Motorcycle was hit by CRV in Markham. 2017-05-16. 14:40

It looked like the bike didn't even attempt to slow down. Anyways, I believe that the velocity of the bike should be relevant to a careless charge, and insurance issues.
It's delta V that kills. The faster the bike's going the more damage will be done. Even 5 kph can make a difference.

Slow down and cover the levers before intersections people, it could turn a life changing moment into a non-event.
 
slowbird said:
Speed of the bike is irrelevant, it had the right of way. CRV should be deemed 100% at fault.
Also, hard to judge the speed of the bike in that short a period of time with that fish eye sort of lens and from that distance.


GWS rider
Click to expand...

I agree that the CRV is primarily at fault, but the speed of the bike is very relevant. It has been proven over and over that humans have trouble judging speed of oncoming objects, especially those with limited width. In the absence of reliable alternative information, a reasonable person would expect the oncoming traffic to be moving reasonably close to the speed limit (in most of Ontario, 10 to 20 km/h over the speed limit is the 85th percentile speed). What if the bike was going 200 km/h, would you consider that relevant? Ostriching and putting all of the blame on the driver is short sited and just plain wrong. Riders are also contributing factors in many (but not all) of these accidents.

As far as your fish eye comment, assuming that the speed was calculated over only a few frames, the distortion effect would be minimal and he gave a 25% error which would cover any possible distortion. Based on my calculations (it took ~7 frames to go ~11m) he was going well over 100 km/h prior to entering the intersection (and slowed to <60 km/h at the point of impact). Obviously there is some error due to angles, moving camera etc, but he was definitely closer to 100 than 50. Interesting, he got on the brakes hard as he entered the intersection and appears to be well into a stoppie by the point of impact. His speed hurt him, his reaction probably saved his life.

Glad he survived, that was a hard hit. GWS rider.
 
Yes GreyGhost.....

regardless of the speed of the motorcycle, if it has the right of way and another vehicle turns into its path the obstructing vehicle should be considered 100% at fault.

The problem with this Province (and maybe even this country) is the obvious prejudice against riders and their assumption that they all share fault for collisions where the driver of the other vehicle should be considered 100% at fault. Insurance companies and LEO are consistently giving the fuzzy end of the lollypop to riders and it's wrong.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/a47-death-crash-driver-disqualified-1-3523497

It's from the UK but we need more pro motorcycle judgments such as this one.

The video shouldn't decrease the charge on the driver at all. It doesn't prove the riders speed at all, and it clearly shows the CRV impeding not just the Motorcycle but the silver car as well. The video should damn her, not aid her.
 
No. Rider shares blame if substantially above speed limit. I have no prejudice on the rider, could be skate boarder. No matter for me. If it was you riding the bike you'd blame yourself wouldn't you?(how could I have been so stupid?)
 
inreb said:
No. Rider shares blame if substantially above speed limit. I have no prejudice on the rider, could be skate boarder. No matter for me. If it was you riding the bike you'd blame yourself wouldn't you?(how could I have been so stupid?)
Click to expand...

No, if I go 200km/h on a residential 40km/h street around a blind curve, it's everybody else's fault if they decide to pull out of their driveway into my path. /sarcasm - my bike can't hit 200km/h.
 
No doubt rider shares blame if significantly above the limit. In the UK case cited above, for sure the rider would have faced charges as well, had he survived. I only take issue when the left turner gets off "because speed". In most cases the indecent is simple distraction and/or poor judgement.. using any excess speed of the impeded is just a defense of convenience imo.
 
Yeah yeah I can go to extreme eye rolling sarcastic examples too.

If I'm doing 45km/h on a residential road with a 40km/h limit and and a car pulls out suddenly and violent into my path, I guess I am at fault cause I was speeding. :rolleyes:

The problem with this line of thinking is where does it go from a grey area to clear right and wrong.

Does there need to be concrete proof the vehicle that T-Bones the left turning vehicle was speeding?
What constitutes speeding? Anything over the limit? Or are we going to start having speeding and very speeding?
Inreb says rider shares blame if substantially above the speed limit. What, bylaw, defines substantially above the limit? There's is nothing set to define that, and we can't leave it up to by-standards that think every bike is speeding cause it's flashy and loud.
Unless there is equipment setup at every light how can you determine speeds?
In cases such as this one, how can you determine what speed the bike is traveling and what speed other vehicles are traveling with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY? Without any reasonable doubt!

It's nearly impossible to get all that I mentioned above which is why, in the past, it's always been the vehicle turning left into the path of the oncoming vehicle to have 100% at fault. I have known a few people who have been waiting to turn left and the light turns yellow and cars are still coming, and then it turns red and they complete their turn only to have a car run the red light and T-bone them and guess who was found at fault? Not the person running the red.
It is your responsibility as the motorist to make your turn safely, which means take a second and look.

Now for some reason, fault is being shared when it rightfully shouldn't.

As motorcyclists we need to be extra cautious. Going 200km/h knee down around a blind corner is suicidal. But the rider in this video, speed or not, should not be even remotely considered at fault. Not even 1%. period.
 
Last edited:
Neil_V said:
No doubt rider shares blame if significantly above the limit. In the UK case cited above, for sure the rider would have faced charges as well, had he survived. I only take issue when the left turner gets off "because speed". In most cases the indecent is simple distraction and/or poor judgement.. using any excess speed of the impeded is just a defense of convenience imo.
Click to expand...

Well put.
 
slowbird said:
Yeah yeah I can go to extreme eye rolling sarcastic examples too.

If I'm doing 45km/h on a residential road with a 40km/h limit and and a car pulls out suddenly and violent into my path, I guess I am at fault cause I was speeding. :rolleyes:

The problem with this line of thinking is where does it go from a grey area to clear right and wrong.

Does there need to be concrete proof the vehicle that T-Bones the left turning vehicle was speeding?
What constitutes speeding? Anything over the limit? Or are we going to start having speeding and very speeding?
Inreb says rider shares blame if substantially above the speed limit. What, bylaw, defines substantially above the limit? There's is nothing set to define that, and we can't leave it up to by-standards that think every bike is speeding cause it's flashy and loud.
Unless there is equipment setup at every light how can you determine speeds?
In cases such as this one, how can you determine what speed the bike is traveling and what speed other vehicles are traveling with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY? Without any reasonable doubt!
Now for some reason, fault is being shared when it rightfully shouldn't.

As motorcyclists we need to be extra cautious. Going 200km/h knee down around a blind corner is suicidal. But the rider in this video, speed or not, should not be even remotely considered at fault. Not even 1%. period.
Click to expand...

There are well understood and implemented concepts. Specifically 85th percentile speed as the speed that most vehicles travel on the road (85% of the vehicles are going that speed or slower). If your speed is markedly different from that speed, you are partly at fault. Your 45 in a 40 example is reasonably close to 85th percentile speed and the rider would be 0% at fault. That is the simple approach to speeding vs very speeding.

In this particular case, there is video of the crash. I used the ghetto approach and guesstimated distances, assumed that the frame rate wasn't resampled,and didn't account for the moving camera or distortion. There are entire engineering companies that deal with this on a daily basis. They have spent a lot of time and money on methods that can account for these factors as well as friction, braking forces, reaction when the vehicles hit etc. BTW you don't need to get absolute accuracy, just a reasonable window. It doesn't matter if the bike was going 142 km/h or somewhere between 120 and 160, both are very speeding. If the analysis was only able to show that the rider was going between 55 and 65 km/h, that is an expected speed and I agree that the bike is 0% at fault. From the video, I believe it can be determined beyond any reasonable doubt that the rider was exceeding the 85th percentile speed by a very very wide margin.

Given the injuries the severity of the injuries the rider likely sustained, I suspect that insurance companies will be hiring a forensic investigation company to try to apportion blame, it's a shame that the reports don't become public.

I appreciate the healthy discussion, but in this case, unless the correction factors in the video are huge (which I would be shocked about), you are wrong, the rider shares the blame.

Just for interest, on a road with a 70 km/h speed limit I recently had data collected on, the 15/50/85/95 percentile speeds were 61/70/80/87 km/h respectively. This rider was going faster than 95% of the cars on a paved rural road with a 70 km/h speed limit on an urban road with a 50 km/h speed limit. Very speeding, although still not entirely at fault and did not deserve to be crushed into a ball.

EDIT:
Alternatively you could use pace speed which is the speed range that contains 75% of the vehicles. On the road above the pace speed was 61 to 81 km/h in a posted 70 km/h zone.
 
Last edited:
GreyGhost said:
There are well understood and implemented concepts. Specifically 85th percentile speed as the speed that most vehicles travel on the road (85% of the vehicles are going that speed or slower). If your speed is markedly different from that speed, you are partly at fault. Your 45 in a 40 example is reasonably close to 85th percentile speed and the rider would be 0% at fault. That is the simple approach to speeding vs very speeding.

In this particular case, there is video of the crash. I used the ghetto approach and guesstimated distances, assumed that the frame rate wasn't resampled,and didn't account for the moving camera or distortion. There are entire engineering companies that deal with this on a daily basis. They have spent a lot of time and money on methods that can account for these factors as well as friction, braking forces, reaction when the vehicles hit etc. BTW you don't need to get absolute accuracy, just a reasonable window. It doesn't matter if the bike was going 142 km/h or somewhere between 120 and 160, both are very speeding. If the analysis was only able to show that the rider was going between 55 and 65 km/h, that is an expected speed and I agree that the bike is 0% at fault. From the video, I believe it can be determined beyond any reasonable doubt that the rider was exceeding the 85th percentile speed by a very very wide margin.

Given the injuries the severity of the injuries the rider likely sustained, I suspect that insurance companies will be hiring a forensic investigation company to try to apportion blame, it's a shame that the reports don't become public.

I appreciate the healthy discussion, but in this case, unless the correction factors in the video are huge (which I would be shocked about), you are wrong, the rider shares the blame.

Just for interest, on a road with a 70 km/h speed limit I recently had data collected on, the 15/50/85/95 percentile speeds were 61/70/80/87 km/h respectively. This rider was going faster than 95% of the cars on a paved rural road with a 70 km/h speed limit on an urban road with a 50 km/h speed limit. Very speeding, although still not entirely at fault and did not deserve to be crushed into a ball.

EDIT:
Alternatively you could use pace speed which is the speed range that contains 75% of the vehicles. On the road above the pace speed was 61 to 81 km/h in a posted 70 km/h zone.
Click to expand...

Well put.
 
slowbird said:
Does there need to be concrete proof the vehicle that T-Bones the left turning vehicle was speeding? But the rider in this video, speed or not, should not be even remotely considered at fault. Not even 1%. period.
Click to expand...

The bolded part made me relook the video. With such a great distance between the car and bike why didn't the rider just stop?
 
I think some here may be confusing 'at fault' vs an 'avoidable accident.

Fault is determined by the Fault Determination Rules under the insurance act: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900668

I didn't go through the rules, but I suspect from an insurance point of view, the CRV owner's insurance company is going to accept 100% fault. (Quick opinion, I'm not going to comb through the document)

That said, I think most of us agree that the motorcyclist was speeding, especially for an intersection in Markham. I'm sure the rider now wishes he had done things differently to avoid the accident.

I'm glad he's alive. GWS rider.
 
I appreciate the time you took the write all that GG. Having been on the Police end of MVC's I know that not all incidents get treated with that kind of methodical approach. Usually just the "That guy was probably speeding." or the "eyewitness" that says the bike was speeding.
My Captain at work today told me I was speeding when I left work yesterday, but I knew for a fact I was doing the limit. But a loud red bike to a lot of people screams "I'm going super fast!"

When does an MVC warrant this kind of approach as you mentioned, besides the obvious when the Major Collision Bureau is called in?
I'm asking these for curiosity sake, and not to make a point.

I never said the rider isn't at fault...as that isn't up to me, but is up to the money hungry insurance companies putting blame on everyone to line their pockets with inflated premiums. I was found 10% at fault for my bodily injury in a motorcycle accident where I was found 0% at fault for the collision itself and the property damage so they seem to do whatever the hell they want.

I said the rider shouldn't be at fault. The driver of the SUV clearly pulled out late impeding both the car and the bike. Drivers shouldn't lose part of the blame when doing something so incredibly careless and life threatening because someone is going over the speed limit.

inreb said:
Well put.
Click to expand...


Lol. :rolleyes:

inreb said:
The bolded part made me relook the video. With such a great distance between the car and bike why didn't the rider just stop?
Click to expand...

Technically the rider did stop.

jeff96 said:
Fault is determined by the Fault Determination Rules under the insurance act: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900668

I didn't go through the rules, but I suspect from an insurance point of view, the CRV owner's insurance company is going to accept 100% fault. (Quick opinion, I'm not going to comb through the document)
Click to expand...

Insurance puts blame on whatever they like. Not much you can do to stop them. See my thread in the insurance forum.
 
Last edited:
First, GWS rider.


As for the accident itself. As motorcyclist, we have to recognize there are dangerous elements that can lead to serious injury or death.

Every intersection there is the potential of driving making a left hand turn.

If you choose to run at or above the speed limit as you would while in a cage, you are inviting it happen.

You need to be prepared to avoid or stop.

You have the right away. The driver is 100% in the wrong but, knowing this after the fact provides little comfort while in the hospital or morgue.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jeff96 said:
I think some here may be confusing 'at fault' vs an 'avoidable accident.
Click to expand...

I don't think the rider, any rider, should be allowed cart blanche because the car driver(evil doofuss) made a miscue. In other words if the rider was driving Johnny Cash's '68 Fleetwood could he just ram the CRV? After all, the CRV was where it shouldn't be. I don't think so. Signing on the dotted line acknowledges that you understand traffic on public roads is in constant flux subject to human frailties. How can it be any other way? In the situation at hand there is no way the rider is less than 1% at fault.
 
I agree inreb to a point inreb. To put it another way, I don't think 2 wrongs necessarily make a right.

However if I'm driving along at 15 over the limit, which is quite normal on the majority of roads, and a car pulls out in front of me, it's not my fault. Doesn't matter that I was speeding. No one will question it if a car blows a stop sign and I t-bone it right? The other car was at fault.

What if the car pulls out of a side street, right in front of me. Bam! came outta nowhere! Not my fault. Shouldn't matter if I was speeding. The other driver has to wait for the way to be clear.

Same goes with someone making a left turn. If I'm going 75km/h in a 60km/h and someone makes a left turn into my path by law the other driver should be at fault for the collision. At most I should get a speeding ticket. But I had the right of way before it was blocked by the other vehicle.

It's easier when it's 2 cars. Problem is when it's a bike is involved there's some prejudice.
 
slowbird said:
I agree inreb to a point inreb. To put it another way, I don't think 2 wrongs necessarily make a right.

However if I'm driving along at 15 over the limit, which is quite normal on the majority of roads, and a car pulls out in front of me, it's not my fault. Doesn't matter that I was speeding. No one will question it if a car blows a stop sign and I t-bone it right? The other car was at fault.

What if the car pulls out of a side street, right in front of me. Bam! came outta nowhere! Not my fault. Shouldn't matter if I was speeding. The other driver has to wait for the way to be clear.

Same goes with someone making a left turn. If I'm going 75km/h in a 60km/h and someone makes a left turn into my path by law the other driver should be at fault for the collision. At most I should get a speeding ticket. But I had the right of way before it was blocked by the other vehicle.

It's easier when it's 2 cars. Problem is when it's a bike is involved there's some prejudice.
Click to expand...

The thing about all your examples (except for your "any speed" example) is that you're using speeding anywhere from 10km/h-20km/h over the limit. We would all agree that a car would be at fault in those situations.

We are questioning what we saw in the video not being 10-20km/h over, rather, much more than that. I don't think anyone is arguing that the CRV isn't at fault, but that there is partial fault on the rider's part.

We're not using eyewitnesses and there isn't any he said, she said. It is video evidence.

Either way, hopefully insurance takes care of the rider well financially....
 
Last edited:
slowbird said:
I agree inreb to a point inreb. To put it another way, I don't think 2 wrongs necessarily make a right.

However if I'm driving along at 15 over the limit, which is quite normal on the majority of roads, and a car pulls out in front of me, it's not my fault. Doesn't matter that I was speeding. No one will question it if a car blows a stop sign and I t-bone it right? The other car was at fault.

What if the car pulls out of a side street, right in front of me. Bam! came outta nowhere! Not my fault. Shouldn't matter if I was speeding. The other driver has to wait for the way to be clear.

Same goes with someone making a left turn. If I'm going 75km/h in a 60km/h and someone makes a left turn into my path by law the other driver should be at fault for the collision. At most I should get a speeding ticket. But I had the right of way before it was blocked by the other vehicle.

It's easier when it's 2 cars. Problem is when it's a bike is involved there's some prejudice.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom