Motorcyclist charged with vehicular homicide

[L8 Braker]

Man facing charges in traffic crash that killed bystander

[wildchild]

i put innocent because it doesn't say what rate of speed, only high rate. could be ten over. the cage driver caused the wreck by turning in front of the bike, again assuming a not incredible speed.

here you only get vehicular homicide if your were under the influence. if he's OWI then toss him in the can.

[udman]

I vote "present" until more information is available.

[L8 Braker]

Originally Posted by udman

I vote "present" until more information is available.

Here's some info from another article...

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...-death/1156180

The Florida Highway Patrol says Joshua H. Cross, then 20, was speeding down Louis Avenue on his Suzuki motorcycle, passing slower vehicles, when he collided with a 1990 Toyota turning onto Lucas Street.

[OneSickPsycho]

Innocent.

I believe speed is a secondary offense, unless above a specific rate (30 above?) and there's no real way of knowing exactly how fast he was going. Given that lack of information, we cannot be certain that he was the cause of the accident. Seems to me the Camry chick failed to yeild, which is a primary offense... Plus, I think the law requires negligence on the part of the rider... I would argue that despite his apparent disregard of the posted speed limit, he wasn't negligent - ie. he could not reasonably presume his actions would cause this 1 in a million reaction. If he killed the chick in the Camry, then yes, but pinballing your bike off of a car that turned in front of you and into some schmuck on the side of the road... not so much.

[Amber Lamps]

Hell, they should convict whoever gave that old bat a driver's license!!! All they have to do is measure where the bike's skid marks start. If they are less than say, 100' or less from the point of impact, the bitch turned right in front of him. if they are say, 200'+ away then the fool was going WAY TOO FUCKING FAST. Pretty cut and dried imho.

[azoomm]

Originally Posted by OneSickPsycho

Innocent.

I believe speed is a secondary offense, unless above a specific rate (30 above?) and there's no real way of knowing exactly how fast he was going. Given that lack of information, we cannot be certain that he was the cause of the accident. Seems to me the Camry chick failed to yeild, which is a primary offense... Plus, I think the law requires negligence on the part of the rider... I would argue that despite his apparent disregard of the posted speed limit, he wasn't negligent - ie. he could not reasonably presume his actions would cause this 1 in a million reaction. If he killed the chick in the Camry, then yes, but pinballing your bike off of a car that turned in front of you and into some schmuck on the side of the road... not so much.

Well said.

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by OneSickPsycho

Innocent.

I believe speed is a secondary offense, unless above a specific rate (30 above?) and there's no real way of knowing exactly how fast he was going. Given that lack of information, we cannot be certain that he was the cause of the accident. Seems to me the Camry chick failed to yeild, which is a primary offense... Plus, I think the law requires negligence on the part of the rider... I would argue that despite his apparent disregard of the posted speed limit, he wasn't negligent - ie. he could not reasonably presume his actions would cause this 1 in a million reaction. If he killed the chick in the Camry, then yes, but pinballing your bike off of a car that turned in front of you and into some schmuck on the side of the road... not so much.

I disagree my friend, again if the rider had to lock up his brakes more than a couple hundred feet away and still hit the Camry, it can be reasoned that he was traveling well above 30mph. As we all know, a crotch rocket will stop on a dime from <50 mph. In other words, if he had to lock it up at a distance that could be reasonably argued would be far enough away for a normal left hand turn. The old lady is in the clear. Of course, again, if he locked it up 20' away from impact, the car driver obviously turned right in front of him and caused the accident, regardless of the motorcycle's speed.

Now to another question, is it possible that the bike's high rate of speed was the cause of the pedestrian's death because the bike wouldn't have traveled that far after the impact with the car, if the kid hadn't been going so fast?

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Amber Lamps

I disagree my friend, again if the rider had to lock up his brakes more than a couple hundred feet away and still hit the Camry, it can be reasoned that he was traveling well above 30mph. As we all know, a crotch rocket will stop on a dime from <50 mph. In other words, if he had to lock it up at a distance that could be reasonably argued would be far enough away for a normal left hand turn. The old lady is in the clear. Of course, again, if he locked it up 20' away from impact, the car driver obviously turned right in front of him and caused the accident, regardless of the motorcycle's speed.

Now to another question, is it possible that the bike's high rate of speed was the cause of the pedestrian's death because the bike wouldn't have traveled that far after the impact with the car, if the kid hadn't been going so fast?

That is fine for assigning blame for the accident. That still doesn't necessarily make him guilty of vehicular homicide.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by OneSickPsycho

Innocent.

I believe speed is a secondary offense, unless above a specific rate (30 above?) and there's no real way of knowing exactly how fast he was going. Given that lack of information, we cannot be certain that he was the cause of the accident. Seems to me the Camry chick failed to yeild, which is a primary offense... Plus, I think the law requires negligence on the part of the rider... I would argue that despite his apparent disregard of the posted speed limit, he wasn't negligent - ie. he could not reasonably presume his actions would cause this 1 in a million reaction. If he killed the chick in the Camry, then yes, but pinballing your bike off of a car that turned in front of you and into some schmuck on the side of the road... not so much.

Here it wouldn't necessarily be the speed that got him nailed, but rather the passing past an intersection. The rate of speed would likely be icing on the cake. A lot of icing, at that, considering statements like "...flipped multiple times before hitting..."

From the sounds of it, the speed was excessive. It was certainly excessive for the situation. Guilty, from where I sit.