Mensan Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 Actually you would be wrong about this. Nope. I'm not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 Nope. I'm not. prove it. (with proper citations and relevant case law). I'll wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 prove it. (with proper citations and relevant case law). I'll wait. While you're waiting, why don't you prove your argument with proper citations and case law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o0n8 Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 Just because you have a green light doesn't mean you should proceed. That goes for both parties involved. No matter who is at fault, the real loser here is us. No one died so they are still driving/riding the streets of Columbus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 While you're waiting, why don't you prove your argument with proper citations and case law. I get paid for that kind of work. I accept checks, cash, and credit cards via paypal. :dumb: No matter who is at fault, the real loser here is us. No one died so they are still driving/riding the streets of Columbus. This 1000%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 I get paid for that kind of work. I accept checks, cash, and credit cards via paypal. :dumb: So you can't prove your own point. Very well, I accept your admission of defeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 So you can't prove your own point. Very well, I accept your admission of defeat. I do filing for bankruptcy too if you can't afford to hire me to prove you wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 If I ever get this careless about riding it's time to hang it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Alex- Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 My question is, where was the white honda going to go? The cars in front of him hadn't started moving so why was he moving at all? Either he recognized he had done something improper and was trying to undue it or he was going to try and stop the motorcyclist from passing between him and the car in front (which he was already tailgating). At that point by being in the intersection (along with all those other morons) he was unnecessarily creating a dangerous situation. He was turning right. You can see his wheels are turned before he moves forward and after the accident. Rider sounds and acts like a twat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 While you are correct in stating that you should not enter an intersection unless you can clear it, in this instance we are talking about the collision. In the case of the bike entering the intersection, he was absolutely in the wrong for entering while the intersection was full of cars. If you feel the driver of the white car, along with the other drivers in the intersection, should be cited, then I won't argue; but the accident is 100% the fault of the biker who had no business in an intersection not yet clear. Actually you would be wrong about this. If the car in the intersection is not able to clear but is there as an obstruction (like if they are broken down, or there is an accident, or in this case just plain stupid) the proper course of action is to proceed with caution if possible. If you want to make the argument that the biker did not proceed with caution I agree with you he did not. If you are making the argument that by law the intersection should remain gridlocked, well I can't support that as a matter of law or common sense. In this case there was an, albeit small, window of travel for the motorcyclist to proceed and not contribute to the problem. It is withing the judgement of the rider to determine whether it is safe to proceed and how to proceed with caution and in this case the motorcyclist exercised extremely poor judgement. My question is, where was the white honda going to go? The cars in front of him hadn't started moving so why was he moving at all? Either he recognized he had done something improper and was trying to undue it or he was going to try and stop the motorcyclist from passing between him and the car in front (which he was already tailgating). At that point by being in the intersection (along with all those other morons) he was unnecessarily creating a dangerous situation. regardless of who got cited for what after the fact each party owes their share of stupid to this situation and that is probably how the insurance company is going to take it. split the liability, honda dude gets a new bumper, biker dude gets a writeoff. http://www.columbusracing.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1827637&postcount=14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excell Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 I don't know why I'm posting on this... but... As a bike rider (pedal) in DC, this happens all the time. Traffic backs up into the intersection and the light changes. I entered intersections like this all the time on my bike, but the difference is I proceed slowly, with caution, and I do not cross in front of a vehicle until I make eye contact with the driver. No eye contact, no going in front of a car. I have seen other (pedal) bikers hit in this exact same situation because they barreled into the intersection and didn't make sure they were seen and safe to cross. It doesn't matter if the cars are at fault for being in the intersection -- the motorcycle guy was entitled, careless, and completely disregarded his own safety and the safety of others in the way he barreled into the intersection. It literally wouldn't have killed him to cross with caution and beep at the driver of the white car so he knew he was crossing. For fuck's sake people, the black and white legality doesn't matter. We're all humans, we make mistakes, and we need to be more patient and less omnipotent with each other especially when lives are at stake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 It doesn't matter if the cars are at fault for being in the intersection It DOES matter, because Geeto is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excell Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 It DOES matter, because Geeto is wrong. I'm reminded of another example of this I witnessed a couple years ago. Same situation -- intersection blocked by cars, light changed, other traffic had to wait. In DC it's common for pedestrians to J-walk using the crosswalk on an intersection that's blocked by traffic. If the intersection is gridlocked, people are going to walk it, illegal or not. As a (pedal) biker, you get used to watching not only the cars and making eye contact so you don't get killed, but also for peds J-walking so you don't hit their stupid asses and kill both of you. I was going through the intersection when this dude on a scooter went flying into the intersection and crossed in front of a bus. Coming up the side of the bus was a child -- 5 years old -- who broke free from his parents at the intersection and started running to the other side because he thought it was safe since others were J-walking/crossing. The scooter never saw this little boy coming. He hit the kid at about 25mph, knocked him 50 feet down the street, and killed him instantly. Right there in front of me. Was the boy wrong for going into the intersection? Yes. Were his parents wrong for not keeping a leash on him? Yes. Were the other J-walkers wrong for encouraging his behavior? Yes. Were the cars wrong for blocking the intersection in the first place? Yes. But if that scooter had given even a single fuck to his own safety, let alone the safety of others, that kid wouldn't have died in a pool of his own blood on G street in front of his parents. It's not black and white. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattKatz Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 This. +1. It's called "blocking the box", is illegal in most states (including this one) and is the #1 contributor to grid lock. given the number of fucks given to other traffic laws in this city (hint: 0) I'm not surprised most people don't know this (and also what a yield sign means, or how to merge, or that the left lane is the passing lane, or what that flashy light and clicky sound are when they move one of the stalks on the steering column). In NY they actually paint a grid pattern on the intersection and will have revenue collectors...oops I mean officers that will write tickets for getting caught in the intersection. I have no sympathy for people who are not situationally aware enough to realize they are actually causing a dangerous gridlock situation. I'm not saying the motorcyclist is not at fault either, it's very much his fault. I've shot the gap many times, the way to proceed is slowly, honking your horn, and make eye contact with the driver you are passing in front of before you pass in front of his car. normally I would recommend going behind the white Honda but I don't think there was room for him to do so without ending up on the sidewalk. So everybody is stupid, everybody pays the toll for being stupid, nobody died, and hopefully one pissed off squid learned a lesson about how to proceed through a crowded intersection. Nobody died so I guess it was a good day.Agree with all said. Actually you would be wrong about this. If the car in the intersection is not able to clear but is there as an obstruction (like if they are broken down, or there is an accident, or in this case just plain stupid) the proper course of action is to proceed with caution if possible. If you want to make the argument that the biker did not proceed with caution I agree with you he did not. If you are making the argument that by law the intersection should remain gridlocked, well I can't support that as a matter of law or common sense. In this case there was an, albeit small, window of travel for the motorcyclist to proceed and not contribute to the problem. It is withing the judgement of the rider to determine whether it is safe to proceed and how to proceed with caution and in this case the motorcyclist exercised extremely poor judgement. My question is, where was the white honda going to go? The cars in front of him hadn't started moving so why was he moving at all? Either he recognized he had done something improper and was trying to undue it or he was going to try and stop the motorcyclist from passing between him and the car in front (which he was already tailgating). At that point by being in the intersection (along with all those other morons) he was unnecessarily creating a dangerous situation. regardless of who got cited for what after the fact each party owes their share of stupid to this situation and that is probably how the insurance company is going to take it. split the liability, honda dude gets a new bumper, biker dude gets a writeoff. Once again I agree here as well. It DOES matter, because Geeto is wrong. I don't think so scooter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 If you are making the argument that by law the intersection should remain gridlocked, well I can't support that as a matter of law or common sense. ORC 4511.712 reads pretty clearly but for those that don't understand it in laymans terms: No driver shall enter an intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection, crosswalk, to accommodate the vehicle without obstructing the passage of other vehicles without them being held back by a traffic control signal indication to proceed. In this case the bike was being held back by a red light at the time the Honda crossed into the intersection. The bike was not given an indication or means to proceed until later. In the case of the white honda, he legally entered the intersection and had the right of way. Regardless of his ultimate "blocking of the box" the fact stands that any vehicle in the intersection has the right of way first even after the motorcycle received a green light. Want to argue that in court, it won't likely happen. My wife worked for the prosecutors office and in this instance even she said the cop was smart for not citing the Honda as it would do nothing and would get tossed/negotiated out in this case. Don't like it, then go work for the prosecutors office and see if you can make it stick. One could easily argue that based on the distances between the cars already present in front of him and the light being green at the time he entered that his judgement and intent was to clear the intersection. If you want to make the argument that the biker did not proceed with caution I agree with you he did not. In this case there was an, albeit small, window of travel for the motorcyclist to proceed and not contribute to the problem.It's not just he didn't proceed with caution, he flat did not yield to the vehicle in the intersection. There's not allowance for a "small window". He has to yield to the Honda, no exception. His failure to do so is considered negligence and puts him at fault as the one who's actions caused the accident. In this case both are guilty of pure contributory negligence thus why neither driver was cited as at fault. The Honda for blocking the box and the bike for not yielding. It is withing the judgement of the rider to determine whether it is safe to proceed and how to proceed with caution and in this case the motorcyclist exercised extremely poor judgement. Incorrect. There's no judgement call on either drivers part that enters into the equation. You must yield to the car in the intersection who entered said intersection on a green light. They have the right of way not you. Honk all you want, hit them and you're liable. My question is, where was the white honda going to go? At that point by being in the intersection (along with all those other morons) he was unnecessarily creating a dangerous situation. If he has no where to go, tough. No one can touch him at that point if he's boxed in. A LEO could see him and cite him for a minor misdemeanor but overall if he can't move due to traffic, feel free to honk all you want if you hit him, your at fault. He's simply negligent for not clearing the intersection. regardless of who got cited for what after the fact each party owes their share of stupid to this situation and that is probably how the insurance company is going to take it. split the liabilityit's called contributory negligence not split liability. they are both guilty of contributory negligence but the biker is far worse as he also failed to yield the right of way. It DOES matter, because Geeto is wrong. meh....not wrong but not completely correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Agree with all said. Once again I agree here as well. I don't think so scooter. Thank you for your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 If you have a green light and enter an intersection that you know you can't clear before it turns red you suck at driving. Sit at the green light like a normal person. If someone honks at you give them the finger. If you have a green light and think you can clear the intersection but can't try your fucking hardest to get as away from the intersection as much as possible. If you do anything else you are an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Alex- Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Geeto67 started typing his response 4 hours ago and is still typing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Sorry, I got busy. So here is the issue: the law is never black or white, but always shades of gray. The only one who can actually determine fault is a judge. Everything we say, everything the cops say, before that is all opinion and accusation. If you are asking who should be cited in the case for a violation, the answer is they both should be. The Honda for illegally blocking the intersection and the motorcycle for either, depending on what camp you fall in, failing to yield or Failing to proceed with caution. Just because it won't "make a good case" for some external factor is not an indication that a law wasn't broken. If a ticket is issued at an accident scene by an officer that didn't witness the accident it is usually almost meaningless, they write them so they can justify their report and give the insurance companies something to work off of, but if you receive one fight it, it will usually be tossed because the officer didn't witness the accident. Why do we care who is at fault? Because that determines who pays who damages for their vehicle. If you asked me to represent the biker in a civil case (remember accidents are mostly a civil matter) could I make a good case for contributory negligence on the part of the Honda my answer would be yes I could easily. Would it be 50/50? Probably not, but it wouldn't be 90/10 either (if I had to guess I could probably get 70/30). But as no one was severely injured I probably wouldn't have to because insurance would take care of it (assuming both parties have insurance). So let's talk about how insurance would handle it. As you know your insurance company subrogates your rights and handles the case with the other drivers insurance company. But the insurance company isn't driven by principles of right and wrong, they are driven by money. Cases like these with gray areas of fault are often split, however if the damages are really low (which the they look like they might be) the companies might just agree to split it 50/50 just to keep things moving and so they don't have to get tied up in negotiating a settlement or court paperwork, or they might bundle it with other cases as part of a negotiation to settle with the other ins company, or they might just figure its is not even worth it to fight and one pays the other's damages. Remember it is the insurance company's motivation to fix or replace your vehicle and do it spending as little money as possible. If this were a case with more damages (I.e someone was seriously injured or died) actual fault would matter more, but there is less than $10k in damage total to both vehicles even if the bike is a write off so from personal experience this is how I see the two insurance companies handling it: they review the case and ask if each wants to take care if their own insured (50/50). This works in the favor of the Honda drivers insurance company because he has less damage and it might be small enough that it's in the best interest for that company to just accept it because it's cheaper than wasting resources to continue to fight the other ins company for reduced or zero negligence. However they just as easily could have used this case as leverage for settling another case, if the two carriers are big enough they have multiple cases together they could settle the claims in bulk where they pair it with another bad case and everything averages out. Or if honda guys insurance is sufficiently stubborn bike guys insurance might just take the hit if it is not worth it. This is assuming both vehicles have collision coverage which they very well might not. If one or neither has collision coverage then the game is different, if neither has coverage then it becomes how cheap can I really get out of this and the bikers insurance would likely pay for the Honda bumper because that is the least amount of money one can spend on this case. If one party has insurance and one does not the party without collision insurance then the insurance company with no collision liability is going to fight harder because they can reduce their exposure significantly. I don't know if Ohio has this law, but in NY if you are driving illegally without insurance then any accidents are usually treated as your fault. If the biker was left permanently injured (I.e he lost a body part or something) or killed, well then this case might go a lot differently and fault would actually be a deciding factor as there would likely be a wrongful death suit. As it stands both people are morons, both people contributed to this accident situation, and as someone said before we all lose because both are going to continue driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 By the way, citing the letter of the statute is not how law is practiced. What every real lawyer knows and most keyboard lawyers don't is that actual enforcement of the law is the statute plus the body of case law, and any areas of ambiguity are opportunities for the lawyer to make a case and help flesh out law. If your lawyer just stated the letter of the statute in practice and then stated his argument as to why it is in your favor without case law support you would be completely right to fire him for incompetence. As an attorney I have to be careful what I say everywhere because it can accidentally create a client relationship. If I startvresearching stuff and providing advice beyond mere exposition and you take that advice - well let's just say the law is fuzzy in this area and move on. Lawyers don't know this stuff off the top of their heads, they have to research it like everyone else, and westlaw and lexis cost money. If mensen wants real legal advice in this he can pay my costs to look it up and I'll give him client service like I would any other client. If not he can look it up himself the old fashioned way at the library using actual books (hint: as an inexpirenced law student this takes about a week to do). For now he can take my opinion as someone who has practiced in the field and knows the ambiguities and external factors of the practice. Incidentally, the best "keyboard lawyers" I see are usually convicts serving time (more than 3 years) as they have the time and the motivation to give themselves law school educations. So if you are a bad keyboard lawyer don't sweat it, it just means you aren't doing a 10 year bid somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spectragod Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 ^^^^^figured to be an attorney^^^^^, you can't figure out who's ......watch the video. We cannot determine if the car blocked the intersection intentionally, we can figure the dude on the bike was having a rage moment, watch the video...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 ^^^^^figured to be an attorney^^^^^, you can't figure out who's ......watch the video. We cannot determine if the car blocked the intersection intentionally, we can figure the dude on the bike was having a rage moment, watch the video...... Does intention matter? When the video starts you can already see traffic blocking the intersection including the Honda. This isn't a question of whether he intended to block the intersection - the intention question come later when you try to figure out whether it was his intention to turn right all along and I submit that it was not because he's already perpendicular to the lane he would have turned right, this is whether he had a right to be standing in that intersection and based on what I see he did not. Since you are a LEO, if you came upon this situation without the accident component - just a bunch if cars blocking an intersection what would you do? Nothing? Clear the intersection and Direct traffic or call in someone to direct traffic to prevent the dangerous situation from getting worse? Cite everyone in that line of cars blocking the intersection? What if you came upon this situation while responding to a call and couldn't get through? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokin5s 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" 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... it was pretty cut and dry that the white honda was trying to clear the intersection and the biker had rage, tried to be the stereotypical tool biker who drives between cars, on burms etc... and hit the white honda... 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Does intention matter? When the video starts you can already see traffic blocking the intersection including the Honda. This isn't a question of whether he intended to block the intersection - the intention question come later when you try to figure out whether it was his intention to turn right all along and I submit that it was not because he's already perpendicular to the lane he would have turned right, this is whether he had a right to be standing in that intersection and based on what I see he did not. are we trying this case in the court of CR? I guess we are. Intention plays into this as the laws are going to be interpreted as to what a reasonable person would do. Given everyone on CR is 100% reasonable and never done this, the responses are predictable, but there's always entertainment in court. Do the facts support an intention to block the interesection and clearly not give a fuck? I don't think so. There were clearly several cars in gridlock with space between them and it could easiliy be argued that with a green light and right of way to enter the intersection, visible space ahead of the cars also in the intersection he made a reasonable decision to enter feeling he and the others would clear the intersection in time. Been there myself and will likely be there again. Were the results different, yes but he wasn't intentionally breaking the law thus to an LEO he could go either way with this. Ignorance does yield a way out but as noted, there's room for interpretation and an LEO has that ability. As to turning right, it's clear the guy wasn't trying to nor did he admit he was. He was simply intending to move over to the right to allow for cars to pass. Not what I would have done but is it reasonable? Leave that to a judge. Since you are a LEO, if you came upon this situation without the accident component - just a bunch if cars blocking an intersection what would you do? Nothing? Clear the intersection and Direct traffic or call in someone to direct traffic to prevent the dangerous situation from getting worse? Cite everyone in that line of cars blocking the intersection? Likely nothing unless there was some clear ass-hat behavior. I have however regularly seen Perry Township pull people over minutes later as the Sawmill/270 ramp is common place for this and right in front of their station. What if you came upon this situation while responding to a call and couldn't get through?Sidewalk it. In this situation, there was plenty of room for cars to move and allow for an ER Vehicle to pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 it was pretty cut and dry that the white honda was trying to clear the intersection and the biker had rage, tried to be the stereotypical tool biker who drives between cars, on burms etc... and hit the white honda... 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. ^^ this. Not sure what the Hondas driving record is like but the biker has two accidents and posted both. One not his fault but clearly at age 21 to have laid down a bike twice.....definitely not what I'd consider a safe/defensive driver. Also his reaction vs the others is not doing him any favors. Bike rider got what he deserved except for perhaps a ticket. 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.