Fair enough
I agree in the general usage of the word stunting..absolutely they were not. But we are talking about the usage as it relates to HTA 172 (commonly known as stunt driving or street racing laws)
Two motorcyclists charged in collision that left pedestrian injured
- Thread starter matthew
- Start date
I agree in the general usage of the word stunting..absolutely they were not. But we are talking about the usage as it relates to HTA 172 (commonly known as stunt driving or street racing laws)
Video and eyewitnesses kinda help don't ya think.
These dudes were being jackasses. I wouldn't have seen them either.
Except in this case there is video evidence of wrong doing by the other party. I can assure you this wasn't investigated by the local divisional traffic cop. It would have been major collision bureau with the accident reconstruction team. They likely also got a warrant for and are in possession of the original video or a file made from the GoPro, (or whatever dash cam was used). Then the tech guys would have taken the video apart frame by frame to determine EXACTLY when the SUV began it's turn and the positioning of ALL vehicles frame by frame from that point forward.
It was likely this evidence, along with the expert opinions of the video techs and the accident investigators, who spoke to the crown, which lead to the charges against the riders and not against the SUV driver.
It was likely this evidence, along with the expert opinions of the video techs and the accident investigators, who spoke to the crown, which lead to the charges against the riders and not against the SUV driver.
So I guess that the day YOU hit 70 you will be at MTO surrendering your licence then??? LOL Unfortunate part of life we ALL get old, (except for those who don't make it that far)...
If you don't have xray vision then you wait until you can SEE whats behind the caa truck. You don't just pull out and hope for the best.
What do you guys do when theres a tractor trailer on the other side waiting to make a left and you can't see past him? Pull out and hope for the best? Or wait until he's gone or the light changes, and then slowly creep up checking to see whats past him.
Glad they got charged.
Edit: After reading the repsonces from some of you... wow, smarten up. Yes cars don't watch out as well as they should but you can't anticipate a vehicle that isnt there. It's the same as allowing someone to pass in front of you then gassing it to hit them purposely and blaming them for turning in front of you. Can't have it both ways.
Edit: After reading the repsonces from some of you... wow, smarten up. Yes cars don't watch out as well as they should but you can't anticipate a vehicle that isnt there. It's the same as allowing someone to pass in front of you then gassing it to hit them purposely and blaming them for turning in front of you. Can't have it both ways.
Last edited:
Here is the original thread... Just took some looking to find it in the Multimedia sub forum..lol
http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforu...of-the-Motorcycle-accident-Yonge-and-Pleasant
http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforu...of-the-Motorcycle-accident-Yonge-and-Pleasant
Nor do you lane filter, ride aggressively, and well over the 50Km limit, INTO an intersection the YOU can't see into, while blowing by a pickup with a cap on it. The rider need not worry about court outcomes. He NEEDS to worry about where he is going to work for the rest of his life to pay off the lawsuits from the lady and her estate and all her relatives who are affected by his ****** operation of his bike. That he will in effect never own anything nice until this is all paid off, it will no doubt surpass the million liability he has, (unless he was one of the few who decided to save $10 per month and opt for the $250,000 minimum.
You seem to believe this was entirely the fault of the SUV driver, and that the rider is a "poor victim". So tell us Paul would you have ridden into that intersection in that exact same manner
You seem to believe this was entirely the fault of the SUV driver, and that the rider is a "poor victim". So tell us Paul would you have ridden into that intersection in that exact same manner
I dont think it was entirely the suv drivers fault, i'd say 50 rider and 50 driver. But to charge one and not the other is kind of BS the way i see it.
As a driver making a left you don't turn unless the area is clear and you can actually see past the caa truck. As a rider you anticipate of what's behind the caa truck, slow down and cover your brake.
And no i wouldn't have ridden into that intersection in the same manner
Below i found my response from the original thread, and i stick by it
Last edited:
Whew had me worried there for a few Paul thought you had lost it completely..LOL
Do I think the SUV driver should have made the turn? Probably not. But when I was a copper i would have looked at it the same today as i would have then I would have also charged the rider not the SUV driver as the likelihood of a conviction on the SUV is pretty remote, (Knowing what I have learned from my time in a court room).
Of course my view is also likely a little more skewed these days after being rear ended by a sport rider doing exactly this, weaving in and out of traffic, MUCH faster then the surrounding vehicles, (basically was stop and go at the time), when he hit me. the final outcome won't be known for years to come as the lawyers and insurance settle it all.
Do I think the SUV driver should have made the turn? Probably not. But when I was a copper i would have looked at it the same today as i would have then I would have also charged the rider not the SUV driver as the likelihood of a conviction on the SUV is pretty remote, (Knowing what I have learned from my time in a court room).
Of course my view is also likely a little more skewed these days after being rear ended by a sport rider doing exactly this, weaving in and out of traffic, MUCH faster then the surrounding vehicles, (basically was stop and go at the time), when he hit me. the final outcome won't be known for years to come as the lawyers and insurance settle it all.
http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforu...of-the-Motorcycle-accident-Yonge-and-Pleasant
the original video and thread
the original video and thread
kwtoxman
Well-known member
So much conjecture, which 1/2 of GTAM is really good at posting as truth.
My observations. May as well add some conjecture, but identified as such.
You can see the car driver wave outside the window just before leaving the light. As mentioned it looks like he waves the motorcyclists by. Conjecture, but it can easily be argued in court the rider behind interpreted it that way.
Two lane changes should not mean a weaving hta 172 charge, but that law is so broad it can interpreted that way by police and prosecutors. As mentioned, and pure conjecture is that the crown may have witnesses to establish previous riding behaviour before the accident as that video doesn't show much.
Not near as much of a speed differential as I was expecting. I've seen far more on more group rides than not with GTA riders.
At the 40 second mark, full 26" inch screen view (it helped), one can clearly see on the left of the truck the SUV begin the left turn, its headlights visible. The white truck is just at the point of beginning to enter the sunshine on the pavement.
Paused around there, I see the rider in the right lane and it appears at least even with the front of the truck. The bike passes through sunshine obscuring it, and then becomes visible again.
Then it looks like the SUV driver is so slow/late in the left turn that it appears he literally hit the bike with the front end of the vehicle. It wasn't like the bike plowed into the side of a left turner.
I see the truck apply its brakes well before the SUV hits the bike. Pure conjecture to say the truck brakes because he hears the bike accelerate. The back end of the truck noticbly lifts when the brake lights appear. Seems the truck got on the brakes somewhat aggressively imo. The truck stops just before the intersection, and the second bike safely stops as well, so at first glance I'm not seeing big speeds or speed differentials. Maybe the accident re-constructionists can show more evidence but that is all conjecture at this time.
Too much WAG here imo. We have the technology (famous tv quote).... to get an estimate on distances.
Estimates
How close were the vehicles when the left turn started? Let's hopefully get a relatively reasonable estimate.
When the POV camera travels and gets to the sunshine spot (where earlier in the vid we saw the truck at when the SUV began its left turn) we can see it is pretty close to that intersection visually. Let's quantitate. From around the beginning of the sunshine to the intersection looks to be around three narrow store fronts from watching the video. Google maps confirms the stores seen in the video and some measuring of the top view and street view shows it to be about 20m for all three storefronts. Let's add 10 m for the sidewalk, part of the intersection itself and as a buffer for potential distance underestimating. So the estimate is now at about 30 m. According to the following link at 50 kph (the Yonge speed limit from what I remember) stopping distance is around 32 metres, another link gives 24 metres. So using the shorter aggressive stopping distance, that leaves about 20 feet between the stopped truck and the SUV turning. Seems way too tight to me. If that truck had not hit its brakes with the SUV turning there, a holy crap tight moment. http://www.abs-bv.nl/en/home/467-double-the-speed-four-times-the-braking-distance, http://www.planetseed.com/mathsolution/braking-distances
Gotta say it appears to me that the vid and the evidence shows the SUV made a dangerous left hand turn, by way of that initial (and rudimentary) assessment and estimate. Bearing in mind the video is the only evidence we all have here to make observations from.
I think the original vid looks a little better. Just found it.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=52e_1396838244
Best wishes to and I hope the pedestrian and all injured recover.
My observations. May as well add some conjecture, but identified as such.
You can see the car driver wave outside the window just before leaving the light. As mentioned it looks like he waves the motorcyclists by. Conjecture, but it can easily be argued in court the rider behind interpreted it that way.
Two lane changes should not mean a weaving hta 172 charge, but that law is so broad it can interpreted that way by police and prosecutors. As mentioned, and pure conjecture is that the crown may have witnesses to establish previous riding behaviour before the accident as that video doesn't show much.
Not near as much of a speed differential as I was expecting. I've seen far more on more group rides than not with GTA riders.
At the 40 second mark, full 26" inch screen view (it helped), one can clearly see on the left of the truck the SUV begin the left turn, its headlights visible. The white truck is just at the point of beginning to enter the sunshine on the pavement.
Paused around there, I see the rider in the right lane and it appears at least even with the front of the truck. The bike passes through sunshine obscuring it, and then becomes visible again.
Then it looks like the SUV driver is so slow/late in the left turn that it appears he literally hit the bike with the front end of the vehicle. It wasn't like the bike plowed into the side of a left turner.
I see the truck apply its brakes well before the SUV hits the bike. Pure conjecture to say the truck brakes because he hears the bike accelerate. The back end of the truck noticbly lifts when the brake lights appear. Seems the truck got on the brakes somewhat aggressively imo. The truck stops just before the intersection, and the second bike safely stops as well, so at first glance I'm not seeing big speeds or speed differentials. Maybe the accident re-constructionists can show more evidence but that is all conjecture at this time.
Too much WAG here imo. We have the technology (famous tv quote).... to get an estimate on distances.
Estimates
How close were the vehicles when the left turn started? Let's hopefully get a relatively reasonable estimate.
When the POV camera travels and gets to the sunshine spot (where earlier in the vid we saw the truck at when the SUV began its left turn) we can see it is pretty close to that intersection visually. Let's quantitate. From around the beginning of the sunshine to the intersection looks to be around three narrow store fronts from watching the video. Google maps confirms the stores seen in the video and some measuring of the top view and street view shows it to be about 20m for all three storefronts. Let's add 10 m for the sidewalk, part of the intersection itself and as a buffer for potential distance underestimating. So the estimate is now at about 30 m. According to the following link at 50 kph (the Yonge speed limit from what I remember) stopping distance is around 32 metres, another link gives 24 metres. So using the shorter aggressive stopping distance, that leaves about 20 feet between the stopped truck and the SUV turning. Seems way too tight to me. If that truck had not hit its brakes with the SUV turning there, a holy crap tight moment. http://www.abs-bv.nl/en/home/467-double-the-speed-four-times-the-braking-distance, http://www.planetseed.com/mathsolution/braking-distances
Gotta say it appears to me that the vid and the evidence shows the SUV made a dangerous left hand turn, by way of that initial (and rudimentary) assessment and estimate. Bearing in mind the video is the only evidence we all have here to make observations from.
I think the original vid looks a little better. Just found it.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=52e_1396838244
Best wishes to and I hope the pedestrian and all injured recover.
Last edited:
Roomie
Banned
Good job cops. Waste more tax payers money with trials that the rides will both beat. Riding like they were was wrong but as said if the vehicle hadn't turned left in front of them it wouldn't have happened. Where are the charges for the cage? Oh wait bikes are bad. Way to go tps :thumbup:
I love how many people have become instant csi experts. How many of you actually work on or with accident scenes? I do, obviously hedo did, the police do, and we're all saying the same thing. The charges are correct and justified. You're not right just because you 'think that's the way it ought to be'. There are rules and laws. You don't have to like it for it to be correct.
They can go and fight it, it's their right to do that. Maybe they'll win, maybe they won't. But the fact is people with a hell of a lot more experience and knowledge of the situation are deciding what is to be done.
And for the record, just because the SUV isn't charged doesn't mean he's getting off Scott free. There is this little thing in the insurance world called contributory negligence and I'll bet my house that the driver was also named in the suit.
They can go and fight it, it's their right to do that. Maybe they'll win, maybe they won't. But the fact is people with a hell of a lot more experience and knowledge of the situation are deciding what is to be done.
And for the record, just because the SUV isn't charged doesn't mean he's getting off Scott free. There is this little thing in the insurance world called contributory negligence and I'll bet my house that the driver was also named in the suit.
Problem is people are upset that the riders ate facing serious charges. NO ONE has indicated that these charges are relying only upon the driving seen during the video. Initial, reports said there were witnesses, who said the riders were riding in an unsafe and aggressive manner BEFORE the collision.
Now one could argue, that the witnesses are wrong. From my experience interviewing witnesses this is often the case. There have been many studies done by universities and even police organizations to determine to what extent it happens. This is why when two officers investigate, it is, (IMHO and experience), a good idea to have both officers interview all witnesses independently. They then compare notes to see the differences in the statements provided.
Now having said that if the investigators have many witnesses and their statements are relatively similar then those statements can't be dismissed, and it concluded that as much as a few want, to conclude the riders were riding in a safe and prudent manner.
I highly doubt they will beat the charges. Looking solely at the video, a reasonable and prudent person should have a difficult time stating the riders were not putting other road users at some level of danger.
As was rightfully pointed out the SUV, will have to "pay the piper" or more accurately his insurer will.
The woman and her lawyers will sue nearly everyone within 100 meters of the collision...lol ( for those who don't understand sarcasm, that was it). but their will be a few others than just the riders, and the SUV driver.
For the poster, who stated the TPS only charged the riders as the TPS views "bikes as bad". Well incidents like this can only help reinforce that perspective with officers. The ONLY "victim" in this incident is the poor woman who was doing nothing other than walking on a sidewalk when struck down. We all complain that the public views riders, (especially those on sport bikes), as hooligans. Again this type of riding reinforces that stereotype. This will not change until attitudes within our community change and we recognize how damaging to our hobby this behaviour is. If is exactly this type of riding which helped bring us 172 and in time may bring even more restrictions and punitive regulations and laws.
Now one could argue, that the witnesses are wrong. From my experience interviewing witnesses this is often the case. There have been many studies done by universities and even police organizations to determine to what extent it happens. This is why when two officers investigate, it is, (IMHO and experience), a good idea to have both officers interview all witnesses independently. They then compare notes to see the differences in the statements provided.
Now having said that if the investigators have many witnesses and their statements are relatively similar then those statements can't be dismissed, and it concluded that as much as a few want, to conclude the riders were riding in a safe and prudent manner.
I highly doubt they will beat the charges. Looking solely at the video, a reasonable and prudent person should have a difficult time stating the riders were not putting other road users at some level of danger.
As was rightfully pointed out the SUV, will have to "pay the piper" or more accurately his insurer will.
The woman and her lawyers will sue nearly everyone within 100 meters of the collision...lol ( for those who don't understand sarcasm, that was it). but their will be a few others than just the riders, and the SUV driver.
For the poster, who stated the TPS only charged the riders as the TPS views "bikes as bad". Well incidents like this can only help reinforce that perspective with officers. The ONLY "victim" in this incident is the poor woman who was doing nothing other than walking on a sidewalk when struck down. We all complain that the public views riders, (especially those on sport bikes), as hooligans. Again this type of riding reinforces that stereotype. This will not change until attitudes within our community change and we recognize how damaging to our hobby this behaviour is. If is exactly this type of riding which helped bring us 172 and in time may bring even more restrictions and punitive regulations and laws.
JFD
Well-known member
There's gotta be some sort of accountability.
The riders were in a downtown congested street, weaving around cars - visibility is definitely reduced, and with such small intersections, there has to be more caution exercised.
If you don't understand how traffic is in a certain area and your experience is low where you can't effectively anticipate what could happen, something's bound to happen.
to push it on the other guy is simply unacceptable in this case. The SUV had no chance.
The riders were in a downtown congested street, weaving around cars - visibility is definitely reduced, and with such small intersections, there has to be more caution exercised.
If you don't understand how traffic is in a certain area and your experience is low where you can't effectively anticipate what could happen, something's bound to happen.
to push it on the other guy is simply unacceptable in this case. The SUV had no chance.
Vehicles stop and allow oncoming traffic to turn. Motorcycles weave/split the traffic and hit the turning vehicle. That makes the riders responsible for the incident. As to the HTA 172 aspect of it: ONT REG 455/07, 2.3.(1)(iii) Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,... iii. repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity to other vehicles so as to advance through the ordinary flow of traffic while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 2 (1).
Just because one vehicle gives up the right of way doesn't mean the car or bikes in the other lane are at fault. This case might be a bit different, but what if they were doing a normal speed and ended up hitting the suv? By your logic it would still be their fault because another vehicle stopped and let the suv go?
