Two takes on a motorcycle news story

[fireman57]

I thought the viewpoints on this story as reported by different news agencies was....interesting.

26 outlaw bikers crash on Ore. freeway - Life- msnbc.com

10 injured, two critically in multiple-motorcycle crash | KATU.com - Portland, Oregon | News

[SquidVicious]

That is strange. I love how MSNBC just HAD to point out it was a motorcycle "gang."

Meh, this is why I don't read the news too often.

[rfb92345]

So, let me get this straight.........the SUV stopped suddenly and the leader of the group could not stop............is that right?...............well, duh..............maybe he was following to fn close?........or did the SUV just drop out of the sky......which is it?

[Ruger]

MSNBC ......... that says it all.

[sdbrit68]

Originally Posted by rfb92345

So, let me get this straight.........the SUV stopped suddenly and the leader of the group could not stop............is that right?...............well, duh..............maybe he was following to fn close?........or did the SUV just drop out of the sky......which is it?

supposedly there is a witness that stated the SUV slammed on its brakes for no reason

and, look at it in reality, if you keep a couple of car lengths between you and the car in front of you, someone else will just cut in

[aaronrkelly]

Originally Posted by rfb92345

So, let me get this straight.........the SUV stopped suddenly and the leader of the group could not stop............is that right?...............well, duh..............maybe he was following to fn close?........or did the SUV just drop out of the sky......which is it?

So let me get this straight.....you didnt actually READ the stories did you.

The lead riders were able to slow and swerve around the vehicle.......the other riders behind them were not......

[mrblanche]

Actually, there are hints in the second article. Note that no one would give their name, and no one would agree to be interviewed. They also gave the web site of the club.

And to say such an accident is "unheard of" is just wrong. A little looking can find several videos of exactly this type of accident happening.

[3IOH22A]

Does anyone else find it interesting that there are no posts yet on this thread about reckless and irresponsible people in cages causing motorcycle accidents.
I find that unusual for this site. It says a lot about what aspect of the news reports had the greatest impact on the reader and why the two reports are so different. One reporter knew which story line best fit the target market.
A motorcycle accident is ho hum news but it catches more attention if the individuals involved some how add to the story. If it involved well known actors or musician's it would no longer even be a story about an accident.

[meanie]

There could be a few reasons why the SUV slammed on the brakes. Regardless, any vehicle which slams into the vehicle ahead of them was following too close. It is that simple. The leaders of the pack were lucky enough to avoid the SUV, the others were not, most likely due to the riding tightness of the group, which is never a good idea. Simply put, people suddenly stop for many reasons. One must provide ample distance for your own safety as well as the safety of the driver ahead. If not, the rear vehicle is at fault.

[VindianaJones]

Originally Posted by aaronrkelly

So let me get this straight.....you didnt actually READ the stories did you.

The lead riders were able to slow and swerve around the vehicle.......the other riders behind them were not......

So then... They were riding to close?

[keith_stepp]

This is one reason why I do not like riding in groups. Some people just play "follow the leader" instead of maintaining situational awareness.

There is no safety in numbers.

I prefer having my own little bubble to ride in. I do not like lane sharing and I do not like tail gating or being tail gated. I don't mind riding in a staggered formation, but I want my 2-3 second space in front of and behind me.

As far as discussing reckless or dangerous cagers out there goes... it is what it is. It is a fact of life for riders that you either deal with or die. Neither story eleborated on why the cage slammed on their brakes. So, we have no idea who was at fault.

As far as one story referring to them as an "outlaw biker club" goes... Who cares? That's what they are after all. Large groups of bikers like these are typically associated with some kind of club, so it seems like a relevant fact. Would you have cared if they mentioned that it was a group of retired Goldwingers?

[meanie]

Originally Posted by keith_stepp

So, we have no idea who was at fault.

Agreed with all you wrote except for this part. Only one exception would equate to the driver being at fault. If bikes were riding with much distance from the vehicle in front and another vehicle instantly merged into their lane and hit the brakes (which I have seen happen), then they weren't at fault. Otherwise, the simple fact of the matter is they were riding too close to the vehicle in front and the rest of the group was riding to close to each other.

We are all aware, or should be aware, of every potential threat when riding a motorcycle, if not, someone shouldn't be riding. One of those threats is sudden stops for whatever reason because it happens frequently. Providing the proper distance results in proper reaction time and possibly saving your heinie.

In Michigan, it is automatically the fault of the rear ender if two should happen to unexpectedly connect front to rear. I agree with that law.

[keith_stepp]

Originally Posted by meanie

In Michigan, it is automatically the fault of the rear ender if two should happen to unexpectedly connect front to rear. I agree with that law.

I think that is true pretty much most places, but I know that it is not always true. My brother-in-law was cited for rear-ending a fellow, challenged the ticket in court and won. The person who was rear-ended can be found at fault. I do not remember the reasons, but it could be tail lights that don't work, failing to use a turn signal, etc.

In this case, I think it is pretty obvious that the lead riders had enough time to avoid the accident, which probably clears the cager of any wrong-doing. Sounds like the rest of the pack just went over the cliff like a bunch of lemmings.

[meanie]

Originally Posted by keith_stepp

I think that is true pretty much most places, but I know that it is not always true.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, except death, but in general, the fault will always lie on the rear vehicle.

[trikebubble]

Originally Posted by meanie

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, except death, but in general, the fault will always lie on the rear vehicle.

I read a m/c editorial one day and the author paraphrased a piece of advice he had heard from a famous sports coach.
In essense, it goes like this: "you are responsible for everything that happens in front of you."

[eidian]

Wow, that is interesting how the same story was reported with two totally different slants. What's scary is that I wouldn't have noticed it if I would've read either story independent of the other; I need to become more skeptical/critical when I read news stories.

Originally Posted by meanie

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, except death, but in general, the fault will always lie on the rear vehicle.

Originally Posted by trikebubble

I read a m/c editorial one day and the author paraphrased a piece of advice he had heard from a famous sports coach.
In essense, it goes like this: "you are responsible for everything that happens in front of you."

I totally agree with Trike but disagree to the "exceptions to every rule" with Meanie: there is no excuse for rear ending someone (especially on a bike when they can stop in shorter distances than cars). It's simple: if someone rear ends someone else, they were following too close. I'm very conservative when I both ride/drive and I haven't rear ended anyone. In fact, a couple of months ago I didn't know what my brake fluid was low (old car) and my brakes failed completely when I was going about 65 on the freeway when traffic was slowing down because of a bottleneck into a transition; I was far enough behind that I was able to pump the brakes to a stop with plenty of room to spare. I nearly crapped in my pants but no collision (and my last name isn't Earnhart Jr.). Now tell me that there's an excuse to rear end an SUV especially when riding on a bike.

Long story short: the first two riders were far enough away and knew their options and avoided a collision--everyone else was following too close.

[meanie]

Originally Posted by eidian

I totally agree with Trike but disagree to the "exceptions to every rule" with Meanie: there is no excuse for rear ending someone (especially on a bike when they can stop in shorter distances than cars).

In general, I would agree, but the exception is an incident I have witnessed at one time a few years past. A vehicle actually merged into a lane between two cars and instantly hit the brakes before the rear car had time to provide more distance to the merging car. What happened was the front car, which was now in front of the merging car, hit the brakes due to a domino effect of other front vehicles. The merging vehicle had to hit the brakes instantly from the effect which then caused the rear vehicle to hit the merging car. Now, IMO, that shouldn't be the fault of the rear vehicle and should be the fault of the merging vehicle. Being that I see this type of merging on a daily basis, it's difficult at times to avoid this type of mishap.

As a driver and rider, I try to keep a distance between myself and the vehicle ahead but we all know, this is an opportunity for jackasses to squeeze in that spot which then puts us farther back and the cycle continues. I have witness many times when that merging vehicle enters the lane in front of another (including me) and slowed down. Also, in some cases, even letting go of the throttle to gain instant distance can provide the vehicle behind to rear end you or reduce distance between you and them, then they have to slow down and so on, which isn't always a big deal, but when someone thinks they are more important, they become angry and don't do a very good job of staying off your rear.

It's a constant battle which we have to be alert to every time we ride.

[sdbrit68]

keith,

the problem with the words " outlaw club" versus retired goldwingers is the attitude of the article.

" oulaw club is a term used to inflame the populace reading it, when the reality is, the author probably has no clue to the club, or anything about it.

if they used the words a group of friends on a ride, it would not have the same effect.



for the record, an official outlaw club is merely one that does not belong to the AMA.

so, if you get 10 friends together, go through the process to become an MC, and dont pay dues to the AMA to join them, you are technically an outlaw club



see, it is very,very easy to label people


look at the sportie guys, they get labelled squids and such very easily, yet I have ridden with a few from here, they were good riders, and great people

[keith_stepp]

Originally Posted by sdbrit68

the problem with the words " outlaw club" versus retired goldwingers is the attitude of the article.

" oulaw club is a term used to inflame the populace reading it, when the reality is, the author probably has no clue to the club, or anything about it.

if they used the words a group of friends on a ride, it would not have the same effect.

What I think the article was trying to point out was that these riders belonged to a MC that has a history of rebelling against society and maybe that was a factor in the accident. I see nothing wrong with that.

[sdbrit68]

I can see where you are coming from keith....but, I have to ask the question, how does affiliation become a factor in a motorcycle accident ?

I re-read the article a few times, the way it is mentioned at the end seems just a little dramatic journalisim

I know I wont get everyone to see the club liefestyle the way I do, and that okay, I just ask, recognize inflamatory journalisim for what it is

the important things in the article were that motorcyclists went down, and there is an investigation

there is dicsussion on whether the SUV caused it on purpose, or if it was something else

the other stuff, why is it put in ?