Clayton Rivet death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

[happycrappy]

Forum Sponsor

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

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.

THANK YOU! Perfectly illustrated; too bad few can get it

 

[jc100]

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

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.

+1. Again though it seems more common here to try to pass blame off to others and it bothers me from incidents of drunk driving ("the bar should never have served me all those drinks"), gambling ("the casino should never have let me in") to this (the cop shouldn't be in the way, no matter if the speed is way way way above that expected on the road and for those conditions).

 

[Paul1000RR]

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.

:lmao: thanks for the laugh

Isn't the argument always that the cops are better trained and thats why we allow them to drive ridiculous speeds so that they can hand out that ever so important ticket?

If they're just like us i'd like to have an opportunity to do 200km/h+ on public roads and to carry around my 9mm at all times.

 

[inreb]

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

No FTP here.
I think we're discussing the degree of responsibility at this stage. Since we're theorizing, suppose the officer had been killed in the crash. Would it be accurate to say he had absolutely no, none , zero hand in his demise? Is he 100% dead right? He could have done nothing to prevent his own death?
I'm sure there are traffic and/or pedestrian situations where you could be struck out of the blue despite taking every reasonable precaution.

 

[casacrow]

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

Curb to curb turning for that car is approximately 40'.

A UTurn on the usable portion of the roadway was impossible.

Officer would have had to left the road and gone off highway into the construction zone.

This would place their car behind barrier at some point during their turning manouver.

Vehicle is required to come to a stop before entering roadway, not come blasting out behind barrier at 25km/hr.

 

[hedo2002]

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

Ok NOW it makes sense had you referred to BrianP's post instead of confusing the issue with the whole stepp off a sidewalk.. I still have NO idea what that was in reference to. BrianP was asking a question and his question is based upon some assumptions not facts. I said I am not sure if the officers turn was the "best option" given the result, BUT that result also could NOT have been foreseen by a reasonable person as per the SIU's report after looking at ALL the evidence including the GPS of the cruiser.

Yes the officer IS under the current legislation not legally responsible. There is NO expectation of a conviction. Had Clayton lived he would have under the insurers FDR been assessed to be 100% at fault for the collision, because he was committing an offence at the time of the collision. The officer has not and will not be charged as the evidence and facts simply don't support a charge

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.

 

[casacrow]

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

+1. Again though it seems more common here to try to pass blame off to others and it bothers me from incidents of drunk driving ("the bar should never have served me all those drinks"), gambling ("the casino should never have let me in") to this (the cop shouldn't be in the way, no matter if the speed is way way way above that expected on the road and for those conditions).

This incident does not involve getting rear ended, drunk driving, gambling, long country walks, or baby carriages.

 

[hedo2002]

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

Did you measure the roadway AT THAT time?

Also you are using terms which do NOT apply when it comes to the actual legislation. There is no such thing as "usable portion" of a roadway under the HTA, there are two definitions the "traveled portion, (which is the portion normally driven on), then there is a shoulder, in this case the area behind the construction barrier was still a portion of the roadway. The only way he could have "left the roadway" was if he drove INTO the ditch or over a curb and had all four tires on someone's lawn or private property.

Now that I have cleared up that misconception, the officers cruisers never "left the roadway" therefore he never "reentered the roadway" Again I am using the "legalities" something you have admitted your unfamiliar with, BUT which MUST be considered when contemplating a charge.

The officers cruiser was doing 25 km/h yet you call it "Blasting out" well my friend if 25 km/h is "blasting out" then what the hell was Clayton doing at SIX TIMES that speed????

Curb to curb turning for that car is approximately 40'.

A UTurn on the usable portion of the roadway was impossible.

Officer would have had to left the road and gone off highway into the construction zone.

This would place their car behind barrier at some point during their turning manouver.

Vehicle is required to come to a stop before entering roadway, not come blasting out behind barrier at 25km/hr.

 

[hedo2002]

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

No we are, (or at least casacrow, and I), are still discussing the desire, (and reasons), to see the officer charged, (not his level of culpability). The officer's "culpability" will be determined by a civil suit.

There will be civil suits on ALL sides. Given Clatyon's actions that night IF the jury awards anything in a civil trial, the award will be GREATLY diminished. The YRP insurers will be suing Clayton's insurer under the FDR as Clayton will be deemed 100% at fault, (this has been discussed extensively in other threads and is in the FDR's so no need to rehash them here).

Again people are going on their misguided desire for justice based on "feelings" and not actual law and legislation.

