Clayton Rivet death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

[inreb]

Forum Sponsor

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

I would have never attempted this "U-Turn" given the described layout and conditions. I would've done it in a more open-spaced area, or would have waited until the vehicle behind me passed.

You gotta think like a copper, those guys whip those cruisers around like nobodys' business. They think they're cabbies or something.

 

[Fen|X]

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

The SIU told us that the officer was investigating a suspicious vehicle in the area. I can accept that as fact. Perhaps the officer thought Clay was the suspicious vehicle he was looking for, and wanted to stop Clay to have a chat as part of his investigation?

The officer receiving a call and having to make a turn was a scenario that Hedo suggested as a possibility. I accept that as a possibility, but not fact. As a former police officer Hedo should be offered some credibility on his insight to procedure. Because he was a police officer certainly does not make his statements fact by default.

Already stated my opinion, officer should have been charged...
Remember this???? http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?185863-Fatal-left-turn-accident-caught-on-gopro
Was posted public by guys mother, so people be more careful, but the car driver in this situation, was charged as well and pleaded guilty.

To me, a UTURN or any other cation attempting to go opposite direction, is same as coming to oncoming lane.

But, again, my opinion, and i dont want anyone to reply with an argument to me, since i am basically outa here...

 

[casacrow]

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

Leaving aside that one point does not invalidate my conclusion. The officer would not have turned around in order to pursue a fast moving vehicle that was travelling in the same direction as he already was.

Ok. If it doesn't invalidate your conclusion, please elaborate on how this is fact.

And yes I agree. Turning around to pursue a vehicle heading in the same direction would be illogical. But how does that relate?

 

[casacrow]

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

Already stated my opinion, officer should have been charged...
Remember this???? http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?185863-Fatal-left-turn-accident-caught-on-gopro
Was posted public by guys mother, so people be more careful, but the car driver in this situation, was charged as well and pleaded guilty.

To me, a UTURN or any other cation attempting to go opposite direction, is same as coming to oncoming lane.

But, again, my opinion, and i dont want anyone to reply with an argument to me, since i am basically outa here...

Why are you basically outta here? Gettin banned? Moving?
Do you care to answer my question in post #494?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

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

Ok. If it doesn't invalidate your conclusion, please elaborate on how this is fact.

And yes I agree. Turning around to pursue a vehicle heading in the same direction would be illogical. But how does that relate?

For the same reason that turning towards an oncoming vehicle, in order to pursue it, makes no sense.

Perhaps the officer thought Clay was the suspicious vehicle he was looking for, and wanted to stop Clay to have a chat as part of his investigation?

That query, by you, makes my comment pertinent.

 

[casacrow]

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

For the same reason that turning towards an oncoming vehicle, in order to pursue it, makes no sense.That query, by you, makes my comment pertinent.

Ok. I get it. It is fact to you that the officer got a call and turned around to respond. Can you help me to understand how you conclude this as fact? Is there information that you have, that we don't, that you care to share?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

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

Ok. I get it. It is fact to you that the officer got a call and turned around to respond. Can you help me to understand how you conclude this as fact? Is there information that you have, that we don't, that you care to share?

I said leaving that aside, based on your assertion to the contrary, my conclusion is still the same.

 

[casacrow]

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

I said leaving that aside, based on your assertion to the contrary, my conclusion is still the same.

Ah 10-4. Sorry I misunderstood. Was just a confusing was of telling me that you were retracting the " Fact" part of your statement.

 

[Fen|X]

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

Thank you for your extremely well described answer. Very much appreciate it.

Are there any other people here that believe they are reasonable?
If so, would it be reasonable of you to pull on front of a speeding motorcycle, in low lighting, with visible obstructions due to construction? Or would you as a reasonable person have chosen a safer place to make your manouver/wait for vehicle to pass first.

Please help me understand what other reasonable people would do.

Ahh, replied to wrong question. Its never reasonable to pull out in front of anything, either its a car, truck, bus, motorcycle or cyclist.... pulling out in front = negligence.
Charge should be: negligence causing death....


What I would do in this situation, I can not answer as I've never been in one like that where I had to do a uturn or something, usually when i ride on country roads, I look for a drive way i can pull in to, and then go from there any direction pleased.

 

[Emefef]

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

To those on the "officer should probably be charged" side of the argument:
Is this position based on the premise that:
a) the officer DID see the rider, and still pulled out (misjudging or ignoring the speed);
b) ought to have seen the rider, and didn't take reasonable care; or
c) didn't or couldn't see the rider, but still shouldn't have pulled out?

If I've missed it entirely, not the mechanics but the basic premise of what makes the officer wrong, please add it. I understand the different opinions and conclusions about the officer's actions, but I don't understand the certainty with which the conclusions are presented. For example, if in fact he did not or could not see the rider when he started his turn, are your conclusions the same?
Frankly, I think many of us would have done the same thing if we couldn't see any traffic in either direction.

 

[Fen|X]

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

To those on the "officer should probably be charged" side of the argument:
Is this position based on the premise that:
a) the officer DID see the rider, and still pulled out (misjudging or ignoring the speed);
b) ought to have seen the rider, and didn't take reasonable care; or
c) didn't or couldn't see the rider, but still shouldn't have pulled out?

If I've missed it entirely, not the mechanics but the basic premise of what makes the officer wrong, please add it. I understand the different opinions and conclusions about the officer's actions, but I don't understand the certainty with which the conclusions are presented. For example, if in fact he did not or could not see the rider when he started his turn, are your conclusions the same?
Frankly, I think many of us would have done the same thing if we couldn't see any traffic in either direction.

Please explain to me why in this video, the driver of the car been charged, and you will have answer to your question.
http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?185837-GoPro-video-of-fatal-motorcycle-accident

And this is the comment from police:

From The Mirror:

"The male driver of the Renault Clio David hit appeared in court following the accident.

The motorist admitted causing death by careless driving and got a 12 months community sentence in April and an 18 month driving ban.

He was also ordered to pay £200 costs with a £60 surcharge and do 130 hours unpaid work.

Ch Insp Spinks added: "We know from the footage that David was travelling up to 100mph. Regardless of the speed of the bike, the car manoeuvre should not have been attempted."

P.S. biker has been speeding, excessively, 100Mph


And this is why, officer should have been charged. But, they cover their own, that is why, a lot of wage excuses are in the investigation.

 

[lator-illa]

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

To those on the "officer should probably be charged" side of the argument:
Is this position based on the premise that:
a) the officer DID see the rider, and still pulled out (misjudging or ignoring the speed);
b) ought to have seen the rider, and didn't take reasonable care; or
c) didn't or couldn't see the rider, but still shouldn't have pulled out?

If I've missed it entirely, not the mechanics but the basic premise of what makes the officer wrong, please add it. I understand the different opinions and conclusions about the officer's actions, but I don't understand the certainty with which the conclusions are presented. For example, if in fact he did not or could not see the rider when he started his turn, are your conclusions the same?
Frankly, I think many of us would have done the same thing if we couldn't see any traffic in either direction.

Look at my response#500. The officer shouldn't have been at that spot making any sort of maneuver. Especially with what some of the evidence that some have provided (a crest, barriers). This would cover all 3 options you listed. Again, I would compare it to turning left when a big truck is covering your view on the incoming lane. Do you make the left turn if you're unsure? If you make the turn, and a speeding car traveling twice the speed limit hits you, who is getting charged?

 

[Brian P]

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

To those on the "officer should probably be charged" side of the argument:
Is this position based on the premise that:
a) the officer DID see the rider, and still pulled out (misjudging or ignoring the speed);
b) ought to have seen the rider, and didn't take reasonable care; or
c) didn't or couldn't see the rider, but still shouldn't have pulled out?

If I've missed it entirely, not the mechanics but the basic premise of what makes the officer wrong, please add it. I understand the different opinions and conclusions about the officer's actions, but I don't understand the certainty with which the conclusions are presented. For example, if in fact he did not or could not see the rider when he started his turn, are your conclusions the same?
Frankly, I think many of us would have done the same thing if we couldn't see any traffic in either direction.

I don't believe the officer had criminal intent. I think it was a "driving error" and is either b) or c) above. Either there wasn't sufficient visibility which means the U-turn was illegal, or the officer ought to have seen the rider (speeding or not) and did not take reasonable care. Make no mistake, I think Clayton's excessive speed for conditions was the prime factor involved, but the officer's share of responsibility for the collision is not zero.

There was a question about what a "reasonable person" might do in place of what the cop did. I will let others judge whether I am a "reasonable person" ... but typically, I avoid making U-turns on public roads. Typically I will turn into a private driveway and turn around in there. Or I will turn around right after an intersection such that the opposing direction has a stop sign (which means anyone approaching in either direction, if there is any that I have missed seeing, will be stopping). If there is traffic in visual range, I don't do it. If there is a hill or other blind spot, I don't do it. I have occasionally done a U-turn right at traffic lights where a left turn is permitted (in other words, I make the left turn, just turn "more left") and only if I have visually identified EVERY oncoming vehicle within visual range (but that is the same as for making the left turn itself). If there are blind spots or there is ANY doubt about traffic conditions, I don't do it (or I make the normal left turn and deal with having to turn back later). From the description of what others have said the area involved in this incident looked like at the time (disclaimer; I wasn't there), it doesn't sound like an area where I would consider making a U-turn. That is a safe assumption, because there are very few places where I would consider making a U-turn.

 

[jeffjones]

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

I would compare it to turning left when a big truck is covering your view on the incoming lane. Do you make the left turn if you're unsure? If you make the turn, and a speeding car traveling twice the speed limit hits you, who is getting charged?

+1
I would say as comparisons go, that is pretty much the short of it.

Reagrdless of speed, With everyone saying how the car covered the whole road and left the rider no where to go, which would indicate he would have had to make a 3 point turn instead of a U-turn, So if the rider was going half the speed he was (The speed limit) the officer still would not have the visibility to make this maneuvor safely......

 

[ddusseld]

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

I believe I'm a pretty reasonable person. I will also say I'm a relatively aggressive rider/driver. The reason I mention this is that I don't tend to wait until there is enough room for "granny" to make a move before I make mine. Knowing Rob, I'd probably tend to make the U-turn in situations he might not. In this specific case I would have checked my mirrors and seen a headlight far down the road. I'd have assumed I have a lot of time to make my U-turn. I would have pulled behind the barriers to give myself more room and then made the U-turn. To be completely honest if I felt the head light was far enough down the road I'd have made a 3 point turn if there was not enough room to go around the barrier.

Thank you for your extremely well described answer. Very much appreciate it.

Are there any other people here that believe they are reasonable?
If so, would it be reasonable of you to pull on front of a speeding motorcycle, in low lighting, with visible obstructions due to construction? Or would you as a reasonable person have chosen a safer place to make your manouver/wait for vehicle to pass first.

Please help me understand what other reasonable people would do.

 

[Emefef]

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

Then I think while there may be some doubt, my position remains the same. The argument is essentially about reasonableness, ie that even if the officer couldn't see the approaching bike, a reasonable person wouldn't have made the turn in that location. I think that relies on opinion and speculation - because a reasonable person expecting (I know, more like hoping) that other motorists are acting reasonably wouldn't expect a vehicle that they can't see, or is so far away they can barely see it, to close that gap at nearly twice the speed limit.

We have to be able to count on others to act reasonably more than not. It's not going to happen all the time. We all recognize that and see it all the time....but on the road, there is a prevailing rate of speed. There is a collective desire to keep traffic moving. There is a general agreement that banging into each other is a bad thing. We count on other road users to feel the same. Some of us take advantage of others knowing that these things are important to them. We have a common set of rules that reflect these values and attitudes. So when a person executes a turn that would be considered reasonable if everyone else was acting reasonably, we shouldn't then crucify them because someone acting unreasonably hit him.

As for posting the UK video, I was surprised to see it, but that's not here.

 

[casacrow]

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

To those on the "officer should probably be charged" side of the argument:
Is this position based on the premise that:
a) the officer DID see the rider, and still pulled out (misjudging or ignoring the speed);
b) ought to have seen the rider, and didn't take reasonable care; or
c) didn't or couldn't see the rider, but still shouldn't have pulled out?

If I've missed it entirely, not the mechanics but the basic premise of what makes the officer wrong, please add it. I understand the different opinions and conclusions about the officer's actions, but I don't understand the certainty with which the conclusions are presented. For example, if in fact he did not or could not see the rider when he started his turn, are your conclusions the same?
Frankly, I think many of us would have done the same thing if we couldn't see any traffic in either direction.

I believe a,b, and c would all demonstrate a less than careful and unreasonable action.

 

[casacrow]

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

Please explain to me why in this video, the driver of the car been charged, and you will have answer to your question.
http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?185837-GoPro-video-of-fatal-motorcycle-accident

And this is the comment from police:



P.S. biker has been speeding, excessively, 100Mph


And this is why, officer should have been charged. But, they cover their own, that is why, a lot of wage excuses are in the investigation.

There is precedence here too. I've been given 2 examples by 2 different officers of cases they have investigated. Both involved a speeding vehicle( both right at about 160km/hr) colliding with a turning vehicle. Both cases the turning vehicle driver was convicted. Unfortunately I can't find the decisions. Damn cops won't bother looking for me either. Haha. If anyone is able to assist it would be greatly appreciated!

 

[casacrow]

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

Or are you honestly seeking the truth and just don't believe the SIU is impartial or competent?

Honestly seeking the true events to be revealed here. The only visible tattoo I have while dressed is the word "TRUTH" for all to see.

I honestly feel bad for the SIU. Every cop I know doesn't like them, and the public seems to have not trust in them. Hell of a spot to be in, but hey, they chose the job. Unfortunately from my dealings with them in this particular situation, and general observation, I believe they are very limited in the course of their investigations. They hit wall after wall.

 

[casacrow]

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

You miss the point. Perceiving the area would have led a person of reasonable sensibilities to believe that this was a safe place to perform the maneouvre. That's where the other vehicle's speed and the fact that it's a single track vehicle come into play. Certainly it is easy to say that it wasn't so, in retrospect, but that doesn't have an effect on the conditions under which this incident occurred. Hindsight is 20/20. Foresight is something less so.

Foresight is what I am most interested in.....intent.

Forum Sponsor