Strange that the bikers were charged but not the driver who pulled out in front of them
Two motorcyclists charged in collision that left pedestrian injured
- Thread starter matthew
- Start date
I'm not saying that bikers are not at fault, but i will still stand my ground in regards to unsafe turn on SUV part. Why? Because its not a safe turn as SUV can not see what is going on beside/behind CAA truck, which makes it unsafe.
I would have to agree...wtf was the driver thinking? I see this nonsense way too much
I agree, unless I'm sure of what's going on around me I don't do the turn.
I'm just looking at the video and what the driver's thought pattern may have been...75 years and all. Hell if it was someone younger they may be able to have gunned it to get out of the way, or someone was crossing the street and the driver stopped right in the middle of the turn. I can't make that part out.
Did you not see the video? Unless the driver in the SUV had x-ray vision he had no clue those morons on the bikes were there.
Sorry but that's the dumb risk you take when aggressively riding around slow traffic on a busy road. Other drivers don't see you coming.
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
Agree. The SUV driver has to be charged.
Throwing the whole book at the rider is not helping anyone. And I'm not saying this because I also ride, but because the driver making a left turn has the responsibility to make sure he can proceed safely into the intersection. It is a basic principle in the way we drive.
The charges against the riders are too much.
So the whole act of weaving in and out of traffic is NOT something they should be charged with? I agree they weren't being overly aggressive with it, but I can see how a stunt driving charge can be pressed.
I wonder what happened to the third rider as only two were referenced as being charged.
It was discussed at great length when the video was first posted on 07 Apr, here at GTAM.
So I will provide my point of view once again. The SUV driver wasn't charged nor will he be. Simple fact, he had time to make the turn in safety, (those who say the CAA truck slammed on his brakes it is simply not the case. He hit the brakes when he heard the bikes accelerate hard beside him. The SUV driver, (regardless of his age), can argue he had time to make his turn in safety. He could NOT have anticipated that two bikes, which witnesses stated at the time of the accident, (it is in the original thread and story posted), were traveling at a high rate of speed and weaving in and out of traffic, (BEFORE they go to this intersection)
Again look at the video when the SUV begins his turn, (hit the pause button JUST before), the bike was to the rear of the CAA truck. Had the bike remained there the SUV would have completed his turn. The SUV driver actually reacted VERY quickly hitting the brakes when he did see the bike, (this is what then caused the CAA to brake, as the SUV had upon impact come to a full stop in the CAA trucks lane. Therefore the SUV has a viable defence, (had the bike been operated in a SAFE normal manner, Obeying the speed limit not filtering and lane jumping), he would have made his turn.
The riders were both charged, (VERY properly), with stunting as well as the other related charges to the collision. This will be easy to prove in court.
First the crown will bring in a parade of witnesses who will say the bikes were speeding, accelerating hard, and weaving in and out of traffic. They will then play the video. The video CLEARLY shows the bikes accelerating much quicker than the surrounding traffic, (only one of the elements required for a 172 charge). they need not even prove how fast the bikes were going.
They will then show that given the amount of traffic, (vehicular and pedestrian), at that time of day in that location made operating the bikes in this manner unsafe and dangerous, to other road users, (yet another element of 172, as well as the dangerous and careless).. Chances are at least one or both of those may be dropped after a conviction on the 172 is obtained).
These clowns should NOT be riding and after the insurance gets a hold of them I doubt they will be. Then of course they will also face the MASSIVE lawsuits, from the injured woman, (Which their insurers may even elect NOT to pay out nor defend them on).
FenlX it is what we "think" should happen to the SUV driver it is what the law permits. Just like Justin Bieber, even if he were charged and got a "decent" lawyer the crown would stand and ask the charges be withdrawn as there is no hope of obtaining an conviction.
So I will provide my point of view once again. The SUV driver wasn't charged nor will he be. Simple fact, he had time to make the turn in safety, (those who say the CAA truck slammed on his brakes it is simply not the case. He hit the brakes when he heard the bikes accelerate hard beside him. The SUV driver, (regardless of his age), can argue he had time to make his turn in safety. He could NOT have anticipated that two bikes, which witnesses stated at the time of the accident, (it is in the original thread and story posted), were traveling at a high rate of speed and weaving in and out of traffic, (BEFORE they go to this intersection)
Again look at the video when the SUV begins his turn, (hit the pause button JUST before), the bike was to the rear of the CAA truck. Had the bike remained there the SUV would have completed his turn. The SUV driver actually reacted VERY quickly hitting the brakes when he did see the bike, (this is what then caused the CAA to brake, as the SUV had upon impact come to a full stop in the CAA trucks lane. Therefore the SUV has a viable defence, (had the bike been operated in a SAFE normal manner, Obeying the speed limit not filtering and lane jumping), he would have made his turn.
The riders were both charged, (VERY properly), with stunting as well as the other related charges to the collision. This will be easy to prove in court.
First the crown will bring in a parade of witnesses who will say the bikes were speeding, accelerating hard, and weaving in and out of traffic. They will then play the video. The video CLEARLY shows the bikes accelerating much quicker than the surrounding traffic, (only one of the elements required for a 172 charge). they need not even prove how fast the bikes were going.
They will then show that given the amount of traffic, (vehicular and pedestrian), at that time of day in that location made operating the bikes in this manner unsafe and dangerous, to other road users, (yet another element of 172, as well as the dangerous and careless).. Chances are at least one or both of those may be dropped after a conviction on the 172 is obtained).
These clowns should NOT be riding and after the insurance gets a hold of them I doubt they will be. Then of course they will also face the MASSIVE lawsuits, from the injured woman, (Which their insurers may even elect NOT to pay out nor defend them on).
FenlX it is what we "think" should happen to the SUV driver it is what the law permits. Just like Justin Bieber, even if he were charged and got a "decent" lawyer the crown would stand and ask the charges be withdrawn as there is no hope of obtaining an conviction.
Last edited:
The basic principle is the expectation that everyone else is also driving within reasonable limits of the law. If Im out in the country making a left turn with the road ahead of me clear for a 1/4 mile and then a Bugatti Veyron obliterates my existence at 230mph, is it expected for me to have 'see him coming'? That's ludicrous.
.... you got to be kiddig...
Definition, “stunt”
3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, “stunt” includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:
1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.
3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it.
4. Driving two or more motor vehicles side by side or in proximity to each other, where one of the motor vehicles occupies a lane of traffic or other portion of the highway intended for use by oncoming traffic for a period of time that is longer than is reasonably required to pass another motor vehicle.
5. Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.
6. Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver’s seat.
7. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit.
8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,
i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,
ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver’s sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,
iii. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway, or
iv. making a left turn where,
(A) the driver is stopped at an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal system in response to a circular red indication;
(B) at least one vehicle facing the opposite direction is similarly stopped in response to a circular red indication; and
(C) the driver executes the left turn immediately before or after the system shows only a circular green indication in both directions and in a manner that indicates an intention to complete or attempt to complete the left turn before the vehicle facing the opposite direction is able to proceed straight through the intersection in response to the circular green indication facing that vehicle. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 3.
Charges look appropriate and warranted to me based on the situation in that video. Hedo & MMMNaked have pretty much summed up the situation well.
The riders should be glad no one was killed.
Even if the driver is charged with improper left there is enough evidence for him to get off of it. It was his left that caused the accident it was the illegal actions of the riders.
The riders should be glad no one was killed.
Even if the driver is charged with improper left there is enough evidence for him to get off of it. It was his left that caused the accident it was the illegal actions of the riders.
You quoted a the speeding section incorrectly. When you apply the proper definition (http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_070455_e.htm) you get something that lines up with the charges.
Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,i. driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed,
(2) In this section,
“marked departure from the lawful rate of speed” means a rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway.
But then it falls under racing/contesting, not stunting, different charges...
My point was: i do not see them stunting in video at all...
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
It may seem ludicrous, but then every guy who is involved in a collision as he was making a left turn is not going to get charged, as long as he throws his hands up and says "the other guy was speeding (therefore breaking the law) and I did not see him, so it's not my fault!".
Its all HTA 172 man
Not sure what you missed so I highlighted the appropriate wording for you:
Then of course this portion which you missed altogether, as posted above:
Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,i. driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed,
(2) In this section,
“marked departure from the lawful rate of speed” means a rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway.
Then of course this portion which you missed altogether, as posted above:
Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,i. driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed,
(2) In this section,
“marked departure from the lawful rate of speed” means a rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway.
rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway. - 172
kiwi
Well-known member
driver was thinking "oh, its okay, they have to stop for me.. " You know, the "barge my way through" type of driver
