Clayton Rivet death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

[Brian P]

Forum Sponsor

Trolling. I've had enough, and reported that post for review.

On another note ... Last night, on the way home from a family engagement, I took a short detour and passed by the location - which is the east side of the new intersection between the 404 and Queensville Sideroad. It is a more-or-less continuous downslope between the top of the new bridge and the location of the collision. The slope would not have blocked line of sight for a few hundred metres. The jersey barriers are obviously not there. I maintain that a correct course of action for doing a turn-around behind the jersey barrier would have been to stop halfway around the turn before re-entering (crossing) the traffic lanes and look out the side windows. This would have been not more than 2 seconds before the collision (any more than that, and the car would have cleared the oncoming lane) and it would have been easily possible to see that far on accounting for the slope alone. Where the bike would have been at that point would have been somewhere near the intersection of the new ramp from northbound 404 to Queensville Sideroad. Straight line of sight.

It does not appear that there would have been line of sight for the 300 - 350 m that the SIU gives - but there is around 250 m from the top of the bridge to where I think the collision happened. (I couldn't find the memorial in the dark, I'm going by where the photo of the collision shows that the road is still 4 lanes and has not yet gone down to 2 lanes.) This would have been about 6 seconds at the speed Clayton was going.

Looking at the intersection now cannot account for the effects of the temporary barrier - but if the jersey barrier itself had been high enough to block the line of sight ... then it wasn't a safe location to make that turn.

For about the bazilliionth time in this thread, no one is disputing that Clayton's speed was much too high for conditions - but:
- It would have been easily possible to see the oncoming bike from the location where the U-turn was done, if the reasonable action of stopping to look directly out the side windows had been taken before crossing the traffic lane.
- If the cop had relied solely on a rear-view-mirror check before making that continuous U-turn and we accept the math from the SIU's statement that this took about 8 or 9 seconds, there probably would not have been visibility from where Clayton's bike was at the time due to the crest of the bridge.
- In reality, mathematics tells us that driving in a half-circle of 13 m diameter at 25 km/h only takes 3 seconds. The circle would have had to be in that range because the stated curb-to-curb turn diameter of that car is roughly the same as the width of a 4 lane road. The real maneuver is a bit more than half a circle because of having to turn out of the traffic lane first, but 4 or 5 seconds from the time of first leaving the eastbound lane until fully completing the maneuver into the westbound lane (which did not happen ...) is not unreasonable. In THAT timeframe, Clayton's bike would have been coming over the top of the bridge before the cop car left the eastbound traffic lane. If the cop had bothered to look in his mirror at that time, the bike would have been visible in direct line of sight. (5 seconds is about 200 m at 150 km/h and there is more than 200 m from the top of the bridge to where the collision happened.)

Clayton was speeding, no question ... but the U-turn was not done in safety.

 

[griff2]

This. The downside to the above petition is that it draws away from the clear and significantly more devastating reality that speed is what brought the outcome to this degree. Where's the petition for that? You might actually survive a collision if you're in the same stratosphere of the speed limit, and certainly then would have a chance to present your side in court. I still have yet to see any mention of the risk the rider put everyone else in at that speed particularly the officer. As a side note; the estimated speed of 150 ish was when he locked up his wheels. Wonder how fast he was going before that.

This. The u-turn, legal or otherwise, played a prominent role in creating conditions for a collision. The speed of the motorcycle played the determining role in killing the rider.

 

[griff2]

Trolling. I've had enough, and reported that post for review.

On another note ... <snipped for posterity>

You reopened the debate with your lengthy commentary a few posts back. The thread should be locked completely if you don't want debate on this. From your comments it seems that you are willing to accept comments that support Rivet, but are unwilling to afford any space to countering thought.

What is relevant is that there have been two separate investigation crews who unlike you were there in the immediate aftermath with professional experience, equipment and established investigative procedures. They have determined and specifically state that there was no criminal, driving or police conduct wrongdoing. Dumbed down that means no illegal u-turn.

The petition starts right off the bat with a now proven-faulty premise that Rivet was killed by an illegal u-turn and demanding that the cop be brought to court and held accountable for that. Without evidence that cannot happen and all the evidence available would be exculpatory in favour of the cop.

If the family is so dead set for what they call justice, let them go to a jp and lay private charges. Let them provide evidence enough to counter the two separate crash investigations.

 

[happycrappy]

In the interest of fairness, please also submit for review DVS's inference to shut one's mouth. Surely equally worth an infraction.

Trolling. I've had enough, and reported that post for review.

