Old guy runs biker off the road

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Or if the driver had been a member of a law-abiding society and decided not to use his vehicle as a weapon. There is no equivalence between the two actions. One is civil violation, one is criminal. One breaks a statute, the other intends death and serious injury.

Not equivalent at all. Nobody deserves to be killed.

It is not a question of equivalence but a question, as a rider, how to take responsibility for your safety when we know there are sociopaths just looking for an excuse to get away with murder.

[adouglas]

If that was a stupid act then I guess about 75% of us are just as stupid....

Admittedly, the poll at the link below doesn't include the responsibility to decide whether the car you're passing might be driven by a homicidal maniac.

https://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=247624

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by VaFish

Seriously?

A rider and his passenger deserve to be maimed for stupid acts?

Don't get sucked in! Fishdip likes to get banned from here every now and again for fun.

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by Roark

Maybe all of this arguing will cease soon.. because apparently the old man has done this sorta thing before.

http://www.yourglenrosetx.com/articl...29972/?Start=1

I don't think anyone is arguing that the old man isn't a menace or didn't do it on purpose.

I think the arguments center around the amount of responsibility the rider holds for the incident.

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by allanoue

Don't get sucked in! Fishdip likes to get banned from here every now and again for fun.

Sorry, I won't feed the trolls anymore.

[Roark]

don't feed the trollll

[cbinker]

Originally Posted by adouglas

If that was a stupid act then I guess 80% of us are just as stupid....

Admittedly, the poll at the link below doesn't include the responsibility to decide whether the car you're passing might be driven by a homicidal maniac.

https://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=247624

He would have been fine if he had stayed off the center line. When I pass all the time I am left of center in the on coming lane.

[akima]

Something I try to do is minimise the time I spend in a dangerous position. For example: if I'm passing a vehicle as soon as I get to the point where I'm committed and braking isn't an option, I pin the throttle. I can't say for sure whether it would have helped the downed-rider in this video.

[fishdip]

Originally Posted by VaFish

Seriously?

A rider and his passenger deserve to be maimed for stupid acts?

When operating a motorcycle its your responsibility even more so with some one one the back to ride in a responsible manor. Not saying what the guy did was right and the guy should have never done it but the fact is if the rider would have been operating his bike at a slower safer speed and not in a manner that put his or the passengers life at risk he would have been able to stop in time.

[fishdip]

Originally Posted by allanoue

Don't get sucked in! Fishdip likes to get banned from here every now and again for fun.

Close your keyboard and keep it closed

[thisisbenji]

Originally Posted by fishdip

When operating a motorcycle its your responsibility even more so with some one one the back to ride in a responsible manor. Not saying what the guy did was right and the guy should have never done it but the fact is if the rider would have been operating his bike at a slower safer speed and not in a manner that put his or the passengers life at risk he would have been able to stop in time.

No, just no.

That's equivalent to saying that if a girl dresses in a revealing fashion that she deserves to get raped because she brought attention to herself.

Your basically saying that if she would have dressed conservatively she wouldn't have got raped, therefor it's her fault.

That's just plain wrong.

The fact is, the motorcyclist, while breaking the law, was operating in a safe manner. He WOULD NOT HAVE CRASHED if it wasn't for the asshat in the car.

[choneofakind]

https://instagram.com/p/9Hb-Qqu_Yw/

[fishdip]

Originally Posted by thisisbenji

No, just no.

That's equivalent to saying that if a girl dresses in a revealing fashion that she deserves to get raped because she brought attention to herself.

Your basically saying that if she would have dressed conservatively she wouldn't have got raped, therefor it's her fault.

That's just plain wrong.

The fact is, the motorcyclist, while breaking the law, was operating in a safe manner. He WOULD NOT HAVE CRASHED if it wasn't for the asshat in the car.

So what your saying is the ass hat cop is at fault for this crash for stopping in the street.

Link to original page on YouTube.
I also want to say its low and a piece of **** thing to try and compare this to rape.

[psych0hans]

Originally Posted by fishdip

So what your saying is the ass hat cop is at fault for this crash for stopping in the street.

Link to original page on YouTube.
I also want to say its low and a peace of **** thing to try and compare this to rape.

1) it's "piece" not "peace".
2) apples and oranges, no comparison whatsoever. There is a huge difference between overtaking a slow ass driver and driving like a maniac on the streets... Clearly you don't see the difference.
3) The cop is doing his job, it's his JOB to take off idiots from the road in as safe a manner as possible, that old guy was just an asshat being over smart and nearly killing two people. The cop would not have deliberately rammed into them like that.

Either you're just trolling, or you really have a very different way of thinking, either way, I'm done saying what I had to say...

[fishdip]

Originally Posted by psych0hans

1) it's "piece" not "peace".
2) apples and oranges, no comparison whatsoever.

What is apples and oranges?

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by allanoue

It is not a question of equivalence but a question, as a rider, how to take responsibility for your safety when we know there are sociopaths just looking for an excuse to get away with murder.

It absolutely is a question of equivalence, of proportionality. When I hear about people getting shot to death for knocking on the wrong door, or for pranks like throwing toilet paper into a tree, I think those are extreme disproportionate uses of force too.

Yellow line crossing occurs all the time, for legitimate and illegitimate reasons. Yet, in this case the unexpected result was a successful attempt to inflict grievous bodily harm with depraved indifference. Note: The driver of the car had no idea of the condition of the passenger. For all he knew, she was dead or dying. "I don't care."

If one wants to make statements like "Well, they had that coming", then one also has to make those statements when you hear about a kid being shot through the door just because they knocked on the wrong door on Halloween. That kid should have taken responsibility to not knock on the wrong door.

BTW, this isn't the first time a driver has deliberately tried to kill a rider:
https://www.reddit.com/r/motorcycles...clist_off_the/

In that one the driver was drunk, and endangered many other lives that day. That rider, too, didn't deserve to be attacked, just like this one didn't, and the next one won't.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

It absolutely is a question of equivalence, of proportionality. When I hear about people getting shot to death for knocking on the wrong door, or for pranks like throwing toilet paper into a tree, I think those are extreme disproportionate uses of force too.

Yellow line crossing occurs all the time, for legitimate and illegitimate reasons. Yet, in this case the unexpected result was a successful attempt to inflict grievous bodily harm with depraved indifference. Note: The driver of the car had no idea of the condition of the passenger. For all he knew, she was dead or dying. "I don't care."

If one wants to make statements like "Well, they had that coming", then one also has to make those statements when you hear about a kid being shot through the door just because they knocked on the wrong door on Halloween. That kid should have taken responsibility to not knock on the wrong door.

BTW, this isn't the first time a driver has deliberately tried to kill a rider:
https://www.reddit.com/r/motorcycles...clist_off_the/

In that one the driver was drunk, and endangered many other lives that day. That rider, too, didn't deserve to be attacked, just like this one didn't, and the next one won't.

No one here is saying the psychopath is not 100% at fault. You are the only one who said the rider "had it coming". You are not seeing the point though you're justified outrage. The rider did not invite the driver to run him over, he did make it easy and to compound that he did not protect himself physically or financially from people like that. I would have passed Crum under the same circumstances and I believe I could have avoided him and if not I would have no need to start a "fund me" campaign. The rider made many dumb mistakes that should be identified and called out on so we do not repeat them.

[adouglas]

Originally Posted by cbinker

He would have been fine if he had stayed off the center line.

Are we watching the same video?

He's nowhere near the center line..... can't find one image where he is. Happy to be proved wrong if you can.

Said multiple times... he wasn't riding aggressively, at high speed, or crowding.

[cbinker]

Originally Posted by adouglas

Are we watching the same video?

He's nowhere near the center line..... can't find one image where he is. Happy to be proved wrong if you can.

Said multiple times... he wasn't riding aggressively, at high speed, or crowding.

yep look at that image, he is in the danger zone. look at all that road to the left he could be using. instead this POS is trying to intimidate by passing close to the line and those in front of him.

[spooph]

Originally Posted by allanoue

No one here is saying the psychopath is not 100% at fault. You are the only one who said the rider "had it coming". You are not seeing the point though you're justified outrage. The rider did not invite the driver to run him over, he did make it easy and to compound that he did not protect himself physically or financially from people like that. I would have passed Crum under the same circumstances and I believe I could have avoided him and if not I would have no need to start a "fund me" campaign. The rider made many dumb mistakes that should be identified and called out on so we do not repeat them.

Good on you for continuing to try!

[fishdip]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

It absolutely is a question of equivalence, of proportionality. When I hear about people getting shot to death for knocking on the wrong door, or for pranks like throwing toilet paper into a tree, I think those are extreme disproportionate uses of force too.

Yellow line crossing occurs all the time, for legitimate and illegitimate reasons. Yet, in this case the unexpected result was a successful attempt to inflict grievous bodily harm with depraved indifference. Note: The driver of the car had no idea of the condition of the passenger. For all he knew, she was dead or dying. "I don't care."

If one wants to make statements like "Well, they had that coming", then one also has to make those statements when you hear about a kid being shot through the door just because they knocked on the wrong door on Halloween. That kid should have taken responsibility to not knock on the wrong door.

BTW, this isn't the first time a driver has deliberately tried to kill a rider:
https://www.reddit.com/r/motorcycles...clist_off_the/

In that one the driver was drunk, and endangered many other lives that day. That rider, too, didn't deserve to be attacked, just like this one didn't, and the next one won't.

And look the rider had the "skill" level need to avoid the truck.

[Panda]

Originally Posted by adouglas

Said multiple times... he wasn't riding aggressively, at high speed, or crowding.

Why does this even matter? If he was riding aggressively are you implying he would somehow deserve what happened to him?

[akima]

Originally Posted by fishdip

When operating a motorcycle its your responsibility even more so with some one one the back to ride in a responsible manor. Not saying what the guy did was right and the guy should have never done it but the fact is if the rider would have been operating his bike at a slower safer speed and not in a manner that put his or the passengers life at risk he would have been able to stop in time.

Originally Posted by fishdip

Dam just seen this. I say the rider had what was coming.

... err... isn't saying "the rider had what was coming" pretty much equivalent to saying the driver did what was right?

Originally Posted by allanoue

No one here is saying the psychopath is not 100% at fault. You are the only one who said the rider "had it coming".

Sorry to get all white-knightyprincessy here, but @FrugalNinja250's post seemed pretty reasonable to me. That, and fishdip said the rider had it coming, hence why Frugal quoted the phrase (see above).

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by akima

... err... isn't saying "the rider had what was coming" pretty much equivalent to saying the driver did what was right?



Sorry to get all white-knightyprincessy here, but @FrugalNinja250's post seemed pretty reasonable to me. That, and fishdip said the rider had it coming, hence why Frugal quoted the phrase (see above).

trolls do not not count

[akima]

^

[fishdip]

Originally Posted by akima

... err... isn't saying "the rider had what was coming" pretty much equivalent to saying the driver did what was right?



Sorry to get all white-knightyprincessy here, but @FrugalNinja250's post seemed pretty reasonable to me. That, and fishdip said the rider had it coming, hence why Frugal quoted the phrase (see above).

I in no way say what the driver did was ok or right. And when I say the rider had it coming I am talking about his down right disregard to the safety of the girl on the back. There was 100% no reason to be passing there or even passing at all. 3 more cars where just ahead of the 2 cars he was going to pass so its not like he was going to gain any thing from passing the 2 cars. I look at every crash as what the person did or did not do to keep there self out of stupid situations. Just like when a car pulls out in front of a motorcycle but then you see the crash video and the guy was doing 80 in a 30. I think some of the ppl posting are looking at it not in a (human feelings) way but a mathematical way.

[GregS]

This is why I ride at the track 95% of the time. Still trying to make myself sell the Monster and go 100% track

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by fishdip

I in no way say what the driver did was ok or right. And when I say the rider had it coming I am talking about his down right disregard to the safety of the girl on the back. There was 100% no reason to be passing there or even passing at all. 3 more cars where just ahead of the 2 cars he was going to pass so its not like he was going to gain any thing from passing the 2 cars. I look at every crash as what the person did or did not do to keep there self out of stupid situations. Just like when a car pulls out in front of a motorcycle but then you see the crash video and the guy was doing 80 in a 30. I think some of the ppl posting are looking at it not in a (human feelings) way but a mathematical way.

Better sir, this is the post your should have lead out with. ijs...

I see your common sense outlook on this, but here is another dose of common sense for you. People can't live their life holding back like that, it would be totally dull and unhappy. Taking controlled chances are just as much a part of life as anything else. That new job, that new relationship, divorce (yea... not all are good), speeding, passing bla bla bla.

Bottom line, if the cager hadn't done what he did, the most that would have been wasted is a little bit of time and gas. The cager seen those cars ahead just the same, so why do something completely unneeded to slow them down? It simply falls into the category of "it's all about me", nothing more (both parties but one went above and beyond). Which is why one got a ticket, the other is in jail.

[fishdip]

Originally Posted by csmith12

Better sir, this is the post your should have lead out with. ijs...



Bottom line, if the cager hadn't done what he did, the most that would have been wasted is a little bit of time and gas. The cager seen those cars ahead just the same, so why do something completely unneeded to slow them down? It simply falls into the category of "it's all about me", nothing more (both parties but one went above and beyond). Which is why one got a ticket, the other is in jail.

[xorbe]

Old guy trolls traffic with extra slow speed, then attempts to block those that pass.

Same thing on the freeway when the fast lane is blocked by a 60 mph SUV then when trying to pass they'll match you all the way up to 95 mph to block you getting around them for whatever reason, then slow down back to 60 ... then I slip around the whole mess in the slowest lane, 3 minutes later they are doing 110, cut everyone off, and slam on the brakes again ... why do people drive like that?

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by xorbe

... why do people drive like that?

The bigger question is why do people drive like that when they would never do something like that face to face with you.

Something about feeling anonymous and powerful inside a car.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by xorbe

... why do people drive like that?

[InvisiBill]

Originally Posted by adouglas

Here's my point:

Had the rider and passenger been wearing full gear
Had the rider been insured
Had the rider passed legally

The outcome, with the exception of injury severity, would have been the same. An attempted homicide that resulted in a potentially fatal crash. Caveat: We don't know what set Crum off. It could have been an illegal pass. It could just have been getting passed by a "crotch rocket."

You would have made that pass and been whacked too, despite your gear, insurance and patience*.

Is that a learning opportunity? What is the rider's responsibility there?

Saying that the rider is 100% responsible for his safety in a situation like this is like saying it's the responsibility of an innocent bystander to not get shot in a drive-by.

I think the disconnect is that I see this as a completely unwarranted, willful act of violence perpetrated on an unsuspecting victim. You seem to see it as some kind of provoked attack -- that the rider did something to the driver, prompting a response.

As I said earlier, had the rider been aggressive, crowded the car, used excessive speed, etc... then that's a different thing. But he wasn't.

* PS: We don't know how long the rider was stuck behind those cars. When I look at the video, I see the camera bike coming up on them and they were already there... could have been following that guy for miles.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions about the situation that we can't tell from the video. You may be right, I just don't think we can tell from the clip.

The biker was in the tiretrack nearest the centerline while passing. He may not have been crowding the car, but he certainly wasn't giving him a wide berth either. It's hard to tell how fast he was going, and "excessive" is subjective. Since the cameraman comes up on the other bike just before this happens, we don't have much context.

Based on the cager's history and "I don't care" comments, I think there's a good chance he deliberately swerved at the bike. I doubt he specifically meant to hurt people - probably just trying to scare "those jackass crotch rocket kids" or whatever. Even if the biker was being a jerk, they didn't deserve to get run over.

I'm not trying to blame the victim at all, but he seemed to do very little to avoid the bad situation. It looks like the cager swerves in front of him, and the bike actually runs into the back corner of the car (as opposed to truly sideswiping the bike). Maybe it's just a crappy taillight, but I didn't see a brakelight, and he had more roadway to the left he could've used to avoid the car (since he was closer to the centerline). In addition to passing on the solid line, there's also the issue of passing multiple cars at once. I was told in driver ed that it was illegal, but it seems to vary and/or be a gray area based on some quick Googling. Even if it's legal, it adds more complexity to a passing situation. There is a hill coming up (watch the SUV in front of the car disappear over it), so perhaps it was marked with a solid line for a reason (though he does seem to have enough visibility to make the pass).

As riders, we know how bad cagers can be when they're simply being inattentive. We know that we have to be proactive in keeping ourselves safe. We shouldn't have to worry about cagers actively trying to run us down. However, being prepared for inattentive drivers should go a long way in helping us to avoid malicious drivers too. What if he had been passing someone and they sneezed at that exact moment and jerked the wheel? The outcome could've been exactly the same. If you're passing someone to get away from their bad driving, you need to be taking their bad driving into account while you're passing them too.

I think this biker made a number of bad choices which, had he not, it wouldn't have turned out like this. The cager shouldn't have swerved at the bike (assuming it was intentional), but the biker could've done a number of things differently to avoid the situation. It's one thing for a kid to randomly get shot for trick-or-treating at the wrong door. It's another for a kid to "go trick-or-treating" dressed as a rival gangmember in the depths of the hood where shootings are known to commonly occur. There's a difference between taking reasonable measures to ensure your own safety vs. technically not doing anything wrong and expecting everything to turn out perfectly.

[akima]

Originally Posted by InvisiBill

It's one thing for a kid to randomly get shot for trick-or-treating at the wrong door. It's another for a kid to "go trick-or-treating" dressed as a rival gangmember in the depths of the hood where shootings are known to commonly occur.

Not applicable at all as the biker didn't provoke, mislead or trick the driver.

The moral element of this video is simple to understand. The biker did absolutely nothing morally wrong. He did not cause any harm or loss to the driver in any way.

The driver [for whatever reason... it doesn't matter really] tried and succeeded in shunting the bikers using his car as a weapon.

The driver could have easily killed them both. In actuality he injured them and damaged their property.

The driver is a scum bag. The world will be a slightly nicer and a slightly safer place to live in when his corpse is 6ft under.

Not complicated.

[CynicalC]

Originally Posted by cadd

Nothing's going to happen to the old man. He got charged. So what? Doesn't mean anything. The prosecutors have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the old man INTENTIONALLY tried to hit the rider.

How can they prove that? The burden of proof is with the prosecutor.

You said it yourself, "prove beyond a reasonable doubt." That means the jury is allowed and expected to use common sense. Besides, considering the evidence, this will never go to trial if the defense attorney is at all competent. There's probably a dozen other charges along the lines of use of force likely to result in great bodily injury, with enhancements seeing as how it did, in fact, cause great bodily injury.

I hope they threw the book at the old ****face, and I hope it sticks too.

[akima]

Originally Posted by CynicalC

I hope they threw the book at the old ****face, and I hope it sticks too.

same

[Khan]

So much Road Rage! It always turns into a bad situation for both parties involved.
Its just sad

[Alex]

He's going to die in jail.

http://lanesplitter.jalopnik.com/ass...lly-1793912157

[Zaph42]

Good to hear that.

Reading the comments under that thread was so predictable. I think the one I agree with most is about the levels of assh0le. If the bikers is a level 1 assh0le, then the drivers is level 8 or 9.

Honestly, I think if the biker got a ticket for ticket for passing in no passing zone, then all is right in the world in regards for punishment for assholery.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by Zaph42

Good to hear that.

Reading the comments under that thread was so predictable. I think the one I agree with most is about the levels of assh0le. If the bikers is a level 1 assh0le, then the drivers is level 8 or 9.

Honestly, I think if the biker got a ticket for ticket for passing in no passing zone, then all is right in the world in regards for punishment for assholery.

I think the crash is punishment enough, in fact, if a judge had made that his punishment, it would be thrown out as "cruel and unusual punishment"