VIdeo of the Motorcycle accident @ Yonge and Pleasant

It really sucks that an innocent pedestrian got hurt in all this.

This aggressive type of riding should be done away from such busy streets where the chances of hurting another person are low.

Hope the rider and pedestrian make a full recovery and we can all learn from this incident.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think its about time to start enforcing stricter driving tests...seems like anybody can get a license. The driver shouldve eased into the other lane... and they need to enforce more laws resulting in suspended licenses...such as causing a collision. This is ridiculous

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
 
^ Be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it.

At a certain point people have to take responsibility for their own actions. When I got my motorcycle license (25 years ago ...) the schools taught risk assessment. When approaching an intersection, you have to understand the risk presented by all other vehicles approaching the intersection and what might happen if they do the wrong thing, and you have to make the assumption that if there is a place that you can't see (like on the other side of that truck) you have to assume that there IS something there. If the rider had followed that procedure, it should have set off alarm bells resulting in overtaking the truck slowly (or not at all) and while covering the brake. Not all collisions are fully preventable by all parties concerned ... but had this been followed, at a MINIMUM, the collision would have been much less severe.
 
msatrakkoic said:
I think its about time to start enforcing stricter driving tests...seems like anybody can get a license. The RIDER shouldve eased into the other lane... and they need to enforce more laws resulting in suspended licenses...such as causing a collision. This is ridiculous

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Exactly,
A written test and you can ride a SS like this guy in the video......
 
Playing devil's advocate. Let's ignore the weaving previous to the incident a moment. If the rider had just changed lanes from behind the vehicle in the left lane to the right lane...whose's fault would it be? The left turner. So, it depends on if the previous action is taken into account by a judge or if it's solely based on the individual action. Guess it depends on how good the rider's lawyer is?
 
Riceburner said:
Playing devil's advocate. Let's ignore the weaving previous to the incident a moment. If the rider had just changed lanes from behind the vehicle in the left lane to the right lane...whose's fault would it be? The left turner. So, it depends on if the previous action is taken into account by a judge or if it's solely based on the individual action. Guess it depends on how good the rider's lawyer is?
Click to expand...

If the rider had just changed lanes than the accident wouldn't have happened.
He changed lanes while travelling at a much higher rate of speed than the truck and accelerated into the intersection blind. He was not in a position to be able to see the SUV and the SUV wasn't able to see him.
By what I can see in the video, the SUV would have had enough time to safely complete the turn in front of the truck. So, a lane change at the average speed of traffic would have been a nonissue.
 
IMO they weren't going at a significantly higher rate of speed. Faster than the car in the right lane, but the cars were slower accelerating. The left turner was trying to beat the CAA truck. The rider was comfortably within the right lane by the time of the collision. Comes down to the left turner didn't have a clear path. Agreed, both probably couldn't see each other. In this case, the more I look at it, the more I'm thinking the left turner is at fault. ...and not because it was a rider hit.
 
Riceburner said:
IMO they weren't going at a significantly higher rate of speed. Faster than the car in the right lane, but the cars were slower accelerating. The left turner was trying to beat the CAA truck. The rider was comfortably within the right lane by the time of the collision. Comes down to the left turner didn't have a clear path. Agreed, both probably couldn't see each other. In this case, the more I look at it, the more I'm thinking the left turner is at fault. ...and not because it was a rider hit.
Click to expand...
Like I stated before, if this was a minor fender bender, no injuries, no by-standards, no video, the SUV is likely held at fault.
BUT, add in an innocent pedestrian and everything changes. The police are going to be forced into handing out tickets. Who do you think will get those tickets???
I'll give you a hint - look at the comment section of an article in just about any news web site. These are actual comments from readers:

tired of seeing these azzwipes zig zagging in and out with barely a car length between. I have nothing against responsible Bike drivers but these losers are anything but responsible and courteous riders. The season has barely begun, watch out for the crotch rockets.

Ride like that and the laws of probability dictate that it is only a matter of time until it will all go wrong. They're not so brave now and they have the rest of their lives to think about what they did to an innocent elderly lady.

street racers!! crush their bikes and give them a lifetime ban on driving!

F'in bikers. No respect for the rules of the road

I'd say the majority of sports bike owners (used to be one myself) are dangerous riders with little training.

It doesn't matter what you think, or what I think happened. I'm pretty sure that the rider is going to end up with the majority of the fault
 
Last edited:
BMW is 100% at fault at the accident. same would've happened if motorcycle was just travelling in the right lane to begin with.
BMW just cut through without making sure the second lane was clear.

eg. even if vehicle A is speeding and vehicle B decides to run a red light, yes they would both be stupid but vehicle B would be at fault for running the red light. same here, where BMW just didn't make a safe turn.

yes motorcycle was speeding (maybe 20 over limit). and motorcycle can face reckless driving and/or speeding just based on video evidence.
 
