Clayton Rivet death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

[hedo2002]

Forum Sponsor

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Because those are ALL "what if's". His speed is NOT a "what if", it IS A FACT. That my friend is the difference. So my account makes complete sense as the ONLY thing he did do which can be proven was SPEED at TWICE the limit. That factor alone, is what put him in that place at that time. All the "what if's" you have presented also wouldn't have put him in that place at that time. But we can't PROVE he did or didn't do ANY of those. How far do we go with these silly "what if's"? What if the officer had never been born, What if Clayton had never been born. Bottom line Clayton CHOOSE to stunt drive, (at least 74 Km/h over the legal limit), that choice is what put him where he was at that moment in time.

I base my statement on FACT, (that Clayton could not have been in that exact location at that precise time), had he been traveling closer to the speed limit. The other scenarios are just "what if's that have never been proven to have occurred.

Also if any of those "what if's" had occurred again the result would be NO collision therefore, no death, no thread, no on "trying" to dispute the "laws of physics".

Sorry Buddy. That argument makes no sense. By the same token: What if he had stopped for a pee; not stopped for a pee; left a minute later or a minute earlier; not hit the snooze button that morning; not had a coffee refill after lunch; etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.

 

[inreb]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Ok apparently I am not communicating it clearly enough for others to comprehend. So I will try via an example.

If I leave my home in Oshawa, (whatever time I leave is not relevant), and I ride along the 401 at the posted limit of 100 Km/h, (with little to no traffic to impede my progress), and it takes me 18 minutes to arrive at the off ramp to say Markham road. Then we now know it would take me 18 minutes arrive at that spot.

Now the next day I leave my home, (again the time of departure is not relevant), only this time again with little to no traffic), I ride at 154 km/h. This time I arrive at the same spot, (Markham road off ramp), in 16 minutes. This demonstrates that Had Clayton been doing the posted 80 or even 100, he simply would NOT HAVE BEEN in that space at that time therefore NO collision. This isn't me distorting the laws of physics.

i encourage anyone to demonstrate to me how two vehicles taking the same route, at the same time, while one is traveling at 100 km/h and the other is traveling at 154 km/h can arrive at the EXACT SAME Spot at the EXACT same time. It is impossible.

If one were to plan a long road trip with a limited amount of time to arrive there, are they more likely to choose secondary roads with limits of 80 or the slab at 100 limit, (Basing it solely upon the difference in the limits and the limited time frame). Of course they would choose the slab as that will get them there BEFORE a route limited to 80.

Perhaps that makes my point more clearly. Again I didn't write the laws of Physics I am merely applying them.

It doesn't matter when you get to that place, 16 minutes, 18minutes, whatever. It's your very arrival at that place that triggers a series of events resulting in your death, that's what matters. What that series of events is comprised of is still questionable despite an investigation. It's being actively questioned.

 

[ddusseld]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

There is also one other not if. The time the cop chose to make the U-turn. Using your logic, if the cop had not made the U-turn at the specific time he did there would be no crash. Entirely not relevant but equally as valid as the speed putting the rider at the location...

Because those are ALL "what if's". His speed is NOT a "what if", it IS A FACT. That my friend is the difference. So my account makes complete sense as the ONLY thing he did do which can be proven was SPEED at TWICE the limit. That factor alone, is what put him in that place at that time. All the "what if's" you have presented also wouldn't have put him in that place at that time. But we can't PROVE he did or didn't do ANY of those. How far do we go with these silly "what if's"? What if the officer had never been born, What if Clayton had never been born. Bottom line Clayton CHOOSE to stunt drive, (at least 74 Km/h over the legal limit), that choice is what put him where he was at that moment in time.

I base my statement on FACT, (that Clayton could not have been in that exact location at that precise time), had he been traveling closer to the speed limit. The other scenarios are just "what if's that have never been proven to have occurred.

Also if any of those "what if's" had occurred again the result would be NO collision therefore, no death, no thread, no on "trying" to dispute the "laws of physics".

 

[Baggsy]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Where did the collision occur?

There's a great spot to make a u-turn right after the traffic light, but you couldn't block the road there with a single car.

 

[Brian P]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Ok apparently I am not communicating it clearly enough for others to comprehend. So I will try via an example.

If I leave my home in Oshawa, (whatever time I leave is not relevant), and I ride along the 401 at the posted limit of 100 Km/h, (with little to no traffic to impede my progress), and it takes me 18 minutes to arrive at the off ramp to say Markham road. Then we now know it would take me 18 minutes arrive at that spot.

Now the next day I leave my home, (again the time of departure is not relevant), only this time again with little to no traffic), I ride at 154 km/h. This time I arrive at the same spot, (Markham road off ramp), in 16 minutes. This demonstrates that Had Clayton been doing the posted 80 or even 100, he simply would NOT HAVE BEEN in that space at that time therefore NO collision. This isn't me distorting the laws of physics.

Oh, boy ...

And this is coming from someone who claims to have done thousands of collision investigations.

So by the same token but flipping the logic around, I could have avoided the crash that I had in 2007 (in which my speed was LEGAL), by riding at 150 km/h for a few minutes instead, thus arriving at that town ahead of the offending white Ford Taurus, so the collision wouldn't have happened, because I would have been through the other side of town by the time the car made that left turn! (Or do the laws of space and time only apply if you are going SLOWER ... ! ! !)

If I'd known 10 minutes in advance that this car would make that move at that place in time, I might have done just that. But I didn't!

Next time the NTSB has to investigate a mid-air collision, why don't you present your alternative investigation method? "The crash happened because one of the planes was flying too fast, and if they'd slowed down, the collision wouldn't have happened!" It would sure be a whole lot easier than the method they use now ... of starting at the time of impact and working backwards from there, working out from mathematics and physics at what time they could have each seen the other (A) on instruments and (B) through the windows, checking whether the instruments were working, checking visibility conditions, checking whether the pilots were distracted, finding out whether the planes had any mechanical problems, etc., and then changing whatever various factors that may be relevant and re-running simulations to see if a collision scenario still exists.

In serious incident investigations, coincidence (of both being at the same place and time) is not considered to be a factor that can be controlled. You take that "as it comes", and you work backwards from the time of incident.

That someone who claims to be a former police accident investigator is relying on someone going a different speed to simply "be in a different place and time" at the time that the collision happened - thus relying on coincidence - is indicative of an overly simplistic and deeply flawed analysis method. That this same person claims to have done thousands of investigations probably indicates that this overly simplistic and deeply flawed analysis method is pervasive through police collision investigators in general ... and given that the SIU is mostly comprised (wrongly, if you ask me) of former police officers, guess what that means.

In their defence, however, the SIU is likely correct that there would be no reasonable prospect of conviction if they were to lay a criminal charge against the officer.

I won't brag about my own qualifications, but suffice it to say that predicting situations that could lead to accidents (including human factors), risk assessment, FMEA (failure mode effects analysis), are things that I do every day ... but my paycheck doesn't come from the government.

 

[Baggsy]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

So nobody knows exactly where the collision occurred, beyond it being between the traffic light and the 404, near some farmland? I thought that some had said that they'd attended the scene later on.

 

[kiwi]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

So nobody knows exactly where the collision occurred, beyond it being between the traffic light and the 404, near some farmland? I thought that some had said that they'd attended the scene later on.

Location was posted a few pages back I think. With a photo even.

 

[85K100]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Bottom line Clayton CHOOSE to stunt drive, (at least 74 Km/h over the legal limit), that choice is what put him where he was at that moment in time.

Yes. That choice, and every other choice he made in his life up to that point.

Baggsy, The road looks a lot different now than it did then. There was a diversion and only the 2 northernmost lanes were open, with concrete barriers in place, just east of the lights. West of the lights, only the southern lanes were open.

 

[lator-illa]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Ok apparently I am not communicating it clearly enough for others to comprehend. So I will try via an example.

If I leave my home in Oshawa, (whatever time I leave is not relevant), and I ride along the 401 at the posted limit of 100 Km/h, (with little to no traffic to impede my progress), and it takes me 18 minutes to arrive at the off ramp to say Markham road. Then we now know it would take me 18 minutes arrive at that spot.

Now the next day I leave my home, (again the time of departure is not relevant), only this time again with little to no traffic), I ride at 154 km/h. This time I arrive at the same spot, (Markham road off ramp), in 16 minutes. This demonstrates that Had Clayton been doing the posted 80 or even 100, he simply would NOT HAVE BEEN in that space at that time therefore NO collision. This isn't me distorting the laws of physics.

i encourage anyone to demonstrate to me how two vehicles taking the same route, at the same time, while one is traveling at 100 km/h and the other is traveling at 154 km/h can arrive at the EXACT SAME Spot at the EXACT same time. It is impossible.

If one were to plan a long road trip with a limited amount of time to arrive there, are they more likely to choose secondary roads with limits of 80 or the slab at 100 limit, (Basing it solely upon the difference in the limits and the limited time frame). Of course they would choose the slab as that will get them there BEFORE a route limited to 80.

Perhaps that makes my point more clearly. Again I didn't write the laws of Physics I am merely applying them.

Really?!?

And IF the cop hadn't been there, Clay would've kept on riding. As others have stated, this argument makes no sense.

Boggles my mind that you can only see one side to it, and just refuse to see that perhaps, it's a possibility that the other side also made a mistake.

 

[casacrow]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Really?!?

And IF the cop hadn't been there, Clay would've kept on riding. As others have stated, this argument makes no sense.

Maybe he's more clever than we are giving him credit for. He is successfully creating a distraction from some really good lines of thinking and burying them in rediculous posts.

 

[inreb]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Maybe he's more clever than we are giving him credit for. He is successfully creating a distraction from some really good lines of thinking and burying them in rediculous posts.

That reminds of the joke about winning the retard olympics. The winner is still a retard, please excuse the politically incorrect nomenclature.

 

[rafiki911]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

The speed of the rider is irrevelant. What is relavent is the cop pulling out without warning and blocking the riders right of way. As a cop there is no excuse for pulling an unsafe manuver causing the road way to be blocked.

The collision could have been prevented only if the cop had not pulled that manuver in an unsafe area. Even if the rider had been going the speed limit or under, a vehicle unexpectantly pulls out in front of you leaving you not enough room to break and no space to go around would cause a collision anyways.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

The speed of the rider is irrevelant. What is relavent is the cop pulling out without warning and blocking the riders right of way. As a cop there is no excuse for pulling an unsafe manuver causing the road way to be blocked.

The collision could have been prevented only if the cop had not pulled that manuver in an unsafe area. Even if the rider had been going the speed limit or under, a vehicle unexpectantly pulls out in front of you leaving you not enough room to break and no space to go around would cause a collision anyways.

Again, you're another person who is assuming things that we do not know. I would suggest starting back at the beginning and reading through.

 

[inreb]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

"we do not know" might as well be "we will never know" Somebody knows but he ain't talking. I wouldn't either. Makes me wonder why anybody on any side of the debate is so darn cocksure. Some people just can't seem to accept not knowing. In religion they're called radicals, in accident reconstruction they're called experts.

 

[hedo2002]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Yes had you been going 150 km/h you wouldn't have been in that collision. But the speed you WERE traveling was LEGAL. Clayton was committing an offence with the speed he was going. I didn't rely upon Clayton's speed as the "determining" factor I said it was a major contributing factor. I believe even you have stated it was not a good idea to be riding at night through a construction zone at that speed.

Again you can argue with me the laws of physics still apply, yes they apply to speeds which are slower or faster. But then again had Clayton been going slower he would have also had the benefit of more reaction time and required less kenetic energy to get the bike stopped, then he was afforded at 150 km/h. To completely "dismiss" Claytons speed is not logical.

It doesn't matter what you or I "think" the ONLY thing that matters is what the current laws and legislation permit. Under THESE circumstances they do NOT permit the crown a "case with a reasonable prospect of conviction" It really is THAT simple.

Some continue to argue the SIU is "tainted" as it is former police officers. BUT most of the reconstruction of the data would not have been done by those investigators, but rather "technical experts". Then I guess the next avenue is the crown also must be tainted as it would have been the crown who made the final decision that the prospect of a conviction wasn't there.

But again Clayton is blamelss his illegal actions in NO way contributed to the collision, and the officer is 100% at fault as his LEGAL Uturn, (again i have stated many times perhaps not the best option), was the ONLY contributing factor to be considered. Yes I investigated thousands of collisions and you MUST look at ALL the factors not narrow your focus from the second the collision occurred in order to obtain the results which support your theory and lead to the conclusion you want, NOTE*** In this case the term you is not specific to one individual***

Bottom line is we can debate it for another 33 pages and it is NOT going to change the outcome. Clayton unfortunately and tragically lost his life. The investigation has determined the officer did not commit a breach of the law which would have resulted in his conviction. The ONLY two viable lessons we can draw from this tragedy, are ride responsibly and defensively, (thinking ALL events could result in your death), at ALL times, regardless of how good a rider you THINK you are. secondly, that perhaps speeds such as were seen in this case are best reserved for the track where the chances of another rider doing something completely unexpected are greatly reduced, which simply is not the case on a public road.

