kwtoxman
Well-known member
lol You don't get it. What if instead that white car in the right lane decided to accelerate up to and by the truck instead of the bike going though. The old el blocko move some vehicles like to do.
Two motorcyclists charged in collision that left pedestrian injured
- Thread starter matthew
- Start date
lol You don't get it. What if instead that white car in the right lane decided to accelerate up to and by the truck instead of the bike going though. The old el blocko move some vehicles like to do.
DECIMIS
Well-known member
I don't get it? :lmao:
If they remained in the right lane then they wouldn't have done anything unlawful and if any vehicle was hit, it would have been the white car. If you're doing nothing wrong and get hit, then presumably the other person did something wrong.
But that isn't the scenario that we're presented with, is it? You can blue-sky whatever situation you want but, at the end of the day, it's the one in front of us that is at issue.
Making multiple lane changes quickly enough that you never really straighten up, while travelling at a "speed at marked departure form the lawful rate of speed" (see ONT REG 455/07 for definition) is, in fact, illegal.
This post has a ring of familiarity to it.
FLSTC
Well-known member
Your chicken strips may be seized as evidence!
kwtoxman
Well-known member
And with that we see that having a reasonable discussion is not your strong point.
Since you don't know what any of their speeds are how can you say that the rider is at a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed?
There is the very important matter of how the court interprets those statements and conditions in case law. Are you advocating that the bar be set that low? Two lane changes while potentially over the speed limit as seen in the vid? Or how about 10 kph over the speed limit of 50 kph in those circumstances for example? It certainly doesn't look like a marked departure that other ON street racing laws have explicitly described, e.g., 50 kph over the speed limit.
Are you saying that sliding across two lanes (signalling) without any noticeable change in steering pattern, in an otherwise similar situation and outcome is worthy of HTA 172 and criminal charges?
Remember too the vehicles in the vid were accelerating when the passing occurred. The law described here speaks to a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed, not about a lawful rate of acceleration.
I don't think people are talking about this possibility per se as it is impossible to account for and evaluate. Rather the discussion is coming from the fact that some people here say that the video itself has enough evidence to support the charges and guilt of the riders.
Last edited:
Yes, street race ism.
As has been stated previously, in this thread, the term "lawful rate of speed" does not refer to any set speed; not even the speed limit. I don't need to know what their speed was, in order to determine that it meets the definition.
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. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 2 (2).
Apparently they had a bit of an issue dealing with the changing circumstances.
kwtoxman
Well-known member
I combined the two pieces mentioned together as per the law just to help me understand it.
If the SUV driver was not prudent in their actions with the left hand turn, in the legislation we're discussing how can one then say the rider's two lane changes and relative rate of speed were imprudent and worthy of a criminal charge and guilt? A fine but very significant distinction. I'm not seeing black and white weaving or speeds worthy of such a threshold being met for that automatic consideration. Calculations make it appear that a potentially dangerous left hand turn was made, with dubiously small room given to oncoming traffic and limited vision. As such, at this time I don't support the notion that from the video evidence we've discussed here that the rider was at "a rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances". I think a prudent left hand turn would have been able to deal with the changing circumstances we see in the video.
Complicated stuff. It will be interesting to see where this goes in court, as at that point there may be a bunch of other evidence as mentioned. But for all the people using the video to say guilty, the evidence from it doesn't show much of a case.
If the SUV driver was not prudent in their actions with the left hand turn, in the legislation we're discussing how can one then say the rider's two lane changes and relative rate of speed were imprudent and worthy of a criminal charge and guilt? A fine but very significant distinction. I'm not seeing black and white weaving or speeds worthy of such a threshold being met for that automatic consideration. Calculations make it appear that a potentially dangerous left hand turn was made, with dubiously small room given to oncoming traffic and limited vision. As such, at this time I don't support the notion that from the video evidence we've discussed here that the rider was at "a rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances". I think a prudent left hand turn would have been able to deal with the changing circumstances we see in the video.
Complicated stuff. It will be interesting to see where this goes in court, as at that point there may be a bunch of other evidence as mentioned. But for all the people using the video to say guilty, the evidence from it doesn't show much of a case.
Last edited:
Lets all wait for the trial, or whatever happens, bottom line is the police and the Lawyers are going in this direction, I'm sure they have enough evidence to proceed. If not, they will not look very good when it comes time to stand in front of a judge..... Personally, being a rider for 40 years and watching that video tells me that these riders are screwed and tattooed.
Now you have officially lost it
LOL...bikes or cagers it should not matter who was involved in this accident. All the vehicles were at a full stop at the beginning of the video (well at 0.30) including the bike. The bike changed lanes to get around a slow moving vehicle and returned to its original lane. Nothing wrong with this...and yes, the bike may have been speeding to merge back into his original lane, and he did an improper lane change i.e. no signal but nothing I don't see everyday during rush hour by numerous people in cars. My verdict..both SUV and rider should be charged with relatively minor offences. Its sad someone was injured on the walkway but this happens everyday without this level of concern by the public.
What happened before they were stopped behind CAA I don't know..and maybe this warrants further charges, again, I don't know but this should not be relevent to the accident or any charges related to the accident.
What happened before they were stopped behind CAA I don't know..and maybe this warrants further charges, again, I don't know but this should not be relevent to the accident or any charges related to the accident.
Last edited:
Actually, go back and re read my posts in this thread as well as the original thread. I have stated all along that the case the police have built will NOT be based solely upon what is seen in the video, but also what would have been given in the way of statements by witnesses. In the original news reports witnesses reported the bikes weaving in and out of traffic aggressively and at a high rate of speed. Rob, is 100% correct the wording of the charge in regards to a marked difference does NOT require an exact speed to be determined, nor is it dependent upon the speed limit.
I understand the little you have seen via the video makes you "feel or believe" that a change isn't warranted, but your "feeling and belief" don't matter at all, what does matter is the legislation as it is written today, the evidence gathered, including the video and statements, as to weather the charge us warranted. Only a judge can make that determination. That is our system for better or worse.
As for all the "what if" scenarios with various vehicles and placements as well as the "wave by". They are all not relevant, (note I used not relevant as opposed to irrelevant as there is no such word)..lol as those scenarios didn't happen and as such won't be judged in our system.
I understand the little you have seen via the video makes you "feel or believe" that a change isn't warranted, but your "feeling and belief" don't matter at all, what does matter is the legislation as it is written today, the evidence gathered, including the video and statements, as to weather the charge us warranted. Only a judge can make that determination. That is our system for better or worse.
As for all the "what if" scenarios with various vehicles and placements as well as the "wave by". They are all not relevant, (note I used not relevant as opposed to irrelevant as there is no such word)..lol as those scenarios didn't happen and as such won't be judged in our system.
Last edited by a moderator:
You guys can split hairs all you want. Everybody knows what the spirit of commuting is and what it encompasses. It's exactly like moving thru a crowded supermarket with a shopping cart. Get aggressive and eventually you'll nip some unsuspecting shoppers ankle. For what, to showcase your talents? People are funny.