Apollo95 said:
BMW is 100% at fault at the accident. same would've happened if motorcycle was just travelling in the right lane to begin with.
BMW just cut through without making sure the second lane was clear.

eg. even if vehicle A is speeding and vehicle B decides to run a red light, yes they would both be stupid but vehicle B would be at fault for running the red light. same here, where BMW just didn't make a safe turn.

yes motorcycle was speeding (maybe 20 over limit). and motorcycle can face reckless driving and/or speeding just based on video evidence.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense. Fault determination changes drastically if someone is charged with speeding in excess of 16kph. So 20 over is already going to shift fault towards him. On top of that, there are several other charges that will likely be laid which will further shift the fault determination.
You don't have to agree with it, but stating that the bmw driver is definitively 100% at fault is just plain wrong. That's not how things work.
 
@00:30 does it looks like the Silver Hyundai Accent driver is waving the motorcyclists through.

_________________________

http://www.cp24.com/news/man-woman-...motorcycle-collides-with-pedestrian-1.1763641

CP24 also reports that one of the motorcyclist left the scene after the accident; theories: no insurance, suspended license, arrest warrant.

I've said it before, people who ride w/o insurance will not stop after they or people around them have been involved in an accident; they'd rather see them dead, then stop to help and risk a $5000 no-insurance fine.​

Criminal Investigative Bureau also attended the scene; witnesses reported the motorcyclists were travelling twice the speed of other traffic.
 
Last edited:
Not sure how you came to the conclusion that had the motorcycle changed lanes to the right lane the accident still would have occurred? The video shows the SUV had ample time to safely make the turn. The motorcycle came from a position where he could not be seen, nor could he see the SUV. The accident was "caused" by the mere fact the bike changed lanes. It was "caused" as a result of his excessive acceleration, which when coupled with the unsafe lane change. One can't dismiss the previous weaving in and out of traffic, had they not been doing that as well as exceeding the speed limit, then they wouldn't have been at that intersection at that time, (they likely would have been further back on Yonge).

The judge will no doubt consider all the evidence presented, (police reconstructionist testimony, witness statements, this dash cam video). The judge WILL take into consideration the riders behaviour prior to the collision, (based on the witness testimony, as it indicates the "style or type" of riding the riders were engaged into prior to the collision.

The insurance company in determining fault factors will consider the witness statements, this video, and the reconstructionist's report, (these reports carry more weight as the officer's are considered experts). They will by reconstructing the scene be able to determine the bike speed within a range of a couple of kilometers.

Interesting, yesterday the rider was described as being in his late 40's today the Sun listed his age as 27.

I know the bike is listed as an R6, but has anyone heard from Mighty Mike since Sunday??? Hollllla lol.g



Riceburner said:
Playing devil's advocate. Let's ignore the weaving previous to the incident a moment. If the rider had just changed lanes from behind the vehicle in the left lane to the right lane...whose's fault would it be? The left turner. So, it depends on if the previous action is taken into account by a judge or if it's solely based on the individual action. Guess it depends on how good the rider's lawyer is?
Click to expand...
 
hedo2002 said:
I know the bike is listed as an R6, but has anyone heard from Mighty Mike since Sunday??? Hollllla lol.g
Click to expand...

In a shot I saw on the news you could see the diamond shaped taillight and dual undertail exhaust of an R1. I think that they eff'd that part up in the article.
 
Wasted said:
That doesn't make any sense. Fault determination changes drastically if someone is charged with speeding in excess of 16kph.
Click to expand...

Is there a source for that info??

Because I was in an accident in the car recently, 100% not at fault... and talking to the adjusters, it doesn't make a difference to them if the other guy got charged or not (I believe he could have gotten at least one ticket).
 
MarcosSantiago said:
Is there a source for that info??

Because I was in an accident in the car recently, 100% not at fault... and talking to the adjusters, it doesn't make a difference to them if the other guy got charged or not (I believe he could have gotten at least one ticket).
Click to expand...
Ontario fault determination rule 20(1)(e) and 20(2)
See post #3 in this thread or http://www.ibc.ca/en/car_insurance/documents/brochure/on-fault-determination-rules.pdf

Edit: I don't know what happened in your accident, but the above rule only applies if the vehicle that would typically be not at fault is the one speeding. If you were already not at fault and the other person was the one speeding than it doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:
Insurance will say 50/50. In reality it would be entirely the bikes fault. Whoever said further up that weaving in traffic is fine needs to hush up. Its incredibly dangerous and this accident was a direct result of it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom