The Bad Riders of Ontario Thread | Page 24 | GTAMotorcycle.com

The Bad Riders of Ontario Thread

TK4 said:
What does it matter ? Filtering is not legal in Ontario. The speed of the pedestrian has nothing to do with what happened.
Click to expand...
I agree that filtering is illegal but a person or vehicle traveling at an unexpected speed or direction can put them at a higher risk of a mishap. We have threads going on bad riders and bad drivers. We need one for bad pedestrians.

If you want get started, go to Niagara-on-the Lake on a nice weekend and watch the waddling shoppers, fudge in hand, suddenly cross the STREET to the candle shop as if they're in a shopping mall.

It's not illegal to wear black from head to foot and walk down an unlit country road on a moonless night but it would be a contributing factor to their demise should they get hit by a car (Or GL1500 with legal but lousy headlights).

In discussions about filtering the argument is typically about interactions with cars. If filtering is made legal how do we get the message out to pedestrians that a mini lane has been added to the road.

Where exactly was the jogger when hit?

Was he in the hatched pedestrian pathway or jaywalking a distance away, cutting a corner?

The streets and sidewalks are getting more dangerous every day. Untrained, uninsured operators of e-vehicles along with lawless cyclists, texting pedestrians, poorly tested drivers, distracted drivers eating their lunch while texting and tuning in their favourite band on their multimedia electronics centre.

Is a driver's exam any more demanding than it was a generation or two ago?

The government commissions another study. Can't they just accept that people are getting more stupid?

P.S. Even though it is illegal to make a left turn in front of another vehicle we constantly preach about driving defensibly. Who preaches safety to pedestrians?
 
nobbie48 said:
I agree that filtering is illegal but a person or vehicle traveling at an unexpected speed or direction can put them at a higher risk of a mishap. We have threads going on bad riders and bad drivers. We need one for bad pedestrians.
Click to expand...
If a pedestrian is crossing the road in a crosswalk on a green light what difference does it make how fast they are going ?
Your argument is spurious.
 
TK4 said:
If a pedestrian is crossing the road in a crosswalk on a green light what difference does it make how fast they are going ?
Your argument is spurious.
Click to expand...
Done properly it's not illegal to make a right turn on a red. If a person suddenly sprints out from a crowd just as the driver starts the turn the driver is at fault. The driver would likely get charged with turn not in safety or careless. The injured pedestrian will get compensation from the insurance company but may limp for the rest of their life.

What I resent is that there is an expectation that too many people have, thinking they don't have to mitigate risks.
 
TK4 said:
If a pedestrian is crossing the road in a crosswalk on a green light what difference does it make how fast they are going ?
Your argument is spurious.
Click to expand...
It's hard to armchair QB this one as you'd need more details. From what I can read, a bunch of cars were in the intersection (illegal) at the time the light changed. The pedestrian filtered perpendicular to the traffic, while the MC rider was running parallel to the traffic. They crossed paths.

Under the HTA, the driver cannot pass another vehicle at a pedestrian crossover (driver fault), however, pedestrians have responsibilities under HTA, they cannot enter a crossover in a situation where a driver many not be able to stop (pedestrian fault).

I spend a fair amount of time in the city core, I'm guessing I see 100 pedestrian or bicycle HTA infractions for every HTA car infraction.
 
Mad Mike said:
It's hard to armchair QB this one as you'd need more details. From what I can read, a bunch of cars were in the intersection (illegal) at the time the light changed. The pedestrian filtered perpendicular to the traffic, while the MC rider was running parallel to the traffic. They crossed paths.

Under the HTA, the driver cannot pass another vehicle at a pedestrian crossover (driver fault), however, pedestrians have responsibilities under HTA, they cannot enter a crossover in a situation where a driver many not be able to stop (pedestrian fault).

I spend a fair amount of time in the city core, I'm guessing I see 100 pedestrian or bicycle HTA infractions for every HTA car infraction.
Click to expand...
I am nervous driving in the city. One almost needs a lookout when making a turn.
 
DownUnder said:
Canada should employ Australia's tactic... a vehicle is pictured (speed camera/red light camera etc) Or a dash camera etc spots it doing illegal stuff... the registered owner gets the bill AND the demerit points unless he can get the ticket signed by the person that was driving at the time, who then becomes responsible for the fine and loses the demerit points.
Click to expand...
I'd have to mull that over a bit as I once loaned a bike out to someone (Party 1) who let someone (Party 2) else ride it.

I found out later Party 2 rear ended a car but back then cars had sturdy bumpers. If there was significant damage or injury I would, as the owner, be the responsible. To get off I would have to argue he had stolen the bike however it was more accurately "Taken without permission". I don't know if that would have bailed me out.

If I got a million dollar judgment against me I would never own anything again in my life. Judgments never go away until paid.

I had loaned the bike to my brother who let a friend ride it. I would have to sue my brother hoping to win in court.

If I lived in Auz loaning a vehicle would never happen. Need a car, bike or van? "I'll drive you to the rental place."
 
nobbie48 said:
I'd have to mull that over a bit as I once loaned a bike out to someone (Party 1) who let someone (Party 2) else ride it.

I found out later Party 2 rear ended a car but back then cars had sturdy bumpers. If there was significant damage or injury I would, as the owner, be the responsible. To get off I would have to argue he had stolen the bike however it was more accurately "Taken without permission". I don't know if that would have bailed me out.

If I got a million dollar judgment against me I would never own anything again in my life. Judgments never go away until paid.

I had loaned the bike to my brother who let a friend ride it. I would have to sue my brother hoping to win in court.

If I lived in Auz loaning a vehicle would never happen. Need a car, bike or van? "I'll drive you to the rental place."
Click to expand...
Accidents are a different beast, the compulsory 3rd party insurance pays for any injuries, and the driver/rider is responsible for any property damage if you dont have comprehensive coverage on your vehicle.

You definitely need to think twice before lending your bike/car to someone that your not 100% sure will take care of it and own up to any tickets down the road. Alcoholics and people without a license find it much harder to borrow a car there, then they do here for sure.
 
DownUnder said:
Accidents are a different beast, the compulsory 3rd party insurance pays for any injuries, and the driver/rider is responsible for any property damage if you dont have comprehensive coverage on your vehicle.

You definitely need to think twice before lending your bike/car to someone that your not 100% sure will take care of it and own up to any tickets down the road. Alcoholics and people without a license find it much harder to borrow a car there, then they do here for sure.
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that here the courts make sure the victim is taken care of with a settlement that may be spread over several offenders by percentages. If one offender is broke the other(s) have to pay his / her share and they can go after the poor party later if there is any hope. Don't loan stuff to people poorer than yourself.
 
Finally pulled my dashcam and uploaded a part of the footage of my commute on 404 going up north on YouTube (not public).


Edit: the last one is brake checking, 100 to 38 kmph. I'm still not sure if the driver was right to do that or not (stopped cars on the shoulder, but 2 lanes across). I'm guessing probably not?
 
Only slightly belongs here. Overcooked the brakes in a corner and dumped it. I've seen far worse. I was more wondering about insurance. Obviously the geese triggered the event. The bike was down well before the animal and then the bike killed a goose. Is this comp or collision insurance? Without the video, you have a busted bike and dead goose, it's comp. With the video (which is widely circulated) does the insurance company push for collision as the rider crashed before they hit the animal?

 
Last edited:
GreyGhost said:
Only slightly belongs here. Overcooked the brakes in a corner and dumped it. I've seen far worse. I was more wondering about insurance. Obviously the geese triggered the event. It looks like the bike was down before the animals and then the bike killed a goose. Is this comp or collision insurance? Without the video, you have a busted bike and dead goose, it's comp. With the video (which is widely circulated) does the insurance company push for collision as the rider crashed before they hit the animal?

Click to expand...
Single vehicle accident for sure with the video, you’re eating it.
 
GreyGhost said:
Only slightly belongs here. Overcooked the brakes in a corner and dumped it. I've seen far worse. I was more wondering about insurance. Obviously the geese triggered the event. The bike was down well before the animal and then the bike killed a goose. Is this comp or collision insurance? Without the video, you have a busted bike and dead goose, it's comp. With the video (which is widely circulated) does the insurance company push for collision as the rider crashed before they hit the animal?

Click to expand...
What is the over/under on the rider using the rear brake only?
 
A rider tried a twist on the left turn to heaven. Black HD turned left in front of an oncoming car (car had a green light). As expected, HD rider determined appropriate action was to deploy their leg and rev so their loud pipes could save their life. Car slowed down and swerved and spared the rider.
 
GreyGhost said:
A rider tried a twist on the left turn to heaven. Black HD turned left in front of an oncoming car (car had a green light). As expected, HD rider determined appropriate action was to deploy their leg and rev so their loud pipes could save their life. Car slowed down and swerved and spared the rider.
Click to expand...
I was expecting "lay it down", so a much better outcome than my expectation.
 
So the 24 yr old on a Ducati that managed to end his life on Dundas at Bronte rd , ironically almost in front of the hospital was streaming his epic ride , 180km in a 60 zone and met a left turning car . I’m thinking that’s a bad rider .


Sent from my iPhone using GTAMotorcycle.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom