Only 'if' aprehended...
|
|
|
Child struck
- Thread starter hedo2002
- Start date
Only 'if' aprehended...
Karma may still see them under the wheels of a transport that doesn't stop.
And then we'll all cry GWS for a rider who was the recipient of bad driving...
Don't get me wrong I hope that this SOB gets the full force of karma....but as far as it stands right now...he's off riding with no consequences for his actions.
Sorry but if someone stumbles into my car and then walks away I'm not going to tackle them to the ground to ensure I am in entire accordance with the letter of the law. The law is flawed, always has been, always will be. And this could by one of those instances where it's stupid.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that's what happened. But we don't really know what happened so it's possible.
boyoboy
Well-known member
stumbles into your car? wtf kind of interpretation is that? a pedestrian was hit -NO QUESTION- and the rider DIDNT EVEN STOP ....and you say, one of those instances where "its stupid". again, the rider didn't even stop! NO EXCUSE! wtf the kid stumbled into my moving bike while in a crosswalk ? so no need to even stop?! idiocy to defend the rider in any manner whatsoever YOU MUST STOP! yeh, the kid must of stumbled into my MOVING bike in a cross walk - thats it. PURE UNADULTERED IDIOCY.
and stopping after an accident = the law is flawed. you should look at your own flawed thinking.
THE RIDER DIDNT EVEN STOP = DEFENCELESS POS.
Last edited:
boyoboy
Well-known member
Last edited:
The article I read didn't say anything about whether the rider kept going without stopping: http://www.cp24.com/news/police-loo...ght-year-old-injured-in-hit-and-run-1.2538885
But like I said, I'm not describing the events that happened, just what may have happened because there's a lot we don't know. I can hardly be defending anything that I openly admit not to know about!
Regardless, the way the law is written, if someone falls on your car while you're creeping forward then walks away, you have to stop them or you've committed a hit and run offense. That's stupid.
If they wander away, can't you just go to the reporting centre or police station, and explain what happened?
As hedo2002 said, the rider has a legal obligation to stop and identify themselves.
This was something a drunk police officer did in BC when he killed a biker a few years ago. He left his ID with passerbys at the scene then went home to drop off his kids at home and presumably to remove traces of alcohol from his vehicle and from his system. All legal.
In the case of a "hit-and-run" where the victim and witnesses all walk away without a word, what is the rider supposed to do?
Different scenarios, your throwing into the mix. Yes the rider is legally obligated and to identify themselves, where they cause injury to another. Personal injury accident NO grey area you MUST report to the police immediately this is not a collision reporting center, self report scenario. In this case the kid was neither drunk nor did he wander away from the scene. He was injured and transported to hospital via ambulance, that would indicate a personal injury accident. Under no circumstances does the rider have ANY legal defense to his actions.
Now as to your scenario I am driving/riding home at 2 am and a drunk "stumbles" into my car then wanders off. You are not obligated nor are you even legally permitted to restrain them, to report the collision. The proper course of action would be to remain at the scene, and call 911 to report the collision. Obviously, you would get a good look at the person so you can provide a complete discription to the police of the other party. That would be the end of your involvement. If you provided all pertinent details of the collision including your observations of the other party smelled alcohol, they were slurring their words, they were stmbling before they collided with your vehicle, they were stumbling as they left, they refused your offer of help, they refused to remain etc etc etc. These would all be important factors if the person comes back later with an injury claim, as they are all recorded, (hard to recall little details 6 - 18 months later).
But we are way off topic here as none of those facts are presented in this incident. I am even willing to give the rider involved the benefit of the doubt that he didn't know he had hit the child, More probable in a cage than on a bike but I give that to him/her. What I can't do is give the same benefit to the other riders in the group. They would have known he had struck the child. If they have kids of their own and think about it for a millisecond they should be getting the rider to surrend to police, if the rider refuses then they have a moral obligation to go to the police on their own. How would they feel if this was THEIR child? Likely a whole different thought process. But I won't hold my breath in todays take no responsibility for ones own actions, everyone else it to blame.
Now as to your scenario I am driving/riding home at 2 am and a drunk "stumbles" into my car then wanders off. You are not obligated nor are you even legally permitted to restrain them, to report the collision. The proper course of action would be to remain at the scene, and call 911 to report the collision. Obviously, you would get a good look at the person so you can provide a complete discription to the police of the other party. That would be the end of your involvement. If you provided all pertinent details of the collision including your observations of the other party smelled alcohol, they were slurring their words, they were stmbling before they collided with your vehicle, they were stumbling as they left, they refused your offer of help, they refused to remain etc etc etc. These would all be important factors if the person comes back later with an injury claim, as they are all recorded, (hard to recall little details 6 - 18 months later).
But we are way off topic here as none of those facts are presented in this incident. I am even willing to give the rider involved the benefit of the doubt that he didn't know he had hit the child, More probable in a cage than on a bike but I give that to him/her. What I can't do is give the same benefit to the other riders in the group. They would have known he had struck the child. If they have kids of their own and think about it for a millisecond they should be getting the rider to surrend to police, if the rider refuses then they have a moral obligation to go to the police on their own. How would they feel if this was THEIR child? Likely a whole different thought process. But I won't hold my breath in todays take no responsibility for ones own actions, everyone else it to blame.
The hypothetical legal defense could be that there was never any indication that the child was injured until after everyone left the scene.
Is that the legally required course of action or just the 'right thing to do'? Either way it's still stupid and no one in the real world would bother to report anything so trivial.
This is entirely on topic as a hypothetical scenario that could be applied to this encounter based on the very limited facts that we know about it.
That would NOT be a viable defence UNLESS the rider had actually stopped to check on the condition of the child. Given that, by the accounts we have, the rider failed to stop then there can be no defence that they were unaware of any injuries. Given that an ambulance was summoned, I can only imagine how high the climb would be to convince a judge that without stopping, you were able to determine that it wasn't evident that the child was injured. Not to mention the riders vehicle made physical contact with a person IN a crosswalk, is enough to legally require that they stop. If the notion that the rider didn"t think the child was injured, (without stopping to check), were permitted as a legal defense, then at what point is it no longer a legal defence? Can you hit someone at 10 Km? 30 km? 50 km? and claim the same? But again let's assume that the default position is that the rider couldn't possibly be responsible it MUST the fault of others.
In this case the rider, (and his riding buddies), get an epic fail for humanity, and responsible riding. Had they actually stopped then we can discuss levels of responsibility, but given that they chose to flee, they assume 100% of the fail.
One could come up with thousands of "what if's", none of which may be relevant in this case. But given that Toronto Police released a request for assistance, would tend to suggest, that this was not a "routine incident", hundreds of which occur daily in the GTA and we never hear about them.
As for the other scenario, I didn't say at any point that reporting it was LEGALLY required. I merely stated it was the "proper thing to do". HUGE difference between the two. What is "moral" is not always legally required.
In this case the rider, (and his riding buddies), get an epic fail for humanity, and responsible riding. Had they actually stopped then we can discuss levels of responsibility, but given that they chose to flee, they assume 100% of the fail.
One could come up with thousands of "what if's", none of which may be relevant in this case. But given that Toronto Police released a request for assistance, would tend to suggest, that this was not a "routine incident", hundreds of which occur daily in the GTA and we never hear about them.
As for the other scenario, I didn't say at any point that reporting it was LEGALLY required. I merely stated it was the "proper thing to do". HUGE difference between the two. What is "moral" is not always legally required.
Definitely different scenarios. I was thinking of a situation that I saw, where a teen cyclist ran a red light and was struck by a car.
The Lady who hit the cyclist was horrified and stopped.
Guy behind her told her that she was good to go, since her light was green and she should go after the cyclist for any damage to the car.
In the meantime, the cyclist got up, got on his bike, and took off.
In this case, she did stop.
But she might want to go to a reporting centre, to clarify what happened,
just in case the cyclist had taken her license plate, and tried to make a case against her at a later date.
The Lady who hit the cyclist was horrified and stopped.
Guy behind her told her that she was good to go, since her light was green and she should go after the cyclist for any damage to the car.
In the meantime, the cyclist got up, got on his bike, and took off.
In this case, she did stop.
But she might want to go to a reporting centre, to clarify what happened,
just in case the cyclist had taken her license plate, and tried to make a case against her at a later date.
Exactly. When I was rear ended last year on the bike, I thought it was minor and not much damage. Turns out I am still getting treatments for torn tendons and the bike damage was over $8,000. But I initially thought I was fine only two days later did the pain really ramp up. (it was reported at the time as the othe rrider who hit me was injured and taken via ambulance to hospital).
I have also attended collision scenes where it seemed everyone was fine, (way back when cops actually showed up to collision reports). Only to disciver later there have been serious injuries that weren't identified due to combination of adrenalin and shock etc.
I have also attended collision scenes where it seemed everyone was fine, (way back when cops actually showed up to collision reports). Only to disciver later there have been serious injuries that weren't identified due to combination of adrenalin and shock etc.
Ditto for my brother. Head on collision (Other driver fell asleep). Air bags did their job and everyone is walking and talking. ER says he's OK but a later exam shows soft tissue damage, micro-fractures etc and he ended up on the disabled list for life.
There are no accounts saying he didn't stop either, are there? So if he did stop and had reason to believe the child was uninjured, it would be a viable defense. When there's so much we don't know, it leaves the door open for very many justifications. I don't know why you want to lynch the rider so badly.
I'm not assuming anything, you are.
I'm glad you understand the difference between legality and morality. Given that instances such as these undoubtedly occur several times a day in the city, such as this one yesterday where both parties left the scene after physical contact: https://twitter.com/Stephen_Job/status/643998634250530816 and a few times when I've been doored, you may need to get off your moral high horse about always stopping and calling 911 as you claim every moral upstanding person would obviously do.
Then you need to go back and read the initial media reports:
Police are looking for a pack of motorcyclists after one of them struck an eight-year-old boy in a crosswalk in the city’s west end on Friday night and then kept on going.
According to police, a family was crossing Roncesvalles Avenue in a marked pedestrian crossing at Marmaduke Street at around 8:45 p.m. when a southbound group of motorcycles approached the sidewalk.
Police say the first motorcycle came to a stop but one of the other motorcycles passed him and entered the crosswalk, striking the eight-year-old boy.
The motorcycles then fled the area.
I want to "lynch" the rider as you put it because he makes each one of us involved in this hobby LOOK BAD. There is already enough bad stereotypes about riders that we need not add further to them by acting like irresponsible fools. Rather than face the idea that the rider struck a child in a crosswalk and fled without even checking to see if the child was injured, you want to justify this as an acceptable course of action on the riders part. Not sure how anyone can think hitting a child and leaving without a care for the welfare of that child is acceptable under ANY circumstances. Even if the child was only left with minor injuries, (which we know to be the case again from the reports), the rider IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO REMAIN at the scene. It is not open to his "interpetation" as to what extent the child was injured. Does that mean if I hit someone on a road with my cage and stop and see they are laying on the road, but still moving, (therefore at least still alive), I can "decide" their injuries are minor and just simply drive away?
You seemingly want me to just accept that the rider stopped got off his bike and checked the welfare of the child before casually riding off. So I will challenge you to point out where you are getting this idea from given the report and the points in it I have highlighted above. The report I am sure to most people would clearly indicate that the rider left the scene without stopping, (and reporting the collision to police), as he was legally required to do. The HTA does not state if the injuries are minor you don't have to report it states as follows:
[h=3]Duty to report accident[/h] 199. (1) Every person in charge of a motor vehicle or street car who is directly or indirectly involved in an accident shall, if the accident results in personal injuries or in damage to property apparently exceeding an amount prescribed by regulation, report the accident forthwith to the nearest police officer and furnish him or her with the information concerning the accident as may be required by the officer under subsection (3). R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 199 (1); 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table.
[h=3]Officer may direct person to report accident at another location[/h] (1.1) If, on reporting the accident to the nearest police officer under subsection (1), the person is directed by the officer to report the accident at a specified location, the person shall not furnish the officer described in subsection (1) with the information concerning the accident but shall forthwith attend at the specified location and report the accident there to a police officer and furnish him or her with the information concerning the accident as may be required by the officer under subsection (3). 1997, c. 12, s. 15; 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table.
[h=3]Where person unable to report[/h] (2) Where the person is physically incapable of making a report and there is another occupant of the motor vehicle, the occupant shall make the report. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 199 (2).
So please feel free to point out under section 199(1), where it is up to the rider to determine the extent of the injuries, and therefore have a "viable defence" against failing to remian and report the accident???
Now as for my moral high horse. I am VERY comfortable on it as I stated what I would do. If you chose differently, then that is your decision. I prefer to follow the moral path.
The cab in the tweet is guilty, of the same offence, (he fled without checking on the condition of the cyclist). Nice try but epic fails as your saying we have basically no details in this child struck incident. In the tweet we have NO details other than what the tweeter saw. He has no idea if the cyclist was injured nor if she reported the collision. But we do have the following, (on the child struck), from even the very brief report:
1. first rider stopped legally at the crosswalk
2. other riders ignored the crosswalk
3. one of the riders came into contact with a child
4. The rider failed to remain at the scene of the collision
5. the child was injured and transported to hosptial via ambulance
Therefore the rider is liable for at minimum, charges under section 199(1) as well as section 200, (Fail to remain), plus of course section 140 (1)(b). (over take vehicle stopped at crosswalk), namely the other stopped rider.
Not sure why your so intent on defending the indefensible actions of this rider, unless, you were one of the riders or know the riders personally.
I guess you don't have any reports saying he didn't stop then. He could have kept going after stopping or without stopping, the English language allows either to be correct. Same with fleeing the area.
So I suggest you stop making assumptions now.
The law says you must remain, not just stop. The rider and his friends certainly did not remain.
You must remain if there's injury. If he determined there was no injury (presumably by at least coming to a stop) then he didn't break the law.
|
|
|
|
|