on the pavement would show the location of impact in the intersection for police investigators. The point of the bike's impact on the car itself was at the most heavily reinforced place on the side of any vehicle as far as body/unibody structure is concerned, so there wouldn't be much intrusion damage there.
 
turbodish said:
It's plain to see that you're in complete willful denial. Marks and debris on the pavement would show the location of impact in the intersection for police investigators. The point of the bike's impact on the car itself was at the most heavily reinforced place on the side of any vehicle as far as body/unibody structure is concerned, so there wouldn't be much intrusion damage there.
Click to expand...

ya your speculation is 100% correct, mine is just ridiculous and could have never happened.
 
Dohhh said:
ya your speculation is 100% correct, mine is just ridiculous and could have never happened.
Click to expand...

The police statements to media said nothing about U-turns, and they would have had plenty of physical evidence on the ground and from witness statements to determine that if your speculation was correct. There's nothing wrong with some speculation, but if you're going to speculate, the speculation should at least fit and not conflict with the available information.
 
OpenGambit said:
Don't you think its a bit ridiculous to use Charles Smith to support an idea that trained professionals as a whole are somehow all unreliable? Thats kinda what I read.

Please keep in mind that the accident reconstruction people aren't biased and have no reason to be. They simply determine the facts, how fast someone was going, if their wheels locked up, was the light green, point of impact, etc etc.

The interpretation of those facts are left to cops/lawyers/insurance people. Then they argue about whether 15 over is "excessive" or not and the determination of at fault is really something completely different than the forensic fact finding.
Click to expand...

you want a history of unreliable leo's check out romperroom, there's a thread going there...
 
CruisnGrrl said:
you want a history of unreliable leo's check out romperroom, there's a thread going there...
Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about forensics people, thats isn't law enforcement.
 
OpenGambit said:
Don't you think its a bit ridiculous to use Charles Smith to support an idea that trained professionals as a whole are somehow all unreliable? Thats kinda what I read.

Please keep in mind that the accident reconstruction people aren't biased and have no reason to be. They simply determine the facts, how fast someone was going, if their wheels locked up, was the light green, point of impact, etc etc.

The interpretation of those facts are left to cops/lawyers/insurance people. Then they argue about whether 15 over is "excessive" or not and the determination of at fault is really something completely different than the forensic fact finding.
Click to expand...

the charles smith example is to give an example of how many people would of used his version or his theories to build their facts on. How many you think had to go back and rethink some of it and how they approached thigns. It's not argument but the point is that like I said, its a fairly good idea and your correct that based on that it's assumed that it's what happen but no ones there to know 100% unless there's something there to prove otherwise.
 
DaFrEnCh-TiCkLeR said:
the charles smith example is to give an example of how many people would of used his version or his theories to build their facts on. How many you think had to go back and rethink some of it and how they approached thigns. It's not argument but the point is that like I said, its a fairly good idea and your correct that based on that it's assumed that it's what happen but no ones there to know 100% unless there's something there to prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

no one knows 100 %, ever. thats why even in criminal cases there is such a thing as "reasonable doubt", not "no doubt whatsoever"
I would tell you that in the absense of any evidence to the contrary, I wouldn't spend too much time attacking the findings of the forensic scientists. They don't give a **** who is right... its just one insurance company vs another anyway.
 
OpenGambit said:
no one knows 100 %, ever. thats why even in criminal cases there is such a thing as "reasonable doubt", not "no doubt whatsoever"
I would tell you that in the absense of any evidence to the contrary, I wouldn't spend too much time attacking the findings of the forensic scientists. They don't give a **** who is right... its just one insurance company vs another anyway.
Click to expand...

According to my friend Turbo up there, you are incorrect but I do agree with you
 
DaFrEnCh-TiCkLeR said:
According to my friend Turbo up there, you are incorrect but I do agree with you
Click to expand...

A proof is a proof, what kind of a proof, it's a proof, a proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof is because its proven. :lmao:
 
CruisnGrrl said:
aren't they a subsection of? I know the RCMP run their own forensics lab, I assume the rest of the law enforcement agencies out there do too.
Click to expand...

I remember attending some seminars for forensic scientists for some criminal law stuff i was doing. My understanding was that they are government, but not RCMP, they contracted out their work to private agencies sometimes. They also had a professional body regulating them kinda like the Law Society of Upper Canada. We sent some blood work to them actually.

That was DNA/serology/hair and fiber and stuff.

the Autopsy was the coroner. I am not 100 % on the traffic reconstruction, you could be right. But I assumed that they aren't RCMP based on other forensic scientists.

I guess I also don't see a motive for bias, after all, its one insurance company vs another... Why would they go out of their way to blame the guy on the bike?

Even if they were part of the RCMP, they are definately the civilian employee force and not police officers.
 
DaFrEnCh-TiCkLeR said:
According to my friend Turbo up there, you are incorrect but I do agree with you
Click to expand...

Hahah well, I am not so young that I still think I am an expert on everything. I stick to what I know, thats really the law. Maybe you guys can teach me how to ride a bike cause I suck at that right now.
 
Brian P said:
It's not enough to be statistically significant. It coincides with the weather improving after a very sucky spring and early summer.
Click to expand...

But why let the correct explanation end the thread? Let it continue for 4 more pages (and counting) :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom