VIdeo of the Motorcycle accident @ Yonge and Pleasant

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=52e_1396838244

Would you say they were riding "Aggressively" like the Police says? What is the Bike or the BMW X5's Fault?

Bikes at fault (maybe not legally BUT)...driving like ****ing tards! I do it sometimes too...and would expect the charge.

Fault isn't clear cut in this case.
With no charges or police involvement the SUV would be 100% at fault based on fault determination rule 12(5):
-If automobile “B” turns left into the path of automobile “A”, the driver of automobile “A” is not at
fault and the driver of automobile “B” is 100 per cent at fault for the incident.

However, I don't think that this will be the case. So it will depend on what charges are laid against either or both parties.
Section 20 of the FDRs will apply if the riders are charged with speeding (in excess of 16kph over the posted speed limit) or an indictable offence

20. (1) For the purposes of this Regulation, a driver is considered to be charged with a driving offence,
(a) if, as a result of the incident, the driver is charged with operating the automobile while his or
her ability to operate the automobile was impaired by alcohol or a drug;
(b) if, as a result of the incident, the driver is charged with driving while his or her blood alcohol
level exceeded the limits permitted by law;
(c) if, as a result of the incident, the driver is charged with an indictable offence related to the
operation of the automobile;
(d) if the driver, as a result of the incident, is asked to provide a breath sample and he or she is
charged with failing or refusing to provide the sample;
(e) if, as a result of the incident, the driver is charged with exceeding the speed limit by sixteen or
more kilometres per hour.

(2) The degree of fault of the insured shall be determined in accordance with the ordinary rules of law,
and not in accordance with these rules,
(a) if the driver of automobile “A” involved in the incident is charged with a driving offence; and
(b) if the driver of automobile “B” is wholly or partly at fault, as otherwise determined under these
rules, for the incident.


We'd need more info before confirming fault.

Isn't the left turner always at fault in the case of insurance?

Regardless, I think both parties need to be charged. The left turning was clearly in a rush and left VERY little room for error. Probably wasn't ****ing looking at the right place either.

Weaving, imo, is fine. Weaving at a speed way faster than traffic in a slow traffic situation is, however, a sure way of getting hit (you'll find that ppl who weave in Asian countries, do not do it as fast as those 3 did).

And finally, I feel really bad for that pedestrian.

I would say the car is at fault, but the bikes really ensured two things which contributed:
- Not allowing the car to see them in time.
- Not allowing themselves to see the car in time.

The car did cut in front of the traffic because with his vantage point he had enough time, but honestly when I left turn across a two lane road even when the first guy stops, I make sure I can see clearly down the 2nd lane and they also are yielding to me. If there was a cyclist that the car hit, would everybody say maniac cyclists? Maybe not. These guys were going aggressively, which contributed but in my eyes the fault is on the left turning car not yielding right of way.

油井緋色;2149649 said:

Isn't the left turner always at fault in the case of insurance?

Regardless, I think both parties need to be charged. The left turning was clearly in a rush and left VERY little room for error. Probably wasn't ****ing looking at the right place either.

Weaving, imo, is fine. Weaving at a speed way faster than traffic in a slow traffic situation is, however, a sure way of getting hit (you'll find that ppl who weave in Asian countries, do not do it as fast as those 3 did).

And finally, I feel really bad for that pedestrian.

Click to expand...

99% of the time the left turner is at fault. This case is different tho because of the charges that were likely laid.
Disclaimer: The following is my own speculation.
If this was a straight minor accident and there were no injuries or police the SUV would be held 100% at fault. Case closed. However, due to the seriousness of the injuries and the HUGE fact that an innocent by standard was critically injured there are likely some heavy charges being laid. My guess would be that the rider got something to effect of dangerous driving causing injury, which is an indictable offence. If that is the case than the regular fault determination rules are tossed out and fault negotiation begins between the insurance companies.
If I had to take a stab at this I'd say that the rider ends up with the lions share of the fault but the driver picks up a little as well. I can tell you without a doubt tho, that the pedestrian's law suit will name both parties.

anyone more amazed at the fact that there just happened to have a car with a dashboard cam and caught the whole thing on video?

Had the rider been following traffic like any other motorcyclist or driver, this whole scenario wouldn't have occurred. It will most likely be a 50-50 fault situation. If it's anyone that I feel bad for, it's the pedestrians that got hit and are now in critical condition.

nope, all these dashboard videos, and the fact that these things are $40 for decent ones on ebay. I know lots of people with them personally, and I have one in each of my cars. Just loop recording incase anything happens I can just pull the microSD and have video of what occurred.

I have one in my car and work truck as well. It records the front and rear of my car with night vision. Full 1080p video with a 32gig sd card that creates a new file every 5 min unless I hit the emergency button, in which case it continously records. I belong to a large car forum as well, id say 50% of us have one.

I plan on getting a mini one for the bike as well.

Its all for covering my ass. Im pretty sure that one day I will hit an idiot pedestrian or bicyclist so I want to prove it wasn't my fault.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

max_power said:

Had the rider been following traffic like any other motorcyclist or driver, this whole scenario wouldn't have occurred. It will most likely be a 50-50 fault situation. If it's anyone that I feel bad for, it's the pedestrians that got hit and are now in critical condition.

Click to expand...

50/50?
How so?

Wasted said:

50/50?
How so?

Click to expand...

I still think it is 100% the driver's fault. As a responsible driver, I make sure I can see both lanes CLEARLY before crossing (and that the pedestrian walk way is clear). As a rider though, those three should've been smoother with the throttle; sport bikes can appear out of no where due to the sheer power we have and it's up to us to make sure we're seen before cross intersections. "With great power comes great responsibility" =P

What probably happened:

Bikes behind the oncoming car in the left lane

BMW sees only the car and no bikes behind, assumes they have time to turn and does so

In the meantime bikers weave their way onto the right lane and it's too late.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gerrbear8 said:

anyone more amazed at the fact that there just happened to have a car with a dashboard cam and caught the whole thing on video?

Click to expand...

I guess people just drive around qith those things...like everyone in russia

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

Riders like this are the worst.

油井緋色;2149724 said:

I still think it is 100% the driver's fault. As a responsible driver, I make sure I can see both lanes CLEARLY before crossing (and that the pedestrian walk way is clear). As a rider though, those three should've been smoother with the throttle; sport bikes can appear out of no where due to the sheer power we have and it's up to us to make sure we're seen before cross intersections. "With great power comes great responsibility" =P

Click to expand...

Here's the problem. There are 'several' witnesses who have described the riders as 'riding aggressively'. There is a video of the riders weaving and travelling at a speed greater than the flow of traffic. Between you, me, and 95% of the other riders on this forum, the riders weren't doing anything too crazy but the general public won't see it that way. They'll label them as reckless crotch rocket dare deveils.
Now, as I posted above, if the police decide to nail the 'reckless rider' with a indictable charge of dangerous driving causing injury the insurance companies are no longer bound they the FDRs which completely changes the game.
In short, right or wrong, public opinion will likely hold the rider at fault.

deejizzle said:

What probably happened:

Bikes behind the oncoming car in the left lane

BMW sees only the car and no bikes behind, assumes they have time to turn and does so

In the meantime bikers weave their way onto the right lane and it's too late.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I saw too.
Don't get me wrong.....I'll pick thru traffic sometimes, but to shoot out from behind a truck going into an intersection is just not smart.
Depending on the situation, sometimes I'll actually slow down to cross an intersection so that I'm in the right lane beside another vehicle in the left lane to use it as a bit of a shield.

Wasted said:

In short, right or wrong, public opinion will likely hold the rider at fault.

Click to expand...

Good! If he wasn't riding like a jack ***, the innocent pedestrian wouldn't be in critical condition.

Look, I get it, we all ride "spiritedly" at times... But riding like that, in dense traffic, with pedestrians all over the place, isn't the time or place for it. This accident could've been 100% avoidable by not riding that way. We all make mistakes, we also have to pay for those mistakes.

I'm not saying the X3 driver is completely innocent in this situation, but if the rider wasn't riding in that manner, the accident never would of happened.

As Wasted stated fault determination from the insurers point of view will depend heavily upon a few factors.

1. The statements, (if taken by police), from the independant witnesses;
2. The video, (which is all over the net now so the adjuster will no doubt know about it as do the police at this point);
3. The police report and what charges are laid.

Now having stated #3 as a former police officer I could put in my reports that vehicle a was responsible for the collision. But when it came to insurance, (this was before no fault insurance), that didn't mean that vehicle B was "cleared" by the insurer. They use their own fault determination rules. Charges also don't determine fault or lack thereof, but they can be used ias a mitigating factor.

From the video it shows IMHO that the SUV driver could not have seen the bike as at the time they started the turn the bike was behind the vehicle in the left lane. he then made the move to the right lane and accelerated, resulting in the collision.

Now again like Wasted I will offer up some speculation using my previous copper experience.

The rider will likely face at least one if not more of the below charges:

1. Improper lane change
2. Fail to signal lane change
3. Careless driving causing injury
4. HTA 172

Now the careless driving is almost certain. I also listed 172 as a possibility BUT it would depend upon the witness statements. Thge police at the scene stated that they observed the bikes travelling "more than twice the speed limit, and swerving in and out of traffic aggressively" If the police took those witness statements, (which I would be surprised if they didn't), coupled with the video, it would make a pretty convincing argument for a conviction. now a good defense attorney will argue that the witnesses were "not qualified" to judge the speed of the bikes. But the crown will no doubt argue the vidoe shows they were exceeding the limits and "stunting and racing" by the mere fact they were swerving in and out of traffic. Who will win?? I have no idea but it will cost the rider a crap load of money.

Of course the other thing to consider is the thread in the insurance sub forum awhile ago where people were debating if $200,000 liability was sufficent after all it was said " bike can't do that much damage". Tell that to the pedestrain involved in this case. if she is as injuered as it appears she is $200,000 won't likely scratch the surface of her damages. Hopefully this rider wasn't one who "saved the $10 a month" as one poster said he would by getting only $200,000.

TF3N said:

Good! If he wasn't riding like a jack ***, the innocent pedestrian wouldn't be in critical condition.

Look, I get it, we all ride "spiritedly" at times... But riding like that, in dense traffic, with pedestrians all over the place, isn't the time or place for it. This accident could've been 100% avoidable by not riding that way. We all make mistakes, we also have to pay for those mistakes.

I'm not saying the X3 driver is completely innocent in this situation, but if the rider wasn't riding in that manner, the accident never would of happened.

Click to expand...

Yes, but riding that way is acceptable in other countries. I understand that we're in Canada, but from my point of view I see the car ejecting the bike into the pedestrian. People here don't ****ing look; who knows if the driver was on his cell phone or not. You are right that the riders shouldn't be riding like that through traffic but the driver should have been paying attention.

As Wasted said though, chances are the public is gonna crucify the rider -_-