Motorcycle Madness

[Wuzup101]

here's what I don't understand though - the guy was in a fucking ducati. If he would've paid attn to his mirrors he should have seen the BMW pull to the left and accelerate; YOU'RE IN A FUCKING DUCATI DUDE, JUST FLICK YOUR WRIST AND BONE OUT BEFORE YOU GET IN TROUBLE.

The guy on the bike was intentionally being a total D-bag the whole time. He didn't deserve what he got, but he certainly instigated it.

1. Notices a guy at a RED LIGHT is "texting" and decides to yell and swear at him.

2. Positions himself in front of "dangerous driver" and past stop line into intersection box.

3. Is worried that "dangerous driver" is dangerous so he gets in the LEFT lane, in front of "dangerous driver" and slows down despite the right lane being open (and him checking it several times).

4. Moves left to block "dangerous driver" when "dangerous driver" tries to pass him.

5. Learns that BMW drivers can be bigger D-bags than Ducati drivers... and it's probably not a good idea to troll a car driver while on a bike... the hard way.

Hopefully they find the BMW driver and prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law. There is no excuse for what he did.

Sometimes when you play the "who can be the biggest asshole contest" you pick the wrong target and lose.

Edit: sorry it was a Honda not a Ducati

 

[Eymar]

The only problem I see with motorcyclist is tone and language at the red light. I live in California and don't drive a motorcycle, but very use to motorcyclists splitting lanes. I've never been bothered it even when they get close as never been hit and it's just normal here. I also always assume it safer for a bike to be beside a car at stoplight than behind as people here tend to accelerate at stoplights. Motorcyclists here if lane splitting always use the left lane (staying on the right side of lane) for I assume visibility.

 

[WilliamM2]

here's what I don't understand though - the guy was in a fucking ducati. If he would've paid attn to his mirrors he should have seen the BMW pull to the left and accelerate; YOU'RE IN A FUCKING DUCATI DUDE, JUST FLICK YOUR WRIST AND BONE OUT BEFORE YOU GET IN TROUBLE.

Yep, a Ducati. Seemed he was accelerating quickly, and even the Prius left him in the dust. Maybe he should get something with a little more power.

And if you have to tilt your bike to fit between the mirrors of the cars, it's not a safe place for lane splitting.

Not saying he desrved to be hit, but is a poor rider.

 

[JulesMaximus]

here's what I don't understand though - the guy was in a fucking ducati. If he would've paid attn to his mirrors he should have seen the BMW pull to the left and accelerate; YOU'RE IN A FUCKING DUCATI DUDE, JUST FLICK YOUR WRIST AND BONE OUT BEFORE YOU GET IN TROUBLE.

What makes you think it was a Ducati?

BTW-Ducati makes motorcycles ranging in power from around 70hp to 200hp so just because it is a Ducati doesn't mean it is capable of going 0-60mph in less than 2.5 seconds or reaching speeds of 180mph.

 

[cubby1223]

In ca at a stoplight it is not unsafe feasibly enforceable and perfectly therefore legal. For the 10th time.

ftfy

 

[Red Squirrel]

Right or wrong, probably a bad idea to piss off a guy in a car while being on a motorcycle.

 

[Paladin3]

I was a full time rider in So. Cal. when I was younger. I didn't even own a car for several years.

The bike rider was being a self-righteous douche like lots of them are. Stupid fuckers get a thrill out of aggressively striking back at bad or inconsiderate drivers under the guise of safety.

If you see a bad driver you stay away from him. You don't purposely ride in front of him and slow him down as payback, which the biker clearly did. And then the biker found out the beemer was an asshole too when the driver did a bump and run on him.

Tittle this one "Two Assholes Collide." I hope they catch the BWM driver, but it seems neither will learn from their mistakes. The biker has a crowdfunding message in his video and thinks he is totally the victim from the comments he has made.

 

[Ns1]

What makes you think it was a Ducati?

BTW-Ducati makes motorcycles ranging in power from around 70hp to 200hp so just because it is a Ducati doesn't mean it is capable of going 0-60mph in less than 2.5 seconds or reaching speeds of 180mph.

Sorry I got confused with the other SD rider that got murdered recently on his Ducati.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I was a full time rider in So. Cal. when I was younger. I didn't even own a car for several years.

The bike rider was being a self-righteous douche like lots of them are. Stupid fuckers get a thrill out of aggressively striking back at bad or inconsiderate drivers under the guise of safety.

If you see a bad driver you stay away from him. You don't purposely ride in front of him and slow him down as payback, which the biker clearly did. And then the biker found out the beemer was an asshole too when the driver did a bump and run on him.

Tittle this one "Two Assholes Collide." I hope they catch the BWM driver, but it seems neither will learn from their mistakes. The biker has a crowdfunding message in his video and thinks he is totally the victim from the comments he has made.

He was a bit of a dick. But be that as it may, I do think the driver of that BMW deserves to get fucked in the ass in prison for a few years and the motorcyclist should get enough money to cover his injuries, damage to his bike and pain and suffering from the BMW prick.

These things tend to work themselves out so I will not be donating any of my money to him.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Sorry I got confused with the other SD rider that got murdered recently on his Ducati.

I don't know this SD rider you speak of but if you find me on the Ducati forums you'll just see a lot of boring shit about fuel gauges and why the Monster 821 isn't a great bike.

 

[nexus5rocks]

You're pretty much wrong on all accounts:
- Texting drivers deserve death, or at the very least, to be called out on their asshole behaviour
- Lane sharing is legal in California, he had every right to be between the cars, so you're completely wrong here
- Didn't look like he was driving slowly to me, looked like he was going at exactly the appropriate speed for that road.
- How do you know he was glancing back? He was looking left to right, which is normal for a motorcyclist who is aware of his surroundings.

The driver of the car should be charged with attempted murder.

1. BMW driver was a douche for texting and got angry at being called out for it.
2. Rider was also a slef righteous douche for calling him out and escalated it by using profanity and his general tone.
3. Rider was clearly looking left and right to make sure he was able to block the BMW from passing, furthering his douchebaggeryness. I'm a rider, and if you are one as well, you well know that constantly checking left/right like that is not normal riding behavior.
4. BMW driver was the only one that did anything illegal by running him over and hopefully gets caught and does time

Two asshats got (or hopefully will get) exactly what they deserved.

 

[cubby1223]

He was a bit of a dick. But be that as it may, I do think the driver of that BMW deserves to get fucked in the ass in prison for a few years and the motorcyclist should get enough money to cover his injuries, damage to his bike and pain and suffering from the BMW prick.

These things tend to work themselves out so I will not be donating any of my money to him.

The biker caused the accident. Sorry you don't see it the proper way, but that's the fact. The legal system may judge differently, but everything about that situation was caused by the actions of the biker.

See, to me, I would see the situation from the car driver's point of view, and if I were in that situation, my instinct would be to get as far away from the biker as possible as quickly as possible to avoid an accident or any further confrontation. The biker clearly demonstrated he was not going to allow that to happen. In my world, it's up to the state to prove the motive was to hit and injure.

Why should the bmw driver be locked away in prison? Because a motorcyclist was an asshole one day and instigated a collision? What purpose does it serve? To feed your ego?

Motorcyclist doesn't wedge himself between two cars at the light - no collision. Motorcyclist keeps his mouth shut - no collision. Motorcyclist drives forward normally doesn't slow down - no collision. Motorcyclist merges into the right lane - no collision.

Motorcyclist does four jackass moves in a row to purposefully instigate confrontation - a collision finally occurs.


We all deal with drivers who are pricks out on the road on a daily basis. If this BMW driver was intent on causing accidents with those who piss him off, he would have done it in the past. He hasn't. Therefore there is no sufficient reason as of yet to believe his intent was to injure versus to escape the situation.

Dividing up responsibility, I currently give the biker 80% responsibility, BMW driver 20%.


The motorcyclist was in full control of the outcome. He chose to pass on the responsibility of avoiding collision to the bmw driver. Any driver has maybe a second or two at the most to try and analyze all available information and decide what path is the safest path. And there is no time at all to make a detailed informed decision, it's pure instinct, make a decision, hope for the best. The biker forced the bmw driver into making an unprepared split-second decision.

 

[Ns1]

The biker caused the accident. Sorry you don't see it the proper way, but that's the fact. The legal system may judge differently, but everything about that situation was caused by the actions of the biker.

Except for the part where the BMW slammed into the side of the motorcycle and ran away like a little bitch.

Motorcyclist doesn't wedge himself between two cars at the light - no collision. Motorcyclist keeps his mouth shut - no collision. Motorcyclist drives forward normally doesn't slow down - no collision. Motorcyclist merges into the right lane - no collision.

BMW decides to not try to kill the rider. No collision.

 

[Ns1]

I don't know this SD rider you speak of but if you find me on the Ducati forums you'll just see a lot of boring shit about fuel gauges and why the Monster 821 isn't a great bike.

you serious dude?

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...ge-Death-Navy-Sailor-San-Diego-305681651.html

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The biker caused the accident. Sorry you don't see it the proper way, but that's the fact. The legal system may judge differently, but everything about that situation was caused by the actions of the biker.

See, to me, I would see the situation from the car driver's point of view, and if I were in that situation, my instinct would be to get as far away from the biker as possible as quickly as possible to avoid an accident or any further confrontation. The biker clearly demonstrated he was not going to allow that to happen. In my world, it's up to the state to prove the motive was to hit and injure.

Why should the bmw driver be locked away in prison? Because a motorcyclist was an asshole one day and instigated a collision? What purpose does it serve? To feed your ego?

Motorcyclist doesn't wedge himself between two cars at the light - no collision. Motorcyclist keeps his mouth shut - no collision. Motorcyclist drives forward normally doesn't slow down - no collision. Motorcyclist merges into the right lane - no collision.

Motorcyclist does four jackass moves in a row to purposefully instigate confrontation - a collision finally occurs.


We all deal with drivers who are pricks out on the road on a daily basis. If this BMW driver was intent on causing accidents with those who piss him off, he would have done it in the past. He hasn't. Therefore there is no sufficient reason as of yet to believe his intent was to injure versus to escape the situation.

Dividing up responsibility, I currently give the biker 80% responsibility, BMW driver 20%.


The motorcyclist was in full control of the outcome. He chose to pass on the responsibility of avoiding collision to the bmw driver. Any driver has maybe a second or two at the most to try and analyze all available information and decide what path is the safest path. And there is no time at all to make a detailed informed decision, it's pure instinct, make a decision, hope for the best. The biker forced the bmw driver into making an unprepared split-second decision.

"It's your fault you got raped since you dress like such a tramp."

 

[Ns1]

Any driver has maybe a second or two at the most to try and analyze all available information and decide what path is the safest path. And there is no time at all to make a detailed informed decision, it's pure instinct, make a decision, hope for the best. The biker forced the bmw driver into making an unprepared split-second decision.

I missed this nugget earlier - the safest path is never across double yellows into the side of a motorcycle.

 

[Triumph]

The biker caused the accident. Sorry you don't see it the proper way, but that's the fact. The legal system may judge differently, but everything about that situation was caused by the actions of the biker.

See, to me, I would see the situation from the car driver's point of view, and if I were in that situation, my instinct would be to get as far away from the biker as possible as quickly as possible to avoid an accident or any further confrontation. The biker clearly demonstrated he was not going to allow that to happen. In my world, it's up to the state to prove the motive was to hit and injure.

Why should the bmw driver be locked away in prison? Because a motorcyclist was an asshole one day and instigated a collision? What purpose does it serve? To feed your ego?

Motorcyclist doesn't wedge himself between two cars at the light - no collision. Motorcyclist keeps his mouth shut - no collision. Motorcyclist drives forward normally doesn't slow down - no collision. Motorcyclist merges into the right lane - no collision.

Motorcyclist does four jackass moves in a row to purposefully instigate confrontation - a collision finally occurs.


We all deal with drivers who are pricks out on the road on a daily basis. If this BMW driver was intent on causing accidents with those who piss him off, he would have done it in the past. He hasn't. Therefore there is no sufficient reason as of yet to believe his intent was to injure versus to escape the situation.

Dividing up responsibility, I currently give the biker 80% responsibility, BMW driver 20%.


The motorcyclist was in full control of the outcome. He chose to pass on the responsibility of avoiding collision to the bmw driver. Any driver has maybe a second or two at the most to try and analyze all available information and decide what path is the safest path. And there is no time at all to make a detailed informed decision, it's pure instinct, make a decision, hope for the best. The biker forced the bmw driver into making an unprepared split-second decision.

Awesome, the next time someone road rages on me, I'm going to slam my BMW into them. It won't even be my fault!

 

[Ns1]

Awesome, the next time someone road rages on me, I'm going to slam my BMW into them. It won't even be my fault!

:biggrin::thumbsup:

 

[purbeast0]

Fucking cagers.

lol. as soon as i read that in the article, knew this guy was a dbag.

 

[Wuzup101]

I missed this nugget earlier - the safest path is never across double yellows into the side of a motorcycle.

He (the BMW) didn't cross double yellow lines. He waited until those double yellow lines changed into a third lane (yellow w/ hash for both directions with a full lane in the middle). Technically it's legal to use that lane to pass in CA if the driver can see that it's clear of traffic (it was). The rider has already admitted that he slowed down and expected the BMW to pass (on his crowed funding page). Note: that center lane turns into double yellow lines for a turn lane around where the bike actually lands... but not where he is hit.

There is no evidence on his video to support his claim that the BMW got next to him and swerved over to hit him. From the video it looks like the BMW attempted to pass him on the left and clipped him. He's looking to the right/behind when the BMW is moving up to his left. Surely had he actually noticed where the car was (that he was trying to block behind him) he would have moved over (to the right). Instead, the rider moves more towards the left (center of the lane) immediately before being hit (attempting to impede someone passing you is also illegal). Furthermore, had the cager simply wanted to injure him, he could have just rear-ended him.

He also only clipped him with his mirror. Jules does this (misjudges his distance to other vehicles) once every couple thousand miles on his bike while lane splitting (per the other thread). Luckily he has folding mirrors so it does no damage. I'm pretty sure that the BWM also had folding mirrors. He probably didn't stop because he knew there was no damage.

Karma is a bitch - don't ride like a tool.

 

[Ns1]

He (the BMW) didn't cross double yellow lines. He waited until those double yellow lines changed into a third lane (yellow w/ hash for both directions with a full lane in the middle). Technically it's legal to use that lane to pass in CA if the driver can see that it's clear of traffic (it was). The rider has already admitted that he slowed down and expected the BMW to pass (on his crowed funding page). Note: that center lane turns into double yellow lines for a turn lane around where the bike actually lands... but not where he is hit.

I learned something today as I have never seen anyone use that to pass. Having said that, BMW driver still deserves the book and a half thrown at him.

He also only clipped him with his mirror.

And are we watching the same video here? At 35 seconds the mirror is already past the camera. It's a full on sideswipe.


Anyways, I see that we've reached an impasse so I'll just disconnect now. Sorry y'all, in my book the guy that tries to kill another guy when he's not in danger = always at fault.


Thanks for the refresher in CA traffic laws.

 

[CZroe]

There is no such thing as "neither legal nor illegal." If it is not illegal, then it is legal.

This. It's especially nerve-grating when someone says "technically," as if all of our legal freedoms are specifically granted to us by our benevolent laws.

Technically neither legal nor illegal

That which is not expressly defined as illegal by our laws is inherently LEGAL. When you define what is legal in the law, it is only to set limits to that legality. For example, by defining lane splitting as legal, they can set the legal speed limit for lane splitting to 15MPH over the speed of traffic.

 

[Ns1]

That which is not expressly defined as illegal by our laws is inherently LEGAL. When you define what it legal in the law, it is only to set limits to that legality. For example, by defining lane splitting as legal, they can set the legal speed limit for lane splitting to 15MPH over the speed of traffic.

:thumbsup:

 

[Wuzup101]

And are we watching the same video here? At 35 seconds the mirror is already past the camera. It's a full on sideswipe.


Anyways, I see that we've reached an impasse so I'll just disconnect now. Sorry y'all, in my book the guy that tries to kill another guy when he's not in danger = always at fault.


Thanks for the refresher in CA traffic laws.

Oh it's still the guy in the BMWs fault... the guy on the bike didn't deserve to get hit. That being said, after watching the video a quite a few times I don't see the BMW driver being the sole instigator of this accident like the rider (and many riders on this board) would have you believe. Obviously, he is begging for money, he doesn't want to tell you that he was trolling the BMW in traffic.

I'm pretty sure we are watching the same video. If you watch the video in slow motion (try youtubeslow.com or just pause a lot) you can see the BMW drivers mirror make first contact with the bike's bar end (you can see the glass from the mirror shatters everywhere and the housing noticeably moves and the rider's left bar and hand move rapidly in concert with it). It does not appear that the body of the car itself hits the bike at all (but it's very hard to tell given the view and video quality). That being said, considering where the rider and bike landed, it doesn't appear that the bike was sideswiped. There was no left to right movement of the BMW from when it first appears until it has passed the rider (and gets back into the left lane when he is on the groud). The video certainly doesn't support the claim that the BMW was next to him and moved over from left to right. There is a clear forward motion of the BMW in the video and first contact is definitely mirror to bar end. My point is that I don't see anything to support that he intended to injure the rider (again after watching the video a lot).

 

[Andy22]

Can you not text when you are stopped at a redlight?