Again "what if's" are meaningless in this discussion as we are discussing the collison AS IT HAPPENED.

Yes there are situations where despite taking all REASONABLE precautions you can be struck "out of the blue" how do we know this? Because that is what has been RULED to be the case here. Again the SIU states the officer did what any reasonable person would be expected to do.

I guess what we are trying to teach young new riders is...
get a SS ride like hooligan and in ANY manner you want if YOU hit someone it is ALWAYS their fault, you are blameless after all 154 km/h "isn't that fast and might even be 1st gear" on your bike. YOU have NO responsibility to consider other road users they shouldn't even be there. WOT ALL the time go for it you'll be judged blameless here at GTAM GMAFB

No FTP here.
I think we're discussing the degree of responsibility at this stage. Since we're theorizing, suppose the officer had been killed in the crash. Would it be accurate to say he had absolutely no, none , zero hand in his demise? Is he 100% dead right? He could have done nothing to prevent his own death?
I'm sure there are traffic and/or pedestrian situations where you could be struck out of the blue despite taking every reasonable precaution.

 

[hedo2002]

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

I also can't "intelligently" discuss the "degree of responsibility" as I don't have a crystal ball and no one knows if a a civil trial will be won or loss on facts and legal defini8tiopns or upon "feelings" and "emotions".

I can all day discuss the legal findings, (and the results of the investigation), as well as the level of which behaviour must rise to warrant a charge.

 

[casacrow]

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

Did you measure the roadway AT THAT time?

Also you are using terms which do NOT apply when it comes to the actual legislature. There is no such thing as "usable portion" of a roadway under the HTA, there are two definitions the "traveled portion, (which is the portion normally driven on), then there is a shoulder, in this case the area behind the construction barrier was still a portion of the roadway. The only way he could have "left the roadway" was if he drove INTO the ditch or over a curb and had all four tires on someone's lawn or private property.

Now that I have cleared up that misconception, the officers cruisers never "left the roadway" therefore he never "reentered the roadway" Again I am using the "legalities" something you have admitted your unfamiliar with, BUT which MUST be considered when contemplating a charge.

The officers cruiser was doing 25 km/h yet you call it "Blasting out" well my friend if 25 km/h is "blasting out" then what the hell was Clayton doing at SIX TIMES that speed????

Hedo do you really need measurements to know that a 40' turning radius would put the officer behind the wall? Really?

Legally speaking driving through cones and behind a construction barrier is simply considered using the shoulder?

Yup Ill use blasting. That's a damn quick speed to be traveling perpendicular to the road.

Not that is really matters, but I once smoked a vehicle crossing the road in front of me, trying to go from one alley to the another on the other side. Came out of know where. I was likely speeding. Officers never even remotely, nor did the about 20 witnesses consider me to be at fault. I tried to avoid and use oncoming lanes, but I should of known that's where they were goin too. Wrote my bike off. Sad day.

 

[hedo2002]

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

And were you traveling at TWICE the limit when you smoked this vehicle? Edit let me modify that question. It should ahve read were you STUNT driving, (exceeding the posted limit by more than 50 km/h at the time of impact)? Clayton was NOT speeding he was stunt driving at 74 km/h over the posted limit.

I didn't say it didn't put him behind the wall at some point. in fact you asked me several pages ago to give "my scenario" and I believe I said the cruiser went to the right. I have NEVER disputed that. What I dispute is your assertion that the line of sight permitted the officer to see Clayton, but yet miraculously Clayton NEVER seen the cruiser slowing, (one can deduce the officer slowed from 80 to 25), to begin the turn.

I also question your sating this as it has never been disputed and I am pretty confident the SIU would have known the EXACT position of the cruiser at all times. They WOULD have taken ALL the measurements. Including the EXACT grade of the hill and the slope of the road surface from the crown to the shoulder.

Legally speaking YES it is, the cruiser did not by legal definition leave the roadway. That is why in many single vehicle rollovers when they describe the collision they stated the "vehicle left the traveled portion of the road, went onto the shoulder where the driver lost control and entered the ditch or if in built up area left the roadway"

Hedo do you really need measurements to know that a 40' turning radius would put the officer behind the wall? Really?

Legally speaking driving through cones and behind a construction barrier is simply considered using the shoulder?

Yup Ill use blasting. That's a damn quick speed to be traveling perpendicular to the road.

