Bikers beat down cager
Elite HDF Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,933
Likes: 11
From: Kentucky
Hi.
Are you guys actually debating whether the guy in the car (I'm not cool enough to call them cagers, since I drove my truck today) actually broke a traffic law?
Just wondering, 'cause that would be a stupid debate, since beating up him or his car didn't require the bikers in question to give a $^&^# about whether he broke the law, much less prove it.
I'd like to read the rest of this, but 2 pages is more than I can stand.
Are you guys actually debating whether the guy in the car (I'm not cool enough to call them cagers, since I drove my truck today) actually broke a traffic law?
Just wondering, 'cause that would be a stupid debate, since beating up him or his car didn't require the bikers in question to give a $^&^# about whether he broke the law, much less prove it.
I'd like to read the rest of this, but 2 pages is more than I can stand.
Elite HDF Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,605
Likes: 3
From: Adirondack Mountains
I'll pass on double yellow because I'm on a Harley & not driving a Coca Cola truck. Those of us who learned to ride in the '70 were not taught to ride like pussies, & we were not taught to "take a more defensive position" & spell "p*ssies".
Last edited by hollowpoint; Sep 8, 2010 at 06:23 PM.
Thread Starter
|
Road Captain
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 671
Likes: 0
From: Harrisburg
I must be a trouble maker. I started this whole mess. After seeing the report again, I do realize his arm was broken when he got "swiped" It's probably time to put this thread to bed. We never will know the true story.
Club Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 30,914
Likes: 16
From: Springfield, Ohio
I dont think so. This thread has a mind of its own now..
Road Captain
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 566
Likes: 7
From: Seattle, WA
Did a little digging just for fun because, well, I'm insane.
2 states, VA and MO, have no legislation at the state level defining no-passing zones. However, both require an "unobstructed" view in order to pass and it's possible that a judge would consider a double-yellow line to be prima facie evidence of an obstructed view. In both cases, local ordinances could also govern in the absence of state law.
VT and PA both appear to require physical signs at the side of the road for a no-passing zone to be absolutely enforceable. However, as in MO and VA, it remains possible that a judge would consider the existence of a double-yellow line to be prima facie evidence of an obstructed view. It is also possible (though unlikely given the fact that it would cost more to pursue than it's worth) that under a sustained challenge from a DA, a higher court may rule that roadway markings constitute a form of signage.
In any case, I'm not sure that a total of 4 states (two of which almost certainly have a patchwork covering of local ordinances governing passing lane markings) constitutes "many" states allowing persons to pass on a double-yellow.
2 states, VA and MO, have no legislation at the state level defining no-passing zones. However, both require an "unobstructed" view in order to pass and it's possible that a judge would consider a double-yellow line to be prima facie evidence of an obstructed view. In both cases, local ordinances could also govern in the absence of state law.
VT and PA both appear to require physical signs at the side of the road for a no-passing zone to be absolutely enforceable. However, as in MO and VA, it remains possible that a judge would consider the existence of a double-yellow line to be prima facie evidence of an obstructed view. It is also possible (though unlikely given the fact that it would cost more to pursue than it's worth) that under a sustained challenge from a DA, a higher court may rule that roadway markings constitute a form of signage.
In any case, I'm not sure that a total of 4 states (two of which almost certainly have a patchwork covering of local ordinances governing passing lane markings) constitutes "many" states allowing persons to pass on a double-yellow.
Banned
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,580
Likes: 7
From: The Internet (& Dyer, Indiana)
Did a little digging just for fun because, well, I'm insane.
2 states, VA and MO, have no legislation at the state level defining no-passing zones. However, both require an "unobstructed" view in order to pass and it's possible that a judge would consider a double-yellow line to be prima facie evidence of an obstructed view. In both cases, local ordinances could also govern in the absence of state law.
VT and PA both appear to require physical signs at the side of the road for a no-passing zone to be absolutely enforceable. However, as in MO and VA, it remains possible that a judge would consider the existence of a double-yellow line to be prima facie evidence of an obstructed view. It is also possible (though unlikely given the fact that it would cost more to pursue than it's worth) that under a sustained challenge from a DA, a higher court may rule that roadway markings constitute a form of signage.
In any case, I'm not sure that a total of 4 states (two of which almost certainly have a patchwork covering of local ordinances governing passing lane markings) constitutes "many" states allowing persons to pass on a double-yellow.
2 states, VA and MO, have no legislation at the state level defining no-passing zones. However, both require an "unobstructed" view in order to pass and it's possible that a judge would consider a double-yellow line to be prima facie evidence of an obstructed view. In both cases, local ordinances could also govern in the absence of state law.
VT and PA both appear to require physical signs at the side of the road for a no-passing zone to be absolutely enforceable. However, as in MO and VA, it remains possible that a judge would consider the existence of a double-yellow line to be prima facie evidence of an obstructed view. It is also possible (though unlikely given the fact that it would cost more to pursue than it's worth) that under a sustained challenge from a DA, a higher court may rule that roadway markings constitute a form of signage.
In any case, I'm not sure that a total of 4 states (two of which almost certainly have a patchwork covering of local ordinances governing passing lane markings) constitutes "many" states allowing persons to pass on a double-yellow.
I had a close call years ago passing a guy that turned left.
I stopped in time.
But I learned to not be so quick to pass, unless I am dam sure he ain't gonna turn.
Even that has nothing to do with beating up an old guy who made a mistake, and using 14 helpers to do it. (or beat up his car, whatever).
The old guys actions were error.
The young guys actions were intentional.
Any body here actually okay with getting your *** kicked by 15 guys whenever you make a mistake? Anybody?
HD Forum Stories
The Best of Harley-Davidson for Lifelong Riders
7 Surprising Harley-Davidson Products that Are Not Motorcycles
Verdad Gallardo
8 Best Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Worst Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
Killer Custom's Jail Break Is The Breakout That Refused to Blend In
Verdad Gallardo
Crazy Bunderbike Build Looks Amazing, But Is It Impossible to Ride?
Verdad Gallardo
Harley-Davidson Reveals Super Cool Cafe Racer Concept
Verdad Gallardo
Engraved Rebellion: Inside Bundnerbike's Glam Rock II
Verdad Gallardo
10 Motorcycles You Should Never Buy
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Harley-Davidson Needs to Fix in 2026
Verdad Gallardo
Road Master
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 970
Likes: 1
Did a little digging just for fun because, well, I'm insane.
2 states, VA and MO, have no legislation at the state level defining no-passing zones. However, both require an "unobstructed" view in order to pass and it's possible that a judge would consider a double-yellow line to be prima facie evidence of an obstructed view. In both cases, local ordinances could also govern in the absence of state law.
VT and PA both appear to require physical signs at the side of the road for a no-passing zone to be absolutely enforceable. However, as in MO and VA, it remains possible that a judge would consider the existence of a double-yellow line to be prima facie evidence of an obstructed view. It is also possible (though unlikely given the fact that it would cost more to pursue than it's worth) that under a sustained challenge from a DA, a higher court may rule that roadway markings constitute a form of signage.
In any case, I'm not sure that a total of 4 states (two of which almost certainly have a patchwork covering of local ordinances governing passing lane markings) constitutes "many" states allowing persons to pass on a double-yellow.
2 states, VA and MO, have no legislation at the state level defining no-passing zones. However, both require an "unobstructed" view in order to pass and it's possible that a judge would consider a double-yellow line to be prima facie evidence of an obstructed view. In both cases, local ordinances could also govern in the absence of state law.
VT and PA both appear to require physical signs at the side of the road for a no-passing zone to be absolutely enforceable. However, as in MO and VA, it remains possible that a judge would consider the existence of a double-yellow line to be prima facie evidence of an obstructed view. It is also possible (though unlikely given the fact that it would cost more to pursue than it's worth) that under a sustained challenge from a DA, a higher court may rule that roadway markings constitute a form of signage.
In any case, I'm not sure that a total of 4 states (two of which almost certainly have a patchwork covering of local ordinances governing passing lane markings) constitutes "many" states allowing persons to pass on a double-yellow.
I'm not sure your research amounts to a "50 state survey", but it is certainly helpful. I was perhaps exxagerating in saying "many" states. How about "some" states? But since this incident took place in PA, and PA is (as I said) one of the states that requires a "physical sign", it would seem to me the only relevant point is this:
In this incident, in this state, the presence of double yellow lines does not definitively establish that a motorcyclist passing a car was acting illegally or improperly.
Quite a few people here seemed to assume otherwise. Call it a "technicality" or make jokes about lawyers and "exceptions" if you like. But when the time comes, you'll be glad for a lawyer who actually knows the law.
By the way, I think you'll find that North Carolina has the same rule, unless it has changed in recent years. As I said, I haven't taken the trouble to research how many other states might also have this rule. It's kind of not all that important to me right at the moment. Feel free to have a look, if you like.
Road Master
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 62
From: kingman AZ. We aren't in hell, but you can see it from here!!!
OKAY! I read both stories twice.The way they read, the "bikers" beat on the CAR. the driver was injured by the motorcyclist " ....As he was passing on the left..." .
I don't remember seeing anywhere the "bikers" actually touched the driver....
only the car....
I don't remember seeing anywhere the "bikers" actually touched the driver....
only the car....