This is why I have a dash cam

[turbodish]

with the right equipment, the images can be zoomed in and digitally enhanced for better resolution, come on, you know that.

People in 4chan have already increased the size of the video to look at various details, hence how they got the guys info, like where he works from a small tag

Like I said, have a look at the video again. No lipreader I know can read the lips of someone who is not actually facing them, and much of that video shows side views, back views, and extremely dark views. Then there is context. In the few places where lips are clearly visible for a few seconds, how do you determine the context of the viewed words when you do not have the unviewed words on either side available to you?

That's why I question the latest claim of "lip-reading". I also questioned the claim that it happened on level ground, that it couldn't have been accidental roll-back, and that therefore he must have put in in reverse after disabling the back-up lights that many here took as fact. Too many have taken each and every claim of supposed evidence of wrongdoing at face value without applying even the least bit of critical thought to the quality and truthfulness of the supposed evidence, and then they go support their conclusion on the basis of that questionable and even refuted evidence.

You know what they say - garbage in, garbage out. That's what I think we have here. A reactionary Sham throws it out that he was the victim of a scam, and everyone eats it up without even a moment's hesitation or application of sober second thought. Now the damage is done.

 

[ZX600]

This is Sham's reaction at being hit, and the other driver's reaction (calling the police) at being accused of trying to scam Sham.


This is Sham back-pedalling, hinting at recognizing that he may have over-reacted.

It's great that Sham professes to at least partially "believe now", but the damage has been done, hasn't it?


[/FONT][/COLOR]

If I was dealing with a Tamil tiger, I would be back pedaling as well.

He stands nothing to gain but to make a point and call the guy out, is it worth the risk? Common sense says no

I know if I was him, my Fiance would be furious with me for putting myself at risk for no reason, wonder what Sham's parents and friends are telling him, don't you?

 

[FullMotoJacket]

blah, blah², blah³

Are you going to pony up for ragu's airfare to the Vatican once your one man crusade to have him made a Cardinal is successful?

 

[ZX600]

Like I said, have a look at the video again. No lipreader I know can read the lips of someone who is not actually facing them, and much of that video shows side views, back views, and extremely dark views. Then there is context. In the few places where lips are clearly visible for a few seconds, how do you determine the context of the viewed words when you do not have the unviewed words on either side available to you?

That's why I question the latest claim of "lip-reading". I also questioned the claim that it happened on level ground, that it couldn't have been accidental roll-back, and that therefore he must have put in in reverse after disabling the back-up lights that many here took as fact. Too many have taken each and every claim of supposed evidence of wrongdoing at face value without applying even the least bit of critical thought to the quality and truthfulness of the supposed evidence, and then they go support their conclusion on the basis of that questionable and even refuted evidence.

You know what they say - garbage in, garbage out. That's what I think we have here. A reactionary Sham throws it out that he was the victim of a scam, and everyone eats it up without even a moment's hesitation or application of sober second thought. Now the damage is done.

We can not just wash everything as garbage in and garbage out.

Yes you were right on the point that there was a steady incline, however, that is not the only point of argument so please don't try to bedazzle your argument

 

[Brian P]

4chan thread now states that a deaf person who is adept at lip-reading has confirmed Sham's story i.e. they can "read" Ragu-sauce asking for the cash.

Lol, whether true or not, a new twist/element tossed into the fray!

It was 4chan where I saw the post that someone had stated that they had checked whether a car could roll back by gravity on that slope. Perhaps they didn't have the exact spot nailed down (a couple hundred metres prior, it's more or less level) or perhaps they were BS'ing. I knew that section is a little uphill, but I'm never in the collectors at that point. See my video for what happens. (Actually, on looking at them afterward, I think I was probably 50 m behind where the incident actually happened, but there's no visible difference in slope along that section.)

Point being, I wouldn't take things stated on 4chan as gospel.

This is Sham's reaction at being hit, and the other driver's reaction (calling the police) at being accused of trying to scam Sham.


This is Sham back-pedalling, hinting at recognizing that he may have over-reacted.

It's great that Sham professes to at least partially "believe now", but the damage has been done, hasn't it?

I wouldn't put much credibility into the Toronto Star article, either. The comments on the original Youtube video before it was removed include comments from the original poster of the video complaining about the Star's inaccuracy in this regard. (Mis-quoting, taking out of context, etc.)

Unless you are also suggesting that someone hacked Sham's account also ... Occam's razor comes into effect and suggests "no" ...

Things that are based on FACTS or are highly probable:
- Brake lamps on Ragu's car were not working. Although he COULD have used the hand brake on the shoulder, this would be unusual behaviour. Occam's razor ... most probable explanation is that the brake lamps were not working. Negligence, or intent, there is no way to know ... but in both cases, it's Ragu's responsibility to maintain his vehicle.
- The car could have rolled backwards in neutral. This doesn't exclude the possibility that he made an opportunistic move of allowing it to roll backwards in neutral. Neither here nor there.
- One thing not mentioned concerning the awareness of the car moving back. If Ragu had stopped for a reason (i.e. a car that was stopped in front of him) then that car would have been stopped a short distance ahead. It would have been VERY visible from his viewpoint that the distance between his car and the one ahead was increasing. Nevermind the distance to the guardrail or fence posts or looking down at the lane markings. The car ahead is the only visual cue needed. Nevermind even simply stopping upon seeing that the car is rolling back. Forget that for a moment. Normally, when the distance to the car ahead increases while you are stopped in traffic ... the normal reaction is simply to move ahead! So why didn't he? There was certainly enough time. The car can't roll back when you are moving ahead ... So why didn't he move ahead? Explanation 1, messing around with the radio or blackberry or whatever - i.e. distracted driving i.e. driving without due care and attention = "CARELESS". Explanation 2, there was no car immediately ahead = "SCAMMER". Either way ... Ragu's responsibility.
- Ragu called the police. I'm sure the police have the audio of that call - but that will be part of the investigation - we do not have that audio.

 

[turbodish]

It was 4chan where I saw the post that someone had stated that they had checked whether a car could roll back by gravity on that slope. Perhaps they didn't have the exact spot nailed down (a couple hundred metres prior, it's more or less level) or perhaps they were BS'ing. I knew that section is a little uphill, but I'm never in the collectors at that point. See my video for what happens. (Actually, on looking at them afterward, I think I was probably 50 m behind where the incident actually happened, but there's no visible difference in slope along that section.)

Point being, I wouldn't take things stated on 4chan as gospel.



I wouldn't put much credibility into the Toronto Star article, either. The comments on the original Youtube video before it was removed include comments from the original poster of the video complaining about the Star's inaccuracy in this regard. (Mis-quoting, taking out of context, etc.)

Unless you are also suggesting that someone hacked Sham's account also ... Occam's razor comes into effect and suggests "no" ...

Things that are based on FACTS or are highly probable:
- Brake lamps on Ragu's car were not working. Although he COULD have used the hand brake on the shoulder, this would be unusual behaviour. Occam's razor ... most probable explanation is that the brake lamps were not working. Negligence, or intent, there is no way to know ... but in both cases, it's Ragu's responsibility to maintain his vehicle.
- The car could have rolled backwards in neutral. This doesn't exclude the possibility that he made an opportunistic move of allowing it to roll backwards in neutral. Neither here nor there.
- One thing not mentioned concerning the awareness of the car moving back. If Ragu had stopped for a reason (i.e. a car that was stopped in front of him) then that car would have been stopped a short distance ahead. It would have been VERY visible from his viewpoint that the distance between his car and the one ahead was increasing. Nevermind the distance to the guardrail or fence posts or looking down at the lane markings. The car ahead is the only visual cue needed. Nevermind even simply stopping upon seeing that the car is rolling back. Forget that for a moment. Normally, when the distance to the car ahead increases while you are stopped in traffic ... the normal reaction is simply to move ahead! So why didn't he? There was certainly enough time. The car can't roll back when you are moving ahead ... So why didn't he move ahead? Explanation 1, messing around with the radio or blackberry or whatever - i.e. distracted driving i.e. driving without due care and attention = "CARELESS". Explanation 2, there was no car immediately ahead = "SCAMMER". Either way ... Ragu's responsibility.
- Ragu called the police. I'm sure the police have the audio of that call - but that will be part of the investigation - we do not have that audio.

What you have just decribed are common driving errors. Inattention.

If I'm on the 401 and I see the car in front of me going further away, my natural conclusion would be that the car ahead has started to move, not that I am now rolling backwards for whatever reason. That's the normative situation when that visual effect happens in traffic. That of course assumes that I am paying attention and have even noticed the movement of other traffic ahead of me.

Rush hour traffic again - you'll see plenty of delayed reaction as people play with phone, read the newspaper (yes, it happens), simply tune out, or (very occasionally seen, but it happens) deliberately wait for a bit more gap before they put their vehicle in motion again.

In any case, it still comes down to accusations. If the behaviour has all the indicators of inattentive driving, then how do people justify jumping en-masse to the conclusion of scammer at work? And let's not forget, it was Yogarajah who called the police, not Sham. Again, not the typical reaction of a scammer. They may bluster and threaten to call police as an act of theatre to try and intimidate the other person, but to actually follow through? Hardly typical.

I really have to wonder how much a role simple racism played in this virtually automatic assumption of guilty intent. How does Yogarajah turn into Ragu?

 

[TimC]

I'd love to see the history of Yogarajah's insurance claims

 

[TimC]

I really have to wonder how much a role simple racism played in this virtually automatic assumption of guilty intent. How does Yogarajah turn into Ragu?

ummm....his first name is Raguruban

 

[turbodish]

ummm....his first name is Raguruban

Fair enough.

 

[turbodish]

I'd love to see the history of Yogarajah's insurance claims

No mention of collisions in the driving record details made public. Just tickets.

He does, in fact, have a lengthy rap sheet of Highway Traffic Act offences — 26 in four years — but most are for licence plate issues and speeding, and he has no criminal history.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

No mention of collisions in the driving record details made public. Just tickets.

Multiple tickets for license plate related issues. That's something else that has me saying "Hmmmmmmmm....."

 

[invictus43]

23 pages? Seriously?

 

[braveheart]

fix your settings,foo

12 pages for the lazy

 

[turbodish]

We can not just wash everything as garbage in and garbage out.

Yes you were right on the point that there was a steady incline, however, that is not the only point of argument so please don't try to bedazzle your argument

The steady incline takes most of the wind out of the sails of those claiming scam. The initial allegations were that the road was flat so Yogarajah must have deliberately put the car in reverse, and because no back-up lights were visible that he therefore disabled them in preparation for a staged collision. That's one or two overt acts that are being claimed by the scam proponents.

With the incline present and Yogarajah driving a manual transmission car with a clutch, that scenario changes. No longer would there be an overt act or two required for the collision to occur. Simple inattention combined with a poor manual transmission driving habit (clutch in but no brake applied when stopped in traffic) provides a ready explanation for what happened on that incline.

Now it becomes a minor collision just like the other 100 and more minor collisions that occur every day in Toronto and Hanlon's razor comes into play - Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

The steady incline takes most of the wind out of the sails of those claiming scam. The initial allegations were that the road was flat so Yogarajah must have deliberately put the car in reverse, and because no back-up lights were visible that he therefore disabled them in preparation for a staged collision. That's one or two overt acts that are being claimed by the scam proponents.

With the incline present and Yogarajah driving a manual transmission car with a clutch, that scenario changes. No longer would there be an overt act or two required for the collision to occur. Simple inattention combined with a poor manual transmission driving habit (clutch in but no brake applied when stopped in traffic) provides a ready explanation for what happened on that incline.

Now it becomes a minor collision just like the other 100 and more minor collisions that occur every day in Toronto and Hanlon's razor comes into play - Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Any single item can be written off as inattention, or stupidity. As the number of individual items mount, the chances of that become vanishingly small.

 

[turbodish]

Multiple tickets for license plate related issues. That's something else that has me saying "Hmmmmmmmm....."

Correction - license plate issues AND speeding.

Certain posters here have related their own "license plates issues" in past. No front plate. Common among young drivers who don't want to "spoil" the look of their car. License plates mounted in the front window in ana effort to sort of comply with the front plate law. Another common one. Even those who get those no and winshield plate tickets often take a gamble and don't put the plate back on, at least not until tickets number 2, 3, or 4 come along. Tinted or smoked license plate covers, not legal but common among those who think they improve the looks of their cars. His car is black, smoked plate covers would be a natural except for the law. Expired stickers. Not uncommon. Faded plates, which the 407 crowd seem to like so much, not uncommon. Maybe he swicthed plates at some point too, just as many here have said they do or want to do. So far this is a list of what has shown up in this forum at various points in time. Is this a sign that GTAM is populated by legions of insurance scammers? Oh, never mind.

Speeding - again, illegal, but is a speeder now automatically considered to be a potential crash stager? If so, watch out for the rider coming upo behind you, or the one slowing down in front of you. Back to speeding, how many speeding tickets, and of what severity? The driving record as reported makes no mention of suspensions, so the speeding must have been minor, mostly zero point tickets.

The supposed evidence you all are relying on is very thin. Legally, it's not even relevant or admissible in determing guilt or innocence, and for good reason.

 

[turbodish]

Any single item can be written off as inattention, or stupidity. As the number of individual items mount, the chances of that become vanishingly small.

And how many were there again? The unnoticed roll-back, and supposedly non-functioning brake lights as seen by a camera that did not capture the brake lights of any other nearby cars either when they were slowing. That's it, two items at most, and really only one item |(the roll-back) that points to a specific DRIVING error. Look to the lane to the left in the video in the first few seconds. Claims of brake lights deliberately disabled or simply not working are not all that compelling or substantiated.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Correction:

"He does, in fact, have a lengthy rap sheet of Highway Traffic Act offences — 26 in four years — but most are for licence plate issues and speeding, and he has no criminal history. He believes police stop him more frequently than others because they are suspicious of a young man of colour driving a nice car."

If we were talking about one of two tickets then it wouldn't warrant such mention, so my statement was accurate. As evidence mounts, the possibility of a less pernicious answer begins to approach insignificance.

Report of the witness. Failure of the brake lights when stopping for traffic. Failure to brake, when the horn sounded. Failure to notice the roll back. Failure of the brake lights to activate, at the roadside, despite the signal lights being clearly visible.

 

[ZX600]

Correction - license plate issues AND speeding.

Certain posters here have related their own "license plates issues" in past. No front plate. Common among young drivers who don't want to "spoil" the look of their car. License plates mounted in the front window in ana effort to sort of comply with teh front plate law. Another common one. Even those who get those no and winshield plate tickets often take a gamble and don't put the plate back on, at least not until tickets number 2, 3, or 4 come along. Tinted or smoked license plate covers, not legal but common among those who think they improve the looks of their cars. His car is black, smoked plate covers would be a natural except for the law. Expired stickers. Not uncommon. Faded plates, which the 407 crowd seem to like so much, not uncommon. So far this is a list of what has shown up in this forum at various points in time. Is this a sign that GTAM is populated by legions of insurance scammers? Oh, never mind.

Speeding - again, illegal, but is a speeder now automatically considered to be a potential crash stager? If so, watch out for the rider coming upo behind you, or the one slowing down in front of you.

The supposed evidence you all are relying on is very thin. Legally, it's not even relevant or admissible in determing guilt or innocence, and for good reason.

But the fact that he has admitted on camera (as per the star report) that it was his fault, but still went ahead and claimed someone hit him to his insurance would be admissible as fraud.

In many cases, judges make decisions on what is logic and most likely what happened, they take into account inconsistencies on the actions and statements and the persons past behaviour.
If you look at Ragu's twiters, there are many links to websites considered scams (to me this shows a consistent behavior with the behaviour witnessed by Sham)

He has his insurance address registered to his parents house and not the actual place he lives, common I'm sure for people to do but it shows a culture and disposition to scam.
..and more. You have decided to ignore all these facts and make a very thin argument for the guy.

Even more you respond to the post where you feel you have an argument against but conveniently ignore the ones that callout your arguments as not valid

Many people in this forum has told me "the guy is a pain but makes valid points" referring to you, but I feel that you are well spoken and smart but will always use half information to confuse people into looking like you are right. Not many people has the time or dedication to argue with you, hence looking like you win arguments.

You sir are dangerous and someone that uses information and smoke mirrors like you do serves for nothing but to stir controversy

King of trolls, and that is a compliment

Now lets focus back on this very entertaining situation and forget about turbo

 

[braveheart]

Turbo---- again, it seems that you purposely decide to choose the side that EVERYONE else feels is wrong. good troll tactic.

its suprising to me that tyou have not been banned as a troll, as its clearly the position you seem to relish on GTAM

regardless of anything thats already been said, the guy's car rolled into the stopped car. he's at fault.

no-one can prove that he tried to get 500 from the innocent guy ( but he probably did )

but thats besides the fact. Dude is responsible for his own actions.

now there is evidence that he has a ******** of tickets for ******** of different offences, and now you are trying to justify that.

the average citizen DOES NOT GET OVER 25 tickets in 4 years. try picking a better argument to defend.

convince everyone on here how the world is flat.