PDA

View Full Version : Just heard this breaking news ...


Baphomet
27th May 2010, 04:53
I was just watching the local news here in San Antonio and the breaking news was a motorcycle fatality. I looked online and nothing has been posted yet, but here is what was reported. A motorcycle was traveling over 100 mph on the highway and had no visible rear lights and a cop was chasing him trying to get him to pull over. What happened was the cop ended up rear ending the rider causing him to crash. The cop claims because the biker had no rear lights he couldn't see him and hit him by accident.

If this story gets published soon I'll post a link to it. IMO this is murder ... not an accident.

unfiguroutable
27th May 2010, 04:55
IMO this is murder ... not an accident.

IMO this is a myopic opinion

BradJK
27th May 2010, 04:58
IMO this is murder ... not an accident.

Clearly not enough details about this story to make that statement.

floorit
27th May 2010, 05:03
So the trooper was running no headlights right? The last cop I met was definitly dumb enough to try to PIT a bike.

gibson_david28
27th May 2010, 05:05
I can see alot of stuff in front of my car with my headlights and them having nothing to light up or reflect.... something don't sound right.... would like to see or hear the whole story....

billy bob
27th May 2010, 05:07
Granted we don't know all the facts yet (doubtful anyone will know the real truth),
but if johnny law could see him well enough to chase him, how in the hell could he NOT see him, if he was close enough to hit him ???? Tailights or not, I'm not buying it.

Been a few years since I've trucked down there, but not until you get out of town aways in any direction, are the highways not lighted ?

jharback
27th May 2010, 05:13
IMO this is murder ... not an accident.

In my opinion, that's a pretty outrageous statement.

floorit
27th May 2010, 05:20
In my opinion, that's a pretty outrageous statement.

If you hit a biker, taillight or not, what would the charge be? Alright, wait, if you were chasing a bike and hit and killed the rider, what would the charge be?

Robotech
27th May 2010, 05:26
^^ Unfair comparison. We're not mandated to enforce the law. Not enough info for a decision.

unfiguroutable
27th May 2010, 05:27
If you hit a biker, taillight or not, what would the charge be? Alright, wait, if you were chasing a bike and hit and killed the rider, what would the charge be?

if your fleeing the scene of a crime at 100+ mph and die...i would call it suicide

johnwestphal
27th May 2010, 05:28
Don't want to die doing 100 mph running from a cop? Simple answer, don't run from cops, pull over sign the ticket/live another day to appear in court. The dude who died was foolish and paid the ultimate price for that foolishness. These clowns give motorcyclists a bad name be they Harley or sport bike riders.

gibson_david28
27th May 2010, 05:28
if your fleeing the scene of a crime at 100+ mph and die...i would call it suicide


If he ran into the cop, then yea it would be.. Seeing as the cop ran into him..I don't think so..

toe
27th May 2010, 05:37
Let's see.........

100 mph.

Bike hits the brakes.

Lets say no taillights and no brakelights.

Without the brakelights it takes longer for the cop to realize bike is braking.

Bike also can out brake car.

So cop rearends bike...........

unfiguroutable
27th May 2010, 05:41
the chances this guys is death is any ones fault other than his own is so small that the cop being help accountable for it is a non option. even if the cop did make a error the fact that the rider was fleeing at high speed make him liable for his own death and will in all probability not even qualify his survivors with a death benifit due to his lapse in judgement. that is assuming he was smart enough to have insurance and I doubt that

floorit
27th May 2010, 05:56
Ok, look. If you run from the police your a dumbass. But if you don't believe that there are cops out there that would love to make a name for themselves by ridding the world of anothe "perp" your equally as dumbass.

melcheld
27th May 2010, 06:03
IMO this is murder ... not an accident.

I'm not saying I agree with the cop's actions but...

The very definition of murder disagrees with your "opinion". Murder requires the intent to kill. Its the person's state of mind at the time of the incident that makes the difference. In a case such as this, the furthest it could go would be manslaughter (which for a death caused by a high-speed run from the police would be a stretch). Unless you can prove the officer rammed him on purpose with the intent to cause great bodily harm or death- ain't no murderin' going on here.

Motorists die all the time. Its a risky proposition- especially on a motorcycle. Why don't we have this cry for blood every time a car driver or bicycle rider kicks it?

rollin_in_xtc_1985
27th May 2010, 06:04
cop should not be held accountable, running 100 mph fleeing the scene says it all period.

dr.feltersnatch
27th May 2010, 06:27
Wow seems like people here are pretty quick to pass judgment. No one here knows what happened. Maybe he had throttle by wire and it had a short? Maybe he was allergic to bees and was just stung and trying to get to a hospital? Maybe the cop tried to push him off the road before he finally took him out and he was running scared. If you don't know the facts it does no good to judge either side. I don't know what happened or who is to blame but I know I don't know enough to say what did or did not happen. All we know is there was an crash and I feel for his family

dipsomaniac
27th May 2010, 11:47
Let's see.........

100 mph.

Bike hits the brakes.

Lets say no taillights and no brakelights.

Without the brakelights it takes longer for the cop to realize bike is braking.

Bike also can out brake car.

So cop rearends bike...........

thinkig same thing.

turn8a
27th May 2010, 12:01
happens more often than we think.
http://www.myfox8.com/news/local/wghp-story-business-85-close-100526,0,921097.story

Baphomet
27th May 2010, 12:22
Just woke up and I'm still looking for a detailed story on the local news sites and I'm finding nothing.

Maybe I was having a knee jerk reaction to the story last night when I posted this. All the news story showed was live footage from a helicopter of a pile of metal which was the motorcycle and a bunch of emergency lights. No body had any details yet because it had just happened, but they claimed they did have a statement from the officer that was involved.

As for murder ... even manslaughter is murder. "IMO" is defined to mean "IN MY OPINION" and it is my unwavering opinion that anytime a motorcycle is struck by a car from behind it is the fault of the driver of the car. It is also my opinion that police have no reason to follow closely in a pursuit or otherwise endanger the suspect or public ... especially these days when we have multiple police helicopters with night vision that can be called in. It is also my opinion that unless the biker was shooting at people from the saddle or was trying to hit pedestrians with his moving motorcycle that there was no urgency to get him to stop.

I'm not a cop hater ... far from it. I take the side of the law in almost every event I read about or see. I cannot take the side of the cop in this case even without knowing all the details simply because the bottom line is that the biker did get struck from the rear at a high rate of speed and there is no justification for that which I can think of except maybe the cop thought a PIT manuver would work on a bike.

Terp84Alum
27th May 2010, 12:35
Maybe the cop should have just shot the rider. That happened to another rider. In MD, generally police are advised not to engage in high speed chases with motorcycles for this exact reason. What we have here is a guy died because he was speeding. A cop was partly responsible. I wouldn't want that hanging over my head.

linkin5
27th May 2010, 12:40
If he was running 100mph and then fleeing police he was a real risk to innocents and should have been stopped by what ever means necessary. We may not like it but that is the way it is.

billy bob
27th May 2010, 12:45
Well I'll pipe in again and say, anyone who has read my replies in regards to the police,
can easily see that me and the law are not friends. But , from what little I've read on this particular matter, I don't think the cop'er was probably intending on crashing or killing the guy. In my first post I was just making light of his bogus statement saying "he didn't see him". Fleeing from the law at 100 mph commonly ends with similar results (DEATH)

LuxBlue
27th May 2010, 12:47
I was just watching the local news here in San Antonio and the breaking news was a motorcycle fatality. I looked online and nothing has been posted yet, but here is what was reported. A motorcycle was traveling over 100 mph on the highway and had no visible rear lights and a cop was chasing him trying to get him to pull over. What happened was the cop ended up rear ending the rider causing him to crash. The cop claims because the biker had no rear lights he couldn't see him and hit him by accident.

If this story gets published soon I'll post a link to it. IMO this is murder ... not an accident.
What may have happened, if the bike had NO rear lights including brake lights, is that the bike could have stopped really fast, and the cop not having the brake lights to warn him, rear ended him. Having said that, aren't you always suppossed to have enough control of your vehicle to stop in time? But a high speed chase is another thing......not enough info to make a decision.

ParrotHead
27th May 2010, 13:26
if your fleeing the scene of a crime at 100+ mph and die...i would call it suicide

Or stupidity. Sorry, just no sympathy for someone behaving like this.

It does not justify running him down if that is what really happened, I need to hear more info on that first.

shotgun46
27th May 2010, 13:30
If you hit a biker, taillight or not, what would the charge be? Alright, wait, if you were chasing a bike and hit and killed the rider, what would the charge be?

Nothing it's open season on us all year round

Ireeman
27th May 2010, 13:52
Nothing it's open season on us all year round
+1 on that my friend.:frownthre

Tulsaghost
27th May 2010, 14:24
enforcing the law also entails reasonable force.....but then TExas cops all think they are Texas Rangers allowed to do whatever they want.

PilotCrabby
27th May 2010, 14:39
+1 on that my friend.:frownthre

It's very hard to form an opinion on this without more evidence. I would like to see an actual article or news report, not that I think it will be entirely true. I am sure there is a dash cam so I would like to see that before forming an opinion. Unfortunately right now with what we have been presented is the police officers word against a deceased motorcyclist.

My best friend is a police officer here in Ohio, and he told me when he was in training they told him not to chase motorcycles. The risks were too high to the public and the motorcyclist. Unfortunately the individual decided to run, but the police officer decided to make chase. I wonder if the initial traffic stop was for no tail light if so then I can see how this accident happened. 100 mph is 146 fps. That's a football field every 2 seconds. Reactions times are not all that good even from a trained professional. I would say it was probably 3/4 of a second when he initiated stopping the car (109 ft). Probably another 3/4 seconds to get the brake pressed (109 ft) and another 5 seconds to get the car stopped from 100 mph (200 ft). So in that entire scenario that's 418ish feet of travel if not more. So if he was a football field away from the cyclist and the cyclist slammed on the brakes the police officer would stop roughly 100 feet past that. This is all assuming the cyclist came to a sudden stop. As stated before there is missing information.

More often than not the job goes way over the individuals head, but I am inclined to believe that in this case from what was given. I am sure the police officer was abiding by all the rules and regulations. Maybe your city should lobby for a change in the regs. Maybe there should be no chase on motorcycles in excess of 75mph, or something like that. Get the helicopter; put out an APB. I am sure he will get caught another time.

rollin_in_xtc_1985
27th May 2010, 15:29
IF again I say IF the guy was fleeing the scene of a crime, he should have been run down...would anyone mind his death if he was fleeing the law because he had just raped,murdered or even molested a child ? I bet not one person here would cry foul then.

flathead45
27th May 2010, 15:34
cops P.I.T. bikes all the time. do I agree with it.....

hell no, but they do it and have every right to do it. you flee, you pay.....

Sleeper
27th May 2010, 15:46
It's not likely we're going to get the whole story and certainly not the whole truth, but it'd be nice to have more details.
A few questions and comments:
In Texas, are motorcycle lights wired to be on any time the ignition switch is on?
Just asking because here in Florida, motorcycle lights are on any time the bike is running. You can't turn them off while your riding.
When was the last time you saw a motorcycle operating on the street without a working taillight and/or stop light?
I drive and ride probably 35,000+ miles a year locally in a pretty congested area.
I can't remember the last time I saw a motorcycle on the street with a taillight or stop light out.
Maybe people around here maintain their bikes better?
Is it common for a police officer to follow a motorcycle or any other motor vehicle for that matter, at speeds approaching 100 mph, without a clear visual of the vehicle and appropriate caution?
I hope not.

Well, the guy was on a motorcycle, so does it really matter anyway?

Casper
27th May 2010, 15:56
This is why, every time before I turn over the engine, I check every last one of my lights. Left turn, right turn, four-ways, regular & high beam, rear running light and front and back brakes. Occasionally, I get laughed at for it, but those who ride with me know I do it, so if anyone hits me (or pulls me over) and says that my lights were out, then they're a lying sack of s:censort.

Regardless of what the details of the situation were, my condolences go out to his family.

flathead45
27th May 2010, 18:16
This is why, every time before I turn over the engine, I check every last one of my lights. Left turn, right turn, four-ways, regular & high beam, rear running light and front and back brakes. Occasionally, I get laughed at for it, but those who ride with me know I do it, so if anyone hits me (or pulls me over) and says that my lights were out, then they're a lying sack of s:censort.

Regardless of what the details of the situation were, my condolences go out to his family.

all the preflight checks in the world can't prevent a light from burning out in use. so, they just might not be lieing sacks of s:censort, your bulb could just fail.:smoke

I have an aunt that got hit head on in her 68 chevelle. the other person claimed that hshe never had her lights on.... the cop looked and seen that the switch was in the on position after impact.... the other person was lying threw his teeth in this instance

linkin5
27th May 2010, 20:08
When you flee the law you put anyone on the road at risk of death due to your actions, if somebody must die it should be the runner.

sick1200
27th May 2010, 23:03
Wow seems like people here are pretty quick to pass judgment. No one here knows what happened. Maybe he had throttle by wire and it had a short? Maybe he was allergic to bees and was just stung and trying to get to a hospital? Maybe the cop tried to push him off the road before he finally took him out and he was running scared. If you don't know the facts it does no good to judge either side. I don't know what happened or who is to blame but I know I don't know enough to say what did or did not happen. All we know is there was an crash and I feel for his family

Well put.

Baphomet
28th May 2010, 00:24
Well heck. This is the only new story (http://www.kens5.com/news/local/Speeding-motorcycle-driver-rear-ended-by-SAPD-cruiser-after-sudden-stop-on-281-95015104.html) I could find on it and it provides no more information than what I already know EXCEPT that last night the news reported it as a fatality and this article says the rider is recovering. That's good news for sure!

scottsxl1200
28th May 2010, 00:34
if your fleeing the scene of a crime at 100+ mph and die...i would call it suicide

YES! If you are running from the law at 100+ mph without tailights, How is the officer suppose to know when you hit the brakes? If you have a good reason to run from the cops then the world is better off without you, same goes for if you run from the cops without a good reason, then you're just stupid and I'm amazed you learned to keep your balance on two wheels.

colonelangus
28th May 2010, 00:34
pit maneuver on a bike ..which is really a nascar bump and pass,but the cops do it and it kills.
not sure what happened to this rider,but why was he running
as for the lights well they are totaled now so do we know for sure he didnt have them..ive seen the police pit maneuver a guy riding a dirt bike turned out to be a 14 year old the cop just about killed.it was on cops last year..

Cadillac
28th May 2010, 00:36
^^^ Im sure there is a video of it (not released obviously) from the dash cam, which would show whether there were lights or not.

PilotCrabby
28th May 2010, 00:52
YES! If you are running from the law at 100+ mph without tailights, How is the officer suppose to know when you hit the brakes? If you have a good reason to run from the cops then the world is better off without you, same goes for if you run from the cops without a good reason, then you're just stupid and I'm amazed you learned to keep your balance on two wheels.

I don't know man. People do stupid things when scared. He may not have had a good reason to run. Maybe he was spooked or slightly intoxicated. Granted he should not be intoxicated while driving, but that is not my point. My point is people do very dumb things, but those dumb things don't warrant death. Where does the line get drawn. There is a case in Ottawa Hills Ohio right now where there was a chase and the cop ended up shooting one of the cyclists. In this case the officer was found guilty of felonious assault. So would you vote that the police officer is innocent? Instead of killing him with a pit maneuver he paralyzed him by shooting him in the back.

Here is the link of the rally in Ottawa Hills... rally (http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/local&id=7454319)

here is the youtube link for the dashcam... shooting

mwheat308
28th May 2010, 00:54
The police in Texas have the same very tough job as all the other Officers. They are never sure of what type of person they are stopping, and if they make a small mistake
they or someone else may die. There are also plenty of people to say what the Officer may have done wrong. The guy on the bike didn't have to go 100 +, ( stuck throttle = key off ). Lets wait and see what the FACTS are.
One last thing Good Officer or Bad Officer They put thier lives on the line every work day!

scottsxl1200
28th May 2010, 01:11
I don't know man. People do stupid things when scared. He may not have had a good reason to run. Maybe he was spooked or slightly intoxicated. Granted he should not be intoxicated while driving, but that is not my point. My point is people do very dumb things, but those dumb things don't warrant death. Where does the line get drawn. There is a case in Ottawa Hills Ohio right now where there was a chase and the cop ended up shooting one of the cyclists. In this case the officer was found guilty of felonious assault. So would you vote that the police officer is innocent? Instead of killing him with a pit maneuver he paralyzed him by shooting him in the back.

Here is the link of the rally in Ottawa Hills... rally (http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/local&id=7454319)

here is the youtube link for the dashcam... shooting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH3wWVQZaq0)

Doing something dumb in your bedroom isnt the same thing as doing something dumb on a motorcycle, You almost certainly will die! (Well, I do suppose doing something dumb in your bedroom could kill you, but you know what I mean:laugh) And I'm not saying that the cop had any right to intentionally kill the person, But, if you do something stupid on a bike, then you're responsible for the outcome.

PilotCrabby
28th May 2010, 01:30
Doing something dumb in your bedroom isnt the same thing as doing something dumb on a motorcycle, You almost certainly will die! (Well, I do suppose doing something dumb in your bedroom could kill you, but you know what I mean:laugh) And I'm not saying that the cop had any right to intentionally kill the person, But, if you do something stupid on a bike, then you're responsible for the outcome.

No way you can tell me you haven't done something stupid on a bike, or other motor vehicle. Consciously, or subconsciously we all do dumb things. This guy may have been doing something to a higher degree of stupidity, but that still doesn't warrant him dying because of it.

Tell your bedroom scenario to the mother that lost her child(ren) because they were playing with matches in the bedroom. But I guess since they were being stupid there death is justifiable. I will whole heartily disagree with that!!

tonefight
28th May 2010, 01:49
Good Officer or Bad Officer They put thier lives on the line every work day!

True but they choose their career, so except the risk. If you are going to be so paraniod or over zealous you kill someone you shouldn't be a cop.

That cop that shot the biker in the back should be locked up, The guy couldn't even have turned far enough while on the bike to get a decent shot off at the cop IF he had a gun.

dipsomaniac
28th May 2010, 02:08
Is there any mention of what kind of bike? Just curious that a car was able to keep up with a bike. Musta been an indian or something similarly slow.

dr.feltersnatch
28th May 2010, 02:47
So it seems a few people here think that because this guy made a bad choice and ran from the cops he deserved to die. Well we do not know what he did to begin with we do not know he was even going 100 mph hell a few posts ago he was dead now he is alive and recovering. Who here has not went over the speed limit? Does that mean you deserve to die? if making a bad choice means death then I guess I deserve to die too I have made bad choices in my life. Have I ran from the cops no. But all they needed was a plate number and track him down later. Am I saying he was right to fly through town? No but that does not warrant death.

unfiguroutable
28th May 2010, 02:53
So it seems a few people here think that because this guy made a bad choice and ran from the cops he deserved to die. ....

no...i just dont belive it is any one is to blame except the rider...derserve has shit to do with it. at some point you have to own up. lets just hope you own up before you cash your chips in.

philidor1958
28th May 2010, 02:58
I joined the military at 17. Did I really know what I was doing? I was willing to put my life on the line for my country. I chose my career, as the cop did his. If I was ordered to shoot a barrel full of babies and I did it I would have been prosecuted, the officer should serve his time as well.

Sorry, I was referring to the cop that shot the biker in the back.

Cadillac
28th May 2010, 03:00
you guys are arguing over something that has almost no details to it. Youd think you could at least wait until details come out. The article says he isnt dead, yet you are arguing about the cop killing him. The article is all of maybe 10 sentences long and half of the responses you guys are giving in regards to it are longer than the article itself. Just wait until the actual facts come out and then argue the politics of it.

flathead45
28th May 2010, 03:00
if ya can't do the time.....


don't do the crime.

I don't think anyone really means that this guy needed to die, but, he did run, and if you run expect the cop to make bad decisions. after all, he is just as human as you or I.

I'm not a fan of cops but they are doing a job I would and could never do. I can't make snap decisions on another persons life.

dr.feltersnatch
28th May 2010, 03:19
ok so let's do a hypothetical situation. Let's say you are that biker who got shot in the back only he misses. So you leave a stop sign a little fast cop pulls you over you own up and stop. The cop just hops out and fires a couple shots and you run for your life. Do you deserve to die because you ran? I mean you did run so you get what's coming to you right? I know that's a stretch but like flatty put it I cannot make snap judgments on someone elses life.

Hogwylde
28th May 2010, 03:19
Speeding at 100 mph and the biker definitely knew he had a cop behind him with all the sirens and lights. Is the accident tragic? Yes. But is it the LEO's fault? Absolutely not. Unless of course if the biker was doing 100mph and the cop rammed him at 110mph.

Not enough details yet but if I had to decide on the little facts that are presented to me.....

It is the biker that is at fault.

scottsxl1200
28th May 2010, 05:05
No way you can tell me you haven't done something stupid on a bike, or other motor vehicle. Consciously, or subconsciously we all do dumb things. This guy may have been doing something to a higher degree of stupidity, but that still doesn't warrant him dying because of it.

Tell your bedroom scenario to the mother that lost her child(ren) because they were playing with matches in the bedroom. But I guess since they were being stupid there death is justifiable. I will whole heartily disagree with that!!

Boo F'ing hoo! You are wrong. If I do something stupid on my bike it does warrant my death, and yeah, I've been lucky. We have enough problems watching out for cagers. And I have no problem at all telling my own mother that my brother got ran over by a cop while running from him or doing something stupid on a bike or anything else. Bottom line, If the guy died or dies because he was doing 1oo +mph in any situation, then it's on his head, If I play russian roulette and lose, It's my fault!!!!!!!!!!

Tulsaghost
28th May 2010, 05:27
crap..the cop was wrong, unless he had REASONABLE CAUSE to think that a felony had been committed he is wrong. I f you don;t have good judgement...he should go back to work at 7-11 NOT be a cop. Speeding because you are an idiot is NOT a shooting offence..

billy bob
28th May 2010, 05:55
This news report varies a great deal from the original post.

Someone called in a report of a speeding bike, cop pursues WITHOUT his lights on, speeds of 100mph, crests a hill and rear ends the slowed bike. HUH !
(pursuing a speeding motorist at speeds of 100mph, WITHOUT his emergency lights on ?)



http://www.ksat.com/news/23694911/detail.html

dr.feltersnatch
28th May 2010, 06:43
Boo F'ing hoo! You are wrong. If I do something stupid on my bike it does warrant my death, and yeah, I've been lucky. We have enough problems watching out for cagers. And I have no problem at all telling my own mother that my brother got ran over by a cop while running from him or doing something stupid on a bike or anything else. Bottom line, If the guy died or dies because he was doing 1oo +mph in any situation, then it's on his head, If I play russian roulette and lose, It's my fault!!!!!!!!!!
Did your mother not hug you enough as a child?

dr.feltersnatch
28th May 2010, 06:48
So the cop was going over a hundred but what about the bike? Who says how fast he was going? Last I checked average people don't have radar guns.

PilotCrabby
28th May 2010, 14:31
Boo F'ing hoo! You are wrong. If I do something stupid on my bike it does warrant my death, and yeah, I've been lucky. We have enough problems watching out for cagers. And I have no problem at all telling my own mother that my brother got ran over by a cop while running from him or doing something stupid on a bike or anything else. Bottom line, If the guy died or dies because he was doing 1oo +mph in any situation, then it's on his head, If I play russian roulette and lose, It's my fault!!!!!!!!!!


lol ok I am wrong.... I bet your story changes if you ever get put into a situation where you have to tell your mother your brother is dead because of someone else. Playing russian roulette is hardly the same as getting rammed by a police officer. The officer KNOWS there is a high probability (better than 1 out of 6) that ramming or pitting a motorcycle will cause serious harm or death. If the officer doesn't know this than they should not be a cop. What you do alone to bring death upon yourself is on you, but this scenario has 2 people involved. Seems like according to your logic 2 stupids make a smart!. But like you said Boo Fing hoo I am wrong.

I ask you this... to what degree of stupidity on a motorcycle is death warranted? I mean hey if you accidentally pop a wheelie and lose control do you deserve to die? The general thought on motorcycle forums, and the law, claim doing wheelies on public roads is stupid. So according to your argument you would deserve death for being stupid and popping a wheelie. Or is that survivable stupidity, and 100 mph is punishable by death? Where is the line?

What does watching out for cagers have anything to do with this argument?

scottsxl1200
28th May 2010, 15:42
I have never accidently popped a wheelie, and realizing what it would take to do one purposely I'd have to say that if you did pop one accidently, then that should be your clue that worse accidents are imminent and maybe you shouldnt be on a bike. You keep mentioning what the cop knows or should know, what about the idiot running from the cop at over 100 mph? what should he have known? If he didnt think for a second that riding the way he was riding wouldnt or couldnt get him killed then he had no business being on the bike. I didnt read that the cop was performing a pit manuever, what I read was that the bike didnt have a working tailight and that was the reason the cop hit him which if true then the biker would most likely have gotten run over by just about anybody. If this happened to my brother I wouldnt be telling my mother that someone else took his life, I'd be telling her that he took his own life. The death is sad, but stupid.
As far as cagers go, we are getting popped off all of the time by them being distracted or whatever the case maybe, while doing 35 mph so when I hear of someone doing 100 mph it's alot like russian roulette except with more than 1 bullet.
Death in a stupid situation isnt warranted, the guy didnt deserve to die. But the second he got on the bike he took that chance just like everyone of us, the stupid decisions he made leading up to his death just made it more likely. If I stick my finger in a ligh socket it doesnt mean I should die it just means I probably will, and it's not the light companies fault.

bjfoien
28th May 2010, 15:56
If I'm running from a cop, I wouldn't want a rear light either. Much easier to get away. More difficult to follow at night, when there arnt any clues when the breaks are being used. Just my take.

Jackster
28th May 2010, 16:17
IMO this is a myopic opinion

+1 :frownthre

linkin5
28th May 2010, 16:22
I've ran from the cops on a bike before and I was well aware that it might well cause my death, It was a bet that at the time I was willing to make.

PilotCrabby
28th May 2010, 17:11
I have never accidently popped a wheelie, and realizing what it would take to do one purposely I'd have to say that if you did pop one accidently, then that should be your clue that worse accidents are imminent and maybe you shouldnt be on a bike. You keep mentioning what the cop knows or should know, what about the idiot running from the cop at over 100 mph? what should he have known? If he didnt think for a second that riding the way he was riding wouldnt or couldnt get him killed then he had no business being on the bike. I didnt read that the cop was performing a pit manuever, what I read was that the bike didnt have a working tailight and that was the reason the cop hit him which if true then the biker would most likely have gotten run over by just about anybody. If this happened to my brother I wouldnt be telling my mother that someone else took his life, I'd be telling her that he took his own life. The death is sad, but stupid.
As far as cagers go, we are getting popped off all of the time by them being distracted or whatever the case maybe, while doing 35 mph so when I hear of someone doing 100 mph it's alot like russian roulette except with more than 1 bullet.
Death in a stupid situation isnt warranted, the guy didnt deserve to die. But the second he got on the bike he took that chance just like everyone of us, the stupid decisions he made leading up to his death just made it more likely. If I stick my finger in a ligh socket it doesnt mean I should die it just means I probably will, and it's not the light companies fault.

Whoa Whoa there chief. Just because you haven't accidentally gotten the front end up on a motorcycle doesn't mean it's not easy. There are many bikes on the market that will wheelie with the greatest of ease. Now if I have accidentally put one up on one wheel doesn't mean I should not be riding bikes. You have no idea what my experience level is. Maybe you shouldn't be riding because you haven't experienced a bike easy to wheelie ;)
Please don't question my riding abilities without knowing me just because I disagree with you.

Your light bulb scenario has been proved false by many cases won by stupid people killing themselves and then suing the company manufacturing the device that lead to their death. In fact Cessna almost went out of business because peoples' estates were suing, and winning, after they crashed the airplane due to their own negligence. It may not be the light bulb companies fault, but according to the Cessna cases there is some sort of responsibility to the other party.

scottsxl1200
28th May 2010, 17:52
Whoa Whoa there chief. Just because you haven't accidentally gotten the front end up on a motorcycle doesn't mean it's not easy. There are many bikes on the market that will wheelie with the greatest of ease. Now if I have accidentally put one up on one wheel doesn't mean I should not be riding bikes. You have no idea what my experience level is. Maybe you shouldn't be riding because you haven't experienced a bike easy to wheelie ;)
Please don't question my riding abilities without knowing me just because I disagree with you.

Your light bulb scenario has been proved false by many cases won by stupid people killing themselves and then suing the company manufacturing the device that lead to their death. In fact Cessna almost went out of business because peoples' estates were suing, and winning, after they crashed the airplane due to their own negligence. It may not be the light bulb companies fault, but according to the Cessna cases there is some sort of responsibility to the other party.

I didnt mean to make it sound like I was questioning your experience. And I can accept that certain bikes may be prone to easy wheelies and that one might accidently pop one, ONCE, before knowing what the bike can do which makes me wonder why someone wouldnt ease into an unfamiliar bike anyway, still proving my point. And I know there are ridiculous lawsuits all the time, that doesnt make it right. I think people should be responsible for the outcome of their own actions. Some may argue that if the cop hadnt been chasing him, it wouldnt have happened. If he hadnt run it wouldnt have happened.

Robotech
28th May 2010, 17:56
Maybe I'm not reading the same stories as you guys are but this is what I'm getting from what's out there so far from the article Billy Bob posted:


Police Department recieves a call of a Motorcycle speeding through traffic. Officer responds.
Officer finds speeding motorcycle and proceeds to follow him with his cruiser's lights out.
Motorcyclist is observed to exeed 100 mph.
Motorcycle slows down after cresting a hill. Officer does not slow in time and hits motorcycle from behind.


That's all we got. Here's what is in question:

"Cruiser's lights out." Does this mean he didn't have ANY lights on (ie headlights) or that his emergancy lights / siren were not on?

"officer followed" Mentions nothing about a pursuit but a pursuit could be considered following. This also means we have no clue if the rider ran or not as we don't even know if there was a pursuit for sure. Also, how long did he follow him and from how far behind? A block, a mile, 10 miles...was he right behind him the whole way or did he see the motorcycle go by then try to catch up to him?

"motorcycle observed over 100 MPH" But there is no mention of how fast the officer was traveling or whether or not the officer observed the motorcyclist doing 100. We assume this speed assessment is from the officer which leads us to assume that he too had to be doing at least 100 to continue following the motorcycle.

"Motorcycle slows down after cresting hill" Did the officer lose sight of the motorcycle? We probably are presuming he did otherwise why mention the hill?

These new stories and what's not being answered in them is making it look like the officer was acting just as reckless as the motorcyclist he was following. And in all honesty, it doesn't surprise me.

I had an incident just the other day of an officer using bad judgement and almost getting me hurt. There is an off ramp where I get off the freeway on my way to work that is very busy. There are two lanes off the freeway. The right lane is to go straight onto the on-ramp or to turn right and the left is left turn only. The left lane is the busy lane as that's the lane that heads towards where all the businesses in the area are located so it's not uncommon for this lane to have a fifty or more cars lined up on it waiting to turn left. The left turn light is a long one too letting 25-35 vehicles through at a time. The street we're exiting onto is a four lane street with a left turn lane for turning onto the on-ramp that is opposite our off-ramp.

Needless to say in the morning this is a very busy intersection. We'll I'm making my left off the off-ramp and there are a number of cars in front of me and a number behind me...we look like a parade...and there's not much room between us. Suddenly and without warning, a car that is in the left turn lane waiting to get on the freeway makes a u-turn RIGHT INTO OUR LINE OF TRAFFIC!!!! The car in front of me has to brake hard and I'm looking for daylight so I don't become the meat in a SUV sandwich. Turns out, the car making the highly illegal and DANGEROUS U-turn is an unmarked police car! He shoots around one car in front of him and pulls in behind a pickup. Eventually he pulls them over but it certainly wasn't for speeding.

Now, I have NO clue as to why he did what he did. Maybe someone matching the description of the driver was wanted for murder or rape...who knows. All I do know is the officer just about got me killed to make the stop. All it would have taken was ONE person in our line of cars not paying attention and I could have been in real trouble.

The story related here sounds like it was the combination of a motorcyclist riding dangerously and an officer responding with sub-par judgement.

Here's a possible scenario: The rider is booking along at over 100 and sees a car approaching from far behind him. He thinks "That could be a cop so I better slow down but I don't want to slam on my brakes and have him see that because then he'll know I was speeding." Rider crosses a hill and loses sight of the officer so he figures now he can slow down. Using his bike's ability to slow rappidly, he stomps on the brakes hard to bring his speed back down to the legal limit before the car behind him crests the hill and reaquires him. However the car behind him is trying to catch up to him and crests the hill expecting the motorcycle to be well out ahead only to find it slowed in front of him. By the time the officer can react, it's too late and he cannot avoid the motorcycle.

flathead45
28th May 2010, 18:01
so If you don't know when a bike will pop a wheely untill you do it once......


how do you know you can't run from a cop, till you try it once.....











:sofa

scottsxl1200
28th May 2010, 18:11
Maybe I'm not reading the same stories as you guys are but this is what I'm getting from what's out there so far from the article Billy Bob posted:


Police Department recieves a call of a Motorcycle speeding through traffic. Officer responds.
Officer finds speeding motorcycle and proceeds to follow him with his cruiser's lights out.
Motorcyclist is observed to exeed 100 mph.
Motorcycle slows down after cresting a hill. Officer does not slow in time and hits motorcycle from behind.


That's all we got. Here's what is in question:

"Cruiser's lights out." Does this mean he didn't have ANY lights on (ie headlights) or that his emergancy lights / siren were not on?

"officer followed" Mentions nothing about a pursuit but a pursuit could be considered following. This also means we have no clue if the rider ran or not as we don't even know if there was a pursuit for sure.

"motorcycle observed over 100 MPH" But there is no mention of how fast the officer was traveling or whether or not the officer observed the motorcyclist doing 100. We assume this speed assessment is from the officer which leads us to assume that he too had to be doing at least 100 to continue following the motorcycle.

"Motorcycle slows down after cresting hill" Did the officer lose sight of the motorcycle? We probably are presuming he did otherwise why mention the hill?

These new stories and what's not being answered in them is making it look like the officer was acting just as reckless as the motorcyclist he was following. And in all honesty, it doesn't surprise me.

I had a very similar incident just the other day. There is an off ramp where I get off the freeway on my way to work that is very busy. There are two lanes off the freeway. The right lane is to go straight onto the on-ramp or to turn right and the left is left turn only. The left lane is the busy lane as that's the lane that heads towards where all the businesses in the area are located so it's not uncommon for this lane to have a fifty or more cars lined up on it waiting to turn left. The left turn light is a long one too letting 25-35 vehicles through at a time. The street we're exiting onto is a four lane street with a left turn lane for turning onto the on-ramp that is opposite our off-ramp.

Needless to say in the morning this is a very busy intersection. We'll I'm making my left off the off-ramp and there are a number of cars in front of me and a number behind me...we look like a parade...and there's not much room between us. Suddenly and without warning, a car that is in the left turn lane waiting to get on the freeway makes a u-turn RIGHT INTO OUR LINE OF TRAFFIC!!!! The car in front of me has to brake hard and I'm looking for daylight so I don't become the meat in a SUV sandwich. Turns out, the car making the highly illegal and DANGEROUS U-turn is an unmarked police car! He shoots around one car in front of him and pulls in behind a pickup. Eventually he pulls them over but it certainly wasn't for speeding.

Now, I have NO clue as to why he did what he did. Maybe someone matching the description of the driver was wanted for murder or rape...who knows. All I do know is the officer just about got me killed to make the stop. All it would have taken was ONE person in our line of cars not paying attention and I could have been in real trouble.

The story related here sounds like it was the combination of a motorcyclist riding dangerously and an officer responding with sub-par judgement.

Here's a possible scenario: The rider is booking along at over 100 and sees a car approaching behind him. He thinks "That could be a cop so I better slow down but I don't want to slam on my brakes and have him see that because then he'll know I was speeding." Rider crosses a hill and loses sight of the officer so he figures now he can slow down. Using his bike's ability to slow rappidly, he stomps on the brakes hard to bring his speed back down to the legal limit before the car behind him crests the hill and reaquires him. However the car behind him is trying to catch up to him and crests the hill expecting the motorcycle to be well out ahead only to find it slowed in front of him. By the time the officer can react, it's too late and he cannot avoid the motorcycle.

I agree. If this is the scenario then there should be shared responsibility, not necessarily equal, like I mentioned before, this wouldnt have happened if the biker hadnt been speeding. But the cop should have had his lights on and should have slowed down to a speed he could've reacted to after topping the hill. He should have used the radio to catch him.
Originally this sounded like the bike didnt have a taillight and was running from the cop.

caveplay
28th May 2010, 18:19
I would say by looking at the pic of the bike from Ksat.com the bike was hit way under 100mph ~more like 20-35ish hit

Robotech
28th May 2010, 18:21
I agree. If this is the scenario then there should be shared responsibility, not necessarily equal, like I mentioned before, this wouldnt have happened if the biker hadnt been speeding. But the cop should have had his lights on and should have slowed down to a speed he could've reacted to after topping the hill. He should have used the radio to catch him.
Originally this sounded like the bike didnt have a taillight and was running from the cop.

No, the bike shouldn't have been speeding...that's for sure. The question becomes though did the speed attribute to the accident and here, I'm not sure it did. The speeding is what brought the police officer into being behind the bike yes, but did it cause the collision? No.

The officer's speed and his inability to react to the bike is what caused the accident. Now we have to break that down. Why couldn't the officer react in time? Was it because of how the bike slowed down? The officer's presumption that the bike wouldn't slow down? The lack of proper lighting on the back of the bike to signify it was slowing down? The hill interrupting the officer's line of sight to the bike when it was slowing down? Did the bike brake too quickly for the officer's vehicle to slow in the space provided? Would it have been reasonable for the officer to assume the bike would slow after the hill? Should he have assumed it could have come to a complete stop after the hill and acted accordingly? All of these things? Half of them?

Then as far as using his radio this is presuming there was a reason to pull the bike over. If the officer hadn't even caught up to the bike yet he couldn't get plate, color, make or other information to relay over the radio yet. Then we have to assume there were other units in the area that could respond. I didn't catch the size of the town but some small towns have only a couple officers and no air support. If a chase hadn't been innitiated yet, none of those assets would have been brought into play until after the officer tried to innitiate the stop and the rider then choose to flee.

Like I said before...there are a LOT of things NOT being answered in those articles. It's more about what's NOT there than what IS there that makes any of us passing judgement on the rider or the officer impossible. As they say in our safety course...take any one factor out of all the "causes" for an accident and chances are the accident won't occure.