Posted on the TSX forum.
|
|
|
This is why I have a dash cam
- Thread starter DaveTheCanuck
- Start date
- Status
OpenGambit
Banned
I don't necessarily think the evidence is conclusive but on a balance of probabilities. He scammed.
With a combination of the lights not working
the huge rollback distance
the not stopping even when getting honked
the calling the cops
Also you have the existance of the guy with the camera who has no reason whatsoever to lie.
maybe you can explain away one or even two of those things, but all together.. Nah.
With a combination of the lights not working
the huge rollback distance
the not stopping even when getting honked
the calling the cops
Also you have the existance of the guy with the camera who has no reason whatsoever to lie.
maybe you can explain away one or even two of those things, but all together.. Nah.
If you look at the first couple of seconds of the video and not the sped-up portions in the various replay parts of it, the speed of the roll-back in the video isn't that fast and is consistent with a simple, unassisted roll-back on a slight grade. The place in question appears to be eastbound 401, just east of Jane Street and adjacent to Lorne Bruce Drive. The 401 at that point is going up a steady grade from a low point at the Black Creek behind the two drivers and continues towards the Keele Street off-ramp and beyond to the high point between Keele and Dufferin before descending again. Having driven that stretch for many years, the grade that I recall can hardly be considered flat or near flat. It's no hill-climb, but it does seem sufficient to cause roll-back if a car is left in neutral or the clutch is depressed.
You mention the test done by another. The conclusion of the person isn't really relevant, especially if the tester was working to try and prove a preconceived notion. Howver, the test conditions are relevant. Was the vehicle comparable to the supposed scammer in size, weight, tires, tire pressure, etc? What was the prevailing window direction that day? You say the test was done on the shoulder. Given the camber of the road at the shoulder, would wheel bearing side loading, however apparently slight, provide addition rolling resistance? And if the shoulder is anything that many of use know to be the frequent case, how much debris was on that shoulder that would not be in a live travel lane, and which would work to oppose free rolling of a tire by acting as a tire block?
Excuses posed by the driver after the fact don't have much bearing. Of course he's going to try to make excuses for what happened, but in that he's not much different than many who post about their tickets and crashes here. You mention potential argument about having accidently selected neutral, but I don't think he has made that argument himself. The more probable act would be a simple act of omission or simple laziness/bad habit factor common enough among those who drive manual transmission vehicles - clutch in but foot not on the brake.
And lack of braking even after contact with the other vehicle? That one is tough to believe. Taken singly, any one of these items might be explained away, but not taken for the sum total.
All turbodish needs to do is create a scenario of reasonable doubt with all his mumbo-jumbo, then his client Ragu walks free. Shoulder camber? Bearing side load? C'mon, seriously?
Last edited:
How "huge" was the roll-back? I counted about 4 seconds, starting slow and only gradually gathering speed, but even impact speed was minimal.
The horn you ask? If you don't think your vehicle is moving, why would you try to stop on hearing a horn while sitting in heavy traffic? Then there is the timing of the horn blast. Go back to the video. The driver behind sounds the horn with only ONE second to go before impact. That's barely enough time to allow for an average human to process the information, determine the source of potential threat, and then initiate the appropriate muscle reaction.
If you know that you are at fault for a collision and most especially if it was a staged collision, and you've just been told that the car behind caught it on camera and were actually shown the camera behind the windshield, why would you (a supposed scammer) then call the police yourself? Wouldn't you just try to minimize your potential losses and leave the police out of it?
As I said, there is so much that doesn't make sense if the guy was intent on scamming. Minimal claim of $ for crash damage. Insufficient crash severity to justify any claims of soft tissue injury. Where was the car-load of passengers who would also be making soft tissue injury claims? Why would a scammer, having been shown a recording camera in the car behind, then go to an insurance company claiming for a minimally damaged bumper unless he really did believe that he had been rear-ended?
If this was a scam, it was a piss poor one, and the supposed scammer's reactions when challenged do not even remotely follow the reactions that one would expect of a scammer.
Camber and bearing sideload, minimal effect, but any source of rolling resistance will accumulate in total effect. Shoulder debris? That's a bigger one and judging by the various posts in this forum about the hazards of should running, most people here know it. It doesn't take much of a stone or chunk of rubber to stop rolling on a slight grade.
Let's say the brake lights were not working. THis driver would have done better to get a real rear-end collsion just by standing on his brakes and letting another driver run into the back of him. Then he would have some real damage to support a claim of soft tissue injury.
In any case, the factors that must also be taken into account of the sum total must also include the after-collision actions of the driver. They simply do not fit with a scammer who has been told that his actions have been recorded on camera. They tend to refute the theory of the incident being a staged crash.
For the same reason that some here that some here have many tickets and some as many crashes as tickets or more. Stupidity. Ineptness. That still doesn't make him (or those here who have had multiple tickets or crashes) a staged crash scammer.
why? you scared a bunch of kids are gonna post your address and come harass you?
EDIT:
I mean, lets be frank, I get what you're saying but it's obvious that 99% of your posts, when it comes to opinionated debate topics, you purposely take the side with least evidence and try to start a "contervisal" point of view. That's great and all, but my question to you is why?
Did your parents not give you enough attention when you were younger?
Seriously, do you walk into a crowd of black ppl wearing a KKK outfit and saying "I'VE GOT EQUAL RIGHTS TOO?" then screaming at the police to put them in jail for kicking the **** out of you?
Come on man, try THINKING before you let your impulsive mother complex kick in! I'm sure she still loves you!
Now go post on 4chan.
Last edited:
Meh my driver lic record was worse than that when I was younger.
Maybe he didn't want to truly be hurt?
When my bike got hit in a parking lot (I wasn't on it) the guy offered to take care of it, cash. I still took his license and insurance info. It was minor damage, much like the scratches on Ragu's bumper. Still, we exchanged our info, and before any money was asked for, I went and quoted out the repair for the damages. Never demanded $xx cash or I call the cops (if that is what was really said).
When my bike got hit in a parking lot (I wasn't on it) the guy offered to take care of it, cash. I still took his license and insurance info. It was minor damage, much like the scratches on Ragu's bumper. Still, we exchanged our info, and before any money was asked for, I went and quoted out the repair for the damages. Never demanded $xx cash or I call the cops (if that is what was really said).
Last edited:
You are asking that we 'presume' something, that the video seems to make fact. As to his actions, after the fact, the primary 'job skill' of a scammer is bluster.
We presume sham pointed to the camera in the car, for all we know he could have been pointing at his hot sister in the passenger seat.
I know from looking at the clip is looks like a scam.
But I still hold the belief that there are always three sides a story.
I know from looking at the clip is looks like a scam.
But I still hold the belief that there are always three sides a story.
OpenGambit
Banned
If an arguement against guilt is that he could have done whatever offence better. Then no one would ever get convicted
The problem is I'm not seeing anything in the video that cannot be easily explained away by mistake, stupidity, true belief, or a combination of all of the above. The exculptory indicators pile up just as much as the supposedly damning ones. He called the cops himself. He went to his insurance company himself with a claim of being rear-ended. Seeing as he did that, did he also file a claim for soft tissue injury while he was there, yes or no? So, is that just bluster and scamming at play? Or is that simply true but mistaken belief?
In any case, the flip side to your assertion is that if an argument against innocence is that he actions looked like he may have been committing an offence even if only poorly, then no one would ever get acquitted. What was that saying that Rob likes to quote so often - better that ten guilty go free than once innocent....?
Have you ever tried stealing or scamming before?
I'm gonna come up front and say I have. I was caught 8ish years ago for stealing Command and Conquer Red Alert 3 from Wal-Mart.
You know what my excuse was? That I was trying out a microwave proof bag for a school experiment and wanted to test of my aluminum foil bag could block out the radio waves from their shop lift detector thingies.
By the time the cops came around, I had gone from that lie to "I'm sorry I was bored" and probably 10 other lies in between.
Do you know what people do when they are caught off guard? They do stupid ****ing things. Like calling the cops. Go home turbo, go home. But give me your # so if I ever completely fail in my studies and future career I can turn to criminal life; you'd be the best lawyer ever for inbred scum that are better NOT in Canada.
- Status
|
|
|
|
|