Clayton Rivet death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation. | Page 20 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Clayton Rivet death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Forum Sponsor
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Not really relevant, what would have occurred in another country. In Iraq you can shoot and kill someone without charge. Because they operate under a separate set of rules, because it is a combat zone.

The other countries have adopted different legislation so what we are discussing a collision in Ontario so Ontario rules are the only ones applicable.

Quite frankly I wouldn't want to ride on a country where if I pulled in front of vehicle I had no reasonable opportunity to see due to its reckless and illegal operation. Then get screwed over by a legal system.

Again, the bikes speed was NOT a contributing factor. If not for the speed and illegal operation of the bike would have never been in that location at that time. Ergo no collision.

Brian P said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Typical North American policing attitude ... focus on the speed only, and not on anything else.

If not for the inappropriate U-turn of the police car, the collision would not have happened, either.

I am NOT saying that the rider's inappropriate-for-conditions speed was not a significant factor ... but the police car's U-turn was a significant factor, too.

It's BS that the officer could not have seen the bike ... unless the construction barriers were obstructing his view, in which case it was an illegal U-turn.
 
Last edited:
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

...and bike could have seen car...except it was travelling too fast to do anything about it. The other north American trait of not taking responsibility for actions is also evident.
 
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Just to clarify, who are you accusing of not taking responsibility for actions?

The rider is no longer in a position for that to matter, and at this point, no one is denying that the rider's speed was inappropriate for conditions. Placing zero blame on the officer, solely because of the rider's speed, is also not appropriate when the available sight lines suggest that EITHER (1) the construction barriers were blocking the officer's view, in which case the officer made an illegal U-turn, OR (2) the construction barriers were not blocking the officer's view, in which case the likely timing of events would have had the bike's headlight within view (although approaching fast) for ample time for the officer to have seen it (the most likely explanation is that the officer simply didn't look before turning - perhaps distracted by the call from dispatch).

And to be perfectly clear, the SIU report does imply a degree of responsibility for the officer making an improper U-turn.

Part of the responsibility for staying safe on the roads means you have to watch out for the other driver in case they do something wrong, because it happens. But this applies to EVERYONE ... including the cops. It's obvious that blasting through a construction zone at excessive speed, is not a good thing to be doing. It's also obvious that blasting at high speed past another vehicle that appears to be performing some sort of maneuver (Clayton surely saw the brake and tail lights up ahead well before the point of impact), is not a good thing to be doing, either. BUT ... Turning into the path of another vehicle that perhaps is speeding and might not be able to avoid a collision, is also not a good idea. If that means you have to look a bit further down the road, just to make sure there is no such vehicle approaching ... so be it.
 
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Brian P said:
Just to clarify, who are you accusing of not taking responsibility for actions?

The rider is no longer in a position for that to matter, and at this point, no one is denying that the rider's speed was inappropriate for conditions. Placing zero blame on the officer, solely because of the rider's speed, is also not appropriate when the available sight lines suggest that EITHER (1) the construction barriers were blocking the officer's view, in which case the officer made an illegal U-turn, OR (2) the construction barriers were not blocking the officer's view, in which case the likely timing of events would have had the bike's headlight within view (although approaching fast) for ample time for the officer to have seen it (the most likely explanation is that the officer simply didn't look before turning - perhaps distracted by the call from dispatch).

And to be perfectly clear, the SIU report does imply a degree of responsibility for the officer making an improper U-turn.

Part of the responsibility for staying safe on the roads means you have to watch out for the other driver in case they do something wrong, because it happens. But this applies to EVERYONE ... including the cops. It's obvious that blasting through a construction zone at excessive speed, is not a good thing to be doing. It's also obvious that blasting at high speed past another vehicle that appears to be performing some sort of maneuver (Clayton surely saw the brake and tail lights up ahead well before the point of impact), is not a good thing to be doing, either. BUT ... Turning into the path of another vehicle that perhaps is speeding and might not be able to avoid a collision, is also not a good idea. If that means you have to look a bit further down the road, just to make sure there is no such vehicle approaching ... so be it.
Click to expand...

+1! I am glad to see that some people understand what is being said here.
 
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

I disagree. This is one of the very few situations in which the vehicle's speed is of primary, if not sole importance. It is notoriously difficult for even trained observers to judge the speed of an approaching, single track vehicle and given how much said speed is outside the norm, even more so.
 
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Look both ways before you cross the street.
 
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

To me, this whole discussion comes down to one point. Did the cop check the road for on coming vehicles before making the U-turn. If he did not then I can understand his culpability in this crash. If he did look ( by far the most likely scenario) then the speed of the approaching motorcycle made it almost impossible to estimate how much time he had to make the U-turn. The cop likely thought he had tons of time to make the U-turn safely. In this scenario the responsibility of the crash is solely on the rider.....One of the few cases out there where speed is actually the cause of a crash...

Brian P said:
Just to clarify, who are you accusing of not taking responsibility for actions?

The rider is no longer in a position for that to matter, and at this point, no one is denying that the rider's speed was inappropriate for conditions. Placing zero blame on the officer, solely because of the rider's speed, is also not appropriate when the available sight lines suggest that EITHER (1) the construction barriers were blocking the officer's view, in which case the officer made an illegal U-turn, OR (2) the construction barriers were not blocking the officer's view, in which case the likely timing of events would have had the bike's headlight within view (although approaching fast) for ample time for the officer to have seen it (the most likely explanation is that the officer simply didn't look before turning - perhaps distracted by the call from dispatch).

And to be perfectly clear, the SIU report does imply a degree of responsibility for the officer making an improper U-turn.

Part of the responsibility for staying safe on the roads means you have to watch out for the other driver in case they do something wrong, because it happens. But this applies to EVERYONE ... including the cops. It's obvious that blasting through a construction zone at excessive speed, is not a good thing to be doing. It's also obvious that blasting at high speed past another vehicle that appears to be performing some sort of maneuver (Clayton surely saw the brake and tail lights up ahead well before the point of impact), is not a good thing to be doing, either. BUT ... Turning into the path of another vehicle that perhaps is speeding and might not be able to avoid a collision, is also not a good idea. If that means you have to look a bit further down the road, just to make sure there is no such vehicle approaching ... so be it.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

I'm not finding a link to the SIU report, so I won't post my opinion.
 
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

he SIU press release.

even assuming for the moment that the officer was something less than careful as he proceeded into his U-turn, I am satisfied that this singular indiscretion is far less than the marked departure from the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances

That states there is an "assumption" by the SIU NOT a FACT. They can assume the officer had a "singular indiscretion" but it is that merely an assumption not a fact.

The officer's actions were NOT deemed to be an "improper or illegal U Turn" So we can stop implying that it was. What WAS not assumed and is FACT was that Clayton was doing something "improper AND illegal"

Not sure how you are trying to argue against the laws of Physics. IF Clayton had not been stunt riding at that EXCESSIVE speed he would have NEVER been in that place at that time... again therefore, NO COLLISION. How one can not understand that is beyond ALL logic. Secondly you, as others have placed the SOLE responsibility upon the officer to have seen Clayton, and judged his speed and realized, (from looking in his rear view mirror(s)), that this bike was traveling at a speed WELL beyond the normal and into criminal territory. While not assigning ANY of the responsibility for Clayton to recognize a potential danger and react WELL before he was a few meters from impact.

Again, I refer to your own statement that the mere presence of a construction zone, and that is compounded by a vehicle, would have "set off alarm bells in your head". Also even "assuming" for a second the cruiser was traveling at a speed which was approximately 1/2 that of Clayton's bike, (If the cruiser was doing the posted 80 KM/h), Clayton should have been slowing down WAY before he did, (which if we give him the credit for doing so, means he could have easily been traveling in excess of the "suggested 200 km/h).

Then of course as you eluded to Clayton "should have seen the tail/brake lights of the cruiser, (remembering Clayton was looking straight forward and NOT relying upon his mirror(s)).

Now to show just how flawed the logic of the argument it was the officers fault are, let's look at another recent collision.

A KLR rider is riding on the 401 minding his business, Presumably doing at or near the posted limit. BAM he gets hit, in a "glancing blow" by another bike, (possibly even more than one). These bikes had been recorded on video mere seconds before the crash stunt riding, and at a MUCH higher rate of speed than the surrounding traffic. So using the theories here the KLR rider must bear the brunt of the responsibility as he failed to see these bikes approaching at such a high rate of speed in his rear view mirror(s). While the other rider is not the one to be assigned any blame despite their ILLEGAL riding, and that they were looking forward and should have had a MUCH better view of the traffic ahead, (specifically the KLR).

To argue that one party bears more responsibility despite the other patry doing something illegal while also having the advantage of a better line of sight is simply not logical, nor reasonable, (which is the standard applied in a court of law). Therefore NO charges.


Brian P said:
Just to clarify, who are you accusing of not taking responsibility for actions?

The rider is no longer in a position for that to matter, and at this point, no one is denying that the rider's speed was inappropriate for conditions. Placing zero blame on the officer, solely because of the rider's speed, is also not appropriate when the available sight lines suggest that EITHER (1) the construction barriers were blocking the officer's view, in which case the officer made an illegal U-turn, OR (2) the construction barriers were not blocking the officer's view, in which case the likely timing of events would have had the bike's headlight within view (although approaching fast) for ample time for the officer to have seen it (the most likely explanation is that the officer simply didn't look before turning - perhaps distracted by the call from dispatch).

And to be perfectly clear, the SIU report does imply a degree of responsibility for the officer making an improper U-turn.

Part of the responsibility for staying safe on the roads means you have to watch out for the other driver in case they do something wrong, because it happens. But this applies to EVERYONE ... including the cops. It's obvious that blasting through a construction zone at excessive speed, is not a good thing to be doing. It's also obvious that blasting at high speed past another vehicle that appears to be performing some sort of maneuver (Clayton surely saw the brake and tail lights up ahead well before the point of impact), is not a good thing to be doing, either. BUT ... Turning into the path of another vehicle that perhaps is speeding and might not be able to avoid a collision, is also not a good idea. If that means you have to look a bit further down the road, just to make sure there is no such vehicle approaching ... so be it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

I agree I can recall MANY instances where observing a vehicle I "thought" it was going say 15 km over the limit and the radar showed it was as much as 20+ km over. Cops are not given "special powers nor increased vision" when hired. Which is why when iot comes to the law they are subjected to the SAME level as any other person is.

Therefore, if a "reasonable civilian would have made that same u turn they too would have been not charged. It is easy to sit at a keyboard not knowing everythign that was happening at that place at that time, and say the u turn wouldn't have made the turn.

MOST of the people commenting on this have no idea the level of activity/distraction that goes on in a patrol cruiser on a constant basis.

Rob MacLennan said:
I disagree. This is one of the very few situations in which the vehicle's speed is of primary, if not sole importance. It is notoriously difficult for even trained observers to judge the speed of an approaching, single track vehicle and given how much said speed is outside the norm, even more so.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Look up "zero" in the dictionary. Work back from there, Hedo2002. Before stepping off curb look both ways.
 
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

we are not speaking of someone stepping off the curb, which is a TOTALLY different scenario, I am keeping my focus on this incident seeing we are talking about the officer's culpability as it pertains to the circumstances of THIS case. Not sure what someone stepping of a curb has to do with that, Perhaps try an example of at least similar circumstances, I don't believe I have EVER seen a pedestrian using rear view mirrors, (but then hey I don't live in the TO downtown core either)..lol

Here is a dictionary definition of Zero:

zero



[zeer-oh]


noun, plural zeros, zeroes. 1. the figure or symbol 0, which in the Arabic notation for numbers stands for the absence of quantity; cipher.

2. the origin of any kind of measurement; line or point from which all divisions of a scale, as a thermometer, are measured in either a positive or a negative direction.

3. a mathematical value intermediate between positive and negative values.

4. naught; nothing.

5. the lowest point or degree.

6. Linguistics. the absence of a linguistic element, as a phoneme or morpheme, in a position in which one previously existed or might by analogy be expected to exist, often represented by the symbol 0̷: Inflectional endings were reduced to zero. The alternant of the plural morpheme in “sheep” is zero.


7. Ordnance. a sight setting for both elevation and windage on any particular range causing a projectile to strike the center of the target on a normal day, under favorable light conditions, with no wind blowing.

verb (used with object), zeroed, zeroing. 10. to adjust (an instrument or apparatus) to a zero point or to an arbitrary reading from which all other readings are to be measured.

11. to reduce to zero.

12. Slang. to kill (a congressional bill, appropriation, etc.): The proposed tax increase has been zeroed for the time being.


adjective 13. amounting to zero: a zero score.


14. having no measurable quantity or magnitude; not any: zero economic growth.


15. Linguistics. noting a hypothetical morphological element that is posited as existing by analogy with a regular pattern of inflection or derivation in a language, but is not represented by any sequence of phonological elements: the zero allomorph of “-ed” in “cut”; “Deer” has a zero plural.


16. Meteorology.
  • (of an atmospheric ceiling) pertaining to or limiting vertical visibility to 50 feet (15.2 meters) or less.
  • of, pertaining to, or limiting horizontal visibility to 165 feet (50.3 meters) or less.


17. Finance. zero-coupon.

18. being or pertaining to the precise time, as a specific hour or second, when something must or does happen, as the explosion of a nuclear weapon: in an underground shelter at zero second.

MUST be I am getting old still not seeing YOUR point???






inreb said:
Look up "zero" in the dictionary. Work back from there, Hedo2002. Before stepping off curb look both ways.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Now you can't claim to not know what zero is. Insert that value into Brian P. post where zero is underlined. Sound it out if you have to.
 
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

inreb said:
Look both ways before you cross the street.
Click to expand...

So I'm a pedestrian crossing a rural road and pushing a baby carriage. I use a rural example because with no crosswalks or intersections nearby, I simply have a responsibility to ensure it's safe before I cross the road. As far as I can see in either direction, it looks safe. A vehicle suddenly appears going twice the speed limit - I didn't expect that - I can't get out of the way in time. Whatever the outcome, whatever death or dismemberment occurs, one person acted reasonably with all available information at the time. The other, acting unreasonably and illegally, caused the collision.
I live on a side street from a busy 4 lane road that is fed directly by a hwy - it ends at stoplights where the street starts. Most of the traffic is still doing close to 100 if they come through the green light, even though the speed limit drops to 60 well before the hwy ends, as it rises up to the traffic lights. It makes it very difficult to turn out into traffic sometimes. Late at night, or early in the morning it's worse. Instead of a flow of fast moving traffic, there may appear to be none - and then a single vehicle crests the hill at the entrance to the intersection - just under 90m away and going 120 km/hr. Is my math right? Is that 33.33 m/s? So I look, it's safe, and I pull out. Less than 3 seconds after my decision, before I can even finish the turn, let alone get anywhere near 60 (limit is actually 50 there) I've been hit. So I acted reasonably when I pulled out, even though it was into the path of the other vehicle.

The argument against the officer still has the stench of the FTP attitude. Too many riders are constantly blaming everyone else for violating our right of way without recognizing that the other party has to SEE YOU to yield to you.
 
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Emefef said:
So I'm a pedestrian crossing a rural road and pushing a baby carriage. I use a rural example because with no crosswalks or intersections nearby, I simply have a responsibility to ensure it's safe before I cross the road. As far as I can see in either direction, it looks safe. A vehicle suddenly appears going twice the speed limit - I didn't expect that - I can't get out of the way in time. Whatever the outcome, whatever death or dismemberment occurs, one person acted reasonably with all available information at the time. The other, acting unreasonably and illegally, caused the collision.
Click to expand...

This is the thing that some people are either failing to understand, or are being wilfully blind to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom