it blows my mind that this kind of mentality actually exists
|
|
|
Driver loses control after passing motorcycles
- Thread starter icecube172
- Start date
it blows my mind that this kind of mentality actually exists
There are "proximate causes" (the immediate cause of the collision), and there are "contributing factors" (other circumstances that, in their absence, the collision is unlikely to have happened).
To find "contributing factors" ... just ask WHY.
In this incident, the "proximate cause" was that the car driver was on the shoulder overtaking the bikes and lost control of the vehicle.
WHY was the car overtaking the bikes ... because they were going slower than the car driver wanted to go. (Contributing factor ... the group of riders was probably travelling below the normal traffic speed on that road, leading to frustration for drivers behind. Had this factor not been present - i.e. had the riders been travelling faster! - the incident would not have occurred because the driver wouldn't have wanted to overtake.)
WHY was the car overtaking on the shoulder ... because the bikes were occupying all of the road. (Contributing factor ... the riders were blocking the normal traffic on the roadway! Had this factor not been present, i.e. had the riders stayed in a single lane, the other lanes would have been available for the driver to overtake normally, and the incident would not have occurred.)
You can delve deeper and deeper, to find more contributing factors, by continuing to ask "why". In the circumstances that I see this procedure used - industrial production line breakdowns, accidents, and other incidents - it's normal to ask "why" five times. Normally the root cause(s) and resolution(s) will become apparent.
Why did the production line stop? - because the safety circuit tripped.
Why did the safety circuit trip? - because the wire to the sensor broke.
Why did the wire break? - because the wire was installed in a place that the operator's foot hits it.
Why did the operator's foot hitting it break the wire? - because the protective cover was missing.
Why was the protective cover missing? - because it's uncomfortable for the operator to load parts with it there, so the operator had removed it. Aha ...
Solution: assuming that the sensor itself cannot be eliminated or moved, then reposition wiring away from the operator station or redesign cover to eliminate the motivation for the operator to remove it.
(I do this sort of thing for a living)
koma
Well-known member
Contributing factors, sure, but clearly this was an inappropriate response by the driver. Some people snap for the smallest of reasons. They're still responsible for their actions.
I hear what you're saying, but to claim that riding in a group of motorcycles even if its too slow is just as stupid as passing a group of motorcycles in a car on the grass and ultimately losing control and almost killing them all is simply ludicrous.
I'm with Paul on this one. I'm trying to understand this point of view. To say that the riders were at fault because they were occupying the road is a bit like saying a bus load of people died because of one passenger who took too long to dig bus fare out of her pocket; thus creating a delay; thus getting hit by a semi that wouldn't have collided with the bus otherwise. Isn't it? It's a butterfly effect argument. Sure, the riders were variables involved in the causality of the incident but they weren't responsible for the actions of another human being. It's a big distinction.
The driver approached from behind with the riders in full view. He didn't have a legal alternative but to simply follow the flow of traffic... so he chose to take an illegal alternative and pass on the shoulder. Could the riders have been more considerate? Sure. We all could be. But they weren't doing anything wrong. I get as frustrated with slow drivers as the next guy (not that there's any evidence whatsoever that the bikes were moving slowly) but I would never pull a hair brained stunt like that.
The driver approached from behind with the riders in full view. He didn't have a legal alternative but to simply follow the flow of traffic... so he chose to take an illegal alternative and pass on the shoulder. Could the riders have been more considerate? Sure. We all could be. But they weren't doing anything wrong. I get as frustrated with slow drivers as the next guy (not that there's any evidence whatsoever that the bikes were moving slowly) but I would never pull a hair brained stunt like that.
Sure they are responsible for illegal actions....so fine them....jail them...hell even give them the chair. Doesn't change the outcome for the riders though. At your loved one's funeral, pointing a finger at the responsible party will not allow them to rise from the grave. If that Volvo had taken out 6 bikes and killed those riders, would it have been enough to say "the car driver took it too far and he is to blame"?....or would you just rather have your buddies back?
I have this argument often with new drivers/riders.
They say "But I had the right of way!"......to which my reply is "it doesn't matter who was in the wrong, if you're dead, now does it?"
....its often better to be alive than right.
Last edited:
Your example would be valid if the cause of the accident was because one of the riders was late, causing a delay on the actual time the riders were supposed to hit the road, causing the riders to be at that spot and the time the car was going by... this is nothing to do with the butterfly effect.
This was simply a bunch of idiots having the arrogance to take over a hwy or road that is occupied by others, their actions created a reaction that ultimately caused an accident, sure the driver response was wrong, but the incident was provoked and cause by the riders.
If people don't get it, then there isn't much I can do about it.
Of course. I can't disagree with this because it's always better for an accident never to have happened. But strictly speaking, in terms of fault, it boils down to one driver deciding on his own to do something dangerous. The riders didn't do anything dangerous and were perfectly within their rights to be where they were (barring any local street laws I'm unaware of where this happened). Not being as courteous as you could've been is a long, long way from causing an accident.
The analogy was exaggerated to get a point across. The point is that the riders did not cause the incident, they were only variables in it (just like a butterfly is a variable in a hurricane). They weren't even an indirect cause. The car driver directly caused the incident solely due to his choice to run the risk. Emotional volatility isn't an excuse. Anyone who commutes faces this choice every single day and I would blame an unsafe pass on the impatient driver every time regardless of how slow the vehicle in front is moving (don't get me wrong, I'd empathize with the driver because I'm a bit impatient myself).
We have no information on what happened prior to the event. Everyone seems to assume that the car just got fed up driving behind them for ages (as if that makes it ok) but he just as easily could've been a lunatic flying down the highway like he's on a race track (god knows there are enough of them). They might not have even seen him coming. Even if the riders were being extra courteous, the dude in the car might've done something stupid anyway. The fact is we don't know so we have to go by the evidence presented in the video which--in this case--damns the driver.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't hold someone responsible for someone else's choices. We're often faced with less than ideal circumstances and it's up to us to decide how we react to it. Just because we agree that a certain something is universally annoying, it doesn't give us the justification to do as we please. Otherwise I'd got postal blaming the weather man for all this goddam rain! :lmao:
Clearly you don't get it.
Lets run another scenario, Bob is in front of Mike in line at tim hortons. Bob takes 10 minutes to decide what he wants when its his time to order, holding up the line and as a result Mike gets upset pulls out his uzi and starts spraying bullets in the place. No one gets hurt because Mike is a horrible shot.
What im saying is that in this scenario Mike is a lunatic who over reacted and put several people in danger for a dumb reason.
You're claiming that Bob brought this on himself because he took 10 minutes to order, AND he's a bigger idiot than Mike.
Understand?
Mr.Azim
Well-known member
Anyone remember what they were told when they took their G or G2 test?
"Drive with traffic".
If you happen to take your test in the middle of rush hour and drive 90 km/h when everyone else is doing 40.... you would fail.
This ****** didn't drive with traffic, let alone on the road lol. I'm usually skeptical about taking "the bikers'" side in these threads. But I agree with Paul. Just because one person is an idiot, doesn't mean someone else has to act like an even bigger idiot and put people in danger. Everyone has a certain degree of stupid... it's just more apparent in some than others.
"Drive with traffic".
If you happen to take your test in the middle of rush hour and drive 90 km/h when everyone else is doing 40.... you would fail.
This ****** didn't drive with traffic, let alone on the road lol. I'm usually skeptical about taking "the bikers'" side in these threads. But I agree with Paul. Just because one person is an idiot, doesn't mean someone else has to act like an even bigger idiot and put people in danger. Everyone has a certain degree of stupid... it's just more apparent in some than others.
bboySushi
Well-known member
Why is there a claim that the riders are all going below the speed limit?
If those were cars and not bikes, would that thought have even CROSSED YOUR MIND? I don't think so. You wouldn't say yeah well ALL THOSE CARS on the 401 AREN'T going fast enough they're just as at fault??? As said, earlier ludicrous.
Some lady slipped on carpet (whole floor was carpeted) at my cousin's wedding last weekend. She is going through insurance, or trying to sue or something. Like seriously, does nobody take responsibility for their actions? You're 45, wearing high heels and doing who knows what and lost your balance and fell. REALLY IS IT THE CARPETS FAULT, and the event organizer?????
If those were cars and not bikes, would that thought have even CROSSED YOUR MIND? I don't think so. You wouldn't say yeah well ALL THOSE CARS on the 401 AREN'T going fast enough they're just as at fault??? As said, earlier ludicrous.
Some lady slipped on carpet (whole floor was carpeted) at my cousin's wedding last weekend. She is going through insurance, or trying to sue or something. Like seriously, does nobody take responsibility for their actions? You're 45, wearing high heels and doing who knows what and lost your balance and fell. REALLY IS IT THE CARPETS FAULT, and the event organizer?????
koma
Well-known member
I agree. However, I will say if you see a a big group of motorcyclists they are probably riding together. Seeing a bunch of cars means you're stuck in traffic.
Holy fak we agree again! What's happening to me?
The way I look at it, as long as one party did something wrong, they have no right to complain. Of course, the driver was a d*** beyond measure, but the bikers never seemed to give him the opportunity to change lanes and try to pass the mob. Worst part is, I bet nobody learned anything from this.
Both riders and driver contributed to the whole incident. Riders blocking lanes caused driver to go berserk. If only the riders took one lane or move over, this should never happen. The driver also over reacted and decided to go off road thinking he drives a 4X4.
Luckily this didn't turn into a tragic, maybe only a few scratches on the car.
Luckily this didn't turn into a tragic, maybe only a few scratches on the car.
True.. I'd make it 50/50.. The riders were acting like pricks and the cager was acting like a spoiled brat. The spoiled brat lost. That doesn't mean that the pricks weren't being pricks.
This seems to be a very difficult concept to grasp for some members here which see no fault on the riders
I got stuck too often behind large groups of bikes doing 15 below limit in the twisties not to have some wrathful thoughts about certain fellow-riders, cursing their fat guts and straight pipes as I'm stuck behind their slow behinds, focusing on my rage just to stay awake until the first safe opportunity to pass
Perhaps the car driver didn't have time for a long drawn out act of stupidity RIDE OF THE CENTURY! I'd be getting edgy too behind a rolling roadblock too.
[video=youtube;6RgYG7IZyMg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RgYG7IZyMg[/video]
|
|
|
|
|