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?
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.
This would be total crap.......A good Officer would never speed nor be reckless....
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.
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.
High speed on Dixon westbound at Golfwood? That's a 60 zone.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
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.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
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
CP24 video has a lot to say about the apparent speed of the motorcycle.
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.
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.
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.
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 was not a reckless driver/rider.