Just to clarify what everyone knows..."to get from point A to point B faster then you did the day before".
Two motorcyclists charged in collision that left pedestrian injured
- Thread starter matthew
- Start date
Just to clarify what everyone knows..."to get from point A to point B faster then you did the day before".
Hardly. I don't agree with HTA 172, but their actions do fit the definitions. Personally I'd have charged them with operation without due care and attention, and let the court work it out.
Which is exactly what will happen they face three pretty heavy charges including the 172. Hell when I was young 172 wasn't even a distance consideration. I have done stuff that would today get me arrested...lol
But they are throwing all the proper charges at them, in part to use as leverage, and in part to ensure they get a conviction on "something". I freely admit this was done I am sure long before I got my badge, (1979), and I too have done many times. Now of course you still have to convince the crown to proceed, but, I have had many tell me it made their job easier, they could drop more serious of the three and likely get pleas on at least one of the other two.
The insurers will use the FDR to sort out their exposure.
Unlike the members here, the court system and the insurers will be doing all this by prescribed regulations and policies and without emotion, that we as fellow riders may have to side with the riders. Even those who disagree with the SUN driver not being charged and the riders charged with 172 have for the most part agreed the style and manner and the way they were riding was not proper.
But they are throwing all the proper charges at them, in part to use as leverage, and in part to ensure they get a conviction on "something". I freely admit this was done I am sure long before I got my badge, (1979), and I too have done many times. Now of course you still have to convince the crown to proceed, but, I have had many tell me it made their job easier, they could drop more serious of the three and likely get pleas on at least one of the other two.
The insurers will use the FDR to sort out their exposure.
Unlike the members here, the court system and the insurers will be doing all this by prescribed regulations and policies and without emotion, that we as fellow riders may have to side with the riders. Even those who disagree with the SUN driver not being charged and the riders charged with 172 have for the most part agreed the style and manner and the way they were riding was not proper.
kwtoxman
Well-known member
No, it is you who don't understand what I was doing, which I explained right from the beginning. Since a lot of posters here called the rider guilty based solely on a video, the point of this exercise was to evaluate that video for actual evidence of guilt. That evaluation shows people that their judgements were not very substantial. I qualified all my statements so that one could understand what was relevant (from the video), and what was conjecture.
I purposely noted more than once that in court they will have most likely more info than that video, but it is a fools errand for people to speculate then use that speculation as a pillar for a guilty conclusion in this thread.
As for irrelevant, I think you need to get a dictionary. It is irregardless that you are thinking of.
Last edited:
But your "arguments" are flawed in that you argue that "people seem to be using the video as evidence to support the charges". Then you post why they shouldn't be charged based solely upon what you observed in the video and argue that it doesn't support the charges.
Even, you have admitted you don't agree with the way they were riding. So which one is it either the video demonstrates improper riding, (as you have stayed you feel they were), and as a portion of the evidence may substantiate the charges. Or it shows nothing improper in their riding, and as such they shouldn't have been charged.
So which one is it?
I can only rely upon my professional experience having personally investigated hundreds of collisions.
Even, you have admitted you don't agree with the way they were riding. So which one is it either the video demonstrates improper riding, (as you have stayed you feel they were), and as a portion of the evidence may substantiate the charges. Or it shows nothing improper in their riding, and as such they shouldn't have been charged.
So which one is it?
I can only rely upon my professional experience having personally investigated hundreds of collisions.
kwtoxman
Well-known member
Quit extrapolating by combining two independent and separate things. Here, I'll explain it again. From the start I said this is all predicated on only video evidence and here is my take on that video evidence. After my evaluation and take on the video evidence I posted a similar qualifier again and said that I thought the video, by itself as the only evidence, does not support charges. Even said this
I said their riding wasn't a necessarily a good idea. It isn't the safest of riding. But that doesn't mean there are obvious major contraventions of the HTA. I certainly don't see their riding rising to the level of criminal charges in that video (again, as the only evidence). It looks like your thinking black and white on my posts. I don't know why. In my experience, officers I know are pretty used to the large gray areas involved between the intent and application of the law.
Let's try to stick with evaluation and assessment to discuss the topic, rather than an appeal to authority fallacy which is not relevant. (tried to make a joke here, but it is pretty dry humour)
FWIW, outside of this exercise to show the flaws of people here determining guilt from only watching a video, it has been reported the second rider was charged with dangerous driving and stunting. As such, you'd think (conjecture) the police/crown have additional evidence beyond the video to support such charges against both riders.
