16 year old killed on motorcycle (1 Viewer)

[Keith Mickunas]

Unless you can show that this area doesn't count as a residential district, you can't show what she was doing was illegal. How long do you think it took him to do that 200 feet? Was the stoplight he was stopped at before hitting her within 200 feet?

 

[Keith Mickunas]

Unless you can show that this area doesn't count as a residential district, you can't show what she was doing was illegal. How long do you think it took him to do that 200 feet? Was the stoplight he was stopped at before hitting her within 200 feet?

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Keith, take a look at the photos linked in the first entry in this thread. There are businesses shown on BOTH sides of the road in the vicinity of the accident. From a vehicle code perspective, this is clearly a "business district".

In your own words, "Considering the street is lined with parked cars, houses, and small businesses ..."

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Keith, take a look at the photos linked in the first entry in this thread. There are businesses shown on BOTH sides of the road in the vicinity of the accident. From a vehicle code perspective, this is clearly a "business district".

In your own words, "Considering the street is lined with parked cars, houses, and small businesses ..."

 

[MarkHastings]

While I agree with this to an extent, I'm very upset at the the way cyclists portray car drivers.

EVERYONE on the road, wether it be a shitbox car, a Hummer, an SUV, a motorcycle, or even a moped drives like an asshole. The only reason why motorcyclists are so vocal about the way people drive cars is because they have a lot more to lose in an altercation. I drive a car and I've experienced HUNDREDS of mishaps that would have resulted in death if I were on a motorcycle, but sine I am in a "safer" vehicle, I ended up ok. Hell, I've even seen cyclists create 'unsafe' conditions that would cause car drivers to wipe out if they were on cycles.

This is why it is so unfair to make it sound like cyclists are so innocent and only car drivers are "dangerous". I've seen plenty of motorcycles doing the same stupid things that cars do.

And if this was a case of the cyclist going over the speed limit, then how the hell do you blame anyone else in an accident. The fact that you are on an unsafe vehicle is reason enough to NOT go over the speed limit (wether it be 100 miles over or even 5).

Sorry for the rant, but I had a good friend get killed on a motor cycle, so it enrages me to no end when I see a cyclist do something stupid. It's bad enough that doing under the speed limit is dangerous, I still see motorcycles doing 40 MPH OVER the limit and most aren't wearing helmets. I see it so much, yet I have to constantly hear them yell at car drivers for making the roads unsafe for them? :rolleyes

Now I do know of cyclists who do ovey the rules, but SO many disobey the rules that it makes it so hard for me to give any sort sympathy to someone who claims the roads are unsafe for cycles.

 

[MarkHastings]

While I agree with this to an extent, I'm very upset at the the way cyclists portray car drivers.

EVERYONE on the road, wether it be a shitbox car, a Hummer, an SUV, a motorcycle, or even a moped drives like an asshole. The only reason why motorcyclists are so vocal about the way people drive cars is because they have a lot more to lose in an altercation. I drive a car and I've experienced HUNDREDS of mishaps that would have resulted in death if I were on a motorcycle, but sine I am in a "safer" vehicle, I ended up ok. Hell, I've even seen cyclists create 'unsafe' conditions that would cause car drivers to wipe out if they were on cycles.

This is why it is so unfair to make it sound like cyclists are so innocent and only car drivers are "dangerous". I've seen plenty of motorcycles doing the same stupid things that cars do.

And if this was a case of the cyclist going over the speed limit, then how the hell do you blame anyone else in an accident. The fact that you are on an unsafe vehicle is reason enough to NOT go over the speed limit (wether it be 100 miles over or even 5).

Sorry for the rant, but I had a good friend get killed on a motor cycle, so it enrages me to no end when I see a cyclist do something stupid. It's bad enough that doing under the speed limit is dangerous, I still see motorcycles doing 40 MPH OVER the limit and most aren't wearing helmets. I see it so much, yet I have to constantly hear them yell at car drivers for making the roads unsafe for them? :rolleyes

Now I do know of cyclists who do ovey the rules, but SO many disobey the rules that it makes it so hard for me to give any sort sympathy to someone who claims the roads are unsafe for cycles.

 

[Keith Mickunas]

Are you certain of that? There are houses there, it could be a residential area, are you so familiar with the states and city regulations that you can determine from those pictures how the area is zoned? It could also be marked as being allowed. Unless you know for certain, you can't determine her guilt.

However there is plenty of evidence that this kid both was doing something illegal, had previously acted quite recklessly on his motorcycle, and was inexperienced. So why would anyone assume the driver of the car was guilty without some solid evidence? We know the kid was reckless, that's pretty much an indisputable fact. Witnesses say he was speeding, and to make it worse he was speeding down a street with cars parked on the side, something anyone in a car or on a bike should know is unsafe because of the lack of visibility.

Yes it is possible that this lady made an illegal u-turn, yes it's possible that she started that u-turn when he was too close to her. However it's just as possible he wasn't close enough nor traveling fast enough when she started her turn for her to determine it was unsafe. Also it's possible since he'd been stopped at a red light and she was well into her turn that she started that turn when the light was red, giving her an indication it was safe to do so.

Motorcylces are inherently unsafe. There are no safety devices on them, there's no safety cage, and no crumple zones except the rider's skull. If you are going to ride an unsafe vehicle you are putting yourself at risk and need to be careful. If you add to the danger by driving recklessly, especially in locations where driving recklessly in a car is unsafe also, you have no one but yourself to blame if you get hurt.

No matter what you are driving you have an obligation to pay attention to your surroundings and look for potential problems. You have to keep an eye out for other drivers that might be about to do something erratic or just plain stupid. It is your responsibility as a driver to do whatever you can to avoid a collision.

 

[Keith Mickunas]

Are you certain of that? There are houses there, it could be a residential area, are you so familiar with the states and city regulations that you can determine from those pictures how the area is zoned? It could also be marked as being allowed. Unless you know for certain, you can't determine her guilt.

However there is plenty of evidence that this kid both was doing something illegal, had previously acted quite recklessly on his motorcycle, and was inexperienced. So why would anyone assume the driver of the car was guilty without some solid evidence? We know the kid was reckless, that's pretty much an indisputable fact. Witnesses say he was speeding, and to make it worse he was speeding down a street with cars parked on the side, something anyone in a car or on a bike should know is unsafe because of the lack of visibility.

Yes it is possible that this lady made an illegal u-turn, yes it's possible that she started that u-turn when he was too close to her. However it's just as possible he wasn't close enough nor traveling fast enough when she started her turn for her to determine it was unsafe. Also it's possible since he'd been stopped at a red light and she was well into her turn that she started that turn when the light was red, giving her an indication it was safe to do so.

Motorcylces are inherently unsafe. There are no safety devices on them, there's no safety cage, and no crumple zones except the rider's skull. If you are going to ride an unsafe vehicle you are putting yourself at risk and need to be careful. If you add to the danger by driving recklessly, especially in locations where driving recklessly in a car is unsafe also, you have no one but yourself to blame if you get hurt.

No matter what you are driving you have an obligation to pay attention to your surroundings and look for potential problems. You have to keep an eye out for other drivers that might be about to do something erratic or just plain stupid. It is your responsibility as a driver to do whatever you can to avoid a collision.

 

[Keith Mickunas]

I recall reading some discussion of stupid motorcyclists one time on another forum. A guy was complaining that a motorcycle ripped off his mirror by passing between him and another car at an intersection. A lot of people started saying stuff about that cyclist being stupid, and wouldn't you know it just like this thread a bunch of cyclists started blaming cars for all the problems and trying to cite laws about lane sharing and stuff like that. They totally ignored the point of the thread, that the cyclist ripped a mirror off a car that was standing still.

One time I was on an exit ramp, one of those that's pretty much a tight circle, and it was stop and go traffic. A couple of bikes went by on the outside, one with a passenger no less. When I honked at them, one looked back at me and revved his engine, I was just sooo intimidated. I don't care if what they were doing was legal, although I'm guessing it wasn't, however what they did was stupid, rude, and dangerous. If you get to close to a car, or cut inside them, you could startle that driver and cause them to do something erratic. But of course the cyclists will blame the car, every time.

And I'm sure it was my cousin's fault when a drunk off-duty cop who was speeding on his motorcycle and t-boned my cousin's Mustang, totalling it. My cousin should have been at home, so that the drunk cyclist could go whereever he wanted.

Cyclists do stupid shit all the time, just like other drivers. Blaming cars for every collision with a motorcycle certainly is going to get a lot of sympathy from me.

 

[Keith Mickunas]

I recall reading some discussion of stupid motorcyclists one time on another forum. A guy was complaining that a motorcycle ripped off his mirror by passing between him and another car at an intersection. A lot of people started saying stuff about that cyclist being stupid, and wouldn't you know it just like this thread a bunch of cyclists started blaming cars for all the problems and trying to cite laws about lane sharing and stuff like that. They totally ignored the point of the thread, that the cyclist ripped a mirror off a car that was standing still.

One time I was on an exit ramp, one of those that's pretty much a tight circle, and it was stop and go traffic. A couple of bikes went by on the outside, one with a passenger no less. When I honked at them, one looked back at me and revved his engine, I was just sooo intimidated. I don't care if what they were doing was legal, although I'm guessing it wasn't, however what they did was stupid, rude, and dangerous. If you get to close to a car, or cut inside them, you could startle that driver and cause them to do something erratic. But of course the cyclists will blame the car, every time.

And I'm sure it was my cousin's fault when a drunk off-duty cop who was speeding on his motorcycle and t-boned my cousin's Mustang, totalling it. My cousin should have been at home, so that the drunk cyclist could go whereever he wanted.

Cyclists do stupid shit all the time, just like other drivers. Blaming cars for every collision with a motorcycle certainly is going to get a lot of sympathy from me.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Keith, again from the Calif. Vehicle Code:



It appears from the photos that the scene of the accident qualifies under (b) if not under (a) as well. The definition for vehicle code purposes considers the local zoning irrelevant. And, although this may be irrelevant to our discussion, I am a licenced attorney in the state of California.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Keith, again from the Calif. Vehicle Code:



It appears from the photos that the scene of the accident qualifies under (b) if not under (a) as well. The definition for vehicle code purposes considers the local zoning irrelevant. And, although this may be irrelevant to our discussion, I am a licenced attorney in the state of California.

 

[Philip_G]

witnesses are nearly useless, as stated on page one it's diffidult for people to judge the speed at which a motorcycle approaches. I'll wait for the police to do their calculations, which tend to be a little more accurate than J6P's "observation"

 

[Philip_G]

witnesses are nearly useless, as stated on page one it's diffidult for people to judge the speed at which a motorcycle approaches. I'll wait for the police to do their calculations, which tend to be a little more accurate than J6P's "observation"

 

[Keith Mickunas]

So Philip you'll dismiss their observations even though others have stated that he'd already been pulled over for speeding twice, once for 50 in 30, a speed 66% greater than legal, and once for 100 in a 25, 300% in excess? It seems to me that for someone who only had a bike for a few weeks and had been pulled over twice for gross violations of the speed limit he'd developed a pattern of behavior that would be inline with what the witnesses believe to have seen.

And by your own earlier admission, if he'd been doing the speed limit he'd have bounced off, but his bike stuck to the car.

 

[Keith Mickunas]

So Philip you'll dismiss their observations even though others have stated that he'd already been pulled over for speeding twice, once for 50 in 30, a speed 66% greater than legal, and once for 100 in a 25, 300% in excess? It seems to me that for someone who only had a bike for a few weeks and had been pulled over twice for gross violations of the speed limit he'd developed a pattern of behavior that would be inline with what the witnesses believe to have seen.

And by your own earlier admission, if he'd been doing the speed limit he'd have bounced off, but his bike stuck to the car.

 

[Philip_G]

I've done in excess of 170 on motorcycles, does that mean I was speeding when I got rear ended? I'm sure you'd want each and every infraction in your life's history held against you next time you get into a fender bender, right?

I'm sure if he was doing 35mph in 1st gear at oh, 9,000 RPM that wouldn't have the slightest impact on the observations, would it?

Wait for the police to make a determination, the average passerby is not qualified to estimate speed of any vehicle, much less a cycle.

He did bounce off, the bike bounced and is probably held to the car by the pegs or something sharp that penetrated the car.

 

[Philip_G]

I've done in excess of 170 on motorcycles, does that mean I was speeding when I got rear ended? I'm sure you'd want each and every infraction in your life's history held against you next time you get into a fender bender, right?

I'm sure if he was doing 35mph in 1st gear at oh, 9,000 RPM that wouldn't have the slightest impact on the observations, would it?

Wait for the police to make a determination, the average passerby is not qualified to estimate speed of any vehicle, much less a cycle.

He did bounce off, the bike bounced and is probably held to the car by the pegs or something sharp that penetrated the car.

 

[Ricardo C]

We're not talking about infractions that took place years apart from each other, it all happened in the space of WEEKS.

 

[Ricardo C]

We're not talking about infractions that took place years apart from each other, it all happened in the space of WEEKS.