• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Range Rover Runs Over Bikers

#241
Phil Smith said:
I'm just trying to figure out how you, and not you specifically, are not responsible for not being in control of your vehicle to the point that you run into the back of another. Why isn't anyone addressing this?

Why is it that everyone here that drives acts like people don't speed up in an attempt to not allow you to get in front of them?

Why do defensive driving practices get thrown out of the window here?
Click to expand...

You're addressing the matter with perfect 20/20 hindsight. You are also not holding the brake check rider responsible in any way, shape or form.

GENERALLY speaking, when one motorist rear-ends another, the driver that strikes the other from behind is at fault. But what about when the driver in front deliberately slows down in an attempt to cause an accident?

And what of the other elements of the road conditions? Was there safe distance behind the Rover if he needed to slam on the brakes to avoid the brake check rider? Because we saw that swarms of other bikes were around the Rover. Would him slamming on the brakes have led to a rider slamming into the Rover from behind?
 
#242
Phil Smith said:
I'm just trying to figure out how you, and not you specifically, are not responsible for not being in control of your vehicle to the point that you run into the back of another. Why isn't anyone addressing this?

Why is it that everyone here that drives acts like people don't speed up in an attempt to not allow you to get in front of them?

Why do defensive driving practices get thrown out of the window here?
Click to expand...

That is the general rule of thumb yes, but the video shows extenuating circumstances. The biker can be clearly seen intentionally slowing down in a deliberate attempt to make the SUV try and hit him. This is more of a case of someone intentionally throwing themselves into the path of a car than a driver not having control.
 
#244
bassinplace said:
That is the general rule of thumb yes, but the video shows extenuating circumstances. The biker can be clearly seen intentionally slowing down in a deliberate attempt to make the SUV try and hit him. This is more of a case of someone intentionally throwing themselves into the path of a car than a driver not having control.
Click to expand...

I think it can also be argued that the Range Rover doesn't slow down and the question becomes why wouldn't you slow down when there's a possibility that you're going to run into the back of another vehicle. What kind of driver does this? Clearly not a safe driver.
 
#246
macaroni tony said:
Range Rover driver should not have clipped the rear tire of the first guy who tried to brake check him. It is true that you are supposed to keep enough space between yourself and the car in front of you, even if they are trying to get you to stop in the middle of the highway so that they can close it down. That's the law, at least in CA.

No one is addressing this because the far more egregious errors were committed by the bike crew
Click to expand...

If there was an initial clipping incident as I had heard -one before the "brake check" - then it also needs to be considered that the SUV driver was already in the fight or flight mode by the time the second guy brake checked him (and yes it's possible to slow a bike down fairly rapidly without applying brakes, so you would not see brake lights). This may be why he refused to come to a complete stop and also clipped this guy. If i was already being intimidated, I'm not sure that I would stop at that point either. By the second incident, the one where the car's surrounded, I'm sure that very few people would have sat there to find out what comes next.
No matter how you slice it, the SUV driver did what he felt he had to do.
 
#247
Phil Smith said:
I think it can also be argued that the Range Rover doesn't slow down and the question becomes why wouldn't you slow down when there's a possibility that you're going to run into the back of another vehicle. What kind of driver does this? Clearly not a safe driver.
Click to expand...

These guys corralled him like a swarm of bees. He didn't have enough time to slow down out of their path before they started brake checking him. The bikers aggression was too great and he was out maneuvered.
 
#248
Phil Smith said:
I think it can also be argued that the Range Rover doesn't slow down and the question becomes why wouldn't you slow down when there's a possibility that you're going to run into the back of another vehicle. What kind of driver does this? Clearly not a safe driver.
Click to expand...

Watch the video, and check the clock. From the time the brake check rider weaves some 10 or 15 feet in front of the Rover to the time he does the brake check is all of 3 SECONDS. Whose reaction time is good enough that they can avoid that collision in that short of a distance?

And AGAIN, why are you willfully divorcing this rider of any sort of responsibility for his own reckless riding to the point of deliberately causing an accident?
 
#250
Phil Smith said:
I'm just trying to figure out how you, and not you specifically, are not responsible for not being in control of your vehicle to the point that you run into the back of another. Why isn't anyone addressing this?
Click to expand...

Under the standard "assured clear distance ahead" rule -

What if somebody merges into your lane immediately in front of you without maintaining sufficient speed? This is a situation that can easily cause a rear-end collision in which you, the rear car, will generally not be held liable -- assuming you weren’t speeding or violating some other traffic law.
Click to expand...


For New York see:

Klopchin v. Masri, 45 AD3d 737
Chepel v. Meyers, 306 AD2d 235
Carhuayano v. J&R Hacking, 28 AD3d 413
Vargas v. Luxury Family Corp., 77 AD3d 820
Foti v. Fleetwood Ride, Inc., 57 AD3d 724
 
#251
aborgman said:
Under the standard "assured clear distance ahead" rule -




For New York see:

Klopchin v. Masri, 45 AD3d 737
Chepel v. Meyers, 306 AD2d 235
Carhuayano v. J&R Hacking, 28 AD3d 413
Vargas v. Luxury Family Corp., 77 AD3d 820
Foti v. Fleetwood Ride, Inc., 57 AD3d 724
Click to expand...

The Vargas case involves snow on the ground i.e. slippery road conditions, I didn't bother checking the others...please try again.
 
#252
Phil Smith said:
The windows weren't smashed or the tires slashed prior to hitting the initial biker and running over a bunch of others. \
Click to expand...


Dozens of bikers swarmed past him on Manhattan's West Side Highway. A cycle quickly slowed down in front of Lien, who bumped its rear tire, slightly injuring rider Christopher Cruz.

Lien pulled to a stop, and angry bikers surrounded his vehicle, hitting it and spiking its tires, police said.

Lien stepped on the gas, plowing into three more bikers, including Mieses, who was critically injured.
Click to expand...

Hmm... "Hitting it and spiking its tires" PRIOR to him running over anyone.

1) Biker cuts Lien off and brake checks (appears to not have a functioning brake light either) in what almost appears to be a "swoop and squat" insurance fraud maneuver.

2) Lien bumps bikers back tire (doesn't run him over)

3) Group of bikers attack the SUV, ""Hitting it and spiking its tires""

4) Lien steps on gas and NOW runs over a couple of others while trying to flee an attack.
 
#253
Relic said:
If there was an initial clipping incident as I had heard -one before the "brake check" - then it also needs to be considered that the SUV driver was already in the fight or flight mode by the time the second guy brake checked him (and yes it's possible to slow a bike down fairly rapidly without applying brakes, so you would not see brake lights). This may be why he refused to come to a complete stop and also clipped this guy. If i was already being intimidated, I'm not sure that I would stop at that point either. By the second incident, the one where the car's surrounded, I'm sure that very few people would have sat there to find out what comes next.
No matter how you slice it, the SUV driver did what he felt he had to do.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I was trying to throw good ol Phil a bone. Apparently didn't work though :p
 
#254
Relic said:
If there was an initial clipping incident as I had heard -one before the "brake check" - then it also needs to be considered that the SUV driver was already in the fight or flight mode by the time the second guy brake checked him (and yes it's possible to slow a bike down fairly rapidly without applying brakes, so you would not see brake lights). This may be why he refused to come to a complete stop and also clipped this guy. If i was already being intimidated, I'm not sure that I would stop at that point either. By the second incident, the one where the car's surrounded, I'm sure that very few people would have sat there to find out what comes next.
No matter how you slice it, the SUV driver did what he felt he had to do.
Click to expand...

Would you do this if another car or truck was in front of you?
 
#255
Phil Smith said:
I'm just trying to figure out how you, and not you specifically, are not responsible for not being in control of your vehicle to the point that you run into the back of another. Why isn't anyone addressing this?

Why is it that everyone here that drives acts like people don't speed up in an attempt to not allow you to get in front of them?

Why do defensive driving practices get thrown out of the window here?
Click to expand...

I think you're being willfully ignorant and/or obtuse here, to be honest...

If someone pulls in front of you, then immediately slams on their brakes, any idea who would get the ticket if it could be proven???

Judging from the video, the rider pulled in front of the SUV, then downshifted - which has the same effect as hitting the brakes... Also, it looked obvious that they were trying to box in the SUV, and stop him - the man has a right to escape such a situation...

What exactly is your connection to the 2 wheeled dumbasses here???


- georgestrings
 
#257
aborgman said:
Hmm... "Hitting it and spiking its tires" PRIOR to him running over anyone.

1) Biker cuts Lien off and brake checks (appears to not have a functioning brake light either) in what almost appears to be a "swoop and squat" insurance fraud maneuver.

2) Lien bumps bikers back tire (doesn't run him over)

3) Group of bikers attack the SUV, ""Hitting it and spiking its tires""

4) Lien steps on gas and NOW runs over a couple of others while trying to flee an attack.
Click to expand...

The tires weren't spiked, if they were, you would see the vehicle leaned over due to tire deflation. Have ever had a flat tire? Have you ever seen an SUV with a flat tire?
 
#258
bassinplace said:
+1. What the Range Rover driver did wasn't right, but I can completely understand that he could have been intimidated by those bikers to the point of irrationality. Especially with his family in the car.
Click to expand...

Absolutely in the "right" his and his families' lives were in imminent danger. If he backed up to "teach those bastards a lesson" that would be different. He was fleeing from an aggressive mob of thugs using the only avenue of escape available. The morons in front of him placed themselves in harms way. Did they "deserve" what they got no.... They got the fruits of what they sowed..... Theyre well- earned righteous retribution.
 
#259
georgestrings said:
I think you're being willfully ignorant and/or obtuse here, to be honest...

If someone pulls in front of you, then immediately slams on their brakes, any idea who would get the ticket if it could be proven???

Judging from the video, the rider pulled in front of the SUV, then downshifted - which has the same effect as hitting the brakes... Also, it looked obvious that they were trying to box in the SUV, and stop him - the man has a right to escape such a situation...

What exactly is your connection to the 2 wheeled dumbasses here???


- georgestrings
Click to expand...

This isn't what happened. If he braked you would see his brake light you don't. If he down shifted you would see that as well and you don't.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back