Scruit Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 you can argue duress, I guessAbsolutely I would argue duress. His chocies were to report it as an accident and get a bunch of tickets, or ride away and pretend I never rear-ended you. Cop had the advantage of a huge power disparity and that was not a choice he should have given the rider - it should have been to simply report the accident or not. Tickets are another matter and should not be used as abargaining chip to save yourself the embarrasment of an accident report.Having said that - it may not even have been an accident. Doesn't there have to be damage or injuries for it to be considered an accident? Was the bike dagames, or was it pushbar-to-tire? If it was the latter, no reprotable "traffic accident" occurred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 Investigation under way now...http://www.8newsnow.com/story/21479236/youtube-video-shows-metro-officer-rear-ending-motorcyclist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeefZah Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 This removed the integrity of your post for me. The cop would intentionally follow closer than usual...and still not be at fault for a rear-end collision?If in fact that's what he was doing, and how close he was, I would point out it's kind of hard to read a motorcycle plate from more than about 20 feet back, the letters being 1 inch tall and such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerpaw Posted March 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 If in fact that's what he was doing, and how close he was, I would point out it's kind of hard to read a motorcycle plate from more than about 20 feet back, the letters being 1 inch tall and such.Negative. You only drive/follow within your abilities to remain safe. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeefZah Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 Investigation under way now...http://www.8newsnow.com/story/21479236/youtube-video-shows-metro-officer-rear-ending-motorcyclistThe article states, although no corroborating evidence is given, that the rider has a history of deliberately causing accidents.If true, that might account for why he was filming a mundane ride from point A to point B through the city.The comments would also seem to indicate, from people who claim to know him, that he is an aggressive, risk taking rider; and also note that his riding skills in traffic seem sub par. While none of that has anything to do with the conduct of the officer after the crash, it sure might contribute to the crash itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerpaw Posted March 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 The article states, although no corroborating evidence is given, that the rider has a history of deliberately causing accidents.If true, that would be weird. Also, if he was "known" for these accidents, officers would keep better trailing distances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeefZah Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 Negative. You only drive/follow within your abilities to remain safe. Period.So a Crown Vic and a 600cc sport bike are traveling at 45 mph on the road, and the bike stops abruptly.Will the Crown Vic, driven by a competent driver and in good mechanical condition, be able to stop as fast as the motorcycle; and stop fast enough to avoid hitting the motorcycle; at a safe following distance of 50 feet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerpaw Posted March 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 The vehicles involved should not matter...You only drive/follow within your abilities to remain safe.If an officer feels he must breach that safety zone, he should turn on his lights, to initiate a stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shittygsxr Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 So a Crown Vic and a 600cc sport bike are traveling at 45 mph on the road, and the bike stops abruptly.Will the Crown Vic, driven by a competent driver and in good mechanical condition, be able to stop as fast as the motorcycle; and stop fast enough to avoid hitting the motorcycle; at a safe following distance of 50 feet?Safe following distance is the distance required to stop and not hit the vehicle in front of you. It is not measured in feet, time or any other units Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeefZah Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 Safe following distance is the distance required to stop and not hit the vehicle in front of you. It is not measured in feet, time or any other unitsDistance is always measured in feet (or some other unit). By it's very definition it is not an intangible thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerpaw Posted March 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 Distance is always measured in feet (or some other unit). By it's very definition it is not an intangible thing.Thank you Captain Obvious. Are you related to this cop or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 Distance is always measured in feet (or some other unit). By it's very definition it is not an intangible thing.The key here is "assured clear distance". That is dependent on speed, traction, braking characteristics of your vehicle, etc. It's the responsibility of the driver to process all those factors and set his distance appropriately. If you CAN stop in time when the driver in front of you emergency stops then you DID have enough distance. If you CANNOT stop in time, then you DID NOT have enough distance.That's not measured in feet. From a purely legal/ACDA perspective, it's measured in "collision" or "no collision".Would the cop yell at the biker if the biker stopped for a kid running out into the street?Looks like the biker may have seen the cop getting close and figured he'd scare the cop using the merging car as cover. There was no reason to stop completely. REGARDLESS: The cop was too close. There was a collision, therefore he was too close. It's really that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8Rider6 Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 Distance is always measured in feet (or some other unit). By it's very definition it is not an intangible thing.Yes, but it's not a "safe following distance of 50 feet" if they still rear-ended someone... A safe following distance is the distance required to brake and NOT hit the vehicle in front of you, regardless of when or why they hit their brakes.Even before I starting riding, I always gave motorcycles more space because they can stop faster. Also bike riders often tend to be more unpredictable than cars (squids, etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeefZah Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 Thank you Captain Obvious. Are you related to this cop or something?He's my brother, but I'm Patrolman Obvious. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 it's understandable that the captain might be drafting him while pulling the bike's plate in preparation for a stop.This "drafting" technique you speak of is not safe and shouldn't be part of a protect the public mentality; at a minimum it borders harassment. It is one of the reasons I quit allowing our local police department to get close to me on a motorcycle.If in fact that's what he was doing, and how close he was, I would point out it's kind of hard to read a motorcycle plate from more than about 20 feet back, the letters being 1 inch tall and such.Stated earlier, initiate a lights on safe distance stop. Trolling for something wrong by putting a rider in jeopardy is criminal. Do you stop people for open carrying just to see if you can find something wrong to jam them up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapesmuggler27 Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 Shit just got real Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fazer1sniper Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.21Unless traffic laws are way different in Vegas, This is the OHIO law. Bottom line is this would be a traffic violation to the trailing vehicle in motion that struck the vehicle in front in motion, slowing or stopped. Hell, I even showed the vid to a OSP Trooper. He said Police cruiser is at fault. BUT.... What Happens in Vegas.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeefZah Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511.21Unless traffic laws are way different in Vegas, This is the OHIO law. Bottom line is this would be a traffic violation to the trailing vehicle in motion that struck the vehicle in front in motion, slowing or stopped. Hell, I even showed the vid to a OSP Trooper. He said Police cruiser is at fault. BUT.... What Happens in Vegas....If we are going strictly by the video and not accounting for any violations having occurred prior, it appears the captain is at fault for ACDA and the rider is at fault for impeding the flow of traffic. Primary cause of the crash can be argued, it's a chicken and egg scenario. Do you stop people for open carrying just to see if you can find something wrong to jam them up?Running a plate is different than making a stop, and conducting a traffic stop is different then stopping someone for open carry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shittygsxr Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 "Impeding the flow of traffic" Really? You're going to go there? I bet your nightstick is the smallest in your deRpartment.Probably has a small dick too 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeefZah Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 "Impeding the flow of traffic" Really? You're going to go there? I bet your nightstick is the smallest in your deRpartment.So you think stopping in the middle of a 4+ lane road with traffic behind you moving at 45+ mph' date=' for no clear reason, is appropriate and legal behavior?Probably has a small dick tooMy penis is ridiculously tiny, actually. Plus I have a gut which sort of overlaps it. Your girlfriend played hell getting to it, but she's a tenacious little skank. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapesmuggler27 Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 Ive been to vegas at least 15 times and have never seen traffic on that road flowing at 45 mph the guy on the bike slowed down to allow enough room for him to stay clear of the car and allow the car room to get in front of him. The over zealous prick cop was unable to maintain a safe clear distance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shittygsxr Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 So you think stopping in the middle of a 4+ lane road with traffic behind you moving at 45+ mph, for no clear reason, is appropriate and legal behavior?My penis is ridiculously tiny, actually. Plus I have a gut which sort of overlaps it. Your girlfriend played hell getting to it, but she's a tenacious little skank.That is why she is my girlfriend. With a wife at home I wouldn't want a girlfriend that isn't a skank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcat6183 Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 Dude how did I miss this developing story, and by story I mean thread. This has all the chances to make my Friday before Jennings not blow.Please continue, I especially like the inclusion of GF's and sexual favors, alway's a classy touch.In before this goes to off topic, or locked. Ben, at least give it until 5pm tomorrow, I need this in my life right now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerpaw Posted March 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 So you think stopping in the middle of a 4+ lane road with traffic behind you moving at 45+ mph, for no clear reason, is appropriate and legal behavior?"The middle of a 4+ lane road" is not an accurate description of the video posted.Who cares if the bike displays appropriate or legal behavior...you don't try to run him over. Then cop an attitude. Then abuse your authority to bully your way out of a legally required action.I think defending his actions is worse than the actual event:nono: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) If we are going strictly by the video and not accounting for any violations having occurred prior, it appears the captain is at fault for ACDA and the rider is at fault for impeding the flow of traffic. Primary cause of the crash can be argued, it's a chicken and egg scenario.im guessing you mean 4511.22 as "impeding the flow of traffic"4511.22 Slow speed.(A) No person shall stop or operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or street car at such an unreasonably slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.boom. roasted.1. blocking the reasonable movement of traffic? doubtful. you can see the car in front is braking too. everyone is slowing down.2. necessary for safe operation. that car has its turn signal on. as riders, we know that you dont want to get up next to a car that is signalling that it wants to get in your lane. cars don't see bikes. just like the video with the caddy... there is no chicken and egg scenario. you are responsible for leaving a safe stopping distance, period. the only way the bike would be at fault would be if he was reversing up the street, or stopped for absolutely no reason to try to intentionally cause an accident. obviously there is a reason he is slowing down. if there was no traffic anywhere and he just stopped. then yes, i would agree, but its very clear watching the video that his slowing is necessary for safe operation.traffic is not moving at 45+ either, so im not really sure where that came from. Edited March 8, 2013 by John 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.