Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am amazed that some people here cannot seem to understand that if the car had not tried to smash the motorcycle into the median the crash would never have happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
If the biker had not distracted the driver by coming up into his blind spot and kicking his car, the crash would never have happened.
There are a chain of 5 or 6 events that lead to the actual wreck. It would appear that anyone of them not occurring would have broken the chain and the accident would not have occurred .
The motorcyclist is neither the first nor the last of these events. So he may have some liability and even some criminal responsibility. I expect though in the end game he is the smaller piece of the action.
It looked like vehicular intimidation went wrong to me. Car driver overestimated his high speed control skills, a thought of actually hitting a motorcyclist jerked steering wheel.
The first part is correct. The biker tried to intimidate the driver, by kicking his car, and ended up seriously hurting an innocent person in the process.
You come up alongside of me while I'm driving and start kicking my car, I will ram you into the median, and I will not miss. If you damage my car, you are going to get damaged.
And then you will be held responsible for the damages.
But you're STILL missing the point. Accidents happen. Every day. If everyone acted the way this biker did, do you think that would make things better or worse? What the driver did initially in hitting the biker (who again, was doing something very stupid by trying to pass the car IN the lane) was inadvertent (according to the witness). But when someone does something accidentally, you DON'T start intentionally escalating the situation by repeatedly kicking their car. In what strange, demented world do you think that is ok? If the biker had not started kicking the car, the driver most likely would have kept driving on his way. Instead, the biker started acting like a lunatic and made everything much worse. There is no way that a court would absolve the biker of his share of responsibility for what happened.
What happened was a physical accident. The court will look at who caused the physical accident not who caused the road rage of the driver that caused him to try and run over the motor cycle driver. All of the culpability for the physical accident is with the car driver.
You say if the motorcyclist did not kick the car the car driver would not have tried to run him over. However the kick did not cause the action, the kick caused the drivers rage which caused him to try and run over the motor cyclist. And sorry making someone angry on the road does not give the other person the right (without consequence) to try and run them over.
What happened was a physical accident. The court will look at who caused the physical accident not who caused the road rage of the driver that caused him to try and run over the motor cycle driver. All of the culpability for the physical accident is with the car driver.
You say if the motorcyclist did not kick the car the car driver would not have tried to run him over. However the kick did not cause the action, the kick caused the drivers rage which caused him to try and run over the motor cyclist. And sorry making someone angry on the road does not give the other person the right (without consequence) to try and run them over.
You're assuming that a jury comes to the conclusion that the driver was actually trying to run the driver over. I'm sure the driver will argue in his defense that he was distracted by the crazy biker kicking his car all over again and again. And since the video shows the biker being the aggressive one at that point, there's a good chance that a jury would believe him. He'd also argue that no one in their right mind would swerve like that at highway speeds just to hit a biker because that would be a death wish.
But at the end of the day, BOTH of these people are responsible for what happened. I don't care that he was able to escape unharmed, you can't absolve the biker of his escalation of the situation from simple accident in which no one was hurt, to a full-on road rage situation that led to the terrible crash. The reckless driving, the property damage, fleeing the scene of an accident, it just doesn't simply go away. If the biker is caught, and I hope he is, he will be facing serious charges.
You're assuming that a jury comes to the conclusion that the driver was actually trying to run the driver over. I'm sure the driver will argue in his defense that he was distracted by the crazy biker kicking his car all over again and again. And since the video shows the biker being the aggressive one at that point, there's a good chance that a jury would believe him. He'd also argue that no one in their right mind would swerve like that at highway speeds just to hit a biker because that would be a death wish.
But at the end of the day, BOTH of these people are responsible for what happened. I don't care that he was able to escape unharmed, you can't absolve the biker of his escalation of the situation from simple accident in which no one was hurt, to a full-on road rage situation that led to the terrible crash. The reckless driving, the property damage, fleeing the scene of an accident, it just doesn't simply go away. If the biker is caught, and I hope he is, he will be facing serious charges.
Of course I cannot say with certainty what a jury would decide. Juries all apt to believe all sorts of crazy stories.
I agree with the property damage aspect he is responsible for the damage his kick did. But going by your logic, the witness claimed that the car driver caused that too. The witness claims that this situation was started and escalated by the car driver.
And the bold makes the no sense. The biker did not cause the issue to go from a simple accident to anything. It is absoletly certain that the biker did not kick the car and his kick caused the car to lose control. That is absoltely absurd. His kick caused the driver to get angry. And since making someone angry is not a crime the biker has none(zilch, nada) for the accident involving the other truck(only the physical damaged by the kick).
Of course I cannot say with certainty what a jury would decide. Juries all apt to believe all sorts of crazy stories.
I agree with the property damage aspect he is responsible for the damage his kick did. But going by your logic, the witness claimed that the car driver caused that too. The witness claims that this situation was started and escalated by the car driver.
And the bold makes the no sense. The biker did not cause the issue to go from a simple accident to anything. It is absoletly certain that the biker did not kick the car and his kick caused the car to lose control. That is absoltely absurd. His kick caused the driver to get angry. And since making someone angry is not a crime the biker has none(zilch, nada) for the accident involving the other truck(only the physical damaged by the kick).
Yeah, it's totally crazy to ever think a person driving a car down a highway could be distracted by a reckless biker who starts kicking his car on the passenger side and then swoops around to the driver side and starts kicking his car again. No driver could ever get distracted by that. That was sarcasm, by the way. I don't think you understand how juries work. Each juror is going to think about what a rational person (i.e. themselves) would be doing in that situation. I doubt many of them are going to feel that they would not be distracted or startled by the actions of the biker if they were in the driver's shoes. They would probably also ask themselves if they, as rational people, would ever do what the biker did. And I'm pretty sure, without knowing anything about any of the potential jurors, that the answer would be no.
With respect to the property damage, the initial contact wasn't even enough to knock the biker off his bike (according to the witness), so I sincerely doubt that it would be anything compared to the biker repeatedly kicking the car with his boot on the passenger and driver side.
And the witness doesn't say that the situation was started by the driver. The witness said that the biker was trying to pass the car IN the lane as the car was attempting to leave the HOV lane. In addition, the witness said that the car was the one that was ahead of the biker, who was riding along the yellow line. The initial accident was both of their faults most likely. If the driver was wrong for not seeing the biker riding along the yellow line, the biker was wrong for passing the car in the lane while he was trying to exit. And yes, before anything you saw on the video, the biker is the one who escalated the situation by kicking the car on the passenger side. How you don't see that as an escalation is beyond me. If the biker hadn't started kicking the car, none of the following events would have occurred. The biker would not escape liability and prosecution for a number of offenses in this chain of events.
You keep saying 'repeatedly' as if the biker landed a multitude of kicks. Nowhere is that stated, it may have been as few as two kicks for all anyone knows. It seems to me that a biker being able to kick a moving car repeatedly, as in over and over, would be quite a feat, one that I think would be dangerous and difficult to accomplish without losing balance completely.
Yeah, it's totally crazy to ever think a person driving a car down a highway could be distracted by a reckless biker who starts kicking his car on the passenger side and then swoops around to the driver side and starts kicking his car again. No driver could ever get distracted by that. That was sarcasm, by the way. I don't think you understand how juries work. Each juror is going to think about what a rational person (i.e. themselves) would be doing in that situation. I doubt many of them are going to feel that they would not be distracted or startled by the actions of the biker if they were in the driver's shoes. They would probably also ask themselves if they, as rational people, would ever do what the biker did. And I'm pretty sure, without knowing anything about any of the potential jurors, that the answer would be no.
Yes it is totally absurd to violently swerve into the direction of a source a potential disturbance when driving.
Maybe you don't think so, but most people will.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
