left turn death vs right turn death... | GTAMotorcycle.com

left turn death vs right turn death...

S

SkyRider

Well-known member
so we all know that if you are in a cage making a left turn (intersection), a biker comes straight and you hit him, he dies and in court you will only get like a $110 fine.

but if you are making a right turn, mess up and drive into a bus stop, run over a person and make him road pizza, you likely get manslaughter or a serious charge.

what's wrong with this picture?
 
Last edited:
Sure, bike had ROW over dump truck, I think it has to do with the fact that with a cager pulling a left at intersection they would argue they didnt know you were going to be there right that second so they couldnt really be charged with manslaughter or anything above. So judge would look for the most severe punishment they could serve out, what reckless endangerment maybe? Even that sounds like a stretch, legally tho. In reality I feel what your saying there is a huge divide but society has this notion that we do this because we've got a deathwish so they just tell themselves"Hey, that biker knew the risks" and wash their hands of us.

I guess if he turns the other way onto the sidewalk and kills people they would argue those people had a reasonable expectation to be safe from that kind of harm while being on the sidewalk, and then dish out a harsher sentence. But dude Im totally speculating here, someones gotta have a legal background to explain the reasoning behind it.
 
Last edited:
The "criminal negligence causing death" doesn't get applied in normal circumstances of some other vehicle turning left in front of other traffic. Why in that particular case, but not otherwise? (I can guess ...)

There is plenty wrong with the HTA and this situation is one of them. If I had my 'druthers, the extreme penalties in the "stunt driving" clause would go away but be replaced by having extreme penalties applied to anyone who violated another vehicle's right-of-way resulting in injury or death, and being at fault in ANY right-of-way collision would result in driver's license revocation that can only be reinstated by going through the whole driver's license testing again. (Paying a fee to re-instate the driver's license isn't enough ... the whole idea is to get people to write the tests again, which forces them to read the rules again.)

Doing it this way addresses cell phone yappers, and texters, and drivers who are too old, and drivers who never learned to drive properly, and general sloppiness, all in one shot.

I don't buy the difference between intentionally hitting someone (murder) and negligently hitting someone (criminal negligence) and being sloppy and careless and hitting someone ($110 ticket). If the end result is the same then the penalty ought to be the same. Don't want to have that penalty applied? then DRIVE PROPERLY and give consideration to others!

Some US states have been moving in this direction.
 
Brian P said:
I don't buy the difference between intentionally hitting someone (murder) and negligently hitting someone (criminal negligence) and being sloppy and careless and hitting someone ($110 ticket). If the end result is the same then the penalty ought to be the same. Don't want to have that penalty applied? then DRIVE PROPERLY and give consideration to others!

Some US states have been moving in this direction.
Click to expand...

If it boils down to intent they how do the results matter? If someone does a careless left and the only reason it's a non-issue is because there was no oncoming traffic or the oncoming driver / rider was more skilled etc why should the left turner get off to do it again. They are a potential killer.

However does it make sense to make a careless left punishable by a ten year jail sentence if it doesn't do any damage? If it doesn't, then what sort of punishment is going to be severe enough to get people to wake up to the potential dangers?

Making matters worse is the police and government brainwashing drivers into believing that speeding and DUI are the only two dangers on the road.
 
Misunderstood?

Careless left that didn't do any damage, today's $110-ish fine and demerit points are appropriate. Cause a crash and hurt / kill someone because of it ... that's when extra penalties ought to be applied.
 
Brian P said:
Misunderstood?

Careless left that didn't do any damage, today's $110-ish fine and demerit points are appropriate. Cause a crash and hurt / kill someone because of it ... that's when extra penalties ought to be applied.
Click to expand...

Both drivers are guilty of the same offence but get different penalties. The lesser penalty goes to the driver who has the luck to cut off a rider who is better trained etc. How do we get it through the driver's head that he is endangering people? It seems we wait until he kills someone?

Life isn't baseball where you get three swings of the bat before things go sour.
 
the HTA doesn't consider what occurs after the accident or what type of vehicle were involved in the accident.

Like today an SUV makes a left turn out of a plaza between 4 stopped cars in front and 4 cars behind. I somehow miraculously see a gap in the oncoming traffic and switched to the right lane just as the SUV blindly darts out. If that SUV hit me I may have been killed but should that SUV driver face harsher penalties than a $110 fine because he couldn't see me on my little motorbike?

I know he didn't intentionally want to hit me nor could he have seen me but that's why they call it an accident. I'm just curious to know if most of these fatal left turns involved another car waiting to make a left turn from the oncoming traffic. It's hard enough trying to educate the entire populatin on watching out for bikes but at least we can do our part to educate our fellow motorcyclists to ride like we're invisible and do anything we can to get recognized through websites such as this and at group rides.
 
nobbie48 said:
Both drivers are guilty of the same offence but get different penalties. The lesser penalty goes to the driver who has the luck to cut off a rider who is better trained etc. How do we get it through the driver's head that he is endangering people? It seems we wait until he kills someone?

Life isn't baseball where you get three swings of the bat before things go sour.
Click to expand...

They didn't commit the same offence, even if the outcome is the same. That's what people seem to have trouble understanding. A moment's inattention is not 'dangerous operation causing death.' it may not even rise to the level of 'operation without due care and attention', depending upon the circumstances. Different crimes do not carry the same penalty.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
They didn't commit the same offence, even if the outcome is the same. That's what people seem to have trouble understanding. A moment's inattention is not 'dangerous operation causing death.' it may not even rise to the level of 'operation without due care and attention', depending upon the circumstances. Different crimes do not carry the same penalty.
Click to expand...

Driver A is texting and goes through a red light but there is no cross traffic and no damage occurs.

Driver B is texting and goes through a red light and there is cross traffic and death/damage occurs.

Both drivers did exactly the same thing. The damage outcome is due to luck, karma, whatever but not related to the drivers actions. Do they get the same ticket?

If they get the same minimal charge it doesn't make the injured party feel like their life is worth much.

If they both get thrown into jail for ten years it seems a bit oppressive to the no damage driver. Every traffic violation could result in damages. Are we to get ten years for ten over?
 
nobbie48 said:
Driver A is texting and goes through a red light but there is no cross traffic and no damage occurs.

Driver B is texting and goes through a red light and there is cross traffic and death/damage occurs.

Both drivers did exactly the same thing. The damage outcome is due to luck, karma, whatever but not related to the drivers actions. Do they get the same ticket?

If they get the same minimal charge it doesn't make the injured party feel like their life is worth much.

If they both get thrown into jail for ten years it seems a bit oppressive to the no damage driver. Every traffic violation could result in damages. Are we to get ten years for ten over?
Click to expand...

Except that isn't what the OP was talking about, is it. You're talking about the penalties phase of a trial, for what is essentially the same infraction. The OP is talking about two different instances; one that can be explained by a moment's inattention, and another that can best be explained by gross carelessness.
 
psycho44 said:
I know he didn't intentionally want to hit me nor could he have seen me but that's why they call it an accident. I'm just curious to know if most of these fatal left turns involved another car waiting to make a left turn from the oncoming traffic. It's hard enough trying to educate the entire populatin on watching out for bikes but at least we can do our part to educate our fellow motorcyclists to ride like we're invisible and do anything we can to get recognized through websites such as this and at group rides.
Click to expand...

If you're making a left turn, and you can't see possible on coming vehicles... DON'T GO. It's that simple. Unless you are 100% sure you are not pulling in to the way of an oncoming vehicle, you stay put.

There is NO excuse to pull out in front of a vehicle with the right of way. If you can't guarantee your way isn't clear, you stay put.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Except that isn't what the OP was talking about, is it. You're talking about the penalties phase of a trial, for what is essentially the same infraction. The OP is talking about two different instances; one that can be explained by a moment's inattention, and another that can best be explained by gross carelessness.
Click to expand...

I think the OP meant what nobbie described; different charges for the same driving error according to the severity of the outcome. Doesn't make sense.

In a traffic enforcement world as described by BrianP, it seems to me that justice would be fairer. But the real bonus top that type of enforcement would be the removal of the need for red lights or stop signs, so yellows and yield signs would be enough to control traffic and would result in much less congestion too. Drivers would actually re-learn how to read and navigate traffic rather than obediently following traffic signals as if they guaranteed our safety.
 
fastar1 said:
I think the OP meant what nobbie described; different charges for the same driving error according to the severity of the outcome. Doesn't make sense.

In a traffic enforcement world as described by BrianP, it seems to me that justice would be fairer. But the real bonus top that type of enforcement would be the removal of the need for red lights or stop signs, so yellows and yield signs would be enough to control traffic and would result in much less congestion too. Drivers would actually re-learn how to read and navigate traffic rather than obediently following traffic signals as if they guaranteed our safety.
Click to expand...

