Roethlisberger in motorcycle accident

[vurbano]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=yspsctnhdln>Roethlisberger to be cited for not having motorcycle license</TD></TR><TR><TD height=7><SPACER type="block" width="1" height="1"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>By DANIEL LOVERING, Associated Press Writer
June 19, 2006

PITTSBURGH (AP) -- Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger will be cited for not wearing a helmet and not having a motorcycle license after an accident last week left him with a concussion, broken jaw and nose.

Roethlisberger and the driver of the car he crashed into on June 12 both had the green light, but the driver of the vehicle will be cited for failing to yield, police said Monday.

Only licensed cyclists can ride without a helmet in Pennsylvania.

Roethlisberger was traveling 35 mph in a posted 35 mph zone, said officer Dan Connolly. There were no mechanical problems with Roethlisberger's Suzuki Hayabusa or the Chrysler New Yorker, he said.

There were no mechanical problems with Roethlisberger's Suzuki Hayabusa or the Chrysler New Yorker, he said.

Police Chief Dominic Costa said the woman driving the car received some threatening phone calls, which police were investigating.

Roethlisberger had seven hours of surgery to repair his broken jaws and other facial bones. Doctors have said tests showed no brain injuries, although there was a mild concussion. He also lost two teeth and chipped several others. He was discharged Wednesday night from Mercy Hospital and apologized to the team, his fans and family in a statement released Thursday. He also said that he would wear a helmet if he rode a motorcycle again.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-roethlisbergeraccident&prov=ap&type=lgns



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[bhelms]

Actually I assumed he was hit by the woman...

IIRC, the photos showed damage to the car on the right front door forward and the windshield in the passenger area. This would indicate that the bike hit the car, but it's probably a classic case of the car making a left turn in front of the bike, i.e., a right-of-way issue. The article vurbano linked said both had a green light but "the driver of the vehicle will be cited for failing to yield", probably the left turn. The article was not specific as to which they are identifying as "the vehicle"; I assume they meant the car. That's part of the problem - bikes are "vehicles" as well and some drivers simply fail to recognize those vehicles, in multiple ways!

Either way, BR is guilty of at least 2 other offenses unrelated to the accident and he will need to suffer those consequences as well. I would assume both will get him fines and "points", perhaps sufficient for a license suspension. At any rate he will have a tougher time getting bike insurance in the future, as if that should be any problem for someone with his celebrity and resources...

 

[Peter Parker]

I could be wrong but I think that all Purogamer meant was that the accident itself seems to be the fault of the driver of the car. assuming that all the stories about an expired permit etc are true then Big Ben will have to face the appropriate penalties for that. Again assuming that it all is true I can't imagine that anyone would argue differently.

 

[bhelms]

I could be wrong but I think that all Purogamer meant was that the accident itself seems to be the fault of the driver of the car. assuming that all the stories about an expired permit etc are true then Big Ben will have to face the appropriate penalties for that. Again assuming that it all is true I can't imagine that anyone would argue differently.

Agreed - by her failure to yield RTW. And that could have a lot of consequences for the woman. She'll also receive points for the moving violation and could ultimately end-up covering a large chunk of BR's medical bills under her liability coverage, and replacing his bike under her property damage coverage. If she was uninsured, that could have other criminal consequences. I don't see any reason why BR will need to buy her off under the likely outcome.

The rest is a separate, but actionable, issue. Nothing BR did will likely result in any compensation to the woman...

 

[charper1]

You are correct, not having the full motorcycle licence aside, the car failed to yield to the oncoming, right of way traffic and is being sited as 100% at fault for the accident. 2nd; his not having the full MC licencing thus prompted the helmet violation; which if he would have had the lic, he would not have been required to have a helmet; silly law.

 

[bhelms]

There is a bit more to it than that. IIRC, you need to have the license at least 2 years and(/or?) have taken the MSF rider course (both?) before you can doff the helmet. I've been riding 30 years and have taken both courses. I would never ride without a helmet. "Choice" might be a viable option except that we all pay for the added injuries. (I know there is a lot of debate about helmet vs. non-helmet in terms of extent and type of injuries. I haven't seen any compelling evidence to the contrary so I always wear one...)

 

[charper1]

Sorry I was meaning it seems silly to have some rules tht require and some that don't; just have one rule = required helmet.

 

[salsadancer7]

I don't know if someone has mentioned this ....but the silliest part to all of this is, here is a guy that HAS to wear a helmet for a living...KNOWING the damage football can cause.....yet being SO STUPID that he is on a motorcycle and not wearing a helmet....where the damamge can be worse!!!......duh......you would think he would ...ahhhh...never mind! LOL

 

[bhelms]

I don't know if someone has mentioned this ....but the silliest part to all of this is, here is a guy that HAS to wear a helmet for a living...KNOWING the damage football can cause.....yet being SO STUPID that he is on a motorcycle and not wearing a helmet....where the damamge can be worse!!!......duh......you would think he would ...ahhhh...never mind! LOL

Yeah - That's been in all the local talk. You'd think he'd feel "naked" hurling off into potentially deadly contact without that high-tech protector covering his noggin'...

 

[salsadancer7]

Yeah - That's been in all the local talk. You'd think he'd feel "naked" hurling off into potentially deadly contact without that high-tech protector covering his noggin'...

I also read that he states that "next time he rides, he'll wear a helmet...." WHY would you EVEN consider riding again??

 

[Jimbo]

I also read that he states that "next time he rides, he'll wear a helmet...." WHY would you EVEN consider riding again??

I think that said " IF he decides to ride again" .....

I would imagine he will ride again, sometime, maybe not for a while.
Most people go back to do something that they enjoyed doing.

WITH A HELMET THIS TIME !!!!

Jimbo

 

[Purogamer]

But Kellen Winslow said last week, after the accident, that he wouldn't ride again until after he was done playing. That is the response ben should have given as well.

Did you guys see the footage? He wasn't just getting going from a stop, he was moving pretty good to make that kind of damage to the bike and to the car. I thought I heard someone say 65 but he'd be dead at that speed. Maybe 25. I don't like how they assume the woman just blindly pulled in front of him without video footage. Maybe they have it and haven't released it, but it's he said/she said without proof.

Besides, that bike can go 200mph, you know it's got great brakes and if she was pulling in front of me i'd have braked. The story just seems to have some holes in it still...

 

[Jimbo]

But Kellen Winslow said last week, after the accident, that he wouldn't ride again until after he was done playing. That is the response ben should have given as well.

Did you guys see the footage? He wasn't just getting going from a stop, he was moving pretty good to make that kind of damage to the bike and to the car. I thought I heard someone say 65 but he'd be dead at that speed. Maybe 25. I don't like how they assume the woman just blindly pulled in front of him without video footage. Maybe they have it and haven't released it, but it's he said/she said without proof.

Besides, that bike can go 200mph, you know it's got great brakes and if she was pulling in front of me i'd have braked. The story just seems to have some holes in it still...

I would guess from where the car got hit, that Ben was going straight and the lady pulled out to make a left hand turn, figuring she could get thru the intersection before the traffic got to her...

Do you REALLY think that the bike just figured it would drive right thru the car ?
Of course the brakes were applied... unfortunatly, too late..

No one knows for sure what the circumstances were whitout being there.
Were there any of those traffic camera at the intersection ?

Jimbo

 

[vurbano]

I could be wrong but I think that all Purogamer meant was that the accident itself seems to be the fault of the driver of the car. assuming that all the stories about an expired permit etc are true then Big Ben will have to face the appropriate penalties for that. Again assuming that it all is true I can't imagine that anyone would argue differently.

IMO, once you jump on a bike without a license, a prerequisite to driving, you are responsible for whatever happens. That lady would not have hit him if his ass had not been on the road! and he had no right to be on the road! He did NOT have a lisence to be on the road. I just dont see how one party can be at fault when the other party is in the middle of a criminal act.

Hmm So I suppose if I steal a car and wreck it, but another driver causes the accident, then he gets the ticket? Sounds FKD up to me.

 

[Jimbo]

IMO, once you jump on a bike without a license, a prerequisite to driving, you are responsible for whatever happens. That lady would not have hit him if his ass had not been on the road! and he had no right to be on the road! He did NOT have a lisence to be on the road. I just dont see how one party can be at fault when the other party is in the middle of a criminal act.

Hmm So I suppose if I steal a car and wreck it, but another driver causes the accident, then he gets the ticket? Sounds FKD up to me.

He has a drivers licence, not a bike license, I don't know if it makes any difference.

Gee, How many of you have motorcycles and your showing it to your buddy and he wants to take it out for a bit......

Do you always say "You can't go because you don't have a bike license ???

Now, be honest ....

How many people out there are driving with revoked licenses ???
Sadly it happens more than people think.

I know I have a license, don't know if the guy driving next to me does ....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm So I suppose if I steal a car and wreck it, but another driver causes the accident, then he gets the ticket? Sounds FKD up to me.

The person causeing the wreck gets the ticket for the accident .....
You get the ticket for theft, only because you were to dumb not to wreck your stollen car, at least till you were found.

Just as Ben was sited for the drivers license, that was a seperate issue from the accident.

Had the accident not happened, (or your wreck) Ben would not have been cited, and MAYBE he would have went in to get his license, maybe...

Has anyone checked to see if he had a Bike license for riding in OHIO ?
Maybe the Ohio license just expired, and he hasn't had time to renew it and change it to PA.

This senario is not likely to be the case, but you never know.

Jimbo

 

[Peter Parker]

IMO, once you jump on a bike without a license, a prerequisite to driving, you are responsible for whatever happens. That lady would not have hit him if his ass had not been on the road! and he had no right to be on the road! He did NOT have a lisence to be on the road. I just dont see how one party can be at fault when the other party is in the middle of a criminal act.

Hmm So I suppose if I steal a car and wreck it, but another driver causes the accident, then he gets the ticket? Sounds FKD up to me.

That nay be tour opinion but is not the law. However if yu drive w/outa license---or steal a car you are liablr for THAT. Roethlisberger was cited for the lack of a license and if yu steal a car you will pay for that.

 

[JamesJ]

actually he had a bike license, just not a valid one, ran out in march I believe (maybe he forgot I dont know). But he did have a license (outdated).

 

[Purogamer]

It's completely his fault, but he crashed IN PITTSBURGH. It's like dwayne wade crashing in miami and getting a slap on the wrist. It's like Albert Pujols crashing in St. Louis...

Why do you think they waited to charge him? Because they had to find a way to charge him and get him the lightest sentence possible.

Besides, this isn't really the steelers biggest problem, ben will be fine. Their top draft pick may get himself jail time before training camp starts...

 

[Jimbo]

It's completely his fault, but he crashed IN PITTSBURGH. It's like dwayne wade crashing in miami and getting a slap on the wrist. It's like Albert Pujols crashing in St. Louis...

Why do you think they waited to charge him? Because they had to find a way to charge him and get him the lightest sentence possible.

Besides, this isn't really the steelers biggest problem, ben will be fine. Their top draft pick may get himself jail time before training camp starts...

Ya thats right, I guess it's fine that the lady is allowed to make a left hand turn and hit a person on a motorcycle (or car) and not have to worry about repercussions from causeing an accident.
According to most here have forgot that the lady failed to yeild causing the accident, had she waited for traffic, neither person would injured at this point. She obviously tried to beat oncoming traffic.
I am sure she is upset about the accident happening, but shes probably glad she hit a famous person, notice no one is grilling her about the accident....
At least that I have heard.
She was obviouly at fault for failure to yeild, I guess thats ok for all you Steeler haters.

Jimbo

 

[Purogamer]

Whoa whoa, I initially thought it was her fault, but there's no damage to the front of her car, it's to the side. He ran into her. Whether or not she pulled in front of him or not is unknown at this time. The facts are that he crashed into the side of this woman's car, and he was riding a bike illegally before doing so.

I guess steeler lovers will see it as not being ben's fault at all. Guy shouldn't have been there at that time. Had he followed the law or even just listened to the many people who told him he shouldn't be riding, he'd be at the playboy mansion this weekend eating shrimp and getting rubbed against by playmates. Instead his mother is feeding him through a straw in his living room.