Old guy runs biker off the road

[FrugalNinja250]

Just got off the phone with a friend of mine who's a cop in the Dallas/Fort Worth area (this incident occurred near Grandbury, TX which is around 40 miles southwest of DFW) and he tells me that there is no legal exception to crossing the solid yellow line except to make a turn onto a side street or into a driveway. None. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...htm/TN.545.htm

Now, there are people who think that somehow these motorcyclists somehow "deserved" to be attacked this way. To those people I say, you are socio/psychopaths. Nobody deserves to be violently attacked, except perhaps in self defense or in defense of property. Neither of those apply in this situation.

Make no mistake, Crum is a psychopath who consciously and deliberately made the decision to use his vehicle as a weapon to attack other people, with complete indifference to whether or not he killed them. There is no circumstance within a civilized society where this kind of decision is acceptable in any way.

None.

Because if there was, then it would be ok to do it to you, too. Your life is no more valuable to this society than the lives of those motorcyclists who were almost killed by Crum. No less valuable either, for that matter, unless you're the kind of person who thinks the way that Crum apparently does. In that case, you too are a threat to society and need to be treated as would any other dangerous animal.

I don't even pretend to know what goes on in the minds of people who commit acts of violence against their fellow citizens, nor of those who think that it's justifiable in any way.

[250rr]

Crum. No one was ever more appropriately named.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by VaFish

Me riding by myself (ie daughter not with me on her bike) I would have made the pass too if the car was 20 mph under the speed limit.

While the bike rider is no choir boy, the car driver intentionally ran his car into the bike. I'd say it was attempted murder, but that's probably harder to prove and probably why they charged him with 2 counts of assault with a deadly weapon (the car). So in the eyes of the law it is the same as if he had pointed a gun at the biker and his passenger.

The car driver should, and probably will, go to prison for several years.

The biker sounds like an asshat and should go to jail for a couple months on the invalid license, no insurance, and illegal passing. I won't be donating to him for his surgery costs.

So I'm outraged at both of them.

Perhaps you should donate to her medical costs? It's likely that her costs will exceed $100,000, far beyond what any policies in this case will cover. That's assuming Crum has the minimum policy required under state law:

The current minimum liability limits are $30,000 for each injured person, up to a total of $60,000 per accident, and $25,000 for property damage per accident. This basic coverage is called 30/60/25 coverage.

http://www.tdi.texas.gov/pubs/consumer/cb020.html

So she's likely looking at $70,000 or more in medical bills. She may or may not have medical insurance, this state rejected the Affordable Health Care Act medicare expansion and still has some of the highest uninsured rated in the country. Given that a private health insurance policy runs upwards of $600-1,000 a month here it's likely that if she does it's through her employer if she's employed. Even still she could be looking at many thousands in bills. I have a decent plan through my employer and my maximum out of pocket is $12,000 per annum.

Did she know he didn't have a current license? If he had insurance it probably wasn't comprehensive, so it wouldn't have medical riders to cover her. Comprehensive in this state is really, really expensive, hundreds of dollars a month.

Oh, in the eyes of the law it's not like Crum just pointed a gun at them. More correctly, it's like he pointed a gun at them and then shot them both with the intent to kill. That's aggravated assault. It's a second degree felony.

My hope is that there will be enough public pressure to prevent the DA from offering Crum a plea bargain. The evidence is clear. This is about as perfect a case as you can get. There's absolutely no reason to plea this down to a lesser charge or sentence. Crum is a menace to society and it's clear (to me, at least) that the likelyhood of that changing over the next two decades is zero to none. This is why felony aggravated assault has up to 20 years for sentencing.

[csmith12]

I only got one more comment on this thread.

There is right and wrong and those who are blinded by the forest because they can't see the trees.

Bottom line;
The rider was in the wrong by crossing the yellow... yea??!?!? So what? Does it deserve the action taken against him/her/them. And fyi... it doesn't matter who took that action.

Like it or not, I agree with Mr. Fist. At some point you have to call the ball. Some things are just unacceptable. For every action, there is an equal reaction. It's when it's not equal, there is a problem.

[250rr]

Originally Posted by csmith12

I only got one more comment on this thread.

There is right and wrong and those who are blinded by the forest because they can't see the trees.

Bottom line;
The rider was in the wrong by crossing the yellow... yea??!?!? So what? Does it deserve the action taken against him/her/them. And fyi... it doesn't matter who took that action.

Like it or not, I agree with Mr. Fist. At some point you have to call the ball. Some things are just unacceptable. For every action, there is an equal reaction. It's when it's not equal, there is a problem.

Totally agree. It's almost as if we need two separate threads to discuss this. One thread about how one shouldn't pass on a double yellow. Fair point, I say. Maybe start that thread in the rider skills section. Good!

A separate thread on how one shouldn't attempt to run people off the road and potentially kill them. Which should be posted in the Don't Kill Other People section.

[greg737]

But the most important thread is the one that plays inside your own head while you ride.

Yeah, we love our motorcycles. We love the feeling of riding. I say go ahead and twist that throttle when the conditions are right, but demonstrate restraint and good manners when the moment isn't right. Don't force it.

[250rr]

Originally Posted by greg737

But the most important thread is the one that plays inside your own head while you ride.

Yeah, we love our motorcycles. We love the feeling of riding. I say go ahead and twist that throttle when the conditions are right, but demonstrate restraint and good manners when the moment isn't right. Don't force it.

I can disagree with none of this. Which is the long way to, "I agree".

[adouglas]

Originally Posted by 250rr

Which should be posted in the Don't Kill Other People section.

If I win MotM again I'm going to request that @Alex create just such a section.

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Just got off the phone with a friend of mine who's a cop in the Dallas/Fort Worth area (this incident occurred near Grandbury, TX which is around 40 miles southwest of DFW) and he tells me that there is no legal exception to crossing the solid yellow line except to make a turn onto a side street or into a driveway. None. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...htm/TN.545.htm

Now, there are people who think that somehow these motorcyclists somehow "deserved" to be attacked this way. To those people I say, you are socio/psychopaths. Nobody deserves to be violently attacked, except perhaps in self defense or in defense of property. Neither of those apply in this situation.

Make no mistake, Crum is a psychopath who consciously and deliberately made the decision to use his vehicle as a weapon to attack other people, with complete indifference to whether or not he killed them. There is no circumstance within a civilized society where this kind of decision is acceptable in any way.

None.

Because if there was, then it would be ok to do it to you, too. Your life is no more valuable to this society than the lives of those motorcyclists who were almost killed by Crum. No less valuable either, for that matter, unless you're the kind of person who thinks the way that Crum apparently does. In that case, you too are a threat to society and need to be treated as would any other dangerous animal.

I don't even pretend to know what goes on in the minds of people who commit acts of violence against their fellow citizens, nor of those who think that it's justifiable in any way.

Does Texas recognize contributory negligence?

I'm just wondering how the law suit will play out. If Crum says it was an accident and he didn't see Sanders (highly unlikely based on his own words in the video and there was no reason for him to swerve into the other lane, crossing the double yellow just like Sanders did.) Crum could claim that Sanders actions contributed to the accident and he shares all or part of the responsibility for the accident.

Just found the answer to my question, Texas is 51% rule:

Pure Contributory Negligence

Only four states and the District of Columbia recognize the Pure Contributory Negligence Rule, which says that a damaged party cannot recover any damages if it is even 1 percent at fault. The jurisdictions which employ the Pure Contributory Negligence Rule include Alabama, District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia. Under this rule, a plaintiff found 10 percent at fault for causing an accident will recover nothing, even though the defendant is 90 percent at fault. In certain cases, the contributory negligence defense can be overcome. If the plaintiff can prove that the defendant’s willful and wanton acts caused the injury, then the defendant cannot claim contributory negligence bars the plaintiff from recovery. Likewise, if the plaintiff can show that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid an accident and did not do so, then the defendant can still be held accountable even if a plaintiff is found contributorily negligent.

Pure Comparative Fault

Thirteen states recognize the Pure Comparative Fault Rule, which allows a damaged party to recover even if it is 99 percent at fault, although the recovery is reduced by the damaged party’s degree of fault. These states include Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington.

Modified Comparative Fault

There are competing schools of thought in the 33 states that recognize the Modified Comparative Fault Rule.

Twelve states follow the 50 percent Bar Rule, meaning a damaged party cannot recover if it is 50 percent or more at fault, but if it is 49 percent or less at fault, it can recover, although its recovery is reduced by its degree of fault. States which adhere to the 50 percent Bar Rule within modified comparative fault include Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

Twenty-one states follow the 51 percent Bar Rule under which a damaged party cannot recover if it is 51 percent or more at fault. However, the damaged party can recover if it is 50 percent or less at fault, but that recovery would be reduced by its degree of fault. The states which follow the 51 percent Bar Rule include Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

So does crossing the yellow line equal 51% or does Crum's malicious act wipe out Sanders negligence?

For the young lady I think she has an air tight suit against Crum as a passenger she had no input on the accident.

[spooph]

Originally Posted by adouglas

Would you feel differently if the driver had pointed a gun out of his window and shot the motorcyclist?
...
Am I the only one who finds that completely outrageous?
...
Tell me... if you happen upon a farm tractor trundling down a two-lane, do you wait for a passing zone? Be honest. If that's a different situation than coming up on a car going 20 mph under the limit, then how is it different?
...

lol, the initial reason I quoted you in Greg's defense was to point out the fact that there are multiple things to consider and it's just not as simply as that. Again, not saying this isn't atrocious, excessive and down right despicable of Crum who has most of the blame, but by vilifying him completely it negates the responsibility of the rider.

If I were in the riders position, would I have done the same and passed the car? Absolutely! Or, in your example of the tractor, absolutely!

IN ADDITION, and this seems the part that you don't seem to understand:
1.) I have insurance
2.) I ATGATT
3.) My passengers ATGATT
4.) I'm patient - I would have sat back long enough to figure out why this person was going 20mph below the speed limit. For somebody to do something like that on a road like that means something is wrong.

I've always gotten the distinct impression that the membership of Ninjette are always looking for ways to learn from other's mistakes, and in that vein was I trying to present a learning opportunity.

A learning opportunity that came back to my most unpopular opinion - a rider is 100% responsible for their safety because idiots and psychopaths, like Crum, exist and share those roads with us.

As VaFish said, I'm outraged at both of them. It's situations like this that make motorcycles into "murdercycles" in the popular opinion and to simply point fingers at the driver is to miss the biggest solution that we have at our disposal, crazy people or no crazy people.

Lastly, I am sorry that this ground your gears so hard. As I mentioned previously, it is a difficult situation and its easy to jump to one side or the other, but there is a reason justice isn't served by lynch mobs anymore...

[DSomething]

Originally Posted by VaFish

Does Texas recognize contributory negligence?

I'm just wondering how the law suit will play out. If Crum says it was an accident and he didn't see Sanders (highly unlikely based on his own words in the video and there was no reason for him to swerve into the other lane, crossing the double yellow just like Sanders did.) Crum could claim that Sanders actions contributed to the accident and he shares all or part of the responsibility for the accident.

Just found the answer to my question, Texas is 51% rule:



So does crossing the yellow line equal 51% or does Crum's malicious act wipe out Sanders negligence?

For the young lady I think she has an air tight suit against Crum as a passenger she had no input on the accident.

It's interesting for the lady because, if the old guy gets a really good attorney, that attorney could argue her boyfriend is just as liable for the accident as the old guy. Therefore, any damages, if awarded, should be split between the old guy and her boyfriend. Of course, it sounds like her boyfriend is just about worth nothing so she's SOL with him. The jury will see the boyfriend's negligence from the video based on the law. So, if the old guy is sued by the chick, he'll be liable but she probably won't get awarded a hefty settlement from him. And, I don't think it will matter to the attorney, nor the jury, if she decides not to sue her boyfriend. Liability is liability. Besides, most people view riders as reckless dangers to society anyway, therefore, it should be relatively easy for an attorney to argue the rider's culpability...and the jury to buy it.

FWIW, the old guy is a crazy **** who deserves to be...well, you can insert whatever wicked methods of torture you can imagine here.

D.

[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.

Maybe the "I don't care" comment at the end will end up biting him in the ass...but when they question him on the "I don't care" comment, he can always say "I really don't care if I hit someone. I have insurance for that. But I didn't hit him on purpose. I heard motorcycle engines roaring and I was startled and accidentally jerked the steering wheel".

If they go to a jury trial, how would you think the 12 men/women would feel when they watch the entire video of these two guys going "baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" with their bikes passing other motorists illegally cutting across the double yellow?

So I guess, at the end of the day, the riders didn't help themselves out by riding like asshats and the old man didn't help himself out by saying "I don't care".

If he were a bit smarter, he would've came out of the car shaking and cover his face with his hands saying "OMG OMG OMG I'm so scared".

[dcj13]

Why does outrageous stuff like this happen primarily in Texas or Florida?

[Motofool]

Originally Posted by spooph

.............
4.) I'm patient - I would have sat back long enough to figure out why this person was going 20mph below the speed limit. For somebody to do something like that on a road like that means something is wrong.
.............

A learning opportunity that came back to my most unpopular opinion - a rider is 100% responsible for their safety because idiots and psychopaths, like Crum, exist and share those roads with us...........

[psych0hans]

Just saw the video and, honestly, I don't think the rider was doing anything wrong. The whole lane was empty, there was zero on coming traffic, what's the harm in overtaking? Or maybe that's just the Indian in me speaking, because that's how we do things in india, not the most law abiding country, I must admit. On the other hand, deliberately knocking over a motorcyclist for basically being faster than you or for "breaking a law", that's down right being a douche and homicidal. Ok, so the biker broke a law, that doesn't give that a**hole a right to be judge jury and executioner... I hope he goes to jail.

[VaFish]

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.

Maybe the "I don't care" comment at the end will end up biting him in the ass...but when they question him on the "I don't care" comment, he can always say "I really don't care if I hit someone. I have insurance for that. But I didn't hit him on purpose. I heard motorcycle engines roaring and I was startled and accidentally jerked the steering wheel".

If they go to a jury trial, how would you think the 12 men/women would feel when they watch the entire video of these two guys going "baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" with their bikes passing other motorists illegally cutting across the double yellow?

So I guess, at the end of the day, the riders didn't help themselves out by riding like asshats and the old man didn't help himself out by saying "I don't care".

If he were a bit smarter, he would've came out of the car shaking and cover his face with his hands saying "OMG OMG OMG I'm so scared".

What is going to hang the old guy is what he said to the police after the accident. If he opened his mouth and said "yeah I cut him off, those damn crotch rockets are a menace" things will go very bad for him. If he came up with some other story about being startled or a bee in his car, or if he just kept his mouth shut until his attorney arrived the prosecutor will have problems.

My guess is he didn't keep his mouth shut.

[adouglas]

Originally Posted by spooph

lol, the initial reason I quoted you in Greg's defense was to point out the fact that there are multiple things to consider and it's just not as simply as that. Again, not saying this isn't atrocious, excessive and down right despicable of Crum who has most of the blame, but by vilifying him completely it negates the responsibility of the rider.

If I were in the riders position, would I have done the same and passed the car? Absolutely! Or, in your example of the tractor, absolutely!