On another note ... Last night, on the way home from a family engagement, I took a short detour and passed by the location - which is the east side of the new intersection between the 404 and Queensville Sideroad. It is a more-or-less continuous downslope between the top of the new bridge and the location of the collision. The slope would not have blocked line of sight for a few hundred metres. The jersey barriers are obviously not there. I maintain that a correct course of action for doing a turn-around behind the jersey barrier would have been to stop halfway around the turn before re-entering (crossing) the traffic lanes and look out the side windows. This would have been not more than 2 seconds before the collision (any more than that, and the car would have cleared the oncoming lane) and it would have been easily possible to see that far on accounting for the slope alone. Where the bike would have been at that point would have been somewhere near the intersection of the new ramp from northbound 404 to Queensville Sideroad. Straight line of sight.

It does not appear that there would have been line of sight for the 300 - 350 m that the SIU gives - but there is around 250 m from the top of the bridge to where I think the collision happened. (I couldn't find the memorial in the dark, I'm going by where the photo of the collision shows that the road is still 4 lanes and has not yet gone down to 2 lanes.) This would have been about 6 seconds at the speed Clayton was going.

Looking at the intersection now cannot account for the effects of the temporary barrier - but if the jersey barrier itself had been high enough to block the line of sight ... then it wasn't a safe location to make that turn.

For about the bazilliionth time in this thread, no one is disputing that Clayton's speed was much too high for conditions - but:
- It would have been easily possible to see the oncoming bike from the location where the U-turn was done, if the reasonable action of stopping to look directly out the side windows had been taken before crossing the traffic lane.
- If the cop had relied solely on a rear-view-mirror check before making that continuous U-turn and we accept the math from the SIU's statement that this took about 8 or 9 seconds, there probably would not have been visibility from where Clayton's bike was at the time due to the crest of the bridge.
- In reality, mathematics tells us that driving in a half-circle of 13 m diameter at 25 km/h only takes 3 seconds. The circle would have had to be in that range because the stated curb-to-curb turn diameter of that car is roughly the same as the width of a 4 lane road. The real maneuver is a bit more than half a circle because of having to turn out of the traffic lane first, but 4 or 5 seconds from the time of first leaving the eastbound lane until fully completing the maneuver into the westbound lane (which did not happen ...) is not unreasonable. In THAT timeframe, Clayton's bike would have been coming over the top of the bridge before the cop car left the eastbound traffic lane. If the cop had bothered to look in his mirror at that time, the bike would have been visible in direct line of sight. (5 seconds is about 200 m at 150 km/h and there is more than 200 m from the top of the bridge to where the collision happened.)

Several points.....Clayton's speed has NOT been determined, only his speed at wheel lock up. Any speculation without that consideration cannot be accurate, considering the speed such a bike is capable of. In addition, I keep hearing how visible he must have been from either a rear view mirror check or a side window check. If the visibility was so attainable, would Clayton not have had even MORE visibility of the car, given that it was directly in front of him? Biggest point of all here, all of the Clayton supporters have consistently minimized his culpability with a blanket statement of "I know he was speeding, but..." here is the problem: He wasn't just speeding, he was in the range of criminal speeding, i.e. dangerous driving. I hate that this reeks of the typical stereotype of a robber or thug who happens to get shot while committing a major crime, and everyone cries "lordy lordy, he was just leaving church and being a good citizen". He was, by every legal definition being criminally negligent to everyone on the road that night, and a mere 12 inches another way, we would see the cops funeral too. And the last point, one would have to be considerably ignorant to think that the cop has gotten off "scott free". Ever been in a major collision? I would bet my bottom dollar that he will be significantly affected mentally by this for life, and that is not a minor thing.

Clayton was speeding, no question ... but the U-turn was not done in safety.

This. The u-turn, legal or otherwise, played a prominent role in creating conditions for a collision. The speed of the motorcycle played the determining role in killing the rider.

You reopened the debate with your lengthy commentary a few posts back. The thread should be locked completely if you don't want debate on this. From your comments it seems that you are willing to accept comments that support Rivet, but are unwilling to afford any space to countering thought.

What is relevant is that there have been two separate investigation crews who unlike you were there in the immediate aftermath with professional experience, equipment and established investigative procedures. They have determined and specifically state that there was no criminal, driving or police conduct wrongdoing. Dumbed down that means no illegal u-turn.

Well said

The petition starts right off the bat with a now proven-faulty premise that Rivet was killed by an illegal u-turn and demanding that the cop be brought to court and held accountable for that. Without evidence that cannot happen and all the evidence available would be exculpatory in favour of the cop.

If the family is so dead set for what they call justice, let them go to a jp and lay private charges. Let them provide evidence enough to counter the two separate crash investigations.

 

[carboncat]

Hedo2002 -
Here's how it is....
Even doing 300kph in a 50 zone, you are never given the death Penalty. The rider was speeding and he should have been charged and payed the price like everyone else, Instead, he was killed.

 

[hedo2002]

Hedo2002 -
Here's how it is....
Even doing 300kph in a 50 zone, you are never given the death Penalty. The rider was speeding and he should have been charged and payed the price like everyone else, Instead, he was killed.

It is merely your "interpretation" that he was killed, unfortunately, that is not the conclusion of the professional investigators.

Again for those who don't like the outcome or the fact that some are not blinded by the "need for justice." I as well as at least one other (Griff2), who seemingly just joined the thread/discussion have advised the appropriate course of action. Go to a JP and lay a PRIVATE information, (Basically YOU lay the charge). Of course you will have to come up with an appropriate CRIMINAL charge as a HTA infraction isn't available via this route.

Brian: By all means forward my post to the powers that be. I have done NOTHING wrong other than post a differing opinion. I acknowledge GTAM is a PRIVATE entity, but in Canada I am still entitled to MY opinion. You have posted many times figures that could best be described as "speculation" that you feel support your point of view. Well those who know better, (the investigators, engineers don't rely on such foolish speculation they rely on the FACTS). They didn't need to "guess" the cruisers movements and speed they had HARD EVIDENCE, (the vehicle black box data).

Therefore, I see no reason the staff should have an issue with my comments, as I merely presented a differing opinion than what you and others hold, (which is supported by TWO independent investigations). If that is not permissible then so be it.

 

[Brian P]

The inflammatory and insulting nature of post 895 is the issue ... the issue is not that you have an opinion that differs from mine.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that AT MOST, the officer made a HTA infraction, unless there is something else going on that hasn't been made public. The magnitude of the resulting collision is a result of the rider's actions. Post 902 is accurate.

However, if there are inconsistencies, mathematical discrepancies, incorrect statements, or contradictions in the statements made by (what we have been told of) the SIU report ... I WILL point them out, and have done so.

 

[Blackfin]

wtf? Not sure if serious? Sarcasm detector broken?

:shrug: I don't know "hedo". When I look at some of the posts in this thread I don't know who's serious and who's not anymore. There are some pretty messed up things being written here by all sorts of people...

 

[hedo2002]

Again do as you please. If you were offended by post 895, that is your issue I see it as neither inflammatory, nor insulting. I merely pointed out what you and the rest of the "we need justice" gang have been trying to claim all along that the only fault lies with the officer and none with the rider.

I find it ironic that the officer is deemed at fault. One claim is he didn't look to see the bike, then the very next post he was obviously trying to block the bike by placing his cruiser in it's path, (that would be the same bike he never saw) NOW that is truly astonishing, that he could do both. But yet the rider who was traveling straight forward and by your admission from today would have had a few hundred meters of clear vision didn't manage to see the cruiser. So which is it? Was the rider simply going so fast and not paying attention, (which would seem to be the prudent thing to do at that speed), or does the officer possess super human sight that he could see the bike, when the bike appears not to have seen him.

As I have stated many times in this thread. It is tragic that someone lost their life. But the investigations have shown there is no prospect for a conviction. Therefore those with experience, equipment and the facts, have determined not to proceed to court. So feel free to tell us what makes your assumptions correct, and more valid than those of the professionals? You keep quoting time and distance figures, can we assume you have the education to validate these guesses???

As for issues with the SIU report have you been granted access to the complete report? And ALL information contained therein? The "bits" posted here by some members, are from recollection and without the benefit of an actual report. Third party recollections no matter how well intended are often by human nature tainted. Think of the game often played as kids where people relay info around a circle more often than not what the last person reports is VASTLY different than the actual story.

Having said that, I see you haven't replied to the insult hurled at myself as asked by another member has this roo been reported? Or because that member supports your theory they are expecting from staff scrutiny?

I will now leave it at that, as I stated you and the rest of the staff may review my posts and take action as you see fit. I remain confident of my position and stand behind each statement I have made.

The inflammatory and insulting nature of post 895 is the issue ... the issue is not that you have an opinion that differs from mine.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that AT MOST, the officer made a HTA infraction, unless there is something else going on that hasn't been made public. The magnitude of the resulting collision is a result of the rider's actions. Post 902 is accurate.

However, if there are inconsistencies, mathematical discrepancies, incorrect statements, or contradictions in the statements made by (what we have been told of) the SIU report ... I WILL point them out, and have done so.

 

[Paul]

The for and against opinions can go on forever. There is a ton of info here for people to make up their own minds and decide whether to sign the petition or not.

/end thread

Forum Sponsor