|
|
|
Cop kills 5-year old. No charges.
- Thread starter N3WMAN
- Start date
When someone high up the chain of command called the shots there is a different set of rules.
Was there a payout with a gag agreement? As crass as that sounds the way it works is that it costs a fortune for the victim to fight the government and it takes years of their life. Get over it. The kid's not coming back. Take the money and move on.
Instead the remaining children get a chance for higher education, nicer neighbourhood etc.
theraymondguy
Well-known member
I'm not pleased with the outcome of this accident, it's god awful and I'm sure everyone (including the officer) involved feels the same way.
However. Doesn't the fault in an intersection accident where there is a left hand turn involved generally fall on the person making the left? A friend of mine went straight through an intersection on a stagnant green/yellow, driver coming from opposite direction makes a left in front of him = collosion. Guy making the left was charged. Edit, onus falls on left turn driver to ensure clear path
However. Doesn't the fault in an intersection accident where there is a left hand turn involved generally fall on the person making the left? A friend of mine went straight through an intersection on a stagnant green/yellow, driver coming from opposite direction makes a left in front of him = collosion. Guy making the left was charged. Edit, onus falls on left turn driver to ensure clear path
Last edited:
I'm not a lawyer just a long time driver. You may be on to something, do not turn left until safe to do so? That the other guy(fuzz)is doing 2.5 times the speed limit adds a wrinkle to the situation in that speed limits are imposed on the motoring public as a safety feature.
When I make a left turn I look down the road a distance that is reasonable for the speed limit. At what speed does the speeder lose his /her rights?
kwtoxman
Well-known member
Sorry happycrappy, missed that.
True in relative expectations and as observed in case law. A serious speeder loses their right of way wrt general HTA regulations. We've seen it here recently (and dubiously...).
Generally what I've seen discussed for reasonable accommodation in court of law precedent is much less than the example here at over double the speed limit (about 120 kph vs 50 kph limit. It has been debated at much much less as well. That is what makes the "crown decision" here disreputable.
And there is where inreb falls down imo. In this case by its very physics the left hand turner would have been fine with even a moderate speeder... But not in this case of a serious speeder.
True in relative expectations and as observed in case law. A serious speeder loses their right of way wrt general HTA regulations. We've seen it here recently (and dubiously...).
Generally what I've seen discussed for reasonable accommodation in court of law precedent is much less than the example here at over double the speed limit (about 120 kph vs 50 kph limit. It has been debated at much much less as well. That is what makes the "crown decision" here disreputable.
And there is where inreb falls down imo. In this case by its very physics the left hand turner would have been fine with even a moderate speeder... But not in this case of a serious speeder.
Last edited:
What rights? The right for somebody else to not make an error in judgement that impacts the speeder negatively? I don't know if that's a right. It's a hope. Speeder is going to diminish chance of that in direct proportion to increase in speed beyond what is generally deemed to be safe(the speed limit)
Why would you look down the road a distance that is reasonable for speed limit? It's free to look beyond that.
Should I use a telescope?
?? is this payback for the years of nonsense I've hurled at this forum. Did the guy doing 122 in a 50 use a telescope? Is 122 beyond the field of vision?
Well said. I believe it was spoken to once before by Hedo in another thread; it would be nice if there was a clear line in the sand where a speeder does in fact diminish their own right of way. Motorists would reasonably be acclimated to seeing a certain range of speeds in a given day of driving and can reasonably judge speed within that range when they go to conduct a maneuver.
It could be if it's a residential neighbourhood. The roads aren't always perfectly straight and there's these things called houses on the non-straight roads that could block the view.
In the insurance company fault-determination rules, someone speeding starts to take some degree of responsibility at just 15 km/h above the posted speed limit ... It doesn't seem to be a clear-cut line of enforcement, though.
I prefer the Vienna-convention rules. BOTH drivers would be charged here: the car driver for making a left turn in front of the other vehicle that had priority (their word for "right of way"), and the cop for speeding at a minimum and possibly dangerous driving given the circumstances. That the other driver is making an error doesn't grant you the right to make a different error, and that goes both ways.
And by the way, I said exactly the same thing in the Clayton thread: The cop ought to be charged for making an unsafe turn, and the rider ought to be charged for speeding and possibly more, were he not dead.
I prefer the Vienna-convention rules. BOTH drivers would be charged here: the car driver for making a left turn in front of the other vehicle that had priority (their word for "right of way"), and the cop for speeding at a minimum and possibly dangerous driving given the circumstances. That the other driver is making an error doesn't grant you the right to make a different error, and that goes both ways.
And by the way, I said exactly the same thing in the Clayton thread: The cop ought to be charged for making an unsafe turn, and the rider ought to be charged for speeding and possibly more, were he not dead.
He said he looks down the road and then added, sarcastically, if I want he should use a telescope. Most of us understand the concept of visual obstructions. Thanks.
Here's where the collision occurred. 2 lanes each way with turn lanes, residential, with a park nearby. At the time there was a tiny amount of snow and ice on the road. The officer was not responding to a call, but it seems that he was "catching up" to a car that he was supposed to follow, that was driven by a former head of the Liberal Party of Quebec.
https://goo.gl/maps/SLbtP
If you're ever charged with dangerous driving remember to cite the findings of this Quebec judge, who said that doing two and a half times the speed limit in a residential area is "... not enough to establish dangerous conduct..."
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/crown-...y-killed-by-speeding-police-cruiser-1.2113287
https://goo.gl/maps/SLbtP
If you're ever charged with dangerous driving remember to cite the findings of this Quebec judge, who said that doing two and a half times the speed limit in a residential area is "... not enough to establish dangerous conduct..."
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/crown-...y-killed-by-speeding-police-cruiser-1.2113287
The officer was traveling at 122km/h, which means every second he was covering almost 34 metres. doesn't sound like a lot but in a residential area it is, and when other drivers don't expect you to be going as fast, it makes it hard for them to judge where you will be. you'll notice the 401 has very few left turns on it.
The difference between this case and the one in which the motorcyclist was killed is literally night and day, and I still think that the officer is at fault.
That's my point too, the person turning left could not tell where the officer would be because of his high rate of speed.
|
|
|
|
|