Horizons Unlimited - The HUBB

Horizons Unlimited - The HUBB (http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/hubb/)
-   The HUBB PUB (http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/hubb/the-hubb-pub/)
-   -   Is it ok for car drivers to run down motorcyclists? (http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/hubb/the-hubb-pub/ok-car-drivers-run-down-49094)

indu 19 Mar 2010 13:12

Is it ok for car drivers to run down motorcyclists?
 
People

In Norway, a car driver was recently acquitted in court after running down and seriously injuring a young motorcyclist - because the driver hit a motorcycle and not a car!

Norwegian riders are mad as hell. You should be too because this is something that affects your fellow rider - even if he's in another country. The Norwegian Motorcyclists' Union is on the case, demanding that the State Attorney appeals the verdict.

Go to MC-ADDICT.COM to read all about the case and to write your supportive comment, and I'll pass them on to NMCU to show them that riders all over do care!

And please spread the word, to let even more riders show their support for NMCU's work on this case by commenting!

Thanks for your support.

Warthog 19 Mar 2010 14:39

Incredible.:censored::censored::censored:

Would the verdict have been the same had it been a cyclist?
My guess is not so: isn't the law supposed to be above prejudice?

Dodger 19 Mar 2010 15:14

The car driver was a female and the two judges who sided with her were female .
The bike rider was male and the sympathetic judge was male .
- Makes you think doesn't it !

farqhuar 19 Mar 2010 15:22

Reading between the lines it sounds like sexism at play.

Male rider, female driver, 2 female judges vote in favour of the driver, single male judge doesn't.

teflon 19 Mar 2010 21:44

For all anyone knows it could have been the correct verdict.

Warthog 19 Mar 2010 21:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by teflon (Post 281523)
For all anyone knows it could have been the correct verdict.

If the reason quoted below was indeed part of the rationale for an acquittal, then no it can't be thre right verdict.

That is equivalent to saying that if you travel by a particular mode of transport, you are automaticaly partially, if not entirely, at fault

Quote:

Originally Posted by indu (Post 281439)
- because the driver hit a motorcycle and not a car!

You judge based on the circumstances; how a vehicle was being driven. Not what vehicle it is, unless it is not roadworthy or illegal from some other reason...

debseed 19 Mar 2010 23:05

"The young motorcyclist was riding his bright red motorcycle in a small pocket between the cars in the moving queue that had formed"

I'm not sure about this, and I'm interested to know other people's opinions.

After all, what's sweeter than riding through a load of slow moving traffic. But, isn't it the case that although it is legal to filter, you are personally choosing to take a risk by doing so. You could, after all, choose to queue with the rest of the traffic. So, who should be responsible for the risk that you choose to take?

It be a muddy moral dilemma

Mr. Ron 19 Mar 2010 23:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by debseed (Post 281543)
"The young motorcyclist was riding his bright red motorcycle in a small pocket between the cars in the moving queue that had formed"

I'm not sure about this, and I'm interested to know other people's opinions.

After all, what's sweeter than riding through a load of slow moving traffic. But, isn't it the case that although it is legal to filter, you are personally choosing to take a risk by doing so. You could, after all, choose to queue with the rest of the traffic. So, who should be responsible for the risk that you choose to take?

It be a muddy moral dilemma

I was also wondering. Does this mean he was riding between the cars (lane splitting) and if so is this illegal? I just find it hard to believe the judges would vote on behalf of the car driver because she hit a motorcycle, not a car. Somehow I feel that we're not getting the complete story. It is true though that cagers are not looking for us and for that reason we need to drive defensivly, like we are invisible. Could it be that the bike rider was young and inexperienced and was riding like a squid? More info please.

indu 20 Mar 2010 01:43

Interesting feedback here.

A couple of things should be mentioned:

1) The car driver neglected the "yield" sign/rule, thus causing the accident (we have this general rule in Norway that says that you have to yield to traffic from the right unless signposts says otherwise)

2) Lane splitting is OK in Norway. Not sure if he did lane splitting though.

3) The court records says he was riding in the same speed as the general traffic, approx 60 km/h

DLbiten 20 Mar 2010 04:00

Man here I was thinking people in Norway had a brain or at lest the judges. Did they get there law degree online? If I drive a truck is it ok to run down a car? it is not a truck must be ok. Can a car run down people walking there? In the USA if the car driver dose this better dam well pay the rider dose not have a gun and shoot back. You try to run down a cop or any one they have the right to protect them self with a gun if need be. A car is a lethal weapon and some time used to kill people. This sucks hope the case is sent to a higher court

Stephano 20 Mar 2010 06:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by DLbiten (Post 281562)
If I drive a truck is it ok to run down a car?

We are waiting for West Yorkshire Police to comment on that...


Truck driver caught on film with car stuck to bumper at 60mph
.

Stephan

trying59 20 Mar 2010 07:56

Lay judges, Calling them Judge bean would be an insult to him even though they are acting like it. Hang she high.

debseed 20 Mar 2010 08:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Ron (Post 281545)
I was also wondering. Does this mean he was riding between the cars (lane splitting) and if so is this illegal?

Even though it is not illegal, you wouldn't be covered by insurance if you had an accident. :confused1:

Warthog 20 Mar 2010 08:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by debseed (Post 281543)
After all, what's sweeter than riding through a load of slow moving traffic. But, isn't it the case that although it is legal to filter, you are personally choosing to take a risk by doing so. You could, after all, choose to queue with the rest of the traffic. So, who should be responsible for the risk that you choose to take?


Sure, but that does not automatically put that person in the wrong. Other road users are still obliged to make observations, use signals, check blind spots before making.

Even if the rider were filtering, if another road user effected a manoeuvre without correct observations, that road user is partly at fault at the very least...

rabbitson 20 Mar 2010 09:22

Bit of a strange title for a thread on a motorbike forum! :)


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:31.


vB.Sponsors