Utopia Talk - Politics - When keeping it real goes wrong

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Apr 26 11:11:20 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / When keeping it real goes wrong

Aeros
Member Fri Jun 23 11:49:05
This Motorcyclist better hope the cops don't find him. Serious jail time and civil lawsuits are 100% certain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giF_kQ5I5Pc

TJ
Member Fri Jun 23 13:46:55
The cyclist maintaining control was very fortunate. Not sure how that will work out for him though. Kicking a car that had cut him off is a lot different than the other car in what appeared an attempt to do serious bodily harm to the cyclist. Possibly with the intention of killing him. The followup with be interesting.

Some crazy road rage going on in that video.

Aeros
Member Fri Jun 23 13:51:05
The fact that the cyclist fled though makes serious marks against him when it comes time to assign blame. The drivers swerve could be attributed to being startled.

TJ
Member Fri Jun 23 14:01:03
Fleeing the scene will certainly make his defense more difficult.

obaminated
Member Fri Jun 23 15:49:22
Wow that's nuts. Motorcyclist is absolutely gonna be blamed for instigating the accident.

Hrothgar
Member Fri Jun 23 15:52:19
I think the driver freaked out when they suddenly thought they hit a motor cyclist.

Ok, I totally don't think that. But a lawyer could argue that shit all day long and you can't prove otherwise.

hood
Member Fri Jun 23 17:14:02
As difficult as it is to imagine, the cyclist's kick could have easily led to the driver overcompensating himself right into the wall. And then, you know, flailing wildly out of control into the pickup.

Cherub Cow
Member Sat Jun 24 04:56:22
[obaminated]: "Motorcyclist is absolutely gonna be blamed for instigating the accident."

Don't be so sure. The clip above seems not to have the part where the car crosses a double yellow line (illegal as per California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 21655.8(a); a $490 fine and point for "negligent operator") directly into the space where the motorcycle is driving without signalling (unsafe lane change as per CVC 22107; about a $400 fine), pushing the motorcyclist onto the shoulder. The sedan driver also looks like he's alone, which via CVC 21655.5(b) is a minimum $481 fine if the driver doesn't have an eco-vehicle pass (the motorcyclist is also alone, but motorcycles can use HOV lanes legally). There may be precipitating factors (see L.A. Times article in my next comment), but good job to the "New York Post" for the selective editing and the sensational title that assigns blame entirely to the motorcyclist based on the edited clip alone... :|

This video includes the beginning:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=abd_1498153512
Gif of beginning: http://i.imgur.com/XbxOqgK.gif

Cherub Cow
Member Sat Jun 24 04:56:47
[Hrothgar]: "Ok, I totally don't think that. But a lawyer could argue that shit all day long and you can't prove otherwise."
[Hood]: "As difficult as it is to imagine, the cyclist's kick could have easily led to the driver overcompensating himself right into the wall. And then, you know, flailing wildly out of control into the pickup."

lol, totally ;D ... the lawyer for the sedan would totally pretend that the car was startled and overcompensated. Hopefully a judge (or jury if somehow it got to that) would see the animosity in the sedan's actions — really does look like the sedan driver tried to kill the motorcyclist. But with both drivers showing road rage which resulted in an innocent casualty, they might both lose their licenses?

This article interviews the video witness, which fills in some blanks:
http://www...ta-clarita-20170623-story.html
"Chris Traber ... said both men appeared to play a role in the harrowing incident.

It was about 5:45 a.m. Wednesday when Traber was in the passenger seat of his coworker’s car ... They were ... driving in the No. 1 lane, when the man on a Harley Davidson-type motorcycle passed them on the left, riding close to the double-yellow lines that separate the general traffic lanes from the HOV lanes.

About 150 feet ahead was a Nissan sedan driving in the HOV lane, Traber said. Just as the motorcyclist was passing the sedan on the right-hand side, the sedan tried to exit the carpool lane and enter the No. 1 lane. That’s when the car bumped the bike.

“I’m sure he didn’t see the motorcyclist,” Traber said of the driver. “He scared the living daylights out of the motorcyclist. He almost went down. That guy can really handle his bike.”

Traber said that after the motorcyclist regained control, he pulled up to the car’s passenger door and began gesturing at the driver. Traber said he appeared to be saying something too, but Traber couldn’t hear him. He said he figured the biker was “saying something like, hey, you almost hit me! Watch out!”

Traber said it looked as though the driver was yelling something back at the biker, and that it didn’t help matters, because that’s when the motorcyclist started kicking the passenger door.

“I said, ‘Wow, man, something’s going to happen. I gotta get this,’” Traber said. “So I grab my phone and started recording.”

The motorcyclist then swooped behind the sedan, pulled up along the driver side and kicked the car again, Traber said. In a flash, the driver of the sedan swerved hard left and sideswiped the motorcyclist, almost sending him barreling into a concrete freeway divider, he said."

Cherub Cow
Member Sat Jun 24 05:13:16
On this part: "Just as the motorcyclist was passing the sedan on the right-hand side"
Just FYI: splitting lanes like this is legal in California as of January 1st, 2017, though specific rules have not yet been clarified; that is, motorcyclists can drive on the double yellow lines of the HOV lane to pass. It's generally safe so long as cars don't change lanes illegally or don't leave the HOV lane illegally (which this car apparently did when it first hit the motorcyclist off-video).

Aeros
Member Sat Jun 24 10:33:35
Thing about Traffic Law though, is that each specific violation is its own separate criminal matter. Its why you hear announcers in car chases keeping score with "Running red light at X intersection, going wrong way down X street, clipped car, Speeding down X highway". When it comes time to go to court, the guy is brought up on individual charges for each specific violation.

In this particular case, there could have been a violation further up the road (Illegal lane change) that pissed off the Motorcyclist. But that violation was not what caused the accident. What caused the accident was the Motorcyclist illegally entering the sedans travel lane, making contact with the Sedan, leading to it spinning out of control.

Lawyers will argue to death as to whether or not the Sedan was trying to retaliate for the kick and lost it, but the ultimate violation trigger for the wreck was caused by the Motorcycle.

Cherub Cow
Member Sun Jun 25 07:37:38
[Aeros]: "each specific violation is its own separate criminal matter ... In this particular case ... What caused the accident was the Motorcyclist illegally entering the sedans travel lane, making contact with the Sedan, leading to it spinning out of control."

So for "[cause of] the accident", would this be referring to when the motorcyclist was traveling primary position in the HOV lane and the sedan repeated the same violations of the initial (off-camera) accident wherein the sedan moved into the motorcyclist's current path (the part caught at the beginning of the longer video and the gif)? Or do you mean an extension of this instance, where, after the sedan had pushed the motorcyclist out of the motorcyclist's primary position path, the motorcyclist didn't continue to evade into the shoulder or evade by slowing down and instead kicked the sedan (in which case, the "Motorcyclist illegally entering the sedans travel lane" was the motorcyclist *not* being pushed off the road by the sedan entering the motorcyclist's travel lane)?

If you mean this last instance, that kick was hardly causal. The motorcyclist's kick of the sedan did not cause the sedan to lose control in the inertial sense (that kick was not powerful enough to overcome the sedan's inertia, and after the kick the sedan moved in the wrong direction for it to be inertial: towards the kick), so it would still be a case of the sedan driver losing *mental* control (joining the road rage scenario) — turning as he did *into* the kick and into the path of the motorcyclist, who, again, as per the longer video, was occupying the primary lane position before it was intruded upon by the sedan. To call this situation causal specifically against the motorcyclist is to remove agency and liability from the sedan driver. In practice, the sedan driver would still be liable for the decision to swerve maliciously into the path of the kicking motorcyclist, for striking the motorcyclist, and for the mass damage caused by further loss of control of his vehicle precipitated from that initial decision to strike the motorcyclist.

So yes, it is a point by point situation, but if person 1 intentionally strikes person 2's vehicle (as the motorcyclist kicked the sedan), that does not mean that person 2 is off the hook for the results of his (person 2's) subsequent decision to strike person 1's vehicle (as the sedan would indeed be responsible for the outcome of the decision to strike the motorcyclist).

As a matter of the total liability, if/when they find the motorcyclist and can bring charges to all involved, these charges could be filed...
• The sedan will be charged for the violations that I listed above (illegal HOV entry/exit CVC 21655.8(a); unsafe lane change CVC 22107; illegal use of HOV lane CVC 21655.5(b)) — possibly two counts of each, but given that only one count of each is on video, probably just one count of each
• The sedan will be charged with striking the motorcyclist and failing to pull over following the off-camera accident precipitated by above CVC 21655.8(a) and CVC 22107 — a misdemeanor hit and run offense as per CVC 20002(c)
• The motorcyclist will be charged for kicking the car, either by California Penal Code (CPC) 242, battery in a road rage situation, or by CPC 1821, tampering with a vehicle
• The sedan will be charged with road rage related "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" and "Aggravated Assault" for swerving at and hitting the motorcyclist, as per CPC 245(a)(1)
• The sedan will be charged with felony "Reckless Driving" as per CVC 23103 and 23104, having caused bodily harm to the driver of the white truck
• The motorcyclist will also be charged with CVC 20002(c) for leaving the scene of an accident; misdemeanor in this case because no damage was directly caused by the motorcyclist (the sedan could make a case for dents caused by the kicks, but that might be difficult to prove given that the car was totaled afterwards)

These charges could mean that the sedan driver would face serious fines (more than $12000; $10000 for assault, $1400 or more for the HOV infractions, $1000 for hit and run, plus other accident-related fines), jail time up to 7 years (4 years max for assault with a deadly weapon, 3 for reckless driving causing bodily injury), and community service. The motorcyclist could be fined about $1000 to $2000 and face jail time up to 6 months for battery/tampering and leaving the scene of an accident (though charges could get worse if the motorcyclist does not turn himself in and has to be caught by police). Being a commuter hell, L.A. has a lot of anti-bicyclist/anti-motorcyclist sentiment, and that could translate to a judge giving a more significant percentage of blame onto the motorcyclist, but if the full video plays in court then it still looks far worse for the sedan driver.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha Sun Jun 25 07:58:41
Isn't a more solid defense for the sedan, that he was startled and scared by the fact that someone on a motorcycle kicked on his car on the freeway? You don't expect that and may think you are getting attacked by some crazy criminal.

hood
Member Sun Jun 25 09:04:42
"If you mean this last instance, that kick was hardly causal. The motorcyclist's kick of the sedan did not cause the sedan to lose control in the inertial sense (that kick was not powerful enough to overcome the sedan's inertia, and after the kick the sedan moved in the wrong direction for it to be inertial: towards the kick)"

Well,

1. As much as we like treating objects like points, a car is not a point. Applying force at the extreme end of the car is more likely to cause rotation than lateral motion, and this would move the front of the car towards the kick. You are right though, the kick did not seem forceful enough to actually spin the car.

2. The most likely explanation is overcompensation. I've been blown sideways from heavy wind in my old car. It isn't fun and people could easily find themselves overcompensating. Add to this any tendency for a car to spin (like from 1) and you have an easy situation where the driver is essentially just spinning the wheel back and forth in an attempt to gain control, and just finds himself overcompensating every time.

TJ
Member Sun Jun 25 09:51:43
If anyone believes the sedan driver didn't know exactly what was going on moment to moment in what was an ongoing rage situation when the cyclist kicked his car they should reconsider.

But..., nearly anything ca be claimed in a court of law and impossible to know an outcome that hasn't taken place. One can bet that defense lawyers will apply all plausible scenarios if no one pleads guilty.

Neither have a defense for the captured offences on video. Frame by frame of that video will clearly show as well as eye witnesses that he intended to do serious harm. Neither the cyclist or the sedan driver were in control of their emotions and are guilty of their unlawful offenses.

It is my opinion that CC nailed a realistic assessment with bullets.

obaminated
Member Sun Jun 25 11:19:31
They are going 70+ miles per hour. At that speed any jerk of the wheel is going to result in what we saw happen. The sedan gets kicked. The driver jerks the wheel and from there never recovers. It is the motorcyclists fault. He probably didn't expect or intend for it to become such a thing, but it did and he fled the scene.

patom
Member Sun Jun 25 12:02:31
It would be interesting to see what transpired prior to the kicking incident.

In some states with concealed carry being legal. You would be really taking a chance confronting anyone.

This sort of shit is why I quit riding a bike. A miracle the biker didn't get fucked up real bad.

TJ
Member Sun Jun 25 12:06:49
The disparity in reporting is interesting to say the least.

http://www...road-rage-video-highway-crash/

The courts will sort it out. The 75 year old in the truck is very fortunate he is alive.

Cherub Cow
Member Sun Jun 25 18:57:15
[TJ]: "The disparity in reporting is interesting to say the least."

That's sustained my attention with this crash. A lot of the news articles that used the edited (shortened) clip have been blaming the motorcyclist, whereas the articles that did due diligence (the ones with the full clip or the witness testimony) seem to recognize that the sedan had primary or at least shared fault. Sensationalist journalism knows its audiences: closed-container auto drivers tend to have a high disdain for motorcyclists (typically due to learned prejudice rather than practical observations or practical comparisons to other auto drivers), so stories spun to make motorcyclists look bad continue to generate a lot of click-revenue, both via cyclist haters and cyclists who feel obliged to defend their presence on the road.

..
@Hood: TJ basically responded as I would:
[TJ]: "But..., nearly anything ca be claimed in a court of law"

I think that watching the video it's pretty clear that the sedan was not off balanced as might be done by a police PIT maneuver (and similarly the sedan did not need to overcompensate for the kick's impact -- the force of the kick had no tangible inertial effect against which to compensate, though the sedan driver did probably overcompensate after hitting the median), and the sedan was not surprised by the motorcycle's presence. To me the sedan was waiting for another provocative action by the motorcyclist, received such a provocation, and used it as an opportunity to use his sedan as a deadly weapon -- a decision which backfired.

Still, in court I would fully expect the sedan driver (via lawyer) to lie by claiming that it was a surprise or that the kick itself caused him to lose control or overcompensate. Similarly the motorcyclist will claim that the sedan moving into the HOV lane illegally (true and provable via video) caused him to kick the sedan so that the driver would know that he was present (false or only partially true; the motorcyclist probably knew that the sedan knew that the motorcyclist was there, so no "I'm here" kick was necessary -- that kick was most likely road rage). The court would probably tacitly accept the sedan driver's lie but still assign fault via direct impacts (i.e., fining/judging the motorcycle for kicking and inciting, and fining/judging the sedan for hitting the barrier and hitting the white truck). The motorcyclist's lie may not carry as much weight because fleeing the scene could be seen as confirmation of bad faith, but in part the same could be said of the sedan not stopping after its off-camera impact with the motorcycle. Both will be held liable since their road rage spat seriously affected another driver, but the sedan still looks worse for its provably illegal decisions and for being the one who actually struck the white truck.

TJ
Member Sun Jun 25 19:28:17
CC- Thumbs Up.

smart dude
Member Mon Jun 26 21:44:19
Why, after crashing into the pole, did the car then accelerate into the middle of the road? Bad emergency response reflexes.

show deleted posts

Aeros Member	Fri Jun 23 11:49:05 This Motorcyclist better hope the cops don't find him. Serious jail time and civil lawsuits are 100% certain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giF_kQ5I5Pc
TJ Member	Fri Jun 23 13:46:55 The cyclist maintaining control was very fortunate. Not sure how that will work out for him though. Kicking a car that had cut him off is a lot different than the other car in what appeared an attempt to do serious bodily harm to the cyclist. Possibly with the intention of killing him. The followup with be interesting. Some crazy road rage going on in that video.
Aeros Member	Fri Jun 23 13:51:05 The fact that the cyclist fled though makes serious marks against him when it comes time to assign blame. The drivers swerve could be attributed to being startled.
TJ Member	Fri Jun 23 14:01:03 Fleeing the scene will certainly make his defense more difficult.
obaminated Member	Fri Jun 23 15:49:22 Wow that's nuts. Motorcyclist is absolutely gonna be blamed for instigating the accident.
Hrothgar Member	Fri Jun 23 15:52:19 I think the driver freaked out when they suddenly thought they hit a motor cyclist. Ok, I totally don't think that. But a lawyer could argue that shit all day long and you can't prove otherwise.
hood Member	Fri Jun 23 17:14:02 As difficult as it is to imagine, the cyclist's kick could have easily led to the driver overcompensating himself right into the wall. And then, you know, flailing wildly out of control into the pickup.
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Jun 24 04:56:22 [obaminated]: "Motorcyclist is absolutely gonna be blamed for instigating the accident." Don't be so sure. The clip above seems not to have the part where the car crosses a double yellow line (illegal as per California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 21655.8(a); a $490 fine and point for "negligent operator") directly into the space where the motorcycle is driving without signalling (unsafe lane change as per CVC 22107; about a $400 fine), pushing the motorcyclist onto the shoulder. The sedan driver also looks like he's alone, which via CVC 21655.5(b) is a minimum $481 fine if the driver doesn't have an eco-vehicle pass (the motorcyclist is also alone, but motorcycles can use HOV lanes legally). There may be precipitating factors (see L.A. Times article in my next comment), but good job to the "New York Post" for the selective editing and the sensational title that assigns blame entirely to the motorcyclist based on the edited clip alone... :\| This video includes the beginning: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=abd_1498153512 Gif of beginning: http://i.imgur.com/XbxOqgK.gif
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Jun 24 04:56:47 [Hrothgar]: "Ok, I totally don't think that. But a lawyer could argue that shit all day long and you can't prove otherwise." [Hood]: "As difficult as it is to imagine, the cyclist's kick could have easily led to the driver overcompensating himself right into the wall. And then, you know, flailing wildly out of control into the pickup." lol, totally ;D ... the lawyer for the sedan would totally pretend that the car was startled and overcompensated. Hopefully a judge (or jury if somehow it got to that) would see the animosity in the sedan's actions — really does look like the sedan driver tried to kill the motorcyclist. But with both drivers showing road rage which resulted in an innocent casualty, they might both lose their licenses? This article interviews the video witness, which fills in some blanks: http://www...ta-clarita-20170623-story.html "Chris Traber ... said both men appeared to play a role in the harrowing incident. It was about 5:45 a.m. Wednesday when Traber was in the passenger seat of his coworker’s car ... They were ... driving in the No. 1 lane, when the man on a Harley Davidson-type motorcycle passed them on the left, riding close to the double-yellow lines that separate the general traffic lanes from the HOV lanes. About 150 feet ahead was a Nissan sedan driving in the HOV lane, Traber said. Just as the motorcyclist was passing the sedan on the right-hand side, the sedan tried to exit the carpool lane and enter the No. 1 lane. That’s when the car bumped the bike. “I’m sure he didn’t see the motorcyclist,” Traber said of the driver. “He scared the living daylights out of the motorcyclist. He almost went down. That guy can really handle his bike.” Traber said that after the motorcyclist regained control, he pulled up to the car’s passenger door and began gesturing at the driver. Traber said he appeared to be saying something too, but Traber couldn’t hear him. He said he figured the biker was “saying something like, hey, you almost hit me! Watch out!” Traber said it looked as though the driver was yelling something back at the biker, and that it didn’t help matters, because that’s when the motorcyclist started kicking the passenger door. “I said, ‘Wow, man, something’s going to happen. I gotta get this,’” Traber said. “So I grab my phone and started recording.” The motorcyclist then swooped behind the sedan, pulled up along the driver side and kicked the car again, Traber said. In a flash, the driver of the sedan swerved hard left and sideswiped the motorcyclist, almost sending him barreling into a concrete freeway divider, he said."
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Jun 24 05:13:16 On this part: "Just as the motorcyclist was passing the sedan on the right-hand side" Just FYI: splitting lanes like this is legal in California as of January 1st, 2017, though specific rules have not yet been clarified; that is, motorcyclists can drive on the double yellow lines of the HOV lane to pass. It's generally safe so long as cars don't change lanes illegally or don't leave the HOV lane illegally (which this car apparently did when it first hit the motorcyclist off-video).
Aeros Member	Sat Jun 24 10:33:35 Thing about Traffic Law though, is that each specific violation is its own separate criminal matter. Its why you hear announcers in car chases keeping score with "Running red light at X intersection, going wrong way down X street, clipped car, Speeding down X highway". When it comes time to go to court, the guy is brought up on individual charges for each specific violation. In this particular case, there could have been a violation further up the road (Illegal lane change) that pissed off the Motorcyclist. But that violation was not what caused the accident. What caused the accident was the Motorcyclist illegally entering the sedans travel lane, making contact with the Sedan, leading to it spinning out of control. Lawyers will argue to death as to whether or not the Sedan was trying to retaliate for the kick and lost it, but the ultimate violation trigger for the wreck was caused by the Motorcycle.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Jun 25 07:37:38 [Aeros]: "each specific violation is its own separate criminal matter ... In this particular case ... What caused the accident was the Motorcyclist illegally entering the sedans travel lane, making contact with the Sedan, leading to it spinning out of control." So for "[cause of] the accident", would this be referring to when the motorcyclist was traveling primary position in the HOV lane and the sedan repeated the same violations of the initial (off-camera) accident wherein the sedan moved into the motorcyclist's current path (the part caught at the beginning of the longer video and the gif)? Or do you mean an extension of this instance, where, after the sedan had pushed the motorcyclist out of the motorcyclist's primary position path, the motorcyclist didn't continue to evade into the shoulder or evade by slowing down and instead kicked the sedan (in which case, the "Motorcyclist illegally entering the sedans travel lane" was the motorcyclist not being pushed off the road by the sedan entering the motorcyclist's travel lane)? If you mean this last instance, that kick was hardly causal. The motorcyclist's kick of the sedan did not cause the sedan to lose control in the inertial sense (that kick was not powerful enough to overcome the sedan's inertia, and after the kick the sedan moved in the wrong direction for it to be inertial: towards the kick), so it would still be a case of the sedan driver losing mental control (joining the road rage scenario) — turning as he did into the kick and into the path of the motorcyclist, who, again, as per the longer video, was occupying the primary lane position before it was intruded upon by the sedan. To call this situation causal specifically against the motorcyclist is to remove agency and liability from the sedan driver. In practice, the sedan driver would still be liable for the decision to swerve maliciously into the path of the kicking motorcyclist, for striking the motorcyclist, and for the mass damage caused by further loss of control of his vehicle precipitated from that initial decision to strike the motorcyclist. So yes, it is a point by point situation, but if person 1 intentionally strikes person 2's vehicle (as the motorcyclist kicked the sedan), that does not mean that person 2 is off the hook for the results of his (person 2's) subsequent decision to strike person 1's vehicle (as the sedan would indeed be responsible for the outcome of the decision to strike the motorcyclist). As a matter of the total liability, if/when they find the motorcyclist and can bring charges to all involved, these charges could be filed... • The sedan will be charged for the violations that I listed above (illegal HOV entry/exit CVC 21655.8(a); unsafe lane change CVC 22107; illegal use of HOV lane CVC 21655.5(b)) — possibly two counts of each, but given that only one count of each is on video, probably just one count of each • The sedan will be charged with striking the motorcyclist and failing to pull over following the off-camera accident precipitated by above CVC 21655.8(a) and CVC 22107 — a misdemeanor hit and run offense as per CVC 20002(c) • The motorcyclist will be charged for kicking the car, either by California Penal Code (CPC) 242, battery in a road rage situation, or by CPC 1821, tampering with a vehicle • The sedan will be charged with road rage related "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" and "Aggravated Assault" for swerving at and hitting the motorcyclist, as per CPC 245(a)(1) • The sedan will be charged with felony "Reckless Driving" as per CVC 23103 and 23104, having caused bodily harm to the driver of the white truck • The motorcyclist will also be charged with CVC 20002(c) for leaving the scene of an accident; misdemeanor in this case because no damage was directly caused by the motorcyclist (the sedan could make a case for dents caused by the kicks, but that might be difficult to prove given that the car was totaled afterwards) These charges could mean that the sedan driver would face serious fines (more than $12000; $10000 for assault, $1400 or more for the HOV infractions, $1000 for hit and run, plus other accident-related fines), jail time up to 7 years (4 years max for assault with a deadly weapon, 3 for reckless driving causing bodily injury), and community service. The motorcyclist could be fined about $1000 to $2000 and face jail time up to 6 months for battery/tampering and leaving the scene of an accident (though charges could get worse if the motorcyclist does not turn himself in and has to be caught by police). Being a commuter hell, L.A. has a lot of anti-bicyclist/anti-motorcyclist sentiment, and that could translate to a judge giving a more significant percentage of blame onto the motorcyclist, but if the full video plays in court then it still looks far worse for the sedan driver.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 25 07:58:41 Isn't a more solid defense for the sedan, that he was startled and scared by the fact that someone on a motorcycle kicked on his car on the freeway? You don't expect that and may think you are getting attacked by some crazy criminal.
hood Member	Sun Jun 25 09:04:42 "If you mean this last instance, that kick was hardly causal. The motorcyclist's kick of the sedan did not cause the sedan to lose control in the inertial sense (that kick was not powerful enough to overcome the sedan's inertia, and after the kick the sedan moved in the wrong direction for it to be inertial: towards the kick)" Well, 1. As much as we like treating objects like points, a car is not a point. Applying force at the extreme end of the car is more likely to cause rotation than lateral motion, and this would move the front of the car towards the kick. You are right though, the kick did not seem forceful enough to actually spin the car. 2. The most likely explanation is overcompensation. I've been blown sideways from heavy wind in my old car. It isn't fun and people could easily find themselves overcompensating. Add to this any tendency for a car to spin (like from 1) and you have an easy situation where the driver is essentially just spinning the wheel back and forth in an attempt to gain control, and just finds himself overcompensating every time.
TJ Member	Sun Jun 25 09:51:43 If anyone believes the sedan driver didn't know exactly what was going on moment to moment in what was an ongoing rage situation when the cyclist kicked his car they should reconsider. But..., nearly anything ca be claimed in a court of law and impossible to know an outcome that hasn't taken place. One can bet that defense lawyers will apply all plausible scenarios if no one pleads guilty. Neither have a defense for the captured offences on video. Frame by frame of that video will clearly show as well as eye witnesses that he intended to do serious harm. Neither the cyclist or the sedan driver were in control of their emotions and are guilty of their unlawful offenses. It is my opinion that CC nailed a realistic assessment with bullets.
obaminated Member	Sun Jun 25 11:19:31 They are going 70+ miles per hour. At that speed any jerk of the wheel is going to result in what we saw happen. The sedan gets kicked. The driver jerks the wheel and from there never recovers. It is the motorcyclists fault. He probably didn't expect or intend for it to become such a thing, but it did and he fled the scene.
patom Member	Sun Jun 25 12:02:31 It would be interesting to see what transpired prior to the kicking incident. In some states with concealed carry being legal. You would be really taking a chance confronting anyone. This sort of shit is why I quit riding a bike. A miracle the biker didn't get fucked up real bad.
TJ Member	Sun Jun 25 12:06:49 The disparity in reporting is interesting to say the least. http://www...road-rage-video-highway-crash/ The courts will sort it out. The 75 year old in the truck is very fortunate he is alive.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Jun 25 18:57:15 [TJ]: "The disparity in reporting is interesting to say the least." That's sustained my attention with this crash. A lot of the news articles that used the edited (shortened) clip have been blaming the motorcyclist, whereas the articles that did due diligence (the ones with the full clip or the witness testimony) seem to recognize that the sedan had primary or at least shared fault. Sensationalist journalism knows its audiences: closed-container auto drivers tend to have a high disdain for motorcyclists (typically due to learned prejudice rather than practical observations or practical comparisons to other auto drivers), so stories spun to make motorcyclists look bad continue to generate a lot of click-revenue, both via cyclist haters and cyclists who feel obliged to defend their presence on the road. .. @Hood: TJ basically responded as I would: [TJ]: "But..., nearly anything ca be claimed in a court of law" I think that watching the video it's pretty clear that the sedan was not off balanced as might be done by a police PIT maneuver (and similarly the sedan did not need to overcompensate for the kick's impact -- the force of the kick had no tangible inertial effect against which to compensate, though the sedan driver did probably overcompensate after hitting the median), and the sedan was not surprised by the motorcycle's presence. To me the sedan was waiting for another provocative action by the motorcyclist, received such a provocation, and used it as an opportunity to use his sedan as a deadly weapon -- a decision which backfired. Still, in court I would fully expect the sedan driver (via lawyer) to lie by claiming that it was a surprise or that the kick itself caused him to lose control or overcompensate. Similarly the motorcyclist will claim that the sedan moving into the HOV lane illegally (true and provable via video) caused him to kick the sedan so that the driver would know that he was present (false or only partially true; the motorcyclist probably knew that the sedan knew that the motorcyclist was there, so no "I'm here" kick was necessary -- that kick was most likely road rage). The court would probably tacitly accept the sedan driver's lie but still assign fault via direct impacts (i.e., fining/judging the motorcycle for kicking and inciting, and fining/judging the sedan for hitting the barrier and hitting the white truck). The motorcyclist's lie may not carry as much weight because fleeing the scene could be seen as confirmation of bad faith, but in part the same could be said of the sedan not stopping after its off-camera impact with the motorcycle. Both will be held liable since their road rage spat seriously affected another driver, but the sedan still looks worse for its provably illegal decisions and for being the one who actually struck the white truck.
TJ Member	Sun Jun 25 19:28:17 CC- Thumbs Up.
smart dude Member	Mon Jun 26 21:44:19 Why, after crashing into the pole, did the car then accelerate into the middle of the road? Bad emergency response reflexes.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: