Horizons Unlimited - The HUBB

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

Threewheelbonnie 20 Mar 2010 09:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by debseed (Post 281577)
Even though it is not illegal, you wouldn't be covered by insurance if you had an accident. :confused1:

On that basis the insurance company could refuse to pay up for bad weather, riding with a cold, not having glasses under a year old, going out in the rush hour on the day the clocks change to summer time and a host of other risk based assesments. They'll try all the above, but if filtering/lane splitting is legal you are covered to the minimum degree required. After that you have to enter the shark tank and fight for your cash just like any other claim involving the in-sewer-ants.

What I think the magistrates have failed to express in a clear way is that they believe the motorcyclist was partially at fault due to their lane position and that the car driver couldn't reasonably be expected to react in a way that would have avoided this. They are saying it was an accident to which no blame could be levelled, which I guess although unlikely could be true. You will always get this sort of perverse judgement unless there is forensic evidence. The women judges have basically accepted that a no doubt well dressed and polite young women who's lawyer will have stressed that she really isn't a bad person didn't mean any harm. If that's all they'd said we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I'd wonder if the magistrates actually drive? In the UK a magistrate who's only ever been on the train can sit in judgement on traffic offences and the same applies to juries.

UK magistrates and Juries come up with this sort of rubbish all the time. Look at the number of nasty street thugs who turn up to court with a suit, a shave, a puppy dog expression and a crucifix instead of their usual gang signs and hoodies and get off because all the old dears on the jury think he's a nice young man and the young girls fancy him. The good news is that the badly worded comments will probably be grounds to dispute the judgement in a higher court.

Andy

Caminando 24 Mar 2010 15:53

Of course its ok for cars to whack motos. You all know this from the first day you rode a bike. So dont be surprised at this story:rolleyes2::eek3:

Caminando 24 Mar 2010 15:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Threewheelbonnie (Post 281582)

I'd wonder if the magistrates actually drive? In the UK a magistrate

UK magistrates

Andy

Sorry, there's no such thing as a UK magistrate. You can have an English magistrate, or in Scotland, a Sheriff. Its different. There is no UK legal system, only the different legislatures and courts of Scotland and England.:mchappy:

Threewheelbonnie 24 Mar 2010 19:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caminando (Post 282241)
Sorry, there's no such thing as a UK magistrate. You can have an English magistrate, or in Scotland, a Sheriff. Its different. There is no UK legal system, only the different legislatures and courts of Scotland and England.:mchappy:

OK, the pedant wins. I'll go back and correct the whole post to "magistrates, Sheriffs, associated other legal persons and anyone acting in a similar legally recognised capacity in the UK, it's dominions or overseas territories" if you like :rolleyes2:

I bet your a *****y lawyer aren't you :eek3:

:rofl:

Andy

Caminando 2 Apr 2010 16:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Threewheelbonnie (Post 282276)
OK, the pedant wins. I'll go back and correct the whole post to "magistrates, Sheriffs, associated other legal persons and anyone acting in a similar legally recognised capacity in the UK, it's dominions or overseas territories" if you like :rolleyes2:

I bet your a *****y lawyer aren't you :eek3:

:rofl:

Andy

Sorry Andy, for being accurate - and polite. If I'm wrong in what I say just tell me, but without abuse.:scooter:Dont be so bitter when you find you're wrong.

No I'm not a " *****y lawyer" , I'm just tired of cramped views which exclude a part of the UK as if it didnt exist. It's a democratic thing - you wouldn't understand. The Anglocentric view of the UK really is oldhat and done, though not everyone realises it. The "pedant " jibe is the usual response from those who are unaware that the UK has existed since 1603- right up to today with the current Elizabeth I. :thumbup1:

Dodger 2 Apr 2010 21:52

The original United Kingdom was formed not 1603 ,but in 1801 by the merging of the Kingdom of Ireland with the Kingdom of Great Britain [England and Scotland ] .
1603 was the date of the Union of Crowns ,when James ruled over two seperate monarchies .Wales was considered a part of England in those days .
The Kingdom of Great Britain was formed in 1707 by the union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England.
The present United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland emerged in 1927 .

I disagree that the term UK magistrate is incorrect .
An English or Northern Irish magistrate residing within the UK might be a better description ,but as the hypothetical magistrate in question is presumed to be a citizen of the United Kingdom , his/her title and nationality are not in doubt .
The term "Scottish magistrate", would indeed be incorrect .
However ,a Scottish born person could become a magistrate in England or Nothern Ireland and one hopes that an English or Northen Irish born person could become a Sherrif within Scotland .
So I believe one could become a sherrif or a magistrate and all within the boundaries of the UK .

You have ignored the great contribution that the Northern Irish have made to the nation and I am perplexed by your blatant Caledonian bias that you should abuse them so .
Furthermore the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the result of many centuries of invasion ,intertribal punch ups ,political underhandedness and subjugation of weaker populations ,hardly democracy , perhaps you meant demography ?

I did not detect an ounce of bitterness or abuse in Andy's post ,but being a Yorkshireman he is well versed in the arts of tact and diplomacy ,hence his use of ROFL.His means of transport is a sidecar ,which proves beyond all doubt that he has a balanced viewpoint and a sense of humour .
It has not yet been established whether or not Yorkshire is part of the United Kingdom though .

Warthog 2 Apr 2010 23:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodger (Post 283607)
.... is the result of many centuries of intertribal punch ups ,political underhandedness and subjugation of weaker populations ...

Unfortunately, which part of the world isn't?

Dodger 3 Apr 2010 00:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warthog (Post 283621)
Unfortunately, which part of the world isn't?

There are many uninhabited islands ,but I believe that even plants compete for dominance .:palm:

Threewheelbonnie 3 Apr 2010 08:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodger (Post 283607)
It has not yet been established whether or not Yorkshire is part of the United Kingdom though .

Depends who's asking. Those Lancastrians.......:offtopic: :rofl:

Andy

Caminando 7 Apr 2010 10:43

Oo-er! trooble at t'mill!!!:mchappy:

Thanks for the long post Dodger, despite its many mistakes, especially on my country of origin. In fact I spent a lot of time helping Yorkshiremen at Eggborough and Drax. I admit I was worried to hear men referring to each other as "Love". Is this why you used the word "abuse" ?

You say you are "perplexed" - so what's new? Like many expats, you believe you know a lot about the country you were unsuccessful in. :thumbup1:Unfortunately I fell asleep before reading all of your post, so maybe it got better near the end. Hope so!:scooter:Write another long post if you've time - I might get back to you one day on it; but not right away!

Good on yer:cool4:



Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodger (Post 283607)
The original United Kingdom was formed not 1603 ,but in 1801 by the merging of the Kingdom of Ireland with the Kingdom of Great Britain [England and Scotland ] .
1603 was the date of the Union of Crowns ,when James ruled over two seperate monarchies .Wales was considered a part of England in those days .
The Kingdom of Great Britain was formed in 1707 by the union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England.
The present United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland emerged in 1927 .

I disagree that the term UK magistrate is incorrect .
An English or Northern Irish magistrate residing within the UK might be a better description ,but as the hypothetical magistrate in question is presumed to be a citizen of the United Kingdom , his/her title and nationality are not in doubt .
The term "Scottish magistrate", would indeed be incorrect .
However ,a Scottish born person could become a magistrate in England or Nothern Ireland and one hopes that an English or Northen Irish born person could become a Sherrif within Scotland .
So I believe one could become a sherrif or a magistrate and all within the boundaries of the UK .

You have ignored the great contribution that the Northern Irish have made to the nation and I am perplexed by your blatant Caledonian bias that you should abuse them so .
Furthermore the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the result of many centuries of invasion ,intertribal punch ups ,political underhandedness and subjugation of weaker populations ,hardly democracy , perhaps you meant demography ?

I did not detect an ounce of bitterness or abuse in Andy's post ,but being a Yorkshireman he is well versed in the arts of tact and diplomacy ,hence his use of ROFL.His means of transport is a sidecar ,which proves beyond all doubt that he has a balanced viewpoint and a sense of humour .
It has not yet been established whether or not Yorkshire is part of the United Kingdom though .


Dodger 7 Apr 2010 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caminando (Post 284156)
Oo-er! trooble at t'mill!!!:mchappy:

Thanks for the long post Dodger, despite its many mistakes, especially on my country of origin. In fact I spent a lot of time helping Yorkshiremen at Eggborough and Drax. I admit I was worried to hear men referring to each other as "Love". Is this why you used the word "abuse" ?

You say you are "perplexed" - so what's new? Like many expats, you believe you know a lot about the country you were unsuccessful in. :thumbup1:Unfortunately I fell asleep before reading all of your post, so maybe it got better near the end. Hope so!:scooter:Write another long post if you've time - I might get back to you one day on it; but not right away!

Good on yer:cool4:


Don't let long words and historical facts trouble you Cammi .You'll get the hang of it one day .
How's teaching ? The kids still giving you problems ? :smartass:
You should see a doctor about your narcolepsy ,we wouldn't want you falling asleep on the bike now would we ?

Caminando 9 Apr 2010 15:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodger (Post 284223)
Don't let long words and historical facts trouble you Cammi .You'll get the hang of it one day .
How's teaching ? The kids still giving you problems ? :smartass:
You should see a doctor about your narcolepsy ,we wouldn't want you falling asleep on the bike now would we ?

Dodger, love, :D
My narcolepsy is only a problem when I have to read anal posts.:rolleyes2: :scooter:But it's kind of you to think of my welfare. Ta!

Teaching? Uh-Uh! You follow my posts closely enough to know that I'm in engineering - you'll remember I gave you tips on how to weld when you couldnt get the hang of it. You were grateful when I suggested that you first use the screen to stop UV burn and to prevent you getting a flash all the time. I helped you people in the Socialist Republic of Yorkshire at Drax power station etc, and I continue to do that with you. It's a pleasure to help .:thumbup1: I'm coded to ASME IX (still with me?)if you need advanced help.

I'm thinking of going to the Le Mans 24hr soon - I've stopped racing there because of narcolepsy of course:oops2: but I like the atmosphere. So no need to reply- I'm kinda busy.:thumbup1:

Love
C

Dodger 9 Apr 2010 17:11

Ah Cammi , another change of career ,engineering now is it ?
I thought you were a welder before you discovered education .
Never mind one day you'll find something you're good at .:confused1:

The words that strike fear into any tradesman are ; "Hello I'm an engineer ,I'm here to help ".
Tread carefully Cammi ,you may get welded inside a large diameter pipe one day by a disgruntled journeyman .

Narcolepsy and 24 hour racing go hand in hand ,so I can understand the attraction .But during your wakeful moments you can enjoy the rides at the funfair .[Don't eat too much candy floss or you might throw up ] .

shu... 9 Apr 2010 20:44

Maybe I'm missing the joke? After all I'm pretty new here, but this seems headed off in the wrong direction, eh?

What was the question, again? Something about cars running down motorcyclists?



..........shu

Threewheelbonnie 10 Apr 2010 07:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caminando (Post 284471)
Dodger, love, :D
I helped you people in the Socialist Republic of Yorkshire at Drax power station etc, C

Ay lad, funny lot out there it's almost SOUTH Yorkshire :eek3:

Shu, don't worry about the question we're unlikley to get to the answer so sit sit back and enjoy the ride (or better yet save the electric and go for a ride, which is exactly what I'm going to do as soon as I've had this cuppa and bacon butty). :mchappy:

Andy

Caminando 21 Apr 2010 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by shu... (Post 284531)
Maybe I'm missing the joke? After all I'm pretty new here, but this seems headed off in the wrong direction, eh?

What was the question, again? Something about cars running down motorcyclists?



..........shu

Hi Shu

What did you want to say about cars and bikes? :scooter::rofl:

shu... 21 Apr 2010 20:23

Nothing, after all. I took threewheelbonnie's advice and went for a ride instead.

:cool4:.............shu

Caminando 23 Apr 2010 14:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by shu... (Post 286121)
Nothing, after all.

:cool4:.............shu

:oops2::stormy::blushing:

Whynot 23 Apr 2010 14:54

How about this then?
in NZ a traffic cop pulled a U-turn on a blind crest and killed a biker.

Police U-turn death spurs review call - national | Stuff.co.nz

Caminando 23 Apr 2010 15:36

Quite horrific - but I'm not surprised no action was taken against the cop. They are often the worst lawbreakers and get away with murder.

acooshe 7 Oct 2010 23:21

:)?c??c?:funmeterno::ban::offtopic::offtopic:

oothef 8 Oct 2010 11:33

Wondering what's happening with this case? What would have been the outcome if the biker was a woman and the car driver a bloke.
:offtopic: Drax may be in Yorkshire but the last I heard, it is owned by Americans, may see you there next year Caminando...where do you usually work?

Caminando 8 Oct 2010 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by oothef (Post 308331)
Wondering what's happening with this case? What would have been the outcome if the biker was a woman and the car driver a bloke.
:offtopic: Drax may be in Yorkshire but the last I heard, it is owned by Americans, may see you there next year Caminando...where do you usually work?

Hi Oot, it's been a very long time since I worked in Drax/Eggborough. I'm not surprised that it's owned by non Brits. The UK has flogged off everything to anyone.

Now I dont work anywhere and am not in the UK.

Good roads!!!:scooter:

oothef 8 Oct 2010 19:51

Where ever you are, it's got to be better than Drax!
Chug on

GSPeter 9 Oct 2010 03:04

Is it OK.....
 
Just been run-down by a car driver, in one of the main roundabouts in Oslo. I’m OK, a bit battered and bruised, but the Geezer (R 80 GS Kalahari) needs a bit of TLC. From what I could see the right cylinder and carb took the initial impact, and there is some secondary damage from being thrown along the road.
“I can’t understand how I didn’t see you”, like I was trying to be invisible. He seemed like a nice guy, and so far he has put his hands in the air in his statement to the police. We will see how that goes when he has is told what his reckless driving is going to cost him.
I got an ambulance ride to the Emergency Hospital, more a precaution than a need, though the pain-killers were well-spent tax money. It’s now four in the morning, and difficult to find a comfortable position, but nothing a couple of shots can’t manage.
Ride safely
Peter, in Oslo

Threewheelbonnie 9 Oct 2010 08:26

Glad it wasn't any worse and hope you're feeling a bit better now.

Try not to worry about the legal stuff for now. If the car driver held his hands up last night and the police got it written down even the slipperiest lawyer is starting from behind. Bottom line though is that your health is way more important than any of that stuff.

Andy

Caminando 9 Oct 2010 10:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by GSPeter (Post 308418)
Just been run-down by a car driver, in one of the main roundabouts in Oslo. I’m OK, a bit battered and bruised, but the Geezer (R 80 GS Kalahari) needs a bit of TLC. From what I could see the right cylinder and carb took the initial impact, and there is some secondary damage from being thrown along the road.
“I can’t understand how I didn’t see you”, like I was trying to be invisible. He seemed like a nice guy, and so far he has put his hands in the air in his statement to the police. We will see how that goes when he has is told what his reckless driving is going to cost him.
I got an ambulance ride to the Emergency Hospital, more a precaution than a need, though the pain-killers were well-spent tax money. It’s now four in the morning, and difficult to find a comfortable position, but nothing a couple of shots can’t manage.
Ride safely
Peter, in Oslo

Glad you're alive Peter; its always shocking when you get attacked on the bike. It's good that the driver has admitted it is his fault. The main thing is you are in one piece:thumbup1:

indu 9 Oct 2010 12:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by oothef (Post 308331)
Wondering what's happening with this case?


The woman was recently convicted in the Appeal Court.

oothef 9 Oct 2010 14:15

Thanks Indu, sorry to hear peter, glad you are walking wounded. A good friends father was killed recently, on his way to the coast for the day, someone pulled out on him......

Scrabblebiker 9 Oct 2010 18:57

Thanks for posting the update, indu. That's wonderful news. It would be a very chilling message indeed if she had been acquitted again.

The consequences for motorcyclists, bicyclists, moped riders, pedestrians, children, etc would have been immense.


...Michelle
www.scrabblebiker.com

mark manley 16 Oct 2010 22:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by debseed (Post 281577)
Even though it is not illegal, you wouldn't be covered by insurance if you had an accident. :confused1:

Why not?

Threewheelbonnie 17 Oct 2010 07:51

I commented on this previously. You are fully covered. It's a surprisingly common misconception though and if riders don't know it's legal, fully insured and actually covered in the highway code as a warning to car drivers, what hope have we against the cretins who try and block and the mindless clowns who think putting an indicator on for three seconds is a substitute for using their door mirrors.

Filtering wise, Vive La France, most courteous drivers I know.

Andy


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:59.


vB.Sponsors