Clayton Rivet death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

[casacrow]

Forum Sponsor

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

Reaaqly?? 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"

Why would one have to guess speed to such accuracy before pulling out in front of them? At that speed, yes, I believe that a speeding motorcycle would be quite obvious to someone who saw it/looked/used their head. All the more reason to not pull in front of them, and wait for them to pass before making their turn.

If you couldn't estimate that the motorcycle was traveling over the speed limit, than I believe you are not reasonable.

 

[casacrow]

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

I could go back and create my own and your summary of positions too. There was plenty omitted and some spin involved. I won't allow myself to act that way.

I am not well spoken when it comes to law, and this is not a courtroom. I appreciate clarification of my terminology, but to act like you don't understand what I'm saying, or to spin it, doesn't help anyone's cause except provide distraction.

Hedo, if you feel I am all over the place and make no sense, feel free to ask me direct and straight questions. I will gladly offer direct and straight answers.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

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

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

Which is precisely why a reasonable person would not have been able to accurately anticipate it.

http://www.psychologicalscience.org...-human/crash-collisions-in-the-minds-eye.html

 

[hedo2002]

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

My post was a direct question to your post..

"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."

Please educate me as to how unless they were able to guess the speed, that they didn't have time to pull out. I agree during daylight hours on a "city street" it is pretty easy to guess a speed because you have landmarks, (buildings etc) as a reference point. Again I respectfully submit on a dark country road with only a single headlight with no points of reference this is impossible

Why would one have to guess speed to such accuracy before pulling out in front of them? At that speed, yes, I believe that a speeding motorcycle would be quite obvious to someone who saw it/looked/used their head. All the more reason to not pull in front of them, and wait for them to pass before making their turn.

If you couldn't estimate that the motorcycle was traveling over the speed limit, than I believe you are not reasonable.

 

[inreb]

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.

I'm not heavily invested in this argument but would still be disappointed if the truth was that the officer pulled a boner move in his excitement at seeing a very fast moving motorcycle. I think that possibility exists. I know this pov doesn't fit into the neat little flowchart that is our cherished legal system. But whatevs.

 

[casacrow]

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

Which is precisely why a reasonable person would not have been able to accurately anticipate it.

http://www.psychologicalscience.org...-human/crash-collisions-in-the-minds-eye.html

That's a good read Rob. I still believe a reasonable person would have been able to tell the motorcycle was speeding.

As a reasonable person yourself, do you believe you would have assumed the motorcycle was traveling at the posted speed limit? I know you have had motorcycles approach you at speed many times, just not sure if at night though.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

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

That's a good read Rob. I still believe a reasonable person would have been able to tell the motorcycle was speeding.

As a reasonable person yourself, do you believe you would have assumed the motorcycle was traveling at the posted speed limit? I know you have had motorcycles approach you at speed many times, just not sure if at night though.

I may not have assumed that it was travelling at the posted limit, based on my own experience, but that same experience tells me that I would have been unable to judge the closing speed in any meaningful way. A single headlight, even more so the more than average brightness units installed on BMW motorcycles as a rule, is little more than a point or blob of light at any distance more than a few dozen feet in the dark.

 

[casacrow]

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

My post was a direct question to your post..

"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."

Please educate me as to how unless they were able to guess the speed, that they didn't have time to pull out. I agree during daylight hours on a "city street" it is pretty easy to guess a speed because you have landmarks, (buildings etc) as a reference point. Again I respectfully submit on a dark country road with only a single headlight with no points of reference this is impossible

I said guess that they were speeding. Not a particular exact speed.

Example for clarification, "Wowzers that motorcycle is movin damn quick, I would be foolish to place my vehicle in its path" not "Hmm. That motorcycle appears to be traveling in the east bound direction at approximately 77km/hr +/- 5%. If I continue my turn and block the road in front of them, they will come to a complete and safe stop where I may continue on my way"

 

[hedo2002]

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

Well you have admitted that you didn't say Clayton's speed was reasonable. Therefore one could assume you find it to have been unreasonable.

So how is that a reasonable person is supposed to "anticipate" that which in and of itself is unreasonable?

So if the officer is now expected to have anticipated the unreasonable and your suggesting the officers u turn was unreasonable, then why is Clayton absolved of anticipating it??? I respectfully submit that a reasonable rider seeing the brakes lights of a vehicle in front of them come on, (indicating they were slowing), this was also being in a construction area, (we were told early on in the this thread by DVS bullet that Clayton was familiar with this road and the area), would a reasonable person not have slowed down? Especially given they were riding at twice the limit?

So only the officer must act as a reasonable person and Clayton has NO requirement to also be reasonable?

That's a good read Rob. I still believe a reasonable person would have been able to tell the motorcycle was speeding.

As a reasonable person yourself, do you believe you would have assumed the motorcycle was traveling at the posted speed limit? I know you have had motorcycles approach you at speed many times, just not sure if at night though.

 

[ZX600]

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

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

Oh we get it, the problem is

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 officer did not perform a safe action like the person in this quote did.

He chose to make a U-turn on a place that required a 3 or even 5 point turn when he could have chosen to do it in a safer place ultimately causing the accident.

That is the part some of you are "not getting"

Not to forget the fact that I would not be surprised if a "I will catch him" action from the officer went terrible wrong... but this paragraph is just my opinion.

 

[casacrow]

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

I may not have assumed that it was travelling at the posted limit, based on my own experience, but that same experience tells me that I would have been unable to judge the closing speed in any meaningful way. A single headlight, even more so the more than average brightness units installed on BMW motorcycles as a rule, is little more than a point or blob of light at any distance more than a few dozen feet in the dark.

But you surely wouldn't pull out in front, based on your own experience of being unable to judge speed in similar situation?

 

[ZX600]

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.

A reasonable person would not be riding over 130km/hr in a country road..... however i followed you while you were doing it!

 

[hedo2002]

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

Except that Clayton wasn't merely speeding. he was TWICE the limit, Also remember this was being done via a rear view mirror, Clayton on the other hand a had a clear view ahead.

You said when you hit the car going from alley to alley you may have been speeding, and no one questioned it, yet I would venture to guess if you were into 172 territory, (more than 50 km/h over that may have changed their perspectives a bit...

If you had witnessed your accident and the bike was traveling at say 10 km over would you not say stupid car. Now if you saw the same collision and the bike was traveling at say 124 in a posted 50 would you not view it differently? Or would you say that is ok the biker can go that fast stupid cager. I can assure you the law and your insurer would...

I said guess that they were speeding. Not a particular exact speed.

Example for clarification, "Wowzers that motorcycle is movin damn quick, I would be foolish to place my vehicle in its path" not "Hmm. That motorcycle appears to be traveling in the east bound direction at approximately 77km/hr +/- 5%. If I continue my turn and block the road in front of them, they will come to a complete and safe stop where I may continue on my way"

 

[casacrow]

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

Well you have admitted that you didn't say Clayton's speed was reasonable. Therefore one could assume you find it to have been unreasonable.

So how is that a reasonable person is supposed to "anticipate" that which in and of itself is unreasonable?

So if the officer is now expected to have anticipated the unreasonable and your suggesting the officers u turn was unreasonable, then why is Clayton absolved of anticipating it??? I respectfully submit that a reasonable rider seeing the brakes lights of a vehicle in front of them come on, (indicating they were slowing), this was also being in a construction area, (we were told early on in the this thread by DVS bullet that Clayton was familiar with this road and the area), would a reasonable person not have slowed down? Especially given they were riding at twice the limit?

So only the officer must act as a reasonable person and Clayton has NO requirement to also be reasonable?

We have already agreed on Clay's actions. We all agree Clay was speeding/stunt driving. It was just about the only part in the SIU release that wasn't vague/fluffy/irrelevant.

 

[casacrow]

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

Except that Clayton wasn't merely speeding. he was TWICE the limit, Also remember this was being done via a rear view mirror, Clayton on the other hand a had a clear view ahead.

You said when you hit the car going from alley to alley you may have been speeding, and no one questioned it, yet I would venture to guess if you were into 172 territory, (more than 50 km/h over that may have changed their perspectives a bit...

If you had witnessed your accident and the bike was traveling at say 10 km over would you not say stupid car. Now if you saw the same collision and the bike was traveling at say 124 in a posted 50 would you not view it differently? Or would you say that is ok the biker can go that fast stupid cager. I can assure you the law and your insurer would...

I was maybe 50% over or so in a 50 or 60 zone. I was accelerating hard from a light with a loud exhaust. All eyes were on me because of this. I was acting irresponsibly. The other vehicle came out of an alley close to the side of the road without looking, slowing, checking for traffic. Their estimated speed would have been about 20km/hr. No matter what my speed was, them pulling out was a bad move. The police and I agreed to not charge the other vehicle in that case. After talking to my insurance they agreed to not put me at fault even if there was no charge. Damages were less than 4G total and neither one of us spent more than a day in the hospital or were killed. Now if I was killed, I would have hoped charges were filed in the absence of my voice, and allow the courts to determine guilt.

The twice the speed limit thing is what I mean when I would expect a reasonable person to know that the motorcycle was speeding. 10 or 20 over I understand, but not double the limit.

 

[casacrow]

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

A reasonable person would not be riding over 130km/hr in a country road..... however i followed you while you were doing it!

We have all done it, and shouldn't complain too much when we find ourselves defending our actions in court.

A generally reasonable person can make unreasonable decisions on occasions. All of us here have been unreasonable at some point in our lives.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

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

A reasonable person would not be riding over 130km/hr in a country road..... however i followed you while you were doing it!

Not in a decade or more, you didn't. These days I found that double the 'suggested speed' in corners is more than enough.

 

[ZX600]

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

We have all done it, and shouldn't complain too much when we find ourselves defending our actions in court.

A generally reasonable person can make unreasonable decisions on occasions. All of us here have been unreasonable at some point in our lives.

It was a sarcastic comment. To me 130 in a country road is reasonable, to others is suicide.

150 at night in a country road for a rider that knows the area well is not unreasonable, risky and probably dumb yea - Doing a 5 point U-turn on a road that is down to 1 lane is unreasonable.

They are both at fault but to me, the officer is not able to perform his job while exercising proper judgement and with his position of police officer he should be removed.

The funny thing is that none of what we say really matters time for a coffee !

 

[inreb]

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

LOL howcum nobody can judge speed all of a sudden? We all grew up in a moto culture.

 

[ZX600]

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

LOL howcum nobody can judge speed all of a sudden? We all grew up in a moto culture.

I can help :smilebox:

If you want to hit a home run, you have to be able to see how far away the baseball is as it crosses home plate. Your brain has to take a measurement. How does it do it?
This experiment will show you. Use string to hang a paper clip or other small object in a doorway at about chest level. You may need help from an adult to hang it safely.
Pick up a stick, such as a yardstick or broom handle. Take three or four steps away from the paper clip.
Now close one eye and walk toward the paper clip. Try to touch it with the tip of the stick. If you miss, try again, still keeping one eye closed.
Using only one eye, most people will have a hard time touching the paper clip on the first try. Try it again with both eyes open and see if it's easier to do.

How It Works
In the experiment, you have to judge how far away the paper clip is. Your brain has several ways of doing this.
One simple way depends on how much your eye has to focus. Even with only one eye, this way gives the brain some information about distance, but not much.
As the experiment shows, your brain can judge distance much better when you look at something with both eyes. In fact, your brain has more than one way to use both eyes in judging distance. For example, to see anything clearly, you have to make both of your eyes point at the object. When you look at a nearby object, your eyes turn inward, toward each other. You can feel this happening if you look at the tip of your finger and move your finger toward your nose.
Your brain gets information from the eyes about how much they are pointing toward each other. Using that information, the brain can tell how far away an object is, whether it's a baseball or a paper clip.

This should become part of the police offices formal training

Forum Sponsor