OPP Probing another Stunt Video... | Page 5 | GTAMotorcycle.com

OPP Probing another Stunt Video...

Ruling needs to be appealed. There's no reason Marcos should have to expect an SUV to violate his right of way and therefore be ready to stop. I can't see from that vid that the bike could have been going more than 60km. The CAA vehicle looked like 40km, saw the SUV first and therefore was able to act first. Neither vehicle should have had to react, it was clearly the SUV that was violating both vehicle's right of way. Judge was bending over backward to blame the biker. While he was riding aggressively, I can't see any proof that he was breaking the law since there is no law against passing on the right in Ontario AND there is no solid proof he was speeding.
 
Anyone explain how these are use as "precedent?" in sentencing. I don't see anything that is similar in regards to redlight and rear ending in Mr. Markos case

[
16]When it comes to dangerous driving, the Court of Appeal has indicated that, “General deterrence and denunciation are the most important factors in the determination of a sentence in a case such as this one”: R v Rawn, 2012 ONCA 487 (CanLII), at para 33. With that in mind, counsel for the Crown is seeking a custodial sentence of 18 months. She compares this case with R v Holland, [2000] OJ No 400 (Ont CA), where the accused sped through a red light and the trial judge sentenced him to 5 months in custody plus 2 years of probation. The Court of Appeal overturned the sentence, and increased it to 18 months in custody. In the process, the court opined that, “The sentencing judge took exaggerated account of remorse and family history, and underemphasized the seriousness of the offence and the severity of the injuries.


[17]This case is also analogous to R v Irons, 2016 ONSC 1490 (CanLII), where the accused was travelling southbound on Allen Road in clear, dry weather, and with excessive speed made two unsafe and, as the court described it, “extreme lane changes” and then rear-ended a motorcycle with a passenger on it. As the court observed, at para 69, the driver “made a deliberate and conscious decision to drive dangerously on a busy highway. This is not a case where momentary inattention caused a collision”.
 
Last edited:
Ruling needs to be appealed. There's no reason Marcos should have to expect an SUV to violate his right of way and therefore be ready to stop. I can't see from that vid that the bike could have been going more than 60km. The CAA vehicle looked like 40km, saw the SUV first and therefore was able to act first. Neither vehicle should have had to react, it was clearly the SUV that was violating both vehicle's right of way. Judge was bending over backward to blame the biker. While he was riding aggressively, I can't see any proof that he was breaking the law since there is no law against passing on the right in Ontario AND there is no solid proof he was speeding.

Agreed!

The left turning SUV clearly forced the CAA truck to slow down, therefore he did not have a clear path to turn left. No proof of how much (if any) the motorcycle was over the limit. Motorcycles aren't automatically at fault because they have the ability to accelerate faster than a car. A lane change is only unsafe if the car behind in the lane you are moving into is forced to slow down because of your lane change. In the case of both lane changes, the bikes accelerated away from the cars they passed and did not force them to slow. I definitely agree that this should be appealed.

Still no idea if the SUV driver was charged and found not guilty, or not even charged.
 
I think in the absence of a video the rider would not have been charged as clearly his right of way was infringed on. However, the video does show the riders were weaving around slower vehicles and he intended to pass on the right in relatively heavy traffic. The courts have some degree of discretion in these cases and with the antics we saw last summer riders (and SS riders in particular) are going to be holding the short end of the stick when everyone arrives in court, in particular when an innocent bystander gets creamed. Any suggestion of speeding, aggressive or "stunt" type riding will not be favourably viewed or rewarded.
 
Weaving through traffic and passing on the right (which the latter is not a HTA violation) doesn't make the SUV's maneuver any less wrong. It was still impeding vehicles that had the right of way.
 
Agreed!

The left turning SUV clearly forced the CAA truck to slow down, therefore he did not have a clear path to turn left. No proof of how much (if any) the motorcycle was over the limit. Motorcycles aren't automatically at fault because they have the ability to accelerate faster than a car. A lane change is only unsafe if the car behind in the lane you are moving into is forced to slow down because of your lane change. In the case of both lane changes, the bikes accelerated away from the cars they passed and did not force them to slow. I definitely agree that this should be appealed.

Still no idea if the SUV driver was charged and found not guilty, or not even charged.
From. Memory I don't believe SUV driver was charged.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk
 
From. Memory I don't believe SUV driver was charged.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Well that's pretty messed up. Hope the rider appeals. Unfortunately that would only drag things out for the family.
 
Here is something else that is very concerning.this got to be overreaching at the very least

[FONT=&quot][[/FONT]24[FONT=&quot]][/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Crown has also requested two ancillary orders: a DNA order and a firearms prohibition under [/FONT]s. 109[FONT=&quot] of the [/FONT]Criminal Code. In my view, neither of those are relevant to the offense at issue here, as this was a crime of negligence rather than intentional conduct, and had nothing to do with firearms. I therefore decline to issue those ancillary orders.
 

Back
Top Bottom