Popular among first-time buyers -- Hayabusa

[sparky3008]

Will be interesting to see what the consequences of Ben being unliscensed (and unhelmeted) have on how the judicial system deals with the accident. For the lawyers out there, does it make any difference if the lady is at fault, but she hits a guy who wasn't legally on the bike?

Doesn't matter the lady will be moving to Florida soon after they start protesting, egging and wrapping her house...

Surprised it hasn't started already....

Football season hasn't started so they are still in hibernation

 

[ionbeam]

if you had DL at the time, you were grandfather in to an automatic "motorcycle" designation on your DL. So, depending on age here, you could be a complete and utter goob and still have a motorcyle license.

New Hampshire (license plate motto: LIVE FREE OR DIE) is tax free. This normally means no taxes, no services for us. In a very unusual turn NH actually has a pretty good state sponsored, 3 level motorcycle rider training program. NH DMV truly expects you to demonstrate basic riding skills and test thoroughly enough that there can be a 50% failure rate for prospective riders. If you are a rubie, nubie I can almost guarantee you would fail the driver's test.

In Massachusetts they basically have you ride around the block, out of sight for ¾ the test, if you come back alive you get your license. :glare:

Yes, we are a helmet optional state. Most opt not.

Edited for spelling and punctuation after Sparks posting.

 

[sparky3008]

if you had DL at the time, you were grandfather in to an automatic "motorcycle" designation on your DL. So, depending on age here, you could be a complete and utter goob and still have a motorcyle license.

New Hampshire (license plate motto: LIVE FREE OR DIE) is tax free. This normally means – no taxes, no services for us. In a very unusual turn NH actually has a pretty good state sponsored, 3 level motorcycle rider training program. NH DMV truly expects you to demonstrate basic riding skills and test thoroughly enough that there can be a 50% failure rate for prospective riders. If you are a rubie, nubie I can almost guarantee you would fail the driver’s test.

In Massachusetts they basically have you ride around the block, out of site for ¾ the test, if you come back alive you get your license. :glare:

Yes, we are a helmet optional state. Most opt not.

Here in Maryland I took the MSF to get my license but it was amazing the day I was there watching the amount of guys on their nice new bikes failing the test and having to push their bikes...

It is not an easy test, however in Maryland no part of it is on the road, all parking lot :dribble:

 

[Scab]

My wife has full legal authority with her DL to operate a motorcycle. She has never operated one in her life. We all had to test to operate an automobile and they just pitched us the authority to operate motorcycles as well.(born before xxxx date) It has changed now, you have an additional test. I am not sure how invovled it is though. I don't know if it is just written or operational as well.

 

[sparky3008]

My wife has full legal authority with her DL to operate a motorcycle. She has never operated one in her life. We all had to test to operate an automobile and they just pitched us the authority to operate motorcycles as well.(born before xxxx date) It has changed now, you have an additional test. I am not sure how invovled it is though. I don't know if it is just written or operational as well.

That's amazing.

When I drove for a tow truck company there was a guy who had a Class A CDL and didn't know how to drive.

It was right before the CDL and they grandfathered him in. My boss used him as a ride along when he only had his learners. Very strange rules we have sometimes...

 

[exskibum]

Will be interesting to see what the consequences of Ben being unliscensed (and unhelmeted) have on how the judicial system deals with the accident. For the lawyers out there, does it make any difference if the lady is at fault, but she hits a guy who wasn't legally on the bike?

Edit to note that this post addresses the effect of no helmet, while my next one addresses the effect of no MC endorsement.

I wrote about this on another board a couple weeks ago in the context of a squid doing a get off with a scantily clad girl on the back -- on the issue of her relative fault in getting on that way, and the relevance of how much she knew about motorcycles and gear if squid rider never said shit to her when he picked her up to go for a ride.

But to answer your question: yeah, it probably will make a difference in a civil case, or it sure would in California and most jurisdictions. Assuming facts that we don't know for sure, I'll say that she'll likely be liable for having caused the accident. BUT . . . and here's where it's relevant . . . his own negligence in failing to take reasonable precautions to minimize injury from reasonably foreseeable accidents could limit the amount of damages recovered. It's just like the seat belt defense, which goes like this: Sure, I was in your lane when I hit you, but if you'd been wearing your seatbelt, your injuries would have been far less severe (and I'm liable for those, but not for all that plastic surgery and neuro surgery that resulted from putting your face through the windshield.) So, if the defense lawyer hired by her insurer convinces the jury of something like that, then Ben would have lower damages awarded and get less money from her insurer.

Keep in mind that if his medical insurer had paid for his face surgery, there's a good chance that they would have a lien against his eventual recovery, whether by judgment or settlement. It's complicated how that gets apportioned, but broad brush: the less he gets from her for his own negligent contribution to his injuries, the less his med. insurer gets back. Often, a lot of this is about which insurer pays how much, though it's typically improper to so much as mention insurance in the trial, so most jurors see it as just between the litigants (and sometimes it is, whether in whole (as in no ins.) or in part (as in judgment above policy limits).

 

[ionbeam]

Well, there goes this thread down the toilet. exskibum, WTF are you doing messing up this discussion with real information? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[sparky3008]

Will be interesting to see what the consequences of Ben being unliscensed (and unhelmeted) have on how the judicial system deals with the accident. For the lawyers out there, does it make any difference if the lady is at fault, but she hits a guy who wasn't legally on the bike?

I wrote about this on another board a couple weeks ago in the context of a squid doing a get off with a scantily clad girl on the back -- on the issue of her relative fault in getting on that way, and the relevance of how much she knew about motorcycles and gear if squid rider never said shit to her when he picked her up to go for a ride.

But to answer your question: yeah, it probably will make a difference in a civil case, or it sure would in California and most jurisdictions. Assuming facts that we don't know for sure, I'll say that she'll likely be liable for having caused the accident. BUT . . . and here's where it's relevant . . . his own negligence in failing to take reasonable precautions to minimize injury from reasonably foreseeable accidents could limit the amount of damages recovered. It's just like the seat belt defense, which goes like this: Sure, I was in your lane when I hit you, but if you'd been wearing your seatbelt, your injuries would have been far less severe (and I'm liable for those), but not for all that plastic surgery and neuro surgery that resulted from putting your face through the windshield. So, if the defense lawyer hired by her insurer convinces the jury of something like that, then Ben would have lower damages awarded and get less money from her insurer.

Keep in mind that if his medical insurer had paid for his face surgery, there's a good chance that they would have a lien against his eventual recovery, whether by judgment or settlement. It's complicated how that gets apportioned, but broad brush: the less he gets from her for his own negligent contribution to his injuries, the less his med. insurer gets back. Often, a lot of this is about which insurer pays how much, though it's typically improper to so much as mention insurance in the trial, so most jurors see it as just between the litigants (and sometimes it is, whether in whole (as in no ins.) or in part (as in judgment above policy limits).

But, wasn't it O.J.'s wife's fault he got so angry?

 

[Groo]

exskibum,

How about criminal charges for Ben for driving without a license?

 

[exskibum]

exskibum,
How about criminal charges for Ben for driving without a license?

Don't know how it would work for sure in Pennsylvania, but in California, there's a reasonable chance that he'd be issued a citation for what is an infraction (failing to have a valid motorcycle endorsement) as a result of the accident investigation. Recall the Governator's similar "oversight" when he was involved in an accident on his bike a few months ago (again, I think it was the cager at fault). I doubt that would have any real effect on civil liability, but here's a situation where conviction on a traffic citation could:

If you're speeding or violating someone else's right of way, and you get into an accident as a result of either of those acts, then a conviction (including pleading guilty) can be used against you in the civil case. (But not the other way around, since the criminal std. is the higher "beyond a reasonable doubt" vis the "preponderance of the evidence" std. in the civil case -- if you have B.a R.D., you logically must also have P.of E., but not the other way around). That conviction of a charged violation, where the statute is meant to provide for the safety of others on the road (as opposed to merely not having a license) could be considered "negligence per se" and quickly get the civil case against you past the issue of liability for negligence and on to the question of damages. THAT is the only legitimate reason that criminal defendants (as in an injury DUI) plead "nolo contendere" ("no contest") to such charges -- it operates as a guilty plea for the purpose of the criminal case, but can't be used against them in a subsequent civil case.

 

[Reaper]

I've seen very few if any legal decisions handed down in California that have any degree of logical basis at all and fairness doesn't ever enter the picture. :angry: So, exskibum, your opinion is piss on a rock. :assassin:

 

[FJReady]

Alan, Its only outta sight for half the test, not 3/4. Have to get our tax dollars worth down here.

Russ

 

[exskibum]

I've seen very few if any legal decisions handed down in California that have any degree of logical basis at all and fairness doesn't ever enter the picture. :angry: So, exskibum, your opinion is piss on a rock. :assassin:

So, do you like it in the ass or down your throat, "reaper"? Or maybe you're just wishing you were that metaphorical rock?

I responded to two questions to the best of my ability, the second directed to me specifically. If you want to disagree, that's fine -- whether or not there's any supporting reasoning or facts in your response. I never addressed you, nor have I done anything to you, nor did I insult you. But you need to belittle me because I got out of the construction industry at 29 by paying and earning my way into something else?

And please -- we all believe you really have read any "legal decisions". Third or fourth hand media crap, usually wildly inaccurate and incomplete, is more like the true facts. Ad hominem attacks and keyboard cowardice are apparently more your style. :asshat:

 

[ionbeam]

Never mix it up with a guy that is trained and paid to argue as his vocation. :blink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[sparky3008]

I've seen very few if any legal decisions handed down in California that have any degree of logical basis at all and fairness doesn't ever enter the picture. :angry: So, exskibum, your opinion is piss on a rock. :assassin:

So, do you like it in the ass or down your throat, "reaper"? Or maybe you're just wishing you were that metaphorical rock?

I responded to two questions to the best of my ability, the second directed to me specifically. If you want to disagree, that's fine -- whether or not there's any supporting reasoning or facts in your response. I never addressed you, nor have I done anything to you, nor did I insult you. But you need to belittle me because I got out of the construction industry at 29 by paying and earning my way into something else?

And please -- we all believe you really have read any "legal decisions". Third or fourth hand media crap, usually wildly inaccurate and incomplete, is more like the true facts. Ad hominem attacks and keyboard cowardice are apparently more your style. :asshat:

I took his as more a bash on the California court system than to you exskibum but maybe I was wrong.

 

[Reaper]

Well jonbeam, I didn’t know Rich was a paid mouth piece. He said “If you want to disagree, that's fine”, but I notice he isn’t above personal attacks if you do disagree with him. For example “So, do you like it in the ass or down your throat……” I do have trouble respecting the opinion of someone that can argue either side of a situation equally well. Someone that is paid to distort or misrepresent facts for a living. But that just me. Sorry for insulting you Rich, just didn’t agree with some of the things you said.

 

[exskibum]

I do have trouble respecting the opinion of someone that can argue either side of a situation equally well. Someone that is paid to distort or misrepresent facts for a living. But that just me.

Whatever. Even if that was the creed I live by, that's certainly not what I did in this thread in explaining the way it's supposed to work, but you're free to entertain whatever biases you wish. Oh well, maybe it's just that you hate America and its tripartite system of government and laws.

If it is really your dislike of the way the system too often works, the abuses and injustice that result from humans trying to game the system and take advantage of others, then we have something in common, even if you choose to simplistically assign all the blame to everyone within a profession you've decided harbors all of the dishonesty and greed that you are seeing manifested in that broken system.

Sorry for insulting you Rich, just didn’t agree with some of the things you said.

Fair enough. Apology accepted (even if you simultaneously made it clear that I "distort or misrepresent facts for a living"). And I apologize for the flippant response challenging your sexual preferences. Of course, sincere as that may be, I had to consider telling you to go F#@$ yourself, figuring that was the only way you might consider it a real apology, (recalling that everything I say is a lie). :lol:

 

[evil_henchman]

Wow that black bird can really throw down! :lol:

 

[sparky3008]

Some really nice words in there too like tripartite and flippant

 

[Woodstock]

Is this the right thread for all those lawyer jokes I've been saving up?

You know, like "How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?" Things like that.

Those crack me up. :haha: