Motorcyclist charged with vehicular homicide - Page 2

L8 Braker · 03-09-2011, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommymac

hard to say if the driver is fully at fault, was it a controle dintersection with a stop sign or anything like that..

I think this is the intersection...This would be the path the motorcycle was traveling as the car was turning left...Keep in mind, if he's passing multiple cars, there is no doubt he was speeding much more than 10mph over the limit...

Tmall · 03-09-2011, 05:31 PM

I don't care what speed he was going. You make sure you have time to make a turn before you attempt it. He was wrong for speeding, but that's it.

OneSickPsycho · 03-09-2011, 05:35 PM

Innocent.

I believe speed is a secondary offense, unless above a specific rate (30 above?) and there's no real way of knowing exactly how fast he was going. Given that lack of information, we cannot be certain that he was the cause of the accident. Seems to me the Camry chick failed to yeild, which is a primary offense... Plus, I think the law requires negligence on the part of the rider... I would argue that despite his apparent disregard of the posted speed limit, he wasn't negligent - ie. he could not reasonably presume his actions would cause this 1 in a million reaction. If he killed the chick in the Camry, then yes, but pinballing your bike off of a car that turned in front of you and into some schmuck on the side of the road... not so much.

Amber Lamps · 03-09-2011, 06:27 PM

Hell, they should convict whoever gave that old bat a driver's license!!!

All they have to do is measure where the bike's skid marks start. If they are less than say, 100' or less from the point of impact, the bitch turned right in front of him. if they are say, 200'+ away then the fool was going WAY TOO FUCKING FAST. Pretty cut and dried imho.

Amorok · 03-09-2011, 06:42 PM

No dice. I'm not willing to vote until I know the exact rate of speed.

azoomm · 03-09-2011, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneSickPsycho

Innocent.

I believe speed is a secondary offense, unless above a specific rate (30 above?) and there's no real way of knowing exactly how fast he was going. Given that lack of information, we cannot be certain that he was the cause of the accident. Seems to me the Camry chick failed to yeild, which is a primary offense... Plus, I think the law requires negligence on the part of the rider... I would argue that despite his apparent disregard of the posted speed limit, he wasn't negligent - ie. he could not reasonably presume his actions would cause this 1 in a million reaction. If he killed the chick in the Camry, then yes, but pinballing your bike off of a car that turned in front of you and into some schmuck on the side of the road... not so much.

Well said.

Amber Lamps · 03-09-2011, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneSickPsycho

Innocent.

I believe speed is a secondary offense, unless above a specific rate (30 above?) and there's no real way of knowing exactly how fast he was going. Given that lack of information, we cannot be certain that he was the cause of the accident. Seems to me the Camry chick failed to yeild, which is a primary offense... Plus, I think the law requires negligence on the part of the rider... I would argue that despite his apparent disregard of the posted speed limit, he wasn't negligent - ie. he could not reasonably presume his actions would cause this 1 in a million reaction. If he killed the chick in the Camry, then yes, but pinballing your bike off of a car that turned in front of you and into some schmuck on the side of the road... not so much.

I disagree my friend, again if the rider had to lock up his brakes more than a couple hundred feet away and still hit the Camry, it can be reasoned that he was traveling well above 30mph. As we all know, a crotch rocket will stop on a dime from <50 mph. In other words, if he had to lock it up at a distance that could be reasonably argued would be far enough away for a normal left hand turn. The old lady is in the clear. Of course, again, if he locked it up 20' away from impact, the car driver obviously turned right in front of him and caused the accident, regardless of the motorcycle's speed.

Now to another question, is it possible that the bike's high rate of speed was the cause of the pedestrian's death because the bike wouldn't have traveled that far after the impact with the car, if the kid hadn't been going so fast?

goof2 · 03-09-2011, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

I disagree my friend, again if the rider had to lock up his brakes more than a couple hundred feet away and still hit the Camry, it can be reasoned that he was traveling well above 30mph. As we all know, a crotch rocket will stop on a dime from <50 mph. In other words, if he had to lock it up at a distance that could be reasonably argued would be far enough away for a normal left hand turn. The old lady is in the clear. Of course, again, if he locked it up 20' away from impact, the car driver obviously turned right in front of him and caused the accident, regardless of the motorcycle's speed.

Now to another question, is it possible that the bike's high rate of speed was the cause of the pedestrian's death because the bike wouldn't have traveled that far after the impact with the car, if the kid hadn't been going so fast?

That is fine for assigning blame for the accident. That still doesn't necessarily make him guilty of vehicular homicide.

tommymac · 03-09-2011, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goof2

That is fine for assigning blame for the accident. That still doesn't necessarily make him guilty of vehicular homicide.

he watched CSI and NCS last night so he knows

L8 Braker · 03-09-2011, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amorok

I'm not willing to vote until I know the exact rate of speed.

Not a problem, as his own possessions will help the case against him (oh the irony)...

If he has a cell phone, more than likely he had it on him, and in that little electronic device is a GPS...Subpoena the history of that little celly's travels and the data it will provide (like speed) will surely be one more nail...

Also, I know every car has one, but not sure of bikes do...It's called a EDR (event data recorder)...It records everything that paticular vehicle does, including speed...If his bike had one, I'm sure it'll be introduced as evidence, and it's one more thing to doom him...

And let's be honest with ourselves...The speed limit on that little two lane road is probably 25 or 30mph...In order to pass a number of cars, you'll be on the throttle and pacing at a pretty good clip...The fact that the bike hit so hard that it traveled all the way across the intersection into an innocent pedestrian was no 25 or even 50mph crash...The boy was probably flying...

View Poll Results: The motorcyclist is
Guilty	4	36.36%
Innocent	7	63.64%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll

03-09-2011, 06:42 PM	#15
Amorok Issukangitok Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Biloxi, MS Moto: '06 Suzuki Boulevard C50T Posts: 2,225	No dice. I'm not willing to vote until I know the exact rate of speed. __________________ What goes around comes around. Sometimes you get what's coming around, and sometimes you are what's coming around. You see what I mean?

03-09-2011, 05:31 PM	#12
Tmall Aspiring Rapper Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Halifax, NS Moto: '12 CB1000R Posts: 3,569	I don't care what speed he was going. You make sure you have time to make a turn before you attempt it. He was wrong for speeding, but that's it.

03-09-2011, 05:35 PM	#13
OneSickPsycho Ride Like an Asshole Join Date: Feb 2008 Moto: nothing... Posts: 11,254	Innocent. I believe speed is a secondary offense, unless above a specific rate (30 above?) and there's no real way of knowing exactly how fast he was going. Given that lack of information, we cannot be certain that he was the cause of the accident. Seems to me the Camry chick failed to yeild, which is a primary offense... Plus, I think the law requires negligence on the part of the rider... I would argue that despite his apparent disregard of the posted speed limit, he wasn't negligent - ie. he could not reasonably presume his actions would cause this 1 in a million reaction. If he killed the chick in the Camry, then yes, but pinballing your bike off of a car that turned in front of you and into some schmuck on the side of the road... not so much.

03-09-2011, 06:27 PM	#14
Amber Lamps Moto GP Star Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 14,556	Hell, they should convict whoever gave that old bat a driver's license!!! All they have to do is measure where the bike's skid marks start. If they are less than say, 100' or less from the point of impact, the bitch turned right in front of him. if they are say, 200'+ away then the fool was going WAY TOO FUCKING FAST. Pretty cut and dried imho.