Not that is really matters, but I once smoked a vehicle crossing the road in front of me, trying to go from one alley to the another on the other side. Came out of know where. I was likely speeding. Officers never even remotely, nor did the about 20 witnesses consider me to be at fault. I tried to avoid and use oncoming lanes, but I should of known that's where they were goin too. Wrote my bike off. Sad day.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

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

This incident does not involve getting rear ended, drunk driving, gambling, long country walks, or baby carriages.

Nor does it involve speeds that other road users could in any way be able to predict.

 

[casacrow]

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

Nor does it involve speeds that other road users could in any way be able to predict.

Sure it does. A reasonable person would certainly be able to know that the motorcycle was speeding if they saw it/looked/used their head.

If unsure of speed, to pull out and hope for the best is a very poor choice.

 

[hedo2002]

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

Casacrow: Let's review my position(s) have been:

Let's wait for a full investigation BEFORE we pull out the pitch forks against the officer.
I wondered if anyone knew the speed of the bike at the time, (jun and no one did).
That the officer may have made a an attempt to avoid a collision, (based at the time on the media reports of a head on collision).
Then that the officer was making a uturn and didn't see, (I am assuming he looked in his mirrors), Clayton approaching a VERY high rate of speed.
That the officer wasn't "hiding behind the barrier"
That the officer was hit by a bike he couldn't have reasonably anticipated to be there at that time given the high rate of speed.

Now your position(s):

The "officer needs to be disciplined for Clayton's sake"
The officer made an illegal U Turn, (proven wrong based upon the legal definition of a U turn),
The officer couldn't have seen Clayton as there was no line of sight, (less than the required 150 m to make a legal u turn), Your own measurements disproved this'
The officer may have been "hiding" behind the barrier in an attempt to stop Clayton. This was disproved by the existence of the cruiser GPS
Now it is that the officer came "blasting out" from behind the barrier, as it is impossible to make a u turn at that location without leaving the roadway. I informed you this was also wrong as to the LEGAL definition of the portions of a roadway.

So can we please pick just ONE and stick with that theory.

If you are SO convinced this officer is guilty, (even if that belief is based upon incorrect legalities). I have given you the perfect solution, go to the Newmarket courthouse, appear before JP and lay a complaint charging the officer. That would show you are committed to your principles of the officer being guilty, and needing to "be disciplined" You can also file a formal complaint with the YRP Professional Standards Branch, the YRP Police Services Board. As well as the Police Complaints Commission. You can present all the "facts" as you have determined them to be, supported by your investigation of this collision. That coupled with your "experience" with the other investigations you had eluded to, will no doubt "open the eyes" of those who appear to be "woefully blind" to the truth as determined by you

 

[Rob MacLennan]

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

Sure it does. A reasonable person would certainly be able to know that the motorcycle was speeding if they saw it/looked/used their head.

If unsure of speed, to pull out and hope for the best is a very poor choice.

A reasonable person wouldn't have been doing 150+ Kmh, in the dark, on a road with construction.

 

[hedo2002]

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

Really?? When have YOU observed a vehicle and "determined" it's speed, (now to be 100% correct, that vehicle MUST be a motorcycle traveling on a dark "country road", with the same headlamp as Claytons' bike), then confirmed you were within say 5 km/h via a calibrated and certified speed measuring device. If you can do that then your a MUCH better man than I am I have already stated as a police officer I couldn't even be able to do that. FYI I consider myself a "reasonable person"

Sure it does. A reasonable person would certainly be able to know that the motorcycle was speeding if they saw it/looked/used their head.

If unsure of speed, to pull out and hope for the best is a very poor choice.

 

[hedo2002]

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

No need for the rider to be reasonable he was riding a motorcycle that exempts him from being reasonable ONLY the officer has that burden...lol

A reasonable person wouldn't have been doing 150+ Kmh, in the dark, on a road with construction.

 

[casacrow]

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

Considering the minimum turning radius of the car, the speed of the car, the time to complete full turn would be about 5.5 seconds. (That math hurt my head).

The car did not complete Uturn in that time.

If there was a clear view of Clay, the car initiated its turn while Clay was in view. Plenty of time for both parties to react. That is assuming as some of you believe that Clay should have been able to anticipate the irregular and unpredictable movement of the turning car.

Id say its a fair assumption that the car could predict that Clay's path was to continue along the road in the same direction as initially observed.

 

[casacrow]

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

A reasonable person wouldn't have been doing 150+ Kmh, in the dark, on a road with construction.

Pretty sure I never said anything about Clay's speeding being reasonable.

Forum Sponsor