Tipping point: If an ambulance attends.

[nobbie48]

Using HTA 172 as a precedent, if a driver breaks a law causing injury that requires an ambulance to be called why doesn't the driver get a roadside suspension equivalent to HTA 172?

A rider stands on the pegs a bit to handle a pothole and gets towed, suspended for a week. The tow / storage will be about a grand and more costs if the driver loses time at work because he's commercial.

On the other hand Mr. salesman or soccer mom kills a rider and gets to drive away expecting a $600.00 fine. Terms negotiable.

Justice??

 

[PLau]

Using HTA 172 as a precedent, if a driver breaks a law causing injury that requires an ambulance to be called why doesn't the driver get a roadside suspension equivalent to HTA 172?

A rider stands on the pegs a bit to handle a pothole and gets towed, suspended for a week. The tow / storage will be about a grand and more costs if the driver loses time at work because he's commercial.

On the other hand Mr. salesman or soccer mom kills a rider and gets to drive away expecting a $600.00 fine. Terms negotiable.

Justice??

Because motorcyclists are demonized in the eyes of the public.

The scenario that sticks in my mind is an incident that happened a few years ago where a lady ran a stop sign, killed a rider making a turn, and was initially charged with careless driving that was later reduced to "Improper stop at a stop sign".

 

[hedo2002]

Because there is no provision in the HTA to do a suspension, etc as your suggesting. Same with the fool who pulled out of the gas station yesterday that hit the Toronto Police Bike. The most evident charge, (despite the officer's leg being broken and a "life altering injury), will be improper left turn, which was likely issued at the road side before the driver rode off in the tow truck.

 

[Baggsy]

Using HTA 172 as a precedent, if a driver breaks a law causing injury that requires an ambulance to be called why doesn't the driver get a roadside suspension equivalent to HTA 172?

A rider stands on the pegs a bit to handle a pothole and gets towed, suspended for a week. The tow / storage will be about a grand and more costs if the driver loses time at work because he's commercial.

On the other hand Mr. salesman or soccer mom kills a rider and gets to drive away expecting a $600.00 fine. Terms negotiable.

Justice??

How many have been towed for a pothole so far?

 

[Brian P]

Because these laws come about as a result of knee-jerk reactions.

I've said it before. If I were dictator, I'd ditch the stunt-driving crap but impose something similar for being at-fault in a collision involving significant personal injury or a fatality, and getting one's driver's license back after such an event would mean going back to square one, the same process as getting the license for the first time including re-doing all of the tests.

Getting excused for "momentary inattention" is hardly in balance with someone having been killed because of it.

 

[Baggsy]

After thinking about it, how many might call an ambulance when one isn't needed to back up their position, and the ambulance may actually be needed elsewhere to save a life?

That's what I believe would begin to happen.

Should we also call 911 whenever a bike misses a corner, or over brakes and crashes, then the rider scrapes themselves back up, limps back to the bike that may or may not be in good working order, and takes off?

 

[nobbie48]

Because there is no provision in the HTA to do a suspension, etc as your suggesting. Same with the fool who pulled out of the gas station yesterday that hit the Toronto Police Bike. The most evident charge, (despite the officer's leg being broken and a "life altering injury), will be improper left turn, which was likely issued at the road side before the driver rode off in the tow truck.

How is there a provision to suspend and seize under HTA 172 for some vague interpretation of out accelerating, not in drivers seat, or other potential stretch of the truth?

Add the provision.

 

[nobbie48]

After thinking about it, how many might call an ambulance when one isn't needed to back up their position, and the ambulance may actually be needed elsewhere to save a life?

That's what I believe would begin to happen.

Should we also call 911 whenever a bike misses a corner, or over brakes and crashes, then the rider scrapes themselves back up, limps back to the bike that may or may not be in good working order, and takes off?

You can be charged with misuse of 911.

The ambulance would have to be needed. No soccer crybabies allowed.

 

[ddusseld]

Sounds nice but really shows a bias towards motorcyclists, which is fine as a dictator.. Btw, totally agree with ditching stunt driving/street racing laws.

We as motorcyclists have to realize we are taking a much bigger risk of injury or death then a car driver. It is our choice to take the risk. An at-fault collision that injures or kills a rider is more then likely just a fender bender between two cars. Do we punish a car driver more because they happen to hit a motorcyclist and hurt them as opposed to hitting a car and not hurting anybody? As a dictator feel free but in a democracy I'd say no..

Because these laws come about as a result of knee-jerk reactions.

I've said it before. If I were dictator, I'd ditch the stunt-driving crap but impose something similar for being at-fault in a collision involving significant personal injury or a fatality, and getting one's driver's license back after such an event would mean going back to square one, the same process as getting the license for the first time including re-doing all of the tests.

Getting excused for "momentary inattention" is hardly in balance with someone having been killed because of it.

 

[Brian P]

If the effect is to induce car drivers to be more careful around vulnerable road users, I'd say that's a good outcome.

If the effect is to induce any operator of something big to be more careful around anything smaller, I'd say that's a good outcome.

If the vulnerable road user is the author of their own demise, nothing changes. I'd say that's as it should be, as well.

 

[slowbird]

After thinking about it, how many might call an ambulance when one isn't needed to back up their position, and the ambulance may actually be needed elsewhere to save a life?

As a 911 dispatcher I can tell you this happens ALL THE TIME.

The majority of the time the parties involved in a collision are waiting for the Police to show and after waiting a long time they will say they have an injury so that the call gets bumped up in priority. (usually it's the Tow truck drivers idea)
When that happens (at least in Peel Region) not only is an Ambulance Dispatched...but the Ambulance requests the Fire Department to attend. So now you have an Ambulance and 2 Fire Trucks tied up for no good reason.

The Misuse of 911 charge is very very very rarely enforced in my experience. I've maybe seen it happen a half dozen times in 10 years.

Now though if you're not injured the vehicles get towed to a reporting center...but some people want the police to attend to "see" the accident for some dumb reason so they make up an injury and again...2 fire trucks and an ambulance.

It's also misused so people can fake injuries as a result of the collision.

It's a HUGE waste of resources so please don't take part in these schenanigans and punch anyone you know that does.

 

[Trials]

Do I read that right, you want every driver who is involved in a personal injury accident to be suspended because motorcyclists could potentially be wrongly accused of stunt riding and get a suspension?

...
A rider stands on the pegs a bit to handle a pothole and gets towed...

I sure hope that the average police officer would not choose to apply the law that way, it was obviously written by some ditz who didn't know how else to define motorcycle stunt riding :/ if I stand on my seat feel free to write me a ticket, if I stand on my pegs thats called riding a motorcycle.

... guy who rear-ended me in an intersection got off with "failure to yield in a stop and start situation" :lmao: it was a my motorcycle deeply embedded in his freakin front grill start and stop situation!

 

[jeff96]

After thinking about it, how many might call an ambulance when one isn't needed to back up their position, and the ambulance may actually be needed elsewhere to save a life?

That's what I believe would begin to happen.

Should we also call 911 whenever a bike misses a corner, or over brakes and crashes, then the rider scrapes themselves back up, limps back to the bike that may or may not be in good working order, and takes off?

Happens all the time. I could copy and paste into my reports: 'Patient states they have 10/10 pain. No visible injuries. Minor damage to vehicle. Patient observed talking and laughing in no distress while on cell phone enroute to hospital'

Sent from my MIX Lite using Tapatalk

 

[nobbie48]

Do I read that right, you want every driver who is involved in a personal injury accident to be suspended because motorcyclists could potentially be wrongly accused of stunt riding and get a suspension?


I sure hope that the average police officer would not choose to apply the law that way, it was obviously written by some ditz who didn't know how else to define motorcycle stunt riding :/ if I stand on my seat feel free to write me a ticket, if I stand on my pegs thats called riding a motorcycle.

... guy who rear-ended me in an intersection got off with "failure to yield in a stop and start situation" :lmao: it was a my motorcycle deeply embedded in his freakin front grill start and stop situation!

My thought was that if a driver broke a law and someone else got an ambulance ride the driver got the equivalent of an HTA 172. It wasn't M/C specific. Could be a car, pedestrian or bicycle.

I'm suggesting something isn't right. A ricer or SS rider does something stupid (Stunting) with no one getting hurt and they get a week suspension vehicle seized etc. A rider / driver does something stupid (Illegal left) killing or hurting someone and they get a $600 fine.

The driver would have to be at fault with it resulting in a significant injury. A fender bender wouldn't have the significant injury component.

 

[jeff96]

Someone would have to make a judgement on what is a significant injury. Lawyers would have a field day with that. An ambulance ride definitely doesn't mean that the party is injured; it only signifies that they wanted to go to the hospital.

Sent from my MIX Lite using Tapatalk

 

[hedo2002]

Although your saying it isn't M/C specific, that would be the result. As stated, what would merely be considered a minor fender bender, between 2 cars, could result in injuries to a a rider. Legislation should NEVER be written, (as it almost always is now), where someone has to make a "judgement call" IE what is a significant injury.

Leaving things open to a "judgement call" is that so many, (myself included), think S172 should have never been brought into effect.

@ trials, the motorcycle handbook USED to recommend raising yourself slightly off the seat when crossing obstacles such as railway tracks. However, all references to doing so have been removed. Yes you "can" be charged for standing on the pegs, (the exact wording is not in driver's seat). BUT, 99% of officers can determine if your doing it while going over an obstacle, (IE pothole), as opposed to someone standing on their pegs as they pull a wheelie.
I can't recall ever seeing anyone actually charged with it, (unless they were in the process of stunting). I do know of at least one cager charged with it. He was sitting on a bench seat in middle while pressing pedals with left foot and steering with his left hand, (No idea what he was trying to accomplish...

My thought was that if a driver broke a law and someone else got an ambulance ride the driver got the equivalent of an HTA 172. It wasn't M/C specific. Could be a car, pedestrian or bicycle.

I'm suggesting something isn't right. A ricer or SS rider does something stupid (Stunting) with no one getting hurt and they get a week suspension vehicle seized etc. A rider / driver does something stupid (Illegal left) killing or hurting someone and they get a $600 fine.

The driver would have to be at fault with it resulting in a significant injury. A fender bender wouldn't have the significant injury component.

 

[Trials]

... the motorcycle handbook USED to recommend raising yourself slightly off the seat when crossing obstacles such as railway tracks ...

The book might be in denial but how to ride a motorcycle hasn't changed one bit.


"sitting on a bench seat in middle while pressing pedals with left foot and steering with his left hand" <- Visitor from the UK trying to figure out left hand drive

 

[Brian P]

"Ambulance attends" probably isn't a good criteria ... yesterday, on an errand to the bank, I observed a car with its front bumper detached and a bunch of people standing around; no other vehicle obviously involved, I'm not sure how the driver managed that but driving over a kerb might have done it. Sure enough, while waiting inside, cops show up, fire truck, ambulance ...

But, I get the original poster's point and I agree with it. There are definitions of injury thresholds in various pieces of legislation and in various standards that can be used. The Occupational Health and Safety Act contains a definition of a critical injury, and a standard that I always refer to at work also contains a pretty similar definition - the words are a little different but it amounts to pretty much the same thing. Lying on the ground screaming "I hurt" while having no actual discernible injury (see: soccer players ...) does not count. Bandaging a cut doesn't count. An ouchy bruise doesn't count. Even making a trip to the hospital doesn't count. A broken bone other than a finger bone counts. An injury of a permanent or disfiguring nature counts. Muscle injuries like the notorious whiplash situation can be troublesome to interpret.

 

[hedo2002]

Problem with the OP's proposal is it is a immediate roadside thing. A crash looks relatively minor, yet the driver is complaining of a lot of pain, so the officer thinks it is a "soccer player" incident. then upon arrival at hospital, it is discovered their abdomen came into contact with a part of the vehicle causing internal injuries... Now under the Op's wishes, the driver should have received a suspension, but no one issued it due to the officer's "judgment call"

Or the injuries "appear" minor but the other driver is giving the on scene cop attitude so the cop makes that "judgment call" and BAM 7 day suspension and vehicle impound...

Just too many options for abuse.... just like there exists with S172. At least IMHO.

"Ambulance attends" probably isn't a good criteria ... yesterday, on an errand to the bank, I observed a car with its front bumper detached and a bunch of people standing around; no other vehicle obviously involved, I'm not sure how the driver managed that but driving over a kerb might have done it. Sure enough, while waiting inside, cops show up, fire truck, ambulance ...

But, I get the original poster's point and I agree with it. There are definitions of injury thresholds in various pieces of legislation and in various standards that can be used. The Occupational Health and Safety Act contains a definition of a critical injury, and a standard that I always refer to at work also contains a pretty similar definition - the words are a little different but it amounts to pretty much the same thing. Lying on the ground screaming "I hurt" while having no actual discernible injury (see: soccer players ...) does not count. Bandaging a cut doesn't count. An ouchy bruise doesn't count. Even making a trip to the hospital doesn't count. A broken bone other than a finger bone counts. An injury of a permanent or disfiguring nature counts. Muscle injuries like the notorious whiplash situation can be troublesome to interpret.

 

[Brian P]

s 172 suspensions don't have to be at the roadside ... They can come afterward ... So can these.

Actually, my preference would be for ALL such penalties to come only after someone has had their day in court. A drunk driver is a different matter; they don't immediately become un-drunk at the snap of a finger.