Who remembers the "attacked on a motorcycle" thread? I almost had to play it out - Page 4

Who remembers the "attacked on a motorcycle" thread? I almost had to play it out

This is a discussion on Who remembers the "attacked on a motorcycle" thread? I almost had to play it out within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Bob The Great ...I did dim my lights when I got within about 20ft, but I think the damage was already done. ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 71

Thread: Who remembers the "attacked on a motorcycle" thread? I almost had to play it out

  1. #46
    Senior Member Array Herknav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Waypoint 0
    Posts
    986
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    ...I did dim my lights when I got within about 20ft, but I think the damage was already done.
    My truck is 19' long, so that's real close to be following, let alone running your high beams. If you don't feel safe, slow down.

    YMMV,
    Herk


  2. #47
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802
    What if traffic had been heavy or regularly spaced in the opposite direction? Think you could've stayed ahead of him without swinging wide on a curve into the other lane? Also you ran risks far exceeding random wildlife. You could have been dumper by small pebbles on the road at a curve or a spot of oil...the list of stuff that can wreck at motorcycle at speed is endless but you get my drift. I'd love to afford a new GOLDWING. That's my style bike. 0-60 a 'WING is faster than a Lamborghini. You can lean them hard enough to scrape a foot peg, too.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  3. #48
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Herknav View Post
    My truck is 19' long, so that's real close to be following, let alone running your high beams. If you don't feel safe, slow down.

    YMMV,
    Herk
    Following a car-length and a half behind is not unreasonable (most cars are between 12 and 15ft long) when preparing to pass someone going well under the speed limit. When I came up on him, I was doing a perfectly safe speed, and maximizing my view of the area ahead of me. Whether I should have dimmed my lights sooner is a subjective issue. I was there, and I felt that I needed the extra illumination to spot wildlife until I closed the distance. Yes, this was probably annoying to the other driver, but it was not an unreasonable act and it hardly justifies his response --> There is a dimmer-lever on his rear-view mirror for a reason.

    Ex - The things you've pointed out are exactly why I waited so long before passing him. When he tried to force me to stop, I weighed the risk of a semi-blind pass and a throttle wrap and judged it to be less than the risk of stopping to chat.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  4. #49
    Member Array golfer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    259
    Bob, thought I would come on once more and 1st thank you for sharing you situation. We can all learn and profit by you experience and you can porfit by reading ours. You took good action and put distance between you and the potential problem.
    Additionally, I think some others are attempting to point out you coult have made a mistake that could prompt the problem. None of us wants to be DEAD right.
    Most driving laws requre 500' as the required distance to dim ones lights. These are real laws, not something based on being polite.
    I know bikers want to be seen; too often someone cuts them off or changes lanes without seeing them. I have been on both sides of this issue. But, and this is important, when we put ourselves on a bike, we knowingly accept that and train to ride defensivly. The other vehicle does have trouble seeing you, that is a fact, and the bike rider is responsible to accept that.
    Riding with high beams is not a safe practice, and is not leagle. I too wish other bike riders would be more curtious on this issue.
    On the other hand, I have no business cutting off and risking your life because your high beams are on.
    I guess my point is; perhaps you could have avoided the situation by being a little more curtious, and, the idiot who cut you off should have his lisence revoked.
    I'm glad your safe and thank you for sharing.

  5. #50
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by golfer View Post
    I guess my point is; perhaps you could have avoided the situation by being a little more curtious, and, the idiot who cut you off should have his lisence revoked.
    I can agree with this.

    I wasn't aware there was an actual law regarding use of high beams within a certain distance - I'll have to look into this.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  6. #51
    Ex Member Array Joe R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    I wasn't aware there was an actual law regarding use of high beams within a certain distance - I'll have to look into this.
    Every state has such a regulation.

    You were in violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 32:322C

  7. #52
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe R View Post
    Every state has such a regulation.

    You were in violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 32:322C
    Thanks for the reference.

    One could say that I was "in the act of overtaking", as our speeds differed considerably until I closed the distance and dimmed, but that's a nit that doesn't need picking.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  8. #53
    Ex Member Array Joe R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    Thanks for the reference.

    One could say that I was "in the act of overtaking", as our speeds differed considerably until I closed the distance and dimmed, but that's a nit that doesn't need picking.
    You're right, that would be nitpicking. It would be better to follow the intent of the law, which is pretty clear. Approach within a certain distance and dim the headlamps.

  9. #54
    Senior Member Array Super Trucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    S.E. Michigan
    Posts
    534
    Joe R and Golfer
    Thanks for clearing that up, I don't have the greatest use of words and he obviously didn't want to hear about it when I told him a few days eariler.

  10. #55
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Trucker View Post
    Joe R and Golfer
    Thanks for clearing that up, I don't have the greatest use of words and he obviously didn't want to hear about it when I told him a few days eariler.
    If you'd like to keep hashing this out, we can. I let the thread die because it clearly wasn't going anywhere.

    In summary:
    1) No, I did not "cause" the situation - It was not "my fault" that another driver decided to play cat & mouse (me being the mouse) any more than it is "my fault" for riding a motorcycle when someone merges into my lane on top of me.
    2) No, it was not unreasonable, nor even particularly inconsiderate to close with brights, then dim them when I got close enough. Given the lighting conditions, I'll even say it was prudent to do so.
    3) No, slamming on one's brakes, then attempting to force another driver to a stop in the middle of the road is not an appropriate response to a momentary annoyance.
    4) Yes, I am considerate with my lighting and my driving whenever possible, and attempt to make myself aware of the laws that apply to me. In this case, one law fell through, but I am now aware of it.
    5) Yes, in retrospect, I can think of several actions that may have either avoided the situation in the first place or ended it sooner. This does not mean that by not performing those actions, I "caused" the situation to happen.
    6) Yes, I have taken my experiences that night and applied them to my future actions to avoid similar situations. I try to do this with all my experiences for my own edification.
    7) Finally, yes, we are way off-topic discussing the finer points of headlight etiquette and responsibility for someone else's actions.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  11. #56
    Senior Member Array Super Trucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    S.E. Michigan
    Posts
    534
    1) Yes you did cause this, if you had not done something illegal the bronco driver may have not been an ass, and started the road rage on you.
    2 It is illegal. And BTW, brights in a mirror is very inconsiderate. It is not the bronco drivers fault that you are driving on a dark road. With inferior lighting
    4) Since you pissed this guy off, I do not think you are very considerate with your lighting.
    7) Agreed

    I am not arguing with you just for fun. You did something illegal and improper, you pissed somebody off and you are blaming them for the situation. Others have way more politely told you the same as I have been saying, but you just don't want to hear it. I am trying to make sure somebody does not run you into a ditch or shoot you or whatever. Yes the guy in the truck way over reacted but that does not change the fact that you caused it.

  12. #57
    Ex Member Array Joe R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Trucker View Post
    You did something illegal and improper, you pissed somebody off and you are blaming them for the situation. Yes the guy in the truck way over reacted but that does not change the fact that you caused it.
    Count me in on the side of this opinion.

    Bob The Great (that alone gives me a good insight): In law enforcement circles, what you are seeing here is called a clue.

    I would have brake-checked you too.

  13. #58
    Member Array MarkG27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    58
    Bob..I'm on your side 100%

    He caused what ....someone to try and kill him because of bright lights?
    Brake checking someone because of bright lights? That is a mature move.

    Pratice saying this, " Well your Honor, I ran that guy on the motorcycle over and killed him because he had bright headlights."
    Let us know how that works out for you.

  14. #59
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe R View Post
    Bob The Great (that alone gives me a good insight): In law enforcement circles, what you are seeing here is called a clue.
    lol. You know nothing about me or my user-name, sir. Good game psycho-analyzing a forum handle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe R View Post
    I would have brake-checked you too.
    Then I certainly hope I'm never on the road with you. If you are willing to escalate a minor annoyance into a life-threatening situation and justify it by saying "well, he started it," that scares me.

    Should I allow other vehicles to lane-share with me? If I defend my lane and don't let them in, they might get mad, and then I'd have "caused" a situation, right?

    Just a note: closing on another vehicle in preparation for a pass (also known as over-taking) with brights is specifically NOT illegal, as stated in the statute that was just posted. The intent of that law is clearly to prevent people following closely for an extended period of time without dimming their lights. This is common courtesy. It's also not what we're talking about.

    Running with lows under the conditions that night would have been dangerous. Not because I was riding so incredibly fast or because my low beams are so inept - but because there was zero ambiant light, and low beams, by definition, are not designed to stretch out down the road.

    I made the decision to keep my highs on while I closed to pass because it enhanced my safety. Yes, it's also an inconvenience for the other driver, but only a temporary one, and not particularly severe. Weighing these conflicting interests, I made the choice I did.

    I've been on the other side of brights plenty of times. I used to drive a low-slung car in a city full of trucks. When being followed closely, this had the effect of putting one headlight directly in each of my side mirrors and both of them in my center mirror. Lows were bad, brights were worse, but I learned to dim my center mirror, prop my elbow on the door to block one of the sides, and drive to the right in my lane to eliminate the other. I never once brake-checked anybody, tried to run them off the road, or screamed out my window at them.

    Motorcycles are even easier to deal with. They're not wide enough to show up in your side mirrors, so just dim the center and be done with it.

    Sorry if I seem defensive about this, but I don't appreciate being accused of being at fault for someone else's actions.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  15. #60
    Senior Member Array Super Trucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    S.E. Michigan
    Posts
    534
    Just a note: closing on another vehicle in preparation for a pass (also known as over-taking) with brights is specifically NOT illegal, as stated in the statute that was just posted. The intent of that law is clearly to prevent people following closely for an extended period of time without dimming their lights. This is common courtesy. It's also not what we're talking about.
    from original post
    I had my brights on as I got closer, which I realize was probably annoying for him, but I needed the extra light to spot road-side critters. It also let me see through his non-existent back window at the 3 young men that were passengers. I did dim my lights when I got within about 20ft, but I think the damage was already done.

    The driver of the Bronco slammed on his brakes, forcing me to do the same, then sped back up, braked again, etc, all the while weaving in his lane. I had no trouble matching his brake check, but he clearly was trying to mess with me.

    I still couldn't see very far down the road, so I swung wide in the lane to let my headlights shine down the road. This put my light right in his side mirror when I flicked my brights on again. He brake checked again, slowing to about 5mph, and I realized he was trying to force me to stop. His passengers were all looking back at me the whole time, ready to climb out.
    Notice the "but I needed" line. Nobody but you needed light.
    You also intentionally lit the guys mirror, That not only was illegal but makes you a bit rude. You copy your exact story from the original post and ask a cop in your state and see what he says. YOU WERE WRONG.

    Running with lows under the conditions that night would have been dangerous. Not because I was riding so incredibly fast or because my low beams are so inept -
    Wrong again, if you have inferior equipment it is not the other road users fault. Install driving lamps on the bike, they will light up the sides of the road and not piss any body off. (if your low beams were adj properly that may also help)

    Motorcycles are even easier to deal with. They're not wide enough to show up in your side mirrors, so just dim the center and be done with it.
    That is sure nice of you. Everybody else should make adj to their life because Bob thinks he is more important. Wow

    I made the decision to keep my highs on while I closed to pass because it enhanced my safety. Yes, it's also an inconvenience for the other driver, but only a temporary one, and not particularly severe. Weighing these conflicting interests, I made the choice I did.
    And you were wrong. Use the broncos lights if you are that scared of road side problems.

    closing on another vehicle in preparation for a pass (also known as over-taking) with brights is specifically NOT illegal, as stated in the statute that was just posted.
    Yes it is illegal, you did not "over take" you followed, even while over taking it is still illegal to have the brights on within a certain distance of another vehicle.


    Let me ask you another question. If I decided to steal your child's lunch money but was fast about it and since I wasn't going to be without lunch that day, does it make it OK? Your child will only be inconvenienced for a short time, since you would feed them when they got home.

    And yes it is the same thing, It is illegal and very selfish.

    I am done with this topic, you were wrong yet you insist on blaming others for your problems. It has been pointed out by more than one person but yet your opinion of yourself seems to out weigh the law.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. UGLY: Marine, wife attacked by teens after showing of "Little Fockers"
    By ExSoldier in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: January 7th, 2011, 07:58 PM
  2. Man Attacked by Witchcraft Opens Fire on Neighbor's "Voodoo" House in Self-Defense
    By LanceORYGUN in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: October 26th, 2010, 10:15 PM
  3. Johnny Depp to play Mad Hatter in "Alice In Wonderland"
    By ccw9mm in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 5th, 2009, 10:48 PM
  4. Time for a "Bad' Play on Words..."Potato"
    By RETSUPT99 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: January 1st, 2008, 07:32 PM
  5. Parents, make sure your kids don't play this "game"
    By buckeye .45 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: February 5th, 2007, 12:06 PM