There is no changing some peoples perspective. I have not "defended" the officer's actions I have stated many times it wasn't the "best option", but it was NOT illegal, as determined after the EXPERTS looked at ALL the evidence, something NONE of us here have.

It was others who began to "blame" the officer I had in the beginning simply taken the same position you just stated, that the SIU, (although it would have actually been the crown), who determined there was no chance for a conviction given the evidence and circumstances.

Oh, boy ...

And this is coming from someone who claims to have done thousands of collision investigations.

So by the same token but flipping the logic around, I could have avoided the crash that I had in 2007 (in which my speed was LEGAL), by riding at 150 km/h for a few minutes instead, thus arriving at that town ahead of the offending white Ford Taurus, so the collision wouldn't have happened, because I would have been through the other side of town by the time the car made that left turn! (Or do the laws of space and time only apply if you are going SLOWER ... ! ! !)

If I'd known 10 minutes in advance that this car would make that move at that place in time, I might have done just that. But I didn't!

Next time the NTSB has to investigate a mid-air collision, why don't you present your alternative investigation method? "The crash happened because one of the planes was flying too fast, and if they'd slowed down, the collision wouldn't have happened!" It would sure be a whole lot easier than the method they use now ... of starting at the time of impact and working backwards from there, working out from mathematics and physics at what time they could have each seen the other (A) on instruments and (B) through the windows, checking whether the instruments were working, checking visibility conditions, checking whether the pilots were distracted, finding out whether the planes had any mechanical problems, etc., and then changing whatever various factors that may be relevant and re-running simulations to see if a collision scenario still exists.

In serious incident investigations, coincidence (of both being at the same place and time) is not considered to be a factor that can be controlled. You take that "as it comes", and you work backwards from the time of incident.

That someone who claims to be a former police accident investigator is relying on someone going a different speed to simply "be in a different place and time" at the time that the collision happened - thus relying on coincidence - is indicative of an overly simplistic and deeply flawed analysis method. That this same person claims to have done thousands of investigations probably indicates that this overly simplistic and deeply flawed analysis method is pervasive through police collision investigators in general ... and given that the SIU is mostly comprised (wrongly, if you ask me) of former police officers, guess what that means.

In their defence, however, the SIU is likely correct that there would be no reasonable prospect of conviction if they were to lay a criminal charge against the officer.

I won't brag about my own qualifications, but suffice it to say that predicting situations that could lead to accidents (including human factors), risk assessment, FMEA (failure mode effects analysis), are things that I do every day ... but my paycheck doesn't come from the government.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

"we do not know" might as well be "we will never know" Somebody knows but he ain't talking. I wouldn't either. Makes me wonder why anybody on any side of the debate is so darn cocksure. Some people just can't seem to accept not knowing. In religion they're called radicals, in accident reconstruction they're called experts.

We can't know what happened. Based on available information we can make an educated guess about whether or not a charge should be laid, or would have any real chance of resulting in a guilty verdict. That's pretty much our limit.

 

[inreb]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

So the main thrust is "no reasonable chance of conviction" and a number of possible/for sure contributing factors on both sides? Just say so and move along would be my advice. No need for the endless tomes imho. Or what is the purpose of the endless tomes?

 

[inreb]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

We can't know what happened. Based on available information we can make an educated guess about whether or not a charge should be laid, or would have any real chance of resulting in a guilty verdict. That's pretty much our limit.

Exactly. So for somebody to post suspicions of police/SIU/Crown/Government/experts is only right. For certain people to bring "big firepower" to the argument is bogus and suspicious.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

So the main thrust is "no reasonable chance of conviction" and a number of possible/for sure contributing factors on both sides? Just say so and move along would be my advice. No need for the endless tomes imho. Or what is the purpose of the endless tomes?

I pretty much said (exactly) this quite a while back. For some reason people want to keep inserting their personal assumptions as 'facts', which is all that is currently keeping this discussion (argument) alive.

 

[Jayv]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

I pretty much said (exactly) this quite a while back. For some reason people want to keep inserting their personal assumptions as 'facts', which is all that is currently keeping this discussion (argument) alive.

I'm pretty sure if this happened to one of your friends Rob your attitude would change.
If you don't care, why do you continue adding to your post count?

Guy was speeding, his friends acknowledge that fact. Whether or not due care and attention was displayed by the officer when performing a u-turn on a country road is what the other side is looking for.

The answer is buried within siu, who don't have a stellar past record.

Forum Sponsor