It really does happen

[CThunder-blue]

Link to original page on YouTube.

[kaiserz]

He did that on purpose...

[nickadolph]

Let's see here...yup I mad.

[Kevin2109]

I would beat the living shi*t out of him till he stopped breathing!

[SpeedDemon]

im with kevin 100%

[nickjpass]

Did the motorcyclists get up and pig up some pole?

[Mountain Dew]

Don't know what he picked up, but he did pick up something.

Could've been a pipe tucked away in his fairing or a piece of the bike.

[bdavison]

Rest of video shows rider cramming piece of exhaust pipe up idiots.......

[Havok]

Holy ****! i would beat the guy in the car down so damn hard.

[nickjpass]

Originally Posted by bdavison

Rest of video shows rider cramming piece of exhaust pipe up idiots.......

Huh and what rest of video?

[Trailerboy531]

Originally Posted by nickjpass

Huh and what rest of video?

It's a joke....


I'm with Kevin though - i'd beat that guy until his mother wouldn't recognize him.

[Cuongism]

Wow, so that's why motorcycle gloves have carbon fiber knuckles...

[nickjpass]

Originally Posted by Trailerboy531

It's a joke....


I'm with Kevin though - i'd beat that guy until his mother wouldn't recognize him.

Sorry. Same here.

[rockNroll]

I'd beat him, his whole family... his neighbors, I'd kick his dog..........

[rusninja]

Originally Posted by Cuongism

Wow, so that's why motorcycle gloves have carbon fiber knuckles...

Who needs carbon fiber... I want these.

http://www.revzilla.com/motorcycle/d...tal-pro-gloves

[sombo]

Oh absolutely done on purpose, just look at how forceful he suddenly opened that door. He was trying to hurt/kill the guy. I hate people like that thinking to take "justice" (as they see it) into their own hands. Ok, so the guy was riding like a jack@ss, not your job to try and kill him for it.

[akima]

I think people often dehumanize each other when their in/on some form of transport. "f***ing cyclist, f***ing cager, f*** Audi, f***ing biker". It's not good because stuff like that happens. That guy -- by the look of it -- just tried to murder another human being, probably because he was annoyed by that human being's riding technique (I use the word "technique" loosely ). He probably didn't see "it" as a human though, he probably saw a "biker". It's less likely that same man would pull out a gun and shoot someone on the street because of they way they walked... because that would be murder of a human!

... and yes, like the rest of you, if my bones felt intact in my body, I'd get up slam the plastic knuckles of my gloves square in that "human's" face before laying back on that grass embankment to let my rage and bruising settle (>.<)

[CZroe]

Once again, I always play Devil's Advocate, but there is no way that we can say that was intentional. Opening from that side is often done without looking because there is not supposed to be anyone lane-splitting from there.

Originally Posted by kaiserz

He did that on purpose...

You can't possibly assume that.

Originally Posted by sombo

Oh absolutely done on purpose, just look at how forceful he suddenly opened that door. He was trying to hurt/kill the guy. I hate people like that thinking to take "justice" (as they see it) into their own hands. Ok, so the guy was riding like a jack@ss, not your job to try and kill him for it.

I've had to open the door every bit as forcefully. I've had wasps fly into my clothes or had only a moment to grab something from the trunk/boot before traffic starts moving.

[miss_syn]

That's why you split on the passenger side, lol.

[Cuongism]

Majority of splitting is in between cars unfortunately so there's usually a driver on your right. If you're splitting on the passenger side, chances are you're on a shoulder which will make it illegal.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by Cuongism

Majority of splitting is in between cars unfortunately so there's usually a driver on your right. If you're splitting on the passenger side, chances are you're on a shoulder which will make it illegal.

Actually, chances are that you're between lanes. It's illegal to split on the far edge of etither lane, yellow or white lines, though I'm not sure exactly how considering the other name for the technique is "lane sharing." It may just be that officers choose to apply "reckless driving" or "unsafe speed for conditions" to anyone on the edge of either side but it's all supposed to be legal in CA.

[blink]

would have beat him, put his face infront of the door, got in his car and did the same he did to me

[Cuongism]

Originally Posted by CZroe

Actually, chances are that you're between lanes.

Just looking for some clarity on the difference in our statements or is it just semantics?

[CZroe]

Read it wrong or you ninja-edited.

[Cuongism]

haha, I couldn't have ninja-edited since you quoted me

[Linuss]

The driver wouldn't be getting away unscathed, that's for sure.

"Self defense officer. He clearly tried to kill me by hitting me, and as soon as I got up he was out of his car and had an aggressive manner."

[sombo]

Ok, you do realize that's not from the US right? So our laws don't apply to this situation. I also disagree with the idea of it not being intentional. I'm sorry but that's just too big a leap for me to believe that he had some other reason to "slam" open his door suddenly JUST as a rider is coming by. Sorry that won't fly in court.

[cerberusrex25]

What a Richard.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by sombo

Ok, you do realize that's not from the US right? So our laws don't apply to this situation. I also disagree with the idea of it not being intentional. I'm sorry but that's just too big a leap for me to believe that he had some other reason to "slam" open his door suddenly JUST as a rider is coming by. Sorry that won't fly in court.

Who says that a million other doors haven't flown open without incident and this is the first to have one? Courts require PROOF. What you are saying is what would not fly. There is proof of fault, yes, but not proof of intent.

Also, those "US laws" we were discussing are actually CA laws and the LACK thereof (there are no lane-splitting laws, hence, it's legal).

[sombo]

The PROOF is the video. The video only shows the act which appears to be deliberate. You add in the possibility of it being just a coincidence with out any proof of it. That is something courts don't usually accept. It is often viewed as an excuse to try and get out of responsibility for their actions.

Your statement almost makes it sound like you are trying to make CA seem separate of the US. What I see everyone discussing is what is known to be legal or illegal here pertaining to lane splitting. We have no idea what is or isn't legal there.

[MotoED]

Originally Posted by Kevin2109

I would beat the living shi*t out of him till he stopped breathing!

Agree! So would I!

[Kevin2109]

Originally Posted by sombo

Your statement almost makes it sound like you are trying to make CA seem separate of the US.

Pretty damn close...

Can you lane split? Nope, CA wins

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by sombo

The PROOF is the video. The video only shows the act which appears to be deliberate. You add in the possibility of it being just a coincidence with out any proof of it. That is something courts don't usually accept. It is often viewed as an excuse to try and get out of responsibility for their actions.

Your statement almost makes it sound like you are trying to make CA seem separate of the US. What I see everyone discussing is what is known to be legal or illegal here pertaining to lane splitting. We have no idea what is or isn't legal there.

CA *IS* separate from the rest of the US in lane-splitting laws because it is the only state where it is legal and the only one with which we can compare lane-splitting laws. We don't even know if lane-splitting is legal there and I can't count how many times I've thrown my door open without looking behind me before moving to a state that allowed lane splitting. If I was ready to jump out and grab something from the trunk and catch up without getting people angry in that kinda of traffic I may have done it exactly like that. Note that the guy got out after hitting him. He didn't try to "get away" like someone who knows what they did is wrong might. He had no escape plan, which goes a long way to arguing coincidence. Of course, people do things in anger without thinking all the time, which is why it still may be deliberate but that requires more proof than we have.

Now, you have the justice system "burden of proof" requirements ENTIRELY backwards. "Proof" that it was deliberate is NOT shown in the video and in any fair court you are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. In order to be innocent until proven guilty, coincidence is something that the courts MUST accept. Proving otherwise would take witnesses or other actions to prove that it was more than coincidence. For example, if the driver got out and started kicking the biker (indicating part of a deliberate attack) or if the biker had an incident with this man before (the very meaning of "more than coincidence") or a passenger heard the driver complain about bikers lane-splitting just before opening the door (indicating that he was aware of the lane splitter) or if the driver had a history of doing this. The proof of FAULT is in the video, but not the proof of intent.

To demonstrate how wrong that line of thinking is, let me just say that all I would have to do is quote this post of yours to get you out of any jury duty.

[akima]

Originally Posted by CZroe

To demonstrate how wrong that line of thinking is, let me just say that all I would have to do is quote this post of yours to get you out of any jury duty.

Is that for real? If someone can be shown to be ignorant of how the legal system works, they can be excluded from Jury service.

I wonder if that's true for the UK too.

[sombo]

Feel free to do so, doesn't bother me since our justice system is broke anyway. I've never known a court to accept "coincidence" as a viable excuse especially with video evidence of the act. Again, it would come down to one word against another. If it was the driver's word vs the biker's word in court with this video, most likely case would be that it would rule in favor of the biker.

In the video it appears deliberate, you may argue all the possible cases of coincidence you like. But in the end, it would be biker vs driver with the video showing the driver at fault which would be enough to judge guilty on and issue punishment. Now that punishment could be as much as jail time (not likely) or as little as a simple fine of some sort. Could the biker be fined? Sure, depending on what the laws are on motorcycles there.

I don't know why you are fighting so hard against me in favor of the driver anyway. I'm not one of the ones that said he should be beaten to death for this. I don't think anyone should be beaten to death for anything really.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by sombo

Feel free to do so, doesn't bother me since our justice system is broke anyway. I've never known a court to accept "coincidence" as a viable excuse especially with video evidence of the act. Again, it would come down to one word against another. If it was the driver's word vs the biker's word in court with this video, most likely case would be that it would rule in favor of the biker.

In the video it appears deliberate, you may argue all the possible cases of coincidence you like. But in the end, it would be biker vs driver with the video showing the driver at fault which would be enough to judge guilty on and issue punishment. Now that punishment could be as much as jail time (not likely) or as little as a simple fine of some sort. Could the biker be fined? Sure, depending on what the laws are on motorcycles there.

I don't know why you are fighting so hard against me in favor of the driver anyway. I'm not one of the ones that said he should be beaten to death for this. I don't think anyone should be beaten to death for anything really.

Once again, coincidence is not an excuse for FAULT. FAULT can be determined in the video and is NOT "excused" by coincidence. The coincidence determines intent.

I'm NOT fighting you. I'm simply telling everyone that you can't assume intent.

[CThunder-blue]

Ok, if you watch the video a few times, you can infer from body language it was intentional.

1- The door flies open, the driver casually steps out. It's obvious he's not being attacked by something inside the car.

2- The driver gets out with his hands at his sides. In most cultures, when you do something on accident and possibly injure someone else, you instinctively try to help that person. Your hands are raised, palms up in a gesture to communicate that you are sorry and you also are expressing if there's anything you can do. Also, it conveys "peace". Hands up and palms forward would mean, "I'm sorry, please don't get mad." The drivers hands were down at his sides. He either didn't care that he hurt the biker, he was expecting a confrontation, or both. The biker probably wasn't even in the right state of mind when he went down except to make sure he ran away from on-coming traffic.

[sombo]

Not to mention that the door is opened as the rider is halfway passed hitting him more in the side/back instead of the front/side. It looks too timed and I agree with the body language of the driver (glad someone else saw that as well).

[Live2ride]

I wouldn't lay a hand on him. I would take all his info; and witness info and call the police immediately. I would then sue him in court for attempted murder (intentionally crashing the motorcycle into oncoming traffic that easily could have killed the rider) and take everything he's got down to his last penny; resulting in him being thrown in jail and we all know what happens in jail... It would take some time to do such a thing but in the end it would be more worth it to watch his entire life fall apart piece by piece and then get bum f'd by bubba; while I go and visit him once a month to ask him "was it really worth it?".

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by CThunder-blue

Ok, if you watch the video a few times, you can infer from body language it was intentional.

1- The door flies open, the driver casually steps out. It's obvious he's not being attacked by something inside the car.

2- The driver gets out with his hands at his sides. In most cultures, when you do something on accident and possibly injure someone else, you instinctively try to help that person. Your hands are raised, palms up in a gesture to communicate that you are sorry and you also are expressing if there's anything you can do. Also, it conveys "peace". Hands up and palms forward would mean, "I'm sorry, please don't get mad." The drivers hands were down at his sides. He either didn't care that he hurt the biker, he was expecting a confrontation, or both. The biker probably wasn't even in the right state of mind when he went down except to make sure he ran away from on-coming traffic.

I work security and "hands at your side" is naturally the least threatening most submissive posture. Putting your hands up as described is defensive and done if you are expecting possible retaliation and expecting a confrontation (you don't have to be offensive to expect confrontation, especially if guilty of instigating it prior). They tell you this CONSTANTLY in all the training for dealing with upset, angry, and dangerous people. While I have agreed all along that it COULD be and LOOKS intentional, the "body language" does not prove anything either. The man could have been ready to jump out to grab something from his trunk and didn't know what had just happened, hence, he stands there looking confused after rushing out then tries to assess the situation. I can't understand why he would get out at all if he were attacking the biker and did not continue his attack.