Windsor Hit & Run
- Thread starter iFly55
- Start date
Oh just soooo many things wrong in that video. If your bike can't outpace a caravan then you shouldn't be riding. He says van is 3' of his rear tire yet when he turns around it appears more like 6'. Then he decides to slow to a crawl in the left lane, and impede the flow of traffic, he is right the van could have moved over. BUT so could have he, but I guess he has a RIGHT to be in the left lane. Then he pulls in fornt of the van in a blocking position and ORDES botht the van and the pickup drivers to remain where they are??? Perhaps I missed his police uniform in the course of the video...lol Yes the van should have NEVER hit him, although technically they did have the right of way as he was on the road, when the van had a green light. Then he speeds along and is watching the van so intently that he crashes. Still not exacty what it was that caused that crash, but it certainly can not be attributed to the van.
So if he has , (as he indicates), submitted the video for "investigation", he may not like the results. First dispite the incorrect info above a helmet mounted camera is indeed illegal, (go look at the cases with convictions in the legal sub forum). Then there is the slowing to impede other road users, (which "could" also fall under s172). There is also the placing his vehicle in the "blocking position", (even if he did it wrong), could result in a careless charge. Then of course there is the whole losing control and crashing, (which would also likely result in a careless charge). This is a classic case of road rage from the rider. The van driver would be smart to use the defence he feared for his safety as the rider apporached him after attemting to block his vehicle in, based solely upon the riders actions during the first interaction when he was raging in the window at the driver.
It was his last ride as he was selling the bike. Let's hope he did indeed sell it and has the brains not to buy another bike. Forgetting all the things he did wrong while road raging, he failed to even get the van plate clearly on video.
So if he has , (as he indicates), submitted the video for "investigation", he may not like the results. First dispite the incorrect info above a helmet mounted camera is indeed illegal, (go look at the cases with convictions in the legal sub forum). Then there is the slowing to impede other road users, (which "could" also fall under s172). There is also the placing his vehicle in the "blocking position", (even if he did it wrong), could result in a careless charge. Then of course there is the whole losing control and crashing, (which would also likely result in a careless charge). This is a classic case of road rage from the rider. The van driver would be smart to use the defence he feared for his safety as the rider apporached him after attemting to block his vehicle in, based solely upon the riders actions during the first interaction when he was raging in the window at the driver.
It was his last ride as he was selling the bike. Let's hope he did indeed sell it and has the brains not to buy another bike. Forgetting all the things he did wrong while road raging, he failed to even get the van plate clearly on video.
@hedo2002 the comment said "not legal", as in "illegal". ?
Sent from a Samsung Galaxy far, far away using Tapatalk
The kind where you try to make yourself look like the victim, but forget to edit out all the crap you did..lol
Boots
Well-known member
Not event that, there's just so many continuity errors.
Edit: nvm didn't see the annotations since I watched it on my phone.
Boots
Well-known member
After reading the comments The guy said he was going to be making a left turn and he was going the speed limit. How far that turn was should be be an indicator of if he should have moved over or not. If the turn was closeby, that's on the driver. Guy's a psychopath. Regardless the police haven't charged him or said he did anything wrong except speed to catch up with him so still seems like that's 100% driver.
ashkan
Banned
Regardless of all your criticisms (valid or not), the minivan driver is the person who did the act of hit him from behind and thats that. He is the guilty party. Specially in the beginning. Even if the guy was donig 20kms, while thats a bi%$ move, the driver had no right legally to hit him. If that was the case, everyime i drive in the fast lane and some ******** is doing 90kms and refuses to move over, should i hit him? No its illegal lol
Now what happens after is a different story but even thenm the guy ran him over. The biker wasnt pounding on his car or trying to punch him. He wanted to call the cops which is what i would do. The rider made the wrong choice of blocking him but the driver made the huge mistake of running him over, He coulve killed him for blocking him,
Now what happens after is a different story but even thenm the guy ran him over. The biker wasnt pounding on his car or trying to punch him. He wanted to call the cops which is what i would do. The rider made the wrong choice of blocking him but the driver made the huge mistake of running him over, He coulve killed him for blocking him,
I never said in my post the van was "justified" in hitting the bike, (if in fact contact was made). It "appears" he has edited out any contact, at first I thought it was a "jerk" of the camera during contact, but when I slowed the video, as the video restarts he is in the middle of saying something, so there is no "jerk" but rather it is poor editing.
No your are 100% correct you can't hit a vehicle in front of you because they are driving too slow for your liking. However, at the end of the video when he is telling his side of the story he says, I turned around and told him to back off. "Then he gave me the finger so I SLOWED DOWN". Now he doesn't say how he "slowed down" and that part "appears" to be edited out of the video. If he "brake checked the van" then he committed an offence. ANY novice rider should know that brake checking or even slowing down in front of vehicle you feel is too close is not proper nor smart riding. If he felt the vehicle was so close as to present a danger then he should have either accelerated away or moved over and let the vehicle pass, and thereby remove the danger.
The van didn't "run over" the rider. If you look clearly, as the van approached the rider actually, again attempted to block his advancement, then tried to jump on the hood. Unfortunately the caravan has no hood to speak of, and the rider fell off to the side as the van. The rider had an option to move to his right and avoid the van. A citizen has no power to attempt to stop or block a vehicle on a roadway. Many members here criticize an officer for stepping in front of a car, on a road at a radar check, (even though they have the leag authority to do so.
The rider had stopped in the first instance and was VERY aggressive in his actions when he apporached the van. If we are looking at this purely from an insurance perspective, then yes the van will be assessed fault. As for charges the van driver still has a valid defence of fearng for his safety, (based upon the riders aggressive manner in the first encouter and then his continuing aggresive manner of trying to use his vehicle to block in the van. All the van driver has to do at trial is get a reaonable doubt, (one juror is all it takes for his lawyer to convince).
Recall the guy in the suv in New York he wasn't charged as he said he feared for his life when he initially took off, due to the aggressive actions of the riders. Eventually this was bourne out when they dragged him from his vehicle, and beat him severely. Personally I wouldn't have waited to see what the rider was going to do next, (given his previous aggresive actions).
The rider SHOULD have, (after the initial contact), was gotten the plate number of the van, then mve his bike off the road, (he already had the driver face on video), and call the police. by pursuing the van at high speed he strengthened the van drivers cas ethat he was in fear as ths guy had yelled and acted aggressive towards him, so he tried to remove himself from the situation and the rider chased him down and tried to block him in.
No your are 100% correct you can't hit a vehicle in front of you because they are driving too slow for your liking. However, at the end of the video when he is telling his side of the story he says, I turned around and told him to back off. "Then he gave me the finger so I SLOWED DOWN". Now he doesn't say how he "slowed down" and that part "appears" to be edited out of the video. If he "brake checked the van" then he committed an offence. ANY novice rider should know that brake checking or even slowing down in front of vehicle you feel is too close is not proper nor smart riding. If he felt the vehicle was so close as to present a danger then he should have either accelerated away or moved over and let the vehicle pass, and thereby remove the danger.
The van didn't "run over" the rider. If you look clearly, as the van approached the rider actually, again attempted to block his advancement, then tried to jump on the hood. Unfortunately the caravan has no hood to speak of, and the rider fell off to the side as the van. The rider had an option to move to his right and avoid the van. A citizen has no power to attempt to stop or block a vehicle on a roadway. Many members here criticize an officer for stepping in front of a car, on a road at a radar check, (even though they have the leag authority to do so.
The rider had stopped in the first instance and was VERY aggressive in his actions when he apporached the van. If we are looking at this purely from an insurance perspective, then yes the van will be assessed fault. As for charges the van driver still has a valid defence of fearng for his safety, (based upon the riders aggressive manner in the first encouter and then his continuing aggresive manner of trying to use his vehicle to block in the van. All the van driver has to do at trial is get a reaonable doubt, (one juror is all it takes for his lawyer to convince).
Recall the guy in the suv in New York he wasn't charged as he said he feared for his life when he initially took off, due to the aggressive actions of the riders. Eventually this was bourne out when they dragged him from his vehicle, and beat him severely. Personally I wouldn't have waited to see what the rider was going to do next, (given his previous aggresive actions).
The rider SHOULD have, (after the initial contact), was gotten the plate number of the van, then mve his bike off the road, (he already had the driver face on video), and call the police. by pursuing the van at high speed he strengthened the van drivers cas ethat he was in fear as ths guy had yelled and acted aggressive towards him, so he tried to remove himself from the situation and the rider chased him down and tried to block him in.
Last edited:
Both the bike rider and van driver carry fault here. But the van driver basically driving into the rider should constitute assault with a deadly weapon IMO.
At the first stop, the rider conversed pretty calmly with him and even called him "sir." He replied calmly asking about driving the speed limit. There were certainly no threats that the driver could use to defend a "I feared for my life" claim. The biker said he was calling the cops. At the very least, assuming contact occurred, the driver left the scene of an accident.
At the second incident the van driver, again, initiated the violence by accelerating into the rider. The biker didn't touch him or his vehicle. I didn't see him "jump" onto the hood. I saw the biker asking the guy in the next vehicle to stay as a witness; if someone is raging and a threat to others that's the last thing they're going to do.
After that, who knows? The editing is so suspicious. At the very least the cops have the bike rider for speeding (possibly 172 speeds...) as he sought to catch up and confront the van driver.
Is the video "evidence" admissible because helmet cams are "not legal"?
At the first stop, the rider conversed pretty calmly with him and even called him "sir." He replied calmly asking about driving the speed limit. There were certainly no threats that the driver could use to defend a "I feared for my life" claim. The biker said he was calling the cops. At the very least, assuming contact occurred, the driver left the scene of an accident.
At the second incident the van driver, again, initiated the violence by accelerating into the rider. The biker didn't touch him or his vehicle. I didn't see him "jump" onto the hood. I saw the biker asking the guy in the next vehicle to stay as a witness; if someone is raging and a threat to others that's the last thing they're going to do.
After that, who knows? The editing is so suspicious. At the very least the cops have the bike rider for speeding (possibly 172 speeds...) as he sought to catch up and confront the van driver.
Is the video "evidence" admissible because helmet cams are "not legal"?
ashkan
Banned
My comment wasnt directed at you Hedo.
I agree that he shouldve stopped, gotten the plate (specially since he had it all on camera) and then went straight to the cops.
He action irrationally for sure but between the 2 of them. Id say the Van driver was the one who initiaded the whole thing and then tool an extreme measure and risked killing him.
Either ways, he shoudnt have followd him. Specially the third time lol
Something similar happened to me (not as severe of course) and i got the plate and went straight to the police station. Sometime we forget that a bike is no match for a car so getting too aggressive will not bode well for the biker.
Both the bike rider and van driver carry fault here. But the van driver basically driving into the rider should constitute assault with a deadly weapon IMO.
At the first stop, the rider conversed pretty calmly with him and even called him "sir." He replied calmly asking about driving the speed limit. There were certainly no threats that the driver could use to defend a "I feared for my life" claim. The biker said he was calling the cops. At the very least, assuming contact occurred, the driver left the scene of an accident.
At the second incident the van driver, again, initiated the violence by accelerating into the rider. The biker didn't touch him or his vehicle. I didn't see him "jump" onto the hood. I saw the biker asking the guy in the next vehicle to stay as a witness; if someone is raging and a threat to others that's the last thing they're going to do.
After that, who knows? The editing is so suspicious. At the very least the cops have the bike rider for speeding (possibly 172 speeds...) as he sought to catch up and confront the van driver.
Is the video "evidence" admissible because helmet cams are "not legal"?
The "I feared for my safety" defence wouldn't be based upon the initial interaction, but rather that the rider, (as the van LEGALLY left, see the explanation further down in my response), "chased him down and attempted to block him in"
Actually he asked the pickup to stay not as a witness but because that vehicle was in a "blocking position" meaning the van couldn't leave that route. The rider then placed himself in the only other possible "escape route". Weather you or I feel the van driver would be justified in the "I felt threatened" defence, we weren't there and can't even begin to know what the van driver felt or thought. I said, if he were charged, all his lawyer need do is convince one of 12 that was the case, and that it was "reasonable" for him to feel that way.
I am not saying the van driver was right at any point, again as you said the "editing" seems pretty suspicious, But just before the rider "claims" the van was 3 feet behind his rear wheel, he, (the rider), turns around stop the video now look at the distance from the bike to the van then compare that with the telephone pole shadow. It would "appear" the van was a car length behind the bike, (which if it was a 60 km/h zone was admittedly still too close), and not 3'. When the rider says the driver "gave me the finger" that no doubt inflamed the rider, and he felt the "best way to show hm" was to slow down considerably, Again we don't know if he "brake checked" the van, because the video has been edited at that exact moment. Weather he brake checked or merely slowed down from engine braking, he at that point was playing chicken if you will and he lost the game.
Each time he approached the van he was in what could easily be described as an "aggitated state" and somewhat aggresive. He was certainly in a "I am in charge" frame of mind, ordering people to do what he felt they should do. It is ironic when videos show cops acting the same way, many say look at the idiot on a power trip, what an a hole, yet this rider is justified in doing the same thing, (except that he has no legal authority to do so?).
Again his best option would have been to record the plate, he had the drivers face on video, and let it be dealt with properly. He is very lucky the ONLY apparent injuries he suffered were when he was in a SINGLE vehcile collision, while again trying to chase down the van. There was apparently no damage to his vehicle, when he claimed the van "hit his tire". If indeed there was no damage to the bike, (normally wouldn't be from a tire bump), and no injuries then legally speaking there is no requirement for a report to be filed. This is directly from the Collision Reporting Centres FAQ page:
A. If no one is hurt and the damage is under $1000.00 the report is not required by law. It would be wise to have everything documented by an official of the government for future references just in case one party decides to change their mind. The answer is Yes.
The rest is merely "advisory", so as you can see the van driver was under NO obligation to remain as no report was required by law. Technically, there were no apparent injuries during the second interaction so again no "reportable collision" BUT the issue then becomes did it constitute an assault, (which is why the van SHOULD have remained at that point).
As for the video being admissable as evidence. That would have to be determined by a court, and a defence lawyer would certainly try to have it tossed, on several grounds, including authenticity, (given that the rider has admitted that it has been edited), a "good" defence attorney would suggest it can't be determined, (even if a "full copy" were turned over), that it also hadn't been edited prior. That the creator, (Rider), had "interests" in presenting an altered video, (which placed ther client in a "bad light"). The mere fact that it was recorded while the camera was mounted on a helmet is a moot point. The "helmet cam" itself is not illegal, having the camera mounted to a helmet has been ruled by the courts to render the helmet itself no longer "certified" as such it is then an illegal hemet
At the first stop, the rider conversed pretty calmly with him and even called him "sir." He replied calmly asking about driving the speed limit. There were certainly no threats that the driver could use to defend a "I feared for my life" claim. The biker said he was calling the cops. At the very least, assuming contact occurred, the driver left the scene of an accident.
At the second incident the van driver, again, initiated the violence by accelerating into the rider. The biker didn't touch him or his vehicle. I didn't see him "jump" onto the hood. I saw the biker asking the guy in the next vehicle to stay as a witness; if someone is raging and a threat to others that's the last thing they're going to do.
After that, who knows? The editing is so suspicious. At the very least the cops have the bike rider for speeding (possibly 172 speeds...) as he sought to catch up and confront the van driver.
Is the video "evidence" admissible because helmet cams are "not legal"?
The "I feared for my safety" defence wouldn't be based upon the initial interaction, but rather that the rider, (as the van LEGALLY left, see the explanation further down in my response), "chased him down and attempted to block him in"
Actually he asked the pickup to stay not as a witness but because that vehicle was in a "blocking position" meaning the van couldn't leave that route. The rider then placed himself in the only other possible "escape route". Weather you or I feel the van driver would be justified in the "I felt threatened" defence, we weren't there and can't even begin to know what the van driver felt or thought. I said, if he were charged, all his lawyer need do is convince one of 12 that was the case, and that it was "reasonable" for him to feel that way.
I am not saying the van driver was right at any point, again as you said the "editing" seems pretty suspicious, But just before the rider "claims" the van was 3 feet behind his rear wheel, he, (the rider), turns around stop the video now look at the distance from the bike to the van then compare that with the telephone pole shadow. It would "appear" the van was a car length behind the bike, (which if it was a 60 km/h zone was admittedly still too close), and not 3'. When the rider says the driver "gave me the finger" that no doubt inflamed the rider, and he felt the "best way to show hm" was to slow down considerably, Again we don't know if he "brake checked" the van, because the video has been edited at that exact moment. Weather he brake checked or merely slowed down from engine braking, he at that point was playing chicken if you will and he lost the game.
Each time he approached the van he was in what could easily be described as an "aggitated state" and somewhat aggresive. He was certainly in a "I am in charge" frame of mind, ordering people to do what he felt they should do. It is ironic when videos show cops acting the same way, many say look at the idiot on a power trip, what an a hole, yet this rider is justified in doing the same thing, (except that he has no legal authority to do so?).
Again his best option would have been to record the plate, he had the drivers face on video, and let it be dealt with properly. He is very lucky the ONLY apparent injuries he suffered were when he was in a SINGLE vehcile collision, while again trying to chase down the van. There was apparently no damage to his vehicle, when he claimed the van "hit his tire". If indeed there was no damage to the bike, (normally wouldn't be from a tire bump), and no injuries then legally speaking there is no requirement for a report to be filed. This is directly from the Collision Reporting Centres FAQ page:
A. If no one is hurt and the damage is under $1000.00 the report is not required by law. It would be wise to have everything documented by an official of the government for future references just in case one party decides to change their mind. The answer is Yes.
The rest is merely "advisory", so as you can see the van driver was under NO obligation to remain as no report was required by law. Technically, there were no apparent injuries during the second interaction so again no "reportable collision" BUT the issue then becomes did it constitute an assault, (which is why the van SHOULD have remained at that point).
As for the video being admissable as evidence. That would have to be determined by a court, and a defence lawyer would certainly try to have it tossed, on several grounds, including authenticity, (given that the rider has admitted that it has been edited), a "good" defence attorney would suggest it can't be determined, (even if a "full copy" were turned over), that it also hadn't been edited prior. That the creator, (Rider), had "interests" in presenting an altered video, (which placed ther client in a "bad light"). The mere fact that it was recorded while the camera was mounted on a helmet is a moot point. The "helmet cam" itself is not illegal, having the camera mounted to a helmet has been ruled by the courts to render the helmet itself no longer "certified" as such it is then an illegal hemet
Last edited:
