GP_RZ
Well-known member
Plain and simple people here cant drive, they are always riding there brakes which slows everyone down or tailgating, they have to merge before everyone else just to name a few....just bad drivers for the most part.
|
|
|
SIU investigation of motorcycle running from cops..
- Thread starter kiwi
- Start date
Plain and simple people here cant drive, they are always riding there brakes which slows everyone down or tailgating, they have to merge before everyone else just to name a few....just bad drivers for the most part.
I agree with you 100% as I drive daily from Harmony Rd to Bayview. I no longer use the 401 for the same reason. I don't have the answer, (although I did suggest the limit on the 400 series should be 120, but was told what I think was a more appropirate speed limit didn't matter)..lol. I simply no longer use the 401, but use arterial roads, 60/80 km limits, and arrive faster and less stressed.
But weather the limit on the 401 is 100 or 120 it won't make a bit of difference when the average speed at rush hour times, (6 am - 10 AM, 3 - 7 PM), is 40 km/h at best.
But I have NO idea how we got onto speed limits in this thread as there was no mention in the original story of speed, (I have NO idea what the limit is on the road where this tragic incident happened, I would guess it would to be about 50), is the contention the rider woud have survived if the limit had been set higher?? It would "appear" that the bike was travelling at much higher than what could be described as "responsibile or reasonable speed", (based on the amount of damage).
kiwi
Well-known member
Unfortunately we dont know how long this guy was chased.. it could have been the cop put on the lights - rider immediately turned into the next street and pinned it and crashed.. over in seconds. Doubt cop vs bike chases last more than 30secs as the bike would be gone and the cop would give up chase.
Its not the sole rider getting killed, that I worry about. But as someone already said, its if an innocent bystanded gets killed. Thus don't chase. Simple.
That's not the correct way to deal with things though. A policy of not responding to a crime means more of that crime is committed, look at bike thefts in the GTA for example. It may be simple speeding now but if there's an absolute policy of not following motorbikes then the next thing is ride by bike shootings (coz you can't be followed) etc etc.
What's missing from this discussion, and I don't know if in this case it's relevant, is the information that the police involved would be the Nottawasaga detachment of the OPP. This is a notoriously aggressive bunch. It is the common feeling around here, I live close by, that you will never be "given a break" by these guys/girls. If you were 5kph over you are getting a ticket. If they don't like your face, you are getting stopped. There is a general "zero tolerance" attitude with most interactions with this detachments officers. I have no idea if that had any influence in this incident, probably not, but I thought that those of you who don't live around here might like to know this.
kiwi
Well-known member
thanks for the heads up. Another reason not to ride/drive to that area of the woods..
Roomie
Banned
Same can be said for the Caledon opp. Some are really nice but there's a few who are miserable pricks who think they're god.
This is not that hard. "No chase" if all is at stake is a HTA infraction. The cops are free to record license plate numbers and deal with it later if they wish. If the reason for wanting to pull the bike over is that it is a criminal on the run then all bets are off, do what needs to be done.
Ok so enlighten us as to how they "record the plate and deal with it later"??? when the most common piece of advice here on GTAM is "Don't worry about it how are they going to identify who was riding the bike" which of course is true with a full face helmet. So then the if the new rule is if it is just an HTA infraction the police NEVER pursue, then why would any rider stop? knowing that they can't be identified and therefore no repercussions. Not arguing a point just trying to get insight. If there is a no pursuit policy and the rider doesn't stop how is the officer to determine if a more serious criminal offence is also being commited? IE the rider is impaired as well? I have nabbed more than few impaired drivers in my active duty days from a simple speeding infraction. Not to mentio No insurance, suspended licences, and active criminal arrest warrants.
But as has been stated we have no idea if this was an actual pursuit, or was it just a speed violation the officer lit him up and he took off grabbed first side street and was dead within 20 seconds of being lit up.
That would be a solution but then what if the bike is doing something that is in the 172 territory, (as the law stands today), does the owner then eat the impound and the suspension as well? Or would this be solely for HTA infractions? ow does the officer determine if the rider is sober?
Maybe s. 172 shouldn't be there. (It's probably the reason a lot of riders run from the cops.)
Maybe speed limits should be REASONABLE i.e. higher in most rural areas, consistent with normal traffic flow, so that the average person isn't breaking the law by driving normally (and someone having a mild amount of entertainment isn't breaking the limits by as much).
Drunk driving is criminal, different story, we have to assume that a cop could tell the difference between someone 30 km/h above the speed limit but evidently in control of the situation and someone wandering all over the road below the speed limit. And in any case, if they don't stop, drunk drivers will still be drunk when they get home, so the cops can be there waiting for them if they have a plate number ... and to be brutally honest, drunk motorcyclists are a self-correcting problem.
Maybe speed limits should be REASONABLE i.e. higher in most rural areas, consistent with normal traffic flow, so that the average person isn't breaking the law by driving normally (and someone having a mild amount of entertainment isn't breaking the limits by as much).
Drunk driving is criminal, different story, we have to assume that a cop could tell the difference between someone 30 km/h above the speed limit but evidently in control of the situation and someone wandering all over the road below the speed limit. And in any case, if they don't stop, drunk drivers will still be drunk when they get home, so the cops can be there waiting for them if they have a plate number ... and to be brutally honest, drunk motorcyclists are a self-correcting problem.
I agree with the abolishing of s172. In this case we have no idea why the rider made that terrible decision to go WOT, as opposed to pulling over. Not necessarily, can an officer "spot" an impaired driver simply from their speed. especially if doing stationary radar. The courts also rulled way back in the 80's that merely noting a vehicle speeding was not sufficent grounds for a breath demand. You had to also have observed the drivers ability to operate the vehicle, After that ruling we would often not light them up immediately but follow for a short distance in order to take note of any issues.
Just to clarify, I don't know if pursuit is the best move, nor am I sure that a "blanket" policy stating that if the bike doesn't stop within a few feet you diengage, is the right way to go either. Which is why we are asking viable questions of each other, it would be nice to see a discussion by those who can make actual command decisions.
Which is why I stated in another thread where a poster that ALL discretion should be removed from an officer, and only balck and white enforcement is the way to go wasn't a smart move. I believe an officer must have discretion, there are also supervisors who "monitor" a pursuit and often make the final call as to weather to continue or not.
But in this case we don't know if there was even "a pursuit" I haven't seen any further reports since the initial ones, which didn't give much detail.
Just to clarify, I don't know if pursuit is the best move, nor am I sure that a "blanket" policy stating that if the bike doesn't stop within a few feet you diengage, is the right way to go either. Which is why we are asking viable questions of each other, it would be nice to see a discussion by those who can make actual command decisions.
Which is why I stated in another thread where a poster that ALL discretion should be removed from an officer, and only balck and white enforcement is the way to go wasn't a smart move. I believe an officer must have discretion, there are also supervisors who "monitor" a pursuit and often make the final call as to weather to continue or not.
But in this case we don't know if there was even "a pursuit" I haven't seen any further reports since the initial ones, which didn't give much detail.
Keep one simple fact in mind: If you run from police, then police will believe that you have done something else serious enough for you to risk your life by running from them.
|
|
|
|
|