Where is the Media afterwards?

[ricplayer]

With the amount of cagers i see EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. on their phones rather than looking at the road and traffic they're in, stiffer penalties for not paying attention are needed.
It's not about me the motorcyclists, it's about ALL THE OTHER ROAD USERS. They create traffic, they create accidents which create more traffic, they create very sketchy circumstances. Getting a driver's license should not also come with a license to kill. There should be penalties attached to that. Yes, sure, the motorcyclist has to do everything to not get hit. But equally, the driver who has a vehicle with the power to kill should take all the possible measures to make sure they don't end up doing so. Putting a text message before a life is unjustifiably selfish.

This goes for motorcyclists as well. I’ve seen a huge amount of irresponsible riders this summer. Sure they aren’t texting, but they are speeding, weaving, splitting, filtering etc etc. Just because a bike gets hit, doesn’t make it the cars fault.

It goes both ways.

 

[MRR11.6]

I lean towards civil penalties if possible. The jails are full of people I dont want wandering around. If you can seize all of their worldly assets (or at least a solid percentage like 25%+) people will take notice.

Agreed. Killing someone in by committing a traffic offence should hurt more than committing a traffic offence and not even getting caught.
Let the court decide the measure of liability based on the driving evidence for all involved parties. Maybe the left turner should have very little if any liability due to the speed of the biker, or maybe they should be penniless for life if the evidence shows they were yapping away on their cell when the collision occurred.

 

[happycrappy]

Writing in reply to Madmike in another fallen rider thread - there were remarks made pointing to the volume of left-turning vehicles in many of these motorcycle collisions. I don't disagree that more awareness for drivers has merit, but I do have to ask if the riding habits of motorcyclists shouldn't also have a relevant awareness brought to them. Not victim blaming here at all, this is about self-preservation. Lane position, speed, scanning the intersection ahead of time, etc. Particularly in the city, the level of carnage in many instances suggests that while the left turning vehicle is at fault, the rider has added quite a bit to the equation with the speed. Just an observation

 

[MRR11.6]

Nobody has ever attempted to fail to yield to my 1 ton when they are turning left. They would get bashed into next week and they know it. Same attitude applies to bikes, single headlight, i think I got time, if not, meh....

 

[Baggsy]

Perhaps you could expand a little on this thought?

I simply gave my opinion of your statement.
It would be nice if you would expand on your original idea, and how your thinking went as you came, step by step, to the final conclusion. Also, I'd like to know what potential problems you saw within it, and how your thesis would solve those problems. I didn't see any of the above within what you said, and perhaps jumped to the conclusion that you hadn't thought things through. It could be that you had, but didn't put them down in writing, so I may, in the future, owe you an apology.

 

[LePhillou]

This goes for motorcyclists as well. I’ve seen a huge amount of irresponsible riders this summer. Sure they aren’t texting, but they are speeding, weaving, splitting, filtering etc etc. Just because a bike gets hit, doesn’t make it the cars fault.

It goes both ways.

Oh, definitely and totally agree. I see them daily. True, some people might save 5-10 minutes splitting in dense traffic on the gardiner. But how many times have i caught up with a splitter, only to pass him a few minutes later? Way too many times. The risk isn't worth the reward in most cases.

Not to say i wouldn't love to do it if it were legal and drivers were trained and cellphoneless.

 

[Mad Mike]

I simply gave my opinion of your statement.
It would be nice if you would expand on your original idea, and how your thinking went as you came, step by step, to the final conclusion. Also, I'd like to know what potential problems you saw within it, and how your thesis would solve those problems. I didn't see any of the above within what you said, and perhaps jumped to the conclusion that you hadn't thought things through. It could be that you had, but didn't put them down in writing, so I may, in the future, owe you an apology.

Well, it kinda worked like this. I've see a steady beat of left turn injuries and deaths in the news, most repeated here.

My thought was simple. Media gets the benefits of selling papers and collecting eyeballs off sensational news -- I get it. I only wish they would followup a little, let the world know what happens to lawbreakers and victims -- a little more journalistic work could go a long way to raising awareness that left turns require serious concentration from both drivers and riders.

My thoughts were no more sinister than that.

 

[mimico_polak]

I'd like there to be a follow up also but unfortunately there's not, as there's no clicks/likes in that. It's not sensationalized....

I'd actually prefer that they identify "Mr. XXX XXXXX was found guilty/not guilty of this and that and will pay for their crimes through....'

Some organizations (PEO for instance) identifies their offenders and it's almost like a public shaming. Same goes for OMVIC with curb siders and whoever messes around a little too much with the rules.

But won't happen because 'privacy'. I mean ****...you kill someone by being a dumbass...f%@# you.

 

[raginduck]

I'd like there to be a follow up also but unfortunately there's not, as there's no clicks/likes in that. It's not sensationalized....

I'd actually prefer that they identify "Mr. XXX XXXXX was found guilty/not guilty of this and that and will pay for their crimes through....'

Some organizations (PEO for instance) identifies their offenders and it's almost like a public shaming. Same goes for OMVIC with curb siders and whoever messes around a little too much with the rules.

But won't happen because 'privacy'. I mean ****...you kill someone by being a dumbass...f%@# you.

In most cases.. privacy laws wouldn't be an issue. Unless there is some sort of publication ban or the offender is a youth.. court cases are public information.
The problem is... interest. if the public was actually interested in following these cases.. then reporters would be all over them... But lets face it.. Other than the people that knew the victim and/or offender.. and a very few others... no one really cares.

 

[mimico_polak]

In most cases.. privacy laws wouldn't be an issue. Unless there is some sort of publication ban or the offender is a youth.. court cases are public information.
The problem is... interest. if the public was actually interested in following these cases.. then reporters would be all over them... But lets face it.. Other than the people that knew the victim and/or offender.. and a very few others... no one really cares.

Unfortunately you are right. And I agree with it to a point, even though it sucks for those affected.

 

[Blackfin]

If it goes through the courts then there is a public record of it.

That's where social media can take over if the "mainstream media" won't. Post information to reddit, share a few times on Facetagram or Instabook or whatever; encourage bikers you know to share and get the names and faces of the guilty out there.

 

[raginduck]

Canadian Legal Information Institute | CanLII

You can search here if you have some details.. name, etc...

 

[hedo2002]

While, I agree, there has been a number of collisions involving Left turners, and bikes. I have seen at least 4 left turn collisions involving 2 cages. It would be interesting to see the actual stats, on veh vs veh as opposed to veh vs motorcycle. We won't see an article in the media about a veh vs veh, unless there are circumstances warranting the coverage, (someone is killed, a child is injured etc etc)

I, don't believe the penalties for a cager should be higher, simply because the collision, involves a bike. I see people clambering for higher penalties, but why should as another poster, stated be punished because of OUR choice of vehicle, (now I am talking all things being equal), certainly if the collision involves a death, then the law already permits for higher penalties. If the court CHOOSES not to impose a higher penalty, then that is failing of the court, not the police, not politicians.

Using another logical, example, should a cager, face a higher penalty, if during a veh vs veh left turn, the other person is a very tiny woman, whose seat is MUCH closer to the wheel than the average person, as a result of her seat position she suffers, more severe injuries. How is that then attributed to cager, making the left turn. That person didn't place the other person in a position, (within her veh), to cause her more serious harm, than had he hit a 6' tall driver?

If the, ONLY infraction the left turner contravenes, is an unsafe left turn and the law only allows for a fine of $85, then regardless, of the outcome, for the other road user, the fine should remain the same. Generally insurers, have it pretty close when their FDR determine the level of fault. With a left turn collision both drivers are assessed at 50%. The insurers reasoning is yes the other driver did something stupid, (turned left when it was unsafe), but they also state that the other driver SHOULD be operating their vehicle in a manner, which would permit them to avoid the collision. We have all seen the post collision photos where the bike impacts the rear quarter panel. To me this indictates that the cage was well into their turn, was the bike travelling at a rate of speed that didn't permit them to stop? Was the rider also distracted, and didn't see the cage begin it's turn? etc etc

As riders we have to take responsibility for our own self preservation and not leave it in the hands of others

 

[GreyGhost]

Given the deplorable state of driving in Onterrible, the best solution is probably to ban left turns across multiple lanes unless you are at a controlled intersection (stop signs or lights). That doesn't eliminate all of these collisions, but does eliminate almost all of the ones into plazas. You've instantly reduced the collisions by ~50% (or at least you can give them a much more substantial fine than $85). With any oncoming traffic it is very hard to make this turn safely even if you are trying to.

 

[Mad Mike]

While, I agree, there has been a number of collisions involving Left turners, and bikes. I have seen at least 4 left turn collisions involving 2 cages. It would be interesting to see the actual stats, on veh vs veh as opposed to veh vs motorcycle. We won't see an article in the media about a veh vs veh, unless there are circumstances warranting the coverage, (someone is killed, a child is injured etc etc)

I, don't believe the penalties for a cager should be higher, simply because the collision, involves a bike. I see people clambering for higher penalties, but why should as another poster, stated be punished because of OUR choice of vehicle, (now I am talking all things being equal), certainly if the collision involves a death, then the law already permits for higher penalties. If the court CHOOSES not to impose a higher penalty, then that is failing of the court, not the police, not politicians.

Using another logical, example, should a cager, face a higher penalty, if during a veh vs veh left turn, the other person is a very tiny woman, whose seat is MUCH closer to the wheel than the average person, as a result of her seat position she suffers, more severe injuries. How is that then attributed to cager, making the left turn. That person didn't place the other person in a position, (within her veh), to cause her more serious harm, than had he hit a 6' tall driver?

If the, ONLY infraction the left turner contravenes, is an unsafe left turn and the law only allows for a fine of $85, then regardless, of the outcome, for the other road user, the fine should remain the same. Generally insurers, have it pretty close when their FDR determine the level of fault. With a left turn collision both drivers are assessed at 50%. The insurers reasoning is yes the other driver did something stupid, (turned left when it was unsafe), but they also state that the other driver SHOULD be operating their vehicle in a manner, which would permit them to avoid the collision. We have all seen the post collision photos where the bike impacts the rear quarter panel. To me this indictates that the cage was well into their turn, was the bike travelling at a rate of speed that didn't permit them to stop? Was the rider also distracted, and didn't see the cage begin it's turn? etc etc

As riders we have to take responsibility for our own self preservation and not leave it in the hands of others

In Ontario, all Ontario car insurance companies must abide by FDR set out in the insurance act. FDR puts the left turner at 100% fault. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668, s. 12 (5).

With respect to stiffer penalties, left turn collisions are typically severe whether bike or caged and the penalty relatively minor. You haven't made a case for the charge and penalty to be more severe based on the outcome -- it works that way for a lot of violations.

Lets look at an example where an at fault driver makes an illegal left turn. First situation he collides with an oncoming dumptruck, in the other he hits a pedestrian crossing the street. I have trouble with the notion an at fault driver faces the same charge for running into a dump truck and running over a person. One is vulnerable road user, one is not -- is it the pedestrian's fault for not wearing a dump truck when she crosses the street?

I do agree that motorcyclists need to take care of their own safety as much as possible. I also agree that motorcycling is inherently dangerous. I also believe when we drive cars, we sign accept some responsibility for safe operation on roads we share with vulnerable users.

Escalating fines won't solve the problem, but larger fines and substantial consequences might save a few lives and provide enough of a lesson that bad decisions are not repeated by careless drivers..

 

[Evoex]

Seems to me like a more 'appropriate charge' needs to be laid, not just unsafe left turn or what not, but negligence causing harm/death or dangerous driving. (yes i know DD is inherently more difficult to prove).

Someone died. They didn't bump their head on the steering wheel, or have a limb broken from impact, they died. Penalties for all vehicles should be weighed against the result.

 

[GreyGhost]

Seems to me like a more 'appropriate charge' needs to be laid, not just unsafe left turn or what not, but negligence causing harm/death or dangerous driving. (yes i know DD is inherently more difficult to prove).

Someone died. They didn't bump their head on the steering wheel, or have a limb broken from impact, they died. Penalties for all vehicles should be weighed against the result.

Based on the threshold set by our esteemed justice system where a U-turn in front of a no u-turn sign on a multi-lane road at a blind corner that results in death is not dangerous driving, that charge is not worth the paper used to write it up.

 

[nobbie48]

Escalating fines won't solve the problem, but larger fines and substantial consequences might save a few lives and provide enough of a lesson that bad decisions are not repeated by careless drivers..

We tend to think of cell phones when we say distracted driving. I wonder how many collisions would take place if all drivers concentrated on just driving. No thinking about what we're going to order when we get to the restaurant. No thinking about the item on sale. No thinking about anything except checking our safety zones and conflicting traffic. No radio. No fun.

Short of the occasional psychopath no one plans to have a crash so punishment isn't much of a deterrent.

 

[raginduck]

Seems to me like a more 'appropriate charge' needs to be laid, not just unsafe left turn or what not, but negligence causing harm/death or dangerous driving. (yes i know DD is inherently more difficult to prove).

Someone died. They didn't bump their head on the steering wheel, or have a limb broken from impact, they died. Penalties for all vehicles should be weighed against the result.

You can't penalize someone because of your choice of vehicles. It was your choice to ride a bike instead of driving the safest vehicle possible.
How many serious injuries or fatal collisions would have been nothing more than fender benders... if both parties were driving 5 star rated cages?

 

[GreyGhost]

You can't penalize someone because of your choice of vehicles. It was your choice to ride a bike instead of driving the safest vehicle possible.
How many serious injuries or fatal collisions would have been nothing more than fender benders... if both parties were driving 5 star rated cages?

I think the simple solution is either to eliminate or raise the $85 charge by an order of magnitude or only use it in minor incidents (say damage below $1000, no medical attention reqd). If you cause a serious crash, you get a serious charge.