Who's at fault?

[Danoff]

To the main topic, I think both parties involved have played their part in this. It's unfortunate that it came down to such a bad ending.

How very non-committal of you. Do explain what you think the range rover driver did wrong... and I'll even start off by conceding that it's possible he should have driven more defensively in the first place.

 

[Nicksfix]

How very non-committal of you. Do explain what you think the range rover driver did wrong... and I'll even start off by conceding that it's possible he should have driven more defensively in the first place.

Pretty simple actually .....
1) Did or did not the driver of the SUV hit a biker ?
2) Did or did not the driver of the SUV speed off and hit more bikers ?

Thus is his part , comprende ? You even answered it.

I'll even start off by conceding that it's possible he should have driven more defensively in the first place.

 

[Grayfox]

Pretty simple actually .....
1) Did or did not the driver of the SUV hit a biker ?
2) Did or did not the driver of the SUV speed off and hit more bikers ?

Thus is his part , comprende ? You even answered it.

1) Do you know it is illegal to brake check or brake for no reason as it poses a danger.
2) You would stay with those bikers smsahing in your windows or would you force you way out in order to protect your family.

 

[a6m5]

1) Did or did not the driver of the SUV hit a biker ?
2) Did or did not the driver of the SUV speed off and hit more bikers ?

1) From the video, I saw the Rover get swarmed by the bikers, then one rider get in front to force the Rover to complete stop. Excellent chance I'd have hit the guy, too. I'm not paying attention just to front of me at this point, I'm being bullied, intimidated from all directions.

2) We can't really see it, except the Rover is now stopped & completely surrounded. According to the story I read, police says that bikers were cutting up the Rover's tire(s), so lord knows what else they were doing to the vehicle, or threatening to do. Driver had his wife & baby in the car.

With what I saw on the video, also the part about bikers attacking the vehicle when they came to a stop, I don't see a single thing the driver did wrong. He was also reportedly on the line with 911 before the collision(then a stop).

While it's entirely possible that the Rover was trying to take out the bikes or something before the video started, but putting myself in the guy's shoes, if I had a wife & baby in the car, last thing I'd attempt is to wage war on the large group of bikers breaking every traffic law imaginable on the road, all around me.

 

[Nicksfix]

1) Do you know it is illegal to brake check or brake for no reason as it poses a danger.

Never knew that ..... thanks.

From videos I've seen and the stories I've heard (news wise), the driver of the SUV was running closer to the bikes than he should have been. Granted, the biker checked up. If the SUV had assured clear distance (like he is supposed to), he would have lessened the chance of hitting the 1st biker. So he hits the 1st biker, panics, things start to happen, he speeds off - hitting more along the way.

But yet some plead for the owner of the SUV simply because he got his tail all tore up by a bunch of bikers whom their buddy just got ran over by someone not paying attention at the wheel. I'm not siding with the bikers either. True they took it to extremes by their actions ... guilty, obviously.

As I said, both parties had their guilty hands in on this.

 

[Imari]

Bikers fault.

There was no driving defensively possible when the Range Rover was brake checked. He was surrounded on all sides by bikes, all he could do was continue at a smooth pace and hope no bikes did anything stupid. One did, and he got hit. No surprises there.

Then he's surrounded by bikes attacking his vehicle. It's very much a "him or me" situation, and if you stay there and get yourself and your family beaten up you're a moron. He had a reasonable chance of just pushing his way out without injuring anyone, took the chance and got unlucky.

Honestly, even with time to think about it, even if you knew the guy you hit was going to be paralysed, I think the driver made the right call. You have a group of angry bikers looking to stomp you into the ground, and potentially your wife and child too. **** that. I'd be out of there, and too bad for anyone dumb enough to stand in the way.

There was no good outcome once the brake check happened, and I think the driver did the best he could in a horrible situation. The bikers could have avoided the whole thing by not being complete tools.

 

[1241Penguin]

While it's entirely possible that the Rover was trying to take out the bikes or something before the video started, but putting myself in the guy's shoes, if I had a wife & baby in the car, last thing I'd attempt is to wage war on the large group of bikers breaking every traffic law imaginable on the road, all around me.

I would have sped off as well, even if I had no passengers with me. The only circumstance where I'd stay behind is if I had Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, and Jackie Chan with me in the car. Then I'd watch these three whoop some major butt.

I'm surprised that the family of the biker that was hit is expecting some sort of sympathy from people.

 

[Northstar]

the driver of the SUV was running closer to the bikes than he should have been. Granted, the biker checked up. If the SUV had assured clear distance (like he is supposed to), he would have lessened the chance of hitting the 1st biker.

Watching the video, it seems the driver slowed up once the idiot cut into his lane, than the biker slowed even more, than got ran over. Don't see how the driver could have done anything different without developing ESP.

So he hits the 1st biker, panics, things start to happen, he speeds off - hitting more along the way.

Can't say I would have done things differently, it's 1 against an angry mob crowding the vehicle, the only real option if you want to live is to turn your vehicle into a battering ram.

 

[Grayfox]

From videos I've seen and the stories I've heard (news wise), the driver of the SUV was running closer to the bikes than he should have been. Granted, the biker checked up. If the SUV had assured clear distance (like he is supposed to), he would have lessened the chance of hitting the 1st biker.

From what i saw bikers were swaming him from the start.

One pulls infront of him and brake checks while watching for the moment of impact.

This was just a way for them to start a fight then use their crotch rockets to get away.

It is not up to the driver to maintain a gap when somone overtakes them.
The one that overtakes must ensure there is a good gap before completeing the overtake, otherwise you will just have to slow down each 5 seconds when someone overtakes you.

I am suprised he didn't have a gun or if he did use it when they were smashing in his windows.

 

[Kent]

Bikers' Fault. Police Agree.

I don't really care what a bunch of children on the net think, nor do I care what adults with families and time to read this thread are thinking... If it was my life, my family, and my car being surrounded by a bunch of squids you can be sure I'd have done the same thing to start... Then I'd have gone mad max during the chase, weaving and hitting them as they got close (probably a few brake checks as well), and eventually I would have met with police (as, just like the RR driver, I would have been on the phone with the police from the start). Upon meeting the police I would have gotten out and told my side of the story and let the cards fall where they may.

End of story, the bikers wanted to act like they had more a right to the road, engaged in illegal (brake check) and intimidating (also illegal in most cases) behavior ending with egg on biker faces.

Lesson here...
Don't bring a bike to a car fight and don't start a bike fight with a car.

Edit:
Btw, as more of the videos these punks tried to delete are released by outraged citizens a larger picture is becoming more clear. Illegally stopping traffic at intersections, riding between lanes of traffic and on shoulders, completely ignoring stop signs, yield signs, and traffic lights... This group was asking for trouble.

 

[Famine]

or pulled out my handgun from the center console

I think that transporting a gun through New York City requires it to be in a lockbox in the trunk. I don't really know how that'd apply to a semi-truck though...

 

[Jay.]

From videos I've seen and the stories I've heard (news wise), the driver of the SUV was running closer to the bikes than he should have been. Granted, the biker checked up. If the SUV had assured clear distance (like he is supposed to), he would have lessened the chance of hitting the 1st biker.

Seriously??
Check the other video links supplied in this thread and you'll see exactly how these knobsock bikers FORCE drivers into situations like this. The driver had no choice when put in that position.

So he hits the 1st biker, panics, things start to happen, he speeds off - hitting more along the way.

No he didn't. He hit the first biker then PULLED OVER. Which is the responsible thing to do. Once he had stopped initially, some of the moron bikers took it upon themselves to attack his car. THEN the driver feared for the safety of his family and sped off.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, when asked if the driver was within his rights to leave the scene -

"It depends on whether or not your vehicle is being attacked, whether or not you think you’re being attacked, whether or not your wife and child are in the car. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances"

Now put yourself in the drivers situation. You are the one being intimidated by a gang of bikers surrounding your family in your car. What would you have done?
I've been in a similar situation, I responded the same way as this driver, and I would do it again if I thought there was risk for my family.

If it was my life, my family, and my car being surrounded by a bunch of squids you can be sure I'd have done the same thing

^^ +1 👍

 

[ItsAllAboutWins]

I think that transporting a gun through New York City requires it to be in a lockbox in the trunk. I don't really know how that'd apply to a semi-truck though...

We can't have any kind of weapon in a semi, not even a baseball bat. We actually have no ways of protecting ourselves unless we stab someone with a phillips head. Also, I was going by my local law, where it's legal to have a weapon anywhere in the vehicle. The law used to be within plain sight and magazines kept in a separate location, but we recently got the concealed deadly weapon permits. I didn't even think that nyc would have a law like that, but makes sense.

 

[Grayfox]

Trucks have those big ass torque wrenches.

Those have weight and with a good swing you can do quite alot of damage, and many truckers have good upper body strength so they can swing it and swing it good.

 

[Famine]

We can't have any kind of weapon in a semi, not even a baseball bat. We actually have no ways of protecting ourselves unless we stab someone with a phillips head.

Oddly, there's a similar distinction in British law that even applies in the home.

Essentially you may not use something designed as a weapon as a weapon to defend yourself - if you have a sword or a crossbow and use it, even in self-defence, you could be up for the top tier offences. Kill a guy - even an intruder - with a weapon and you're on for murder.

You may also not use something not designed as a weapon as a weapon to defend yourself if you have no reason to have it. A baseball bat in your truck/car/bedroom is a weapon, unless you're actually on your way to baseball practice. Knife under your pillow? Same job. Again, that classes as premeditation and you'll find yourself on for a top tier offence.

But you can use something that isn't designed as a weapon to defend yourself if it's to hand. A big ass kitchen knife to defend yourself in the kitchen? Yep, no problem. A 32mm spanner (for the fan coupling) in the boot of your car? Fine. I used to play hockey and found it convenient to leave my clubs in the back of the car because I played three times a week - I had a reason to have them and, in self-defence, that'd be fine too.


Oddly, this is applicable in this case too. The Rangey driver was threatened by a mob of bikers and used something in self-defence because it was to hand. His Range Rover.

 

[F1 fan]

Too bad the state of NY doesn't allow people to carry guns. A 44 Magnum held in your face out the window of the RR, would instantly kick in the "back the f..k off" reaction of the crotch rocketeers, can't even call them "bikers".

Or alternatively, the SUV driver pulls a gun and is met with a few dozen bikers who also pull guns... Great solution.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I read some interesting articles about braking distance and deceleration. 2 of these are very much relevant to the Range Rover hitting the bike

First :

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/niatt_labmanual/chapters/geometricdesign/theoryandconcepts/brakingdistance.htm

The braking distance is the distance that a vehicle travels while slowing to a complete stop. The braking distance is a function of several variables. First, the slope (grade) of the roadway will affect the braking distance. If you are going uphill, gravity assists you in your attempts to stop and reduces the braking distance. Similarly, gravity works against you when you are descending and will increase your braking distance. Next, the frictional resistance between the roadway and your tires can influence your braking distance. If you have old tires on a wet road, chances are you'll require more distance to stop than if you have new tires on a dry road. The last parameter that we will consider is your initial velocity. Obviously, the higher your speed the longer it will take you to stop, given a constant deceleration.

The equation used to calculate the braking distance is a child of a more general equation from classical mechanics. The parent equation is given below.

Vf2=Vo2+2ad

Where:
Vf = Final velocity
Vo= Initial velocity
a = Acceleration rate
d = Distance traversed during acceleration

When calculating the braking distance, we assume the final velocity will be zero. Based on this, the equation can be manipulated to solve for the distance traversed during braking.

d = -Vo2/(2a)

Notice that the distance will be positive as long as a negative acceleration rate is used.

The acceleration of a braking vehicle depends on the frictional resistance and the grade of the road. From our knowledge of the frictional force, we know that the acceleration due to friction can be calculated by multiplying the coefficient of friction by the acceleration due to gravity. Similarly, we know from inclined plane problems that a portion of the car's weight will act in a direction parallel to the surface of the road. The acceleration due to gravity multiplied by the grade of the road will give us an estimate of the acceleration caused by the slope of the road.

The final formula for the braking distance is given below. Notice how the acceleration rate is calculated by multiplying the acceleration due to gravity by the sum of the coefficient of friction and grade of the road.

d = V2/(2g(f + G))

Where:
d = Braking Distance (ft)
g = Acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft/sec2)
G = Roadway grade as a percentage; for 2% use 0.02
V = Initial vehicle speed (ft/sec)
f = Coefficient of friction between the tires and the roadway

