OT: I am stupified - Page 2

1100s nut · 01-23-2006, 02:51 PM

I guess a pedestrian would be at fault in this same example.
Lane

jweicht · 01-23-2006, 03:00 PM

And an 8 year old kid on their bicycle.

Moybin · 01-23-2006, 04:13 PM

Don't forget a dog chasing anything at all. Or a granny stranded in the middle of the cross walk because she was too slow to navigate the course on time. Or... I think we could play this game forever. As do the lawyers in courts all over this Once Great Land.

SergioK · 01-23-2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkC
The Dr. did not take blame away from the van driver for causing the accident.

This is that the Dr. said, "...but please don't put all the blame for his death on the other driver or a cell phone." I guess in a war of words you could say he didn't take blame away from the van driver but he also didn't specifically put the blame on the driver either. I understand your point of view, but next thing you know, it's not the van driver's fault, it's the motorcylist's fault for having the right of way and not watching out for van driver's yakking on the cellphone.

MarkC · 01-23-2006, 06:01 PM

Again, the accident is %100 the fault of the van driver. It's hard to say without all the details, but likley if the motorcyclist was driving a car, he'd still be alive today. This is point that the Dr was making.

But, we all already know this, we all know and accept that while riding a motorcycle on the streets we are more vulnerable to increased injury or death when we are involved in a multi-car accident compared to if we were in a car.

To minimize this risk, we ride defensively and wear bright clothing/headlights on etc, to avoid accidents, and we wear as much protective gear as possible to minimize injury if we are involved in an accident. Regardless, when a collision occurs, a motorcyclist will more than likely (but not always) get hurt more than if he/she was in a car.

Again, nothing new here, the Dr. simply stated what we already know and take responsibility by accepting the consequences of our choice.

MarkC

DuckRyder · 01-23-2006, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkC
Again, the accident is %100 the fault of the van driver. It's hard to say without all the details, but likley if the motorcyclist was driving a car, he'd still be alive today. This is point that the Dr was making.

But, we all already know this, we all know and accept that while riding a motorcycle on the streets we are more vulnerable to increased injury or death when we are involved in a multi-car accident compared to if we were in a car.

To minimize this risk, we ride defensively and wear bright clothing/headlights on etc, to avoid accidents, and we wear as much protective gear as possible to minimize injury if we are involved in an accident. Regardless, when a collision occurs, a motorcyclist will more than likely (but not always) get hurt more than if he/she was in a car.

Again, nothing new here, the Dr. simply stated what we already know and take responsibility by accepting the consequences of our choice.

MarkC

The Doctors point is to blame the motorcyclist.

Why is the doctor not advocating the van driver take personal responsibility by accepting the consequences of his/her choice to engage in a cell phone conversation while driving?

steve abella · 01-23-2006, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkC
Again, nothing new here, the Dr. simply stated what we already know and take responsibility by accepting the consequences of our choice.MarkC

Would agree only in the following context a single vehicle accident IE the Rider screwed up or mechanical failure do to maintenance failure.

otherwise your argument is logically flawed.
assume that instead of amotorcyclist, the Victim had been sitting in a cafe/front porch and all the circumstance were the same would you lay fault at his doorstep

SergioK · 01-23-2006, 06:53 PM

Reminds of the old man that ran down and killed 10 people (including a baby) at the Santa Monica farmer's market in 2003. Maybe those people are to blame since they didn't get out of the car's way?

Moybin · 01-23-2006, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SergioK
Reminds of the old man that ran down and killed 10 people (including a baby) at the Santa Monica farmer's market in 2003. Maybe those people are to blame since they didn't get out of the car's way?

Of course they were to blame, most of all the baby for not living up to its full potential. We all know that senior citizens are smarter and more worldly than us mere 50+ types (boomers are known to be shallow and late bloomers) just ask them.

Reminds me of an old joke:
When I die I hope I go like my grandmother, at peace in my sleep. Not screaming and crying like the ladies in the back seat.

Raven · 01-23-2006, 07:11 PM

Wow you guys are rough!!

I was trying to poke a little fun at Kurt's lack of clarity in his post. He is after all a motorcyclist and would advocate the sport and life style.

The argument that motorcyclist need to step up and take more than their fair share of responsibility is important. Far to many times my right of way has been violated to the point of nearly colliding, but, diligences and the ability to control my motorcycle has saved my butt without excuses or blame needing to be laid.

To many times I have heard the statement "I didn't have time to stop, so I locked it up and laided it down" or you can submit your own stupid thing that stupid riders say.

Perhaps the motorcyclist didn't do everything he could to save his butt or may be did. Hard to say without a police report.

Just trying to get along!!

Steve Carlton · 01-23-2006, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkC
You guys are missing his point.

Exactly. MarkC has explained it three times, and a lot of you guys are still not getting Dr. Rozzi's point. Try reading it again. He's not saying what you think he's saying; his point is perfectly valid.

We knock squids for wearing T-shirts, shorts, tennis shoes, and no gloves. Do you think they're responsible for the severity of their injuries, regardless of who caused their accident?

Do you think a skydiver carries some responsibility for dying when his parachute fails in some way?

Do you suppose we could take some credit for avoiding injury or death because we choose to drive (for example) a Volvo?

The doctor's point is we own some responsibility if we get more seriously hurt or killed than would normally occur if we had been in a car. He's not saying the motorcyclist caused the accident. Who's at fault doesn't change the result; dead is dead. His point is the motorcyclist's choice isn't mitigating his risk; the motorcyclist's choice of vehicle influenced the outcome.

Some thoughts...

I don't see things improving a whole lot if two motorcycles are involved in a collision vs a car and a motorcycle.

The doctor never said "might makes right," or any argument to that effect.

Being a pedestrian or a bystander isn't a valid comparison. Walking is a completely different mode of transportation where choosing between two and four wheels is relevant. I don't think we want to sit in cars to eat at cafes, either.

The doctor never said the van driver wasn't responsible for causing the accident. In fact, he said the opposite. He's saying the motorcyclist is partially responsible for travelling in a vunerable way which increases the odds of injury or death.

The doctor's not analyzing if the accident was avoidable or not. What difference does it make? The point is, accidents happen and the outcome can be influenced by the vehicle chosen.

Kurt was stupefied, not confused. No lack of clarity. "Protect yourself or pay the consequences" was Dr. Rozzi's editorial title, not the newspaper's headline.

Anyway... I'm expecting a lot of grief for this, so bring it on! I'm just looking for some rational discussion here.

bikerfish1100 · 01-23-2006, 09:27 PM

Steve- if you take the Dr.'s statements of "..Common sense should tell people that if they are going to share the streets with other vehicles weighing several thousand pounds, then they should have some sheet metal around them.... A smart person would protect himself with a similarly sized vehicle." and extrapolate it through our lawsuit crazy legal system and our regulation-happy representatives- the obvious "protection" against our own lack of common sense or smarts would be "outlaw motorcycles." You cool with that?

i'm sure as hell not.

Steve Carlton · 01-23-2006, 09:41 PM

Don't see that happening. Don't see this as about motorcycles getting outlawed. Prohibition didn't work. Smoking will always be legal, as will BASE jumping, rock climbing, parasailing, et al. We'll always have freedom to take risks. Wouldn't mind seeing cell phones outlawed in the car. Or distracting behavior in general, within reason.

How does a lawsuit crazy legal system threaten motorcycles?

John Lyon · 01-23-2006, 10:06 PM

Steve-

You are right, that was the Doctor's intent (or at least he couched it that way), but his point is self-evident and extremely poorly timed. We all know motorcycling is risky, but right after a guy gets slammed by an idiot on a cell phone is not the moment to say "hey, you shouldn't ride motorcycles." As you suggest, a more appropriate response -- given that someone has just died -- would be to call for a ban on cell phones. While the doctor presumes otherwise, the mere fact that he has patched up a bunch of motorcyclists does not give him any greater insight into the ethics of responsibility. Everyone already gets it, so he should just tell his own children and otherwise keep it to himself. No one else needs to hear it from this jerk.

Sideshow_S · 01-23-2006, 11:05 PM

Why is he dissing on what puts dinner on his table? Double dunce.

Raven · 01-24-2006, 10:35 AM

"I am stupefied" me too!!!

When I read this it looked like Kurt wrote it.

When you post something like this put it bold with quotation marks!!!

So now I'm joining in and using lots of names that can't be posted here!

Down with evil doctors!!

1100s nut · 01-24-2006, 02:57 PM

I still have a problem with the second to last sentence: DON`T PUT ALL THE BLAME FOR HIS DEATH ON THE OTHER DRIVER. If I pull in front of you regardless of what you or myself is driving or the extent of yours or my injuries. I`m at fault. I wish it would have read: Don`t put all the blame on the driver that died who pulled out in front of the peterbuilt truck because if he had pulled in front of a compact car maybe he would have killed that person instead of himself, but then anybody that owns a environmentally responsible car might be at fault for their on death because they don`t own a hummer.
Lane

Lane

Steve Carlton · 01-24-2006, 03:45 PM

I think there's a distinction to be made between blame for the accident and blame for the level of injuries. For example, let's say I drive around in a VW bug and get into a head-on collision and wind up in a wheelchair. I would consider myself partially to blame for my situation, if driving a safe car with ABS and airbags would have avoided that outcome. By the same token, I would feel responsible for excessive injuries as a result of not wearing quality protective gear on a motorcycle.

We assume an "unnecessary" risk by choosing to ride a bike and be more vunerable vs a car. We do it knowing full well the consequences of this risk, but consider the return to be worth it.

Kurt E. · 01-24-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Raven
"I am stupefied" me too!!!

When I read this it looked like Kurt wrote it.

When you post something like this put it bold with quotation marks!!!

So now I'm joining in and using lots of names that can't be posted here!

Down with evil doctors!!

OK, NOW I understand your reply...

I've taken the liberty of posting this on as many MC boards as I could find. Kind of my own "Project Mayhem".

The good doctor is entitled to his opinion. As are a few thousand angry motorcyclists.

Kurt E. · 01-24-2006, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steve Carlton
I think there's a distinction to be made between blame for the accident and blame for the level of injuries. For example, let's say I drive around in a VW bug and get into a head-on collision and wind up in a wheelchair. I would consider myself partially to blame for my situation, if driving a safe car with ABS and airbags would have avoided that outcome. By the same token, I would feel responsible for excessive injuries as a result of not wearing quality protective gear on a motorcycle.

We assume an "unnecessary" risk by choosing to ride a bike and be more vunerable vs a car. We do it knowing full well the consequences of this risk, but consider the return to be worth it.

I'm REALLY having an issue with the doctor's "bigger is safer" concept. This simply is not the case, and a trauma surgeon should know this.

What's safe? Cars with decent horsepower and superior handling driven by people with ability. Who are paying attention.

Give me a 330ix over a GMC Yukon any day of the week. In the Bimmer, I can either aviod the accident or minimize the damage. In the Yukon, I start worrying about things like stopping distance and rollover.

We all make our choices, and the only perfectly safe activity is hiding under the covers in your bedroom. Not my cup of meat...