Okay,
I'm not addressing the first part dr physics. I stand by my point and I'm not remaking it for the third time.
Well, your point is wrong. We all have our own opinions, but opinions don't change fact. Fact is everyone is taught the same thing; look, signal, look, change. Situations like this are the reason that is important enough to warrant being taught to new drivers. If you look and see a headlight at least 400 feet behind you, and one second later when you look again that same headlight is now 200 feet behind, you can be pretty certain that in another second, whatever that headlight is attached to is going to be right next to you. THAT is the reason we are taught to look twice. You can choose to not address it, you can ignore it and call me "dr. physics"; but fact is fact
As for your theory about fault, you need to be more specific. Are you talking about the Ontario fault determination rules as set out by the Ontario insurance act? You used an example where you are the rider. So...based on Ontario FDRs the rider is 100% at fault had there been an accident as he rear ended a vehicle established in a lane.
Nobody has brought up Ontario's FDR; mostly we're shooting the breeze about a video and I took fault to mean our opinion of fault. If you want to bring law into though, we can do that. This is not a simple case of one vehicle rear ending another vehicle in an established lane. This is a case where an accident was (nearly) caused by a vehicle overtaking another; luckily for us, the Ontario HTA has something very specific in it about just these circumstances:
Passing vehicle going in same direction
( No person in charge of a vehicle shall pass or attempt to pass another vehicle going in the same direction on a highway unless the roadway,
(a) in front of and to the left of the vehicle to be passed is safely free from approaching traffic; and
(b) to the left of the vehicle passing or attempting to pass is safely free from overtaking traffic. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (.
Obviously, as we can see from the video, the roadway to the left of the vehicle being passed was NOT free of approaching traffic; So, yes, according to Ontario law, the vehicle overtaking was breaking the law and probably at legal "fault" while simultaneously being an enormous *********.
No to address your example directly....that's completely apples and oranges and has no bearing on this conversation.
Actually, no. My example is a perfect analogy. In the video and in my example, the bikes are both breaking the law in their actions. Both in the video (nearly) and in my example the accident would have been cause by the illegal actions of those driving the car. Yes, the bikes were also violating the law, but in no way the the bike's actions
cause the hypothetical incidents we're discussing.
But yes....breaking the law can affect fault in an accident.
Yeah, well I can't argue with you on that one. Doesn't mean that it's right though. Either way, I stand by my opinion that although the biker is an idiot with mad braking skills, the real ********* in that video is the driver of the car.
