Charges laid in rural hit and run - dead horse

The Star reports that a rural hit-and-run had fatally injured a show-horse, supposedly the next Olympic eventing contender.

Full story here

I mean just what exactly do you have to be doing to ***NOT*** see a horse and not be able to stop? What do you think?

Well i'm happy they nicked the scumbag!

Stuff like this really gets under my skin.

There was another accident awhile ago, where not one but two horses were killed, the driver wrote the car off, so he had to stick around.

There was no Big story on that!

BelSlySTi wrote:

There was another accident awhile ago, where not one but two horses were killed, the driver wrote the car off, so he had to stick around.!

Wasn't there a certain police officer who was also charged under 172 who did something similar? Or are we referring to the same incident? I read somewhere that his case was scheduled for March 11 this year, could have changed though.

I forgot he was a Police officer

It should be noted that OPP Constable Deyell never had his the cruiser impounded, nor was his licence ever suspended, same union appointed legal rep as Constable Tapp?

racer wrote:

I mean just what exactly do you have to be doing to ***NOT*** see a horse and not be able to stop?

You have to be a special kind of person to accomplish that. Especially hitting and killing a horse and seriously injuring the rider. A few years ago, a Toronto Police horse named Brigadier was killed in Scarborough when he was deliberately hit by a driver at high speed; the officer was thrown off the horse and seriously injured.

The driver has been charged with "Careless Driving" and "Fail to Remain at the Scene of an Accident". He will appear in Owen Sound court on May 14. Looks like a license will be suspended...

The injured horse rider said:

the truck was heading down the narrow gravel road at a high speed when she began waving her arms at the driver in an attempt to get him to slow down. The riders moved their horses to the far side of the road, but the driver made no attempt to slow.

"He was going quite fast. I made eye contact, but he wasn't on his side of the road. He didn't move over, he just held his speed and his line and he hit us."

The truck, which had damage to its front driver's side, stopped and the driver and passenger got out.

"He yelled at me something like `what were you doing on the road?' and then got back in his vehicle and drove away,"

He deserves all he's gonna get, if you ask me. I also hope that the injured rider get well soon and that she gets the compensation for the injuries and the horse from the driver's insurance without a hitch. Although the insurance part is less likely to happen...

racer wrote:

He deserves all he's gonna get, if you ask me.

I was hoping the guy would get assault or dangerous driving. That is nuts. Sounds like he deliberately hit the horse and rider. Obviously he's completely off his rocker.

But since he wasn't going more than 50 kilometres an hour over the posted speed limit, he'll just get a pat on the wrist.

Radar Identified wrote:

racer wrote:

He deserves all he's gonna get, if you ask me.

I was hoping the guy would get assault or dangerous driving. That is nuts. Sounds like he deliberately hit the horse and rider. Obviously he's completely off his rocker.

But since he wasn't going more than 50 kilometres an hour over the posted speed limit, he'll just get a pat on the wrist.

I never said that I agree with the charges completely. I said I agree with what he's charged with. Hitting someone usually results in "Careless" charge. The fact that he hit the rider deliberately may be argued in court.

There is no proof that he wasn't going over 50 km/hr over the posted speed limit. Usually us regular folk have hard time geting hands on radar technology cops use.

I think that he can still (and should be!) be charged with "Racing" based on definition from:

ONTARIO REGULATION 455/07

Definition, "race" and "contest"

2. (1) For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "race" and "contest" include any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:

1. Driving two or more motor vehicles at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed and in a manner that indicates the drivers of the motor vehicles are engaged in a competition.

2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to chase another motor vehicle.

3. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

i. driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed,

ii. outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed, or

iii. repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity to other vehicles so as to advance through the ordinary flow of traffic while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 2 (1).

(2) In this section,

"marked departure from the lawful rate of speed" means a rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 2 (2).

And "Stunt Diving", based on the same OREG:

Definition, "stunt"

3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "stunt" includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:

1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.

2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.

3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it.

4. Driving two or more motor vehicles side by side or in proximity to each other, where one of the motor vehicles occupies a lane of traffic or other portion of the highway intended for use by oncoming traffic for a period of time that is longer than is reasonably required to pass another motor vehicle.

5. Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.

6. Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the drivers seat.

7. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit.

8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,

ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the drivers sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,

iii. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway, or

iv. making a left turn where,

(A) the driver is stopped at an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal system in response to a circular red indication;

(B) at least one vehicle facing the opposite direction is similarly stopped in response to a circular red indication; and

(C) the driver executes the left turn immediately before or after the system shows only a circular green indication in both directions and in a manner that indicates an intention to complete or attempt to complete the left turn before the vehicle facing the opposite direction is able to proceed straight through the intersection in response to the circular green indication facing that vehicle. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 3.

If I was the driver charged, I'd be more concerned with lawsuits than driving charges brought by the crown. This horse was a working horse. The owners could go after the driver for loss of income. The fact that it was an Olympic contender only increases the potential damages that will have to be paid. I'm sure that numerous lawyers have already approached the owners of the horse.

Not arguing with you, racer, I was disappointed that the Crown wasn't pursuing more significant charges based on the witness statement.

pinch wrote:

The owners could go after the driver for loss of income.

And they should!

I believe that anyone on this forum would have stopped before hitting the horse and not worry about the implications of that altoghether...

While the p/u driver should be charged with quite a bit for his involvement in the collision (and not keep his licence), horse riders should also be more considerate of other vehicles on the roads.

The way it looks to me, there was a group of horse riders spread out all over the road. If they want to spread out, they can do that on horse trails and on meadows. Not on roads made for motor vehicle travel.

Had I been driving that p/u truck, I would have slowed down and just as I passed the group (safely) I would have gone ape-s*** on the horn, hopefully scaring a few of the horses and teaching the riders a lesson.

Hopefully, both drivers and the horse/bicycle rider communities will learn something out of this incident.

FiReSTaRT wrote:

While the p/u driver should be charged with quite a bit for his involvement in the collision (and not keep his licence), horse riders should also be more considerate of other vehicles on the roads.

The way it looks to me, there was a group of horse riders spread out all over the road.

Same as a lof of inconsiderate people walking 4/5 abreast down the road

Plus people walking on the wrong side of the road.

Had I been driving that p/u truck, I would have slowed down and just as I passed the group (safely) I would have gone ape-s*** on the horn, hopefully scaring a few of the horses and teaching the riders a lesson.

I am waiting for the day I get to lay that charge.. "frighten animal".

You're giving some pretty good examples, Bear. Also one thing that really pisses me off are kids walking down the middle of the road and even ignoring cars when they see them coming up. If one of those kids ever gets hit by a car, guess who will be blamed for the collision. I received very little sympathy from the school administration, the parents would never believe that their "perfect little angels" would be at fault by any means and would start screaming for closing all roads before/during/after school ours, and I lost my faith in the 22nd when it comes to investigating anything. At times I think doing Darwin a favour might not be such a bad idea.

By the way, would frightening an animal be a real charge? In any case, had you been there, you would have told those bums to stay off the public highway (or at least off to the side) well before I came through

P.S. The first safety mod I did on my bike was installing a 130dB horn, to replace the inaudible stock tweeter

FiReSTaRT wrote:

P.S. The first safety mod I did on my bike was installing a 130dB horn, to replace the inaudible stock tweeter

Do you wear earplugs before starting the motorcycle? 130 dB will destroy 100% hearing in an hour!

FiReSTaRT wrote:

The way it looks to me, there was a group of horse riders spread out all over the road. If they want to spread out, they can do that on horse trails and on meadows. Not on roads made for motor vehicle travel.

Apparently the damage was done on the driver's side, so the horse was on the lane opposite to what the p/u should have been staying on. Even the testimony says "he wasn't on his side of the road". What do you do? Move to the other side where the p/u should have been driving, so that he changes lanes into where he should be and still have a collision???

FiReSTaRT wrote:

P.S. The first safety mod I did on my bike was installing a 130dB horn, to replace the inaudible stock tweeter

Do you wear earplugs before starting the motorcycle? 130 dB will destroy 100% hearing in an hour!

FiReSTaRT wrote:

The way it looks to me, there was a group of horse riders spread out all over the road. If they want to spread out, they can do that on horse trails and on meadows. Not on roads made for motor vehicle travel.

Apparently the damage was done on the driver's side, so the horse was on the lane opposite to what the p/u should have been staying on. Even the testimony says "he wasn't on his side of the road". What do you do? Move to the other side where the p/u should have been driving, so that he changes lanes into where he should be and still have a collision???

I should, but I don't. Since my hearing has been messed up (just short of being technically hearing-impaired) even before I started riding, I don't even notice the regular noise.. As for the horn, it's not like I use it non stop or for long periods of time. Mostly used for a few seconds at a time to warn careless and/or aggressive drivers planning to make a turn in front of my bike.

I guess I didn't catch the detail. But the story also doesn't offer how far into the road the horseback riders were and how narrow the road was. I wouldn't want to convict him before knowing all of the details and I wanted to point out the other issue -- bicycle/horseback riders, skateboarders, pedestrians minibike riders etc etc etc all taking dangerous actions around faster moving vehicles.

Hitting animals on the road is not uncommon. We see deer on the roads here more often.

Some people do hit them. Never by choice. I myself had a few close encounters where deer just show up on the road after a slight curve on the road, and you see them at the last moment. You can't always stop, and it is a very intense moment. I have never personally hit a deer or any animal, but where I live, in the summer time, sometimes you will see dead deers lying in the ditches.

I don't think the driver intentionally hit the horse. Why would he?

I would question where the horse and rider were on the road.

Horses should not even be on the road. It is the riders repsonsibility to make sure the horse is safe and not pose any threat to cars driving by.

If the driver didn't hit and run, I think this story would just be cited as an accident.

Also I know how intimidating it can be when you collide with a member of a group. Maybe he felt threatened by the behaviour of the riders as a group.

On one occasion, my buddy and I were riding our motorcycles and we saw a guy driving a Lexus cut off another motorcyclist. The motorcyclist crashed as a direct result of the driver's action. Fortunately, he and his passenger were fine. The driver stopped, assumed an aggressive stance and started yelling at the motorcyclist. At that point, we pulled over, I came up to the driver (about 3-4' distance) and asked him "Is there anything you have to say to your victim in front of us?" The driver remembered he had pressing business elsewhere and hightailed it off the scene. We reported him to Peel police and never heard back from them.

adding in the previous mentioned school kids....see adults doing same stuff...disobeying cross walk signs etc...no wonder the kids don't know any better.

remember couple yrs back....a child got hit by a car on a paved back road that goes to a popular beach/marina.....mother complained in the paper.....my kids always play on the road

kids on skateboards with boards etc on road...get to a parking lot, stay off the roads

Certainly motorists are not always, seldom to blames in these situations.

That's where I have my Eastern European upbringing to thank. Where I grew up, kids knew to cross only at crosswalks and to look left and right before actuallly crossing... By the age of 5. It's sad that kids here don't learn to do the same by the age of 12. Maybe community policing programs should be established to deal with the problem. Also more enforcement of people on bicycles violating the h.t.a. and more accountability for improper livestock presence on the roads.

Horses are permitted on the roads, and they are governed by the HTA. Some sections specifically mention them, like section 148(2):

Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the overtaking vehicle or equestrian to pass.

The rider should have control of them, and allow overtaking vehicles to pass safely, give way as required, etc. Based on the report, it sounds as though the p/u driver was on the wrong side of the road, maintained his speed, bee-lined for the horse and rammed it. I can't see where the horse rider did anything illegal in this case. We have a lot of farming communities where encountering horses on the road would be normal, like Aurora or King City. What I'd like to know is, what was the p/u doing driving on the wrong side of the road?

FiReSTaRT wrote:

Where I grew up, kids knew to cross only at crosswalks and to look left and right before actuallly crossing... By the age of 5.

On a daily basis I see people hauling their little kids across the street I live on, outside of crosswalks, with cars whipping by at 50-85 km/h (speed limit 60). People seem to have no sense of self-preservation anymore, at least in North America. It just seems as though doing the safe and smart thing is too inconvenient.

Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the overtaking vehicle or equestrian to pass.

Maybe both the riders and the driver got confused. In any case, while the law allows for horses to be on the roads, the reality of the situation is that the law was originally written when horses were still used for transportation. These days, horses are not so common and only used for recreational purposes. Our roads are already overtravelled by cars and when you introduce livestock, it becomes a mess. In any case I'd like to hear the results of an official collision investigation before drawing any conclusions.

What kinda street do you live on? If it's a major street like Eglinton or Hurontario, you can't expect for people to do 40km/h just because people are crossing the street with their kids. That's why we have traffic lights with marked pedestrian crossings.

FiReSTaRT wrote:

What kinda street do you live on? If it's a major street like Eglinton or Hurontario, you can't expect for people to do 40km/h just because people are crossing the street with their kids. That's why we have traffic lights with marked pedestrian crossings.

Victoria Park Avenue (four lanes, lots of traffic). Sorry, maybe my wording led you to believe that I was faulting the drivers instead of the pedestrians in this case. I wasn't. I definitely don't expect drivers to go unreasonably slowly. Like you, I expect that pedestrians, particularly those with small kids, will take their own safety and especially their children's safety into consideration and use a crosswalk at the traffic lights. If I had a small child with me, I wouldn't even think of crossing a road where people travel at high speeds outside of a crosswalk. It's way too risky and I wouldn't want to teach the kid that it's okay to jaywalk on busy roads.

I should have paid more attention reading, too. You are correct. And then they scream at "speeding" drivers. "I was taking my sonny-boy across this small residential street, quaintly named the Queen Elizabeth Way, when some crazy young punk driving a souped up rice rocket almost ran us over doing 300km/h. Why doesn't the government do something about these idiots?" And then we get slimeballs like Jaczek who feed off that *EDIT*, (try and often succeed to) pass dumb/unnecessary and certainly redundant laws and get lots of nanny-votes.

FiReSTaRT wrote:

Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the overtaking vehicle or equestrian to pass.

Maybe both the riders and the driver got confused. In any case, while the law allows for horses to be on the roads, the reality of the situation is that the law was originally written when horses were still used for transportation. These days, horses are not so common and only used for recreational purposes. Our roads are already overtravelled by cars and when you introduce livestock, it becomes a mess. In any case I'd like to hear the results of an official collision investigation before drawing any conclusions.

What kinda street do you live on? If it's a major street like Eglinton or Hurontario, you can't expect for people to do 40km/h just because people are crossing the street with their kids. That's why we have traffic lights with marked pedestrian crossings.

Plenty of horses are used for transportation outside of the GTA. I regularly see a buggy with a "slow vehicle" sign on the back pulled by one or two horses. The Waterloo Home Depot has a barn for horse-and-buggy parking.

hwybear wrote:

Plus people walking on the wrong side of the road.

What's the "wrong side"?

I hate pedestrians who walk on the roadway when there is a sidewalk three feet next to them.

My previous bosses have all commented on how I walk behind a person instead of next to them. Apparently it makes them feel that I think I am "inferior" to them and not worthy of walking abreast.

FiReSTaRT wrote:

In any case, while the law allows for horses to be on the roads, the reality of the situation is that the law was originally written when horses were still used for transportation. These days, horses are not so common and only used for recreational purposes.

OHTA was written in 1990. I highly doubt that the horses were in common use in 1990.

admin wrote:

I don't think the driver intentionally hit the horse. Why would he?

Surely you are not suggesting that the horse rider decided to run the horse under the pickup truck. Why would she? Risk her life for what? Some mentioned that North Americans seem to have a lesser sense of self-preservation, but to intentionally steer the horse onto a way of a pickup truck?

What I think happened here is that the driver was in "I am the king of the road with a pickup, I can drive as fast as I want, wherever I want, and everyone else should get out of my way" set of mind. Given that he drove off like that simply proves the fact that hit the horse in that frame of mind.

racer wrote:

Surely you are not suggesting that the horse rider decided to run the horse under the pickup truck. Why would she? Risk her life for what? Some mentioned that North Americans seem to have a lesser sense of self-preservation, but to intentionally steer the horse onto a way of a pickup truck?

Weird comment to make but ok.

The point was if your read, no body deliberately hits a horse or any animal or anything on the road.

This has nothing to do with North Americans as you put it.

racer wrote:

What I think happened here is that the driver was in "I am the king of the road with a pickup, I can drive as fast as I want, wherever I want, and everyone else should get out of my way" set of mind. Given that he drove off like that simply proves the fact that hit the horse in that frame of mind.

So your saying this guy was driving like a North American, and claimed to be king of the world, and hit the horse and took off because he intentionally hit the horse?

There is NO evidence that would suggest he went out of his way and targeted the horse. IF you ever drove a car more than a week and out of your city, you would realize driving is not always as easy as it looks.

You can't blame North Americans, and you can't blame the driver without knowing what happened exactly.

Also, he was not charged with speeding, so I don't know how you figure he was driving like a North American as you put it.

admin wrote:

The point was if your read, no body deliberately hits a horse or any animal or anything on the road.

I disagree with that. People around here hit raccoons, turtles, and rabbits for sport. It's doubtful that they would move up to a horse, but there's always that one guy more nutso than the rest.

admin wrote:

So your saying this guy was driving like a North American, and claimed to be king of the world, and hit the horse and took off because he intentionally hit the horse?

If the article is correct, then yes. The p/u driver crashed into the horse and rider, mortally wounded the horse and seriously injured the rider. Even if that was accidental, the passenger got out, looked at them and instead of asking if they were okay or anything, shouted at them: "What were you doing on the road?" Then they drove off, and it wasn't to get assistance. They left the rider to die on the road. That's not the reaction of someone who got confused or made an honest mistake. It would seem that racer's scenario is quite plausible.