Two motorcyclists charged in collision that left pedestrian injured | Page 7 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Two motorcyclists charged in collision that left pedestrian injured

kwtoxman said:
How is a discussion or debate a fight? Are the famous harvard debates akin to such considerations?
Click to expand...
You're going to compare this thread to a Harvard debate? That's the most ridiculous thing in this whole thread.
 
But it is you who is doing most of the conjecturing.

kwtoxman said:
How do you know the riders weren't doing 50 kph and what speed were they doing? 55? 60? No on in this thread has posted any verifiable evidence evidence the riders are doing more than the speed limit. Plus the SUV hit the bike with its front end. Even if the bike had been somewhat slower it would have hit the side of the SUV.

Nor have you provided any substantive evidence that they were traveling at 50 km/h. Had the bike not been rode in a manner that would lead one to this... "As I noted before, I never said it was a good idea", (your words from post #76 in this thread). The bike may have had more time to react and been able to avoid the collision, (as did the CAA truck and the white car in the right lane)

You do like to spin hedo, to put it mildly. Just refuse to understand and take this thread and my posts where it isn't meant to go.

I pointed out conjecture, pointed out facts. I didn't chastise. I discussed. Perhaps chastise wasn't the proper term in this context, but you certainly seem to have an issue with others posting conjecture, then freely admit that is exactly what you are doing. "So much conjecture, which 1/2 of GTAM is really good at posting as truth. My observations. May as well add some conjecture, but identified as such." (Again as per your post #54) Then you say later in the thread... a few times about the "analysis" you have done on the video. How do you know the others haven't also "analyzed" the video and simply reached a different conclusion?

For the umpteenth time.....I said with was an exercise purely of using the video evidence as everyone else in the thread had before and judging guilt/innocence. Again NOT true. I had stated right from the beginning I was basing "my conjecture", (to use your term), upon the video AND the reports of the witness statements given to the media at the time. Hence I posted this in post # 29, (even before you joined the discussion). 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. Guess I am not one of the "everyone else"

It has nothing to do with the actual courts or court case. But for the fact that one of your arguments is there is no basis for the 172 charge. Well where will the final determination be made if the evidence supports that charge if not IN a actual court?

The assessment provided basic data that anyone can evaluate for themselves an. It was much more robust than inferences, guesses, conjecture and vague statements that others have used. WOW really you now know how others formed their opinions and that you are the ONLY one who spent time looking at the video? And in the end the assessment was to show evidence from the video that I found people had not taken the time to determine and consider in their opinion. But some, others, (mmmmnaked post #42), (FLSTC in post #48), Also spoke of witnesses and what they reported, yet you choose to focus only upon the video so actually who "not taken the time to determine and consider everything in their opinion"?

Enough of this for me.
Click to expand...
 
kwtoxman said:
Didn't I say all "assumptions" are equally valid?

That is why I never had that assumption in my analysis.

As soon as assumptions are part of an analysis, the conclusions are completely arbitrary. And differing conclusions will have equal validity and viability. So I find it futile to debate conclusions based on assumptions.

That may be the case, but again, to say that is inferring potential and likely evidence that is not in this thread, and is as such a separate consideration. From the video evidence only (as noted again), it is quite debatable if their actions would merit guilt, as many people say they do.
Click to expand...

Based on the evidence visible in the video and previous case law, resulting in convictions, the riders stand a very good chance of being convicted on the stated charges. That is making no additional assumptions, nor is it considering any evidence not presently before us. Lesser behaviour has resulted in such convictions, as evidenced by the sticky thread regarding lane splitting in the Law & HTA forum.
 
kwtoxman said:
Debate: a formal discussion on a particular topic in public, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

What's so different?

The fact is informal? That it has harvard students? Shocking.
Click to expand...
The shocking thing here is that you just continue to drone on and on about this.
 
LOL not even close my friend. You would know when I am in fight...LOL this is just a lively discussion with differing points of view. I actually agree with "some" of KW's points I simply don't accept that he is the only one who has taken the time to "analyze" the video and that he he has excluded the witnesses in his assertion that the riders should have not been charged with 172.

I agree the wording for 172 is poor as it is with "most" sections in the HTA as well as the CCoC. But it is what it is. I have also stated a few times on this forum that I am far from a proponent of 172. i think the violations could have easily been dealt with under existing legislation. Somehow I was able to lay charges and have people dealt with LONG before 172..lol Judges somehow managed if someone did something particularly stupid or dangerous to mete out appropriate punishments..lol

Wasted said:
internet-fight.gif
Click to expand...
 
Again, your not recalling what you posted earlier...lol

kwtoxman said:
Didn't I say all "assumptions" are equally valid? Actually no you didn't... It was much more robust than guesses, conjecture and vague statements that some others have used. And in the end the assessment was to show evidence from the video that people had not taken the time to determine or to consider in their opinion. (as per your post #115). Your "assertion" was that only your point of view was valid, and that "some others" weren't

That is why I never had that assumption in my analysis.

As soon as assumptions are part of an analysis, the conclusions are completely arbitrary. And differing conclusions will have equal validity and viability. So I find it futile to debate conclusions based on assumptions.



That may be the case, but again, to say that is inferring potential and likely evidence that is not in this thread, and is as such a separate consideration. From the video evidence only (as noted again), it is quite debatable if their actions would merit guilt on the charges, as many people say they do.
Click to expand...
 
hedo2002 said:
You would know when I am in fight...
Click to expand...

I'm surprised you tipped your hand. Reading every word of every post you just know, at some point, it's not about the subject matter anymore. Altho tiresome, thread can still be mined for entertainment nuggets. Please carry on.
 
No I just meant the EMS generally are involved when I am in fight due to the blood loss..lol

inreb said:
I'm surprised you tipped your hand. Reading every word of every post you just know, at some point, it's not about the subject matter anymore. Altho tiresome, thread can still be mined for entertainment nuggets. Please carry on.
Click to expand...
 
Happened to watch this video today and read the comments from others. Video quality is very poor, but from what I was able to see I am confused by your comment that the SUV driver had plenty of time to make the turn. The CAA truck was at the intersection and had to brake to avoid the collision; that is a clear definition of an unsafe turn. If you believe that the SUV driver performed a safe manoeuvre, I recommend that both of you sign up for some driver or rider training. The motorcycle riders did not help themselves by weaving in traffic as this doesn't allow others to see you or for you to see them. As a Driver Examiner I am confused by the actions of the Police. All parties involved should have been charged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom