- Jul 17, 2004
- 5,122
- 52
- 91
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37020993/ns/local_news-dallasfort_worth_tx/
Nice to know people care, even about the squids.
Nice to know people care, even about the squids.
After spotting the rider in the roadway, several drivers positioned their vehicles around the fallen rider so that he wouldn't be struck by oncoming traffic. In the process, their vehicles were rear-ended.
Lost control or ran into someone? there is a difference... This article has shit writing.
I knew I was right. A few years ago I was arguing with my dad; I was saying that you can't just stop your car on a highway or a freeway because people will hit you. They won't just try to go around.After spotting the rider in the roadway, several drivers positioned their vehicles around the fallen rider so that he wouldn't be struck by oncoming traffic. In the process, their vehicles were rear-ended.
Lost control or ran into someone? there is a difference... This article has shit writing.
Considering it states that the 'Busa is the fastest production motorcycle, the article is wrong in many things.
No. It was surpassed some years ago.
Gotta be honest though, even though I'd have been one of the people who stopped to try to protect him, if my car got rear-ended because of that you can be damn sure that I'd be coming after him for the repair costs, especially if my insurance rates went up.
ZV
Hayabusa: 186mph
MV Agusta F4 R 312: 194mph
I was thinking the same thing...Personally, I'd be going after the idiots who ran into my car.
I was thinking the same thing...
You can get in trouble for stopping in the road because of an obstruction but you can't if you're stopped in the road because of traffic? This kind of shit happens all the time in Los Angeles where the traffic is flowing smoothly and then suddenly comes to a complete halt. Nobody thinks twice about the jackass running into you being at falt but when it's a fallen motorcyclist in the middle of the road it's now the guy who stopped in the road's fault? Good thing that officer didn't act stupid and cite those people because hopefully that officer would be reamed in court for being such a jackass..
Uh, no. My view is that it's the fallen motorcyclist's fault, not the people who stopped. Jules was able to understand that from my post, but apparently you never learned how to read.
The motorcyclist caused the accidents plain and simple. If one car spins out, hits a second car, and causes that second car to hit a third car, it's the first person who is liable for all damages, they don't go citing the guy in the second car for causing the damages to the third car. Similarly, in this case it was the motorcyclist's negligent actions which caused the chain of events that led to the stopped cars being rear-ended. The motorcyclist is, at the very least, partially liable for any damages caused to the vehicles which stopped to help him and arguably fully liable.
ZV
I drive where this wreck was every single day, and there is no way the cars should not have had enough time to stop. Doesn't excuse the 'busa rider, but the cars that hit the stopped ones failed to avoid an accident.
I'm mostly with you on that, but without having a visual on exactly how the stopped cars were laid out I can't be sure how much leeway to give to the people who hit the stopped cars. Remember that the incident happened a bit after midnight too, so if the stopped cars were angled or otherwise unusually positioned within the roadway (straddling lanes, etc) it may have been more difficult to adequately judge their placement.
I still think that the rider of the motorcycle has, at minimum, partial responsibility for any damage that occurred to the cars which were stopped. His accident was the precipitating event.
ZV
The guy started an event but it's not really his fault people don't stop.I still think that the rider of the motorcycle has, at minimum, partial responsibility for any damage that occurred to the cars which were stopped. His accident was the precipitating event.
Generally you're supposed to turn your lights on at night. I think it might actually be a legal requirement to have your headlights on. If someone couldn't see a freakin car stopped on the road, they should be charged with impaired driving and thrown in the drunk tank until they sober up.I'm mostly with you on that, but without having a visual on exactly how the stopped cars were laid out I can't be sure how much leeway to give to the people who hit the stopped cars. Remember that the incident happened a bit after midnight too,
I literally thought an octopus was on the highway. I was like WTF, I have to read this.
Since when are motorcyclists considered "squids" and why?
Now that you mention the time frame, I saw the aftermath of it last night going down the opposite side of the highway. I was coming home from Iron Man 2.
That section of I-75 has outstanding visibility, it was completely redone not very many years ago.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...d=_8BErMAV4Y3wrUjC9GRItQ&cbp=12,214.69,,0,2.9
I'm in the camp of : Motorcyclist was an obvious moron, but the responsible parties for hitting those folks are the drivers.
I'll tell ya what, after midnight on I-75 is a total drunkfest on that freeway. There's lower greenville, deep ellum, uptown, etc, and a lot of the people that go to all those bars to drink get back in their cars and drive back to the northern 'burbs afterwards. It would be actually a shock to me if the people who rear-ended obviously stopped cars (assuming brake lights / hazards / etc) were drunk and/or high.
