Motorcyclist charged with vehicular homicide

[L8 Braker]

Man facing charges in traffic crash that killed bystander (http://www.baynews9.com/article/news/2011/march/216407/Man-facing-charges-in-traffic-crash-that-killed-bystander)

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/7898/30850434.jpg
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/5797/17447790.jpg

[wildchild]

i put innocent because it doesn't say what rate of speed, only high rate. could be ten over. the cage driver caused the wreck by turning in front of the bike, again assuming a not incredible speed.

here you only get vehicular homicide if your were under the influence. if he's OWI then toss him in the can.

[udman]

I vote "present" until more information is available.

[goof2]

I didn't pick one. There isn't enough information for me to decide. I can say the circumstances would have to be pretty damn bad for me to say this guy is guilty though.

To think of it another way can anyone imagine circumstances, outside of being wasted, where the driver of the Camry would be charged with vehicular homicide for the bike killing a pedestrian even if the Camry driver was totally at fault?

[tommymac]

I didn't pick one. There isn't enough information for me to decide. I can say the circumstances would have to be pretty damn bad for me to say this guy is guilty though.

To think of it another way can anyone imagine circumstances, outside of being wasted, where the driver of the Camry would be charged with vehicular homicide for the bike killing a pedestrian even if the Camry driver was totally at fault?

hard to say if the driver is fully at fault, was it a controle dintersection with a stop sign or anything like that. Being a young guy on a sportbike already puts you at a disadvantage in most cases.

[Captain Morgan]

I can't answer without knowing all of the specifics. What, exactly, is "well above the posted speed limit"? If the guy was going 110 in a 30, then he's guilty. If he was going 50 in a 30, then I'd lean toward innocent. Reason I say guilty if he's flying is because the accident likely wouldn't have happened had he been going a reasonable speed. Yes, the Camry driver turned left in front of him. However, it's difficult enough to judge the speed of a motorcycle, let alone when the guy is doubling or tripling the speed limit. When you're driving down a familar road, you have a general idea of how far someone can be from you so that you have time to complete your turn. But when someone is unexpectedly "flying" down the road, you can misjudge that distance very easily. Just because he's on a motorcycle, doesn't mean it's automatically the cager's fault. I need more details to decide.

[goof2]

hard to say if the driver is fully at fault, was it a controle dintersection with a stop sign or anything like that. Being a young guy on a sportbike already puts you at a disadvantage in most cases.

I looked it up on google street view. No stop sign. The road is also dead straight with no hills to obstruct the Camry driver's view (typical Florida). It is a primarily industrial area, the road is one lane each direction with a double yellow line, and the speed limit looks to be 30mph.

[tommymac]

I looked it up on google street view. No stop sign. The road is also dead straight with no hills to obstruct the Camry driver's view (typical Florida). It is a primarily industrial area, the road is one lane each direction with a double yellow line, and the speed limit looks to be 30mph.

Guess i gotta go with captn on this one then, we need to know this high rate of speed and the other driver is 73 so did they realy even see the guy comming or properly react to it?

[goof2]

I agree and would really need to know what "well above the posted speed limit" means. In my experience practically everyone is traveling "well above the posted speed limit" (10-20mph over) on roads like that down here.

[L8 Braker]

I vote "present" until more information is available.Here's some info from another article...

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/accidents/motorcyclist-charged-in-holiday-pedestrians-death/1156180

The Florida Highway Patrol says Joshua H. Cross, then 20, was speeding down Louis Avenue on his Suzuki motorcycle, passing slower vehicles, when he collided with a 1990 Toyota turning onto Lucas Street.

[L8 Braker]

hard to say if the driver is fully at fault, was it a controle dintersection with a stop sign or anything like that..I think this is the intersection...This would be the path the motorcycle was traveling as the car was turning left...Keep in mind, if he's passing multiple cars, there is no doubt he was speeding much more than 10mph over the limit...

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/2605/43955689.jpg

[Tmall]

I don't care what speed he was going. You make sure you have time to make a turn before you attempt it. He was wrong for speeding, but that's it.

[OneSickPsycho]

Innocent.

I believe speed is a secondary offense, unless above a specific rate (30 above?) and there's no real way of knowing exactly how fast he was going. Given that lack of information, we cannot be certain that he was the cause of the accident. Seems to me the Camry chick failed to yeild, which is a primary offense... Plus, I think the law requires negligence on the part of the rider... I would argue that despite his apparent disregard of the posted speed limit, he wasn't negligent - ie. he could not reasonably presume his actions would cause this 1 in a million reaction. If he killed the chick in the Camry, then yes, but pinballing your bike off of a car that turned in front of you and into some schmuck on the side of the road... not so much.

[Amber Lamps]

Hell, they should convict whoever gave that old bat a driver's license!!!:panic: All they have to do is measure where the bike's skid marks start. If they are less than say, 100' or less from the point of impact, the bitch turned right in front of him. if they are say, 200'+ away then the fool was going WAY TOO FUCKING FAST. Pretty cut and dried imho.

[Amorok]

No dice. I'm not willing to vote until I know the exact rate of speed.

[azoomm]

Innocent.

I believe speed is a secondary offense, unless above a specific rate (30 above?) and there's no real way of knowing exactly how fast he was going. Given that lack of information, we cannot be certain that he was the cause of the accident. Seems to me the Camry chick failed to yeild, which is a primary offense... Plus, I think the law requires negligence on the part of the rider... I would argue that despite his apparent disregard of the posted speed limit, he wasn't negligent - ie. he could not reasonably presume his actions would cause this 1 in a million reaction. If he killed the chick in the Camry, then yes, but pinballing your bike off of a car that turned in front of you and into some schmuck on the side of the road... not so much.
Well said.

[Amber Lamps]

Innocent.

I believe speed is a secondary offense, unless above a specific rate (30 above?) and there's no real way of knowing exactly how fast he was going. Given that lack of information, we cannot be certain that he was the cause of the accident. Seems to me the Camry chick failed to yeild, which is a primary offense... Plus, I think the law requires negligence on the part of the rider... I would argue that despite his apparent disregard of the posted speed limit, he wasn't negligent - ie. he could not reasonably presume his actions would cause this 1 in a million reaction. If he killed the chick in the Camry, then yes, but pinballing your bike off of a car that turned in front of you and into some schmuck on the side of the road... not so much.

I disagree my friend, again if the rider had to lock up his brakes more than a couple hundred feet away and still hit the Camry, it can be reasoned that he was traveling well above 30mph. As we all know, a crotch rocket will stop on a dime from <50 mph. In other words, if he had to lock it up at a distance that could be reasonably argued would be far enough away for a normal left hand turn. The old lady is in the clear. Of course, again, if he locked it up 20' away from impact, the car driver obviously turned right in front of him and caused the accident, regardless of the motorcycle's speed.

Now to another question, is it possible that the bike's high rate of speed was the cause of the pedestrian's death because the bike wouldn't have traveled that far after the impact with the car, if the kid hadn't been going so fast?:idk:

[goof2]

I disagree my friend, again if the rider had to lock up his brakes more than a couple hundred feet away and still hit the Camry, it can be reasoned that he was traveling well above 30mph. As we all know, a crotch rocket will stop on a dime from <50 mph. In other words, if he had to lock it up at a distance that could be reasonably argued would be far enough away for a normal left hand turn. The old lady is in the clear. Of course, again, if he locked it up 20' away from impact, the car driver obviously turned right in front of him and caused the accident, regardless of the motorcycle's speed.

Now to another question, is it possible that the bike's high rate of speed was the cause of the pedestrian's death because the bike wouldn't have traveled that far after the impact with the car, if the kid hadn't been going so fast?:idk:

That is fine for assigning blame for the accident. That still doesn't necessarily make him guilty of vehicular homicide.

[tommymac]

That is fine for assigning blame for the accident. That still doesn't necessarily make him guilty of vehicular homicide.

he watched CSI and NCS last night so he knows :lol:

[L8 Braker]

I'm not willing to vote until I know the exact rate of speed.Not a problem, as his own possessions will help the case against him (oh the irony)...

If he has a cell phone, more than likely he had it on him, and in that little electronic device is a GPS...Subpoena the history of that little celly's travels and the data it will provide (like speed) will surely be one more nail...

Also, I know every car has one, but not sure of bikes do...It's called a EDR (event data recorder)...It records everything that paticular vehicle does, including speed...If his bike had one, I'm sure it'll be introduced as evidence, and it's one more thing to doom him...

And let's be honest with ourselves...The speed limit on that little two lane road is probably 25 or 30mph...In order to pass a number of cars, you'll be on the throttle and pacing at a pretty good clip...The fact that the bike hit so hard that it traveled all the way across the intersection into an innocent pedestrian was no 25 or even 50mph crash...The boy was probably flying...

[pauldun170]

he watched CSI and NCS last night so he knows :lol:

:lol

[Amber Lamps]

That is fine for assigning blame for the accident. That still doesn't necessarily make him guilty of vehicular homicide.

Did you miss the second part, was his speed to blame for his bike sliding far/fast enough to kill that pedestrian after the impact with the car?

[101lifts2]

I don't care what speed he was going. You make sure you have time to make a turn before you attempt it. He was wrong for speeding, but that's it.

I agree for the most part, but up to a certain point. If the guy is doing 140mph in a 45mph zone, there is really no way to correctly judge how fast the bike is approaching. Esp. when most of these sportbike fuck tards who think riding with their high beams on makes cars "see you". God that pisses me off.

[Particle Man]

he watched CSI and NCIS last night so he knows :lol:

:lol

[Papa_Complex]

Innocent.

I believe speed is a secondary offense, unless above a specific rate (30 above?) and there's no real way of knowing exactly how fast he was going. Given that lack of information, we cannot be certain that he was the cause of the accident. Seems to me the Camry chick failed to yeild, which is a primary offense... Plus, I think the law requires negligence on the part of the rider... I would argue that despite his apparent disregard of the posted speed limit, he wasn't negligent - ie. he could not reasonably presume his actions would cause this 1 in a million reaction. If he killed the chick in the Camry, then yes, but pinballing your bike off of a car that turned in front of you and into some schmuck on the side of the road... not so much.

Here it wouldn't necessarily be the speed that got him nailed, but rather the passing past an intersection. The rate of speed would likely be icing on the cake. A lot of icing, at that, considering statements like "...flipped multiple times before hitting..."

From the sounds of it, the speed was excessive. It was certainly excessive for the situation. Guilty, from where I sit.

[Full Throttle]

Im Voting Guilty. I dont like doing it but if the bike was traveling fast enough after the initial impact to kill a man then he must have been doing a pretty high rate of speed. I mean if a bike hits someone going 20-30 miles an hour its only going to be sliding on the ground. However if its flipping at 40-50 or more miles an hour then its much more likely its going to be a fatal result due to the flipping of the bike. I dont think if the bike was sliding the man would of died. He must of been hit from the bike flipping therefore the kid was really booking it down the road. You cant blame the Camry for pulling out because they cant judge the speed of a bike when its traveing fast right at you.


GUILTY!!!!

[101lifts2]

Im Voting Guilty. I dont like doing it but if the bike was traveling fast enough after the initial impact to kill a man then he must have been doing a pretty high rate of speed. I mean if a bike hits someone going 20-30 miles an hour its only going to be sliding on the ground. However if its flipping at 40-50 or more miles an hour then its much more likely its going to be a fatal result due to the flipping of the bike. I dont think if the bike was sliding the man would of died. He must of been hit from the bike flipping therefore the kid was really booking it down the road. You cant blame the Camry for pulling out because they cant judge the speed of a bike when its traveing fast right at you.


GUILTY!!!!

The bike flipping also has alot to do with how the bike landed. Things usually don't flip unless something trips them.

And WTF are u holding in your Avatar?

[Full Throttle]

And WTF are u holding in your Avatar?

Idk i mean i just watched about 15 motorcycle crash videos. 99% just hit vehicle and stopped/ slid a few feet. None went flipping anywhere near the distance to make it across an intersection let alone fast enough to kill anyone.It would of had to be more than nearly 100 miles an hour to cause it to do that.


They are 2 Chainsaws lol. It was a wild night lol.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_voi1LdhAblo/TT_O00ovb1I/AAAAAAAAA1Y/jiwNl2cFdVI/s640/Juggernaut.jpg

[Papa_Complex]

The bike flipping also has alot to do with how the bike landed. Things usually don't flip unless something trips them.

And WTF are u holding in your Avatar?

Things that make a bike flip generally take a lot of energy out of the equation. One exception would be something that acts as a ramp, which is rare. I've seen a 100 MPH get-off on a 125GP bike that threw it 10-12 feet in the air and destroyed the frame on landing. Once. That sort of crash, at low speed, isn't generally possible.

[Tmall]

Also, if there is a yellow line (I can hardly make it out) it appears to indicate passing is allowed.