Vehicle manslaughter

[kiwi]

Just curious , do they charge people with that here ? Or is it just failure to give way or similar when someone is killed in a car accident ?
Maybe careless driving causing death ??

[coyo]

Impaired cause death
Dangerous driving cause death
Criminal negligence cause death
... all depends on the situation.

[Rob MacLennan]

Impaired cause death
Dangerous driving cause death
Criminal negligence cause death
... all depends on the situation.

There's also a charge pertaining to failure to remain at the scene of a collision, in which someone dies; CC252. It's one of the charges they threw at the other rider, in that recent collision causing death in Mississauga.

[toysareforboys]

There's also a charge pertaining to failure to remain at the scene of a collision, in which someone dies; CC252. It's one of the charges they threw at the other rider, in that recent collision causing death in Mississauga.

Hey Rob. I tried to find this info for a friend.

I believe it was two years ago. I think Milton. There was a small group ride, I think 3 or 4 bikes. The bike at the back of the pack misjudged an on-ramp and died. The leader of the group fled, the other riders waited around. The leader of the group was charged with criminal negligence causing death and fail to remain at scene of fatal accident.

I tried to find it on google and I remember there was a big stink on GTAM about it and NOBODY wanted to lead group rides after that.

Do you perhaps have the info/link anywhere?

-Jamie M.

[Rob MacLennan]

Hey Rob. I tried to find this info for a friend.

I believe it was two years ago. I think Milton. There was a small group ride, I think 3 or 4 bikes. The bike at the back of the pack misjudged an on-ramp and died. The leader of the group fled, the other riders waited around. The leader of the group was charged with criminal negligence causing death and fail to remain at scene of fatal accident.

I tried to find it on google and I remember there was a big stink on GTAM about it and NOBODY wanted to lead group rides after that.

Do you perhaps have the info/link anywhere?

-Jamie M.

I haven't been able to find the information, but I remember an incident perhaps two years ago in which two riders hit a ramp and the following rider didn't make it. I believe that the leading rider was charged with leaving the scene. IIRC it was in Mississauga.

[toysareforboys]

I haven't been able to find the information, but I remember an incident perhaps two years ago in which two riders hit a ramp and the following rider didn't make it. I believe that the leading rider was charged with leaving the scene. IIRC it was in Mississauga.

Hmmm. Do you have some links for that one? Maybe I was misinformed as I had heard it third party.

-Jamie M.

[viper84737]

Only in this lame-*** province can you be charged with something that you couldn't possibly have had any fault in (failing to remain at the scene of an accident that wasn't caused by your vehicle, nor affected it).

This place never ceases to amaze me.

[Rob MacLennan]

Hmmm. Do you have some links for that one? Maybe I was misinformed as I had heard it third party.

-Jamie M.

Unfortunately no, as I'm working from memory on that one. All that my searches currently turn up is the recent crash.

Only in this lame-*** province can you be charged with something that you couldn't possibly have had any fault in (failing to remain at the scene of an accident that wasn't caused by your vehicle, nor affected it).

This place never ceases to amaze me.

That remains to be seen. If one cut off the other, or if they were 'racing', then fault can be placed.

Check out the 'felony murder' statutes in American States, if you think it can only happen here.

[toysareforboys]

That remains to be seen. If one cut off the other, or if they were 'racing', then fault can be placed.

I "race" all the time when I'm by myself. I'm LESS likely to "race" when I'm riding with someone. If we were both travelling at retarded speeds and I wipe out and die (through no fault of the guy in front of me), I don't understand why he's charged. By the time he's realized I've went down, he's already "left the scene".

The person leading doesn't have his hand on your throttle. If you choose to try and keep up, you fully accept all the risk that goes along with it.

At least that's my take.

-Jamie M.

[viper84737]

I "race" all the time when I'm by myself. I'm LESS likely to "race" when I'm riding with someone. If we were both travelling at retarded speeds and I wipe out and die (through no fault of the guy in front of me), I don't understand why he's charged. By the time he's realized I've went down, he's already "left the scene".

The person leading doesn't have his hand on your throttle. If you choose to try and keep up, you fully accept all the risk that goes along with it.

At least that's my take.

-Jamie M.

Too bad useless Ontario doesn't see it this way, because that makes too much sense for them to.

[OpenGambit]

I "race" all the time when I'm by myself. I'm LESS likely to "race" when I'm riding with someone. If we were both travelling at retarded speeds and I wipe out and die (through no fault of the guy in front of me), I don't understand why he's charged. By the time he's realized I've went down, he's already "left the scene".

The person leading doesn't have his hand on your throttle. If you choose to try and keep up, you fully accept all the risk that goes along with it.

At least that's my take.

-Jamie M.

by your definition, someone who cuts you off, brakes, making you spill into the guardrail could just leave the scene.

Laws are not supposed to be (nor should they be) so finely crafted that you can just decide on your own whether it applies or not. The point is you stick around to (a) provide assistance to the injured party; and (b) provide evidence.

if you are riding with someone and they spill, can you give me a good reason why you should be able to just leave?

[viper84737]

by your definition, someone who cuts you off, brakes, making you spill into the guardrail could just leave the scene.

Laws are not supposed to be (nor should they be) so finely crafted that you can just decide on your own whether it applies or not. The point is you stick around to (a) provide assistance to the injured party; and (b) provide evidence.

if you are riding with someone and they spill, can you give me a good reason why you should be able to just leave?

Because you aren't obligated to be aware of everyone else's lives, lest you be labelled a criminal for failing at this impossible task?

You aren't obligated to provide assistance to anyone, either, by law.

[OpenGambit]

Because you aren't obligated to be aware of everyone else's lives, lest you be labelled a criminal for failing at this impossible task?

You aren't obligated to provide assistance to anyone, either, by law.

the law lesson is cute, but I don't argue about the law with people that don't know what they are talking about.
All you are showing is why no one should ever go on an activity with you.

[viper84737]

the law lesson is cute, but I don't argue about the law with people that don't know what they are talking about.
All you are showing is why no one should ever go on an activity with you.

You judge me for pointing something out about how the system works? Cute. What might that show about you, I wonder?

[OpenGambit]

because if you actually read, you will realize that I told you the purpose of the law.
I didn't say the law obligates you to give assistance or evidence, it doesn't spell out everything for you ( do you need that? ) but that doesn't change the purpose.

you are doing a licenced activity, you have positive obligations. Deal with it.
this is the law that makes it illegal for drivers that cause accidents, with or without impact, to just piss off, and thats the way it should be.

The next time someone posts here about how a car turned left in front of them, and they dropped the bike without hitting the car, then the car just leaves. I'll let them know that you think that shouldn't be illegal because:

"Because you aren't obligated to be aware of everyone else's lives, lest you be labelled a criminal for failing at this impossible task?

You aren't obligated to provide assistance to anyone, either, by law."

you should go back to day trading, it suits you.

[viper84737]

because if you actually read, you will realize that I told you the purpose of the law.
I didn't say the law obligates you to give assistance or evidence, it doesn't spell out everything for you ( do you need that? ) but that doesn't change the purpose.

you are doing a licenced activity, you have positive obligations. Deal with it.
this is the law that makes it illegal for drivers that cause accidents, with or without impact, to just piss off, and thats the way it should be.

The next time someone posts here about how a car turned left in front of them, and they dropped the bike without hitting the car, then the car just leaves. I'll let them know that you think that shouldn't be illegal because:

"Because you aren't obligated to be aware of everyone else's lives, lest you be labelled a criminal for failing at this impossible task?

You aren't obligated to provide assistance to anyone, either, by law."

You're right, IFF drivers cause accidents, then they have to deal with the positive obligations you mentioned. But did the rider in front cause the accident? I ask because I am unaware whether he did. If so, I agree fully with you. If not, why should he be charged with failing to remain on the scene of somebody else's accident?

I'm not saying it was a gentlemanly move to ditch someone he was riding with in his time of need (if he was aware to begin with), nor am I defending the "morality" of his actions in any way. I'm only considering his legal obligations/ramifications here.

[OpenGambit]

feel free to draft a better law.

pretty basic idea, the guy that is involved in the accident doesn't get to be the one that decides whether he "caused" it. Someone else has to show up and make that call. The point is EXACTLY that no one knows what happened, except that guy ( and even he may not know but probably better than the guy that shows up 30 mins later ), and thats why he has to stick around and tell people what went down.

Otherwise all that is gonna happen is that people say "oh i didn't cause that he dropped the bike himself" and leave, even if the other party is dead or seriously injured.

That is a stupid stupid way to draft a law and it essentially makes the law non-existent.

[viper84737]

feel free to draft a better law.

pretty basic idea, the guy that is involved in the accident doesn't get to be the one that decides whether he "caused" it. Someone else has to show up and make that call.

Otherwise all that is gonna happen is that people say "oh i didn't cause that he dropped the bike himself" and leave, even if the other party is dead or seriously injured.

That is a stupid stupid way to draft a law and it essentially makes the law non-existent.

So at what point (distance/engagement) is blame possibly assignable to others, then?

Technically speaking, an accident 300 km behind you is still this exact same scenario. You wouldn't legally fault someone in Kingston on the 401 for an accident in Mississauga on the 401 in the same direction/lane. You wouldn't legally fault him at 3 km, or 0.3 km separations either, so why should you do so in any "group ride" case? A group ride is no different from generic/standard traffic on a highway, they just happen to be on motorcycles travelling in the same direction on the same road at that time. Should all traffic stop within, say, 300 meters of an accident just in case one of them might have contributed in a non-zero manner to the accident in some way?

[OpenGambit]

like I said, feel free to draft it in a better way.

The law is drafted vaguely, but it is not enforced in a manner that drags in bystanders, I have never heard of a guy that just drove past an accident that happened 30 minutes ago getting charged, have you?

People going on a group ride aren't just "happen to be on motorcycles travelling in the same direction on the same road at that time".
the same way that 2 people going on a hike together don't "happen to be travelling in the same direction on the same trail on the same mountain at the same time"

and there is no assignment of "blame", remaining at the scene of an accident isn't at all a casual determination. It bascially just makes people call 911.... the horror.

put some thought into what you are actually saying and draft something better, because you clearly didn't think it through before wandering into this thread.
This is a law that is drafted broadly, enforced narrowly. Thus far, everything i have read in this thread shows an enforcement pattern that is consistant with the spirit of the law.

[Rob MacLennan]

In this case there is the presumed agreed to group activity of 'racing', that ties the two together legally. If people take part in an illegal activity, together, then it implies a certain responsibility also. In the case of the recent incident there may even have been contact. We just don't know because almost no information has been released, apart from "hit a bus." Proximity, specifics of the event, and connection between the people involved determines whether a charge will be filed. The law is left purposely vague, in such cases, so a determination of what is reasonable can be made. You are unlikely to be charged for an event that took place 300 Kms behind you, let alone convicted.

As to the leaving the scene issue if you're travelling with someone, who is no longer behind you at some point, then you can presume that something happened to that other person. You can always turn back and return the the scene, at which point you would not be deemed to have left. It's one of the reasons that we got so honked off at people who just left group rides without telling anyone, back in the days of our rather large riding group.