You just never know....
- Thread starter 1bondoman
- Start date
Thanks for posting.
RedBusarider
Registered
Between a rock and a hard place with no where to go. :unhappy:
cheferman65
Registered
Very sad and difficult to see, I'm sure more so for his family. RIP.
GNBRETT
Registered
wen u put ur life in the hands of a cager the chances are ur gonna lose every time. especially since gauging the speed of a small object like a MC is very difficult to do. the MC was operating recklessly long before the car turned in front of him. so who really is to blame here? very sad and unfortunate. RIP
First off my love and condolences go out to David's family. His mum is a quite a woman.
The driver of the car is probably going to suffer PSTD for rest of their life so I feel for them.
When I see posts of people wanting to go 200mph on the street or bragging about racing some car at a buck 50 plus on the interstate it makes me cringe. I hope they see this clip and take a minute and think WTF am I doing!!!!
There are enough top speed venues, grudge race drag strips and organized events with no cars out there to satisfy the need to go fast. If you think it is expensive to go to a track consider what it costs if the cops get you let alone if you bite it. A friend of mine got charged for 145 mph in AZ east of Flagstaff about 25 years ago, between the time in jail, loss of license, lawyer fees and fines the $$$ amount would have sponsored my AMA roadracing program for about 3 months at the time.
Ok off the soapbox, just think twice.
The driver of the car is probably going to suffer PSTD for rest of their life so I feel for them.
When I see posts of people wanting to go 200mph on the street or bragging about racing some car at a buck 50 plus on the interstate it makes me cringe. I hope they see this clip and take a minute and think WTF am I doing!!!!
There are enough top speed venues, grudge race drag strips and organized events with no cars out there to satisfy the need to go fast. If you think it is expensive to go to a track consider what it costs if the cops get you let alone if you bite it. A friend of mine got charged for 145 mph in AZ east of Flagstaff about 25 years ago, between the time in jail, loss of license, lawyer fees and fines the $$$ amount would have sponsored my AMA roadracing program for about 3 months at the time.
Ok off the soapbox, just think twice.
I've seen it before. Tragic
Blrry
Registered
Sad, but in this case, probably completely preventable. Guy was riding on the road in a way that didn't give other people the time to either see or react to him. When you're expecting oncoming traffic to be going 45, and they're going 90, it takes a few moments to register how much time you need to adjust to them. Even the motorcyclist didn't have time to do more than slightly veer left and begin to brake when he was hit. And the poor driver that hit him, I can't imagine why he pled guilty when it seems to me the motorcyclist was completely at fault. Very sad situation.
GNBRETT
Registered
couldn't hav said it better. ur exactly right. ones (PRT) perception reaction time is far less when a MC is coming directly at you. our minds do not register a small mass like a MC to be traveling as fast as the car is traveling. the car is a larger mass and therefore is easier to recognize excessive speed.
ur brain is also programed to gauge that object coming at you in the form of a car, truck or SUV. the MC is a smaller mass object and does not appear to be going as fast.
I said the same thing when reading that article and wondered why he wud plead guilty to that. they do take MC accidents pretty serious over there but here no way wud I ever plead guilty to that.
there is software out now that cud replay that accident in animation and view it from the angle of the person turning to see wat they saw. usually wen those programs are put together and replayed for ppl to experience wat the operator of the car saw they wud not convict cause all of them watching wud suddenly be put in that predicament and most all will fail and pull out in front of the MC.
that video was very clear and with the reconstruction of that accident they cud put that whole event in a real time like video.
its a real tragedy no matter how u slice it but the one who violated the law was the one operating at a speed he can't correct from and react to at all. that is the fault of the MC imo not the operator of the car. the MC created the hazard. the car just simply couldn't react fast enough to his excessive speed.
ur brain is also programed to gauge that object coming at you in the form of a car, truck or SUV. the MC is a smaller mass object and does not appear to be going as fast.
I said the same thing when reading that article and wondered why he wud plead guilty to that. they do take MC accidents pretty serious over there but here no way wud I ever plead guilty to that.
there is software out now that cud replay that accident in animation and view it from the angle of the person turning to see wat they saw. usually wen those programs are put together and replayed for ppl to experience wat the operator of the car saw they wud not convict cause all of them watching wud suddenly be put in that predicament and most all will fail and pull out in front of the MC.
that video was very clear and with the reconstruction of that accident they cud put that whole event in a real time like video.
its a real tragedy no matter how u slice it but the one who violated the law was the one operating at a speed he can't correct from and react to at all. that is the fault of the MC imo not the operator of the car. the MC created the hazard. the car just simply couldn't react fast enough to his excessive speed.
ZRXMAX
Registered
A very unfortunate collision and a prime example of complacency on the part of the car driver. My heart goes out to the Mom, family, and friends.
I have also lost friends to driver errors similar to this. The motorcyclist definatly added to the situation with excessive speed and had no justifiable
reason to be going that fast. If the motorist had taken the time to gauge the speed of the motorcyclist the right turn would not have been taken
at that critical point in time. I never cross an oncoming motor vehicles path unless I sure it is safe. If I am not sure, I wait until I am sure.
Is it true that we wait until we have judged a turn is safe for all parties involved before we make that turn? Of course we do. To not do that
is ridiculus.
Saying motorcycles are harder to see than cars and trucks is true, however, as a motorist your responcibility to yield to oncoming traffic
when making a turn is still your duty to maintain as a top priority at all times.
Roughly 90% of what we call accidents are preventable and are caused by human error. This accident had two human errors, not one.
Either party could have avoided this collision with proper judgement.
If I did that to a motorcyclist, bicyclist, or 3 wheeler I would still consider myself 100% responcible for turning in front of that vehicle
regardless of the speed of that vehicle. The reason is simple, nobody is invisible in broad daylight with a clear view of other vehicles.
An essential skill of driving is gauging the speed of other vehicles you encounter that you need to maintain a safe distance with.
I also wonder if he had ever considered ( well in advance of this collision ) jumping up just before impact and partially clearing the
car to avoid the G forces of blunt force impact ?
Its will still be a rough experience with injuries, however, the odds of survival are much higher.
Personally speaking, I slow down for left hand turning vehicles that pose a threat to me.
I use my quick flash high beam switch ( left trigger finger position ) often as I approach vehicles that have the opportunity to turn left in front of me.
Searching You Tube you will find motorcyclist that did clear the car they ran into and it appears they probably survived.
I have also lost friends to driver errors similar to this. The motorcyclist definatly added to the situation with excessive speed and had no justifiable
reason to be going that fast. If the motorist had taken the time to gauge the speed of the motorcyclist the right turn would not have been taken
at that critical point in time. I never cross an oncoming motor vehicles path unless I sure it is safe. If I am not sure, I wait until I am sure.
Is it true that we wait until we have judged a turn is safe for all parties involved before we make that turn? Of course we do. To not do that
is ridiculus.
Saying motorcycles are harder to see than cars and trucks is true, however, as a motorist your responcibility to yield to oncoming traffic
when making a turn is still your duty to maintain as a top priority at all times.
Roughly 90% of what we call accidents are preventable and are caused by human error. This accident had two human errors, not one.
Either party could have avoided this collision with proper judgement.
If I did that to a motorcyclist, bicyclist, or 3 wheeler I would still consider myself 100% responcible for turning in front of that vehicle
regardless of the speed of that vehicle. The reason is simple, nobody is invisible in broad daylight with a clear view of other vehicles.
An essential skill of driving is gauging the speed of other vehicles you encounter that you need to maintain a safe distance with.
I also wonder if he had ever considered ( well in advance of this collision ) jumping up just before impact and partially clearing the
car to avoid the G forces of blunt force impact ?
Its will still be a rough experience with injuries, however, the odds of survival are much higher.
Personally speaking, I slow down for left hand turning vehicles that pose a threat to me.
I use my quick flash high beam switch ( left trigger finger position ) often as I approach vehicles that have the opportunity to turn left in front of me.
Searching You Tube you will find motorcyclist that did clear the car they ran into and it appears they probably survived.
MelodicMetalGod
Registered
First things first: RIP to the rider and condolences to the family.
Rider was going too fast, plain and simple. At 100 mph he's moving at about 142 feet/sec. Reviewing the vid, I identified the accident location/car as a trouble spot at 2:52. The rider yelled at 2:53, indicating that he realized he was in trouble. Impact occurred no later than 2:54. That's no more than 2 seconds to analyze, plan and execute. That's NOT enough time. Period.
The old rule of thumb used to be a 2 second following distance for every 10 mph of speed. At 60 mph, that's 12 seconds. That may be a fairy tale in today's worlds, but the reasoning is still valid. If you're too close, you won't have enough time to do what you need to do if something unexpected happens.
Consider this: We just saw the video with a bike speed of 100 mph. Clearly, there was no time to react with any efficacy. Consider if we changed only a single factor, lowering the bike speed. Watch how quickly the situation becomes a non-issue:
97 MPH x 1.46667 FPS (Feet per Second) = 142.26699 FPS. Estimated distance to impact: 285 feet. Estimated distance to impact (seconds): 2.003275672. Comparative standard braking distance (feet): 300+
90 MPH x 1.46667 FPS (Feet per Second) = 132.0003 FPS. Estimated distance to impact: 285 feet. Estimated distance to impact (seconds): 2.159086002. Comparative standard braking distance (feet): 300
80 MPH x 1.46667 FPS (Feet per Second) = 117.3336 FPS. Estimated distance to impact: 285 feet. Estimated distance to impact (seconds): 2.428971752. Comparative standard braking distance (feet): 238
70 MPH x 1.46667 FPS (Feet per Second) = 102.6669 FPS. Estimated distance to impact: 285 feet. Estimated distance to impact (seconds): 2.775967717. Comparative standard braking distance (feet): 182
60 MPH x 1.46667 FPS (Feet per Second) = 88.0002 FPS. Estimated distance to impact: 285 feet. Estimated distance to impact (seconds): 3.238629003. Comparative standard braking distance (feet): 134
50 MPH x 1.46667 FPS (Feet per Second) = 73.3335 FPS. Estimated distance to impact: 285 feet. Estimated distance to impact (seconds): 3.886354804. Comparative standard braking distance (feet): 93
40 MPH x 1.46667 FPS (Feet per Second) = 58.6668 FPS. Estimated distance to impact: 285 feet. Estimated distance to impact (seconds): 4.857943505. Comparative standard braking distance (feet): 59
30 MPH x 1.46667 FPS (Feet per Second) = 44.0001 FPS. Estimated distance to impact: 285 feet. Estimated distance to impact (seconds): 6.477258006. Comparative standard braking distance (feet): 33
1 MPH x 1.46667 FPS (Feet per Second) = 1.46667 FPS. Estimated distance to impact: 285 feet. Estimated distance to impact (seconds): 194.3177402. Comparative standard braking distance (feet): N/A
IMHO, it's not likely that a very good rider will have time to stop short of impact until speed is down to 70 mph or less. For an average rider, 70 mph would still be 50/50. Bear in mind, identifying the situation only 2 seconds out leaves less than 2 seconds to actually DO anything as you must first decide what you will do (plan) and THEN execute that plan. In this particular scenario, the rider actually seems to have rolled the throttle ON slightly at 2:52. It wasn't until during 2:53 that he actually reached for the brakes.
Bottom line: At 100 mph on a public road, you’re moving too fast to avoid anything that crosses your path within 300 feet. As you lower speed, it's win/win: You gain the amount of time available and you need less time to execute. Consider this: if your speed drops to zero, you simply watch the car execute the turn. There is virtually no danger to you whatsoever. As it actually happened, near 100 mph, there was so little time available that a veteran rider was able to do almost nothing before impact. Speed really does kill if it's abused.
I have to respectfully take issue with the idea of placing blame on the driver. Placing blame on the driver is to hold all of us accountable for every possible behavior from other drivers on the road. Sorry, but we're all accountable to the rules of the road first. Break those and the house of cards crumbles instantly. The rider not only broke the rules (60 mph limit), but he pushed it by 66%, not just the customary 5 or 10 mph, not even the aggressive 15-20, but more than 35 mph OVER the limit! It is not reasonable to expect users to EXPECT other users to be going that fast. Nor is it reasonable to expect users to be able to accurately judge such speeds in other vehicles or how long said vehicles will take to arrive. What IS reasonable is for users to EXPECT that other users will be driving within standards - if not legal standards than readily observable de facto standards (i.e., 65 in a 55, etc.).
As to the argument that the driver shares the blame b/c they were "not sure" that it was safe to proceed and therefore they should have waited until they WERE sure, this is, IMHO, not valid. First, the driver may very well have been sure that it was safe. In fact, that's almost certainly the case given the most drivers have no desire to get into an accident. Second, even if the driver was "SURE", that is no guarantee that is, IN FACT, safe. So, in reality, there is no way to be truly sure that the way is safe - there is always the potential for an accident. This is true on every commute by everyone, everywhere and at all times, from the moment you enter the road until you the moment you leave the road.
Could the driver have avoided the accident by waiting? Sure. How long should he have waited? We know it's extremely difficult (virtually impossible) for a typical driver to judge the speed of an oncoming motorcycle, especially when it's traveling well above the speed limit. It's even tough with small cars and, to a lesser degree, with larger vehicles. Also, if we're assuming that the driver is accountable for all possible behaviors of any vehicle/driver on the road, then they must assume that every vehicle could be moving much faster than they perceive. Finally, if they are to wait until they are "sure" it's safe, then the only course of action would be to wait until they could see no approaching vehicles at all. OR...we could really extend the concept of driver accountability and mandate that they not move until they have notified that all other vehicles earth are parked with the keys removed, transmission in park and parking brake set.
I realize the above is taking it to extremes but I do only to make the point. It is unreasonable to hold someone else accountable for not accommodating ones choice to far exceed standard speed limits. It's akin to a thief getting injured while burglarizing your home and then suing you for their injuries. I think we can all agree (though some courts have not!?!?!?!?) that such a claim is ludicrous and should be summarily dismissed.
Again, RIP rider, but he willingly and egregiously abused his privilege on a public roadway and, tragically, he paid the ultimate price. Even worse, IMHO, he risked the lives of everyone on the road (he was on a heavily traveled a thoroughfare) and has actually had a tremendously negative effect on the driver, who will, at a minimum, bear the psychological scars and baggage of the event for the rest of their lives.
I hope we all add this to our experience and are that much better armed to make better decisions on every ride (and drive) that allow us to enjoy the ride AND return home EVERY TIME!
Ride, but ride smart and ride safe!
Melodic
Rider was going too fast, plain and simple. At 100 mph he's moving at about 142 feet/sec. Reviewing the vid, I identified the accident location/car as a trouble spot at 2:52. The rider yelled at 2:53, indicating that he realized he was in trouble. Impact occurred no later than 2:54. That's no more than 2 seconds to analyze, plan and execute. That's NOT enough time. Period.
The old rule of thumb used to be a 2 second following distance for every 10 mph of speed. At 60 mph, that's 12 seconds. That may be a fairy tale in today's worlds, but the reasoning is still valid. If you're too close, you won't have enough time to do what you need to do if something unexpected happens.
