Range Rover Runs Over Bikers

[bassinplace]

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?

I do agree that SUV went for an awfully long way for a car whose tires were allegedly slashed or spiked. However it doesn't change the fact that the driver was fleeing for his safety from a gang of overtly aggressive thugs.

 

[bassinplace]

How about this - six of the bikers were cops, and one, an undercover cop, pounded on the car's window (but wasn't the one who smashed it). None of the cops tried to stop the attack.

Hopefully those officers will all become defendants.

 

[aborgman]

The Vargas case involves snow on the ground i.e. slippery road conditions, I didn't bother checking the others...please try again.

Klopchin v. Masri, 45 AD3d 737

"One of several nonnegligent explanations for a rear-end collision is a sudden stop of the lead vehicle"

"The defendants' assertion that the injured plaintiff made a sudden stop and failed to give proper signals, as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163, contradicted the injured plaintiff's contention and, if believed, provided a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision
"

Chepel v. Meyers, 306 AD2d 235

"The defendant was driving at a speed of approximately 15 miles per hour, when Ivasyuk "without any warning, just jammed on [his] brakes." Ivasyuk's van was "stopping," and this was "a sudden unexplained stop.

During summations, counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant did not cause this accident. The plaintiffs' counsel and Ivasyuk's counsel on the counterclaim both argued to the jury that the defendant was negligent and that her negligence was a proximate cause of the accident.

The jury found that the defendant was not negligent.




Carhuayano v. J&R Hacking, 28 AD3d 413


Generally, a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision. A sudden, negligent, or unexplained stop of the lead vehicle can constitute a non-negligent explanation. Stated another way, the lead driver also has a duty "not to stop suddenly or slow down without proper signaling so as to avoid a collision"


Foti v. Fleetwood Ride, Inc., 57 AD3d 724

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the appellants submitted deposition testimony which demonstrated that their stopped vehicle was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned and operated, respectively, by the defendants City of Mount Vernon and Lowell E. Anderson. However, the deposition testimony upon which the appellants relied also indicated that their vehicle came to an abrupt stop in the middle of the roadway after the driver was informed that he was headed in the wrong direction. Under these circumstances, there is an issue of fact as to whether the negligent operation of the appellants' vehicle caused or contributed to the accident
.

 

[Ziltoid]

Everyone is a genius with hindsight.

 

[Phil Smith]

http://www.bikerentourage.com/lien.html

Bikers who witnessed what occurred prior to the start of the video reported that the SUV driver was impatient and attempted to drive through the group of riders. “The SUV didn’t want to wait” said eyewitness Michael Anthony during an interview, “he decided he wanted to come into the center lane and started pushing his way through the bikes”. At this point Alexian Lien, the SUV driver, reportedly knocked a biker down but continued to drive on.

Note this happened before the bike you see in the video is hit.

And sure this is one's persons account as is all of the ones you have read.

 

[Phil Smith]

Klopchin v. Masri, 45 AD3d 737

"One of several nonnegligent explanations for a rear-end collision is a sudden stop of the lead vehicle"

"The defendants' assertion that the injured plaintiff made a sudden stop and failed to give proper signals, as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163, contradicted the injured plaintiff's contention and, if believed, provided a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision
"

Chepel v. Meyers, 306 AD2d 235

"The defendant was driving at a speed of approximately 15 miles per hour, when Ivasyuk "without any warning, just jammed on [his] brakes." Ivasyuk's van was "stopping," and this was "a sudden unexplained stop.

During summations, counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant did not cause this accident. The plaintiffs' counsel and Ivasyuk's counsel on the counterclaim both argued to the jury that the defendant was negligent and that her negligence was a proximate cause of the accident.

The jury found that the defendant was not negligent.




Carhuayano v. J&R Hacking, 28 AD3d 413


Generally, a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty on the operator of the moving vehicle to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a non-negligent explanation for the collision. A sudden, negligent, or unexplained stop of the lead vehicle can constitute a non-negligent explanation. Stated another way, the lead driver also has a duty "not to stop suddenly or slow down without proper signaling so as to avoid a collision"


Foti v. Fleetwood Ride, Inc., 57 AD3d 724

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the appellants submitted deposition testimony which demonstrated that their stopped vehicle was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned and operated, respectively, by the defendants City of Mount Vernon and Lowell E. Anderson. However, the deposition testimony upon which the appellants relied also indicated that their vehicle came to an abrupt stop in the middle of the roadway after the driver was informed that he was headed in the wrong direction. Under these circumstances, there is an issue of fact as to whether the negligent operation of the appellants' vehicle caused or contributed to the accident
.

All irrelevant, the rider didn't stop...please try again.

 

[bassinplace]

All irrelevant, the rider didn't stop...please try again.

I think you need to review the video again. He did worse than stop. He intentionally provoked the driver to hit him.

 

[Relic]

http://www.bikerentourage.com/lien.html



Note this happened before the bike you see in the video is hit.

And sure this is one's persons account as is all of the ones you have read.

If that were the case then, yes the driver should be charged for that.
That said, my point is that by the time the second incident happened, IE the "brake check" in the video, the situation may have already been out of control which is why the SUV driver did not stop and allow himself to be boxed in. (which appears to be their attempt to force him to stop) He may have already feared for his safety at that point.
I had heard another account that stated that he DID stop initially and when they started swarming him, he drove off while his wife called 911.
It would be very interesting to hear the 911 calls if that's so. Did they tell him not to stop? Did they tell him that he should stop?
I think we need more info. Until then, I'm going on what I'm seeing and so far I see a clear cut case of a guy doing what he had to do. If something new pops up to change that then I'll change my tune.

 

[bassinplace]

No one can have an informed opinion on what occurred outside of the video one way or the other. How come none of the suspects have mentioned the car starting the aggression? The videos do clearly show this group to be a gang of terrorizing thugs in more instances than the one on the day with the SUV incident.

 

[georgestrings]

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.

You're making the assumption that his brake light actually worked - given the number of bikes without license plates on this "ride", that isn't a given - also, it sure looks like he downshifted to me, and I've covered close to half a million miles on 2 wheels...

Again, what is your connection to this incident??? I notice you didn't answer the first time I asked...


- georgestrings

 

[Relic]

No one can have an informed opinion on what occurred outside of the video one way or the other. How come none of the suspects have mentioned the car starting the aggression? The videos do clearly show this group to be a gang of terrorizing thugs in more instances than the one on the day with the SUV incident.

(this is like the 5th time I've mentioned this...lol) According to police sources, there were 200 calls to them prior to this incident. I wonder what teh nature of those calls were? Noise complaints? traffic issues, harassment, etc?
That could also factor in to things.

 

[JFOC]

"It was supposed to be a leisurely Sunday ride through New York City. Some in this group of motorcycles were intentionally slowing down other cars on the road so that the rest of them could pass safely.

Kevin Bresloff turned on his helmet camera shortly after the riders encountered the black Range Rover, says his lawyer, Andrew Vecere. "From speaking to him, what he saw - or what he believes that he saw was a water bottle come out of the sunroof of the car," Vecere said.

Asked he is referring to the SUV -- and if someone threw it -- Vecere said, "Yes, correct."
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[aborgman]

All irrelevant, the rider didn't stop...please try again.

Stated another way, the lead driver also has a duty "not to stop suddenly or slow down without proper signaling so as to avoid a collision"

He doesn't need to.

 

[Relic]

Just thought of a silly question, but worth throwing out there for discussion sake - if the SUV was driving erratically/dangerously thereby starting this whole thing, then why did none of the 50-something bikers phone the police? Just sayin'

 

[Chainsaw Willie]

I have seen dangerous SUV drivers when I am on a bike.

I get far away,
because,
ya know,
SUV's can be dangerous.

 

[aborgman]

(this is like the 5th time I've mentioned this...lol) According to police sources, there were 200 calls to them prior to this incident. I wonder what teh nature of those calls were? Noise complaints? traffic issues, harassment, etc?
That could also factor in to things.

Also note that there have been previous, violent, incidents with this particular "motorcycle club".

Apparently they attacked a Prius driver in 2011.

 

[Frank Tuesday]

http://www.bikerentourage.com/lien.html



Note this happened before the bike you see in the video is hit.

And sure this is one's persons account as is all of the ones you have read.

If there was an accident prior to the video starting, it doesn't give the other bikers the right to take up vigilante justice. They can call the police with a vehicle description and license plate, and a couple riders can follow the vehicle to help the police locate the driver. The claim that one crime was committed previously does not legally allow additional crimes to take place.

 

[bassinplace]

Just thought of a silly question, but worth throwing out there for discussion sake - if the SUV was driving erratically/dangerously thereby starting this whole thing, then why did none of the 50-something bikers phone the police? Just sayin'

Also, how come Cruz didn't mention this in his statement to the press? Is that how he was advised? It would be a highly relevant factor to disclose, to say the least.

I have seen dangerous SUV drivers when I am on a bike.

I get far away,
because,
ya know,
SUV's can be dangerous.

+1. No kidding, lol!

 

[skychief]

You're trying to establish malicious intent on the part of the driver. So where are your facts? Where are there clear statements on the part of the driver or his wife? Eventually, the 911 calls that the wife made will be made public, and that will probably help establish some sort of state of mind on the part of the Rover driver.

You seem to think that the driver had some kind of intent to kill. It seems far more likely that his intent was to extricate himself and his family from a dangerous situation. In the process the one biker got hurt. But had that biker not been taking part in a ride that had been flagrantly breaking countless traffic laws while menacing other motorists, he would not have put himself in this situation where he got injured.

You're right, I honestly dont know the SUV driver's intentions at the moment he drove his SUV over the biker.

I know that if I were driving a 5000 lb vehicle and ran over a person riding a motorbike, I would presume death would be the result of that act. That the biker survived is a miracle.

I just think it was a reckless act, and it could have resulted in the death of that biker.

 

[metron]

One could also presume that getting in front of a vehicle with a group of people who are harassing and/or intimidating the driver could result in getting run over and killed.