Article with full video here:
http://lanesplitter.jalopnik.com/dr...d&utm_campaign=Feed:+jalopnik/full+(Jalopnik)
Motorcycle
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Article with full video here:
http://lanesplitter.jalopnik.com/dr...d&utm_campaign=Feed:+jalopnik/full+(Jalopnik)
And therefore running into the motorcyclist was justified?
Solid conservative thinking there. Kudos.
Could have swore I was watching a video made in Eastern Iowa. Driver impeding traffic and a motorcyclist thinking he didn't have to obey traffic laws. Guess I thought impeding traffic was and Eastern Iowa thing. I've never seen it anywhere else the way I see it in Eastern Iowa, especially on 380.
That being said, that driver should be charged with something. It was attempted homicide in my book, and it sounds like the girl on the bike was seriously injured.The motorcyclists were breaking the law, but will pay enough in hospital bills. No need to add insult to injury.
If that were my daughter on the bike, I would be pissed at her boyfriend and the driver of the car.
That being said, that driver should be charged with something. It was attempted homicide in my book, and it sounds like the girl on the bike was seriously injured.The motorcyclists were breaking the law, but will pay enough in hospital bills. No need to add insult to injury.
If that were my daughter on the bike, I would be pissed at her boyfriend and the driver of the car.
Why do you turn everything into a "R vs L" thing? Are you capable of coming out of your little political safe closet?
The driver of the moto should be ticketed for passing in a no passing zone, the driver of the car should be ticketed for reckless driving, failure to maintain control, and any other the police can tack on.
Crotch-rocket riders should all be put in jail and have their bikes smashed in a giant smasher.
Lol @ Zogby. Everything he disagrees with gets filed under "Conservative Thinking", even if it's not remotely political in nature.
Stupid riders should, I have ridden (and do ride) all kinds of moto's (rockets, enduros, harley, touring) and I don't do stupid crap like that.
It should be noted that the guy who swerved and hit the bike was not the one impeding traffic. There were at least two other vehicles ahead of him.
I don't know if they were going 20mph below the speed limit. Probably more like 20mph below the speed the bikes wanted to be going.
Rider is dumb for passing on a double solid but that driver deserves jail time.
Ticket the rider for attempting to pass in no-passing zone.
Charge the driver for failure to maintain lane, reckless driving and reckless endangerment.
Ticket the rider for attempting to pass in no-passing zone.
Charge the driver for failure to maintain lane, reckless driving and reckless endangerment.
This sounds about right. I would maybe add assault for the driver and reckless driving for the rider.
The two cars ahead of this driver were very far in front of him. At the same time, the car behind this driver was right behind him. I highly doubt it was the two cars in front of this driver impeding traffic. He was the one impeding traffic.
He appeared to be about 10 car lengths behind the closest vehicle and was keeping pace with it. I suppose he could have gotten right up on the guy's ass like the bikes did, but that doesn't get you to your destination any quicker.
Ssssshhhhh. He views himself as a deep thinker. Not the cheap shot artist he truly is.
Come on guy. Really? The two cars in front of this driver were not the one's impeding traffic. No one follows from 10+ car lengths away. The only reason it seemed like he was keeping up was that he sped up right before he cut over and hit the biker. Eastern Iowa driver's do this too. As they are getting passed, they speed up to prevent the person from passing making the situation dangerous for both drivers..
In situations like this, I'm going to go with the the one assaulted rather than the guy who attempted to kill two people. The driver's response was even better, "I don't care".
In this video the vehicles at the front come into view at about 1:20 and the bike starts to make his pass at 1:40. During that 20 seconds the driver who swerved maintains a constant distance between himself and the vehicle in front of him. If the speed limit is 55 and the guy in front of you is driving 55, he's not "impeding traffic" just because his presence temporarily forces you to slow down from 75.
This debate again! LC should be here shortly...
Brings up a good question though, how "illegal" do acts need to be before we stop caring about hurting them?
I mean, clearly you shooting a bank robber would be heroic...but robbery is "bad illegal." Does speeding fit? Jaywalking? Shoplifting? Walking down the middle of the road?
Brings up a good question though, how "illegal" do acts need to be before we stop caring about hurting them?
I mean, clearly you shooting a bank robber would be heroic...but robbery is "bad illegal." Does speeding fit? Jaywalking? Shoplifting? Walking down the middle of the road?
After watching the video multiple times I have concluded that the driver was not trying to hit the bike. He moved over to block it from passing and misjudged how fast it was going. He didn't sideswipe the bike, it appeared that the bike actually run into him from behind. I think the driver just didn't realize the bike was closing so fast. And the "stung by a wasp" excuse was obviously horsecrap.
If you watch carefully you can see that the driver actually started swerving back into his lane just before the impact. I think the driver saw the bike starting to make a pass and moved over to block him, but then quickly realized the bike was going much faster than he expected and tried to move back over.
My ruling is illegal lane change, assault, and reckless driving for the car. Speeding, illegal passing, and reckless driving for the bike. And the whole lot of them should lose their licenses. The roads will be just a bit safer if all of them take the bus.
If you watch carefully you can see that the driver actually started swerving back into his lane just before the impact. I think the driver saw the bike starting to make a pass and moved over to block him, but then quickly realized the bike was going much faster than he expected and tried to move back over.
My ruling is illegal lane change, assault, and reckless driving for the car. Speeding, illegal passing, and reckless driving for the bike. And the whole lot of them should lose their licenses. The roads will be just a bit safer if all of them take the bus.
Last edited:
^^^No way in hell the car was just trying to block him. He swerved out aggressively trying to hit them.
I agree with you but that discussion is pretty irrelevant to the whole situation. Who cares which care was impeding traffic. It caused the motorcycle rider to make a bad decision and the car driver to try to kill him and his passenger.
Even speeding up to keep the bike in the other lane would have been an extremely dangerous and dick move by the car driver but the fact that he swerved and hit them is criminal. He literally tried to kill them.
I agree with you but that discussion is pretty irrelevant to the whole situation. Who cares which care was impeding traffic. It caused the motorcycle rider to make a bad decision and the car driver to try to kill him and his passenger.
Even speeding up to keep the bike in the other lane would have been an extremely dangerous and dick move by the car driver but the fact that he swerved and hit them is criminal. He literally tried to kill them.
If he swerved as the bike was beside him then yes, he was deliberately trying to hit them. He swerved when the bike was still well behind him, then swerved back toward his lane when he realized the bike was going so fast.
He swerved back into his lane after he made contact with the bike. The fact that he says "I don't care" after the other motorcycle rider says he hit the bike says everything.
I would say you're probably right. Like someone hitting their brakes because they're being tailgated, they think the person will slow down but its very possible they could get rear ended. Either way, the driver of the car has serious anger issues.
No, he did not. Watch the video again without any preconceived notions. He swerved into the left lane while the bike was still behind him and then started to swerve back into the right lane prior to impact. I think he initially moved over to block the bike from passing but then quickly realized the bike was going much faster than he anticipated and tried to move back into his lane. Still a dick move, to be sure. But hardly the same as trying to plant someone into the ditch, as many posters seem to think he was trying to do.
Doesn't matter what he 'intended' to do, even if it was to scare them.
The result was major injuries, totally the result of his irresponsible and unnecessary action. He had no reason to leave his lane, and doing so was clearly reckless. Likely will end up with significant jail time (>1 yr). His insurance will cover their injuries/property, but I doubt it will pay his legal fees if that couple sues him directly for reckless behavior/willful injury.
He won't be driving a car for a while, which will suck for him, because I doubt Granbury, TX has much for public transit.
The driver of the car that swerved reacted pretty quickly to a motorcycle coming from behind another car at a high rate of speed. Makes one think it could have just been a coincidence with a distracted driver at the wheel.
If that presumption is false, the driver of the car should be jailed for attempted murder.
If that presumption is false, the driver of the car should be jailed for attempted murder.
No one owns a crotch rocket other than to do stupid things with it. That is precisely what they are intended for.
To me, I'd say if someone is committing a crime that puts people at imminent risk, iE: A bank robbery or a kidnapping, hurting them would be justified. I get that it's a slippery slope but that's where common sense comes into play. If you want to be a vigilante, you have to use good judgement and if you don't, you should be held accountable for your actions.
If this was a semi, would it be imminent risk?
I agree with your line-drawing btw.
Do you mean if the vehicle passing was a semi instead of a motorcycle? I'd still say it would qualify as imminent risk. It's not just the semi driver in danger, it is other cars behind them and oncoming traffic as well.
Now, am I for all the bozos with conceal carry permits just itching to fire a dozen rounds into a convenience store robber with a knife? No. Sorry but I don't think that qualifies as imminent risk. Unless they've told the guy to drop the knife and get on the floor and the knife guy runs or swings at them.
Again, it comes down to the situation and different variables. None of this stuff is black & white but most of it is common sense.
No, sorry I probably worded that terribly. I would still charge the guy in the car with reckless endangerment, etc.
I don't think it's accurate to say it was "totally" the rest of his actions. The biker was riding pretty irresponsibly. Passing at a high rate of speed in a clearly marked no passing zone is reckless as well. Both parties werr criminally negligent.
Some years ago we discussed a person who was injured when he ran into a parked car. The car was parked in a reasonable way, but the meter had expired.
The driver of the car that ran into the parked car was not drunk, or texting, or speeding. It was just an "accident" in the basic sense of the word. Shit happens.
Since the car was illegally parked, some thought the owner of the parked car should be responsible for the damages or at least a share of the damages. Some disagreed. Since there is case law on this, some just saluted and were unable to give the situation thoughtful consideration.
[This may not have been the exact scenario we discussed; I tried to lay it out in a clean way.]
