SIU investigation of motorcycle running from cops..

[hedo2002]

Forum Sponsor

So just to be clear. Is it your postion that if a rider makes the CHOICE to run weather it be from a speeding violation, (which by your reasoning is an automatic s172), or any other violation and the police BEGIN a pursuit, (which has yet to be determined if that is what happened in this case). It states the officer activated their lights, bike took off and crashed very quickly, (no mention if the officer was actually involved in a pursuit). Then it is automatically the police service which is at fault for conducting the prusuit, and the rider bears absolutely no responsibility for their decision and the impending outcome?

Also that simply because a person is riding a motorcycle, then they are completely immune for obeying any HTA laws including sppeding, (after all if you knew you would simply be permitted to ride on without penalty if you decided not to stop then why would any rider stop for an officer?

Be careful what you wish for as I can see a politician getting a single letter about this, and then enacting a new law which makes ANY infraction committed, on a bike, by a rider who fails to stop become an absolute liability infraction for the bike owner. I could also see insurers jumping on board that if your plate is recorded as the offending bike then the "conviction" is assigned to the bike owner and premium increases follow.

Not starting another argument, with you on this, just looking for clarification on the thought process that gets us to your previous statement.

I remember the good old days if you did something stupid like run from the police, and crashed and were killed your family took responsibility and accepted you were doing wrong and their first call wasn't to a lawyer to file a lawsuit. Part of the self entitled, the world owes me, and everyone else is to take responsibilty and I need to take none that now permeates our society.

This thread has been done over and over on this forum. Comparing a rider running to a drunk driver makes zero sense. The question remains, "is a speeding ticket worth killing someone?" The answer is a resounding NO! As a result of lawsuits, police services across North America are taking this attitude of "let em go, we'll get them another time," Including Toronto Police Services. If you think a speeding violation / ticket is worth the death of someone , then you will have much to answer for at the end of this, your life.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

So just to be clear. Is it your postion that if a rider makes the CHOICE to run weather it be from a speeding violation, (which by your reasoning is an automatic s172), or any other violation and the police BEGIN a pursuit, (which has yet to be determined if that is what happened in this case). It states the officer activated their lights, bike took off and crashed very quickly, (no mention if the officer was actually involved in a pursuit). Then it is automatically the police service which is at fault for conducting the prusuit, and the rider bears absolutely no responsibility for their decision and the impending outcome?

Also that simply because a person is riding a motorcycle, then they are completely immune for obeying any HTA laws including sppeding, (after all if you knew you would simply be permitted to ride on without penalty if you decided not to stop then why would any rider stop for an officer?

Be careful what you wish for as I can see a politician getting a single letter about this, and then enacting a new law which makes ANY infraction committed, on a bike, by a rider who fails to stop become an absolute liability infraction for the bike owner. I could also see insurers jumping on board that if your plate is recorded as the offending bike then the "conviction" is assigned to the bike owner and premium increases follow.

Not starting another argument, with you on this, just looking for clarification on the thought process that gets us to your previous statement.

I remember the good old days if you did something stupid like run from the police, and crashed and were killed your family took responsibility and accepted you were doing wrong and their first call wasn't to a lawyer to file a lawsuit. Part of the self entitled, the world owes me, and everyone else is to take responsibilty and I need to take none that now permeates our society.

It was always my understanding that only one person controlled the throttle.

 

[hedo2002]

It was always my understanding that only one person controlled the throttle.

That too was always my assumption but apparently by turning on the roof lights the officer now becomes 100% liable for what the rider chooses to do. But as some would have it, takes away the option of making a prudent and proper decision.

 

[PLau]

The original bikers were thugs.

What?
How?
When was this?

I didn't realize the people who started riding motorcycles built them with the intent of being a thug.

What is your definition of "The original bikers"?

 

[Brian P]

In the course of putting about 250 km on something that looks like a sport bike today, I saw 3 cop cars.

Nothing happened.

 

[Aranate]

This is certainly an aggravating topic(not the original one, but the one about speed limits). A few things come to mind about speed limits.

I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty certain, that when it comes to speed limits, the determination of what is a safe speed in any given area... ISN"T determined from them doing an extensive/thorough study on all the variables effecting what is safe IE how powerful cars are, the technology in cars, different types of road conditions, rider/driver ability, rider/driver training, rider/driver requirements for licencing... there is a huge amount of variables that will determine how fast someone can go safely on a road at any given moment/location... does anyone really think they have studied that and the speed limits we have today are a result?

THEY HAVN"T CHANGED THE LIMITS IN LIKE 60+ years! How much has changed since then? We used to have speed limits like the states, which btw are higher across the board. Back during the gas shortages in the 60's or whatever, they lowered the speed limits in attempt to help fuel usage... they never raised them back up after gas shortages stopped. So much has changed over the years, not only are cars safer, have more technology in them, rider/driver education is better, enforcement is stronger, roads are definitely better(not saying they are all good, but they are definitely better). The requirements for licences are much more stringent.

So why arn't speed limits being raised then? Because police make a huge chunk of their annual budgets from tickets, everyone is aware they have quota's.. if this isn't a conflict of interest I don't know what is. Truth is if they weren't able to get so much money from tickets every year they would be underfunded and have to get a bigger cut of the tax pie, this is why politicians work with them keeping the laws the way they are.. along with their and insurance lobbyists. I don't think the argument that if you raised speed limits nothing would change is valid. Sure you will always get people who will speed no matter what, just like some people go slow no matter what.

But if you raised speed limits to a point where people can get where they need to go as fast as possible safely then most people would be fine with that and wouldn't feel the need to go faster. Everyone is already going 15-20 over the limit anyways and their doing just fine. Its just my opinion but I'm quite certain if they did an exhaustive study on safety in relation to speed, they would find that most speed limits could probably be raised by minimum 40%. At Least on highways, residential area's might be ok. Most accurate way would be to do detailed study of each area, but that won't happen, they make the speed limits based on very rudimentary requirements.

One huge problem with the system, one for which I don't have any suggestions on how to fix it, is that the law's are made based on the weakest links. It would be very hard to make laws that account for the different skill levels of every driver, but the reality is everyone does have different skill levels, either naturally or from experience/learning effort. The laws have to be made for the people with the crappy skill levels in mind. It's not impossible to make laws that cater to different skill levels, but would be resource intensive and would be a huge can of worms for any politician. Pretty much won't happen, but that is the reality of the system. If you have any doubt about this, watch the show "canada's worse driver" are realize these people arn't 1 in 100,000 they are like 1 in 100.

Essentially when you get dinged for speeding in a 80 zone, your getting penalized because the worst drivers out there can't drive safely over 80 there, 60+ years ago. So your not allowed to either.

My 2cents only.

 

[il3dsm]

That too was always my assumption but apparently by turning on the roof lights the officer now becomes 100% liable for what the rider chooses to do. But as some would have it, takes away the option of making a prudent and proper decision.

It's true, one person controls the throttle.
It's also true that people have a fight or flight response. It's ingrained in us. The guy panicked and ran.

Assuming the rider made a thought out, calculated decision when the lights turned on is rather naive.
I've had a few encounters with cops (not necessarily motorcycling or driving) and when the lights go on the thought to run always flashes through my mind, even when I know I haven't done anything wrong. It's human nature.

 

[beverage]

I've had a few encounters with cops (not necessarily motorcycling or driving) and when the lights go on the thought to run always flashes through my mind, even when I know I haven't done anything wrong. It's human nature.

It's your nature (i.e. your personality, the type of person you are).

I've been lit up before, on more than one occasion, and running never crossed my mind. And I can admit I was guilty of speeding on all three occasions.

 

[DDean]

internet forums are the best for exposing self entitled people because they think think that their poorly thought-out, twisted rants justifying their nonsense actually means anything. I can see someone pointing to this thread while they're pulled over, that is if they don't run, as support for why the world should follow their magical rules.

get caught speeding or whatever, fight the ticket and if you're found guilty, take your lumps. No body cares about your silly arguments about how cars and roads have advanced so far but limits are still the same. You're correct, but you can't justify your traffic violations entirely within the Court between your ears.

Traffic violations are when you behave in a way outside of the posted rules. Simple. Work to change the posted rules if you dislike being governed by them, or move.

I'd like to see running from the cops a carte blanche card for police to stop the car/bike however they wish with no recourse. Self entitled people praying on vulnerabilities of the police, and others, make this world a significantly worse place than it could be.

People need to grow up and take responsibility for their actions

 

[Emefef]

internet forums are the best for exposing self entitled people because they think think that their poorly thought-out, twisted rants justifying their nonsense actually means anything. I can see someone pointing to this thread while they're pulled over, that is if they don't run, as support for why the world should follow their magical rules.

get caught speeding or whatever, fight the ticket and if you're found guilty, take your lumps. No body cares about your silly arguments about how cars and roads have advanced so far but limits are still the same. You're correct, but you can't justify your traffic violations entirely within the Court between your ears.

Traffic violations are when you behave in a way outside of the posted rules. Simple. Work to change the posted rules if you dislike being governed by them, or move.

I'd like to see running from the cops a carte blanche card for police to stop the car/bike however they wish with no recourse. Self entitled people praying on vulnerabilities of the police, and others, make this world a significantly worse place than it could be.

People need to grow up and take responsibility for their actions, and the direct and indirect consequences of their actions

Fixed that for you.

 

[griff2]

I'd like to see running from the cops a carte blanche card for police to stop the car/bike however they wish with no recourse. Self entitled people praying on vulnerabilities of the police, and others, make this world a significantly worse place than it could be.

People need to grow up and take responsibility for their actions

Exactly.

People here constantly decry the alleged nanny state that seeks to minimize hurt, then they flip the coin and seek to invoke even more nannyism to ensure that those who make a choice to flagrantly break the law don't get hurt when the police try to stop them. They want to keep their cake in hand and to eat it too. As far as I'm concerned, let them eat dirt.

 

[twinswin]

Exactly.

People here constantly decry the alleged nanny state that seeks to minimize hurt, then they flip the coin and seek to invoke even more nannyism to ensure that those who make a choice to flagrantly break the law don't get hurt when the police try to stop them. They want to keep their cake in hand and to eat it too. As far as I'm concerned, let them eat dirt.

That's all well and go until an innocent party or multiple innocent parties are killed or maimed by the actions of the police in a high speed chase.

The police need to take responsibility for escalating or even creating a very dangerous scenario through the choices of their policing actions/techniques. Sure, they should attempt to stop some individuals some times at all costs, but at what point do their actions become more dangerous than the actions of those being pursed? Why should innocent people's lives and well being be put at risk, over a minor traffic violation because some police officer decides to goes all "COPS" on some squid's butt?

 

[Emefef]

It's true, one person controls the throttle.
It's also true that people have a fight or flight response. It's ingrained in us. The guy panicked and ran.

Assuming the rider made a thought out, calculated decision when the lights turned on is rather naive.
I've had a few encounters with cops (not necessarily motorcycling or driving) and when the lights go on the thought to run always flashes through my mind, even when I know I haven't done anything wrong. It's human nature.

It's not human nature. It may be your nature, which appears to be shared by many, but it's a developed response, not an instinct. I've had many interactions with police. I have never once considered running. I believe that overall, our system works. I have absolutely no reason to run, nothing to gain by running, and everything to lose. Fight or flight? Seriously? There should be no "fight" in pulling over for police officer when you know you haven't done anything wrong; blaming it on human nature is simply an excuse for someone who makes a snap decision based on ingrained beliefs.

 

[griff2]

That's all well and go until an innocent party or multiple innocent parties are killed or maimed by the actions of the police in a high speed chase.

The police need to take responsibility for escalating or even creating a very dangerous scenario through the choices of their policing actions/techniques. Sure, they should attempt to stop some individuals some times at all costs, but at what point do their actions become more dangerous than the actions of those being pursed? Why should innocent people's lives and well being be put at risk, over a minor traffic violation because some police officer decides to goes all "COPS" on some squid's butt?

You are misplacing the responsibility for the act and the result. If innocents are killed as a result of a chase, it would be by the actions of the person who decided to run, and not by those who go after them.

The question you should ask is, why should a driver who has committed a traffic infraction big or small put innocent people's lives at risk because they decided they could out-run the cop who is trying to pull them over??

 

[hedo2002]

Ok so an officer flips on the visibar, and the bike accelerates. How does the officer know they are running simply because:

1. they don't want the speeding ticket, (or any minor violation);
2. they are riding dirty, (without insurance);
3. they have just commited a MAJOR crime, (armed robbery, murder etc);
4. they are just "testing their mad skillz"
5. they are armed on their way to commit an offence;

etc etc etc.

Unfortunately officers don't have ESP. I would venture if it was your family member who was injured or murdered by a susect and it was eventually revealed that an officer had lit them up on a bike but decided it was ok if they took off, and they carried out the crime. That the family would not be happy that the crime may have been prevented had the officer stopped the bike. That is why it is truly a no win for the officer involved.

Should an officer conduct a pursuit "at all costs" certainly not, But they also just can't state if a bike accelerates we won't attempt to stop them.

What if the officer initiates a pursuit and three blocks later calls it off and slows down shuts off the emergency equipment but the "fight or flight" of the rider remains intact, he flies down the road and 2 miles later hits a car and kills the driver is the officer still responsible??? Under the PSA, the officer would still be subjected to an SIU investigation, and all that entails.

If a rider/drivers FIRST response upon seeing an officers lights is to consider "should I run" then they need to reevaluate the events in their life that got them to that place as the vast majority of the population reaction is simply to pull over.

 

[油井緋色]

Reading some of these responses hurts my head. As with all human to human interaction, things are not black and white.

 

[il3dsm]

It's your nature (i.e. your personality, the type of person you are).

I've been lit up before, on more than one occasion, and running never crossed my mind. And I can admit I was guilty of speeding on all three occasions.

Personality - prefrontal cortex
Flight or fight - amygdala

Not even the same part of the brain.

People respond to stress differently. Some people just freeze up in one spot. Perhaps your response is just different. I know mine (and of many other people since it's programmed in) is to think about running off.
However for everyone one thing is the same: the INITIAL response is automatic and uncontrollable.

I'm not saying whether the officer or rider is right or wrong, nor am I claiming that I know all details. I'm just saying the instinct kicked in and the rider likely **** his pants and took off without much thinking. So saying "oh, he just CHOSE to run" is silly.

You can bring all the personal anecdotes and what-ifs you want into this but I'm just stating fact.

Edit: Not to mention, (not in this case but in general) any cop who got the plate but still decided to chase the bike needs to sit around at a desk job for a while.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

That's all well and go until an innocent party or multiple innocent parties are killed or maimed by the actions of the police in a high speed chase.

The police need to take responsibility for escalating or even creating a very dangerous scenario through the choices of their policing actions/techniques. Sure, they should attempt to stop some individuals some times at all costs, but at what point do their actions become more dangerous than the actions of those being pursed? Why should innocent people's lives and well being be put at risk, over a minor traffic violation because some police officer decides to goes all "COPS" on some squid's butt?

Many American States have a way to handle that. It's called "felony murder statutes." If you commit a 'felony' (what we would call a Criminal Code violation) that falls within well defined lines, and someone dies as a result, then you have committed "felony murder." Generally speaking one of the crimes that falls within the guidelines is that of evading police.

To spell it out in plain terms if you commit an act that could foreseeably result in a death, and someone does in fact die, you killed him. That includes if it was the police car that was chasing you, that had the crash.

 

[Emefef]

Personality - prefrontal cortex
Flight or fight - amygdala

Not even the same part of the brain.

People respond to stress differently. Some people just freeze up in one spot. Perhaps your response is just different. I know mine (and of many other people since it's programmed in) is to think about running off.
However for everyone one thing is the same: the INITIAL response is automatic and uncontrollable.

I'm not saying whether the officer or rider is right or wrong, nor am I claiming that I know all details. I'm just saying the instinct kicked in and the rider likely **** his pants and took off without much thinking. So saying "oh, he just CHOSE to run" is silly.

You can bring all the personal anecdotes and what-ifs you want into this but I'm just stating fact.

Edit: Not to mention, (not in this case but in general) any cop who got the plate but still decided to chase the bike needs to sit around at a desk job for a while.

Doesn't matter whether people respond differently, or what part of the brain triggers the response. I would suggest that it takes a certain type of Personality to react the wrong way to a fight or flight reflex in this context. If your instinct, reaction, or response is to run, don't blame it on nature. The "fact" you are stating is from your personal perspective, or a personal anecdote or "what-if". Here's a fact that I reasonably certain is accurate: Regardless of any thought that may cross their minds, more people pull over than run. Since it's likely that the vast majority of people living in our society will pull over, not run, most people probably don't even consider running. Posters here have already said it never occurred to them to run in any encounter - because there is no perception of danger. It's not fight or flight - it's a simple process in a civilized society.

 

[hedo2002]

Personality - prefrontal cortex
Flight or fight - amygdala

Not even the same part of the brain.

People respond to stress differently. Some people just freeze up in one spot. Perhaps your response is just different. I know mine (and of many other people since it's programmed in) is to think about running off.
However for everyone one thing is the same: the INITIAL response is automatic and uncontrollable.

I'm not saying whether the officer or rider is right or wrong, nor am I claiming that I know all details. I'm just saying the instinct kicked in and the rider likely **** his pants and took off without much thinking. So saying "oh, he just CHOSE to run" is silly.

You can bring all the personal anecdotes and what-ifs you want into this but I'm just stating fact.

Edit: Not to mention, (not in this case but in general) any cop who got the plate but still decided to chase the bike needs to sit around at a desk job for a while.

Ok so let's look at the default setting here at GTAM to posts like this. Cops showed up at my door saying that my plate was recorded as being involved in X, Y, or Z...what should I do. GTAM reply SAY NOTHING, if you had your helmet on, they can't id who was riding the bike, your a free man/woman.. So explain to us how "getting the plate" is sufficent? If the officer can't identify the rider? Not sure about yours but my helmet isn't see through. So putting the copper at a desk because he was doing his/her job, would be not possible.

Might I suggest, that you gain some real world experience. I can tell you, not all pursuits are justified, nor have I said officers should pursue at each opportunity. That is part of the job to make split second decisions, but officers are still human and just like you and I at times they may make what in hindsight may appear to be have been the wrong decision. I can also tell you from personal experience that when involved in a high stress pursuit, (not all pursuits are the same), it can become quite possible for the officer to develop "tunnel vision" in that apprehending the offender becomes the only option. But those types of pursuits, (at least in my experience), are very very rare.

Weather you "think" the first response is to run is merely ancedotal at best. The VAST VAST majority of people when confronted with a set of lights stop. Their default setting is not to run, therefore, it is NOT a "programmed response" Fight or flight response in humans, is built in, to kick in, when presented to EXTREME potential danger. Seeing lights on a car roof hardly qualifies as EXTREME potential danger. If the fight or flight response was a progammed response then it wouldn't be "programmed in" to some but not others it would be "programmed in" to everyone. Therefore, logic dictates if only a small percentage react in this manner then it is something, within that particular person(ality), not an automatic triggered response mechanism.

Even if one were to concede the fight or flight was programmed in, then surely on a protracted pursuit the rider should be able to override this response with the stronger and certainly programmed in "survival mode". Then the rider "should" be able to make the reasoned argument that stopping is the best possible course. Many choose not to stop because then they don't wnat to face the consequences of their CHOICE.

To state that a person initial response is automatic and uncontrollable is ludicrous. We as humans are face daily with hundreds, if not thousands, of "initial reactions" yet we seem to be able to control our response to the "appropriate response". To say that, seeing an officers lights, somehow overrides what we instinctually do hundreds of times daily is not possible. But please feel free to post any studies that have been completed, that state your position is supported by facts, and not ancedotal.

Forum Sponsor