IN ADDITION, and this seems the part that you don't seem to understand:
1.) I have insurance
2.) I ATGATT
3.) My passengers ATGATT
4.) I'm patient - I would have sat back long enough to figure out why this person was going 20mph below the speed limit. For somebody to do something like that on a road like that means something is wrong.

I've always gotten the distinct impression that the membership of Ninjette are always looking for ways to learn from other's mistakes, and in that vein was I trying to present a learning opportunity.

A learning opportunity that came back to my most unpopular opinion - a rider is 100% responsible for their safety because idiots and psychopaths, like Crum, exist and share those roads with us.

I agree for the most part. You know I'm all about ATGATT and safety, to the point of being more geared up and hi-viz than the vast majority of riders. Do you wear full leathers every time you ride? I do. I don't even carry passengers because I refuse to risk anyone else's life.

Don't misinterpret my outrage as sanctioning the lack of gear or insurance. That is an entirely separate issue and not related to the attempted murder.

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.

[choneofakind]

Heck, if the 20-under allegations are true, I would have passed him in my car with that much open road available, regardless of the line... Ain't nobody got time for that.

Now, and interesting topic this has brought up; Frugal mentioned his officer friend reviewing some law about crossing the yellow. At least in Ohio, there is an exemption for passing on a DY. If a slow moving vehicle is moving less than half the posted limit, traffic is allowed to pass (when safe) on a double yellow. The intent was for things like bicycles, tractors, golf carts, etc etc. Now I doubt that the road in this scenario was 40 mph and that the old man doing 20 under put him at half the posted limit, but it's an interesting discussion that gets raised. Should there be provisions for allowing road users to pass when others not willing to keep up with the flow of traffic? This article is geared more towards bicycling, but it's relevant given the discussion.
http://iamtraffic.org/engineering/cr...e-yellow-line/




I agree with you Mr Fist. Well thought out and well communicated argument, but this:

Originally Posted by adouglas

Do you wear full leathers every time you ride? I do. I don't even carry passengers because I refuse to risk anyone else's life.

is a little too holier-than-thou for me. Just putting that out there.

[Panda]

Originally Posted by adouglas

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.

So who is responsible for the rider's safety? The driver?

[cbinker]

Originally Posted by adouglas

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.

Do not go that route, EVER.

[allanoue]

Crum is claiming he was stung by a wasp.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/unusual-...it-motorcycle/

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by allanoue

Crum is claiming he was stung by a wasp.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/unusual-...it-motorcycle/

Crum must have read my post.

But his comment about other bikes riding wheelies and thinking the rider was one of them kind of contradicts his spider bite/bee sting story. And it also shows that he knew the bike was coming up behind him.

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by choneofakind

At least in Ohio, there is an exemption for passing on a DY. If a slow moving vehicle is moving less than half the posted limit, traffic is allowed to pass (when safe) on a double yellow. The intent was for things like bicycles, tractors, golf carts, etc etc.

I just had to read VA code to check our laws. Only excuses for crossing a double yellow line are to make a left turn or to pass a pedestrian or device powered by a human such as a bicycle, skateboard, or foot scooter.

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by VaFish

I just had to read VA code to check our laws. Only excuses for crossing a double yellow line are to make a left turn or to pass a pedestrian or device powered by a human such as a bicycle, skateboard, or foot scooter.

No it isn't, keep looking... You should also be able to cross for pedestrians, road construction (where applicable), animals, debris or just about any other safety concern. If there is a hole in the road that would swallow half your car, you're not expected to drive though it or run into the large boulder in the middle of your lane.

However, there was no evidence in the video of a safety concern. The riders were just impatient.

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by csmith12

No it isn't, keep looking... You should also be able to cross for pedestrians, road construction (where applicable), animals, debris or just about any other safety concern. If there is a hole in the road that would swallow half your car, you're not expected to drive though it or run into the large boulder in the middle of your lane.......

Nope,

Nothing in the VA code allows you to do that. There may very well be some case law that says it is OK though. VA is real big on having case law define exceptions to the law. For instance we have no law that defines what is acceptable self defense, that is all defined in case law.

[ninjamunky85]

I definitely think the rider deserves some of the blame here. Beside the fact that he was riding without gear, riding with a passenger also not wearing gear, and riding aggressively with a passenger, he just wasn't paying attention.

Riding around in his own little world he obviously never expected the car driver to act aggressively against him. I actually don't think that the car driver was trying to hit him and just trying to scare them. Either way the motorcycle rider did nothing to try to avoid the accident and instead just kept going not even noticing the car swerving into him.

[adouglas]

Apologies if my comments about wearing full leathers rubbed anyone the wrong way. Just responding to Spooph's comment that I "don't seem to understand" about having insurance, ATGATT, being patient, etc. I do understand. Statements about my personal practice were intended to prove it.

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear about 100% responsibility.

Riders are indeed 100% responsible for riding in a safe, controlled manner, and for doing what they can to protect themselves. But the suggestion (e.g. "I have no sympathy for the rider") is that this includes responsibility for not getting hit by a lunatic trying to kill him. Obviously not something that a rider can do anything about.

Said it before but it bears repeating: Had the rider actually been acting aggressively, then okay... shared responsibility. But he wasn't. This is like getting hit by a bus.

We've heard the "blame the victim" rationale before... "if she hadn't dressed like that, if she hadn't gone to that bar, if she hadn't led him on, he wouldn't have raped her." Sorry, victims are victims. Is it your responsibility to not be a victim?

It's the absolute, unqualified nature of the statement that I find flawed.

How about

"A rider is 100% responsible for those aspects of safety that are within his control."

That makes sense to me.

[Panda]

Passing on a double yellow is within the rider's control. He could have decided not to pass just like the car in front of him choose not to pass.

I'm not saying that's what I would have chosen to do.

It's not the rider's fault he was trying to pass a complete lunatic. It's not the rider's fault he was attacked. But the rider took on an additional level of risk by making the pass on a double yellow.

[spooph]

Originally Posted by adouglas

I agree for the most part. You know I'm all about ATGATT and safety, to the point of being more geared up and hi-viz than the vast majority of riders. Do you wear full leathers every time you ride?
...
Is that a learning opportunity? What is the rider's responsibility there?

ah, ok, I see what happened here. You're arguing who gets the blame. I'm looking for factors which can teach us something. I don't disagree with the fact that it's an unprovoked attack, nor am I trying to blame the victim. I agree with you completely there.

Hopefully this discussion will pop up in our minds and make us think just a little longer about the possible risks of a situation, and make us ask questions like:
- What's going on up ahead?
- Why is that driver going so slow?
- Would getting his license plate, pulling over and informing the police be a better option than passing him? Maybe this will save somebody else from a possible risky situation? Maybe the drive is drunk, tired, or emotionally upset? Maybe that driver is emotionally upset because he/she is going to a funeral, and I can simply help them by being patient and following the law? Or is my need for an exciting ride more important than them having a peaceful drive to go watch their loved one being buried?

No, not saying that's what Crum was doing, just trying to illustrate the point that our #1 safety feature is our brain, and if we find common ground with those that irritate us, and take a step back long enough, then all of a sudden we do exactly what the BRC taught us - to create time and space. In the moment, I know from personal experience, it's hard to give that extra bit of thought, because the ride is exciting.

Originally Posted by adouglas

Said it before but it bears repeating: Had the rider actually been acting aggressively, then okay... shared responsibility. But he wasn't. This is like getting hit by a bus.

Sorry, victims are victims. Is it your responsibility to not be a victim?

It's the absolute, unqualified nature of the statement that I find flawed.

How about

"A rider is 100% responsible for those aspects of safety that are within his control."

That makes sense to me.

So, I hate to beat a dead horse, however... You and I might not consider the riders behavior as aggressive. Obviously Crum thought different. By us simply blaming him, and not identifying (but not blaming) the various things the rider could have done different, we can't learn.

On victims: It's a terrible thing. It should NEVER be invalidated or blamed. However, there is a third option in addition to the blame game. That third option is preparedness.

Each and every one of us should carry the responsibility not to become a victim. If we become a victim, the game changes as then we have to deal with a bunch of other factors and that's a whole new thread in a different section of this forum.

All I'm trying to say is that we must use all of the tools we have to keep from becoming a victim, tools which all of us have easy access to: making time to think a situation through completely.

I've learned this from personal experience. I use to ride like a maniac. I still do occasionally. What I've learned is that showing respect is my biggest asset. Sitting behind cars for miles and miles sometimes shows them respect, and they usually slow down or pull to the side for me to pass. When I was younger I'd get impatient wanting to enjoy the few corners which I knew lay ahead. I could get away with it, I had the power. That however didn't take into account the other person's perception of me. I've learned a crash isn't worth the impatience.

I am sorry if I was too direct or insulted you. I didn't mean to. If we ever meet, I would love to buy you a cup of coffee or a beer.

[adouglas]

[FrugalNinja250]

Just wanted to point out, for those who are into accounting (i.e., the rider did something so therefor in some small part the driver's actions are less objectionable), that the driver also crossed the solid yellow when he went after the rider. So, the rider cross the solid yellow and the driver crossed the solid yellow, and those cancel each other out. All that's left is the driver actually using his car as a weapon.

BTW, I doubt the driver has been ticketed for crossing that solid yellow like the rider was. Does that seem fair? I think not. If one gets a ticket, then the other gets a ticket. Now that's fair.

[fishdip]

Link to original page on YouTube.
I say the rider had it coming

[fishdip]

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

[choneofakind]

Search first.

https://www.ninjette.org/forums/show...62#post1059062

[cbinker]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Just wanted to point out, for those who are into accounting (i.e., the rider did something so therefor in some small part the driver's actions are less objectionable), that the driver also crossed the solid yellow when he went after the rider. So, the rider cross the solid yellow and the driver crossed the solid yellow, and those cancel each other out. All that's left is the driver actually using his car as a weapon.

BTW, I doubt the driver has been ticketed for crossing that solid yellow like the rider was. Does that seem fair? I think not. If one gets a ticket, then the other gets a ticket. Now that's fair.

but it all would have been prevented if the biker had patience.

[Motofool]

Originally Posted by adouglas

.......... How about

"A rider is 100% responsible for those aspects of safety that are within his control."

That makes sense to me.

Within his control covers a range that can be anywhere between zero and total control.

To me, that is another layer of responsibility: the attitude and determination to be or not to be the best rider that he can be.

In order to deal in a sustained way with all the dangers of traffic and with the many violent drivers, a rider should work hard and daily to become as proficient and street smart as his capabilities allow.

Originally Posted by spooph

............. Each and every one of us should carry the responsibility not to become a victim. If we become a victim, the game changes as then we have to deal with a bunch of other factors and that's a whole new thread in a different section of this forum.

All I'm trying to say is that we must use all of the tools we have to keep from becoming a victim, tools which all of us have easy access to: making time to think a situation through completely..........

Prevention is the key word here.
We need to learn when to push and when to pull back.
We have to be able to see dangerous situations way before they develop.

The outcome may be the same, but fighting to the end, using all our arsenal of strategies, riding skills and protective gear is very different than passively watching the accident to develop with frozen brain and hands.

Responsibility, which is no more than our capacity to foresee and react, is double when we carry a passenger.

Regarding fairness of this accident, there is no much to debate, as each human being has a fine sense for that, either willing to see it or not.
Justice has not much to do with the unforgiving laws of Physics and traffic.
Compensation for a damaged wrist can never be as good as undamaged wrist and emotions.


“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”― Benjamin Franklin

[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

[csmith12]

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by cbinker

but it all would have been prevented if the biker had patience.

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.

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by fishdip

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

Seriously?

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