cop that crashed

This would be total crap.......A good Officer would never speed nor be reckless....


Did the claimed weaving occur immediately before the crash and possibly be a factor in the crash, or did it occur further back where it would not be a factor in the crash but might indicate a pattern of riding behaviour that might have contributed to the crash? There's not enough information to say either way.

The witnesses on the CITY-TV news clip did say that the two riders were both beside their car when they were stopped at a red light just before the crash location. I'm assuming that red light referred to was at highways 7 and 50, about 300 meters before the crash site, but I supposed it could also be referring to the Gore Rd intersection another 600 or so meters further back.

Police say he likely died instantly on impact. Gear does little to protect against massive blunt force trauma into an solid immovable wall. The rear of the truck was effectively that solid immovable wall. Even if the gear managed to protected his skin and bones from breakage and rash, the hard sudden stop would have probably caused irreparable damage to his organs and other soft tissues. Picture shaken baby syndrome on a much more catastrophically violent scale.
 
i think i read he only had the bike 2 weeks.... was he a new rider and just bought a 1700+cc motorcycle? had he any formal training?

He upgraded from a Shadow 750 to a Boulevard a few weeks ago. He has several years of riding under his belt, definitely not a newb. For the record, HE IS NOT A RECKLESS DRIVER/RIDER.
 
He upgraded from a Shadow 750 to a Boulevard a few weeks ago. He has several years of riding under his belt, definitely not a newb. For the record, HE IS NOT A RECKLESS DRIVER/RIDER.

Glad to hear that he wasn't some one who just up and got a motorcycle with an engine that has the same or larger displacement of some small cars, the news didn't indicate that, just that he only had the bike 2 weeks...

whether he was reckless or not I can't comment, it wasn't even something i suggested, having no experience doesn't mean you're reckless, just inexperienced, but i'm sure the investigators will find in his favour if they ever release the details.
 
This thread is total BS. I don't see anything like this when someone else crashes, but because it's a cop the haters have to start ****. I can't believe the admins, or mods don't delete this ****. Everyone wonders why riders have bad reps with cagers and police, it's because of this ****. Typical GTAM crap.
 
This thread is total BS. I don't see anything like this when someone else crashes, but because it's a cop the haters have to start ****. I can't believe the admins, or mods don't delete this ****. Everyone wonders why riders have bad reps with cagers and police, it's because of this ****. Typical GTAM crap.

Ok, let's give the non-cop killed today equal time then.

The first post in the rider down section says "guy got smoked by a left turning cager". Another damned left turner! They're all out to kill riders!

True, but....
A 30-year-old motorcyclist was killed in a high-speed crash Sunday afternoon in the city’s west end. http://www.torontosun.com/2011/08/07/motorcycle-rider-killed-in-crash
High speed on Dixon westbound at Golfwood? That's a 60 zone.

Sgt. John Winter told CP24 that speed may have been a factor."At some point in time the motorcyclist went up between the four vehicles in front of him to pass them and we have an indication that speed was a factor," he said.
http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110807/110807_Bike_Fatal/20110807/?hub=CP24Home
Running up between 4 cars in front of him? Would that be in the run up to the left-turner in the intersection? CP24 video has a lot to say about the apparent speed of the motorcycle.

It's one thing when a car doesn't see a bike for lack of paying adequate attention, but quite another when bikes dart in and out at unexpected speed to appear from nowhere.

So, do we chalk this up to left-turner SMIDSY? Or do we put it down to death by misadventure and just be thankful that the misadventuring rider didn't take out anyone other than himself?
 
Riding carelessly in traffic is BEGGING for someone to turn left in front of you. In my own view, both parties involved in the Etobicoke crash bear a share of the responsibility.
 
Riding carelessly in traffic is BEGGING for someone to turn left in front of you. In my own view, both parties involved in the Etobicoke crash bear a share of the responsibility.

Both? I don't see how a left-turner can be held even partially at fault for a small vehicle that suddenly appears at unexpectedly high speed from a place that they would not be reasonably expected to come from anyways. We can only expect left turners to take reasonable care when making turning movements. We can't expect them to be clairvoyant.
 
In the place where that collision happened, oncoming traffic is visible to everyone. No hills, no corners, no obstructions. It's reasonable for oncoming traffic to be coming from the oncoming lanes.

The photos of the collision scene and the magnitude of the damage do not suggest any way out of whack 200 km/h nonsense, either. The damage is a lot closer to what my bike looked like, and what the car I hit looked like, after my 20 - 30 km/h hit (they turned left in front, and no, I was NOT speeding beforehand). It's a bit more damage in this case, but not hugely so.

edit: "Reasonable care" includes evaluating whether a vehicle in traffic (oncoming or otherwise) could be a blind spot, hiding something on the other side of it, and acting accordingly. A good many drivers don't do that. The rider probably didn't do that, either.
 
Last edited:
In the place where that collision happened, oncoming traffic is visible to everyone. No hills, no corners, no obstructions. It's reasonable for oncoming traffic to be coming from the oncoming lanes.
The left turner would have been basing a turn/no-turn decision based on what was visible. Oncoming traffic can be masked by other oncoming traffic in front of it. One report said that the bike "went up between the four vehicles in front of him to pass them". If that's the case, the bike could easily have been hidden by other, larger vehicles on the road ahead of it. If the bike was in fact lane-splitting at high speed between other traffic approaching the intersection, the left-turner cannot be faulted.

The photos of the collision scene and the magnitude of the damage do not suggest any way out of whack 200 km/h nonsense, either. The damage is a lot closer to what my bike looked like, and what the car I hit looked like, after my 20 - 30 km/h hit (they turned left in front, and no, I was NOT speeding beforehand). It's a bit more damage in this case, but not hugely so.
Look again at the pictures of the car. The point of impact was immediately behind the front wheel, pretty much right against the door post structure. That is arguably the toughest part of a car as far as resistance to side impacts are concerned. You have reinforced unibody structural posts there on which to hang the doors and serve as a base for the roof's A-pillars. The A-pillars are in turn reinforced against inward movement by the glue-on windshield. Inward crash movement is further limited by the firewall and the rear half of the front fender wells backing up the door hinge-post area.

That's a lot of metal backed up by even more metal, and that would limit the amount of bodywork indentation at point of impact. Had the point of impact been a couple of feet further back along the door instead, there might have been significant or even total intrusion into the car's cabin space.

Now look again at the pictures showing where the car landed. That car was on route to completing a left turn. It's turning arc would place it in the EAST half of the intersection as it proceeded onto Golfwood, and it would still have a bit of eastward velocity at the point of impact. The pictures show the front of the car fully on the crosswalk area on the WEST side of the intersection.

The bike not only stopped the final bit of eastward velocity of the car as it entered the final arc of its turn, but it also managed to bounce and spin the car back westwards to land on the crosswalk. That's a sideways displacement of at least 20, maybe 25 feet on dry pavement and a bike would have to be moving at considerable speed to force that kind of bounce. Not only that but the bike still had enough momentum to then ricochet off the car to land hard against a fence 20 feet away, breaking a section of that fence. This was nothing like near a 20 or 30 kmph speed at point of impact.

edit: "Reasonable care" includes evaluating whether a vehicle in traffic (oncoming or otherwise) could be a blind spot, hiding something on the other side of it, and acting accordingly. A good many drivers don't do that. The rider probably didn't do that, either.
Reasonable care does not mean waiting just in case Skylab should shoot down into the intersection. Reasonable care means anticipating what might reasonably be expected to happen with other traffic, and acting accordingly. No left turner should have to expect a bike at high speed lane-splitting between traffic suddenly appearing out of nowhere. If such were the case, nobody would ever even think of attempting a left turn in the city.
 
Last edited:
CP24 video has a lot to say about the apparent speed of the motorcycle.

Another one of your terminally inaccurate sources quoted as truth to generate another long winded turbofable. Predictable, but always good for a laugh.
 
The left turner would have been basing a turn/no-turn decision based on what was visible. Oncoming traffic can be masked by other oncoming traffic in front of it. One report said that the bike "went up between the four vehicles in front of him to pass them". If that's the case, the bike could easily have been hidden by other, larger vehicles on the road ahead of it. If the bike was in fact lane-splitting at high speed between other traffic approaching the intersection, the left-turner cannot be faulted.


Look again at the pictures of the car. The point of impact was immediately behind the front wheel, pretty much right against the door post structure. That is arguably the toughest part of a car as far as resistance to side impacts are concerned. You have reinforced unibody structural posts there on which to hang the doors and serve as a base for the roof's A-pillars. The A-pillars are in turn reinforced against inward movement by the glue-on windshield. Inward crash movement is further limited by the firewall and the rear half of the front fender wells backing up the door hinge-post area.

That's a lot of metal backed up by even more metal, and that would limit the amount of bodywork indentation at point of impact. Had the point of impact been a couple of feet further back along the door instead, there might have been significant or even total intrusion into the car's cabin space.

Now look again at the pictures showing where the car landed. That car was on route to completing a left turn. It's turning arc would place it in the EAST half of the intersection as it proceeded onto Golfwood, and it would still have a bit of eastward velocity at the point of impact. The pictures show the front of the car fully on the crosswalk area on the WEST side of the intersection.

The bike not only stopped the final bit of eastward velocity of the car as it entered the final arc of its turn, but it also managed to bounce and spin the car back westwards to land on the crosswalk. That's a sideways displacement of at least 20, maybe 25 feet on dry pavement and a bike would have to be moving at considerable speed to force that kind of bounce. Not only that but the bike still had enough momentum to then ricochet off the car to land hard against a fence 20 feet away, breaking a section of that fence. This was nothing like near a 20 or 30 kmph speed at point of impact.


Reasonable care does not mean waiting just in case Skylab should shoot down into the intersection. Reasonable care means anticipating what might reasonably be expected to happen with other traffic, and acting accordingly. No left turner should have to expect a bike at high speed lane-splitting between traffic suddenly appearing out of nowhere. If such were the case, nobody would ever even think of attempting a left turn in the city.

Unfortunately all your points are speculation on what might have happened.
 
Both? I don't see how a left-turner can be held even partially at fault for a small vehicle that suddenly appears at unexpectedly high speed from a place that they would not be reasonably expected to come from anyways. We can only expect left turners to take reasonable care when making turning movements. We can't expect them to be clairvoyant.

My service van takes about 6 seconds to get to 50 KPH. At 30 KPH a vehicle covers about 88 yards, less than a football field length. If I make right turn onto a 50 KPH main street after checking that there is no approaching vehicle with 100 yards, and accelerate to the limit there is no reason for any approaching vehicle, running at the legal speed, to change course or speed as I will be 30 to 40 meters ahead of them doing 50 KPH as they go through the intersection.

If the approaching vehicle is speeding they will have to change course or speed regardless of my rate of acceleration.

If the approaching vehicle is at double the limit I would have to LOOK more than twice the distance down the road to get a proper take on the situation. I stress the "LOOK" because most people just glance and go. Look implies thought to what one sees. Think about the real world of turning. How many people signal, come to a full stop at the white line, look and evaluate, ease ahead, verify, then enter the turn?

When something is twice the distance away it takes up 1/4 the eye space so it's even less noticable. Considering the small frontal area of a sport bike is a cager expected to record the blip on his radar? In some cases the headlight being on makes a vehicle less visible. It all depends on the background. If there are lots of similar lights in the background the bike blends with the larger background.

I haven't done any calculations on a left turn. The turn dynamics are different as I would intitally be going towards the approaching vehicle and accelerating at a different rate due to the wider turn. The side exposure of my van would be larger as well.
 
Theory is nice, but let's not forget the practical. That stretch of road is wide open, probably 3 lanes wide on each side, with a speed limit of 80kph. Anyone who has driven on it knows that 80 is the minimum, not the maximum, and that many people drive around 100kph on that piece of Hwy 7. There are tons of tractor trailers moving in all directions of that area, as well as big construction vehicles. This restricts visibility and results in a wide speed differential among different types of vehicles on the road. Which all contributes to more lane changing than normal.

Frankly, that intersection, and that whole area, is a bit of a mess and highly dangerous. If I'm not mistaken, a motorcyclist was killed on Hwy 50 just north of 7 a year or two ago, under similar circumstances. I believe it hit the side of a turning gravel truck that time.

--- D
 
We'll probably never hear the whole truth on this one.

A dump truck doesn't do anything quickly, and if it was across the road sufficiently for the rider to hit the REAR tires while in the center lane, it would have taken a fair bit of time to go across the road and get that far across the lanes. Doesn't make sense.

Side-by-side riding bothers me. On any ride that I have any say in, that sort of thing is a "never-never-never". We don't know if that was a factor or not. But, I've seen other riders do it - I've seen the cops do it. Not for me. I want that escape route available. I normally try to have space not only in my own lane but also in the next lanes - I don't like being beside cars.

FWIW the bike in question was a cruiser of some sort.

I was saying the same thing to a friend of mine that this just doesn't make sense. From the accident scene I saw on tv I cant understand why he would not have had time to avoid this slow moving vehicle. Plus there was mention of a long skid mark.

Just doesn't add up, but if there was wrong doing on the motorcycle part you will probably not hear about it.
It is interesting that speed is almost always a factor in anyother motorcycle accident but not really in this one. wonder if it is because of the person involved?
 
I'm thinking that too fast for conditions and too fast for actual rider skill level were just as much factors in the cop that hit the dump truck, as it was in the Yamaha sport bike that hit the car in Etobicoke. (I don't dispute that the Etobicoke rider was going too fast for traffic conditions, from what we've been told - which is always subject to being wrong, but it's all we've got to work with.) But ... both also involved a vehicle that turned left in front of the rider's path. The dump truck almost made it across and it would have taken several seconds to get to that position, which doesn't make sense. The car's movement would have started with the oncoming traffic A LOT closer, which means the car driver ought to have had at least a better chance of seeing what was happening, if they had bothered to look.

Keep in mind that if the alleged pass through other traffic had occurred very close to where the bike/car impact happened, those other cars would have probably been tangled up in the collision, too. There had to be at least some time of the bike being clear of the other traffic having already completed the pass.

I shudder to think that this discussion could be happening about ME, had that Honda van started moving half a second earlier last week. FACTS: my initial speed was very close to the posted speed limit (80 km/h), the car driver DID NOT look for oncoming traffic properly. Somehow Turbodish would have been playing the blame-the-rider game in that one, too. (In that case, there was no other traffic around.)
 
Back
Top Bottom