Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Kerry, here's the big thing, we have no proof that the white honda entered the intersection to "block the box" Blocking the box is standing in the intersection without the expectation to turn left. He's in the intersection, not moving, and being an obstruction to traffic and he remains there after the light is no longer in his favor. He's blocking to box. It doesn't matter if he intended to or not he's there being an obstruction to traffic, he's blocking the box, end of story. If the car in front of him broke down or had an accident maybe he could claim an exception due to immediate and extenuating circumstances, but this isn't a hard concept - whether he intends to block it or not he blocked it, and so did the other cars in front of him. The video started with him already there... I've been in situations before where the light is completely green, just turned green, then some asshole in front of me stopped or something else happened and the light turned... at that point the guy behind me is on my ass so I can't back up so my only choice is to continue to clear the intersection... you other option is to stop before you enter into the intersection. It's what you are expected to do. it was pretty cut and dry that the white honda was trying to clear the intersection Let's be realistic fore a second, we've all been in a similar situation before: traffic is crawling along for whatever reason and you get fed up and you try to press your luck by entering into the intersection so you don't get caught by the traffic light. That wasn't fast moving traffic that came to a stop immediately and caught people short, that was a bunch of people stuck in a high volume area going slow and either being pissed off that things are going so slow and not making good choices or generally being inattentive because they are stuck in traffic and killing time. Dude isn't turning left, all the circumstances point to him tying to beat the light. You can make up a million excuses for him to be there, but let's be real, he's in that intersection to beat the light. and the biker had rage, no argument here. Dude wasn't thinking clearly. tried to be the stereotypical tool biker who drives between cars, on burms etc... you and I have different stereotypes of motorcyclists. and hit the white honda... Actually that is a t-bone impact the honda hit him. Any ins company looking at the damage is going to say the car hit the motorcycle because the motorcycle damage is on the side and the car damage is on the front. He moved into the path of a moving car, but if you want to be semantically technical about it the car hit him. Don't confuse the physics of impact with the fault. He's completely at fault and I hope he is forced to go to some sort of drivers ed to learn to not drive with rage, obey laws, and is never allowed to drive a motorcycle again. He exercised poor decision making. I agree with drivers ed, but I also think the honda driver should go as well. Being situationally aware is also a responsibility of operating a motor vehicle and he contributed to a dangerous situation. Did he contribute as much? probably not but it takes two to have an accident and everybody in this situation made poor decisions. As for never being allowed to ride a bike again - Do you think people should get the death penalty for all their mistakes? dude made a mistake and it cost him a bike and probably some soft tissue pain. Hopefully he learned a lesson and will be more careful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 To state that the law is always shades of grey is a bit of a cop out, and to tell us that you could prove me wrong but you won't put the time into it without being paid is also a cop out. You can state that's it's due to conflict of interest if you like, however you've already given pretty public opinion regarding this. In addition, if you follow the link I posted earlier, it references a thread where you agreed with me when we were talking about a different scenario with similar characteristics. What was the purpose of the bankruptcy comment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyM3rC Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Sorry to interrupt, but both vehicles involved in the impact are white Hondas. Please carry on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Call it a cop out if you want. I still am more credible. the point of giving my personal opinion is so that it isn't confused with legal advice. If you want my professional advice with citations it costs me money, if you want to pay that cost I'm happy to do the work. Otherwise, I'll just rely on the fact that I know you are not more saavy than me in an industry I have been practicing for over a decade. The law is gray. no way around that, it's a fact. Call it a cop out if you want but if it wasn't there wouldn't really be a need for attorneys, judges, etc...It is how our legal system works and if you don't want to accept that I don't know what to tell you. If you want to live in a world that is black or white contrary to that you have to expect you are going to be wrong about stuff sometimes. You are talking about different situations. A lot of this stuff turns on nuances. You are right that in the instance of cars in the intersection turning left in the normal flow of traffic perpendicular traffic does have to wait till the intersection is clear. However, that applies to that circumstance. In this circumstance what you have is a disruption to the normal flow of traffic which changes the fact pattern. By your logic if the rule was hard and fast gridlock would bring all the traffic in major cities to a halt. When you are looking at "fault" in the accident for the purpose of civil damages you have to look at it big picture not small picture. What were all the circumstances that lead to the accident and how did they contribute. In this case we have a car illegally in the intersection, we have a motorcyclist who is not excising caution and may not be conceding right of way, we have a motorist who is not paying attention, we have a disruption of traffic flow. If there was a fatality in this accident the family of the motorcyclist would likely sue the the driver of the honda and the municipality for failing to properly control the intersection (if this is a common pile up which I am thinking it is). Would they win? who knows, cases like these would usually settle. Is the honda at fault? in the totality of the circumstances you can make a really good case for it. Is the municipality at fault? if they know about this traffic condition and didn't do anything to prevent it there is also a good case for it. Is the motorcyclist at fault - yeah but I wouldn't say 100% because that is just stupid because you need all these factors to come together to have the accident. Take the honda or the back up out of the equation and you don't have the accident as easily as if the motorcyclist had not been a dumbass. get it? the bankruptcy comment is just me taking the piss as the English say. you thought you were being all tough guy "calling me out" or some shit so I was basically saying if you can't afford to pay my fee cuz you are broke I do bankruptcy filings as well. You may not find it funny but I laughed at my own joke. So sue me. Also I don't really do bankruptcy filings so nobody PM me if you are actually needing someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Sorry to interrupt, but both vehicles involved in the impact are white Hondas. Please carry on. I was wondering when someone would point that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 I am not the type of person to give you credibility simply because you are an attorney. Here are the issues I have seen: 1) you have contradicted yourself multiple times. Most importantly, as I have already pointed out, in another thread you actually agreed with the same point you're now arguing against. 2) you're a bit wishy-washy when it comes to determining fault in this instance. If we read through this entire thread, it is difficult to determine a stance at all (especially after your last post), but you continue to argue regardless. It doesn't make a lot of sense. 3) I've read a lot of your posts on this, and many other, forums, dating back to 2005, on snopes, Buick boards, cafe racer, etc., to determine your personality, and it seems you don't hesitate to condescend. I don't like that, and other people should see it. You seem to present yourself as a subject matter expert with (seemingly) no basis. 4) you've attempted to distract my attention away from the current argument with an attack on our relative financial status. Not only is that petty, it's laughable. You can claim that you are a successful attorney who makes a ton of money and can therefore be condescending to others in that regard (see above point), but I think you and I know the truth. YOU have posted that you need to buy a salvage title vehicle to drive back and forth to work, YOU have stated you could not afford a 50 year old $5000 truck, and YOU have listed your wife's Audi as one of your cars. Enough people on this board are familiar with my financials that I don't need to defend myself, we can just say that when it comes to you and I, I'm not really threatened. But yes, I agree, your comment was funny (just not for the reason you think). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitgeist57 Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Whew! This thread hurts to read. I've got a brainache now. Gonna go lie down. Kerry, does CR collectively owe you $700 for the billable time you've invested in deciphering this video? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Whew! This thread hurts to read. I've got a brainache now. Gonna go lie down. Kerry, does CR collectively owe you $700 for the billable time you've invested in deciphering this video? not at all. if anything I probably owe you guys a coffee for all the good trolling I get out of this place. By the way I've seen your BMW in two places now but I keep missing meeting you in person somehow. I really have been making an effort to meet more people in person since this board is kinda fun. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 I am not the type of person to give you credibility simply because you are an attorney. Here are the issues I have seen: 1) you have contradicted yourself multiple times. Most importantly, as I have already pointed out, in another thread you actually agreed with the same point you're now arguing against. 2) you're a bit wishy-washy when it comes to determining fault in this instance. If we read through this entire thread, it is difficult to determine a stance at all (especially after your last post), but you continue to argue regardless. It doesn't make a lot of sense. 3) I've read a lot of your posts on this, and many other, forums, dating back to 2005, on snopes, Buick boards, cafe racer, etc., to determine your personality, and it seems you don't hesitate to condescend. I don't like that, and other people should see it. You seem to present yourself as a subject matter expert with (seemingly) no basis. 4) you've attempted to distract my attention away from the current argument with an attack on our relative financial status. Not only is that petty, it's laughable. You can claim that you are a successful attorney who makes a ton of money and can therefore be condescending to others in that regard (see above point), but I think you and I know the truth. YOU have posted that you need to buy a salvage title vehicle to drive back and forth to work, YOU have stated you could not afford a 50 year old $5000 truck, and YOU have listed your wife's Audi as one of your cars. Enough people on this board are familiar with my financials that I don't need to defend myself, we can just say that when it comes to you and I, I'm not really threatened. But yes, I agree, your comment was funny (just not for the reason you think). you are obviously butt hurt about this in real life so it isn't fun any more. How about this - you win the internet. All of it. 1) maybe I have and maybe I haven't. From this conversation I get the feeling where you think I contradicted myself you might not be understanding some part of the process or the nuances of how something worked. I could write a 50 volume encyclopedia on how much the average Americana doesn't know or understand about their legal system. I blame the educational system in this country (and obama just because). 2) it doesn't make a lot of sense to you. You want to be an advocate for something pick a side and make a well reasoned argument. I have yet to hear one that would stand up to scrutiny but the bones are there. I've stated my position quite clearly - everyone's at fault (including obama). 3) I have an internet stalker. I am touched. I think you can know as much about me from the internet as you could from reading a biography of Bea Arthur. 4) I attempted to make a joke because it is all funny to me. Even the arguing is sport. Just because it wasn't funny to you doesn't mean it wasn't funny to me. But I have an awful sense of humor. What's the other old joke? People become mental health professionals to save money, cops to avoid going to jail, and lawyers because as long as they are going to derive pleasure from pissing people off by being argumentative they might as well get paid for it (no disrespect to actual police or mental health professionals - I didn't write it, it really is an old joke). I didn't say it was in good taste. not that my finances are any of your business but it's not a matter of affording anything but rather justifying the expense. It's easier to say I can't afford something than it is to say I have discussed it with my wife and we agreed spending on a toy without selling off something else runs contrary to our current financial long term goals at this point in time. I already have more toys than I have room to keep them. As to my wife's Audi last I checked I bought it, my name is the only one on the title, I pay all the maintenance, and I can use it on the weekends to go to C&C, she just drives it to work. Again not that it is any of your business. I have a vehicle that runs great, I don't need to buy anything, but, like I imagine most of the people on here, I get hot flashes of desire to own kitschy cool junk cars to play around with like crap with salvage titles. I absolutely want to rebuild my Jeep because whatever you guys put on the roads here causes rust to grow faster than at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean, but as far as need? nope not a need, just a burning sensation in my loins to own a BMW e34 wagon, or an Audi GT coupe, or a subaru 2.5RS coupe or whatever the flavor of the hour is. But Like I said, you are taking this way too seriously right now so it isn't fun anymore. enjoy being champion of the internet, it was a hard won victory but yes you can haz cheesburger!!!!!you earned it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Bastard Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Eli doesn't really get butt hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Eli doesn't really get butt hurt. Could have fooled me. Actually to be honest I am a little disappointed more people didn't throw the bullshit penalty flag when I recommended someone pay me for my time to help them loose an internet argument. I mean it's pretty ridiculous, come on. Still doesn't mean I am wrong, but I know when someone starts spending their time reading old posts from me on other forums from 2005 it's a pretty good sign to punch out before I start coming home to boiled bunny rabbits (that's a "Fatal Attraction" reference for you youngins). Thank god he doesn't read CafeRacer.net, I'm intentionally an unbearable asshole there because it is hysterical to me and the regulars on there I know in person...oh wait he does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 No one needed to pay for you to lose (spelled it correctly for you, smart guy) your own argument. The rest of us knew what the outcome of this would be from the beginning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Eli doesn't really get butt hurt. The rest of us knew what the outcome of this would be from the beginning. He'll get it in a few years once he's CR Strong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokin5s Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Blocking the box is standing in the intersection without the expectation to turn left. He's in the intersection, not moving, and being an obstruction to traffic and he remains there after the light is no longer in his favor. He's blocking to box. It doesn't matter if he intended to or not he's there being an obstruction to traffic, he's blocking the box, end of story. If the car in front of him broke down or had an accident maybe he could claim an exception due to immediate and extenuating circumstances, but this isn't a hard concept - whether he intends to block it or not he blocked it, and so did the other cars in front of him. he's not moving because the person in front of him stopped... We have no idea what the circumstances were moving up to that event. The light was probably green when he entered the intersection. you other option is to stop before you enter into the intersection. It's what you are expected to do. Again, we have no idea what his circumstances were Let's be realistic fore a second, we've all been in a similar situation before: traffic is crawling along for whatever reason and you get fed up and you try to press your luck by entering into the intersection so you don't get caught by the traffic light. That wasn't fast moving traffic that came to a stop immediately and caught people short, that was a bunch of people stuck in a high volume area going slow and either being pissed off that things are going so slow and not making good choices or generally being inattentive because they are stuck in traffic and killing time. Dude isn't turning left, all the circumstances point to him tying to beat the light. You can make up a million excuses for him to be there, but let's be real, he's in that intersection to beat the light. the reality is, I have NEVER yes NEVER purposely put myself in the middle of an intersection when I thought the light was getting ready to turn red. You again are making an asumption and as a lawyer, you are supposed to state facts not make an asumption no argument here. Dude wasn't thinking clearly. WERD you and I have different stereotypes of motorcyclists. I would agree with that statement. I think bikes are awesome, etc... but I've seen way to many bikes especially in traffic cut people off, drive down the burm, drive between cars, etc... You'd be a fool if you said this wasn't a common occurance Actually that is a t-bone impact the honda hit him. Any ins company looking at the damage is going to say the car hit the motorcycle because the motorcycle damage is on the side and the car damage is on the front. He moved into the path of a moving car, but if you want to be semantically technical about it the car hit him. Don't confuse the physics of impact with the fault. Again.... trying to clear the intersection... and as far as insurance is concerned... bike caused failure to maintain safe driving distance... He exercised poor decision making. I agree with drivers ed, but I also think the honda driver should go as well. Being situationally aware is also a responsibility of operating a motor vehicle and he contributed to a dangerous situation. Did he contribute as much? probably not but it takes two to have an accident and everybody in this situation made poor decisions. The Honda was in the intersection but trying to clear it as he should have, this accident is the bikes fault, plain and simple As for never being allowed to ride a bike again - Do you think people should get the death penalty for all their mistakes? dude made a mistake and it cost him a bike and probably some soft tissue pain. Hopefully he learned a lesson and will be more careful. Come on dude, that is a huge stretch and we both know it. As far as death penalty, I'm squarely against it... if one person is put to death and was innocent then the whole system is flawed.... plus I believe you can't uphold the law by breaking it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokin5s Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 4) you've attempted to distract my attention away from the current argument with an attack on our relative financial status. Not only is that petty, it's laughable. You can claim that you are a successful attorney who makes a ton of money and can therefore be condescending to others in that regard (see above point), but I think you and I know the truth. YOU have posted that you need to buy a salvage title vehicle to drive back and forth to work, YOU have stated you could not afford a 50 year old $5000 truck, and YOU have listed your wife's Audi as one of your cars. Enough people on this board are familiar with my financials that I don't need to defend myself, we can just say that when it comes to you and I, I'm not really threatened. But yes, I agree, your comment was funny (just not for the reason you think). Dude, just because he lists his wife's cars doesn't mean he's poor or stating he can't afford that truck, maybe he thinks it's not worth that kind of money and he's trying to be nice about it... I've said that before and I drive a car more expensive than 5k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airwg2189 Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 I would agree with that statement. I think bikes are awesome, etc... but I've seen way to many bikes especially in traffic cut people off, drive down the burm, drive between cars, etc... You'd be a fool if you said this wasn't a common occurance Might wanna cool your jets and accept the idea of lane splitting before it becomes legal in the rest of the United States (it's coming). It's been proven to reduce traffic congestion as a whole and be much safer for motorcyclists at red lights. The video is NOT an example of splitting though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattKatz Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 I am not the type of person to give you credibility simply because you are an attorney. Here are the issues I have seen: 1) you have contradicted yourself multiple times. Most importantly, as I have already pointed out, in another thread you actually agreed with the same point you're now arguing against. 2) you're a bit wishy-washy when it comes to determining fault in this instance. If we read through this entire thread, it is difficult to determine a stance at all (especially after your last post), but you continue to argue regardless. It doesn't make a lot of sense. 3) I've read a lot of your posts on this, and many other, forums, dating back to 2005, on snopes, Buick boards, cafe racer, etc., to determine your personality, and it seems you don't hesitate to condescend. I don't like that, and other people should see it. You seem to present yourself as a subject matter expert with (seemingly) no basis. 4) you've attempted to distract my attention away from the current argument with an attack on our relative financial status. Not only is that petty, it's laughable. You can claim that you are a successful attorney who makes a ton of money and can therefore be condescending to others in that regard (see above point), but I think you and I know the truth. YOU have posted that you need to buy a salvage title vehicle to drive back and forth to work, YOU have stated you could not afford a 50 year old $5000 truck, and YOU have listed your wife's Audi as one of your cars. Enough people on this board are familiar with my financials that I don't need to defend myself, we can just say that when it comes to you and I, I'm not really threatened. But yes, I agree, your comment was funny (just not for the reason you think). Dude...I don't know you, but the more you try to argue your point, the more of an idiot you look like to me and surely at least one other..So if it were me id just STFU. However, now I am sure I will get a smart ass comment toward me....So feel free to take a shot and humor yourself, I wont be offended or baited into your obvious trolling tactics of boredom. Have a nice day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 Dude...I don't know you, but the more you try to argue your point, the more of an idiot you look like to me and surely at least one other. Do I? I argued that when a car is in the intersection before the light turns red, it has the right of way, even if the light turns green. http://i.imgur.com/0CjE9W8.png Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokin5s Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 Might wanna cool your jets and accept the idea of lane splitting before it becomes legal in the rest of the United States (it's coming). It's been proven to reduce traffic congestion as a whole and be much safer for motorcyclists at red lights. The video is NOT an example of splitting though. there's no way that could become legal... it's dangerous to have a bike try to drive in between cars.... that's retarded to think it wouldn't be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 It's legal in CA. I hated it when driving out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyM3rC Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 there's no way that could become legal... it's dangerous to have a bike try to drive in between cars.... that's retarded to think it wouldn't be. Lane splitting was already covered in a different thread: http://www.columbusracing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120338&highlight=lane+splitting Let's let geeto and mensan flame on in peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowflake Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 It'd be nice if that one dude would just shut the fuck up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.