Aside from the usual road hazards such as bits of blown out tire, to pot holes, to just plain inconsiderate people, there are instances such as these...
Alanis King wrote:Driver Who Swerved And Hit A Motorcycle: 'I Don't Care'
A motorcyclist got more than he bargained for while making a pass on a two-lane road on Saturday when a driver swerved and hit the bike, sending both passengers to the ground. The driver’s response to the whole thing? “I don’t care.”
The rider, Eric Sanders — who posted the video taken by a fellow traveller to Facebook shortly after it happened — said in the comments section that he suffered road rash and his girlfriend went to an intensive care unit in Texas after the incident.
Sanders begins to pass the car at about 1:40 in the video, only to have the driver swerve and knock both the rider and his passenger off of the motorcycle. As the video shows, the scene after the wreck is pretty urgent — fellow drivers pulling over to check on the couple as the two lay down on the side of the road, while the person filming approaches the man who hit the bike.
Here's the video! So fethed up!
Posted by Eric Sanders on Saturday, October 17, 2015
The driver initially blames his swerving on the fact that the rider tried to pass him over double-yellow lines, which Sanders later admitted to in a clarification post on Facebook. Then he turns around to say that he was “stung by a wasp,” intertwined with several more “I don’t care” statements while the filming motorcyclist snaps a picture of his license plate.
Sanders added in the clarification post that his reason for passing the car was its slowing down to around 20 mph under the speed limit for that particular area. Police did not arrest the man, according to Sanders’ comments, but he is “gonna be prosecuted.”
While Sanders wasn’t completely in the right by passing the car in a zone with double-yellow lines, that certainly doesn’t justify the driver hitting him for any reason.
Around three hours ago, Sanders’ latest update on the situation stated that his girlfriend was headed into surgery for an arm injury sustained during the crash.
I hope there will be an update later saying the driver is under arrest for some form of aggravated battery. This guy needs a few years vacation in the Greybar Hotel at the very least.
While I don't think he should have been hit he also shouldn't have been passing over a double yellow. A car, swerving to avoid something in the road, isn't going to look behind them and to the left on a two lane road with a double yellow.
As for passing because people were 20mph below the speed limit considering there are 3 cars in the shot and they appear to be going the same speed that still isn't an excuse to pass illegally as it's unsafe for everyone.
Dude that was stupid and swerved to hit him should be prosecuted and the dude driving the bike should be also be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law too.
Hulksmash wrote: While I don't think he should have been hit he also shouldn't have been passing over a double yellow. A car, swerving to avoid something in the road, isn't going to look behind them and to the left on a two lane road with a double yellow.
As for passing because people were 20mph below the speed limit considering there are 3 cars in the shot and they appear to be going the same speed that still isn't an excuse to pass illegally as it's unsafe for everyone.
Dude that was stupid and swerved to hit him should be prosecuted and the dude driving the bike should be also be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law too.
I come from a family of bikers, but what he said. Don't be a dumbass and cross in the no crossing section and try to pass multiple cars while doing it.
Hulksmash wrote: While I don't think he should have been hit he also shouldn't have been passing over a double yellow. A car, swerving to avoid something in the road, isn't going to look behind them and to the left on a two lane road with a double yellow.
As for passing because people were 20mph below the speed limit considering there are 3 cars in the shot and they appear to be going the same speed that still isn't an excuse to pass illegally as it's unsafe for everyone.
Dude that was stupid and swerved to hit him should be prosecuted and the dude driving the bike should be also be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law too.
Pretty much sums things up from my view.
It's one thing for a bike rider (both bicycle and motorcycle) to say "I have a right to the road too!!!" over legit issues, but it doesn't help the cyclist' cause when you do dumb gak like this.
Crossing the double yellows is an "infraction" that results in a ticket. I'd doubt it would be more than $100, if that.
Since the guy in the car had no authority invested in him by the State, there is absolutely no reason the car driver should have done anything. If he felt strongly about it, he should have called the police.
I hope the "I don't care." comment comes back to haunt him at trial. Hopefully it should be enough to demonstrate depraved indifference.
So I am not the only one that noticed they were passing in a no passing area. Dunce hats for all it seems.
No one is saying the biker should have been hit in any capacity, but it is harder to be completely on their side when they were doing something dumb as well. If he weren't breaking the law at the same time people probably wouldn't have noticed he was, you know, breaking the law.
Ahtman wrote: ... it is harder to be completely on their side when they were doing something dumb as well.
Why? We're talking about two separate issues here. Crossing the double yellow did NOTHING to cause the car to hit them. There was no harm or foul done to any other person on the road. The driver of the car willfully decided to also cross the double yellow line when he swerved into the bike. This caused a woman to need hospitalization. So, please, tell me more about how the bike rider was in any way responsible for any of this.
Ahtman wrote: So I am not the only one that noticed they were passing in a no passing area. Dunce hats for all it seems.
No one is saying the biker should have been hit in any capacity, but it is harder to be completely on their side when they were doing something dumb as well. If he weren't breaking the law at the same time people probably wouldn't have noticed he was, you know, breaking the law.
Passing AT LEAST TWO cars. The way he whipped around the first car, highly unlikely the driver of the second car even had a chance to see him.
Again, thats why you don't do stupid stuff like that when you're on a bike (or a bike for that matter). you could be dead.
As Dad would say, there's right then there's dead right.
Motorcycles scare me as a driver. They are always popping up out of nowhere and I don't realize they are there until they are passing me. This problem is most acute when in slow heavy traffic.
That doesn't appear to have been the problem in this case. Just a abhorrent driver. They're everywhere.
Also, don't pass over double yellows. If the guy is a big enough jerk, or suffering from a mental impairment so that he is 20 MPH below normal speed, expect he may not be safe to pass especially if you are using one of the more risky driving options.
--
This reminds me of a time I was leaving a national park driving down a long hill with no passing lanes. A driver was well below the speed limit and not using any turnouts. I was behind him 20 minutes or so becoming increasingly angry. He built up a line of something like 30 cars behind him. Then a car passed me over a double yellow and kept hoping his way forward in the line. Eventually he got to the front and passed the guy who was holding everyone up.
He then stopped his car, got out, walked back to the slow driver and laid into him with what I can only imagine was an expletive laden tirade. I couldn't hear anything but was treated to the furious driver waving his arms, pointing at the long line of cars that were held up and clearly demonstrating the fury of all who were held up. I'm guessing there were cheers in many of the cars despite now being completely stopped.
Having made his point the guy got back into his car and drove off. The slow car started again, but pulled over at the first opportunity so all could pass.
Anyway it was fun and cathartic to watch though it would have been a bad idea for a cyclist to try that. Not that it was a great idea for the guy who did it.
Ahtman wrote: ... it is harder to be completely on their side when they were doing something dumb as well.
Why? We're talking about two separate issues here. Crossing the double yellow did NOTHING to cause the car to hit them. The driver of the car willfully decided to also cross the double yellow line when he swerved into the bike.
It's possible to be a victim of an accident caused by a jerk and still be a jerk yourself.
I hope the car driver is punished severely, but the bike rider is a dumbass.
Ahtman wrote: ... it is harder to be completely on their side when they were doing something dumb as well.
Why? We're talking about two separate issues here. Crossing the double yellow did NOTHING to cause the car to hit them. The driver of the car willfully decided to also cross the double yellow line when he swerved into the bike.
Let's stick to discussing the article, without directing comments at each other, please. --Janthkin
A double line means conditions are poor. Double passing means you deserve to not have your DNA pollute the gene pool. Had I done that Dad would have backhanded me off the bike when we pulled over.
Ahtman wrote: ... it is harder to be completely on their side when they were doing something dumb as well.
Why? We're talking about two separate issues here. Crossing the double yellow did NOTHING to cause the car to hit them. The driver of the car willfully decided to also cross the double yellow line when he swerved into the bike.
It's possible to be a victim of an accident caused by a jerk and still be a jerk yourself.
I hope the car driver is punished severely, but the bike rider is a dumbass.
/Justifiable Victim Blaming
Not seeing where the driver did this intentionally, just that he wasn't sorry. It does prove the rule that one should say nothing.
Ahtman wrote: ... it is harder to be completely on their side when they were doing something dumb as well.
Why? We're talking about two separate issues here. Crossing the double yellow did NOTHING to cause the car to hit them. The driver of the car willfully decided to also cross the double yellow line when he swerved into the bike.
It's possible to be a victim of an accident caused by a jerk and still be a jerk yourself.
I hope the car driver is punished severely, but the bike rider is a dumbass.
/Justifiable Victim Blaming
Not seeing where the driver did this intentionally, just that he wasn't sorry. It does prove the rule that one should say nothing.
Article says he admitted he swerved because of the illegal pass.
Frazzled wrote: Are you an idiot? A double line means conditions are poor. Double passing means you deserve to not have your DNA pollute the gene pool.
Not exactly. In Yellowstone National Park, there are some areas marked for passing that are on curves or hills that are hilariously dangerous to pass on. I've also seen double yellow in areas with lengthy straight road where visibility is fairly good. Also, according to Wikipedia, "In some states, it is not against the law to overtake vehicles in the presence of solid yellow lines if it is safe to do so." so it is possible the bike rider may not even have been in the wrong for passing, assuming he did it in one of these States. Otherwise, it is a serious violation but so is speeding and I've whipped through Montana at over 110mph for most of a Saturday. Nobody died from that. Then again, nobody tried to swerve into me, either.
Ahtman wrote: ... it is harder to be completely on their side when they were doing something dumb as well.
Why? We're talking about two separate issues here. Crossing the double yellow did NOTHING to cause the car to hit them. The driver of the car willfully decided to also cross the double yellow line when he swerved into the bike.
It's possible to be a victim of an accident caused by a jerk and still be a jerk yourself.
I hope the car driver is punished severely, but the bike rider is a dumbass.
/Justifiable Victim Blaming
Not seeing where the driver did this intentionally, just that he wasn't sorry. It does prove the rule that one should say nothing.
Article says he admitted he swerved because of the illegal pass.
Agreed then, if thats the case, hang him by his babymakers.
Biker was still an idiot who paid for it.
He then stopped his car, got out, walked back to the slow driver and laid into him with what I can only imagine was an expletive laden tirade.
Lucky you didn't witness the slow driver blowing the other guy's head off. You can be angry with a slow-mover, but to cut in front of them, stop (holding everyone up even more), get out and approach the slow-mover in a threatening manner takes a special kind of fething stupid.
He then stopped his car, got out, walked back to the slow driver and laid into him with what I can only imagine was an expletive laden tirade.
Lucky you didn't witness the slow driver blowing the other guy's head off. You can be angry with a slow-mover, but to cut in front of them, stop (holding everyone up even more), get out and approach the slow-mover in a threatening manner takes a special kind of fething stupid.
He then stopped his car, got out, walked back to the slow driver and laid into him with what I can only imagine was an expletive laden tirade.
Lucky you didn't witness the slow driver blowing the other guy's head off. You can be angry with a slow-mover, but to cut in front of them, stop (holding everyone up even more), get out and approach the slow-mover in a threatening manner takes a special kind of fething stupid.
He then stopped his car, got out, walked back to the slow driver and laid into him with what I can only imagine was an expletive laden tirade.
Lucky you didn't witness the slow driver blowing the other guy's head off. You can be angry with a slow-mover, but to cut in front of them, stop (holding everyone up even more), get out and approach the slow-mover in a threatening manner takes a special kind of fething stupid.
Watch the video.
Sorry, this is in reference to another incident that Gwaihirsbrother was talking about, hence my quoting him.
He then stopped his car, got out, walked back to the slow driver and laid into him with what I can only imagine was an expletive laden tirade.
Lucky you didn't witness the slow driver blowing the other guy's head off. You can be angry with a slow-mover, but to cut in front of them, stop (holding everyone up even more), get out and approach the slow-mover in a threatening manner takes a special kind of fething stupid.
Attempted murder. The driver should spend a long time in prison for that, and if it's the rest of their life then I'm not going to shed a single tear for them.
He then stopped his car, got out, walked back to the slow driver and laid into him with what I can only imagine was an expletive laden tirade.
Lucky you didn't witness the slow driver blowing the other guy's head off. You can be angry with a slow-mover, but to cut in front of them, stop (holding everyone up even more), get out and approach the slow-mover in a threatening manner takes a special kind of fething stupid.
That's why I finished by noting it wasn't a great idea on the part of the guy who did it. The way it played out was satisfying though it could potentially have gone very wrong.
I like those yellow lines. Yellow lines on a road look much nicer than the white lines we have over here.
Oh yeah, and that car driver should be in prison if he hit the motor on purpose. Even if the motor rider was breaking a traffic law, that is no reason for trying to murder him.
Assuming this was intentional on the car driver's point what exactly was his point?(again, I've only seen the loop) I'm assuming he wasn't actually trying to hit the motorcycle thus leading to many bad things.
Frazzled wrote: Assuming this was intentional on the car driver's point what exactly was his point?(again, I've only seen the loop) I'm assuming he wasn't actually trying to hit the motorcycle thus leading to many bad things.
The point might be as simple as don't pass over a double yellow. Something was probably off with that guy if he was driving 20mph under the limit. Could have been trying to piss people off. Then when he succeeded he got even more belligerent with them.
Frazzled wrote: Assuming this was intentional on the car driver's point what exactly was his point?(again, I've only seen the loop) I'm assuming he wasn't actually trying to hit the motorcycle thus leading to many bad things.
The point might be as simple as don't pass over a double yellow. Something was probably off with that guy if he was driving 20mph under the limit. Could have been trying to piss people off. Then when he succeeded he got even more belligerent with them.
I am not seeing where he is voluntarily going under 20. When the bikes flip into the oncoming lane, you can see another car not far ahead, and right at the beginning you can see a vehicle in front of him.
What reason did the car driver have to cross the lines? If they don't have one then it looks like they did it solely to swipe the motorcyclist off their bike. Even though the bike was in the wrong, that doesn't justify the car trying to wipe them out.
Frazzled wrote: Assuming this was intentional on the car driver's point what exactly was his point?(again, I've only seen the loop) I'm assuming he wasn't actually trying to hit the motorcycle thus leading to many bad things.
The point might be as simple as don't pass over a double yellow. Something was probably off with that guy if he was driving 20mph under the limit. Could have been trying to piss people off. Then when he succeeded he got even more belligerent with them.
I am not seeing where he is voluntarily going under 20. When the bikes flip into the oncoming lane, you can see another car not far ahead, and right at the beginning you can see a vehicle in front of him.
but yea he might just be a nut.
Maybe the car in front had just passed the slow guy.
--
Read through the conmments on that Facebook link. Someone there needs their concealed weapon permit revoked and weapons seized. He notes he his state's permit is recognized in the other state and says he'll exact "justice" on the driver if the legal system doesn't.
Sure...if you plan on not following the traffic laws.
Not a whole lot of sympathy from me. Shouldn't have been passing in the first place.
Wow. So, to borrow this situation and put it in new clothes, suppose a guy in a car is speeding at around 20mph over the limit. Then someone else shoots his tire out and he crashes. Is the driver at fault because he was speeding?
Well at least the biker and his passenger that got hit will be able to use the money they saved not buying a jacket, some overpants, some gloves, some boots and will be able to put that towards hospital bills! You can get all of those items, starting at the low end, bare minimum ECE approved, for about $400. Maybe less if you are a bargain hunter.
I wish I could get a closer look at what brand helmet the wounded passenger has. I bet its a POS house brand.
If the dude had simply said nothing and appeared to be worried there would be nothing wrong with this. He could just state he swerved slightly to avoid killing a critter (totally possible in Texas) and the only person doing something wrong is the biker.
Again, not saying the biker deserved to be hit but he does bear an equal portion of the responsibility for the situation. We only have the videos word of slow speeds on the part of the cars but we see 3 cars going relatively the same speed and a dude trying to multiple pass in a no passing area.
Prosecute them both. But I honestly have zero sympathy for someone who got hurt while breaking the rules of the road. Especially when he has a loved one on the bike with him...
Sure...if you plan on not following the traffic laws.
Not a whole lot of sympathy from me. Shouldn't have been passing in the first place.
Wow. So, to borrow this situation and put it in new clothes, suppose a guy in a car is speeding at around 20mph over the limit. Then someone else shoots his tire out and he crashes. Is the driver at fault because he was speeding?
Don't really see them as similar. More similar would be if a speeder hit a car in front of them because they were speeding over a hill and didn't have time to react to a parked car.
The driver could just has easily hit him if he were swerving to miss some debris in the road. The bike shouldn't have been where it was in the first place.
This accident doesn't happen if the biker doesn't break the road laws first.
Sure...if you plan on not following the traffic laws.
Not a whole lot of sympathy from me. Shouldn't have been passing in the first place.
Wow. So, to borrow this situation and put it in new clothes, suppose a guy in a car is speeding at around 20mph over the limit. Then someone else shoots his tire out and he crashes. Is the driver at fault because he was speeding?
Don't really see them as similar. More similar would be if a speeder hit a car in front of them because they were speeding over a hill and didn't have time to react to a parked car.
The driver could just has easily hit him if he were swerving to miss some debris in the road. The bike shouldn't have been where it was in the first place.
This accident doesn't happen if the biker doesn't break the road laws first.
The accident happened because the car driver deliberately swerved to knock the motorbike down.
Hulksmash wrote: Did he though? Or did he swerve to avoid road debris and hit the biker who wasn't supposed to be there?
Just sayin....
I watched for road debris multiple times and couldn't see any in the video.
Combined with the fact he said he was swerving at the bike because it crossed the lines then tried changing his story to "A wasp stung me", it seems pretty obvious he was purposefully ramming the bike.
At the very least it is manslaughter, but the argument for attempted murder isn't unreasonable though it would be harder to prosecute.
I've seen people on motorcycles driving between cars and passing using the shoulders on the highway as well as no helmets on the highway. Even saw a guy doing 80+ scratching his back with both hands while wearing just a t-shirt, jeans, and boots. I love motorcycles but often the riders don't help themselves by being irresponsible.
Combined with the fact he said he was swerving at the bike because it crossed the lines then tried changing his story to "A wasp stung me", it seems pretty obvious he was purposefully ramming the bike.
Did he?
The video that [was] linked [by the OP], from a pretty obviously biased source (bikes vs cops) cuts off before any of that is said.
The news article I linked doesn't say that at all. Just recounts that he "didn't care" and that he was "stung by a wasp."
The article in the OP says that he said "he was passing in a double yellow" as justification before coming up with the barely-plausible excuse that he was stung at just the exact wrong time. Plus, from the video it's pretty obvious that he times his swerve exactly to hit the motorcycle, and does just enough to hit the guy without losing control of his own car. Could I prove it in court? No, but I don't believe for one moment that this was an accident.
This "example" has little to no bearing on this discussion.
Of course it does. It's the exact same scenario as the real one, except with a different (attempted) murder weapon.
You don't need to prove the lack of a wasp in court. You just need the jury to disbelieve the driver's story.
That said, I don't think it would be attempted murder. For all we know the car driver just wanted to scare the biker and swerved out farther than he intended.
Two idiots and two wrongs. Bad form on side swiping a motorcycle.
As a normal, not an idiot motorcyclist, I have to avoid death on a daily basis, just this day I had a car try and force me off the road. Luckily, I'm quicker.
The article in the OP says that he said "he was passing in a double yellow" as justification before coming up with the barely-plausible excuse that he was stung at just the exact wrong time. Plus, from the video it's pretty obvious that he times his swerve exactly to hit the motorcycle, and does just enough to hit the guy without losing control of his own car. Could I prove it in court? No, but I don't believe for one moment that this was an accident.
The "article" in the OP is a blog post.
I posted a news article. One which doesn't include that "fact."
Surely, had he said that in the video, it would have been included by the actual news station reporting it.
Of course it does. It's the exact same scenario as the real one, except with a different (attempted) murder weapon.
Kilkrazy wrote: You don't need to prove the lack of a wasp in court. You just need the jury to disbelieve the driver's story.
And of course this is significantly helped by his "I don't care" response. Most people, if they were involved in a crash because a wasp stung them at exactly the wrong time, would be horrified by what happened. The fact that he didn't care pretty strongly suggests that he knew exactly what was happening, swerved deliberately, and only invented the story about the wasp when he realized how much legal trouble he could be in.
That said, I don't think it would be attempted murder. For all we know the car driver just wanted to scare the biker and swerved out farther than he intended.
Somehow I don't think "I didn't mean to shoot him in the head, I just wanted to put some bullets kind of near his head to scare him a bit" would be a very convincing excuse in court. So why should yours be?
Then please, tell me the difference between the two.
One involves an at least passingly plausible story ("I was stung by a wasp and swerved unintentionally as a reaction") whereas one injects a firearm for gaks and giggles?
Sometimes I think it'd be fun to have a motorcycle, like one of those old harleys you use to mosey down the road on a nice sunny day.. till stuff like this happens.. I'm kinda surprised it doesn't happen more often, especially with the kinda road rage folks have around here. The biker might have been wrong for going over the lines, but the fella in the car was way wronger. Hope he really gets the book thrown at him.
I hate SQUIDS; growing up we also called them "Law Makers" because they'd do stupid gack that results in more restrictive laws being passed. Usually they're waxers who just ride when the weather's perfect and only then, weekend cowboys...
I hate SQUIDS; growing up we also called them "Law Makers" because they'd do stupid gack that results in more restrictive laws being passed. Usually they're waxers who just ride when the weather's perfect and only then, weekend cowboys...
Ah, one of the nearest neighbourhoods is one of the scummiest parts of the U.K. You see them all the time.
I hate SQUIDS; growing up we also called them "Law Makers" because they'd do stupid gack that results in more restrictive laws being passed. Usually they're waxers who just ride when the weather's perfect and only then, weekend cowboys...
Meant to put "kid" instead of "rider". Pretty sure thats where the term came from and then the acronym came later. Not that it matters, as both fit.
And yeah, aside from 12 O'clock boys, they are the most annoying customer I have to deal with at my shop.
cincydooley wrote: One involves an at least passingly plausible story ("I was stung by a wasp and swerved unintentionally as a reaction") whereas one injects a firearm for gaks and giggles?
"I was stung by a wasp and my finger accidentally swerved to the trigger. I don't care that I almost killed him."
Hey, it's at least as plausible as the actual excuse.
It is very scary to have another vehicle on your ass and then suddenly 'gone'. He may have seen the motorcycle in his rear view was 'gone' and he heard a loud sound and assumed he was being passed on the shoulder. I have regularly been passed by crotch rockets both on a virtually zero shoulder and between cars.
If he lost sight of the rider, he might have thought it went to his right so he swerved left. He guessed wrong.
He can 'not be sorry' without it being intentionally done. It is virtually impossible to show it was intentional at this point. And as long as he was not impaired and not speeding, it is going to be tough to get manslaughter.
Edit: I am sure he did it intentionally, but this kind of accident happens unintentionally all the time when riders break traffic laws.
Na he did it intentionally. I've been riding almost 20 years. I can't count how many times people have tried to block when I split lanes in California.
Hulksmash wrote: While I don't think he should have been hit he also shouldn't have been passing over a double yellow. A car, swerving to avoid something in the road, isn't going to look behind them and to the left on a two lane road with a double yellow.
As for passing because people were 20mph below the speed limit considering there are 3 cars in the shot and they appear to be going the same speed that still isn't an excuse to pass illegally as it's unsafe for everyone.
Dude that was stupid and swerved to hit him should be prosecuted and the dude driving the bike should be also be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law too.
yellowfever wrote: Na he did it intentionally. I've been riding almost 20 years. I can't count how many times people have tried to block when I split lanes in California.
Relapse wrote: The bikers that annoy me are the ones riding crotch rockets, making their own lane by blasting between cars.
I find the most annoying ones are the Harleys with those footrests that take up a lane by themselves. Harley riders usually ride beside each other, with one on the center line (which is fething annoying and dangerous anyway), so when they add them stupid foot things I have to get in the fething shoulder to go past.
And I'm sure if you hit one they'd whine about how nobody respect bikers, they weren't given enough space, blah blah blah.
South Park summed up my feelings about them pretty well.
Mostly. Noisy, egotistic, arrogant donkey-caves who can't understand why people hate them.
I always hated idle revers. Sit at lights and rev or rev when they come to a stop. I'd pull up on my bike and ask them if they wanted me to fix their bike for them. They'd look confused and I'd say something must be wrong since they're revving their engine, it obviously must need some maintenance...
Mostly. Noisy, egotistic, arrogant donkey-caves who can't understand why people hate them.
I always hated idle revers. Sit at lights and rev or rev when they come to a stop. I'd pull up on my bike and ask them if they wanted me to fix their bike for them. They'd look confused and I'd say something must be wrong since they're revving their engine, it obviously must need some maintenance...
See I turn my engine off at lights. Mostly because my bike is air cooled and if I did that I'd probably melt my engine block.
Aren't bicycles supposed to use roads and not sidewalks?
Legaly, I think so, but it's often disregarded (and almost never enforced, unless you are being a danger to others), for a variety of reasons, safety being on the top of that. There are quite a few places where riding your bike on the road versus the sidewalk in the city near where I live can be a major safety issue.
Peregrine wrote: Attempted murder. The driver should spend a long time in prison for that, and if it's the rest of their life then I'm not going to shed a single tear for them.
Agreed.
Anybody who can knock two people off a bike (not even knowing if they are alive), then step out their car and say "I don't care", is either a sociopath or too stupid to live. Even if it were a complete accident (which is doubtful), the lack of empathy or concern is disgusting. He aught to get 10 years just for being donkey-cave.
Hard to tell from the bike cam due to the side it's mounted on, looks like the car was swerving into the other lane before the bike was there, impact of the bike might be on the rear of the vehicle and not the side. Pretty close to tell from the poor video quality. If the impact is on the rear then regardless of intentions the bike rider will be found to be at fault most likely.
Car driver is a stone colled arsehole, bike rider is feking stoopid. The suv may have been going slow but the white car was going 30-40, minimum. one lane country road with no passing in the area most likely the speed limit is around that. Trying to pass in a no pass area is dumb, trying to pass two cars in one go is dumber, doing it with someone else on your bike means your either slowed or don't care about that person. Car driver seems worse still...
I've had drivers (typically on a cell phone) drift into my lane as I am passing them on my bike, but never had someone intentionally do it (thank goodness). One lady came more than halfway into my lane (I was on her passenger side and there was no shoulder for me to go to if I needed). I can't believe she didn't hear my pipes. I think she almost gak herself when she realized how far she had drifted over.
I'll remember that next time I'm trying to enjoy a drink and a book on my porch and 20-odd douchbags (sans helmets and leather, y'know, ACTUAL safety gear) come blazing through my subdivision sounding like their engines are about to explode
In no way is deliberately loud bikes a safety feature. If you want people to notice you, get a horn or fly a little flag like they put on kids bikes, because just being louder is not going to do anything, especially at 65 with the windows up and the radio on.
Co'tor Shas wrote: In no way is deliberately loud bikes a safety feature. If you want people to notice you, get a horn or fly a little flag like they put on kids bikes, because just being louder is not going to do anything, especially at 65 with the windows up and the radio on.
Alex C wrote: Aren't bicycles supposed to use roads and not sidewalks?
They're supposed to but frequently disregard doing it.
Not entirely true. Bicycles are supposed to use a properly marked bike lane, bike path or the like. If none is available, then they are allowed/supposed to use the sidewalk, unless legal signage specifically forbids it. Further, a bicyclist is supposed to ride in the SAME direction of travel as auto traffic because of those times where a cyclist must become a part of vehicular traffic. In many places, there are traffic provisions that state motorized vehicles MUST afford cyclists the same courtesy as other motorized vehicles (but never do).
Of course loud pipes aren't a safety feature. But they definitely work. I have people notice me cause of them. Of course not all do. Actually most don't. But for damn sure pipes help.
Alex C wrote: Aren't bicycles supposed to use roads and not sidewalks?
They're supposed to but frequently disregard doing it.
Not entirely true. Bicycles are supposed to use a properly marked bike lane, bike path or the like. If none is available, then they are allowed/supposed to use the sidewalk, unless legal signage specifically forbids it. Further, a bicyclist is supposed to ride in the SAME direction of travel as auto traffic because of those times where a cyclist must become a part of vehicular traffic. In many places, there are traffic provisions that state motorized vehicles MUST afford cyclists the same courtesy as other motorized vehicles (but never do).
Well, maybe if they followed the same rules as cars, we would.
Alex C wrote: Aren't bicycles supposed to use roads and not sidewalks?
They're supposed to but frequently disregard doing it.
Not entirely true. Bicycles are supposed to use a properly marked bike lane, bike path or the like. If none is available, then they are allowed/supposed to use the sidewalk, unless legal signage specifically forbids it. Further, a bicyclist is supposed to ride in the SAME direction of travel as auto traffic because of those times where a cyclist must become a part of vehicular traffic. In many places, there are traffic provisions that state motorized vehicles MUST afford cyclists the same courtesy as other motorized vehicles (but never do).
Well, maybe if they followed the same rules as cars, we would.
No. You wouldn't. As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time on a bike in and around traffic, I will tell you flat out that people are completely ignorant of how they're supposed to treat cyclists, nor do they particularly care. Yes, plenty of cyclists are also ignorant of what they are supposed to be doing (or they aren't ignorant and willfully behave wrongly). It doesn't change that it is the car/truck driver who is usually the one initiating a bad interaction.
In my experiences it is the cyclist thinking its a car without all the rules of one. Like the recejt one that nearly hit me when it was running a stopsign and I was crossing ghe roads. Cyclists are nuisances to the roadway
I get pissed off by renegade cyclists partly for safety but also ebcause because they give car drivers who have a chip on their shoulder a supposedly legitimate excuse to treat everyone badly.
You see cyclists obeying the laws too, and you see cars disobeying road laws.
An interesting trend I've noticed, and I'm curious if others have experienced it: I tend to see people riding Harleys (and similar) obeying the traffic laws more, while those who ride the sporty crotch rockets break the traffic laws more.
Tannhauser42 wrote: An interesting trend I've noticed, and I'm curious if others have experienced it: I tend to see people riding Harleys (and similar) obeying the traffic laws more, while those who ride the sporty crotch rockets break the traffic laws more.
Often that is an age/maturity thing. The rice burners tend to attract the 18-25 testosterone laden males with something to prove and not a lot of experience based common sense. Those guys, in a sports car, on a bike, or whatever are going to take more risks which translates often to break more laws. The Harley crowd tends to be a little bit older and more settled.
Obviously that is NOT true for all sport bike riders, and there are clearly cruiser riders who are dicks too.
I've noticed bikes because of their noise before seeing them many times so the annoying noise is a safety feature of sorts. The biggest danger bikes face from me is that I won't know they're there. Loud noises helps. Once I see them I'll give them plenty of space and be alert for when they pass so I don't change lanes into them. Very easy to not see them though and swerve into them unknowingly.
Looks like the police don't believe his wasp story either. He has been charged with two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Good for the Police, as someone who has been riding for 15 years (yeah one of those loud Harleys) this guy should get the book thrown at him.
ChainswordHeretic wrote: Looks like the police don't believe his wasp story either. He has been charged with two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Good for the Police, as someone who has been riding for 15 years (yeah one of those loud Harleys) this guy should get the book thrown at him.
Much more realistic and easier to prove vs. "Attempted Murder" - go get him!
ChainswordHeretic wrote: Looks like the police don't believe his wasp story either. He has been charged with two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Good for the Police, as someone who has been riding for 15 years (yeah one of those loud Harleys) this guy should get the book thrown at him.
Good. His actions combined with his attitude as communicated on Facebook served to undermine his claims of innocence.
Smart money for the dude is to take a plea bargain down if he can. He'll get hammered in court. Attempted murder I'd take to court because I could probably convince someone that I didn't mean to kill them. Assault with a deadly weapon on the other hand it'd be nearly impossible to walk.
Hulksmash wrote: While I don't think he should have been hit he also shouldn't have been passing over a double yellow. A car, swerving to avoid something in the road, isn't going to look behind them and to the left on a two lane road with a double yellow.
As for passing because people were 20mph below the speed limit considering there are 3 cars in the shot and they appear to be going the same speed that still isn't an excuse to pass illegally as it's unsafe for everyone.
Dude that was stupid and swerved to hit him should be prosecuted and the dude driving the bike should be also be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law too.
I come from a family of bikers, but what he said. Don't be a dumbass and cross in the no crossing section and try to pass multiple cars while doing it.
Be stupid, get stupid results.
What Fraz said. I'm glad the biker is alive, but he's an idiot. Honestly, a little road rash should be a good wakeup call for him not to break traffic laws like this.
As far as who breaks laws more I've seen it as pretty even. I fully admit I speed. My bike is far from stock. I've done 105 in just first gear. So it's very easy too. But hell I see harley guys breaking laws at least as often.
Managed to get more info yesterday and hear what his comments were. I didn't see an update so as of yesterday:
Captain DipXXit has been arrested and charged with two counts of aggravated assault. His attempt to say it was a wasp bite is mitigated by the initial statements of "I don't care" repeatedly, and his later statements to CBS changing his story to a spider. Both are admissible and a first year law student could tear this guy a new one.
He is now in the fine care of the local constabulary with IIRC a bond of $150,000 which he does not appear to be able to make arrangements for.
Frazzled wrote: Managed to get more info yesterday and hear what his comments were. I didn't see an update so as of yesterday:
Captain DipXXit has been arrested and charged with two counts of aggravated assault. His attempt to say it was a wasp bite is mitigated by the initial statements of "I don't care" repeatedly, and his later statements to CBS changing his story to a spider. Both are admissible and a first year law student could tear this guy a new one.
He is now in the fine care of the local constabulary with IIRC a bond of $150,000 which he does not appear to be able to make arrangements for.
When a jury gets this, he's toast.
Do you think a jury will get it, or do you think the prosecutors offer a plea?
yellowfever wrote: Na he did it intentionally. I've been riding almost 20 years. I can't count how many times people have tried to block when I split lanes in California.
yellowfever wrote: Na he did it intentionally. I've been riding almost 20 years. I can't count how many times people have tried to block when I split lanes in California.
Frazzled wrote: Managed to get more info yesterday and hear what his comments were. I didn't see an update so as of yesterday:
Captain DipXXit has been arrested and charged with two counts of aggravated assault. His attempt to say it was a wasp bite is mitigated by the initial statements of "I don't care" repeatedly, and his later statements to CBS changing his story to a spider. Both are admissible and a first year law student could tear this guy a new one.
He is now in the fine care of the local constabulary with IIRC a bond of $150,000 which he does not appear to be able to make arrangements for.
When a jury gets this, he's toast.
Do you think a jury will get it, or do you think the prosecutors offer a plea?
Its a home run. I imagine as policy they'll plead, but if I had the power as prosecutor, I'd take this to trial. It would be awesome TV time for my later run for higher office.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: You really need to get rid of plea bargains America.
yellowfever wrote: Na he did it intentionally. I've been riding almost 20 years. I can't count how many times people have tried to block when I split lanes in California.
maybe you shouldn't split lanes.
It is legal in California. Why shouldn't he do it?
Kilkrazy wrote: I get pissed off by renegade cyclists partly for safety but also because they give car drivers who have a chip on their shoulder a supposedly legitimate excuse to treat everyone badly.
You see cyclists obeying the laws too, and you see cars disobeying road laws.
When I biked (pedal) to work, I got annoyed at other cyclists. Red lights are there for a reason. So are cycle lanes.
You don't need a 'driving' license to use a bike on the road, so anyone can do it. But AFAIK, if you have one, you can get points on it for cycling offences.
Drivers shouting at cyclists that their road tax means they own the road... lots of cyclists drive and pay road taxes, too
welshhoppo wrote: You really need to get rid of plea bargains America.
No, we don't.
I expect they'll plead it down. Can't imagine it going to trial. They did at least give him charges that could stick in court; they were never going to find something more serious, as posters here were convinced they would.
yellowfever wrote: Na he did it intentionally. I've been riding almost 20 years. I can't count how many times people have tried to block when I split lanes in California.
maybe you shouldn't split lanes.
It is legal in California. Why shouldn't he do it?
because its one of the more stupid things one can do in life. Its an excellent way to die.
Kilkrazy wrote: I get pissed off by renegade cyclists partly for safety but also because they give car drivers who have a chip on their shoulder a supposedly legitimate excuse to treat everyone badly.
You see cyclists obeying the laws too, and you see cars disobeying road laws.
When I biked (pedal) to work, I got annoyed at other cyclists. Red lights are there for a reason. So are cycle lanes.
You don't need a 'driving' license to use a bike on the road, so anyone can do it. But AFAIK, if you have one, you can get points on it for cycling offences.
Drivers shouting at cyclists that their road tax means they own the road... lots of cyclists drive and pay road taxes, too
We're talking bikes here. Get your people powered machine off this thread or we'll sdie swipe that puppy faster than you can "I don't care!"
(now for those who listen to it, thats a genuine Texas redneck accent).
yellowfever wrote: Na he did it intentionally. I've been riding almost 20 years. I can't count how many times people have tried to block when I split lanes in California.
maybe you shouldn't split lanes.
It is legal in California. Why shouldn't he do it?
In stopped traffic? Sure. Knock yourself out.
When everyone is going 65+ MPH? It's also legal to drink Bud Light, but that doesn't mean it's a smart choice...
yellowfever wrote: Na he did it intentionally. I've been riding almost 20 years. I can't count how many times people have tried to block when I split lanes in California.
maybe you shouldn't split lanes.
It is legal in California. Why shouldn't he do it?
because its one of the more stupid things one can do in life. Its an excellent way to die.
If it is legal, and folks in cars are illegally trying to prevent it, it is not on the biker. Smart or not, only one side is breaking the law in that case.
yellowfever wrote: Na he did it intentionally. I've been riding almost 20 years. I can't count how many times people have tried to block when I split lanes in California.
maybe you shouldn't split lanes.
It is legal in California. Why shouldn't he do it?
because its one of the more stupid things one can do in life. Its an excellent way to die.
No its not. The only reason filtering (what we call lane splitting) is dangerous is because drivers don't look before changing lane, like they are supposed to. Thats not the motorcyclists fault. Nothing at all unsafe about filtering in itself, as long as, like anything else on the road, it is done as sensible speed.
yellowfever wrote: Na he did it intentionally. I've been riding almost 20 years. I can't count how many times people have tried to block when I split lanes in California.
maybe you shouldn't split lanes.
It is legal in California. Why shouldn't he do it?
In stopped traffic? Sure. Knock yourself out.
When everyone is going 65+ MPH? It's also legal to drink Bud Light, but that doesn't mean it's a smart choice...
And that's usually the only time it's legal but I've found people still don't want to let you in after you've moved up and the light changes.
There are more dangerous things like terminal road construction in my state, Oklahoma; you get 1 sign about 100 yards before it begins and then 30 miles of road have been scraped to resemble a cheese grater...that's saying you can dodge the 20 foot deep potholes that never get filled or the shoddy job that some politicians cousin did when they resurfaced the road and it's full of bumps.
yellowfever wrote: Na he did it intentionally. I've been riding almost 20 years. I can't count how many times people have tried to block when I split lanes in California.
maybe you shouldn't split lanes.
It is legal in California. Why shouldn't he do it?
In stopped traffic? Sure. Knock yourself out.
When everyone is going 65+ MPH? It's also legal to drink Bud Light, but that doesn't mean it's a smart choice...
And that's usually the only time it's legal but I've found people still don't want to let you in after you've moved up and the light changes.
yellowfever wrote: Na he did it intentionally. I've been riding almost 20 years. I can't count how many times people have tried to block when I split lanes in California.
maybe you shouldn't split lanes.
It is legal in California. Why shouldn't he do it?
because its one of the more stupid things one can do in life. Its an excellent way to die.
No its not. The only reason filtering (what we call lane splitting) is dangerous is because drivers don't look before changing lane, like they are supposed to. Thats not the motorcyclists fault. Nothing at all unsafe about filtering in itself, as long as, like anything else on the road, it is done as sensible speed.
Nonsense. You're literally passing through vehicles BETWEEN Lanes, when the traffic is congested. Its stupid and anyone who does it is a California moron. Other states will bust your ass for doing that.
welshhoppo wrote: You really need to get rid of plea bargains America.
Nope. They save a lot of time and money by allowing us to bypass stupid trials. As long as the prosecutor doesn't cave too easily or too much they as very useful. Often if there is a trial, someone didn't do things right. Either defense won't accept reality or prosecution is pushing too hard.
They also create the hazard that prosecutors will call for very heavy penalty charges so that defendants are put under pressure to plead guilty to lesser charges and make prosecution easier.
Hey do what you want. Doesn't mean gak to me if you die or not. More organ donation volunteers baby.
It's not terribly safe in lanes for bikes in heavy traffic. They can get smashed between two cars if a car doesn't stop in time for example. Minor fender bender for cars could be serious injury for biker without protection. There are trade offs.
Kilkrazy wrote: I get pissed off by renegade cyclists partly for safety but also because they give car drivers who have a chip on their shoulder a supposedly legitimate excuse to treat everyone badly.
You see cyclists obeying the laws too, and you see cars disobeying road laws.
When I biked (pedal) to work, ....
We're talking bikes here. Get your people powered machine off this thread or we'll side swipe that puppy faster than you can "I don't care!"
(now for those who listen to it, thats a genuine Texas redneck accent).
Hey do what you want. Doesn't mean gak to me if you die or not. More organ donation volunteers baby.
It's not terribly safe in lanes for bikes in heavy traffic. They can get smashed between two cars if a car doesn't stop in time for example. Minor fender bender for cars could be serious injury for biker without protection. There are trade offs.
Not to mention, in places like AZ and SoCal where temperatures get quite well into the "swamp-ass" territory, having an air cooled vehicle sitting in traffic becomes a liability to create still MORE stalled traffic when the motorcycle overheats
welshhoppo wrote: You really need to get rid of plea bargains America.
Nope. They save a lot of time and money by allowing us to bypass stupid trials. As long as the prosecutor doesn't cave too easily or too much they as very useful. Often if there is a trial, someone didn't do things right. Either defense won't accept reality or prosecution is pushing too hard.
See, our system just has admission of guilt. Admit you did wrong and you get a reduced sentence. But plea bargaining is very much a rich persons game.
Damn frazzled now your name calling. Should I start calling you a Texas inbred. Do you even ride a motorcycle. When something is legal people will do it. The CHP has guide lines for splitting lanes. Yes the ones that don't follow them are taking more risk. TRUST ME there's plenty of morons coming out Texas. So let's try to keep the name calling out.
The only time I had a problem lane splitting was when some dick head decided he wanted to stop me. At least they tried to stop me
welshhoppo wrote: You really need to get rid of plea bargains America.
Nope. They save a lot of time and money by allowing us to bypass stupid trials. As long as the prosecutor doesn't cave too easily or too much they as very useful. Often if there is a trial, someone didn't do things right. Either defense won't accept reality or prosecution is pushing too hard.
See, our system just has admission of guilt. Admit you did wrong and you get a reduced sentence. But plea bargaining is very much a rich persons game.
Thats The Same Thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yellowfever wrote: Damn frazzled now your name calling. Should I start calling you a Texas inbred.
Half Texas inbred, half Louisiana swamp rat (techically Slav/Germanic French roots). I wore a footlong belt bucklet before footlong belt buckles were cool.
Do you even ride a motorcycle.
incriminating black and whites will support that yep, I've had bikes in the past. Many of my memories were motor pits when dad raced, or he in mine when I did as a kid. Here's one for you dad, leaning a hairpin with TBone standing astride your tank.
When something is legal people will do it.
in California its legal. In other, smarter states, its not. California also gave us such epic things as: Palimony, non-marriage live in support, the Black Panthers, the Crips, and a water system dominated by growers at the expense of 18mm people. Only young idiots did it when I was there.
The CHP has guide lines for splitting lanes. Yes the ones that don't follow them are taking more risk. TRUST ME there's plenty of morons coming out Texas. So let's try to keep the name calling out.
The Austin, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington population trends show its Californians coming here.
The only time I had a problem lane splitting was when some dick head decided he wanted to stop me. At least they tried to stop me
Do you have a critique of their methodology or a study that shows theirs is wrong because just attacking the authors isn't a convincing argument. The article I linked to has a link to another study by a different outfit that came to the same conclusion.
By the way, a key caveat to the idea that lane splitting is safe is that you not be going more than 10-15 MPH faster than traffic and that traffic is going less than 50 MPH. Certainly some will split in an unsafe way, but that is a problem with the rider not the practice.
It says you are less likely to be hit from behind if you are lane splitting, which duh is because a car can't be behind you if one is beside you on most likely both sides. This article In no ways shows lane splitting is safe. It show's you are less likely to suffer a head injury when lane splitting, which is because of how the impact is going to be as opposed to be rear ended or ramming a vehicle in the rear. Also important to that result is the test was done mostly during traffic time when people were driving slower, including motorcycles, due to heavy traffic (vehicles were moving 15mph or less...)and they found motorcyclists in this time were 33% more likely to wear helmets. Which of course is a factor in reduced head injuries. It shows that 17% of accidents happened during lane splitting, which was 1000 for the year they looked at in that area. Considering often during heavy traffic the cars are moving very slow, that there are accidents at all under such conditions shows its not safe.
The study also showed that there was no reduction in injuries for people lane splitting if they went more than 15mph faster than a car, or when traffic was moving more than 30mph.
Also the OP has nothing to do with lane splitting, even if it did lane splitting is illegal in Texas.
Also lane splitting is not actually legal in California, its currently under legislative review in its third incarnation and has not been approved yet. It is however not illegal. Yes that statement is dumb but true.
The problem is not with the article by Berkeley, the problem is with the poorly written cycle world article which cherry picked things out of that to make a statement, and then the person who claimed that "berkeley says lane splitting is safe" when that is not what the article is about.
Lane splitting is aslo needed to reduce traffic. sometime by up to 10%
Its unsafe if drivers are not paying attention(Which even in Gridlock traffic they should, accidents can happen there.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Lane splitting is aslo needed to reduce traffic. sometime by up to 10%
Its unsafe if drivers are not paying attention(Which even in Gridlock traffic they should, accidents can happen there.
Even if they are paying attention. Someone coming up within the legally defined space at a high rate of speed is hard to see. Frankly if they hit you in that context its your fault.
Do you have a critique of their methodology or a study that shows theirs is wrong because just attacking the authors isn't a convincing argument. The article I linked to has a link to another study by a different outfit that came to the same conclusion.
Breotan wrote: I hope there will be an update later saying the driver is under arrest for some form of aggravated battery. This guy needs a few years vacation in the Greybar Hotel at the very least.
It says you are less likely to be hit from behind if you are lane splitting, which duh is because a car can't be behind you if one is beside you on most likely both sides. This article In no ways shows lane splitting is safe. It show's you are less likely to suffer a head injury when lane splitting, which is because of how the impact is going to be as opposed to be rear ended or ramming a vehicle in the rear. Also important to that result is the test was done mostly during traffic time when people were driving slower, including motorcycles, due to heavy traffic (vehicles were moving 15mph or less...)and they found motorcyclists in this time were 33% more likely to wear helmets. Which of course is a factor in reduced head injuries. It shows that 17% of accidents happened during lane splitting, which was 1000 for the year they looked at in that area. Considering often during heavy traffic the cars are moving very slow, that there are accidents at all under such conditions shows its not safe.
The study also showed that there was no reduction in injuries for people lane splitting if they went more than 15mph faster than a car, or when traffic was moving more than 30mph.
Also the OP has nothing to do with lane splitting, even if it did lane splitting is illegal in Texas.
Also lane splitting is not actually legal in California, its currently under legislative review in its third incarnation and has not been approved yet. It is however not illegal. Yes that statement is dumb but true.
The problem is not with the article by Berkeley, the problem is with the poorly written cycle world article which cherry picked things out of that to make a statement, and then the person who claimed that "berkeley says lane splitting is safe" when that is not what the article is about.
Well here's a quote directly from the study. I was paraphrasing, but same general idea.
Lane-splitting appears to be a relatively safe motorcycle riding strategy if done in traffic moving at 50 MPH or less and if motorcyclists do not exceed the speed of other vehicles by more than 15 MPH. A significant number of motorcyclists lane-split in fast-moving traffic or at excessive speed differentials. These riders could lower their risk of injury by restricting the environments in which they lane-split and by reducing their speed differential when they do choose to lanesplit.
Emphasis mine.
Slow stop and go traffic often leads to accidents as cars don't stop in time and hit the car in front of them.
Do you have a critique of their methodology or a study that shows theirs is wrong because just attacking the authors isn't a convincing argument. The article I linked to has a link to another study by a different outfit that came to the same conclusion.
Care to elaborate then? Were you just taking a swipe at Berkley in general and not commenting on the validity of this particular study? If the comment was just meant in jest at the expense of Berkley, fine. It's a throw away line that some will be humored by.
If the purpose of the post was to say ignore the study, the comment isn't persuasive.
The actual charge is two counts of aggravated assault
Frazz you are leaving out the with a deadly weapon part,with that added we are splitting hairs. If I am reading the statutes right aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder are both class 2 felonies punishable by 2-20 years and up to a $10000 dollar fine. It is literally the exact same punishment. The dude is looking at a minimum 4 years in prison.
Deliberately knocking a motorcyclist off their bike at high speeds has a very high risk off killing that motorcyclist. Ergo I think it should have been an attempted homicide charge.
The actual charge is two counts of aggravated assault
Frazz you are leaving out the with a deadly weapon part,with that added we are splitting hairs. If I am reading the statutes right aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder are both class 2 felonies punishable by 2-20 years and up to a $10000 dollar fine. It is literally the exact same punishment. The dude is looking at a minimum 4 years in prison.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Deliberately knocking a motorcyclist off their bike at high speeds has a very high risk off killing that motorcyclist. Ergo I think it should have been an attempted homicide charge.
Well, the county didn't agree, or was intelligent enough to know that they couldn't prove that at all.
I'm not sure they'll be able to prove beyond a reasonable that it wasn't an accident.
Their best hope is a plea, because all it's going to take is one person on the jury that thinks the biker was an donkey-cave that was breaking the road laws to prevent conviction.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Deliberately knocking a motorcyclist off their bike at high speeds has a very high risk off killing that motorcyclist. Ergo I think it should have been an attempted homicide charge.
Well, the county didn't agree, or was intelligent enough to know that they couldn't prove that at all.
I'm not sure they'll be able to prove beyond a reasonable that it wasn't an accident.
Their best hope is a plea, because all it's going to take is one person on the jury that thinks the biker was an donkey-cave that was breaking the road laws to prevent conviction.
And then they play the video over and over and over of the wreck and him saying "I don't care"
This is Texas, he's a goner.
He admitted he hit them.
He said they were over the line (so its his moral duty to cross the same line and kill them???)
He said he didn't care that he hit them.
Its a screaming indicator of both intent and depraved indifference. This guy is roadkill (pardon the pun) and may die in prison. Good.
Their best hope is a plea, because all it's going to take is one person on the jury that thinks the biker was an donkey-cave that was breaking the road laws to prevent conviction.
Good jury instructions making it clear the rider is not the one on trial ought to cover that.
And then they play the video over and over and over of the wreck and him saying "I don't care"
This is Texas, he's a goner.
Lack of empathy hardly equates to guilt, though.
While true, I would somewhat assume that the legal team here will use the video to show a purposeful movement, and the "I don't care" as evidence of a complete lack of remorse, which will help the "purposeful movement" part of the evidence in establishing that this guy doesn't care one bit about other humans and should take a long vacation at Her Majesty's leisure.
Their best hope is a plea, because all it's going to take is one person on the jury that thinks the biker was an donkey-cave that was breaking the road laws to prevent conviction.
Good jury instructions making it clear the rider is not the one on trial ought to cover that.
Agreed. There may still be some sort of trial, or ticketing process for the motorcyclist, and I'm sure the jury will be informed of that, and instructed to NOT let the cyclists actions alter their judgements.
My assumption was that he meant to swing over and block them from passing but oversteered.
And this assumption is what prevents an attempted homicide charge. Usually with attempted homicide you need to be able to demonstrate an intent to kill. Since I don't think that can be easily proven here, the prosecutors were right to go with AGwDW.
cincydooley wrote: I'm simply saying that's going to be harder to do than to prove the inverse.
Acknowledging that he hit them isn't an acknowledgement of intent. Nor is his lack of empathy.
The only fact that we can say with 100% certainty is that if the motorcyclist had followed the road laws, he would not have been hit.
Well, the video does show the car crossing the double lines to hit the bike. I'm sure a prosecutor can get the jury to see that as a demonstration of intent.
Frazzled wrote: He admitted he hit them.
He said they were over the line (so its his moral duty to cross the same line and kill them???)
He said he didn't care that he hit them.
Its a screaming indicator of both intent and depraved indifference. This guy is roadkill (pardon the pun) and may die in prison. Good.
He's a scumbag but it doesn't necessarily indicate intent to murder them. "I was just trying to scare them and teach them a lesson." type douchebaggery, sure but kill? I mean, I can see it and I'm actually a bit surprised, considering his flippant remarks, that they didn't apply it but...
Frazzled wrote: He admitted he hit them.
He said they were over the line (so its his moral duty to cross the same line and kill them???)
He said he didn't care that he hit them.
Its a screaming indicator of both intent and depraved indifference. This guy is roadkill (pardon the pun) and may die in prison. Good.
He's a scumbag but it doesn't necessarily indicate intent to murder them. "I was just trying to scare them and teach them a lesson." type douchebaggery, sure but kill? I mean, I can see it and I'm actually a bit surprised, considering his flippant remarks, that they didn't apply it but...
"I was just pointing the gun at the guy trying to scare him, I didnt mean to shoot it"
Frazzled wrote: He admitted he hit them.
He said they were over the line (so its his moral duty to cross the same line and kill them???)
He said he didn't care that he hit them.
Its a screaming indicator of both intent and depraved indifference. This guy is roadkill (pardon the pun) and may die in prison. Good.
He's a scumbag but it doesn't necessarily indicate intent to murder them. .
Frazzled wrote: He admitted he hit them.
He said they were over the line (so its his moral duty to cross the same line and kill them???)
He said he didn't care that he hit them.
Its a screaming indicator of both intent and depraved indifference. This guy is roadkill (pardon the pun) and may die in prison. Good.
He's a scumbag but it doesn't necessarily indicate intent to murder them. "I was just trying to scare them and teach them a lesson." type douchebaggery, sure but kill? I mean, I can see it and I'm actually a bit surprised, considering his flippant remarks, that they didn't apply it but...
"I was just pointing the gun at the guy trying to scare him, I didnt mean to shoot it"
Guns didn't have anything to do with this. There's no reason to bring them up.
Frazzled wrote: He admitted he hit them.
He said they were over the line (so its his moral duty to cross the same line and kill them???)
He said he didn't care that he hit them.
Its a screaming indicator of both intent and depraved indifference. This guy is roadkill (pardon the pun) and may die in prison. Good.
He's a scumbag but it doesn't necessarily indicate intent to murder them. "I was just trying to scare them and teach them a lesson." type douchebaggery, sure but kill? I mean, I can see it and I'm actually a bit surprised, considering his flippant remarks, that they didn't apply it but...
"I was just pointing the gun at the guy trying to scare him, I didnt mean to shoot it"
Guns didn't have anything to do with this. There's no reason to bring them up.
He said nothing positive or negative about guns. It was an example of how he thought the logic was flawed, nothing more. The only one making this about guns is you.
whats with the chip on your shoulder. I mearly used this as an example as why just saying you wanted to scare someone with a deadly weapon(Which a car and a Gun are) is not an excuse for when someone gets hurt.
If this is what Ohio does to you, im glad im in cali.
hotsauceman1 wrote: whats with the chip on your shoulder. I mearly used this as an example as why just saying you wanted to scare someone with a deadly weapon(Which a car and a Gun are) is not an excuse for when someone gets hurt.
If this is what Ohio does to you, im glad im in cali.
Plus, in Cali it is legal for you to split lanes on your motorsickle!
cincydooley wrote: Riiiiiiiight. You keep telling yourself that as I introduce firearms to this unrelated conversation exactly zero times.
But you can continue to disingenuously claim whatever you want. God bless our daily doses of education from the college student peanut gallery.
You went after a statement that he was using as an example because it he mentioned guns, despite nobody else doing so, or treating it any different than just another example. There was nobody harping about gun laws, or violence or what have you. He could have just as easily have said, knives, or bows, or literally anything else, and it would not have mattered. But, apparently, because he mentioned guns, it mattered.
hotsauceman1 wrote: whats with the chip on your shoulder. I mearly used this as an example as why just saying you wanted to scare someone with a deadly weapon(Which a car and a Gun are) is not an excuse for when someone gets hurt.
It's a gakky example that intentionally brings in non-related but very polarizing topic unnecessarily.
If this is what Ohio does to you, im glad im in cali.
Yep. That's totes it. You nailed it. You really must be getting your moneys worth at the university you attend.
You went after a statement that he was using as an example because it he mentioned guns, despite nobody else doing so, or treating it any different than just another example. There was nobody harping about gun laws, or violence or what have you. He could have just as easily have said, knives, or bows, or literally anything else, and it would not have mattered. But, apparently, because he mentioned guns, it mattered.
Because it was done so here intentionally.
I mean, if we want to start calling cars "deadly weapons" I assume you're all comfortable if we start cracking down on the Car Violence problem in the US, too.
Seriously? Guns are the go-to weapon in almost all conversations. He wanted a weapon for the example, alright then, gun. He said nothing that could even be construed as polarizing. What, are we now not allowed to even mention guns?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Deliberately knocking a motorcyclist off their bike at high speeds has a very high risk off killing that motorcyclist. Ergo I think it should have been an attempted homicide charge.
While it would definitely qualify, there would be a higher burden of proof on such a charge. And failure to convict means the accused walks free. Its a common tactic to go after a "lesser" charge that you can guarantee will stick so you get a conviction instead of going after a riskier one. Usually you only go for a higher charge if you also have a bunch of others ones you know you can pin on them, that way you as the prosecutor minimize your risk of failing to convict.
Murder, as I recall, requires some intent. Without intent, its manslaughter. And I don't think there is such a thing as Attempted Manslaughter(or thats what Aggravated Assault covers/is)
Aggravated Assault with a deadly weapon is a pretty harsh conviction as it is, and very easy to prove in this instance as opposed to Attempted Homocide which would be much harder. And as you can't be tried twice for the same crime, they can't just accuse the driver of both.
You can have manslaughter without intent, you have have to have done something incredibly reckless.
There was a case here last year, where a motorcyclist was doing 90 in a 50 zone, and a car crossed the lane at a cross roads and killed him. The judge basically said that the bike driver was an idiot. But it didn't make the car driver any less liable, he would not have crashed if it weren't for the car driver doing what he did.
Co'tor Shas wrote: That's... an interesting charge. As manslaughter is without meaning to do it, how do you attempt something you aren't meaning to do?
I'm guessing it has to do with premeditation somehow. I mentioned earlier in the thread "depraved indifference". That could certainly allow a manslaughter charge without specific intent to murder.
It is odd. Usually if there is any intent, its murder. Without intent it becomes Manslaughter.
IE: If I lose control of my car due to negligence and run someone over, its manslaughter. If I deliberately drive on the sidewalk and run someone over, its murder. Degree of the charge then depends on the level of intent and preplanning.
^ I'm not sure on US law, but murder needs intent to cause harm ( you don't need to intend to kill someone to actually be guilty of murder, you just need to have intention to cause GBH).
Grey Templar wrote: It is odd. Usually if there is any intent, its murder. Without intent it becomes Manslaughter.
IE: If I lose control of my car due to negligence and run someone over, its manslaughter. If I deliberately drive on the sidewalk and run someone over, its murder. Degree of the charge then depends on the level of intent and preplanning.
I don't think losing control of your vehicle qualifies as "attempting" manslaughter.
Essentially, the decision whether to charge someone with murder or manslaughter comes down to the state of mind of the accused. For someone to be tried for murder, they must have acted with malice and committed the act knowing it could result in death.
http://sabalawyers.com.au/whats-difference-murder-manslaughter/
Attempted means the act was incomplete, meaning nobody died. Regular dictionary definitions don't always apply in law.
Grey Templar wrote: It is odd. Usually if there is any intent, its murder. Without intent it becomes Manslaughter.
IE: If I lose control of my car due to negligence and run someone over, its manslaughter. If I deliberately drive on the sidewalk and run someone over, its murder. Degree of the charge then depends on the level of intent and preplanning.
I don't think losing control of your vehicle qualifies as "attempting" manslaughter.
I wasn't trying to imply it was. That was more to illustrate the difference between murder and manslaughter, and till now I was 100% sure it was always about intent. If you kill someone with intent, its murder. Without, its manslaughter. but apparently Attempted Manslaughter is a thing and now I'm really confused.
You can't attempt manslaughter, because if you attempt deliberately to kill someone and fail, you have by definition committed attempted murder.
Here in the UK, the car driver would most likely be charged with the offence of causing injury by dangerous driving. I don't think there could be much defence against it in this case.
Frazzled wrote: Lets play nice chillins or you'll get the hose...
I hosed the dog a couple of times, but never the other way around.
I had a pitbull that would play chase the water, then he would take the hose from you and run with the hose in his mouth. Every few months the wife tries to wash Rusty with the hose. He leads her on a merry chase around the yard.
cincydooley wrote: The prosecution is going to have to prove it if they go to trial.
Not really, they just have to convince a jury. The guy getting out the car and saying "I don't care" might look bad.
It's interesting that the video cuts out at that point. I assume there was more to the conversation, and the camera kept rolling. I wonder if he cut it there for legal reasons, or because that's all he wanted us to see.
Grey Templar wrote: It is odd. Usually if there is any intent, its murder. Without intent it becomes Manslaughter.
IE: If I lose control of my car due to negligence and run someone over, its manslaughter. If I deliberately drive on the sidewalk and run someone over, its murder. Degree of the charge then depends on the level of intent and preplanning.
I don't think losing control of your vehicle qualifies as "attempting" manslaughter.
I wasn't trying to imply it was. That was more to illustrate the difference between murder and manslaughter, and till now I was 100% sure it was always about intent. If you kill someone with intent, its murder. Without, its manslaughter. but apparently Attempted Manslaughter is a thing and now I'm really confused.
They left out a key word. There is both voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. The attempted manslaughter charge is attempted voluntary manslaughter. Basically you lose your mind briefly due to intense provocation that would cause anyone to fly off the handle, and try to kill them at that moment. If you don't do the job, attempted voluntary manslaughter. If you succeed, voluntary manslaughter. But you have to have intended to kill the person to get that. If you weren't trying to kill them, no attempted voluntary manslaughter.
A dangerous act that could result in death, does not equate to attempted murder if the person wasn't trying to kill someone.
I think that a jury can find reasonable doubt of an attempt to kill so that means aggravated battery is what he'll likely be convicted of.
Not likely, that is exactly what he has been charged with as I posted above, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. I also can't understand why people are still talking about attempted murder? I posted above that in Texas attempted murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon are both class 2 felonies punishable by 2 to 20 years in prison and up to a $10000 fine. IT IS LITERALLY THE EXACT SAME PUNISHMENT! Aggravated assault is easier to prove because you don't have to prove intent and like I already stated IT IS THE EXACT SAME PUNISHMENT as attempted murder. So why do we care that he didn't get attempted murder charges? I think the prosecutor made the perfect call, easier to prove and the same sentence. This is from an avid rider, April to November in Wisconsin, the only time I don't ride is when it is pouring rain when I am going to leave\e the house !
I didn't say I don't ride when it's raining, just not if it is already raining when I an walking out the door. Getting wet during a ride is one thing, starting out your day wet as soon as you get on the bike not a lot of fun for the day . When ever some one asks me about getting a bike I always tell them if you are going to leave it at home because it might rain, or be cold, or be to hot, or it's frog mating season and they might be on the highway, don't get a bike. You need to ride all the time, in all conditions so you are comfortable on the bike and things are second nature. If you are a weekend warrior and you are thinking about how to clutch, when to break, where the instructor said to look when you are turning, you are not paying attention to everything trying to kill you, and I mean everything!
I thought Murder required premeditation, rather than intent?
Might attempted Manslaughter be something like a drunken brawl that turns into a knife fight and someone gets stabbed? If the victim dies, it's manslaughter due to lack of premeditation; if they survive it's attempted manslaughter?
Co'tor Shas wrote: Premeditation is the difference between 1st and 3rd degree murder.
Ah, it might be a difference between UK/US then. Whenever I had it explained to me it was always Premeditation = Murder, Fit of Rage/Accident = Manslaughter
Yeah. Here in the US manslaughter is typical used as a crime lower than our 3rd Degree Murder (unpremeditated murder) and sometimes a sort of misdemeanor murder. The most common use of the term I think is for road accidents that result in death (Vehicular Manslaughter).
Co'tor Shas wrote: Premeditation is the difference between 1st and 3rd degree murder.
Ah, it might be a difference between UK/US then. Whenever I had it explained to me it was always Premeditation = Murder, Fit of Rage/Accident = Manslaughter
It really depends on the laws of the State or territory the death takes place in. Although the laws are similar between States (for the most part) there are nuances, exceptions, and special circumstances that may be encoded in one State but not another.
But basically as I understand it the following is the difference between the various degrees.
1st Degree Murder: Preplanned and willfully committed. IE: you planned out the action of the murder with the intent to kill that individual.
2nd Degree: You kill someone without premeditation, but do so willfully. Such as killing someone in the commission of a robbery, or hitting someone who was not your target.
3rd Degree: This is heat of passion, no premeditation and the act is not done in the commission of another crime.
Attempted Murder: Failing an attempt to do any of the above.
Manslaughter: Accidental killing of an individual. Basically a step up from negligence.
But basically as I understand it the following is the difference between the various degrees..
It's not so much that it's muddy, as that murder is most commonly a state crime and with 50 states, they're all slightly different. You probably know this and your writeup is a good generalization, just clarifying why.
welshhoppo wrote: Nope, murder is simply "intend to cause grevious bodily harm"
Did you mean to beat him up with a stick but not kill him, but he died anyway? Then that is murder, you intended to cause harm.
In the uk at least, I didn't study American law.
In the US this would probably be manslaughter, not murder. But of course there are tons of little details that could swing it up and down.
Killing someone with premeditated intent, or
Engaging in conduct with extreme indifference to human life, or
Killing someone during the commission of another crime (robbery in the first or second degree, rape in the first or second degree, burglary in the first degree, arson in the first or second degree, or kidnapping in the first or second degree).
Murder in the second degree. Class A Felony
Killing someone with intent but without premeditation, or
Killing someone during the commission of another crime other than those listed above for murder in the first degree.
Homicide by abuse. Class A Felony
Killing someone (child or person under sixteen years of age, a developmentally disabled person, or a dependent adult) under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life where the person has previously engaged in a pattern or practice of assault or torture of the victim.
Manslaughter in the first degree. Class A Felony
Killing someone through recklessness, or
Killing (intentionally and unlawfully) an unborn quick child by inflicting any injury upon the mother of such child
Manslaughter in the second degree. Class B Felony
Killing someone though an act of criminal negligence.
Now compare these to laws in your own state/country and you'll begin to see how blurred everything becomes compared to TV shows and other pop culture.
I was watching the Philip DeFranco show on YouTube when he talked about this story and had an update. He posted links to the Star-Telegram article, which I've copied below.
A man who intentionally swerved into a couple on a motorcycle in Hood County, causing them to crash and injure themselves in 2015, was sentenced to 15 years in prison Thursday, his attorney confirmed.
William Sam Crum, 69, was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in a jury trial in the 355th District Court in Hood County.
At his age, 15 years could be a life sentence but at least he won't have the opportunity to actually kill anyone else. I can only hope that they play this video - especially the "I don't care" comment - over and over at any parole boards he might appear before.
Maybe he'll meet some motorcycle gang "club" members in prison who can sit him down and explain to him why he should be remorseful for his actions. In the shower. Oz style.
Breotan wrote: I was watching the Philip DeFranco show on YouTube when he talked about this story and had an update. He posted links to the Star-Telegram article, which I've copied below.
A man who intentionally swerved into a couple on a motorcycle in Hood County, causing them to crash and injure themselves in 2015, was sentenced to 15 years in prison Thursday, his attorney confirmed.
William Sam Crum, 69, was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in a jury trial in the 355th District Court in Hood County.
At his age, 15 years could be a life sentence but at least he won't have the opportunity to actually kill anyone else. I can only hope that they play this video - especially the "I don't care" comment - over and over at any parole boards he might appear before.
Maybe he'll meet some motorcycle gang "club" members in prison who can sit him down and explain to him why he should be remorseful for his actions. In the shower. Oz style.
Phil talks about this starting at 9:52
Age is no excuse to escape sentence for a crime. Good . He earned those years b
William Sam Crum, 69, was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in a jury trial in the 355th District Court in Hood County.
William Sam Crum, 69, was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in a jury trial in the 355th District Court in Hood County.
Surely the wasp sting excuse was easy to discount/substantiate? Somebody must have asked to see the welt from the sting?
Not that getting stung would excuse what we see on the video,
I once took a bee to the face, then was stung in the throat when it dropped down my collar (Ironically while riding a motorbike)
I still managed to stay in my lane, finish crossing a bridge and successfully traverse 3 lanes of 100kph traffic to get to the shoulder before I could stop and pull the stinger out.
Used my indicator, checked my blind spots and swore my head off the whole time, and I'm allergic to the damn things. (neck swelled up so fat I couldn't refasten my jacket.)
instinctual movement to a blur of movement 
. When ever some one asks me about getting a bike I always tell them if you are going to leave it at home because it might rain, or be cold, or be to hot, or it's frog mating season and they might be on the highway, don't get a bike. You need to ride all the time, in all conditions so you are comfortable on the bike and things are second nature. If you are a weekend warrior and you are thinking about how to clutch, when to break, where the instructor said to look when you are turning, you are not paying attention to everything trying to kill you, and I mean everything!
