Moron Motorists #3

[il padrone]

Cretinous behaviour on all counts as far as I can see. Mob mentality rules in the good ol' US of A; and if I don't like something I just drive over it

[jules21]

I'll stick within that. Solely going from the video, I perceive that a motorbike rider pulled barely in front of the 4wd and slowed down without warning (seriously, who needs a range rover in NY but I digress). Its not obvious to me that the driver deliberately hit the bike, maybe he didn't brake quite as fast as he needed to. That could be deliberate, or it could be accidental as it wasn't expected.

i have no idea why the biker is trying to slow him down, other than possibly that he is an idiot, but to me it looks like the driver nevertheless had adequate opportunity to slow safely. for whatever reason, he doesn't.

the justification for his actions appears to be the violent and threatening behaviour of the bikers. my problem is - that came later. so i don't see how it justifies his initial actions.

i could be wrong, but to me the driver looks like he may have called their bluff by knocking the original biker, allowing the situation to spiral out of control. in that case, he isn't the victim he's portrayed as.

a reasonable assessment of the situation should at least consider that possibility - which clearly has been discarded - including by the police officer. to me, that's just straight out unprofessional. he should withhold judgment until thoroughly investigating the incident. but he just labels the bikers as thugs and portrays the evidence to suit. that all sounds familiar to me.

[Percrime]

I have now heard two completely opposite versions of this and I have pretty well no interest as to the truth of it.
Although I would point out that a rangy will outbrake the majority of high performance motorbikes from 10 kph to zero.

Having said that I would have no hesitation in running over any amount of people to escape if I felt sufficiently in danger. Or for that matter shooting or braining anyone who forced the door open given I could not retreat and felt sufficiently in danger.

And I am pretty sure that although many will not admit it its true of the majority of readers

We are the survivors of a million odd years of evolution. ALL our descendents when faced with a 'my life or theirs' choice have chosen to live. All of our ancesters without a single exception made that choice when it came up. If you happen to believe you could not take a life if it was them or you then you are the very first in your genetic line to make that choice. And if it really was life or death you are the end of that line.

Just saying

[jules21]

Cretinous behaviour on all counts as far as I can see. Mob mentality rules in the good ol' US of A; and if I don't like something I just drive over it

the argument was that the driver was in fear at that point - it's just unclear to me whether that is a retro-fitted excuse or fact.

[jules21]

Having said that I would have no hesitation in running over any amount of people to escape if I felt sufficiently in danger.

again, in the initial collision, the bikers are just riding like cretins. it's hard to see how the driver was intimidated enough by that to ram them.

[skull]

I read about that on a us site. The bikers were trying to block others from entering motorway so they could ride it. 4wd tried to get through so they surrounded it and tried to slow stop them. Basic bullying behaviour.

Now whether to driver intentionally drove over the bikes as a show of force or at that stage was already in genuine fear we don't know.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4

[FuzzyDropbear]

... news reader (2nd video on that page) says that a biker cut the driver off, causing him to drive into the rear of the bike. i don't think so. to be clear - the bikers were being complete cretins. but it seems the driver just may have given the rider a nudge when the rider tried to slow him down.

In the first part of the video, you can clearly see the biker decelerate after cutting in front of the car (look at the gap that opens up between him and the line of riders in front), you never lane split with a car, yet the biker was doing so. It mustn't have been a massive impact, because the rider was upright when they stopped the car in the first instance. A further article says that the police had received over 200 calls regarding the riding habit of that group. In one part of that video, there's a muppet riding no handed while filming with a tablet computer!!

Can't say much because we can't see too much of the initial engagement. What I can see from the first video on the NYdailynews, the car may have slowed when surrounded by a bunch of bikers and a bike went around him, which seemed to trigger the guy who then went up to the car and slowed in front of him. But really, why would you cut in front of a larger vehicle and hit the brakes? If you're trying to make a point about something, surrounding the car with bikes and then riding off would have a greater impact.

the news reader claims that the bikers then attacked the motorist, or his vehicle. this (in the initial incident, not the later one where the driver clearly was attacked) isn't shown in the available footage, so it's unclear where that information came from. is it possible that the driver took off after deliberately nudging the biker, breaking another rider's legs in the process?

Yeah, the video is taken too far away to see anyone initially attacking the car, but can't rule it out. There's a guy lying in the middle of the road at 0:38, which I would guess is the guy with the broken legs. I don't see why the driver would smash through bikers like that unless he was fearful for the safety of himself and his family. Which, given there were so many there, could've been a possibility.

[InTheWoods]

i have no idea why the biker is trying to slow him down, other than possibly that he is an idiot, but to me it looks like the driver nevertheless had adequate opportunity to slow safely. for whatever reason, he doesn't.

One media report said it was to block the freeway to have it for themselves (don't know why).

I don't see the rider start slowing until partway into 00:10s. The collision occurs partway into 00:11s.

The riders were being idiots. The driver was being a bigger idiot, if he hit the rider on purpose - which obviously escalated the situation rapidly from "idiotic" to "dangerous". I don't think anybody will really know apart from the driver himself, and even then people have a strange ability to revise their own memory of a situation, so maybe nobody will ever know

[jules21]

I don't see why the driver would smash through bikers like that unless he was fearful for the safety of himself and his family. Which, given there were so many there, could've been a possibility.

i don't doubt he feared for his safety. my question is - did he contribute to the reasons for why? the police response appears to be 'the bikers were being very irresponsible and are to blame' which i wholly agree with, but it gets back to a point which has been debated on this forum previously - is blame a commodity which can only be apportioned to one party, or multiple parties? if you are (perceived to be) doing something wrong, do you surrender *all* of your rights and protection from the law? the law does not support that - it doesn't make one person's liability contingent upon another's compliance (i.e. the false contention that you will not be held liable for committing an offence if the victim has committed one too) - but that often seems the way in which it is interpreted - particularly by police. kind of like the goodies and baddies - if someone is the good guy, the other must be the bad guy..

[FuzzyDropbear]

Having said that I would have no hesitation in running over any amount of people to escape if I felt sufficiently in danger.

again, in the initial collision, the bikers are just riding like cretins. it's hard to see how the driver was intimidated enough by that to ram them.

I suppose it could be a definition of 'ram', but if I'm going to ram someone, you'll get knocked on your backside (just like when you get smashed by a ram ). To me, you won't be left upright if you were on a bike. Again, this could just be differences in definition. I will agree he hit the bike, the front of the car dip, indicating braking, but who knows his intentions?

I don't agree with the paper's use of language, newspapers are there to report, not to use emotional language to stir trouble, or to paint a group when an investigation hasn't been conducted.

Yep, I agree with attributing blame, we can't see or gain any witness to the drivers intentions when he hit the bike. Did he just intend to tap him? Did the rider not give enough warning / slowed too quickly for the driver to react? Who knows? The only thing I saw on the longer version of the video, was before the incident, there was a rider who was close to the rear end of the car, the car appeared to have slowed and the rider gunned it around him, then the bloke in the white and black jacket rode up beside the car and started having a go.

Who knows why the car was there, if the riders had denied access to everyone else, well, that's one in their book, the rider did initiate the contact by cutting in front of the car and slowing dramatically, another in their book. Did the driver react too slow, not expect someone to do that or did he deliberately hit him, who knows? That one is undecided. But I believe, that if you deliberately cut someone off and then hit the brakes and there is proof the car did hit the brakes, then the blame lies with the bikers. Would the incident have happened if that guy had words with the driver and then rode off?

[il padrone]

FFS, all this was done in front of a 2yo child - the car smashed into and her dad dragged out of the car to get beaten and knifed

Now I don't really care about who was the initial party at fault. Those moto-riders are the lowest scum about. They would have been well aware of the child, riding alongside like they were.

[jules21]

Who knows why the car was there, if the riders had denied access to everyone else, well, that's one in their book, the rider did initiate the contact by cutting in front of the car and slowing dramatically, another in their book. Did the driver react too slow, not expect someone to do that or did he deliberately hit him, who knows? That one is undecided. But I believe, that if you deliberately cut someone off and then hit the brakes and there is proof the car did hit the brakes, then the blame lies with the bikers. Would the incident have happened if that guy had words with the driver and then rode off?

but aren't you following the logic of - rider(s) to blame - check - therefore no blame left for driver. that's part of the problem i'm trying to illustrate. i think the driver can still share blame for responding provocatively and aggressively to the very poor behaviour of the bikers.

this is relevant to cycling in that drivers often perceive us as illegitimate road users. aside from the fact this is just wrong, what is dangerous is that they perceive our 'illegitimate' status as giving them impunity for any consequences to us associated with their driving. to me, that's the same false view as taken in this incident toward the 'illegitimate' (if for more substantive reasons) bikers.

[jules21]

FFS, all this was done in front of a 2yo child - the car smashed into and her dad dragged out of the car to get beaten and knifed

Now I don't really care about who was the initial party at fault. Those moto-riders are the lowest scum about. They would have been well aware of the child, riding alongside like they were.

i doubt anyone here would disagree with that. it's not the point i was intending to focus on.

[il padrone]

Reading a bit more of that news report, it seems there are just afew other factors about the motivations and actions of this motorcycling mob. I really think the "mob mentality" that you complain of in the media is less of an issue than the very real mob on the streets. One bad action by a driver is not really enough to justify what resulted.

I see the actions of such a mob of bikes as more comparablke to the hoon behaviour that we cyclists get thrown at us by some reckless drivers.

"They had been riding all over the city being a menace,” said Cynthia Williams, 59, of Harlem, who saw a pack of bikers on W. 145th St. more than an hour after the attack on Lien.

“They went up on the sidewalk. It was just so many of them that they took up the whole street.”......


.....Kelly said cops were using the video and surveillance cameras try to identify some of the bikers, but most of the motorcycles didn’t have license plates and riders’ faces were obscured by their helmets.....

......The commissioner said police had been monitoring the ride — loosely organized by a group that calls itself Hollywood Stuntz. He said about 1,000 riders caused chaos in Times Square last year when they showed up out of nowhere and disrupted traffic.

Police arrested 15 bikers and confiscated 55 motorcycles during incidents Sunday unrelated to the Lien attack, Kelly said. He said 68 summonses were issued.

[jules21]

"They had been riding all over the city being a menace,” said Cynthia Williams, 59, of Harlem, who saw a pack of bikers on W. 145th St. more than an hour after the attack on Lien.

“They went up on the sidewalk. It was just so many of them that they took up the whole street.”......

at risk of flogging a dead horse, i didn't see any violence perpetrated by any of the bikers until it was perpetrated against them. "taking up the whole street" is poor etiquette and surely illegal too, but hardly in the same league as running over someone with your vehicle and paralysing them. i'm not blind - the behaviour of the bikers was foolish and provocative, and in the end - by a small number of them (not the mob as a whole) - thuggish - but the latter appears to have been a response, not the original intent. i'm not as sure about the driver.

to me this is an interesting exercise in how we perceive things - in particular, i note that many people don't share my perspective on how blame can be distributed, preferring to lump it on one party altogether, or another.

[zero]

I'll stick within that. Solely going from the video, I perceive that a motorbike rider pulled barely in front of the 4wd and slowed down without warning (seriously, who needs a range rover in NY but I digress). Its not obvious to me that the driver deliberately hit the bike, maybe he didn't brake quite as fast as he needed to. That could be deliberate, or it could be accidental as it wasn't expected.

i have no idea why the biker is trying to slow him down, other than possibly that he is an idiot, but to me it looks like the driver nevertheless had adequate opportunity to slow safely. for whatever reason, he doesn't.

The video doesn't start at the first incident, it starts at the first incident where the camera rider was close to the range rover.

The usual reason for these events to start is the driver attempting to cut into the stream of motorcycles. The usual reality is that the car driver that often cuts into other traffic streams not recognising the likely group dynamic difference between cutting off a stream of individual commuters, vs cutting of motorcycles of which far more can see the incident, and far more are likely to personally know the rider who was most closely cut off.

A cage is good at making you entirely forget you are dealing with humans and group dynamics.

[FuzzyDropbear]

I believe in the equitable distribution of blame in these situations, however, I don't believe that the first act of violence was the car running over the rider. I would argue that a threat, or intimidation, is a show of violence, just as much as someone swinging fists. Just the same, if a driver was being a prick to me and tried to run me over, that's 100% his fault, if I was threatening to kill them and their family and something happened, well, equal blame probably on that one depending on the particulars of the situation.

The problem is that you can't actually see what's happening when the car stopped, there are reports that the guy gunned it when people started opening the car doors and banging on the car.... I would then argue, that's a display of violence, which would then have made the driver react by getting the stuff out of dodge to protect himself and his family.

I would also argue, if there was no violence and if the guy who was run over, was truly an innocent bystander, why, was he stopped in front of a vehicle on a highway? Do you know of any rider who would stop in the middle of a highway or road, or even park in front of a vehicle (other than the obvious red lights, parking etc.)? I don't, unless they have a deathwish I don't believe many riders would.

Could the driver have done things differently to avoid the situation as a whole? Yes, he could've stayed home and not gone for a day out with the family on his first wedding anniversary, he could have stopped there and quite possibly been dragged out of the vehicle and beaten by the mob. How hard did he brake to try and avoid the 'incident'? Could he have braked harder? Dunno, you can't prove either side.

[Scarfy96]

There are conflicting stories out and about but one that seems to be coming through is that the mob of bikes caught up to the RR and started to overtake him and slow him down. They were supposedly starting to set up a "rolling road closure" to hoon along the motor way on. So this guy is driving along with his wife and kid and a pack of motorbikes catch up to him, a few surround him, one cuts in front of him right under his nose and then trys to stop him. Looking in the mirror all the guy can see is a mass of bikes coming up from behind.

There was no cutting into the bikes, the RR was being set up as the back marker in front of which they were going to hoon and control the road. Now he didn't know that at the time, he just sees a mob of motorbikes coming up from behind, one cutting in front of him and trying to stop him.

Tell me you wouldn't be feeling a little intimidated and unsure of yourself at that point.

[jules21]

I would also argue, if there was no violence and if the guy who was run over, was truly an innocent bystander, why, was he stopped in front of a vehicle on a highway? Do you know of any rider who would stop in the middle of a highway or road, or even park in front of a vehicle (other than the obvious red lights, parking etc.)? I don't, unless they have a deathwish I don't believe many riders would.

if you mean the guy who was run over after the driver had stopped, after rear-ending the other biker, then he had a pretty good justification - to render assistance and act as a witness.

the video doesn't show if he was being aggressive or not. for all we know he was a perfect gentleman (i have my doubts, but those are mere speculation), then got run over. he shouldn't be condemned for the sins of a 'mob' - they are individuals.

[jules21]

Tell me you wouldn't be feeling a little intimidated and unsure of yourself at that point.

i would. but i wouldn't have reacted as he did. i'd have stopped and called the cops. i suspect (as is clear enough from my posts) that he decided instead to hand out a bit of rough justice, and it got out of hand. then he played victim.

[Lukeyboy]

Tell me you wouldn't be feeling a little intimidated and unsure of yourself at that point.

i would. but i wouldn't have reacted as he did. i'd have stopped and called the cops. i suspect (as is clear enough from my posts) that he decided instead to hand out a bit of rough justice, and it got out of hand. then he played victim.

Agreed. He might have felt intimidated but there was nothing life threatening going on. If a giant pack of bikes like that came up I'd be extra cautious and I'd slow right the way down. The van driver made it through okay.

[il padrone]

Statements by police include that his car was pummeled by the bikers at the first incident, and that his tyres were slashed with knives. I'd assume there was some evidence of the pummeling for police to accept that. If you look at the Range Rover at 5:52 (near the final beating), the car certainly does seem to be driving a lot lower than you would expect a Range Rover to travel, suggesting deflating tyres were a factor. Again, police would see the evidence to make such a statement, I would have thought.

All of which suggests to me the take-off when surrounded by upwards of 50-100 bikers was one of fear for the driver & passengers' safety.

[jules21]

Again, police would see the evidence to make such a statement, I would have thought.

i guess that's really the question i'm posing. but even if they had the evidence, shouldn't it be tested in court before being repeated as fact? my complaint is that the cop was behaving awful much like a judge.

[il padrone]

Of course, a trial before a judge would be great to see. Problem is that they have none of the assailants (and probably never will) to lay any charges.

Police routinely make statements about the alleged perpetratoors of crimes and their respective actions to the media. It is normal police-media interaction and part of their efforts to combat crimes through presenting the seriousness of such crimes..... to persuade people to refrain from such activities. Police statements that X unidentified motorcyclist(s) have commited Y crimes is pretty much backed up here by clear video footage and a beaten, slashed victim, not to mention the terrified wife and daughter

While you may say that a gang of threatening bikers surrounding your car does not justify the acceleration away and running down of bikers (I'd generally agree, subject to just what occuurred), there is no way that the bikers cn justify their beating of a driver (taking the law into their own hands) because of the earlier incident. It was not self-defence on their part, nor the actions of bikers in fear of their lives

[jules21]

Police statements that X unidentified motorcyclist(s) have commited Y crimes pretty much backed up here by clear video footage and a beaten, slashed victim

come on that's reverting to an undisputed point. what caught my attention was the vigorous defence of the driver. to me, that isn't necessary to prove the guilt of the bikers. nor do i see it as clearly justified. my point was around what psychologists term transference, where the cop seems to have recounted the events from the perspective of the driver. i think that is wrong.