Rep Power: 728

nobody is "blaming" the "victims"....
the fact is, the "victims" put themselves in the path of oncoming traffic. the traffic was moving faster than it should have been, but they still turned.
speed was only a factor in their death, not in the crash... there is a distinction.
speed does not cause crashes... losing control, not paying attention etc... cause crashes.. speed only makes the results worse.
it is everyones responsibility to be aware of ALL traffic around them and adjust their driving accordingly... if you drive "normally" and ASSUME that everyone else is.. then you are just setting yourself up for a crash, because we all know that not everyone follows the legal rules of the road.
simply paying attention will keep you alive in almost all cases! in this case the proper attention was not paid, and they lost their lives as a result.

this does not in any way take away from the fact the 2 cars were driving quickly (maybe "racing", maybe not... ive travelled at very high speeds for extended periods with other cars.. but wasnt racing...then again it was on hwy's...) and they are definately idiots and deserve the charges they are facing. but there has to be some recognized accountability for those that actually caused the crash to happen.. and unfortunately that wasnt the civic driver who was in control of his vehicle at the time of the crash.

 
Rep Power: 723

The civic driver wasn't the one that caused the crash? He's a ****ing ****. Just some little ****** that doesn't know what the brake pedal is meant for. Plain and simple...He shouldn't have been on the road if he didn't know how to drive with some level of competence.

 
Rep Power: 675

I don't know if this point was raised or not... but does anyone seem to have a problem with which the way police are handling the situation? I mean, within a little over an hour, York Regional Police had a representative making comments asserting that the incident was caused by street racing. As noted on a few other boards, these comments come across as rather alarming in that they were made before any evidence was processed. At that short time following the accident, the facts were as follows:

1. MVA involved a red Honda Civic that appeared modified with the license plate "REDROCIT". It was driven by a young male who was injured as a result of the accident.

2. The second vehicle involved was a Hyundai that was apparently making a left-hand turn, to eastbound Stouffville Road. It's occupants (the Manchesters) were killed as a result of the accident.

3. The Manchesters were returning home following a celebratory evening for their 17th wedding anniversary. (notice what I italicized here).

4. A third vehicle, also a modified Honda stopped and remained at the scene following the collision. It too was driven by a young male.

5. Apparently witnesses came forward who claimed that they had seen the two hondas travelling at a high rate of speed prior to the collision.

Okay. So now what? Well. From the 'facts' it seems that the investigating officers were able to determine that it was street-racing that caused the accident based on the 'speeding, modified Hondas driven by young males'. But wait? Can we determine guilt merely from circumstantial evidence when other questions have yet to be answered?

Well, as 6MSentra explained, witnesses in this case are NOT considered experts. They were more than likely estimating the speed based on the sound of the vehicles, and I figure it to be 30-50 km/h too high of an estimate. It just doesn't make sense.....

What does make sense (and is really alarming) is that the investigation is proceeding with the assumption that the witnesses ARE experts, and that the gathering of evidence was being done with Street Racing as the primary focus. I'm curious to know whether or not blood alcohol content was taken from the deceased.... Why? As I so keenly highlighted above, the couple was returning home from their wedding anniversary celebration. I don't know about you guys, but I know my parents enjoy a glass or two of wine when THEY celebrate their wedding anniversary, and they rarely (if ever) drink any other time.... Has anyone ever considered that the speed of the civics (let's say 100-110 km/h) combined with possible impairment (not talking about the legal definition of impairment which is 0.08% BAC, we're talking ACTUAL impairment that is dependant on the individual) combined to cause this incident and thanks to police bias against young males driving modified cars, there is no reason to warrant an investigation into this possibility....?

But wait. There's more. As of monday, there's a publication ban in regards to the case. What's this about? Could it be that comments were made in haste? Well, some might say so because as of the time I'm writing this, I have yet to hear of any charges being laid against Ruben (the driver of REDROCIT), though he has been notified of the 'situation'..... Why the delay? They've laid charges against people in hospital care before.....

 
Rep Power: 686

He was speeding.

Just like how you were speeding in new jersey and didn't even slow down for the officer.

Everyone speeds, how does that make him have no competence?

 
Rep Power: 723

1. I don't think I know you...
2. I was going 20mph over, nothing ridiculous...and it was on an interestate at 3AM. Not a soul on the road...And no opportunity for someone to make a left in front of me
3. Everyone speeds, yes. Does everyone know how to use the brake pedal? Apparently not. Either way, the civic owner is at fault in my opinion...

 
Rep Power: 807

good read and a ton of valid points.. :thumbsup:

 
Rep Power: 716

I also notice that you cast this innuendo about without a shred of backing evidence. Not everybody drinks. Not everybody drinks when they go out to celebrate - celebration can simply be a nice meal and dancing. Those who do choose to go out and drink may choose to do so moderately and remain well within the legal BAC limit. Not everybody binge drinks like it was some frat bar.


Those witnesses were in cars travelling at or slightly above the speed limit who were passed by the two racers "like they were standing still". You don't need to be an "expert witness" or a rocket scientist, not even a red one, to figure that their speeds are significantly above the legal limit when that occurs.


Sure you can. "Other questiosn yet to be answered" do not negate the real fact that witnesses observed the two idiots playing red-rocket-man in their cars on a travelled highway. From the speeds involved and the proximity of the cars, it is fair to suspect that they were street racing, hence the phrasing "alleged street race". In any case, they were not charged with street racing. The charges were first dangerous driving causing death, and now criminal negligence causing death. You don't have to be proven to be racing to be so charged. Simply driving at grossly excessive speeds is enough for that, and they have the people who were passed on the highway by these two clowns to substantiate that negligence.

There may well be other circumstances involved. Let's for argument's sake say that the Hyundai driver was impaired (mandatory autopsy results will prove or disprove that). Even if the couple was impaired to the point of complete stupour, the two idiots are still criminally negligent for driving in the manner that they did. But for their grossly excessive speed, any collision that may have occurred regardless of cause may well have been survivable. But for their speed, they may have been able to avoid a collision completely.


Now you're making things up, especially when witnesses include people in cars doing around 100 who were "passed like they were standing still" by the two morons, your friend Ruben included. Any "bias" being shown here is not based on "young males", but on criminal stupidity on the part of those two young males.


The publication ban is in place until he is formally charged. Be patient. All good things come in good time to those who wait.

 
Rep Power: 706

LMAO....

 
Rep Power: 716

Did you see the hyundai that richmond hill couple was driving. It was on its side and was bent in half . A honda civic doesnt do that kinda damage traveling at 80km/hr thank you

 
Rep Power: 762

man you need to go to more 4 cly demo dirbys i have seen cars get put on there side in a 100 x 60 foot ring....top speed being 50km/h if that

 
Rep Power: 716

And bent in half after being hit at 50 kmph by a Civic? And knocked over a hundred meters away from the point of impact at 50 kmph by a Civic? Sure thing.

You do know what accident reconstruction specialist are able to do, right? All those measurements, photos, crash damage analysis, computer simulations etc can peg down speeds pretty closely these days.

 
Rep Power: 762

bent yes....over 100's of feet it no....cause then it would have rolled many times landing on side ...HE said it was bent and on its side...he did not say it rolled many times then landed on its side

 
Rep Power: 716

Not necessarily. Cars can easily roll on their side and then slide with no further roll-overs. Cars can also go on their side after "tripping" over an obstacle like a curb. It all depends on the oritentaion of the car when it goes over and the direction of slide/roll-over relative to the long dimension of the car.


Nor did he say it did not.

It's kind of funny - I've seen several roll-overs at the track in my time, both gentle last-few-feet lay-overs, and violent side-over-side and end-over-end mutiple flips. Seen them in person and later reviewing the tapes. Even well-trained and very experienced race officials observing such incidents never seem to get the count right.

 
Rep Power: 675

No, but there is a possibility that at the time the statements and assertations made by Sgt. Mitchell, there was no evidence to suggest that there WAS no alcohol involved. It's a balance of probability....

Dangerous Driving causing Death and Criminal Negligence causing Death are Criminal Code charges. I don't need to be pointing this out. As of this time, 'racing' is considered a Highway Traffic Act violation, a mere provincial offence. It goes without saying that they're going to pursue the more severe punishment for the incident. However, I still question the validity of witness remarks since like you said, there's a lot of questions still to be answered. How fast were the cars travelling at the speed of impact? How long after the witnesses observed the Hondas did the accident occur? What were the circumstances of the witness observations?

Again, based on speculation. The investigation will deciphor how fast the civics were allegedly travelling.... and in this instance it's a shame that the Honda's weren't newer GM or Ford products with the 'black box' integrated into the air bag controller because accident reconstruction just gives you a ballpark figure. However, I think you're missing my point as to removing the 'racing' quotient from the cause. A car speeding. That's one thing. Everyone speeds. Some people speed excessively. It is illegal and SHOULD be punishable severely in this instance. However, now that the police have tacked on the 'racing' allegations. Where does that put the stance? We all know it's illegal. We all know it's a risk. But somehow police targeting a group of 10 die-hards racing up in teh country where a running Deer is the biggest threat (actually happened once, was terrifying to watch because both cars were swerving all over the road.... no crash though thankfully) just doesn't seem to be 'solving' the problem. It's not those die-hards who are a risk to society.... BUT it is those die hards that are going to give cops the 'results' by which they can justify huge public expenditures on task forces like ERASE.

Are to tell me that when Sgt Mitchell, the ranking officer overseeing the investigation makes comments within an hour and a half of the original call, that there's going to be a fair investigation and subsequent trial? The comments were made in such a manner that - to me at least - that the investigation was being completed with a bias. You KNOW that anyone can prove any arguement by careful selection/gathering of evidence that supports their theory all the while ignoring the evidence that counters their theory. Investigations are conducted in a one-sided manner, and like we've seen dozens of times in the courtrooms, a lot of evidence can be forgotten or ignored because there's so much apparent 'obviousness' pointing towards the alleged cause.... and continuing with that, you know that the defence lawyers are going to have a field day with that fact.

-scottyp

(ps. excellent arguements, much better than the incessant banter on TCC)

 
Rep Power: 675

From the few photos circulating of the aftermath, one would be very hard pressed to convince me otherwise that the Honda was travelling faster than 100-110 km/h before the impact. Certainly an impact of a 2300 lb civic striking the side of the passenger compartment of a similarily light-weight vehicle would cause catastrophic damage to both vehicles... and those damn conservation of momentum issues would also cause the Hyundai to travel a significant distance following the impact.

-scottyp