Excess speed vs right of way violation

[Neil_V]

Different pic. Look at where the impact was and the pattern. It wasn't a typical t-bone arising from u-turn.

That's still a near 45 degree impact which means the maneuver into the live lane was indeed quite sharp

Any comment on the distance to the curve? For your arguement of sightline to hold any weight, the bike would have needed to be topping 100kph min.. The damage does not support anything near that pace

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.7037...6Sn7XTf2CjTqS-9j9LUg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

 

[griff2]

That's still a near 45 degree impact which means the maneuver into the live lane was indeed quite sharp

Any comment on the distance to the curve? For your arguement of sightline to hold any weight, the bike would have needed to be topping 100kph min.. The damage does not support anything near that pace

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.7037...6Sn7XTf2CjTqS-9j9LUg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

You assume the bike would have done no braking before impact. Skid marks would help flesh out that part of the story, and the major collision investigators would have looked for and measured the length of those.

Again, in a simple right of way collision charges would have been a given, especially where death is involved. If charges are not being considered, then some serious mitigating factor(s) must have been found by the investigators.

"At this time, police said, it does not appear to be any charges as the motorcyclist was travelling at a high rate of speed when the accident happened."It appears the speed of the motorcycle is a factor," said Mark Fischer, a Peel police spokesperson."

 

[Neil_V]

You assume the bike would have done no braking before impact. Skid marks would help flesh out that part of the story, and the major collision investigators would have looked for and measured the length of those.

Again, in a simple right of way collision charges would have been a given, especially where death is involved. If charges are not being considered, then some serious mitigating factor(s) must have been found by the investigators.

"At this time, police said, it does not appear to be any charges as the motorcyclist was travelling at a high rate of speed when the accident happened."It appears the speed of the motorcycle is a factor," said Mark Fischer, a Peel police spokesperson."

You're earlier argument was sight line and speed... no way that bike was out of sight when the driver pulled out. Driver did not show due care, regardless of the riders speed. Full stop

 

[Joe Bass]

So the civic is backing out of a driveway into a live line. Seems pretty obvious to me that he should make sure that the path is clear. And I don’t mean to generalize or stereotype but I wonder if they have checked phone/text records. This is one of those times that I'd be much happier arguing that the charge was too light, rather than no charge at all.
RIP rider

Sent from my custom purple Joe Bass mobile device using Tapatalk

 

[conundrum]

To play devil's advocate...sure the driver should look, but at what speed does that become near irrelevant? Granted this wasn't a high-end SS bike, but if the bike were closing at say 100-200km/h in a 50km/h zone, the driver could look once and see it off in the distance, thinking there is more than enough time to pull onto the road before it gets too close. We do joke about Harleys being slow, but they can do at least 130-140km/h without a problem, which is almost 3x the speed limit in some places.

That said, this is why we are taught to look then look again, which should at least register the closing speed of the other vehicle. If the rider was riding well above the speed limit, then blame should fall on both parties. If we are talking 10-20km/h over posted, then 'speed' should not really factor in at all.

 

[Neil_V]

See post #4

ftr an acquaintance and his passenger died in similar circumstances a few years back, but with reverse roles; the biker violated the cars right of way. The rider presumably misjudged the cars closing rate and turned in front of it. The cars skid marks suggested, quite strongly, a high rate of speed. I took quite a lot of heat from a few friends for my position, but I would not support blaming the driver who's right of way was violated. The responsibility lies with you and you alone.

 

[Riceburner]

To play devil's advocate...sure the driver should look, but at what speed does that become near irrelevant? Granted this wasn't a high-end SS bike, but if the bike were closing at say 100-200km/h in a 50km/h zone, the driver could look once and see it off in the distance, thinking there is more than enough time to pull onto the road before it gets too close. We do joke about Harleys being slow, but they can do at least 130-140km/h without a problem, which is almost 3x the speed limit in some places.

That said, this is why we are taught to look then look again, which should at least register the closing speed of the other vehicle. If the rider was riding well above the speed limit, then blame should fall on both parties. If we are talking 10-20km/h over posted, then 'speed' should not really factor in at all.

That's the unknown right now. How fast was the bike going? Wonder how many ppl actually look twice?

 

[Paul]

Different pic. Heavy bike may already have scrubbed off speed before impact, and skid marks if present on the road would give some indication of length of braking before impact which in turn can provide indication of speed. Look at where the impact was and the pattern. Car wheels don't appear to have much turn on them. It doesn't look like a typical full-on t-bone arising from u-turn.

Looks like a uturn to me. The car moved when it was hit... That would jar the wheels to a straight position and explain the angle of the car in this pick.

There is no way a merging car could end up Iin this position on the other side of the road.

 

[happycrappy]

See post #4

ftr an acquaintance and his passenger died in similar circumstances a few years back, but with reverse roles; the biker violated the cars right of way. The rider presumably misjudged the cars closing rate and turned in front of it. The cars skid marks suggested, quite strongly, a high rate of speed. I took quite a lot of heat from a few friends for my position, but I would not support blaming the driver who's right of way was violated. The responsibility lies with you and you alone.

Thankfully, this is not reality. Excess speed can and should be considered in these cases, as it was in the case of Clayton Rivet. You mentioned earlier that if a person cannot judge closing speed, then they should not even drive at all. Pretty narrow view (pun intended) of such a topic, but getting past the subjectivity of that statement - you have to consider the reality that a speeding vehicle covers more ground in a given time frame, which by extension also indicates that when a reasonable person would be looking to see if the right of way is clear, the speeding vehicle may have not even entered the line of sight yet at all.
Based on the reports by actual trained investigators, there was enough speed to determine no charges for the car driver. I'm pretty sure that had a little more than google maps and a pic from a forum to determine that, but hey, it's GTAM, lol.

 

[unfaZed]

Thankfully, this is not reality. Excess speed can and should be considered in these cases, as it was in the case of Clayton Rivet. You mentioned earlier that if a person cannot judge closing speed, then they should not even drive at all. Pretty narrow view (pun intended) of such a topic, but getting past the subjectivity of that statement - you have to consider the reality that a speeding vehicle covers more ground in a given time frame, which by extension also indicates that when a reasonable person would be looking to see if the right of way is clear, the speeding vehicle may have not even entered the line of sight yet at all.
Based on the reports by actual trained investigators, there was enough speed to determine no charges for the car driver. I'm pretty sure that had a little more than google maps and a pic from a forum to determine that, but hey, it's GTAM, lol.

Honestly we worry too much about legal fault - a man is dead, the focus should be on how we can avoid suffering a similar fate.

In this case it seems pretty clear the answer is "slow down and pay closer attention to the sides of the road".

I wish every driver who violated right of way was punished in some way but I also know it won't always happen...

 

[Bagman]

I find it hilarious the comments and conclusions (and subsequent arguments) people can draw from a couple of media-angle photos of a collision scene. Pretty sure Peel Police have enough trained Collision Reconstructionists to figure out what happened....

 

[griff2]

I find it hilarious the comments and conclusions (and subsequent arguments) people can draw from a couple of media-angle photos of a collision scene. Pretty sure Peel Police have enough trained Collision Reconstructionists to figure out what happened....

Yup. Go see the site and the markings on the road. No u-turn. Everything in the southbound lane, despite bike being northbound.

 

[Neil_V]

Based on the reports by actual trained investigators, there was enough speed to determine no charges for the car driver. I'm pretty sure that had a little more than google maps and a pic from a forum to determine that, but hey, it's GTAM, lol.

See post 4; it's not just this loser GTAMer who thinks speed is no excuse for violating right of way... but go on, make comments about what can be taken from a forum comment; at least I provide some context when I post

 

[Neil_V]

Yup. Go see the site and the markings on the road. No u-turn. Everything in the southbound lane, despite bike being northbound.

So are you suggesting the bike was in the southbound lane while travelling north; that would be a different story. Did you actually go to the scene? If yes; you sure get around... Brampton Neighbourhoods // Guelph parking lots.. Nothing better to do?

 

[DaveTheCanuck]

I find it hilarious the comments and conclusions (and subsequent arguments) people can draw from a couple of media-angle photos of a collision scene. Pretty sure Peel Police have enough trained Collision Reconstructionists to figure out what happened....

This.

Let the real experts do their job.

 

[griff2]

So are you suggesting the bike was in the southbound lane while travelling north; that would be a different story. Did you actually go to the scene? If yes; you sure get around... Brampton Neighbourhoods // Guelph parking lots.. Nothing better to do?

It was on my way to IKEA, I have the luxury of time, and I enjoy driving and riding. You should try it some time.

 

[Neil_V]

It was on my way to IKEA, I have the luxury of time, and I enjoy driving and riding. You should try it some time.

For both; your place must be a flat pack paradise..

Edit:
You didn't elaborate on your lane comment either

 

[Brian P]

I lived around the corner from that spot for years, and another person who has posted in this thread also lives nearby to this day.

There is no visibility issue. The "curve" is hardly meaningful. You can see clear through the whole area.

Residents on that road have been complaining about traffic going too fast for years (but this happens everywhere). Rutherford is a somewhat major road through the area. It used to be two lanes each way, then they re-did it to a traffic lane and a bicycle lane some years back.

The fault determination rules allow some of the responsibility to start shifting with as little as 15 km/h above the posted speed limit.

With an impact to that location on the car and with everything in the southbound lane despite the bike being northbound is consistent with the car having been northbound and then starting, but not completing, a U-turn and the rider taking an evasive swerve into the opposite-direction lane. It is not consistent with "pulling into traffic" - the angle of the car with a NORMAL "pull into traffic" is so shallow that an impact would be with the rear of the car, not the driver's side door.

If the car was pulling forward out of a driveway on the east side but making a right turn (north), the same type of impact angle is foreseeable but the car would have still been in the northbound lane. If the car was backing out of a driveway on the west side but re-aiming itself to travel north, the same impact angle is foreseeable but it's hard to understand why the rider would have swerved into the other lane into the path of the car.

I don't trust police collision reconstruction "experts".

 

[Paul]

It was on my way to IKEA, I have the luxury of time, and I enjoy driving and riding. You should try it some time.

How does the car end up in the southbound lane if he was travelling north.. And merged to northbound traffic... And was pushed north or east (drivers side hit) when hit. ?

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[griff2]

So are you suggesting the bike was in the southbound lane while travelling north; that would be a different story. Did you actually go to the scene? If yes; you sure get around... Brampton Neighbourhoods // Guelph parking lots.. Nothing better to do?

Let's say the bike was in the southbound lane. How does that really make it a different story? Vehicles backing out of a driveway would be expected to look to see if it is clear in both directions, right? Failing to do so would be a violation of right of way. Yet in this case no charges are being laid, which suggests that investigation placed the brunt of cause upon the rider for reasons of excessive speed.

Operators are expected to exercise reasonable due diligence in ensuring that they do not violate the right of way of others, but there is no expectation of absolutely perfect diligence. Reasonable diligence is still measured by what an operator should reasonable expect of other traffic, and part of that reasonable expectation is speed in a given locale.

Nobody can be expected to make allowances for an incoming missile when the speed limit is only 50 kmph. Similarly, in the at Burlington crash where a left turning SUV was nearly sliced in two by a motorcycle, even had the SUV driver survived, do you really think that he would be facing charges given that the motorcycle was doing twice the speed limit?

There comes a point where egregious operator conduct works to mitigate what would ordinarily be fault assigned to another operator who violates his or her usual right of way, and so it should be.