ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Riding > Face plant
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-12-2013, 06:21 PM   #61
duck
Banned
 
duck's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Seattle (Berkeley with rain)
Oddometer: 10,404
Definition of accident:

Quote:
ac·ci·dent [ak-si-duhnt] Show IPA
noun
1.
an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.

2.
Law. such a happening resulting in injury that is in no way the fault of the injured person for which compensation or indemnity is legally sought.
3.
any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.

4.
chance; fortune; luck: I was there by accident.
5.
a fortuitous circumstance, quality, or characteristic: an accident of birth.
Looking at definitions 1 and 3, I disagree that the term accident doesn't apply. The first definition even includes auto accidents, another type of vehicle to vehicle collision, as an example.

Your analogy to DUI is flawed because that is an act where someone knowingly takes an action that impairs their ability to drive and knows the risks to others involved when getting behind the wheel intoxicated.

It's applicable to some extent when somebody is texting, putting on make-up or whatever but many of these SMIDSYs are caused by people who fail to see a motorcycle due to how human physiology (vision processing in particular) works - or doesn't. (See above linked article.)

People also get killed in car accidents daily as well. Do you think somebody should start up MACA? (Mothers Against Car Accidents) Do you think legislators would respond and impose mandatory penalties for people who kill/maim others in auto accidents? Do you think prosecuting attorneys would decide to pursue it every time somebody killed somebody else in a car accident? I don't think either is a realistic expectation.

Riders are a relatively small minority in this country so the chances of legislators taking action with respect to motorcycle accidents are even less. Then throw in the fact that we, as riders, CHOOSE to ride a vehicle which leaves us very exposed.

Being a rider, I sure as heck don't want someone to take me (or any other rider) out in a SMIDSY but I recognize that it's a risk I choose to take every time I throw a leg over. Not saying that any rider deserves to get taken out in a SMIDSY or that the person who kills a rider isn't at fault, just acknowledging reality.

JMHO.
duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 06:32 PM   #62
soggysandwich
Banned
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: usa
Oddometer: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaddix View Post
My dad is a retired Lieutenant State Trooper and
whoop de f-ckin DO !......

End of discussion , this guys daddy was a cop !

THAT solves everything
soggysandwich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2013, 02:28 PM   #63
High Country Herb
Adventure Connoiseur
 
High Country Herb's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Western Sierras
Oddometer: 7,087
Have any of you guys read Proficient Motorcycling? That author is considered to be an expert in motorcycle safety, and he talks about this phenomenon of drivers not seeing what they are looking at. I don't remember if he called it SMIDSY or whatever, but it does happen. A person, even one who is paying attention, can overlook a motorcycle if they do not expect to see it. Call it a lapse in consciousness, trick of the eye, whatever...it happens.

He discussed studies that show a few things that awake the brain, and cause the object to be recognized:
1. Triangle shaped set of lights. A single light can be interpreted by the brain as a headlight of a car peeking out from behind another. The triangle stands out.
2. Variations in color. Groups of white lights can be interpreted as multiple cars in the distance. 2 yellow lights down low, below a white headlight, makes the brain do a double take.
3. Headlight movement. This is why headlight and taillight modulators were invented.

There could have been other factors that contributed to this particular fatality. Maybe the guy's brain was fried from the marijuana he consumed the night before? It seems like that could contribute to brain laziness. Who knows.

Maybe removing drivers from the roadways who have had accidents where they didn't see something is a good idea. That line of thinking will lead to other reasons to limit people's eligibility to drive, though. It would be just as correct to remove the right to carry a passenger if you have ever had a single vehicle accident on your motorcycle. People who have ever rear-ended someone would be required to have computer controlled brakes installed on their car, or maybe only allowed to ride in automated vehicles. Hell, if the human brain is capable of overlooking objects, maybe nobody should be allowed to control a vehicle without computer support.

It really sucks when human error causes a tragedy like this.
High Country Herb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2013, 05:07 AM   #64
hyper7driver
Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Oddometer: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaddix View Post
Every driver on the road is dangerous, none of them intend to or want to kill anyone. They are going to pull out in front of bikes and kill riders and there's absolutely nothing the law can do about it. Nothing. You could make it so the punishment is 10 years of torture and their whole family gets killed by the state, wouldn't matter. Everyone would be terrified of hitting a rider, but they would still do it, because there's nothing the driver can do about it. Given that fact of life, by charging each one that is unlucky enough to kill a rider with manslaughter, you aren't improving the situation for riders by doing this at all. You would simply be exacting vengeance and wasting money.

For the folks that are deliberately negligent and kill a biker, such as speeding 20 over around a blind corner and killing a rider waiting to turn left, lock them up forever, sure. But performing a normal maneuver because they literally can not see the rider shouldn't be grounds for any kind of severe punishment.
You mentality is well thought out, but wrong. Someone, who in this case was under the influence, is MUCH MORE DANGEROUS than someone who isn't.

Let me make another, more reasonable point simple as I can. Riders as a whole are more cautious than drivers in a cage. Right? Right! Why? They have more at stake pending their choices, even their very lives are at more risk than someone in a car. Right? Right! So, if penalties DRASTICALLY INCREASED to EVERYONE behind the wheel of a cage, they would take more responsibility and care while driving. Right? I do believe so.

You can't judge people by motive alone, and ignore the end results. If you did, then you lay no responsibility on the individuals at fault. If I where to get drunk, and fire a gun at some object in someone's yard, (my own yard, neighbor's, whoever,) and instead accidentally hit and kill someone, I would be charged with murder. Right? But my motive was not to hit the person, why am I being charged? Cause of very poor thinking, decisions, and actions, and their end results. The same goes in driving. Vehicles are deadly weapons, if used in that manor, just like a gun, knife, whatever. Therefore, the charge in my opinion should be no less than if they accidentally shot this guys friend. After all, the formula for the cause of death in the two cases is almost identical. Carelessness, impaired, poor judgement, resulting in fatal actions. Only difference is the tool used to cause the death of an innocent victim.
hyper7driver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2013, 05:19 AM   #65
hyper7driver
Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Oddometer: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Country Herb View Post
Maybe removing drivers from the roadways who have had accidents where they didn't see something is a good idea. That line of thinking will lead to other reasons to limit people's eligibility to drive, though. It would be just as correct to remove the right to carry a passenger if you have ever had a single vehicle accident on your motorcycle.
Not entirely. A passenger makes a choice to ride with someone. A person can't pick and choose who is sharing the road with them.
hyper7driver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2013, 04:59 PM   #66
DanMac
Adventurer
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: phx az
Oddometer: 73
Hmm

I know this is old...

Quote:
I don't understand the law and driving. Had he driven over a pedestrian would the charge be the same? Or walked up and punched your friend? Why are motorcycle and bicycle riders on their own?
When you go onto the road you agree to participate in a dangerous activity. When someone hits you, kills you, or whatever they are LESS in trouble due to the pre-meditated decision by both parties to engage in a dangerous activity.

If you get into a sword fight for competitive reasons(Ie a sword fighting tournament) and SOMEHOW the other person manages to cut your arm off? Even if its proven to be done with malicious intent they are LESS in trouble due to the fact that both of you engaged in a dangerous sport. etc etc...
DanMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 07:58 PM   #67
shaddix
Banned
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Central AL
Oddometer: 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyper7driver View Post
You mentality is well thought out, but wrong. Someone, who in this case was under the influence, is MUCH MORE DANGEROUS than someone who isn't.

Let me make another, more reasonable point simple as I can. Riders as a whole are more cautious than drivers in a cage. Right? Right! Why? They have more at stake pending their choices, even their very lives are at more risk than someone in a car. Right? Right! So, if penalties DRASTICALLY INCREASED to EVERYONE behind the wheel of a cage, they would take more responsibility and care while driving. Right? I do believe so.

You can't judge people by motive alone, and ignore the end results. If you did, then you lay no responsibility on the individuals at fault. If I where to get drunk, and fire a gun at some object in someone's yard, (my own yard, neighbor's, whoever,) and instead accidentally hit and kill someone, I would be charged with murder. Right? But my motive was not to hit the person, why am I being charged? Cause of very poor thinking, decisions, and actions, and their end results. The same goes in driving. Vehicles are deadly weapons, if used in that manor, just like a gun, knife, whatever. Therefore, the charge in my opinion should be no less than if they accidentally shot this guys friend. After all, the formula for the cause of death in the two cases is almost identical. Carelessness, impaired, poor judgement, resulting in fatal actions. Only difference is the tool used to cause the death of an innocent victim.
Some of this is right some of it is wrong but too lazy to point it out.
shaddix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 05:20 PM   #68
tjzondrz
I'm older now.
 
tjzondrz's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Location: Macungie,PA.
Oddometer: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaddix View Post
How do you know? Maybe you have just gotten lucky so far. I've never been guilty of a SMIDSY either. The experts on this stuff tell us that people who are guilty of a SMIDSY literally did not realize anything was coming despite the fact they looked directly at the rider and were paying attention. Something about a looming effect, a gentle weave in the lane is supposed to help dispel it. Given that information, I look both ways three times and even more as I continue into an intersection. Still may not be enough and someday I might kill someone even being as diligent as possible...


Anyway I think that's the logic behind not charging all the offenders with manslaughter, there was no negligence involved, it is literally a case of an invisible vehicle in the drivers mind and it's a fact of being a human and the way we are wired to see movement.
I agree with your train of thought.
I was hit head on by an older person when I was out riding.She made a left turn right in front of me.
She and her passenger said they never saw me.
It was an accident,and that's about it.
That incident taught me to be defensive at all times.(shit happens)
__________________
" I'm your Huckleberry"
2012 DRZ400s
1980 IT175G
tjzondrz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 06:44 PM   #69
viverrid
not dead yet
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Western Mass
Oddometer: 30,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by cliffy109 View Post
....I think it is time to make legal consequences so harsh that people have it at the front of their mind every time they start the engine.
You think that until such time as you or someone close to you makes a mistake.
__________________
Advanced pancreatic cancer found 04/2010. Have outlived +/- 97% of patients with this diagnosis, but 08/2013 cancer now in liver, vascular system and lungs with 20+ lung tumors. Sick/weak sometimes, not riding much. No more treatments & now under Hospice care.
viverrid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 06:51 PM   #70
viverrid
not dead yet
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Western Mass
Oddometer: 30,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyper7driver View Post
....If I where to get drunk, and fire a gun at some object in someone's yard, (my own yard, neighbor's, whoever,) and instead accidentally hit and kill someone, I would be charged with murder. Right?
Uhh no, no you wouldn't. More along the lines of Manslaughter or Criminally Negligent Homicide depending on the laws of your state, but definitely NOT "murder".

You are criminally liable because you intentionally drank alcohol to the point of being drunk, and then fired the gun. If you got drunk and then got behind the wheel and killed someone, that too would be a serious offense. If you simply made a mistake (while sober) it is, rightfully, not as serious a criminal offense. Though still subject to civil liability.

You are focusing ONLY on the result, which is often in large part just bad luck, while criminal law also takes into account intent.
__________________
Advanced pancreatic cancer found 04/2010. Have outlived +/- 97% of patients with this diagnosis, but 08/2013 cancer now in liver, vascular system and lungs with 20+ lung tumors. Sick/weak sometimes, not riding much. No more treatments & now under Hospice care.
viverrid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2013, 10:07 AM   #71
GypsyWriter
Sarah
 
GypsyWriter's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Hanford CA
Oddometer: 1,414
I'm curious, is there any update on the OP?
__________________
2012 R1200GS Rallye - Gypsy
2003 R1150GSA with DMC sidecar
Ask A Self-Publisher
Quote:
Originally Posted by FotoTEX View Post
Life is dangerous. Not doing what you love makes life even more dangerous...
GypsyWriter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 03:39 PM   #72
GSWayne
Old Guy nOOb
 
GSWayne's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Santa Barbara
Oddometer: 2,943
A comment about looking and not seeing. How many of you careful people check twice before pulling out into traffic? How many times did you see something the 2nd time you looked but missed it the 1st time? What that means is that some percentage of the time you can look at something and not see it. If that happens 1% of the time, then if you look twice, you will still miss something .01% of the time. Which means even if you are diligent enough to look twice there will still be some things you miss.

It is really worth reading about human perception. People have the misguided idea that our eyes work like television cameras which record every pixel in the frame. Our vision system is VERY different. It is all feature detection and your brain makes up a story based on a collection of features that it has detected. Lots of optical illusions are based on this. This is part of the reason that humans are terrible eyewitnesses. As others have mentioned, the story your mind generates to describe "what you are seeing" is dependent on lots of things other than just what pattern of photons is striking your retina. It is dependent on your history, experiences, biases, and probably what you had for breakfast.

I totally agree that people need to pay more attention to driving, and the safety of modern cars certainly contributes to that problem, however, I do not agree that everyone can see everything if they just make an effort.
__________________
It isn't the conditions its the decisions

Don't bring a motorcycle to a car fight
GSWayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 09:44 PM   #73
doxiedog
Studly Adventurer
 
doxiedog's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: CENTRAL VALLEY, CALIF.
Oddometer: 872
Here is a thought...A car at random on the assembly line, shall be fitted with a shotgun shell instead of a driver side airbag..
Darwin rides shotgun,will be the jingle.
__________________
Snot nosed 68 yr.old kid.
doxiedog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 08:10 AM   #74
Big-O
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Big-O's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: Adirondaks, NY
Oddometer: 316
Just think, some of these cock suckers want to have pot legalized. Wow, this kind of event will be the least of our problems despite how terrible it is. So next time you want to party on dudes, think of what can happen before hopping into the drivers seat. Sorry for the loss of your buddy.
Big-O is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2013, 05:58 AM   #75
foggy50361
Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2013
Location: God's back garden, Wales
Oddometer: 74
A motorised vehicle is a weapon, I'm sorry if you get in/on a vehicle after a night of excess and you kill another human being you should never be allowed to drive any vehicle again, you know you have to drive the following day. You are not a responsible person. IMPO driving licensees are given away today; I am constantly amazed how little people pay attention to what is going on around them
foggy50361 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 07:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014