299km/h motorbike ride on Highway 1 - Discussions and developments

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Gipper

First, this incident would not have been dispatched in time for any Westshore RCMP to intercept, unless by chance an officer was north of the Millstream exit. There then would be a be-on-lookout transferred to Shawnigan RCMP but without a plate or at least solid description it would be hard to have the grounds to even make a lawful stop.

Second, it's virtually impossible to safely intercept a speeding motorcycle. When I was in uniform they would fly by me occasionally on the highway. I wouldn't even bother turning around because I can't catch them and all I'm going to do is push them to to drive harder putting everyone at even more risk. Unless you have a chopper you have to find other means to track them after the fact.

I agree with all of this, it's why I would likely have never called 911 if I saw it.

It still doesn't explain why police say nobody called.

[Sparky]

^ I had to laugh at the term that they use on the bike forum....."Road Crayon".

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by VicHockeyFan

I agree with all of this, it's why I would likely have never called 911 if I saw it.

It still doesn't explain why police say nobody called.

If you are the lone occupant, you would be breaking the law if you used your cell. By the time you find a place to pull over what are you going to tell the police? Also many of the witnesses might think that the bike passing was an isolated incident not knowing that it continued on for many KM's.

Why isn't this rider caught, I mean how many blue motorcycles of this make are out there?

How about some photo radar cameras under the overpasses?

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If you are the lone occupant, you would be breaking the law if you used your cell.

Calling 911 is exempt from the law.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Bingo

How about some photo radar cameras under the overpasses?

Just a matter of time before someone said it

[aastra]

If you are the lone occupant, you would be breaking the law if you used your cell. By the time you find a place to pull over what are you going to tell the police? Also many of the witnesses might think that the bike passing was an isolated incident not knowing that it continued on for many KM's.

I don't get this. You'd call 911 (without pulling over, because nobody pulls over to use their phones, who are we kidding?) and you'd say some idiot on a blue motorcycle just blew through westbound traffic at 200KMH. You'd describe the colour of his jacket and the colour of his helmet. If you know anything about motorcycles you'd identify the make and model.

If we're playing the "Victorians are less likely to call 911 than folks in other places" card then I'll generally agree, BUT this was a supremely dangerous and obvious activity, in broad daylight, in front of many dozens if not hundreds of witnesses. Nobody called? I just can't choke that down.

I'd bet a donut there's some jurisdictional issue related to 911 and the calls were made and they're just sitting in some archive somewhere. It makes me think of that famous abduction case in Florida and how the 911 calls were fumbled royally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Denise_Amber_Lee

If police are indeed inclined to dismiss incidents like this as "one-offs" then the police response (or lack thereof) is part of the problem. You don't have to chase the guy. In a case such as this, you shouldn't chase the guy. But you absolutely must call it ahead, and you absolutely must document it as thoroughly as you can. Otherwise, the next time that it happens will be the first time all over again. If he causes a terrible crash at some later date, then you'll sure be willing to spend a lot of time and energy on damage control, acting like it's the first time that you've ever heard of this clown, when it actually isn't the first time.

Anyway, I can guarantee you this guy didn't head all the way back to his garage at 200KMH. He slowed down eventually. He resumed normal driving eventually, stopping at lights and all the rest. Maybe he stopped at a convenience store. Call it ahead and there's a chance that another unit will observe him/intercept him. If he takes off again, who cares? You don't need to chase him. Now you've got his plate number and a detailed description. If his plate number turns out to be fake or whatever else, now you're building the case against him for if and when he eventually gets caught. It all can add up, is what I'm saying. Yes, it may end up being wasted effort if he's constantly switching bikes and constantly moving around, but it's really not much effort when you get right down to it. And it may end up paying off.

[Mike K.]

Further to what aastra said, plenty of people have already identified him and he was gloating about it on his Facebook page.

To think police are fumbling around with an IP address according to the mainstream media...

[Gipper]

Aastra, this incident is special because there is video and intense public interest. People drive like this every day in this province. We get driving complaints all the time. They're second only to 911 hangups/pocket dials. Basically our ability to investigate traffic offenses declines as follows:

1. Officer sees offense and stops vehicle without losing sight of it thus confirming driver without doubt; easy to prove.

2. Officer sees offense and loses sight of vehicle but then locates it again and pulls it over; doubt starts to creep in and this is actually difficult to win in court unless it becomes grounds for an impaired.

3. Citizen calls in traffic complaint and keeps suspect vehicle in sight until police pull it over; easy to prove but requires a citizen willing to go to court and able to articulate and remember details.

4. Citizen calls in traffic complaint with plate/good description but loses sight of suspect vehicle, then police find it and pull it over; this is good to go on an impaired because the suspect is still giving off evidence, but difficult to prove if they are sober as the complainant is unlikely to be able to identify the driver.

5. Citizen calls in traffic complaint with with plate/good description but loses sight and police can't find vehicle before it parks; very weak case, virtually impossible to prove who driver is.

6. Citizen calls in with no plate/weak description. Impossible unless while making patrols in the area the police see the vehicle still being driven in an erratic fashion and then it's back to scenario one.

All these scenarios are assuming a routine "driving complaint", not an accident of some sort. These driving complaints that do not lead to charges or convictions do still go on the police records database (for two years) and are viewable on the road by police on any future stops but they cannot be used as evidence for future offenses nor be considered in sentencing.

Now I'm sure some of the above iffy scenarios could be solved if we could dedicate a major crime team to each complaint, but that's not realistic. In a place like West Shore you've got six or seven uniformed cops responding to thirty new files every 12 hour shift plus investigating all their 'still-under-investigation' files from the past weeks/months. There aren't the resources to put into weak traffic complaints.

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by Gipper

All these scenarios are assuming a routine "driving complaint", not an accident of some sort. These driving complaints that do not lead to charges or convictions do still go on the police records database (for two years) and are viewable on the road by police on any future stops but they cannot be used as evidence for future offenses nor be considered in sentencing.

Now I'm sure some of the above iffy scenarios could be solved if we could dedicate a major crime team to each complaint, but that's not realistic. In a place like West Shore you've got six or seven uniformed cops responding to thirty new files every 12 hour shift plus investigating all their 'still-under-investigation' files from the past weeks/months. There aren't the resources to put into weak traffic complaints.

Isn't it still worth it to write a ticket, in all or at least some of those cases? Surely cops don't think they need to be air-tight court cases for the ticket to still have some use.

[Gipper]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

Further to what aastra said, plenty of people have already identified him and he was gloating about it on his Facebook page.

To think police are fumbling around with an IP address according to the mainstream media...

This all goes to proving who the driver was. They have to be able to marry up the online entity with the actual suspect. I had to do the exact same thing last summer to solve an online extortion file. Getting subscriber information from IPs takes time as it generally requires a production order (a type of warrant). They need to identify who posted the video as it is the piece of evidence that launched the investigation in the first place.

[Gipper]

Originally Posted by VicHockeyFan

Isn't it still worth it to write a ticket, in all or at least some of those cases? Surely cops don't think they need to be air-tight court cases for the ticket to still have some use.

If I believe I can prove it, or I believe there is forthcoming evidence that will enable me to prove it, I will lay/recommend charges. If I don't believe I can prove it I won't lay charges. To do so could be construed as an abuse of process. Please note the laying of charges is seperate and distinct from making an arrest/detention; one can quite lawfully happen without the other.

[MarkoJ]

How did he not die? I thought this type of idiotic road behavior only happened in Russia.

[sebberry]

IMO, driving complaints phoned in by members of the public should only be taken if the complainant has a clean driving record. How can you trust the testimony of someone who doesn't know the law?

[Mike K.]

Originally Posted by Gipper

This all goes to proving who the driver was. They have to be able to marry up the online entity with the actual suspect. I had to do the exact same thing last summer to solve an online extortion file. Getting subscriber information from IPs takes time as it generally requires a production order (a type of warrant). They need to identify who posted the video as it is the piece of evidence that launched the investigation in the first place.

An IP address is reliable, but it can also be shared with anyone accessing the same internet connection (i.e. a neighbour skimming a wireless signal). I have a concern that it could also cast doubt.

Just out of curiosity, would the police be liaising with someone at Google/Youtube to help identify the contributor of the video?

[amor de cosmos]

Originally Posted by martini

What's the Smurf drink?

looks like a blue raspberry slurpee!

Originally Posted by Sparky

^ The Saanich police are of the impression that it started just past McKenzie.

makes sense to me, looks like the vid starts just before helmcken & ends just past millstream.

[Gipper]

Originally Posted by Mike K.

An IP address is reliable, but it can also be shared with anyone accessing the same internet connection (i.e. a neighbour skimming a wireless signal). I have a concern that it could also cast doubt.

I had a similar concern on the extortion file I mentioned earlier so we staked out the residence associated to the IP in question and confirmed the suspect lived there and wasn't merely hijacking his neighbour's signal. Then we got a search warrant and seized the router and IP capable electronics inside to start comparing MAC addresses. In our case we already had the grounds to arrest the suspect at the same time the search warrant was executed so we interrogated him and he admitted everything.

IP information, if not corroborated, can definitely weaken a case, but our job is to collect all the evidence we can reasonably collect, not just the evidence that justifies a conviction. Avoiding tunnel vision and providing full disclosure is important.

Just out of curiosity, would the police be liaising with someone at Google/Youtube to help identify the contributor of the video?

I would think so. I haven't dealt with Google myself so I would have to ask the Tech Crime people what the process is if I had a similar file.

[Mike K.]

Thanks for the insights, Gipper.

[sebberry]

A poster on the CBC news site calculated that the rider was going about 216 km/hr, not 299.

White lines are 3 meters long and 9 meters in between. He's passing 10 of these lines every 2 seconds during the 299km/h section of video.

That means, he's traveling [(3+9) x 10]/2 = 60m/s or 216km/h. Even given 10% speedo error and error in my timing of the passing stripes, it's a far cry from 299km/h...so I retract my previous statement and propose that he's enlarged the rear sprocket (probably for stunting or low end acceleration) so the speedo is probably way out.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...cle-video.html

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Gipper

This all goes to proving who the driver was. They have to be able to marry up the online entity with the actual suspect.

If you take a photo of the suspects bike looking forward to match the view in the video, you could tell if it was the same bike. That would be some pretty basic stuff that many of the people on VV could perform.

As for trying to identify the bike as it speeds by, try reading the plate of the next bike that passes you by at only 30KM per hour more than you are going. I don't think there were many people that would risk fumbling with their cell phone to call 911 while they were driving, even if they were legally allowed to do so.

[VicHockeyFan]

As much as this is an interesting investigation... the chances of anyone getting hurt (other then the rider) by what this guy did is actually pretty small.

I know, I know, his bike hitting an oncoming car at x speed would be very damaging, but the chance of that happening is pretty small, even when he wipes out.

Someone blowing through a stop-sign or red light (that likely happens dozens of times a day around here) has a far greater potential for injury, IMO.

I'm not saying don't investigate this, but it's a drop in the bucket. Would resources not be better spent working a file on a crash that has already killed or injured an innocent person, to make sure those responsible are convicted?

[vandervalk]

Originally Posted by Bingo

How about some photo radar cameras under the overpasses?

I was reading in another forum about this event and a few people had said that photo radars most likely couldn't shoot fast enough to get an actual license plate if someone drove by that fast. Who knows.

[sebberry]

It's funny how photo radar is being suggested as a way to catch people like this. Almost as if people expect it to fail to reduce travel speeds

[VicHockeyFan]

Originally Posted by vandervalk

I was reading in another forum about this event and a few people had said that photo radars most likely couldn't shoot fast enough to get an actual license plate if someone drove by that fast. Who knows.

The F-35s would probably be able to keep up. When are we getting them?

[phx]

Originally Posted by VicHockeyFan

As much as this is an interesting investigation... the chances of anyone getting hurt (other then the rider) by what this guy did is actually pretty small.

I know, I know, his bike hitting an oncoming car at x speed would be very damaging, but the chance of that happening is pretty small, even when he wipes out.

Someone blowing through a stop-sign or red light (that likely happens dozens of times a day around here) has a far greater potential for injury, IMO.

I'm not saying don't investigate this, but it's a drop in the bucket. Would resources not be better spent working a file on a crash that has already killed or injured an innocent person, to make sure those responsible are convicted?

Victoria is full of bad driving, from kids speeding on motorcycles, to old ladies blowing through red lights, to geezers stopping at green lights.

Lots of people seem to enjoy being outraged, though, so I guess it's all good.

[MarkoJ]

Originally Posted by VicHockeyFan

As much as this is an interesting investigation... the chances of anyone getting hurt (other then the rider) by what this guy did is actually pretty small.

I know, I know, his bike hitting an oncoming car at x speed would be very damaging, but the chance of that happening is pretty small, even when he wipes out.

Someone blowing through a stop-sign or red light (that likely happens dozens of times a day around here) has a far greater potential for injury, IMO.

I'm not saying don't investigate this, but it's a drop in the bucket. Would resources not be better spent working a file on a crash that has already killed or injured an innocent person, to make sure those responsible are convicted?

If he is going 225 km/h and goes into the back of a car moving 90 km/h wouldn't that be equivalent to getting smoked at 135 km/h standing still? 500lb? In a small car I don't know how you would make out.

I was also argue that the chances of an accident looking at that video are very high (relatively speaking). How quickly can you turn/avoid things going at that kind of speed?