Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
I never said that.
|
|
|
Clayton Rivet death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
- Thread starter CafeRay
- Start date
- Status
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Clayton was not going 200+, the siu said he was going approx 150kph and impact speed was 142kph. Not that he wasn't speeding but that isn't even the top of first gear. Not that I think he was in first gear on impact.
Clayton was not going 200+, the siu said he was going approx 150kph and impact speed was 142kph. Not that he wasn't speeding but that isn't even the top of first gear. Not that I think he was in first gear on impact.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
This is the way I look at it, too. The right-of-way violation (by the police car) was the prime cause. The speed of the bike was a contributing factor, and I don't dispute that it was a significant contributing factor.
In countries that follow the Vienna-convention traffic rules, that's the way it would be seen: what we call "right of way" and they call "priority" takes precedence over all other rules, i.e. it doesn't matter if the vehicle that has the right of way/priority is doing something wrong, they still have the right of way/priority. Unfortunately, Canada and USA are among the few countries in the developed world that are not signatory to the Vienna convention on road traffic.
This is the way I look at it, too. The right-of-way violation (by the police car) was the prime cause. The speed of the bike was a contributing factor, and I don't dispute that it was a significant contributing factor.
In countries that follow the Vienna-convention traffic rules, that's the way it would be seen: what we call "right of way" and they call "priority" takes precedence over all other rules, i.e. it doesn't matter if the vehicle that has the right of way/priority is doing something wrong, they still have the right of way/priority. Unfortunately, Canada and USA are among the few countries in the developed world that are not signatory to the Vienna convention on road traffic.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Sorry 150 in an 80 then...
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Woefully short on information here. The SIU said the skid marks started around that speed: nobody knows how fast he was going before the wheel lock up. The truly moronic clinging that many squids demonstrate to the phrase "not even that fast, that's just first gear speed" shows just why this guy, like many others, are DEAD. Wake up people, go ahead and keep lying to yourselves if you want but that kind of retard thinking gets you dead.
Woefully short on information here. The SIU said the skid marks started around that speed: nobody knows how fast he was going before the wheel lock up. The truly moronic clinging that many squids demonstrate to the phrase "not even that fast, that's just first gear speed" shows just why this guy, like many others, are DEAD. Wake up people, go ahead and keep lying to yourselves if you want but that kind of retard thinking gets you dead.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Respectfully disagree with that viewpoint for the simple reason that speed definitively has an impact on the ability for another road user to even know they are there. It's extremely flawed to expect people to anticipate something out of their sightline, out of the norm, and in the middle of a criminal act. Here's a quick little anecdote; you are in a slow moving vehicle, say a tractor trailer. You come to a T-intersection, look as far as the road permits in each direction which is 500m each way and it is totally clear. You pull out, 4 ways on, and you get rear ended by some brain dead organ donor doing 200 behind you. Why on God's green earth is that your fault?
Personally, I see it the "prime cause" definition backwards to how you have posted it. The police car contributed to it for sure, but the bike's speed took away the cop's ability to conduct a reasonable manouver. Take away the speed, and the resulting gain in visibility, judgement of ability to conduct the turn, and the riders ability to stop/avoid are all restored.
Respectfully disagree with that viewpoint for the simple reason that speed definitively has an impact on the ability for another road user to even know they are there. It's extremely flawed to expect people to anticipate something out of their sightline, out of the norm, and in the middle of a criminal act. Here's a quick little anecdote; you are in a slow moving vehicle, say a tractor trailer. You come to a T-intersection, look as far as the road permits in each direction which is 500m each way and it is totally clear. You pull out, 4 ways on, and you get rear ended by some brain dead organ donor doing 200 behind you. Why on God's green earth is that your fault?
Personally, I see it the "prime cause" definition backwards to how you have posted it. The police car contributed to it for sure, but the bike's speed took away the cop's ability to conduct a reasonable manouver. Take away the speed, and the resulting gain in visibility, judgement of ability to conduct the turn, and the riders ability to stop/avoid are all restored.
Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Why is there some fault and blame towards the cop? Because highway patrol officers know the inherit danger of speeders and wreck less riders and drivers and should take the proper precaution when they are about to engage their vehicle onto the highway. It's their job and their life.
Just like the those dummies that set up speed traps and walk out into the road way in traffic to make the stop. And heaven forbid when a speeder mowes down an LEO and is labeled a speeding cop killer. But I digress.
This young fella paid for his recklessness with his life. And I say to argue or blame his death on the cop is a waste of time. The anger towards the cop is misplaced. If there is anything to take away from his death? Don't ride like an idiot.
Why is there some fault and blame towards the cop? Because highway patrol officers know the inherit danger of speeders and wreck less riders and drivers and should take the proper precaution when they are about to engage their vehicle onto the highway. It's their job and their life.
Just like the those dummies that set up speed traps and walk out into the road way in traffic to make the stop. And heaven forbid when a speeder mowes down an LEO and is labeled a speeding cop killer. But I digress.
This young fella paid for his recklessness with his life. And I say to argue or blame his death on the cop is a waste of time. The anger towards the cop is misplaced. If there is anything to take away from his death? Don't ride like an idiot.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
... except that even at that speed, with the timeframe (roughly) known and with the sightlines (roughly) known, Clayton was NOT out of visible range. If we estimate 4 seconds before impact to be "decision time" for the cop to make the U-turn or not, he would have been about 160 metres away. You can easily see a headlight at night that far away. For that matter, even if the cop had seen the headlight, 160 metres and closing (even if the cop didn't establish the closing speed), would have been close enough that, had the cop seen the headlight (and either misjudged or didn't bother establishing a closing speed), the cop ought to have recognized that his U-turn would take longer than the approaching vehicle would take to be right on top of him.
The cop could have very easily established that there was an approaching vehicle and that it would be best to defer the U-turn until after it had passed.
The most likely explanation is that the cop didn't bother to look, at all, prior to making that U-turn - or if he did look, it was nowhere near an appropriate timeframe before making that U-turn.
happycrappy, your example is a poor one. Being rear-ended is the rear-ending driver's fault. The Vienna-convention traffic rules are spelled out. The presence of a large, slow vehicle in the midst of a maneuver doesn't give another driver who has priority the right to hit it ... but it also doesn't give the driver of that large, slow vehicle carte-blanche to pull out in front of another motorist who has priority, and certainly not to pull out in front of that priority vehicle in such a manner that they cannot stop in time. In a situation as described here, both drivers would be held at fault - the priority vehicle (bike, in this case) for speeding, the U-turning vehicle (cop car) for failure to give way ("yield") to the priority vehicle.
... except that even at that speed, with the timeframe (roughly) known and with the sightlines (roughly) known, Clayton was NOT out of visible range. If we estimate 4 seconds before impact to be "decision time" for the cop to make the U-turn or not, he would have been about 160 metres away. You can easily see a headlight at night that far away. For that matter, even if the cop had seen the headlight, 160 metres and closing (even if the cop didn't establish the closing speed), would have been close enough that, had the cop seen the headlight (and either misjudged or didn't bother establishing a closing speed), the cop ought to have recognized that his U-turn would take longer than the approaching vehicle would take to be right on top of him.
The cop could have very easily established that there was an approaching vehicle and that it would be best to defer the U-turn until after it had passed.
The most likely explanation is that the cop didn't bother to look, at all, prior to making that U-turn - or if he did look, it was nowhere near an appropriate timeframe before making that U-turn.
happycrappy, your example is a poor one. Being rear-ended is the rear-ending driver's fault. The Vienna-convention traffic rules are spelled out. The presence of a large, slow vehicle in the midst of a maneuver doesn't give another driver who has priority the right to hit it ... but it also doesn't give the driver of that large, slow vehicle carte-blanche to pull out in front of another motorist who has priority, and certainly not to pull out in front of that priority vehicle in such a manner that they cannot stop in time. In a situation as described here, both drivers would be held at fault - the priority vehicle (bike, in this case) for speeding, the U-turning vehicle (cop car) for failure to give way ("yield") to the priority vehicle.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
This remains the truth.
This remains the truth.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Actually my example is right on the money. A vehicle, entering a road way as clear as visibility allows, makes no difference if it was rear-ended or hit broadside; how can the vehicle being struck make this turn safely then? Of course if you pull out and are hit by a vehicle doing something close to the limit, then things change considerably determining fault. Your response is actually very disappointing; why are you intentionally distorting the scenario? I did not in any way infer that ANYBODY has carte-blanche to pull out and cause a collision. Split fault would be completely agreeable if both vehicles were operating in such a way that was foreseeable and withing a certain parameter. This is the crux of it; going so drastically over the speed limit completely prohibits the other driver of being able to assess the situation.
Actually my example is right on the money. A vehicle, entering a road way as clear as visibility allows, makes no difference if it was rear-ended or hit broadside; how can the vehicle being struck make this turn safely then? Of course if you pull out and are hit by a vehicle doing something close to the limit, then things change considerably determining fault. Your response is actually very disappointing; why are you intentionally distorting the scenario? I did not in any way infer that ANYBODY has carte-blanche to pull out and cause a collision. Split fault would be completely agreeable if both vehicles were operating in such a way that was foreseeable and withing a certain parameter. This is the crux of it; going so drastically over the speed limit completely prohibits the other driver of being able to assess the situation.
Last edited:
ddusseld
Well-known member
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Where is this 4 seconds coming from? Was this in the SIU report?
The most likely explanation is that the cop did look, did see the head light, thought he had plenty of time to make the turn, made the turn and then was hit by the rider who was doing a speed that was not within the realm of reasonable expectation.
Where is this 4 seconds coming from? Was this in the SIU report?
The most likely explanation is that the cop did look, did see the head light, thought he had plenty of time to make the turn, made the turn and then was hit by the rider who was doing a speed that was not within the realm of reasonable expectation.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Likely quoting my previously stated estimate about how long it would take to complete such a move. It's nowhere in the report, that I'm aware of.
Likely quoting my previously stated estimate about how long it would take to complete such a move. It's nowhere in the report, that I'm aware of.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Nobody got rear ended here. If the officer had of been rear ended, I would have to believe the officer was 100% not at fault.
Nobody got rear ended here. If the officer had of been rear ended, I would have to believe the officer was 100% not at fault.
Last edited:
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Actually it is not a reasonable estimate.
There is no evidence that the officer made the u Turn at 80 km/h, (dvsbullet posted his speed, which would have been recorded by the cruiser black box was 25 km/h as reported by the SIU). This substantially increases the "time frame between "making the decision" to make u turn, to actually completing the turn.)
Yes the reconstruction team estimated the bikes speed at 154 when he applied the brakes. Now as even you stated MANY factors should have "set off alarm bells" for Clayton. There is NO Evidence the officer was hiding behind the barrier. Therefore, if one "assumes" the officer seen Clayton and misjudged the speed at which Clayton was traveling then why is it NOT assumed that Clayton who was looking forward rather than in a rear view mirror?
I am amazed at the statement "highway patrol officers should know the dangers of speeders and act differently as it is their job" first this was a YTP officer not a "highway patrol officer". Now having cleared thus how is it the officer is expected to expect the unexpected and that which is beyond what a "reasonable person could anticipate". Now we as riders are taught to ride expecting others to do the unexpected. We are not taught not expect t.the unexpected and unreasonable illegal activities of others. Again Clayton wasn't "speeding" he was well within STUNT riding, speeding downplays his complete disregard for the safety of other road users.
I respectfully submit that a rider, riding safely and responsible should have recognized the danger that it would be reasonable to expect or anticipate that the cruiser may do the unexpected pull a upturn in front of him. However, the officer could not have anticipated that someone, (clayton), would be doing something unexpected and unreasonable, (traveling at TWICE the legal limit). To suggest that his speed wasn't that fast as his bike could do that in first gear, is ludicrous. I am sure had the circumstances been reversed, and the cruiser had hit Clayton at that speed while Clayton was completing a LEGAL u turn people would be scream about how unreasonable his speed was. But that wouldn't be helpful in a civil suit.
Actually it is not a reasonable estimate.
There is no evidence that the officer made the u Turn at 80 km/h, (dvsbullet posted his speed, which would have been recorded by the cruiser black box was 25 km/h as reported by the SIU). This substantially increases the "time frame between "making the decision" to make u turn, to actually completing the turn.)
Yes the reconstruction team estimated the bikes speed at 154 when he applied the brakes. Now as even you stated MANY factors should have "set off alarm bells" for Clayton. There is NO Evidence the officer was hiding behind the barrier. Therefore, if one "assumes" the officer seen Clayton and misjudged the speed at which Clayton was traveling then why is it NOT assumed that Clayton who was looking forward rather than in a rear view mirror?
I am amazed at the statement "highway patrol officers should know the dangers of speeders and act differently as it is their job" first this was a YTP officer not a "highway patrol officer". Now having cleared thus how is it the officer is expected to expect the unexpected and that which is beyond what a "reasonable person could anticipate". Now we as riders are taught to ride expecting others to do the unexpected. We are not taught not expect t.the unexpected and unreasonable illegal activities of others. Again Clayton wasn't "speeding" he was well within STUNT riding, speeding downplays his complete disregard for the safety of other road users.
I respectfully submit that a rider, riding safely and responsible should have recognized the danger that it would be reasonable to expect or anticipate that the cruiser may do the unexpected pull a upturn in front of him. However, the officer could not have anticipated that someone, (clayton), would be doing something unexpected and unreasonable, (traveling at TWICE the legal limit). To suggest that his speed wasn't that fast as his bike could do that in first gear, is ludicrous. I am sure had the circumstances been reversed, and the cruiser had hit Clayton at that speed while Clayton was completing a LEGAL u turn people would be scream about how unreasonable his speed was. But that wouldn't be helpful in a civil suit.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Unlikely, at best, given the results of the investigation.
Unlikely, at best, given the results of the investigation.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
In Ontario ... Unlikely. In a country that uses Vienna-convention rules e.g. UK, Germany ... Absolutely, and I can point to a recent similar example that was widely publicized.
In Ontario ... Unlikely. In a country that uses Vienna-convention rules e.g. UK, Germany ... Absolutely, and I can point to a recent similar example that was widely publicized.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Yes, because a death was involved, but it would have been performed by police rather than SIU.
Yes, because a death was involved, but it would have been performed by police rather than SIU.
- Status
|
|
|
|
|