If she's dressed like that in church, a school, a playground during recess....she should realize that people are going to get upset with her (not the grab *** part). There's a time and place for everything. Making illegal passes and essentially riding like an idiot on a public road with driveways, double lines and traffic is not the right place. That's pretty easy to understand, is it not? If you ride like an *******, or recklessly, you have to expect some of these things to possibly happen because there are other humans (who make mistakes too) out there with you. That doesn't mean it's right or that anyone is justifying it. It's really a simple concept and it's not meant to justify the truck driver at all.

 

But does she have blame to carry if someone grabs her *** (or worse) because she chose the wrong time and place to dress like that? Any blame whatsoever? I pray your answer is "Of course not!" Then why assign the rider blame for the truck driver's actions?


blame

1. to hold responsible; find fault with; censure: I don't blame you for leaving him.
2. to place the responsibility for (a fault, error, etc.) (usually followed by on ): I blame the accident on her.

No words being put in your mouth here. You want to assign some blame on the rider for the trucker's action, that by passing illegally he did cause the incident in some small way. If you cannot say the same for the imaginary woman used in the example, you cannot say it for the rider without being hypocritical. You also accused philthethrillohio of not being objective because the rider is his friend

I think you're also not objective here as the rider offends your riding sensibilities.

 

That reminded me of what happened in Canada not to long ago:


On February 2011, while presiding over a rape case, Dewar remarked that on the evening of the alleged rape "sex was in the air" and the victim's behavior and attire may have given the attacker the wrong impression (she was wearing a tube top and heels) He also mentioned that the victim was wearing makeup and had been drinking. The judge found the defendant guilty yet sentenced him to two years of probation. The judge also required that the defendant write the victim a letter of apology. The typical sentence for such a crime is usually at least three years in prison. However, since the judge felt that the defendant wasn't threatening - just “insensitive to the fact (she) was not a willing participant” - he will serve no jail time. This prompted an appeal of the sentence, a review of the judge's conduct by the Canadian Judicial Council, and massive public outcry.



This judge said if she didn't dress like a **** to the bar and got drunk, she would have never gotten raped, so she is partially to blame on being raped.

 

I'll start by saying your analogy is completely ridiculous and I know why you're using it. I'm not answering your question. It's apples and oranges. The woman isn't potentially endangering a life. What if the rider passes the truck and under acceleration gets head shake, washes the front out and causes the truck to veer off the road into a ditch where the driver is killed. Would you feel the same way if that's what happened? I pray your answer is "Of course not!"


First off, the rider DID indeed cause this incident. Had he not passed, it wouldn't have happened. He STARTED this incident with his pass. So in that regard, yes the rider is to blame. The truck driver is to blame for his ridiculous and mentally insane reaction. Again, you analogy with the woman is apples and oranges.



Really?

 

Now if I'm not allowed to say the driver, already demonstrating a lack of sanity, could have just as easily slammed on the brakes to "get that damn biker" if the rider never passed, you can't toss "what if"s in the mix either. "What if" doesn't factor in because "What if" didn't happen.

As for not answering and the apples bit, fine. But the analogy holds: attempting to blame a victim for the actions of another.

No, the rider is not in control of the truck. He did not do anything directly to the driver of the truck. A person can be offended by another's actions. But that person, and only that person, is responsible for how they choose to respond if those actions are not directed toward them.

And yes, really, I think you are offended by the squid rider blasting down country roads giving you a bad name by association. How you felt after your own trip to the dark side is immaterial.

 

wow.....this is little much....i think we need to take a break and let the court of law ( dont trust courts) decide....whatever they say will go.

whats the point of this dispute????


the bottom line is....if you want to be an idiot and run against trafic on one way street, do it, but do it thinking about the consequences.


the truck driver should not react to others mistakes, or stupid decisions.
what if the rider was going to his dying dad to save his life, what would happen if he got ran of off the road. they both die. the driver of the truck didnt know what was the reason of him passing.

 

I only started what iffing because you did (and my what if is valid, too...it shows that the rider making the pass CAN indeed have an effect on the driver) and used that analogy. And the analogy doesn't hold...it's apples and oranges.


You're talking in circles and you can't possibly argue that had the rider not made the pass, this wouldn't have happened. He made the pass illegally -> truck driver got angry. Cause/Effect. It's pointless to argue this anymore.

I'm offended by people blindly standing up for the rider saying he's done no wrong. That goes against all logic. And I'm a logical guy.

I've ridden like him before. I'm part of the problem. That doesn't mean my head is so far up my @ss that I don't realize it.

The rider could have just as easily stayed behind the truck, or pulled off the road and waited for it to get up far ahead...or been on a road with no traffic and driveways. His actions led to this incident. The truck driver made the second bad decision.

I assume you're talking about the motorcyclist? If so, that's my entire point that's been twisted into me hating motorcyclists and justifying the driver...in fact, that the driver should have killed the rider and we'd all be better off...that's how ridiculous some of these responses have been.

Oh, and I have a bag of what-ifs for you if you want another one.

 

Well the reason why this is working my nerves like Kai and Kia are working a bone right now is the fear that in a court of law someone sitting in the jury box would think the same thing: well if he hadn't tried to pass on the double line it'd never happen. It's a fundamentally wrong way to think because by assigning some of the blame to the victim for allegedly creating the situation, you also absolve the defendant of some of the blame for the actions they took. It's why people get lighter sentences than they deserve. Lawyers use that tactic all the time.

I'm a huge advocate of personal responsibility. If this goes to court and the court decides to yank the rider's license, confiscate his bike and lock him up for reckless driving all I'd be able to do is shrug and say "he shoulda known better". But if the truck driver didn't receive the maximum penalty for his actions because the rider took some of the blame, there'd be holy hell to pay in my eyes. Just as doc doesn't want bikers thinking they can get away with anything they like, I don't want drivers to think they can get away with doing anything they like to a rider.

Doc doesn't like the imaginary woman analogy. Cool. What if I walked up down the block to Lancaster Ave (dohcdelsol should know about The Bottom) and shot one of the several guys dealing drugs on the corner in the face? They're breaking the law. It's definitely offends sensibilities. It's even endangering the lives of others. Should I get charged with 1st Degree Murder? Or should my lawyer be able to argue it down because it was a scumbag drug dealer breaking the law (trust me, if i were to do something that insane I'd find a lawyer able to play that card well)

 

watch this and see that the rider is in the wrong on the few occasions here, crossing the double line few times to pass but people move to the side to make him room to pass and few of them hit the brakes to slow down so he can pass faster.
YouTube - ‪cabrio996's Channel‬‏
is it just people in europe are more curtious or is it just the worlds common sence not to kill other drivers and riders.

i was told by my grandpa and my dad, that if someone is passing you, you should slow down and move to the right as far as possible to help awoid the wrecks.

 

And who is saying that's what should happen? I'm certainly not. From what you've been saying, I'd assume you were against personal responsibility...that's how it sounded to me at least.

Again, sorry. Not answering your question. I've stated MULTIPLE times that I think the driver of the truck should be in jail or a mental ward for as long as it's allowed. You're refusing to either read it or you gloss over it cause you don't want to accept that we're agreeing on that fact.


Motorcycles in Europe have a lot more leeway than we do here in the States, generally because of motorcycling's sordid history and our relaxed riding laws (safety gear, what CC bike you can have when you start out blah blah blah). And road sharing, from what I understand, is a lot more tolerated. It's definitely not the world's common sense. I've seen videos like the one posted in the thread from all over the world and am never surprised by any of them.

Your pap and dad are correct. That's what you SHOULD do. Sometimes it doesn't always happen like that though, especially if you're the one doing the passing.