Barrie Officer cleared of charges when he made a left turn in front of a Motorcycle

DraginMiFeet

DraginMiFeet

Well-known member
http://www.siu.on.ca/en/news_template.php?nrid=1355

• At approximately 4:30 p.m., the subject officer was on duty and proceeding southbound on Bradford Street intending to make a left turn onto Victoria Street. He maneuvered into the left turn lane and proceeded into the intersection just as the traffic control signal turned amber. A motorist proceeding northbound in the centre lane at the same time noticed the officer waiting to make a left turn and brought her vehicle to a stop. Believing the way was clear, the officer began his left-hand turn. He had just about cleared the intersection when a motorcyclist, Mr. Penfield, proceeded northbound into the intersection in the curb lane of Victoria Street and struck the right rear passenger side of the cruiser.
Click to expand...
 
This is a joke. The police consider a yellow light the same as a red for infractions!

Nice to see the SUI taking care of the boys. :thumbdown::thumbdown:
 
If what was reported is true then seems like the rider was a bit to blame as well. I'm assuming that the officer was still found at fault at least.
 
I believe the duty of the SIU investigates to determine is there was a *criminal* offense committed by the officer. That would mean showing the officer was acting recklessly or had intent. They don't determine if there was simply an HTA offense.

If the facts of the situation are correct and the witness was telling the truth, the rider was at least racing a yellow so it is possible that the rider was partially or completely at fault. I know if I noticed a police cruiser about to turn in front of me, I don't think I would risk trying to beat the red directly in front of him!
 
vrus said:
http://www.siu.on.ca/en/news_template.php?nrid=1355

• At approximately 4:30 p.m., the subject officer was on duty and proceeding southbound on Bradford Street intending to make a left turn onto Victoria Street. He maneuvered into the left turn lane and proceeded into the intersection just as the traffic control signal turned amber. A motorist proceeding northbound in the centre lane at the same time noticed the officer waiting to make a left turn and brought her vehicle to a stop. Believing the way was clear, the officer began his left-hand turn. He had just about cleared the intersection when a motorcyclist, Mr. Penfield, proceeded northbound into the intersection in the curb lane of Victoria Street and struck the right rear passenger side of the cruiser.
Click to expand...

^^ Theres the problem. If he would have looked and proceeded with caution he would have had to believe the way was clear, he would have known.
 
(biker) proceeded northbound into the intersection in the curb lane of Victoria Street
Click to expand...

that was the issue. improper lane position on the part of the motorcyclist. since the single lane was blocked by a stopped vehicle (on a yellow) it was safe to assume that the lane was clear. the copper assumed there would no-one proceeding through the intersection.

this is a rare time that i agree that the officer was not solely at fault, and thus no criminal charges should be made.
 
ikelso said:
I believe the duty of the SIU investigates to determine is there was a *criminal* offense committed by the officer. That would mean showing the officer was acting recklessly or had intent. They don't determine if there was simply an HTA offense.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the SIU looks at criminal offences, the police services act, standard procedures and the HTA. The complicating factor in this case is likely the fact that one motorist stopped, the bike didn't. The officer saw one and not the other. The SIU isn't there to determine whether or not the rider was at fault, only the officer.
I'm still surprised. The P/R says the siu was unable to determine if the light was amber or red (it was at least amber), so that means there's no way to determine if the motorcyclist was in the wrong, and if he was through traffic, he had the right of way. At least a turn across his path would not be made in safety. Perhaps there's more from the witness statements that made a difference.
 
jeffjones said:
^^ Theres the problem. If he would have looked and proceeded with caution he would have had to believe the way was clear, he would have known.
Click to expand...

Yellow means you're supposed to stop if it's safe to do so, not try and beat the red. Both made mistakes, biker lost in the long run. Laws won't keep you safe all the time, sometimes you need to actually ride defensive to stay safe.
 
the article paints the popo in the best light they can, otherwise the cops will have it in for the papers reporters...the article is crap, poor judgement on both parties...but the cop is at fault...i hope the rider has everything taken care of and no costs on his part...i'm assuming that the rider survived the accident and i hope injuries are fully recoverable...
 
vociferous said:
that was the issue. improper lane position on the part of the motorcyclist. since the single lane was blocked by a stopped vehicle (on a yellow) it was safe to assume that the lane was clear. the copper assumed there would no-one proceeding through the intersection.

this is a rare time that i agree that the officer was not solely at fault, and thus no criminal charges should be made.
Click to expand...

so the curb lane is the wrong lane? please explain, id like to know the logic behind this one
 
vociferous said:
that was the issue. improper lane position on the part of the motorcyclist. since the single lane was blocked by a stopped vehicle (on a yellow) it was safe to assume that the lane was clear. the copper assumed there would no-one proceeding through the intersection.

this is a rare time that i agree that the officer was not solely at fault, and thus no criminal charges should be made.
Click to expand...
doble post
 
Last edited:
Pedestrian crossover, duties of driver
140. (1) ...

Where vehicle stopped at pedestrian crossover
(2) When a vehicle or street car is stopped at a pedestrian crossover, the driver of any other vehicle or street car overtaking the stopped vehicle or street car shall bring the vehicle or street car to a full stop before entering the crossover and shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian or a person in a wheelchair,
(a) who is within the crossover upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle or street car is stopped; or
(b) who is within the crossover and is approaching the half of the roadway from the other half of the roadway so closely to the vehicle or street car that he or she is in danger if the vehicle or street car were to proceed. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 140 (2).
Passing moving vehicles within 30 metres of pedestrian crossover
(3) When a vehicle or street car is approaching a pedestrian crossover and is within 30 metres thereof, the driver of any other vehicle or street car approaching from the rear shall not allow the front extremity of his or her vehicle or streetcar to pass beyond the front extremity of the other vehicle or street car. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 140 (3).


Sorry guys, biker was wrong in this case and broke the above law. This law is designed to stop anxious drivers from changing lanes and blowing past a slower car at an intersection because the following cars may not see the hazard the initial approaching car has a clear view of, including left turning vehicles and pedestrians (even jay walking ones).

The law basically says no one can pass anyone (moving) within 30 seconds of an intersection. I stress the term moving, because if the lead car is stopped, you may still pass within 30 m of the intersection (filter, wink wink nudge nudge), but you must also come to a complete stop at the intersection. So either way the biker was wrong in this case because a) if the lead vehicle was slowing, the biker should not have passed, and b) if the lead vehicle was stopped at the amber, then the biker should also have come to a complete stop before proceeding.
 
Last edited:
awyala said:
Pedestrian crossover, duties of driver
140. (1) ...

Where vehicle stopped at pedestrian crossover
(2) When a vehicle or street car is stopped at a pedestrian crossover, the driver of any other vehicle or street car overtaking the stopped vehicle or street car shall bring the vehicle or street car to a full stop before entering the crossover and shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian or a person in a wheelchair,
(a) who is within the crossover upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle or street car is stopped; or
(b) who is within the crossover and is approaching the half of the roadway from the other half of the roadway so closely to the vehicle or street car that he or she is in danger if the vehicle or street car were to proceed. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 140 (2).
Passing moving vehicles within 30 metres of pedestrian crossover
(3) When a vehicle or street car is approaching a pedestrian crossover and is within 30 metres thereof, the driver of any other vehicle or street car approaching from the rear shall not allow the front extremity of his or her vehicle or streetcar to pass beyond the front extremity of the other vehicle or street car. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 140 (3).


Sorry guys, biker was wrong in this case and broke the above law. This law is designed to stop anxious drivers from changing lanes and blowing past a slower car at an intersection because the following cars may not see the hazard the initial approaching car has a clear view of, including left turning vehicles and pedestrians (even jay walking ones).

The law basically says no one can pass anyone (moving) within 30 seconds of an intersection. I stress the term moving, because if the lead car is stopped, you may still pass within 30 m of the intersection (filter, wink wink nudge nudge), but you must also come to a complete stop at the intersection. So either way the biker was wrong in this case because a) if the lead vehicle was slowing, the biker should not have passed, and b) if the lead vehicle was stopped at the amber, then the biker should also have come to a complete stop before proceeding.
Click to expand...

ummm pedestrain crossover and a intersection are 2 different things
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom