Quote:
Originally Posted by ak1to
As other people above have mentioned above it has to do with right of way.
There's also more details here:
https://thebreaker.news/news/audi-speeder-not-guilty/
Transcript of the court case here
https://www.scribd.com/document/381217405/R-v-Chung
From what I can tell, the judge and defense state that anyone turning (in this case Dr. Hui) must yield and ensure it is safe before turning and right of way is given to the individual going straight. They couldn't definitively prove Dr. Hui had his signal on, and that Chung also had apparently tried braking so it proved he was at least attentive and not inattentive.
I would still point out Chung was going nearly triple the speed limit which had to have have played in a factor in the accident regardless of who had right of way.
Also there's this part that pisses me off:
"... observed the Audi to be “in a hurry” causing him and another driver to apply their brakes. He later saw the Audi behind him while he was driving at 50 km-h until 42nd Avenue, when the Audi passed him at a high speed, in the curb lane between 42nd and 41st before the collision.
Crown counsel Jocelyn Coupal submitted that Chung had been overtaking vehicles while driving in the curb lane, came within a half-second of rear-ending a right-turning vehicle in the curb lane in front of him, and did not see or could not have seen Hui’s vehicle in the intersection. " |
What i'm getting from it is he was speeding up, slowing down, speeding up etc. It sounds like he was behind the witness speaking, and eventually tried to speed past the guy. It sounds that in this case another car was in the lane he changed into and quickly moved back into the original lane which was blocked by the witness travelling 50km/hr only to hit the victim. If this is the case, a perfect example of why people should move over from the left lane to the right lane when going slow compared to the flow of traffic.
This is really an unfortunate situation imo and sucks for everyone involved.