Range Rover Runs Over Bikers

[Febs]

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.

The question is not whether the driver used deadly force. The question is whether the use of force was justified. Here is the applicable New York law:

§ 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.

1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:

(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or

(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or

(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:

(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is:

(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or

(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or

(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or

(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

 

[Frank Tuesday]

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.

Sorry, but if a gang of people (on bikes or not) surrounded me and began acts of aggression towards me and my family, I'm not being reckless by removing myself from that situation using the only means I have at my disposal.

 

[mcnach]

If this had happened in, say, Montana, the rider who used his helmet to break the window of the SUV would have been eating lead within seconds.

But then the bikers could have had guns too, so you can imagine the result would have been several deaths. Worse for everyone, especially the family.
Glad it was in NY...

 

[macaroni tony]

that was the 3rd time in this thread that exchange took place -

"If this would've happened in such and such state, blooka blooka blooka gunfire!"

followed by

"Well they would have had guns, too so blookah blookah blookah gunfire everywhere!"

One of the recurring themes in this thread apparently. Someone needs to come in to defend the automobiles involved again

 

[Relic]

that was the 3rd time in this thread that exchange took place -

"If this would've happened in such and such state, blooka blooka blooka gunfire!"

followed by

"Well they would have had guns, too so blookah blookah blookah gunfire everywhere!"

One of the recurring themes in this thread apparently. Someone needs to come in to defend the automobiles involved again

I blame the motorcycles and the SUV. They should all be banned. Prius'eseses only from here on in

 

[bassinplace]

I blame the motorcycles and the SUV. They should all be banned. Prius'eseses only from here on in

Ew! I'll ride my bicycle thanks. A Prius just might make me a bit too inclined to doze off.

 

[Febs]

This is the statute I quoted in my prior post, modified to include the descriptions of the parties involved here and to delete provisions not relevant to this situation:

§ 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.

1. [The driver] may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon [the bikers] when and to the extent he ... reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself ... or [his wife and child] from what he ... reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by [the bikers], unless:

(a) The [the bikers'] conduct was provoked by the [driver] with intent to cause physical injury to [the bikers]; or

(b) The [driver] was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the [driver] has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to [the bikers] but the [bikers] persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or

...

2. [The driver] may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:

(a) The [driver] reasonably believes that [the bikers are] using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the [driver] may not use deadly physical force if he ... knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he ... may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; ...

(b) [The driver] reasonably believes that [the bikers are] committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or

(c) [The driver] reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

So what this boils down to is this:

The driver was authorized to use deadly force if he reasonably believed his life or the life of his passengers to be in danger and he had no retreat. (Section 2(a)). He was also authorized to use deadly force if he reasonably believed the bikers were attempting to commit a kidnapping, rape, criminal sexual act or robbery. (Section 2(b)). (Section 2(c) relates to burglary, which is not applicable here because it is defined in New York as breaking into a building or dwelling.)

For the people arguing that the driver provoked the incident by hitting the biker who pulled in front of him, note that it is not enough that the driver negligently struck that biker; for the exception to the defense to apply, it would have to be established that the driver intentionally struck the biker with intent to harm him.

Similarly, for those arguing that the driver may have provoked the incident by hitting a rider prior to the scene shown in the video, even if we assume that allegation is true, the driver was still entitled to use deadly force if he withdrew from that incident and communicated the withdrawal to the bikers (which he arguably did do by pulling away) and the bikers continued the incident and threatened force.

 

[Downunderwonder]

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?

I believe the slow speed collision occurred when crazed bikers were trying to stop the RR for the express purpose of beating the proverbial out of the driver due to the previous bump on the highway.

It wouldn't surprise me if 911 advised wife "you need to get out of there" when their car was assaulted.

 

[6jase5]

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.

As a former rice rocket owner and now Harley guy this statement has no validity. On some sport bikes in first or second gear you can easily release the acceleration without clutch and come to a near dead stop or slam it and be going 75mph or faster without changing gears. Harleys don't have the range of RPM's to do it like a sport bike. One gear on most of those bikes will take you to the speed limit and let off the acceleration at 9000 rpm and it's just like a brake.

Sorry, those guys weren't bikers, they were thugs. I've been brake checked in CA and I didn't slow down. Just missed the guy....oh well. CA has lane splitting and the sense of entitlement with a select few of the bikers is crazy, getting in your face because they can't pass you even though you are already doing the speed limit or more. Lane splitting is only valid UP TO the speed limit and only 15mph faster than slower traffic if that differential exists...ie...traffic at 50mph you can drive 65mph max if 65 is the posted limit.

Pathetic few and certainly NOT the majority of motorcycle drivers.

 

[Phil Smith]

As a former rice rocket owner and now Harley guy this statement has no validity. On some sport bikes in first or second gear you can easily release the acceleration without clutch and come to a near dead stop or slam it and be going 75mph or faster without changing gears. Harleys don't have the range of RPM's to do it like a sport bike. One gear on most of those bikes will take you to the speed limit and let off the acceleration at 9000 rpm and it's just like a brake.

If the rider were operating in 1st or 2nd gear, that would be pretty clear in the video. Nice try though.

 

[bassinplace]

If the rider were operating in 1st or 2nd gear, that would be pretty clear in the video. Nice try though.

I think his point is you can slow down much more quickly with just the accelerator alone on a bike than you can on a car, which I can attest to be true as well. Doesn't really matter what gear he's in.

 

[Jared Lash]

If the rider were operating in 1st or 2nd gear, that would be pretty clear in the video. Nice try though.

What gear do you think he was in?

 

[Relic]

What gear do you think he was in?

Whichever one will win the "argument" I'd wager!

 

[Chainsaw Willie]

Chopping the throttle on my SV1000 is like dropping an anchor. On older two-stroke monsters I had, chopping the throttle just made it stop accelerating. Different vehicles engine-brake differently. Some not at all, for some it is pretty strong.

 

[bassinplace]

Chopping the throttle on my SV1000 is like dropping an anchor. On older two-stroke monsters I had, chopping the throttle just made it stop accelerating. Different vehicles engine-brake differently. Some not at all, for some it is pretty strong.

What about the bike that Cruz was riding? Do you have any knowledge of/experience with that bike?

 

[SmokeWrench]

I got a problem with the media, and others, calling these fools "bikers". Gives real 1%ers a bad name...

 

[96tbird]

If the rider were operating in 1st or 2nd gear, that would be pretty clear in the video. Nice try though.

Clearly you have no idea. A four thousand pound range rover slowing at the rate of a 600 lb bike In low gear. It takes up to 75 feet to stop a car at 30 mph; a bike can do it a little quicker I should think. Ar least my bike and any other sport cycle can. Your brain is not operating I fear.

 

[NickBEADG]

Bikers are idiots anyways "watch for bikers"... bitch, you're the one choosing to ride on a dangerous two wheeled vehicle with no seat belts or even safety gear half the time. I have blind spots, your don't. Watch for me, or don't ride. The bikers in this video were idiots too, doesn't matter who's right or wrong, just their driving habits before the whole altercation started, they already broke road laws.

 

[bassinplace]

Bikers are idiots anyways "watch for bikers"... bitch, you're the one choosing to ride on a dangerous two wheeled vehicle with no seat belts or even safety fear half the time. I have blind spots, your don't. Watch for me it don't ride. The bikers in this video were idiots too, doesn't matter who's right or wrong, just their driving habits before the whole altercation started, they already broke road laws.

Don't drink and type.

 

[Chainsaw Willie]

What about the bike that Cruz was riding? Do you have any knowledge of/experience with that bike?

Nope, I dunno nuffin' about what bike he was on. The point I was trying to express is:

We don't know from the video how this "brake check" was done. Just because we don't see a brake light does not mean he didn't suddenly decelerate. Some bikes can drop a lot of speed by just closing the throttle. Typically cars do not produce a lot of engine-braking without downshifting. Just because he didn't appear to downshift, doesn't mean he couldn't have suddenly decelerated.