Different instances in which the same law is applied can have different outcomes as the laws have a penalty range, to take circumstances into consideration. Different laws are applied, in different situations, based on the nature of the infraction and severity of the actions involved.

The problem isn't that traffic signs and signals don't guarantee our safety, but rather that people don't obey them.

psycho44 said:
uhm yield signs? Ever try one of those circle things it's a chaotic mess
Click to expand...

They work just fine, if people know how to use them.
 
I have an uncle who lives in Michigan and they have something they call the "Michigan U-turn" so there are no left turns across big intersections and instead you pass the intersection to a small u-turn lane and come back and make the right. I don't know how possible it is to apply the same method here but my uncle says left turning collisions are extremely rare.
 
deuce said:
I have an uncle who lives in Michigan and they have something they call the "Michigan U-turn" so there are no left turns across big intersections and instead you pass the intersection to a small u-turn lane and come back and make the right. I don't know how possible it is to apply the same method here but my uncle says left turning collisions are extremely rare.
Click to expand...

Not really applicable to a place like the GTA, where the lines at lights are already huge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_left
 
Edit: Keep in mind that the issue with "Michigan left turns" is that "Right-on-a-red" is illegal there, so there are two ways to control intersecting traffic.

SkyRider said:
so we all know that if you are in a cage making a left turn (intersection), a biker comes straight and you hit him, he dies and in court you will only get like a $110 fine.

but if you are making a right turn, mess up and drive into a bus stop, run over a person and make him road pizza, you likely get manslaughter or a serious charge.

what's wrong with this picture?
Click to expand...
I was giving this a lot of thought the other day and came to the conclusion that sometimes the visibility just isn't there.

If a driver doesn't position the vehicle correctly in a left-turn lane, and there's another vehicle in the opposing turn lane, visibility of the oncoming traffic is limited. With a motorcyclist in the lane adjacent to the left-turn lane, or in the left-track of the far right lane, a cager might not see you until AFTER they enter the intersection. Lest not forget that a lot of people don't check the post-turn cross-walk for pedestrians until AFTER they commence the left-turn (if people are crossing, the drivers are now faced with blocking the intersection or running over pedestrians).

Almost all of us are also cagers, so my question to you is; How many of you know how to correctly position your cage when in a left-turn lane? How many of you are aware of pedestrians before you turn?
 
Last edited:
Rob's bang on with explaining situation vs intent vs outcome, etc... and how the law(s) apply. Sometimes it's just a mistake, sometimes it's just a mistake with tragic circumstances, sometimes it's outright negligence with no negative outcome and sometimes it's outright negligence with tragic circumstances, to state only a few scenarios. There has to be escalating AND de-escalating laws to deal with each situation as presented and within those laws there must be sliding sentences to address the severity of the situation (quite frankly, I think the HTA could do well to have more sentencing ranges within the sections such as careless, etc... or, dare I say it, additional sections written such as careless cause death).

The OP is making up a hypothetical situation but based on what he wrote and no further information, I'd expect more severe charges for the second scenario; if the left turn driver had a clear road there would have been no consequence (and no charge) however the right turn driver left the roadway which should not have occurred regardless of whether there were people on the sidewalk or not (and if there were no people then you'd be looking at an HTA charge or none at all).

EngineerJoe said:
If a driver doesn't position the vehicle correctly in a left-turn lane, and there's another vehicle in the opposing turn lane, visibility of the oncoming traffic is limited. With a motorcyclist in the lane adjacent to the left-turn lane, or in the left-track of the far right lane, a cager might not see you until AFTER they enter the intersection. Lest not forget that a lot of people don't check the post-turn cross-walk for pedestrians until AFTER they commence the left-turn (if people are crossing, the drivers are now faced with blocking the intersection or running over pedestrians).
Click to expand...

A common problem; most people drive straight out from the exit of a left turn lane rather than off-setting to the left allowing them a better view of oncoming traffic as well as allowing oncoming traffic a better view of what's coming at them. As a rider (and also in my cage) when I see an intersection where due to waiting left turn or otherwise stopped traffic, I (try to) always offset right or even change lanes right and slow down if need be to allow me a view of any left-turners... and for THEM TO SEE ME.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom