Schwartzenegger's latest wreck
Niko
on his hacked Harley, his 12 year old kid was in the sidecar. The
article said he was going slow. I wonder how slow you have to go to be
able to stop when you see someone backing out in front of you?
This was the second hit for the governator. He rear-ended someone some
years back, too. Sounds to me like he should either take MSF or get off
his bike for good, lest he give bikes a huge black eye when he kills
himself with his carelessness. Scan, Arnie, scan!
Niko
oskar
Niko wrote:
> Arnie hit a Volvo who was backing out into the street yesterday. He was
> on his hacked Harley, his 12 year old kid was in the sidecar. The
> article said he was going slow. I wonder how slow you have to go to be
> able to stop when you see someone backing out in front of you?
Mandeville Canyon is a winding road in steep terrain. Look up 2100
Mandeville Canyon on Mapquest.
I have ridden a motorcycle on almost every road in the Santa Monica
mountains, with the exception of Mandeville Canyon, which climbs up
from Sunset Boulevard and dead ends just below the old abandoned Nike
missile site on the dirt part of Mulholland Highway. I asked some
sportriders on an e-mail list if they ever bothered to ride Mandeville
Canyon.
Their answer was no, there were too many driveways.
How slow would you have to go, to be safe in a ritzy residential area
like Mandeville Canyon?
Well, California prima facie speed law says that if you cannot see for
100 feet in front of you as you approach an intersection, you can only
drive 15 miles an hour. If you are ticketed for exceeding the prima
facie speed limit you have to produce an expert witness to say that
what you were doing was safe, and you probably aren't an expert witness
unless you're a cop.
What drivers don't seem to realize is that an intersection doesn't have
to be a city street or a county, state, or federal highway. And there
doesn't have to be a "T" sign informing you that there's a driveway
around the blind corner.
But the big wide angle mirror erected by the property owner should give
motorists a clue that there's a driveway there.
Every driveway, paved or unpaved, which allows a vehicle to enter the
roadway, is an intersection, so the Governator should have only be
going 15 mph if he couldn't see 100 feet ahead. He would be going 22
feet per second, so if his reaction time was a whole second, and it
took 2 more seconds to stop, he would still be well within his 100 foot
sightline.
As I recall California's prima facie speed law also restricts vehicles
to 25 mph in a residential area, where there are children, senior
citizens, or a school. He could be going 37 feet per second, have his
head up his ass for the terrible reaction time of one whole second,
take two whole seconds to stop, and still only travel 110 feet.
So, where was Ahnold's head yesterday?
Paladin
wrote:
>
>Niko wrote:
>> Arnie hit a Volvo who was backing out into the street yesterday. He was
>> on his hacked Harley, his 12 year old kid was in the sidecar. The
>> article said he was going slow. I wonder how slow you have to go to be
>> able to stop when you see someone backing out in front of you?
>
>Mandeville Canyon is a winding road in steep terrain. Look up 2100
>Mandeville Canyon on Mapquest.
I used Google.Earth. The 2100 block of Mandeville Canyon Road is
roughly 34*4'28" N, 118*29'56" W. It is fairly level and straight
with the houses set back from the streets so you have a clear view of
the driveways. It is a residential street.
....
>How slow would you have to go, to be safe in a ritzy residential area
>like Mandeville Canyon?
What speed do you do on ANY residential street?
....
>so the Governator should have only be
>going 15 mph if he couldn't see 100 feet ahead.
Look at the aerial photo in Google Earth -- easily a couple hundred
feet clear view.
....
>So, where was Ahnold's head yesterday?
Where is usually is.
oskar
> >Mandeville Canyon is a winding road in steep terrain. Look up 2100
> >Mandeville Canyon on Mapquest.
>
> I used Google.Earth. The 2100 block of Mandeville Canyon Road is
> roughly 34*4'28" N, 118*29'56" W. It is fairly level and straight
> with the houses set back from the streets so you have a clear view of
> the driveways. It is a residential street.
Good work. It makes Ahnold look to be at least partly at fault.
>
> ....
> >How slow would you have to go, to be safe in a ritzy residential area
> >like Mandeville Canyon?
>
> What speed do you do on ANY residential street?
About 25mph, unless it's posted for a higher speed. Kids can come
running out from between parked cars, bicycles can suddenly cross the
street, pets can run out in front of me, so I'm cautious in residential
areas.
>
> ....
> >so the Governator should have only be
> >going 15 mph if he couldn't see 100 feet ahead.
>
> Look at the aerial photo in Google Earth -- easily a couple hundred
> feet clear view.
Then he should have been able to stop unless the cage just came flying
out of the driveway.
Bike Guy Joe
here....If he was speeding, that's one thing, but the car backed out in
front of the bike.
Maybe he saw the car backing up and assumed the car would stop. Maybe
it was a paid hit man trying to take out California's most loved
governor? Maybe he was to busy watching to see who was looking at him
instead of watching where he was going?
This debate should be interesting.
Still, no matter what state youlive in, backing out in front of the
governor is not a good thing! ;-)
Joe
news:1136895178.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Funny, I thought everyone would jump on the side of the biker
> here....If he was speeding, that's one thing, but the car backed out in
> front of the bike.
It is as simple as this... People who don't like him or his politics will
demonize any action he takes. Two things in life really are horrible:
Religiosity and politics.
Now... I'm riding to work today so adios! Viva la whatever!
Joe in Northern, NJ - V#8013-R
Currently Riding The "Mother Ship"
Ride a motorcycle in or near NJ?
http://tinyurl.com/4zkw8
http://www.youthelate.com
Paladin
wrote:
> Funny, I thought everyone would jump on the side of the biker
>here....If he was speeding, that's one thing, but the car backed out in
>front of the bike.....
Nope. What I tell everyone -- any accident on a motorcycle is the
motorcyclist's fault. The motorcycle is invisible, no one can see the
motorcycle, people will look directly at you and not see you. It is
the responsibility of the motocyclist to avoid others as they do not
known he exists. He is invisible.
oskar
Bike Guy Joe wrote:
> Funny, I thought everyone would jump on the side of the biker
> here....
Not when it's a moron like Ahnold. If it was an ordinary Sunday-riding
RUB out with his son in the sidecar, it would have only made the news
if both were killed in the accident. If it was a working class rider,
it would never even be a blip on the radar of public awareness.
But, since it's Kalifornia's celebrity governator, it's "newsworthy"
when he cuts his lip in the crash.
He got into the governor's office without ever having served in an
elected position, on the basis of name recognition, like that idiot
Jesse Ventura in Minnesota. Things like that happening point up the
idiocy of the democratic process. The electorate has to be as stupid as
the wrestler or body builder.
Damn! What's next? Spiderman for president? No, he would have too much
competition from Ahnold!
In the wake of his popularity in gaining the governor's office, Ahnold
imagines that he just might make it to the presidency, if only a
constitutional amendment can be passed and ratified, making it possible
for a naturalized citizen to become president!
If we need *any* constitutional amendment whatever, it should be one
that says that no actor or clown can ever hold elected office.
Ahnold actually got into office when the Democratic incumbent, Grey
Davis, a career politician, was recalled because of the Kalifornia
budget crisis in the wake of the energy scam. Davis contracted for the
state to buy electrical power at a very high price when it appeared
that the price of electricity was going to remain at that high price.
blazing laser
wrote:
> Maybe
>it was a paid hit man trying to take out California's most loved
>governor?
Wow! I can tell you're not from California!
blazing laser
(Paladin) wrote:
>Nope. What I tell everyone -- any accident on a motorcycle is the
>motorcyclist's fault. The motorcycle is invisible, no one can see the
>motorcycle, people will look directly at you and not see you. It is
>the responsibility of the motocyclist to avoid others as they do not
>known he exists. He is invisible.
I agree that a biker should assume he's invisible and should
pro-actively avoid accidents, that your safety as a biker depends on
defensive driving. OTOH, when someone doesn't see you and pulls out
in front of you, it's not entirely your own fault!
I've had people pull out of driveways into my path a few times. I bet
we all have. I've always been able to stop in time, but it depends on
how close you are when they pull out. Unless there's some proof that
the Gov. was speeding (or drunk, or somehow driving in an unsafe
manner), the accident is 100% the fault of the guy in the car because
the Gov. had the right of way.
oskar
> Unless there's some proof that
> the Gov. was speeding (or drunk, or somehow driving in an unsafe
> manner), the accident is 100% the fault of the guy in the car because
> the Gov. had the right of way.
I haven't seen anything that says either driver was cited for a
violation of the Kalifornia Vehicle Kode.
But, Kalifornia seems to have some "comparative negligence" language
built into its civil code. The newspapers say that Ahnold was "unable
to avoid hitting the car", or
"unable to stop", something of that sort.
So, that should put the Governator at least a little bit on the
defensive, as to civil liability.
He has apparently rear-ended the other vehicle and the presumption has
always been that the vehicle being rear-ended is innocent, but there is
also the presumption that a vehicle backing up has no right of way.
Balance those two factors and see what you come up with.
The idea of this comparative negligence thing is that the last person
who could have done something to avoid the accident is most at fault.
I know a rider who also keeps a pickup truck for hauling his
motorbikes. He told me about being rear-ended when stopped at a red
light and the other party actually sued him, claiming it was his fault
for sitting there and letting it happen instead of moving into the
intersection against the light.
And, during the deposition, he was asked if there wasn't some way he
could have avoided being rear-ended. He insisted that he was stopped,
because he had to stop and that he could not legally move into the
intersection, so he had be accept being rear-ended. He won his case, in
that the insurance companies settled without actually going to trial.
David J
wrote:
Is it true that Arnie has never had a drivers licence to ride a
motorbike in the US? He only has one for Austria, I have read.
lol....
blazing laser
wrote:
>Is it true that Arnie has never had a drivers licence to ride a
>motorbike in the US? He only has one for Austria, I have read.
There seems to be some official disagreement on this point. I live in
California and I have long thought that you only needed a class C
(automobile) license to drive a 3-wheeled motorcycle (either a bike
with sidecar or a 'trike'). That's what Arnold has.
The California Highway Patrol said that his class C was sufficient.
The Los Angeles Police said he needed a class M1 to ride a bike.
However, check out the official California Motorcycle Handbook
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dl655/dl665mcycle.pdf
Right on page one it says a class C is sufficient for any 3-wheeled
vehicle.
blazing laser
wrote:
>I haven't seen anything that says either driver was cited for a
>violation of the Kalifornia Vehicle Kode.
When there's a minor accident, it usually happens that neither driver
is cited for a violation. The driver who is found at fault gets a
point on his license, sometimes two points (DAMHIK). His insurance
could get more expensive and if he gets enough points in a period of
time he could lose his license.
It's not always easy to determine for certain what happened in an
accident. My guess is that without official witnesses (like a cop)
cases like this are hard to prosecute. But the accident itself counts
as a violation on one's driving record.
>So, that should put the Governator at least a little bit on the
>defensive, as to civil liability.
>
>He has apparently rear-ended the other vehicle and the presumption has
>always been that the vehicle being rear-ended is innocent, but there is
>also the presumption that a vehicle backing up has no right of way.
>Balance those two factors and see what you come up with.
No I don't think that's right. 'Rear-ending' another car moving in
front of you on the same road, yes, the car behind is presumed at
fault. It's up to the car behind to leave enough room to stop safely
even if the car in front stops suddenly and unexpectedly. Obviously
the driver in front has no control over the distance between him and
the car behind him.
But this is a case of someone pulling out of a driveway. In that case
a vehicle already on the street has clear right of way. It -is-
possible for a car to back out of a driveway into the path of an
oncoming vehicle in such a way that the oncoming vehicle has no
control over the collision.
>The idea of this comparative negligence thing is that the last person
>who could have done something to avoid the accident is most at fault.
Yes, that's true. Even if you have the right of way you must do
everything you can to avoid an accident, even if that means breaking
another law. (I thought that was the same everywhere! It just seems
reasonable to me).
But if a car pulls out suddenly front of you, there might not be
anything you can do. If Arnold had seen the car in time to stop, but
he made a decision to ram him to teach him a lesson, then the accident
would have been Arnold's fault, even though he had the right of way.
(Actually it wouldn't really even have been an 'accident', would it?)
>I know a rider who also keeps a pickup truck for hauling his
>motorbikes. He told me about being rear-ended when stopped at a red
>light and the other party actually sued him, claiming it was his fault
>for sitting there and letting it happen instead of moving into the
>intersection against the light.
>
>And, during the deposition, he was asked if there wasn't some way he
>could have avoided being rear-ended. He insisted that he was stopped,
>because he had to stop and that he could not legally move into the
>intersection, so he had be accept being rear-ended. He won his case, in
>that the insurance companies settled without actually going to trial.
Boy, that sounds really dumb. 8^)
But look at it this way. Suppose you pull up to a light on your bike.
You're sitting there in 1st gear holding the clutch. In your rearview
mirror you see a car coming up from behind, and it doesn't look like
it's going to stop. A quick look to left and right assures you that
there is no cross-traffic. The law says you would be justified in
pulling out into the intersection to avoid an accident, even though
the light is against you.
Here in the US we have the attitude that anything bad that happens is
someone else's fault. The guy in the car behind probably hired a
lawyer who figured the best defense was a good offense. So he
-threatened- to sue the guy. I would guess a judge would have thrown
the case out.
Tony
Umm - no, it doesn't:
A motorcycle: Has a seat or saddle for the rider; is designed to travel
on **>not more than three wheels;<**(1) and weighs less than 1,500
pounds. A farm tractor is not a motorcycle. Exception : A motorcycle
with a **>two-wheeled sidecar<**(2) weighing less than **>1,500
pounds<**(3) is also considered a motorcycle.
(1) NOT MORE than 3 wheels. This means a 3-wheeled vehicle could be
considered a motorcycle **(3), thereby requiring an endorsement
(2) Even with a TWO-wheeled sidecar, thus totalling FOUR wheels, a
motorcycle with a sidecar can still be considered a motorcycle **(3)
(3) This is the questionable item - how much did the motorcycle/sidecar
weigh? If it was more than 1500 pounds, then he was operating it in
compliance with the law. If it was less, then he was in violation.
oskar
Tony wrote:
> Umm - no, it doesn't:
>
> A motorcycle: Has a seat or saddle for the rider; is designed to travel
> on **>not more than three wheels;<**(1) and weighs less than 1,500
> pounds. A farm tractor is not a motorcycle. Exception : A motorcycle
> with a **>two-wheeled sidecar<**(2) weighing less than **>1,500
> pounds<**(3) is also considered a motorcycle.
>
> (1) NOT MORE than 3 wheels. This means a 3-wheeled vehicle could be
> considered a motorcycle **(3), thereby requiring an endorsement
>
> (2) Even with a TWO-wheeled sidecar, thus totalling FOUR wheels, a
> motorcycle with a sidecar can still be considered a motorcycle **(3)
>
> (3) This is the questionable item - how much did the motorcycle/sidecar
> weigh? If it was more than 1500 pounds, then he was operating it in
> compliance with the law. If it was less, then he was in violation.
Clearly, the Kalifornia DMV, which has been issuing MC endorsements
since the
1970's, doesn't have a clue. OTOH, you, who have been operating a
motorcycle for about a year, are a legal expert ;-)
Paladin
That is the definition of a motorcycle. Big fucking deal. What
matters is the license requirement.
Page four of the above cited DMV publication says:
LICENSE
REQUIREMENTS
California issues the following
license classes for two-wheel
vehicle operation:
Class M1 -- You may operate
any two-wheel motorcycle or
motor-driven cycle and all
vehicles listed under Class M2.
Class M2 -- You may operate
any motorized bicycle or any
bicycle with an attached motor.
Class C -- You may operate a
motorcycle with a sidecar
attached, a three-wheel motor-
cycle, or a motorized scooter.
What part of "Class C -- You may operate a motorcycle with a sidecar
attached" is so difficuylt for people to understand?
Tony
> On 12 Jan 2006 10:58:40 -0800, "Tony" <ton...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> >> However, check out the official California Motorcycle Handbook
> >>
> >> http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dl655/dl665mcycle.pdf
> >>
> >> Right on page one it says a class C is sufficient for any 3-wheeled
> >> vehicle.
> >
> >Umm - no, it doesn't:
> >
> >A motorcycle: Has a seat or saddle for the rider; is designed to travel
> >on **>not more than three wheels;<**(1) and weighs less than 1,500
> >pounds. A farm tractor is not a motorcycle. Exception : A motorcycle
> >with a **>two-wheeled sidecar<**(2) weighing less than **>1,500
> >pounds<**(3) is also considered a motorcycle.
> >
> >(1) NOT MORE than 3 wheels. This means a 3-wheeled vehicle could be
> >considered a motorcycle **(3), thereby requiring an endorsement
> >
> >(2) Even with a TWO-wheeled sidecar, thus totalling FOUR wheels, a
> >motorcycle with a sidecar can still be considered a motorcycle **(3)
> >
> >(3) This is the questionable item - how much did the motorcycle/sidecar
> >weigh? If it was more than 1500 pounds, then he was operating it in
> >compliance with the law. If it was less, then he was in violation.
>
> That is the definition of a motorcycle. Big fucking deal. What
> matters is the license requirement.
>
> Page four of the above cited DMV publication says:
Ahh - page FOUR.
I was responding to the statement about what page ONE says - which, as
you said, is the definition of a motorcycle. Since the page under
discussion was page one, I didn't bother to look any farther. Had we
been discussing page four, then I would have checked that page.
>
> What part of "Class C -- You may operate a motorcycle with a sidecar
> attached" is so difficuylt for people to understand?
Well, now that we're talking about page FOUR, it's quite easy to
understand. But "Class C -- You may operate a motorcycle with a sidecar
attached" isn't on page one.
Seriously - here is part of the problem: When you cite a refererence,
it is usually a good idea to do it accurately. Otherwise, you get the
same sort of problems in misunderstanding as we just demonstrated :)
Far too many people are willing to be lazy - as I was in the previous
response - in checking those references. Assuming they even bother.
Good idea for us, good idea for the CHP, good idea for the Governer.
Paladin
....
>Far too many people are willing to be lazy - as I was in the previous
>response - in checking those references. Assuming they even bother.
Laziness is a survival trait. You conserve energy for when it is
really needed.
Tony
:)
Actually, I was trying to make a point. The LAPD said Arnie was in
violation of the law, because he was riding without an endorsement.
They say this based on the definition of a motorcycle. Apparantly, the
CHP has backed them up on this. But nobody is bothering to call them on
the matter - as I was called on the matter here when I made essentially
the same argument that the LAPD & CHP have made.
I don't know what's more disturbing - that nobody in the news media is
capable of reading the DMV handbook & asking questions about it, or
that the LAPD & CHP don't seem to know (or care) what the DMV handbook
says.
I guess Arnold was wrong just for riding a motorcycle - everything else
is irrelevant: we all know those motorcycle riders are trouble...