I guess bikers are second class citizens

[tshort]

In today's paper is an article about a trucker who ran down a motorcyclist on a freeway in the rain and dragged her for 300 feet before coming to a stop with her pinned under the semi truck's front axle (http://www.jsonline.com/news/ozwash/may04/229264.asp).  His excuse?  It was raining so hard that he didn't see her "until the last minute."  Their speed difference was reported to be just 15 mph.  The article said it was unlikely that any citations will be issued.  

So... I guess as long as you're *trying* to see bikers on the road, if your stupidity causes you to run one over, through no fault of your own (hey - it was raining), then it's ok with the police and the courts.  Or if you're medicated and blow off a stop sign and kill a biker, that's pretty much ok too (remember the S Dakota governor a few months back?).

ticks me off... >:(

[GregR6]

Are you friggin kidding me?!!?!!?!!

Riding ON A HIGHWAY...AT NIGHT...IN THE RAIN...WITHOUT A HELMET...WELL BELOW POSTED SPEED LIMIT..

and the truck driver should be cited?? FOR??

I agree riders get the short end of the deal in many cases, but this is not one of those...

Sorry, I disagree. It was legal for her to be on the road, but there's a difference between legal and common sense. She SHOULDN'T have been out there.

[Jeff]

Reading the story, I don't fault the truck driver...  It's like if your car breaks down on the highway and you decide to walk across the highway to get some help.  You walk in front of a moving vehicle and get hit.  Is it the vehicle's fault?  

The woman was stupid and is lucky to be alive...  With any luck, she'll learn from this and at least wear a helmet...

[KBOlsen]

I agree with Tom in that it seems like motorcycle riders often get the short end of the justice "stick"... but in this situation (as reported), I think appropriate actions were taken.  It WAS an "accident".  The truck driver was doing nothing wrong (except possibly driving too fast for conditions).  Without knowing more details relative to the model and color of the bike she was riding, and whether or not she was wearing anything that might have rendered her more visible (a reflectorized rainsuit, perhaps) there's not a lot to justify finger-pointing.

Yes, the woman was fortunate to not have been killed.

This situation is very different than the Janklow incident.

[tshort]

You guys are all kidding, right?  The speed difference was 15 mph  - she was going 50 mph, which is legal to do on a freeway (and not "well below the posted limit", in my opinion.  that would be like 35 mph - you know, the way little old ladies do - what if he had cleaned up one of them instead??), and the truck was going 65 mph, which was the posted speed.  

If she had been wearing a helmet he still would have run her over.  Are you saying that at least then it would've been the trucker's fault? ??? ::)

What if it had been a bicycle instead of a motorcycle.  The speed difference would have been even greater, making it all but impossible for the trucker to miss his target.

Choosing to not wear a helmet does not reduce one's status to road debris for cages and truckers to take pot shots at.  

Did you read the article?   ::)

[tshort]

 The truck driver was doing nothing wrong (except possibly driving too fast for conditions).

Ummm, no.  Driving too fast for the conditions is grounds for a speeding citation, according to the law.  In this case, it nearly killed someone.  Which is why there is a law against it in the first place.  He was wrong.  She's lucky to be alive.  Evidently a helmet wouldn't have mattered anyway - she wasn't wearing one and her bean is still intact.

[grasshopper]

THe truck driver should be ticketed and prosecuted for rear ending another vehicle.

He rearended her. Am I rite?

[Jeff]

Tom, so you place no blame at all on the motorcyclist?

I would go as far as to place blame on both parties, but by no means would I consider the MC rider here a complete victim...

[251am]

 Didn't read the story. Walking across a freeway and riding a moto on the freeway? I don't see any correlation there whatsoever. The truckdriver should be cited for inattentive driving, minimum. But, the moto rider should be cited for stupidity-no helmet.
  A guy in our riding club was going through Illinois, in a smaller town, at the time of HIS incident; broad daylight, hi-viz clothing, hi-viz stickers all over the rear of his bike, and NOT raining. In a 35 mph zone he was rear-ended by a semi going 60. Steve and his bike were punted 175 ft.. A nurse on the scene was tending to him on the sidewalk where he landed. The truck driver wandered over and said,"Dang, that's my third 'sickle this year." That driver received no citation either.
   I can see the rationale of those wanting to point fingers at the biker, but where should we all stand when it's you or your family member that's disabled by an inattentive semi-driver running down the road with 20 or 30 tons and their head up their arse?  
  
      

[GregR6]

I'm not one to back up truckers... heck they get in "my way" every trip to the track. But IMO they are the best drivers on the road. THEY DO IT FOR A LIVING. That doesn't mean 100% of them, and it doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. But he did nothing illegal.

All these assumptions being made as to what to cite him can NOT be proven; by YOU or otherwise. Inattentive driving? how do you know he wasn't paying attention? HE DIDN'T SEE HER because of the conditions. That does NOT mean, however, that he was driving TOO FAST for conditions. Hell I bet 80% of the vehicles on THAT road THAT night were PASSING that truck. And I'd bet 99% of them can't drive as well as this guy, but that's besides the point...
BTW, 15 below is WELL below. Go ask a cop if 15 above is WELL above... In many cases, it's considered 'reckless'... so I think you catch my drift there...

As for the helmet... hey, it's a state where you can choose. But in this case, her decision to ride that motorcycle under such conditions, and NOT wear one shows her obvious disregard for her own safety. If I had no other choice BUT to ride in those conditions, I would have only done so with appropriate gear and reflective gear.

[tshort]

HE DIDN'T SEE HER because of the conditions. That does NOT mean, however, that he was driving TOO FAST for conditions. Hell I bet 80% of the vehicles on THAT road THAT night were PASSING that truck. And I'd bet 99% of them can't drive as well as this guy, but that's besides the point...

Your statements are illogical.  First, if he didn't see her because of the conditions, then by definition he was going too fast for the conditions (this is in effect what the law says regarding driving at a speed appropriate for the conditions).  Secondly, just because other people are going too fast, too, does not make it right.  Didn't your mom tell you that when you were a kid?

BTW, 15 below is WELL below. Go ask a cop if 15 above is WELL above... In many cases, it's considered 'reckless'... so I think you catch my drift there...

In "many cases?"  Like which ones? Not the ones that I've been ticketed for at 15, 18, 20, 22 over.  All have been simply "speed in excess of the posted limit."  How do I know?  Because reckless carries a 6 point penalty, up to $10k fine, and possible jail term.  Haven't had one of those.

If I had no other choice BUT to ride in those conditions, I would have only done so with appropriate gear and reflective gear.

Well bully for you.  At least then, when you were laying under the truck, pinned under the front axle, you could lay there with the satisfaction of knowing that you were right and...and what?  Would your choice of attire have made the trucker wrong?  Or would you still say he was perfectly fine doing what he did?  

I have not seen such illogic for some time on this board.

[tshort]

Tom, so you place no blame at all on the motorcyclist?

No, I wouldn't.  What would you have the state charge her with?  "Stupidity" is not a chargeable offence, at least not last I checked (which is a good thing, because several of the posters in this thread would have cause to worry if it were). Nor is riding without a helmet, riding in the rain, or riding at a reduced speed in adverse conditions (this last one is actually not only not illegal, it *is* illegal to do otherwise).

We are not debating whether riding without a helmet is a good idea or not; nor are we debating whether riding in inclement weather is a good idea or not.  

We are debating whether a truck driver (supposedly with F1-like driving prowess, being a pro and all), is beyond reproach for having mowed down a motorcyclist whom he "didn't see in time" due to bad weather.  With all his experience, wouldn't you have thought that he would have adjusted his speed down so that he could stop for and/or avoid unexpected obstacles in the road?

To me this is black and white - he was wrong and should have the book thrown at him for reckless driving, and even reckless endangerment.

I ride on the street -  a lot.  And I am not impressed with the way bikers are treated by other drivers.  The least I should be able to expect is that the State would make an effort to reinforce the notion that I have the same rights to the roads as cars and trucks do, and to clamp down on drivers who try to kill me, on purpose or otherwise.