The braking distance and the brake reaction time are both essential parts of the stopping sight distance calculations. In order to ensure that the stopping sight distance provided is adequate, we need a more in-depth understanding of the frictional force. The value of the coefficient of friction is a difficult thing to determine. The frictional force between your tires and the roadway is highly variable and depends on the tire pressure, tire composition, and tread type. The frictional force also depends on the condition of the pavement surface. The presence of moisture, mud, snow, or ice can greatly reduce the frictional force that is stopping you. In addition, the coefficient of friction is lower at higher speeds. Since the coefficient of friction for wet pavement is lower than the coefficient of friction for dry pavement, the wet pavement conditions are used in the stopping sight distance calculations. This provides a reasonable margin of safety, regardless of the roadway surface conditions. The table below gives a few values for the frictional coefficient under wet roadway surface conditions (AASHTO, 1984).
Design Speed (mph) Coefficient of Friction (f)
20 0.40
30 0.35
40 0.32
60 0.29

The 2nd article deals with variable deceleration when a driver following another vehicle without indicator.

http://pro.sagepub.com/content/56/1/1698.full.pdf+html

The PDF article gives good insight about how most driver in traffic apply the brakes and how stopping distance varies

Optically-Controlled Braking Responses to Variable Deceleration Magnitudes in a Car-Following Task

Rowdy J. Hope
Roger Lew
Katrina A. Colby
Brian P. Dyre

Department of Psychology and Communication Studies, University of Idaho Moscow, ID

Abstract

This study sought to identify which braking strategies are more often used in a car-following task when only optical cues to deceleration are available (no brake lights). Previous research identified three braking strategies for stopping to a stationary obstruction: regulation (deceleration at a near-constant magnitude), slam-on-the-brakes (increasing magnitude of deceleration), and bang-bang (initial high deceleration followed by a less deceleration). We used a car-following task with braking profiles which included variable decelerations to examine which of these strategies is most often used when drivers are not presented with brake lights warning of the deceleration of the lead vehicle. Results showed that individuals tend to use the slam-on-the-brakes approach (soft-then-hard braking) more than regulated (constant braking) or a bang-bang approach (hard-then-soft braking) when following vehicles without brake lights. These data form an important baseline of behavior for evaluating the effects of brake lights and other deceleration displays on braking behavior.

I would say the Range Rover hit the bike because of bang-bang approach (hard-then-soft braking) when following vehicles without brake lights or hardly visible brake lights - the bike in this case.

 

[Famine]

I've removed a bunch of posts. My apologies to anyone affected, but we were way, way off topic and it was largely my fault.

Back to the idiot bikers now please. I'll repost this video the McLaren referred to a few posts back:

​

 

[ItsAllAboutWins]

Here's what gets me... once the group of bikers tried to pull him out the first time, why did he try to out run them? There's no way he could possibly think he was getting away unless he was trying to find a cop. It would have made more sense to go 30 mph and cover less distance then when the bikes got beside him, just mow them over. I know that sounds a bit irrational, but given the circumstances, if you feel endangered you do what you have to do to survive..

Also, thanks gopro and the idiot rider who uploaded it for making all this possible. Otherwise it would have been a bunch of bikers word against the RR drivers.

 

[Kent]

The more videos I see the more I wish the RR had taken out more of them.

Im also getting a good idea about some of the members here at the gtp. :shocked:

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

Bikers' Fault. Police Agree.

I don't really care what a bunch of children on the net think, nor do I care what adults with families and time to read this thread are thinking... If it was my life, my family, and my car being surrounded by a bunch of squids you can be sure I'd have done the same thing to start... Then I'd have gone mad max during the chase, weaving and hitting them as they got close (probably a few brake checks as well), and eventually I would have met with police (as, just like the RR driver, I would have been on the phone with the police from the start). Upon meeting the police I would have gotten out and told my side of the story and let the cards fall where they may.

End of story, the bikers wanted to act like they had more a right to the road, engaged in illegal (brake check) and intimidating (also illegal in most cases) behavior ending with egg on biker faces.

Lesson here...
Don't bring a bike to a car fight and don't start a bike fight with a car.

Edit:
Btw, as more of the videos these punks tried to delete are released by outraged citizens a larger picture is becoming more clear. Illegally stopping traffic at intersections, riding between lanes of traffic and on shoulders, completely ignoring stop signs, yield signs, and traffic lights... This group was asking for trouble.

You nailed it perfectly. Its the bikers fault.

1. Biker pulled in front of SUV and brake checked SUV.
2. SUV driver hit biker. (could not stop in time)
3. SUV driver pulled over. Stopped on side of the road.
4. SUV driver was surrounded and the vehicle was getting assaulted by other bikers. Biker is actually in front of SUV to stop him. At this point other bikers slashed the tire. (which means they were carrying a knife or weapon)
5. SUV driver takes off in self defense fearing for his families life. This is when the SUV driver runs over biker paralyzing him and doing massive damage.
6. At this point the bikers start chasing SUV.
7. Eventually SUV comes to stop, driver window is assaulted, and eventually broken using helmet. Driver is forced out and beaten in front of family. Sometime during this, the back window is also assaulted and broken.

Seriously what else would you do in these situations other than leave?

Another example. If the lady in the PT Cruiser took off and ran someone over is it HER fault for leaving in self defense?

 

[Jay.]

The more videos I see the more I wish the RR had taken out more of them.

I was reading through a forum for biker/bike enthusiasts and one biker couldn't understand why the driver didn't swerve and take out a few more of them to even the numbers a little.

Another example. If the lady in the PT Cruiser took off and ran someone over is it HER fault for leaving in self defense?

And everyone else just watched?
Comment from the clip on Youtube - "Pull that **** with me and you'll get a .40 cal in the chest. people like that is the reason I have a license to carry" - works for me too.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

I was reading through a forum for biker/bike enthusiasts and one biker couldn't understand why the driver didn't swerve and take out a few more of them to even the numbers a little.



And everyone else just watched?
Comment from the clip on Youtube - "Pull that **** with me and you'll get a .40 cal in the chest. people like that is the reason I have a license to carry" - works for me too.

I will be honest, I have never been a gun carrier but stories like these two have been seriously making me reconsider at least possibly investing in a hand gun for defense. I cant imagine someone going through stuff like this with a family. Who knows what could have happened if the SUV driver didn't take off. Regarless he was getting beat up no matter what. But whats to stop the bikers from raping his wife or killing his baby. No one knows what could have happened. And that's the most scary part. These stories make me so sick.

EDIT: Official report from wife of SUV driver. They were out with their 2 year old daughter to celebrate their wedding anniversary. http://www.inquisitr.com/978053/wife-of-suv-driver-attacked-by-bikers-speaks-out/

 

[Danoff]

Pretty simple actually .....
1) Did or did not the driver of the SUV hit a biker ?

That doesn't make anything his fault.

2) Did or did not the driver of the SUV speed off and hit more bikers ?

Also doesn't make anything his fault.


Try again.

 

[d3uc3_dropp3r]

Some new information that has come out claims that the rider who got injured has been ticketed many times. Apparently he's a reckless driver who got his license revoked until 2017.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...torcyclists/jHju3V1xAOsdF6Q2vT8BaL/story.html

 

[a6m5]

I hope the law come down hard on these clowns. Video showing the nitwit speeding on the sidewalk was just unbelievable. How would you like to have your kid, or sibling get nailed by that?

Maybe these kids suffer from too many head injuries, which will happen when you lack skills to ride around SUVs.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Being a biker for more years than many of the posters here have since they were born I find all this sickening. I have been bullied many times by morons inside their cars and although i'm a peaceful personby nature it really gets into my nerves when someone risks my life using the safety of the tin can they drive. I felt many times a vicious will, not to risk another's life the same way, but indeed to use my helmet as a battering ram against some tin can or glass window. Back to this situation, how it all startedwill probably never be fully cleared, and the stupid way biker gangs usually act will make all assumptions be made against them. End result? The usual, guy in car got beaten by thugs, guy in bike gets paralizef for life.

 

[a6m5]

^^^ I think bikes are so cool, but I'll never ride. I don't trust other drivers. So many idiot drivers on the road, they barely look around where they are moving their 4,000lbs vehicle to.

 

[McLaren]

^^^ I think bikes are so cool, but I'll never ride. I don't trust other drivers. So many idiot drivers on the road, they barely look around where they are moving their 4,000lbs vehicle to.

Sums up my thoughts as well.

Well, that and bikers in DFW got a very bad reputation after this stunt was pulled. It's been a couple years, but it's left a permanent mark on how Dallas PD & other motorists acts towards bikers; there's no respect & they're treated as if they were in a car so people get dangerously close at times.

 

[a6m5]

Much props to the responsible riders in Portland, and the Portland P.D., we never see stuff like this...... although we do have homeless problems, and that pointless "Occupy" fad that's been dead for awhile now....

IMO, anytime dummies pull a stunt like this, cops should come take their bikes, sell them to support schools & families in need. Another freeway takeover? Thank you again for donating all these bikes, and also for funding the Government thru fees & penalties.