Last edited:
I said their riding wasn't a necessarily a good idea. It isn't the safest of riding. But that doesn't mean there are obvious contraventions of the HTA. I certainly don't see their riding rising to the level of criminal charges.
Of course you are basing thus conclusion on your years of experience, and knowledge of procedures, surrounding the laying of charges, and the investigative techniques employed by the investigators.
Again you have admitted your basing your conclusion solely upon "video analysis". Again please enlighten those of us who aren't basing our conclusions solely upon the video, your "qualifications" surrounding video analysis.
Again what you "think or believe is not relevant, as you don't have the training to make that call.
I don't know what line of work you do, but assuming it requires skill set, would it be proper for me to comment on weather you had completed your job in a proper and competent manner? I wouldn't be so presumptuous to do so....lol
Of course you are basing thus conclusion on your years of experience, and knowledge of procedures, surrounding the laying of charges, and the investigative techniques employed by the investigators.
Again you have admitted your basing your conclusion solely upon "video analysis". Again please enlighten those of us who aren't basing our conclusions solely upon the video, your "qualifications" surrounding video analysis.
Again what you "think or believe is not relevant, as you don't have the training to make that call.
I don't know what line of work you do, but assuming it requires skill set, would it be proper for me to comment on weather you had completed your job in a proper and competent manner? I wouldn't be so presumptuous to do so....lol
sid_for_speed
Well-known member
This is a motorcycle forum so I thought I'd stay a bit low on this but...
..I cannot believe guys saying the SUV driver is at /partially at fault!
He is at NO fault...no way you can predict the direction the riders are going to take...weaving in and out /lanesplitting ..how the heck is he going to know? He probably did not see them coming! The very reason IMO police thought of not charging him..
Our driving perception is based on linearity.....it's very much programmed in our minds from the days we get our G1...we yield to all guys going straight.we then turn left when it is safe to do so..
it was safe to turn left untill some dude on a SS decided to weave in/out of traffic and get their all of a sudden!
This can happen to any one of us! I'm sure the nay sayers will the first ones to post about how irrational those riders were!
..I cannot believe guys saying the SUV driver is at /partially at fault!
He is at NO fault...no way you can predict the direction the riders are going to take...weaving in and out /lanesplitting ..how the heck is he going to know? He probably did not see them coming! The very reason IMO police thought of not charging him..
Our driving perception is based on linearity.....it's very much programmed in our minds from the days we get our G1...we yield to all guys going straight.we then turn left when it is safe to do so..
it was safe to turn left untill some dude on a SS decided to weave in/out of traffic and get their all of a sudden!
This can happen to any one of us! I'm sure the nay sayers will the first ones to post about how irrational those riders were!
kwtoxman
Well-known member
I've had many many years of experience in authoring, reviewing and interpreting legislation, as well as research, analysis and investigation.
But that doesn't matter.
Again, quit the appeal to authority fallacy.
My conclusions are based on simple measurements in the video evidence and interpreting the specific text and language of the charges in legislation. I've presented my evaluation in detail, including discussion of the charges. I also briefly mention the threshold principle where such charges are warranted and leave it open for discussion. Feel free to provide specific information why/where my evaluation is wrong. Or what charges you think have merit and why/how or any precedents that support your charges. If someone fundamentally cannot provide a reasonable and defensible position/evaluation, then people and especially a subject matter expert should be able to point out the errors and issues specific to it. But to ignore such discussion and say in a blanket statement that training and experience is needed to do it, is off base and fundamentally not relevant to the topic.
As for my work, anybody in any line of work now a days should be open to evaluation and review by anyone. Because open reviews are very common in the work place and now considered by many to be best practice. Such open reviews are performed by other people and disciplines to avoid mistakes and omissions as well as garner feedback and suggestions. And yes, these reviews can be specific, relevant and competent. In fact part of my work is to work with and review subject matter experts. I often review work and have my work reviewed work under such circumstances.
Last edited:
It was posted in Post #49 and Post #53..lol
Feel free where I have posted "the appeal to authority fallacy.
I said the "experts" in these fields, (the major accident investigation team, as well as video techs), have no doubt done their review of the RELEVANT legislation as well as ALL the evidence. You chastise others for "basing their opinions" only upon what is contained in the video, (while admitting that there likely also exists other evidence). Then you use the SAME video to attempt to "justify your opinion" so again I guess they aren't intelligent enough to have looked at the same video and drawn, (to them at least), valid conclusions, but that you somehow are able to do the same and, (at least to you), come up with an opinion, which differs from their opinion yet your opinion is the one that MUST be correct.
Yes everyone's work SHOULD be reviewed and tested. Which is why the "legal system" has more than one component. The "work", (the investigation and the subsequent charges), will be reviewed and tested by the crown, (who has the final say on weather the matter continues onto a trial). It is then again reviewed and tested by the presiding judge.
That is how the system is designed and has worked "fairly well" for a considerable amount of time. It seems that you feel your "analysis" of the ONLY the video should trump, (Likely decades), of expertise these people bring to the investigation and therefore, the only viable solution in your mind is that your "analysis" of a VERY small portion f the evidence should be the only determining factor on IF or what charges should be laid.
So let's get rid of the entire legal system and we will simply forward you small portions of information and you can be investigator, judge and executioner. Just be careful that you don't injure yourself when getting of what is obviously a very high horse..lol
Just because you fail to agree with others opinions does not make their opinion, any more or any less valid than yours. I have presented my arguments, (I thought in a well reasoned, and concise manner as to why the charges "appear" on the surface to be the proper course of action, (I based this conclusion on not just the video but also the reports of the witness statements). I don't have to explain my logic and reasoning yet again to you. I have provided a reasoned and defensible position for my opinion, (if you failed to read it then feel free to review both the original as well as this thread again in detail.
I will let my real world experience speak for itself not "experience" garnered sitting behind a keyboard and believing that experience trumps all else. So feel free to explain exactly how you "measured" anything in a video, (remembering that this is going to trial measurements MUST be EXACT, (or within acceptable ranges based upon PROVEN measuring techniques applied by trained accident investigators, who got these formulas from research by trained experts, not "guessing" as you have accused others of doing). So please provide us with the EXACT speed, (or the accepted range and the scientific principles you used to determine that speed) of ALL vehicles in the video. The exact distances traveled by each of these vehicles. The traffic patterns of that intersection, normally occurring at the time of day on that day of the week, (yes accident investigators often have this information from traffic services who have studied the patterns using various methods including sensors etc), as surely you have, (like the investigators), gathered all the relevant information during your "analysis". I will also point out that NO ONE other than the investigators and the mechanics, (they would have likely seized the bike for analysis, looking for mechanical defects, IE brakes etc, and modifications etc), know the condition that bike was in. For all any of us here know the bikes brakes were so worn as to not permit proper stopping abilities. Perhaps your "analysis" of the video provided you with this information?
If you truly have experience "interpreting legislation", (I am talking of the relevant HTA and CCofC legistlation), then I encourage you to provide your "expert analysis" to the crown's office and advise them of the appropriate charges or lack thereof. I am sure they would be more than happy to accept the assistance. I provided my opinion based on several factors, (without limiting myself to just the video), but I also said that I would prefer to let those with ALL the information make the final determination, (so yes the "authorities")...lol
I personally am also heavily involved in the ATV community and have reviewed and even consulted somewhat on the current and proposed legislation, BUT that doesn't mean I have the qualifications to decide if someone should be charged with a particular violation, without having ALL the evidence and facts before me.
I guess this will be settled when we hear of the verdicts from the system and those who have the training. Till the I am content leaving it in their hands and lastly again stating I feel the charges as laid are proper, and that these riders were being foolish and reckless in their actions. Although I fundamentally disagree with 172
I said the "experts" in these fields, (the major accident investigation team, as well as video techs), have no doubt done their review of the RELEVANT legislation as well as ALL the evidence. You chastise others for "basing their opinions" only upon what is contained in the video, (while admitting that there likely also exists other evidence). Then you use the SAME video to attempt to "justify your opinion" so again I guess they aren't intelligent enough to have looked at the same video and drawn, (to them at least), valid conclusions, but that you somehow are able to do the same and, (at least to you), come up with an opinion, which differs from their opinion yet your opinion is the one that MUST be correct.
Yes everyone's work SHOULD be reviewed and tested. Which is why the "legal system" has more than one component. The "work", (the investigation and the subsequent charges), will be reviewed and tested by the crown, (who has the final say on weather the matter continues onto a trial). It is then again reviewed and tested by the presiding judge.
That is how the system is designed and has worked "fairly well" for a considerable amount of time. It seems that you feel your "analysis" of the ONLY the video should trump, (Likely decades), of expertise these people bring to the investigation and therefore, the only viable solution in your mind is that your "analysis" of a VERY small portion f the evidence should be the only determining factor on IF or what charges should be laid.
So let's get rid of the entire legal system and we will simply forward you small portions of information and you can be investigator, judge and executioner. Just be careful that you don't injure yourself when getting of what is obviously a very high horse..lol
Just because you fail to agree with others opinions does not make their opinion, any more or any less valid than yours. I have presented my arguments, (I thought in a well reasoned, and concise manner as to why the charges "appear" on the surface to be the proper course of action, (I based this conclusion on not just the video but also the reports of the witness statements). I don't have to explain my logic and reasoning yet again to you. I have provided a reasoned and defensible position for my opinion, (if you failed to read it then feel free to review both the original as well as this thread again in detail.
I will let my real world experience speak for itself not "experience" garnered sitting behind a keyboard and believing that experience trumps all else. So feel free to explain exactly how you "measured" anything in a video, (remembering that this is going to trial measurements MUST be EXACT, (or within acceptable ranges based upon PROVEN measuring techniques applied by trained accident investigators, who got these formulas from research by trained experts, not "guessing" as you have accused others of doing). So please provide us with the EXACT speed, (or the accepted range and the scientific principles you used to determine that speed) of ALL vehicles in the video. The exact distances traveled by each of these vehicles. The traffic patterns of that intersection, normally occurring at the time of day on that day of the week, (yes accident investigators often have this information from traffic services who have studied the patterns using various methods including sensors etc), as surely you have, (like the investigators), gathered all the relevant information during your "analysis". I will also point out that NO ONE other than the investigators and the mechanics, (they would have likely seized the bike for analysis, looking for mechanical defects, IE brakes etc, and modifications etc), know the condition that bike was in. For all any of us here know the bikes brakes were so worn as to not permit proper stopping abilities. Perhaps your "analysis" of the video provided you with this information?
If you truly have experience "interpreting legislation", (I am talking of the relevant HTA and CCofC legistlation), then I encourage you to provide your "expert analysis" to the crown's office and advise them of the appropriate charges or lack thereof. I am sure they would be more than happy to accept the assistance. I provided my opinion based on several factors, (without limiting myself to just the video), but I also said that I would prefer to let those with ALL the information make the final determination, (so yes the "authorities")...lol
I personally am also heavily involved in the ATV community and have reviewed and even consulted somewhat on the current and proposed legislation, BUT that doesn't mean I have the qualifications to decide if someone should be charged with a particular violation, without having ALL the evidence and facts before me.
I guess this will be settled when we hear of the verdicts from the system and those who have the training. Till the I am content leaving it in their hands and lastly again stating I feel the charges as laid are proper, and that these riders were being foolish and reckless in their actions. Although I fundamentally disagree with 172
If I merge into traffic on the 401 I look a lot further back than I do when I'm merging on a city street. I assume that traffic is flowing at near reasonable rates. That's where the bikes were wrong. If you want to drive like you're playing Whack-a-Mole you're going to eventually get smacked.
I don't like the "If the riders weren't...." argument because by the same logic the SUV driver was partly at fault as well as the woman that got hit. If she hadn't been there she wouldn't have gotten hit. "If" arguments are lame.
I don't like the "If the riders weren't...." argument because by the same logic the SUV driver was partly at fault as well as the woman that got hit. If she hadn't been there she wouldn't have gotten hit. "If" arguments are lame.
The "but for their actions" statement goes to the predicating actions, that are not in and of themselves legal. You can quite easily look at a situation and determine which actions are culpable. The turning van was capable of completing his actions in safety, given the situation that he was aware of. The woman at the side of the road was behaving in a reasonable manner. The only people who were not behaving in a reasonable manner, were the riders.
That is where the "but for the actions of..." statement comes from.
Would this thread even exist...
What if...
The SUV was never on Yonge Street;
The riders were riding at 50 km with proper signaled lane changes;
The woman had stopped at a shop 30 meters before the scene...
LOL
All plausible what ifs... But those NEVER happened and the result is the one who is suffering for it all is the woman. The rest will be sorted out by lawyers, (including Crown, defense, and personal injury civil), and insurance companies.
What if...
The SUV was never on Yonge Street;
The riders were riding at 50 km with proper signaled lane changes;
The woman had stopped at a shop 30 meters before the scene...
LOL
All plausible what ifs... But those NEVER happened and the result is the one who is suffering for it all is the woman. The rest will be sorted out by lawyers, (including Crown, defense, and personal injury civil), and insurance companies.
kwtoxman
Well-known member
How do you know the riders weren't doing 50 kph and what speed were they doing? 55? 60? No one in this thread has posted any verifiable evidence evidence the riders are doing more than the speed limit. Plus the SUV hit the bike with its front end. Even if the bike had been somewhat slower it would have hit the side of the SUV.
You do like to spin things to suit your paradigms hedo. I pointed out conjecture, pointed out facts; I didn't chastise, I discussed.
And nonsensical how you refuse to understand or acknowledge the explained context and take this thread and my posts where it isn't meant to go.
For the umpteenth time.....I said with was an exercise purely of using the video evidence as everyone else in the thread had before and judging guilt/innocence. It has nothing to do with the actual courts or court case, or any reality outside of the video, as was qualified as such. The assessment provided basic data that anyone can evaluate for themselves easily. It was much more robust than guesses, conjecture and vague statements that some others have used. And in the end the assessment was to show evidence from the video that people had not taken the time to determine or to consider in their opinion.
Enough of this for me. It is all rehash rehash rehash, go off track, rehash rehash rehash.
A close examination of the video shows the truck applied its brake (and the rear end of it comes up) when the SUV initiated the left hand turn, and the distance calculations shows there was little distance between the two vehicles even taking that braking into account. The truck took measures to avoid the proximity of the turning vehicle. The SUV was not capable of completing its left hand turn in a safe manner even before considering the rider.
You do like to spin things to suit your paradigms hedo. I pointed out conjecture, pointed out facts; I didn't chastise, I discussed.
And nonsensical how you refuse to understand or acknowledge the explained context and take this thread and my posts where it isn't meant to go.
For the umpteenth time.....I said with was an exercise purely of using the video evidence as everyone else in the thread had before and judging guilt/innocence. It has nothing to do with the actual courts or court case, or any reality outside of the video, as was qualified as such. The assessment provided basic data that anyone can evaluate for themselves easily. It was much more robust than guesses, conjecture and vague statements that some others have used. And in the end the assessment was to show evidence from the video that people had not taken the time to determine or to consider in their opinion.
Enough of this for me. It is all rehash rehash rehash, go off track, rehash rehash rehash.
A close examination of the video shows the truck applied its brake (and the rear end of it comes up) when the SUV initiated the left hand turn, and the distance calculations shows there was little distance between the two vehicles even taking that braking into account. The truck took measures to avoid the proximity of the turning vehicle. The SUV was not capable of completing its left hand turn in a safe manner even before considering the rider.
Last edited:
That was equally well explained, in the previous thread, as the truck's driver braking as he saw the motorcycle zip by.
kwtoxman
Well-known member
That's an assumption and as such, it doesn't hold much weight imo.
I can equally assume that the truck driver did not see the motorcycle pass, but was appropriately and reasonably focused on a left turn vehicle right in front of him.
This is a main point in my going through all this. So much of this thread is about people using assumptions in order suit their conclusions. Using assumptions means that the conclusions are an assumption as well, and a divergent assumption and conclusion is equally valid and viable.
Last edited:
No more so than yours.
The simple fact is that the riders were behaving in a way that was improper for the situation, and that they have been charged for the results of their behaviour.
kwtoxman
Well-known member
Didn't I say all "assumptions" are equally valid?
That is why I never had that assumption in my analysis.
As soon as assumptions are part of an analysis, the conclusions are completely arbitrary. And differing conclusions will have equal validity and viability. So I find it futile to debate conclusions based on assumptions.
That may be the case, but again, to say that is inferring potential and likely evidence that is not in this thread, and is as such a separate consideration. From the video evidence only (as noted again), it is quite debatable if their actions would merit guilt on the charges, as many people say they do.
Last edited:
