OPP Probing another Stunt Video... | Page 4 | GTAMotorcycle.com

OPP Probing another Stunt Video...

Forum Sponsor
FLSTC said:
There's another link there "Dangerous motorcyclist imprisoned" http://www.torontosun.com/2017/03/24/dangerous-motorcyclist-locked-up-for-a-year

Not sure if there was another thread on this. This is the guy riding Northbound on Yonge - an SUV turned left in front of him and he ended up colliding with a pedestrian... Caught on dashcam in-and-out passing so received the full blame...
Click to expand...

I hope the SUV driver who made a left turn into him got the same sentence, but somehow I doubt that happened.
 
Saw the video linked above.
Anyone know what is happening with the truck driver?
Any charges for truck driver?
 
-D- said:
Saw the video linked above.
Anyone know what is happening with the truck driver?
Any charges for truck driver?
Click to expand...

No charges for the truck driver.

Face: To answer your question the SUV driver wasn't charged, the investigation revealed, that because the bikes were obscured from his vision by other vehicles, only fault rested with the riders. Can't convict a driver for an improper left turn, when the left turning driver had no possible opportunity, to see the oncoming vehicles, due to their riding/driving. Even IF the TPS, had laid the charge the crown would have surely dropped it for "no reasonable expectation of a conviction"
 
hedo2002 said:
No charges for the truck driver.

Face: To answer your question the SUV driver wasn't charged, the investigation revealed, that because the bikes were obscured from his vision by other vehicles, only fault rested with the riders. Can't convict a driver for an improper left turn, when the left turning driver had no possible opportunity, to see the oncoming vehicles, due to their riding/driving. Even IF the TPS, had laid the charge the crown would have surely dropped it for "no reasonable expectation of a conviction"
Click to expand...

Did the bike run into the truck or did the truck run into the bike?
 
"No reasonable expectation of conviction"... sounds familiar,oh ya- Michael Bryant's case , of course the video told a different story
 
Our laws are biased against Motorcycles. I've worked for the police I've seen it.

Funny how a guy hits a vehicle that turned infront of him and the driver of the cage gets away without a charge...yet uin the UK, a Pro-Motorcycle nation, as guy going 3 times the speedlimit and hit a car turning infront of him and dies.....the cager gets charged.

Granted, yes...sounds like the guy in the above article was driving dangerously....but the charge rarely ever goes the other way.

A car going through an amber light strikes a car that turns left in the way. Driver turning left is at fault. Lay charges
Motorcycle going through an amber light strikes a car that turns left in the way. Rider must have been speeding. No charges.

I saw it hundreds of times working for the Police.
 
slowbird said:
Our laws are biased against Motorcycles. I've worked for the police I've seen it.

Funny how a guy hits a vehicle that turned infront of him and the driver of the cage gets away without a charge...yet uin the UK, a Pro-Motorcycle nation, as guy going 3 times the speedlimit and hit a car turning infront of him and dies.....the cager gets charged.

Granted, yes...sounds like the guy in the above article was driving dangerously....but the charge rarely ever goes the other way.

A car going through an amber light strikes a car that turns left in the way. Driver turning left is at fault. Lay charges
Motorcycle going through an amber light strikes a car that turns left in the way. Rider must have been speeding. No charges.

I saw it hundreds of times working for the Police.
Click to expand...

speed is not relevant...if someone was going 20km/h in a 80 zone and a left turner entered the lane and the driver hits the left turner...are they NOT going to charge because person in the right of way was going too slow???

if a car turns left and infringes upon oncoming traffic then left turner is wrong
I thought the default is right of way and responsibility is on those entering the right of way.
 
-D- said:
speed is not relevant...if someone was going 20km/h in a 80 zone and a left turner entered the lane and the driver hits the left turner...are they NOT going to charge because person in the right of way was going too slow???

if a car turns left and infringes upon oncoming traffic then left turner is wrong
I thought the default is right of way and responsibility is on those entering the right of way.
Click to expand...


I agree 100% that the default is right of way and responsibility is on those entering the right of way.

However I have seen first hand, and have read news articles, where cagers have turned into the right of way path of a motorcyclist and have caused an accident, and received no charges. Some with injuries, some with loss of life....no charges.

The reasons can't always be known for sure, but the ones I can be sure of are the instances I've heard from attending officers say such baloney as "The motorcycle guy was probably speeding." (Probably?! No witnesses...just a guess) or "The driver didn't see him and said he must have been speeding." Yeah cause you didn't see the bike, it means it was speeding. Can't possibly be because you didn't look maybe?

The lack of punishment against people who hit Motorcyclists is abhorrent.
 
Last edited:
I believe, in the case of the rider on Yonge street, it wasn't a matter of speed, but rather a combination of a number of factors. The left hand turner, (SUV), appeared to have time to make his turn in safety, There were approaching vehicles which would not have hit him. But the rider, was operating in a dangerous manner, (weaving in and out of lanes at a higher rate of speed than one would be expected to do, and his bike was in all essence hidden from view, (of the left hand turner), by another approaching vehicle. It suddenly appeared when it darted out from behind that other vehicle, passing it at a high rate of speed, (relative to the area). It was concluded that the left hand turner, had no way to avoid the collision despite braking immediately upon seeing the bike appear. (all of this is going by memory, of what was posted at the time).

The case in the UK was vastly different in that it was basically a rural roadway, with no visual obstructions. Yonge Street, in that area is full of visual obstructions and distractions. Even had the crown proceeded with the charges against the cager ANY lawyer who is slightly competent, would have been able to convince a JP that there should not be a conviction registered.
 
To all of you micro-penis d-bags who participated in this, and any of the other stunting group rides that that have been happening; I hope you all get leukaemia. Seriously. A hex on you. You're not in a rap video. F*ck off already.
 
Sukiyaki said:
To all of you micro-penis d-bags who participated in this, and any of the other stunting group rides that that have been happening; I hope you all get leukaemia. Seriously. A hex on you. You're not in a rap video. F*ck off already.
Click to expand...

Is that the Metric version?
 
Hey man, church ain't over till the snakes are back in the bag, know what I meen
 
Just for the record,I've never been a runner or highway wheeliest nor do I think it is a good idea. I see a Harley breakout in my future, just to cruise in the country on sunny days : )
 
hedo2002 said:
I believe, in the case of the rider on Yonge street, it wasn't a matter of speed, but rather a combination of a number of factors. The left hand turner, (SUV), appeared to have time to make his turn in safety, There were approaching vehicles which would not have hit him. But the rider, was operating in a dangerous manner, (weaving in and out of lanes at a higher rate of speed than one would be expected to do, and his bike was in all essence hidden from view, (of the left hand turner), by another approaching vehicle. It suddenly appeared when it darted out from behind that other vehicle, passing it at a high rate of speed, (relative to the area). It was concluded that the left hand turner, had no way to avoid the collision despite braking immediately upon seeing the bike appear. (all of this is going by memory, of what was posted at the time).
Click to expand...

Not sure how this is any different than a situation with someone in a slow inside lane stopping to allow someone to turn left. The inside lane vehicles obstruct the view of the outside lane, which is moving faster. The left turning vehicle hits someone in the outside lane who is proceeding at a speed that is higher than the stopped inside lane, and has the right-of-way. In both cases the left turner proceeded across a lane for which he did not have clear sight lines to, and hit someone. How many lane changes the rider made previously shouldn't be the issue. Given that someone was killed, it seems highly irregular that absolutely no fault was found against the guy making a left, who blamed the accident on obscured vision of oncoming traffic in the other lane. I'm not saying the rider should not be charged and convicted if his riding was unsafe, especially when it resulted in a death. Was the SUV driver even charged? If he wasn't, it would appear that the officer made a judgement on site that was better left to the courts. If he was, it sounds like he had a better lawyer.
 
Face said:
Not sure how this is any different than a situation with someone in a slow inside lane stopping to allow someone to turn left. The inside lane vehicles obstruct the view of the outside lane, which is moving faster. The left turning vehicle hits someone in the outside lane who is proceeding at a speed that is higher than the stopped inside lane, and has the right-of-way. In both cases the left turner proceeded across a lane for which he did not have clear sight lines to, and hit someone. How many lane changes the rider made previously shouldn't be the issue. Given that someone was killed, it seems highly irregular that absolutely no fault was found against the guy making a left, who blamed the accident on obscured vision of oncoming traffic in the other lane. I'm not saying the rider should not be charged and convicted if his riding was unsafe, especially when it resulted in a death. Was the SUV driver even charged? If he wasn't, it would appear that the officer made a judgement on site that was better left to the courts. If he was, it sounds like he had a better lawyer.
Click to expand...
If you saw the video, you would understand it was the rider's fault. He was behind a car in the left lane, then cut off the car on the right lane and accelerating quickly right into the bumper of the SUV turning left if I recall correctly.
 
Last edited:
Supernam said:
If you saw the video, you would understand it was the rider's fault. He was behind a car in the left lane which was stopping(possibly for a red light?), then cut off the car on the right lane(borderline lane splitting) and accelerating quickly right into the bumper of the SUV turning left if I recall correctly.
Click to expand...

There's a vid? I'd love to see it.

Any links?
 
Last edited:
The Markos decision is on canlii

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc90/2017onsc90.html?resultIndex=1

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc1497/2017onsc1497.html?resultIndex=2

What stands out to me.

Judge talks about fast speed a few times, when it should be described as acceleration.

Interesting that the judge describes it as "much higher speed" when the accident constructionist estimates it potentially as low as 70 kph in a 50 kph zone.

Some mental gymnastics following imo.

The proof of that is that the other northbound vehicles who were not going excessively faster than the speed limit had adequate time to allow [the suv] to make his
turn. The evidence is that the CAA truck put on its breaks as it approached the intersection, but it did not screech to a halt or stop abruptly. It slowed down and [the suv] made his turn in front of it.​
​
​
Click to expand...

So the southbound SUV doing the left hand turn did so in a manner that resulted the approaching northbound traffic in the left lane to brake for the SUV.

Then...
Although [the left hand turn suv] did make his turn in a way that caused [the caa truck and dash cam car] to apply their breaks to let him go by, that is not what caused the collision.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Markos didn't have much for a lawyer.



[the caa truck] slowed down and Mr. Roland made his turn in front of it. Mr. Markos, by contrast, was going too fast to stop and approached the intersection at too awkward an angle passing other cars to see Mr. Roland’s vehicle on time.
Click to expand...
So the decision here is that if you are driving 20 kph faster than traffic and you hit a vehicle turning left in front of you because their/your sight lines are obscured (e.g. being in the right lane in traffic) you can be deemed at criminal fault.


The following doesn't compute well for me either.
[markos] failed to notice the left-turning SUV when all the other northbound traffic did.
Click to expand...

Frankly, it's assuming facts not found in evidence. Only two northbound vehicles were introduced into evidence as having noticed the left-turning suv (caa truck and dash cam car), part 14 of the collision. Also, many of the vehicles in the right lane would have failed to notice the SUV because of their reduced sight lines in traffic to the opposing lanes.​
 
Last edited:
kwtoxman said:
What stands out to me.

Judge talks about fast speed a few times, when it should be described as acceleration.

Interesting that the judge describes it as "much higher speed" when the accident constructionist estimates it potentially as low as 70 kph in a 50 kph zone.



Sounds like Markos didn't have much for a lawyer.

This doesn't compute well for me either. Many of the vehicles in the right lane would have failed to notice the SUV as it's the basics of sight lines in traffic. And frankly, there is zero evidence of this as fact entered into evidence.
Click to expand...


Looks like a pretty typical "motorcyclist always at fault" ruling from reading that. Thanks for posting the links.
A vehicle turns left into the path of another and causes an accident. It should be pretty clear who's at fault. The problem is that as soon as you add a Motorcycle into the mix all that makes sense gets thrown out the window and blame gets thrown on the biker.

People assume speed because of how quickly the bikes can maneuver.

I'm not saying every biker in every accident is innocent, or that this Markos guy wasn't riding like an ***. But it doesn't excuse the fact that charges don't get laid properly in Motorcycle accidents.
Forum Sponsor
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom