Post-crash group-ride outcome

G

griff2

Banned
Forum Sponsor
Something to think about on the next hooligan ride.

Charges pending in relation to fiery crash that killed Milton teens

http://www.insidehalton.com/news-st...tion-to-fiery-crash-that-killed-milton-teens/


Milton teen, youths charged in double fatal collision

http://www.insidehalton.com/news-st...een-youths-charged-in-double-fatal-collision/

Four Milton residents are facing charges related to the fiery crash that killed Grade 12 students Faruq Anani and Dylan Stephenson earlier this month.

On Thursday (April 28), Halton police arrested the individuals, including 18-year-old Brian Lund, and three youths, who cannot be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The drivers and passengers, according to police, are known to each other. They were each charged with two counts of dangerous driving causing death. The accused will remain in custody, pending a bail hearing.

At approximately 2:30 p.m. April 10, Anani and Stephenson were travelling along James Snow Parkway, east of Esquesing Line, when they crashed their Nissan 350z. The vehicle struck a pole before catching fire.

“The Collision Reconstruction Unit focused on determining the circumstances surrounding this collision, including the involvement of four other vehicles that were seen travelling with the vehicle that subsequently crashed,” said police in a release"
 
That makes more sense. Going that quickly at that time of day didn't make sense until other cars were involved.

The 350Z had rims, how do 17 yo's afford that? If my kid wants a quick car, it's their money, not mine.

The first comment from that article
"By Mike | APRIL 28, 2016 01:53 PM
Outrageous!!! These boys had to witness there best friends tragic accident and now being blamed for it !! Some justice system we have here. Lesson was learned the hard way. This pushes the bar mentally for these young boys. Making them out to be criminals, you should all be ashamed.. Disgusting. My brother is one of the boys being charged, before anyone decides to judge my opinion, get your facts straight."
 
I am assuming the four charged were in other vehicles and there was no contact between vehicles. If so I fully understand the logic but wonder about the chances of conviction because the crash was the result of the victim's lack of skill, not contact with the other car(s).

If someone cuts you off and to avoid contact you go into the ditch killing a passenger I thought the other car got off with a wrist slap. You take the charge of not being in control of the vehicle.

The four encouraged the situation by participating but didn't force anyone to do anything. Could this logic be used if a person was harmed in a drinking contest? All participants charged? Other risky activities?
 
nobbie48 said:
I am assuming the four charged were in other vehicles and there was no contact between vehicles. If so I fully understand the logic but wonder about the chances of conviction because the crash was the result of the victim's lack of skill, not contact with the other car(s).

If someone cuts you off and to avoid contact you go into the ditch killing a passenger I thought the other car got off with a wrist slap. You take the charge of not being in control of the vehicle.

The four encouraged the situation by participating but didn't force anyone to do anything. Could this logic be used if a person was harmed in a drinking contest? All participants charged? Other risky activities?
Click to expand...

In a 2008 street racing fatality on Argentia Drive in Mississauga some years ago, two drivers and the person who started their race by dropping the "flag" was also charged with criminal negligence causing death. Three years later in a plea deal, the flagger eventually pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death even though he was never in any car.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/02/10/accused_flag_man_in_fatal_race_on_trial.html
http://www.mississauga.com/news-story/3123626-flagman-sentenced-in-landmark-case/

The flagger didn't "force" anyone to do anything, but he was still part of an event that ended in loss of life through criminal act. An accessory during the fact.

Now, consider a hooligan group ride that goes bad...
 
Wouldn't this discourage other riders/drivers from assisting in an accident and instead just get them to put as much distance between themselves and the incident as possible?
 
TwistedKestrel said:
Wouldn't this discourage other riders/drivers from assisting in an accident and instead just get them to put as much distance between themselves and the incident as possible?
Click to expand...

Isn't that what happened?
 
By charging everyone with the most serious offence, the passengers will end up providing testimony against the driver as part of their deal for a guilty plea to a lesser charge, thus securing the conviction against the driver.
 
That crash was about 3kms from my house and a well known local 'go fast' spot, its one of three local 'race tracks'. The fact there were several kids with cell phones ready to video post crash in a remote location would lead the police to a quick conclusion it was street race gone wrong.

Charging everybody that was in the area at the time is the new process to get convictions. Guilty by association.

I sure every town is the same, Milton gets one of these tragedies every spring.
 
TwistedKestrel said:
Wouldn't this discourage other riders/drivers from assisting in an accident and instead just get them to put as much distance between themselves and the incident as possible?
Click to expand...

There are many many examples of exactly this, including a rider whose pillion fell off on the 401. Left for dead, she was hit by a couple of cars IIRC.

One side effect of harsh punishment is the temptation to run and everyone has their own financial dynamics. A 20 KPH ticket would bug me but with a clean record no big deal. However a rider a point away from suspension and needing a vehicle for work has a different temptation and a predisposition to disobeying laws.

If the punishment is severe enough do all of us have the "Run" gene?
 
nobbie48 said:
I am assuming the four charged were in other vehicles and there was no contact between vehicles. If so I fully understand the logic but wonder about the chances of conviction because the crash was the result of the victim's lack of skill, not contact with the other car(s).

If someone cuts you off and to avoid contact you go into the ditch killing a passenger I thought the other car got off with a wrist slap. You take the charge of not being in control of the vehicle.

The four encouraged the situation by participating but didn't force anyone to do anything. Could this logic be used if a person was harmed in a drinking contest? All participants charged? Other risky activities?
Click to expand...

I know nothing about street racing or drinking contests but in a desperate attempt to relate I would draw on Joe Bass's prolific trolling and my inadvertent brushes with the ban hammer. So, yes, guilty by association appears to have merit.
 
nobbie48 said:
If the punishment is severe enough do all of us have the "Run" gene?
Click to expand...

If the punishment is severe enough, most of us should have the common sense and "avoid severely punishable acts in the first place" gene. For the rest, let them serve as the "you don't want to be that person" example to reinforce the merits of that gene.
 
I once swerved to avoid a guy who stalled his truck in an intersection while turning left in front of me as I was going straight (in my cage).

Hit the curb; new wheel, subframe and front lip on the car, and it's still (probably) on my driving record as a "single vehicle accident", even though it was over a decade ago.

The takeaway: Next time, just sit back, make sure you're belted in and plow into the ****er. Let insurance sort it out, and pay me some good $$ for re-hab, cuz he "turned left in front of me"

Gotta love the "justice" system
 
Unfortunately that is pretty accurate.
Kri$han said:
I once swerved to avoid a guy who stalled his truck in an intersection while turning left in front of me as I was going straight (in my cage).

Hit the curb; new wheel, subframe and front lip on the car, and it's still (probably) on my driving record as a "single vehicle accident", even though it was over a decade ago.

The takeaway: Next time, just sit back, make sure you're belted in and plow into the ****er. Let insurance sort it out, and pay me some good $$ for re-hab, cuz he "turned left in front of me"

Gotta love the "justice" system
Click to expand...
 
GreyGhost said:
The first comment from that article
"By Mike | APRIL 28, 2016 01:53 PM
Outrageous!!! These boys had to witness there best friends tragic accident and now being blamed for it !! Some justice system we have here. Lesson was learned the hard way. This pushes the bar mentally for these young boys. Making them out to be criminals, you should all be ashamed.. Disgusting. My brother is one of the boys being charged, before anyone decides to judge my opinion, get your facts straight."
Click to expand...

The second and third are rather interesting too.
 
Kri$han said:
I once swerved to avoid a guy who stalled his truck in an intersection while turning left in front of me as I was going straight (in my cage).

Hit the curb; new wheel, subframe and front lip on the car, and it's still (probably) on my driving record as a "single vehicle accident", even though it was over a decade ago.

The takeaway: Next time, just sit back, make sure you're belted in and plow into the ****er. Let insurance sort it out, and pay me some good $$ for re-hab, cuz he "turned left in front of me"

Gotta love the "justice" system
Click to expand...

ZX600 said:
Unfortunately that is pretty accurate.
Click to expand...

We're told to do our best to avoid an accident, there can be charges laid for not trying to avoid an accident. If you were to get into an accident trying to avoid an accident, you're screwed yourself and the other person drives away like nothing happened.

I can see how this made sense in the past as the cop responding to the collision has to go on what he/she sees after the fact and doesn't know whether the person over reacted/corrected, but times have changed and a good chunk of people drive around with dashcams now and can prove what led up to the collision.

The fault determination rules/procedures needs to be changed to reflect what actually happened rather than automatically placing fault on what could have happened.
 
PLau said:
We're told to do our best to avoid an accident, there can be charges laid for not trying to avoid an accident. If you were to get into an accident trying to avoid an accident, you're screwed yourself and the other person drives away like nothing happened.

I can see how this made sense in the past as the cop responding to the collision has to go on what he/she sees after the fact and doesn't know whether the person over reacted/corrected, but times have changed and a good chunk of people drive around with dashcams now and can prove what led up to the collision.

The fault determination rules/procedures needs to be changed to reflect what actually happened rather than automatically placing fault on what could have happened.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I doubt it will happen, way too complicated.

Slam on the brakes, crash into the turning vehicle, tell the cops you didn't think it was safe to make a lane change due to surrounding traffic.
 
A little of topic but I was told by former senior insurance person that if a shopping cart hits your car and you have no witnesses, especially the person that releases the cart...then you can be charged for collision if you make a claim to fix your car. If someone hits your car and you don't have any proof someone else did it then...you get dinged for collision if you make a claim for them to fix it.
 
-D- said:
A little of topic but I was told by former senior insurance person that if a shopping cart hits your car and you have no witnesses, especially the person that releases the cart...then you can be charged for collision if you make a claim to fix your car. If someone hits your car and you don't have any proof someone else did it then...you get dinged for collision if you make a claim for them to fix it.
Click to expand...

That's part of the hit and run provisions. You need the offending parties plate number so you don't get dinged. Too many people were probably being the hammer, then taking off and pretending they were the nail.
 
I don't agree with this charge at all. At MOST these people should be charged with street racing, license suspensions, etc. etc. But if there was no contact with the car then it has nothing to do with it.

Let's charge the entire population of smokers in Ontario because someone slid off on a corner downtown and it was caused by a cigarette butt that interefered with the rider's contact patch with the road. Escalated, if the person died then all smokers are now guilty by association for criminal negligence causing death.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom