Went Down Today | Page 5 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Went Down Today

Forum Sponsor
They don't seem contradictory to me.

I mean. I personally wouldn't give up an arm for a million bucks. But if I had to lose an arm, I would rather get a million than nothing...

You can simply ask yourself this question and see her point. If you could see the future and you knew you were going to walk down the street tomorrow and get hit by a car.. would you want to be hit by a guy with or without insurance?

It doesn't mean getting hit is worth it, but at least you don't have to worry about things like, your rent/mortagage payments, losing your job and all sorts of other things while you are recovering.
 
Last edited:
My point is to go throught the proper channels cause after two days the op is not going to know or understand how bad his injuries really are. When I say the pain is not worth any money you get I mean I rather have not gone through being hit in the first place. It is however worth to fight for what is owed to you... I to do not believe in milking the system but getting what you deserve. By telling the op to suck it up, is rediculous. He needs to make sure that he can go back to 100% before saying **** it....Sorry if this post looks retarded, it was done from my cell.
2live&ride said:
You just proved my point, thank you!I'm not one to judge, but you seem to have mixed emotions. Your first post in this thread stated that it's better to "get something" and your second post stated "the pain is not worth any amount of money". Which is it?...
Click to expand...
 
OpenGambit said:
They don't seem contradictory to me.

I mean. I personally wouldn't give up an arm for a million bucks. But if I had to lose an arm, I would rather get a million than nothing...

You can simply ask yourself this question and see her point. If you could see the future and you knew you were going to walk down the street tomorrow and get hit by a car.. would you want to be hit by a guy with or without insurance?

It doesn't mean getting hit is worth it, but at least you don't have to worry about things like, your rent/mortagage payments, losing your job and all sorts of other things while you are recovering.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying...
 
rafiki911 said:
My point is to go throught the proper channels cause after two days the op is not going to know or understand how bad his injuries really are. When I say the pain is not worth any money you get I mean I rather have not gone through being hit in the first place. It is however worth to fight for what is owed to you... I to do not believe in milking the system but getting what you deserve. By telling the op to suck it up, is rediculous. He needs to make sure that he can go back to 100% before saying **** it....Sorry if this post looks retarded, it was done from my cell.
Click to expand...

Getting what you "deserve" is all relative depending on the person, and it seems for most that what they "deserve" is rather closely related to milking the system.
After two days and a hospital visit you should know the extent of your injuries.

You cannot say "oh in 6 years there is the chance that I will develop arthritis in this shoulder because of this accident, and nothing else in those 6 years will lead to or aggravate it, so I should be compensated in advance for this potential outcome"

We have completely left out the time it takes for such legal battles to even happen. These are not over night compensations.
 
To further illustrate the point I am attempting to make, bare with me for a second and think of this example.

Say the OP was riding down the same road in the same conditions with the same amount of traffic around him in his direction of travel. Now replace the cabbie, with a cow. The cow appears at the exact same moment and location that the cabbie was in when the rider noticed the cabbie. We can agree for the sake of this example that the rider did not have enough time to stop, or no way to maneuver around the object which appeared in front of him. He hits said object and sustains the exact same injuries.

Who is to blame now? Who is there to milk compensation off of? How will he go to work and sustain his life? The answer is, the rider will buck up, say sorry to the cow, fix his bike and be on his merry way in life with a lesson learned.

If the rider who hit that cow was injured badly enough to not be able to work and sustain his life, then he has to figure out other options. Debt, moving back in with the rents, or ending up on the streets and dying as an ultimate last happenstance.

While in this case the cab driver is deemed 100% at fault, personally I do not believe that to be the case. While the cab driver made an error in judgement and performed his stunt prematurely and albeit likely without even thinking, I do think that the rider COULD have avoided the accident. Did the cab driver see the rider? or was the rider riding far too close to the inside and essentially in the blindspot of the car infront of the cabbie? Was there a car in the lane or cars parked in the lane beside the rider (usually there is still room to put a bike in the second lane even with cars parked, close, but easily possible.)
The car behind the rider did not rear end the rider. This all (based on the lack of description and evidence provided) leads me to believe that the rider was not correctly operating his motorcycle and generally would not be ready for any "oh crap" moment. I truly believe that no one is ever 100% at fault when it comes to motor vehicle accidents. Yes the accident would not have happened if the cab had not appeared there yet it also would not have happened had the rider properly evaded the cabbie.

I bet that cabbie is sitting at home saying "****ing motorcyclists not knowing how to drive their damn bikes, if this was back in pakistan the rider would have endo'd by my passenger side and slapped the side of the car with his back tire and then sped off with his wife on the backseat and his children sitting on saddlebags"

It seems that whenever someone else can be blamed or deemed the one at fault by laws and legislation which is always changing, we lose all sensibilities of our own actions, or inaction.
 
Show me a cow that can do a U-turn as fast as a taxi can, and does it in downtown Toronto, and you might have a valid point of comparison.

"He who looks, but does not see, is negligent." But for the actions of the cabbie, the incident would not have taken place.
 
Spyug said:
Glad to hear you survived it.

You may feel relatively ok but you are running on adrenaline and in a day or so the hurts may settle in.
Click to expand...

+1
My ankle was literally twisted 180 between my bike and a wall. Walked it off. Next day I could not use my right foot at all.

Glad you came out in one piece. Get well soon!
 
and ironically, about 30 minutes after I posted on this subject, a cabbie in the oncoming lane decided he had enough room between the car in front of me, and me on my bike, to make a left hand turn..that by flashing his lights it was "ok!". I missed him by about a foot, and there was NOTHING I could have done.

Now replace that cab with a cow and I'd be eating well tonight :)
 
craygun said:
and ironically, about 30 minutes after I posted on this subject, a cabbie in the oncoming lane decided he had enough room between the car in front of me, and me on my bike, to make a left hand turn..that by flashing his lights it was "ok!". I missed him by about a foot, and there was NOTHING I could have done.

Now replace that cab with a cow and I'd be eating well tonight :)
Click to expand...

Any time that you're passing by another vehicle, there's a "point of no return" after which there's nothing you could do, to protect yourself. Anyone, who thinks otherwise, doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of physics or biology.
 
The pains and issues I have are on going since the collision...they didn't magically appear. So we agreeing then...we don't like people who milk the system. I also agree it is a very long process.

gtm said:
Getting what you "deserve" is all relative depending on the person, and it seems for most that what they "deserve" is rather closely related to milking the system.
After two days and a hospital visit you should know the extent of your injuries.

You cannot say "oh in 6 years there is the chance that I will develop arthritis in this shoulder because of this accident, and nothing else in those 6 years will lead to or aggravate it, so I should be compensated in advance for this potential outcome"

We have completely left out the time it takes for such legal battles to even happen. These are not over night compensations.
Click to expand...
 
I don't understand your point because you seem to have changed it. First you said. The cab should totally pay for damages to the bike and its the mental anguish / fake injuries / insurnace fraud that insurance companies shouldn't pay for. And I understood then.

Now you are saying that the OP at least partially at fault (pretty speculative... but ok), that suggests that you don't think he should get compensated fully for his bike either.
And you gave the cow example, if that was true it means he wouldn't be compensated for his property at all.

So which is it? he should get compensated for property damage, but not injuries? only partially property + injuries? or he is really at fault and shouldn't get compensated for anything. ( which would be the result in the cow example...)

I always find the argument that it could have been evaded interesting as some kind of "contributory negligence" point. because people that say the following:

"Yes the accident would not have happened if the cab had not appeared there yet it also would not have happened had the rider properly evaded the cabbie. "

generally don't agree with the following:

Yes the injury would not have happened if the guy had not shot at you but it also would not have happened had you property evaded the bullet.
 
Last edited:
In other words you have a duty to try and avoid being struck but not a responsibility to not be struck, nor a responsibility to be capable of superhuman performance.
 
I have not changed my stance on compensation for his bike or required medical expenses, because in the case of the cow your insurance covers it all the same.

Your point about the bullet is invalid. You cannot see a bullet coming at you, it is moving far too fast for its size for you to recognize it, which is why no one can truly dodge a bullet.

I am simply trying to say that these compensation claims (apart from the standard medical, and vehicle damages insurance claims) that were suggested are ridiculous, because in the case of the cow you cannot place blame on the cow and subsequently force his insurance to give you a pay out which you do not require. You get your bike fixed and yourself fixed up free of charge. Be thankful you didn't mess up on your own, or have a cow walk out in front of you, and eat the entire costs yourself.

Yes in Canada the payout is nil compared to our American brethren, but its still a payout. All of those unnecessary payouts add up. What do they add up to? They add up to the current retarded insurance rates we face. Part of the reason we don't get the same payouts is the fact that our country is 1/10th the size.

I don't expect you to ever agree with me, but this has been fun none the less.
 
Last edited:
I don't see any compensation claims being suggested beyond the standard medical and vehicle damages.

So if you are arguing against those... "crickets"

The fact that you think 100 % of accidents are avoidable by only the rider's actions is a superhuman feat. you might as well be dodging bullets. Its like the accident where you get rear ended because the guy behind you who was already stopped got rear ended, sure its "avoidable"... but suggesting that its somehow partially the rider's fault is ridiculous.

When a driver drives around carelessly, dangerously, impaired or not. It really is like firing a gun randomly. No, you won't hit someone every time, but the fact that ya did, doesn't mean its their fault for being in the way.

Of course you aren't going to "convince" me otherwise because
1. you are arguing against arguments that no one made ( that the OP should get a big payout )
2. you are arguing with facts that you speculated ( that the OP was partially at fault )
3. you are arguing against a legal fiction ( that somehow you get windfalls when someone hits you with a car in Canada. )
 
Rob MacLennan said:
In other words you have a duty to try and avoid being struck but not a responsibility to not be struck, nor a responsibility to be capable of superhuman performance.
Click to expand...

Throwing in a wrinkle, you also have a duty to operate in a prudent manner taking into account the surrounding traffic environment.

The cabbie doing a U-turn in front of you is bad, but if you were travelling at an imprudent speed or in a reckless manner that made it more difficult for you to avoid collision once the U-turn was in play, or that exacerbated the severity of the resulting collision, a judge could rule that your own driving or riding contributed to the crash occurring or the outcome being more severe than it otherwise might have been.

In such a set of circumstances a judge would have free rein to apportion a degree of contributory negligence on you, and in doing so reduce your damages award by your deemed contributory negligence. That could end up being a cut of 50% or more depending on how marginally or outrageously negligent the judge saw your own part in the crash.
 
I have been in this same situation and it is unavoidable when someone u turns right infront of you. To say the OP is at fault is silly I am just glad I was driving a full size van not a motorcycle.
 
turbodish said:
Throwing in a wrinkle, you also have a duty to operate in a prudent manner taking into account the surrounding traffic environment.

The cabbie doing a U-turn in front of you is bad, but if you were travelling at an imprudent speed or in a reckless manner that made it more difficult for you to avoid collision once the U-turn was in play, or that exacerbated the severity of the resulting collision, a judge could rule that your own driving or riding contributed to the crash occurring or the outcome being more severe than it otherwise might have been.

In such a set of circumstances a judge would have free rein to apportion a degree of contributory negligence on you, and in doing so reduce your damages award by your deemed contributory negligence. That could end up being a cut of 50% or more depending on how marginally or outrageously negligent the judge saw your own part in the crash.
Click to expand...

Certainly. Here, that doesn't appear to have been the case.
 
Well its nice to see my accident is being compared with cows now is it? lol.... Oh well Im glad you are having fun :) Just came on here to chat as I like to do. Still in pain today, some stiffness now in the body. For clarification my job"s" do involve lifting and moving of furniture from time to time and shipping receiving. Also I am an entertainer, a singer which right now not being able to take deep breaths is affecting me... No I did not T-bone the cabbie... as I was trying to emerge break and get out the way I then hit the front passenger wheel well as I was going down. Saw it all happen in slow motion and the last second was the "oh ****" moment but even then becomes a blur....

Anyways, My insurance is asking me to take the bike to get estimated on damage. Should I take it back to Kahuna where it was purchased?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom