But for the actions of the riders, which could neither be seen nor foreseen by other drivers, no one would have been injured. Their actions predicated the resulting incident and, on their face, their actions were unlawful. See the posted definition.
Two motorcyclists charged in collision that left pedestrian injured
- Thread starter matthew
- Start date
But for the actions of the riders, which could neither be seen nor foreseen by other drivers, no one would have been injured. Their actions predicated the resulting incident and, on their face, their actions were unlawful. See the posted definition.
They couldn't be seen because there was a caa truck in the left lane. It was the suv drivers responsibility to make sure the way was clear and not GUESS.
I understand that riders were partly to blame too but he's not the victim here.
EaZ8
Well-known member
agreed, i dont understand why the riders are the only ones with a charges on them (that we know of).
lets take them being on motorcycles out of the equation, lets say the were driving a chrysler mini van, it was a wonam driving with 2 kids in the back. same play by play...she weaved to pass someone and then someone in a BMW suv turns left infront of her and bam!
now who is getting charged?
FLSTC
Well-known member
http://www.ibc.ca/en/car_insurance/documents/brochure/on-fault-determination-rules.pdf
Normally:
12(5) If automobile “B” turns left into the path of automobile “A”, the driver of automobile “A” is not at fault and the driver of automobile “B” is 100 per cent at fault for the incident.
Notwithstanding:
20. (1)(c) if, as a result of the incident, the driver is charged with an indictable offence related to the operation of the automobile;
(2) The degree of fault of the insured shall be determined in accordance with the ordinary rules of law, and not in accordance with these rules,
Normally:
12(5) If automobile “B” turns left into the path of automobile “A”, the driver of automobile “A” is not at fault and the driver of automobile “B” is 100 per cent at fault for the incident.
Notwithstanding:
20. (1)(c) if, as a result of the incident, the driver is charged with an indictable offence related to the operation of the automobile;
(2) The degree of fault of the insured shall be determined in accordance with the ordinary rules of law, and not in accordance with these rules,
Last edited:
kwtoxman
Well-known member
Not much evidence on the vid at least. Two lane changes do no make much of a case for HTA 172 nor actions which could neither be seen nor foreseen by other drivers. IMO all drivers should expect lane changes at any time it is legally allowed (and even not legally allowed). Not a big speed differential either.
The HTA 172 wording is very general though, Makes it sound like it could be applied in many circumstances, even relatively innocuous circumstances.
Last edited:
They could not be seen because they darted out from behind the CAA truck, while weaving, leaving the SUV driver insufficient time to react. As I said the actions of the riders were unlawful and created the events. Their impatience was the cause of this.
what's behind the caa truck in the other lane is irrelevent since it should be travelling in unison with the caa truck. Anything faster to overtake the caa would be speeding and not something the turning motorist should be accountable for. Which is exactly what happened.
kwtoxman
Well-known member
Your description is a lot of conjecture. Darting is just a word to support your supposition. The motorcyclist lane changed and passed a vehicle approaching an intersection.
Should be travelling in unison? Really? Wow. So it is illegal to pass a vehicle in another lane of a multi-lane road as you come to an intersection? I guess I missed that part of the HTA. Some logic.
Last edited:
It's 50 on that street. there's no need to pass a vehicle doing the speed limit already. especially that much faster. Just because it's not illegal doesn't mean it's a good idea.
My 'conjecture' is based on observation of their behaviour, their speed, and the speed of surrounding traffic.
kwtoxman
Well-known member
How do you know that vehicle was doing 50? And how do you know it was a large speed differential? And what makes a large speed differential?
I never said it was a good idea.
Last edited:
kwtoxman
Well-known member
So a potential wave-by, two lane changes, no known speeds, only a basic speed differential which is not quantified either.
never said it was illegal... you seem like the kind of rider that would rather be hit and be right then avoid an accident.
Please see the definitions, previously posted. A 'wave by' does not absolve people from following the rules of the road, nor does it obligate anyone else to acquiesce.
Thank god someone with a brain. I was starting to get worried about people on this forum.
kwtoxman
Well-known member
I never such RE the wave, I only noted the observations that can be made regarding the the rider from the vid unless people start actually analyzing vehicle movements for speed.
lol. my bad. Too much multitasking. Removed the illegal part of my last post and the non-nonsensical last sentence.
As I noted before, I never said it was a good idea.
Last edited:
So what if they remained in the right lane and still got hit? The suv driver still wouldn't be able to see them with the caa truck, same conclusion rob?
I dont understand how a lane change or two makes you give up your right of way.
What if the caa truck was a tractor trailer? Same excuse would apply? The poor suv driver couldnt see the bike/car/minivan/police car/ambulance?
Ridiculous, if it were any other vehicle the story would be completely different, but because its 2 bikes all of the sudden its their fault...
I dont understand how a lane change or two makes you give up your right of way.
What if the caa truck was a tractor trailer? Same excuse would apply? The poor suv driver couldnt see the bike/car/minivan/police car/ambulance?
Ridiculous, if it were any other vehicle the story would be completely different, but because its 2 bikes all of the sudden its their fault...
Keep being worried! This thread is just reasonable differences of opinions for the most part it gets worse!
kwtoxman
Well-known member
Totally makes sense to me.
People may be saying the rider is riding hta 172 territory in the vid with the two lane changes, but I find that a stretch. Until people show me actual estimates in speed and speed differentials, they are guessing it is high and I don't do guesses. Maybe the police have more evidence for their charges, but that's a separate consideration as people here are drawing conclusions only from the vid.
This speed differential is open to a lot of debate too. The passes are while accelerating not far from a stop. I don't see a big speed differential either. This vid posted recently shows what imo is a large speed differential, and how this left hand turner got caught out. http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/motorcycle-stolen-minutes-after-rider-is-killed-in-crash/27946742
And the rider hit the rear of that vehicle in that high speed vid example, as opposed to the left hand turner in this thread who hit the bike with the front of their SUV.
DECIMIS
Well-known member
Yeah, because their wouldn't have been an accident. Only motorcycles were capable of maneuvering through traffic like that.