Consider this: We just saw the video with a bike speed of 100 mph. Clearly, there was no time to react with any efficacy. Consider if we changed only a single factor, lowering the bike speed. Watch how quickly the situation becomes a non-issue:
97 MPH x 1.46667 FPS (Feet per Second) = 142.26699 FPS. Estimated distance to impact: 285 feet. Estimated distance to impact (seconds): 2.003275672. Comparative standard braking distance (feet): 300+
90 MPH x 1.46667 FPS (Feet per Second) = 132.0003 FPS. Estimated distance to impact: 285 feet. Estimated distance to impact (seconds): 2.159086002. Comparative standard braking distance (feet): 300
80 MPH x 1.46667 FPS (Feet per Second) = 117.3336 FPS. Estimated distance to impact: 285 feet. Estimated distance to impact (seconds): 2.428971752. Comparative standard braking distance (feet): 238
70 MPH x 1.46667 FPS (Feet per Second) = 102.6669 FPS. Estimated distance to impact: 285 feet. Estimated distance to impact (seconds): 2.775967717. Comparative standard braking distance (feet): 182
60 MPH x 1.46667 FPS (Feet per Second) = 88.0002 FPS. Estimated distance to impact: 285 feet. Estimated distance to impact (seconds): 3.238629003. Comparative standard braking distance (feet): 134
50 MPH x 1.46667 FPS (Feet per Second) = 73.3335 FPS. Estimated distance to impact: 285 feet. Estimated distance to impact (seconds): 3.886354804. Comparative standard braking distance (feet): 93
40 MPH x 1.46667 FPS (Feet per Second) = 58.6668 FPS. Estimated distance to impact: 285 feet. Estimated distance to impact (seconds): 4.857943505. Comparative standard braking distance (feet): 59
30 MPH x 1.46667 FPS (Feet per Second) = 44.0001 FPS. Estimated distance to impact: 285 feet. Estimated distance to impact (seconds): 6.477258006. Comparative standard braking distance (feet): 33
1 MPH x 1.46667 FPS (Feet per Second) = 1.46667 FPS. Estimated distance to impact: 285 feet. Estimated distance to impact (seconds): 194.3177402. Comparative standard braking distance (feet): N/A
IMHO, it's not likely that a very good rider will have time to stop short of impact until speed is down to 70 mph or less. For an average rider, 70 mph would still be 50/50. Bear in mind, identifying the situation only 2 seconds out leaves less than 2 seconds to actually DO anything as you must first decide what you will do (plan) and THEN execute that plan. In this particular scenario, the rider actually seems to have rolled the throttle ON slightly at 2:52. It wasn't until during 2:53 that he actually reached for the brakes.
Bottom line: At 100 mph on a public road, you’re moving too fast to avoid anything that crosses your path within 300 feet. As you lower speed, it's win/win: You gain the amount of time available and you need less time to execute. Consider this: if your speed drops to zero, you simply watch the car execute the turn. There is virtually no danger to you whatsoever. As it actually happened, near 100 mph, there was so little time available that a veteran rider was able to do almost nothing before impact. Speed really does kill if it's abused.
I have to respectfully take issue with the idea of placing blame on the driver. Placing blame on the driver is to hold all of us accountable for every possible behavior from other drivers on the road. Sorry, but we're all accountable to the rules of the road first. Break those and the house of cards crumbles instantly. The rider not only broke the rules (60 mph limit), but he pushed it by 66%, not just the customary 5 or 10 mph, not even the aggressive 15-20, but more than 35 mph OVER the limit! It is not reasonable to expect users to EXPECT other users to be going that fast. Nor is it reasonable to expect users to be able to accurately judge such speeds in other vehicles or how long said vehicles will take to arrive. What IS reasonable is for users to EXPECT that other users will be driving within standards - if not legal standards than readily observable de facto standards (i.e., 65 in a 55, etc.).
As to the argument that the driver shares the blame b/c they were "not sure" that it was safe to proceed and therefore they should have waited until they WERE sure, this is, IMHO, not valid. First, the driver may very well have been sure that it was safe. In fact, that's almost certainly the case given the most drivers have no desire to get into an accident. Second, even if the driver was "SURE", that is no guarantee that is, IN FACT, safe. So, in reality, there is no way to be truly sure that the way is safe - there is always the potential for an accident. This is true on every commute by everyone, everywhere and at all times, from the moment you enter the road until you the moment you leave the road.
Could the driver have avoided the accident by waiting? Sure. How long should he have waited? We know it's extremely difficult (virtually impossible) for a typical driver to judge the speed of an oncoming motorcycle, especially when it's traveling well above the speed limit. It's even tough with small cars and, to a lesser degree, with larger vehicles. Also, if we're assuming that the driver is accountable for all possible behaviors of any vehicle/driver on the road, then they must assume that every vehicle could be moving much faster than they perceive. Finally, if they are to wait until they are "sure" it's safe, then the only course of action would be to wait until they could see no approaching vehicles at all. OR...we could really extend the concept of driver accountability and mandate that they not move until they have notified that all other vehicles earth are parked with the keys removed, transmission in park and parking brake set.
I realize the above is taking it to extremes but I do only to make the point. It is unreasonable to hold someone else accountable for not accommodating ones choice to far exceed standard speed limits. It's akin to a thief getting injured while burglarizing your home and then suing you for their injuries. I think we can all agree (though some courts have not!?!?!?!?) that such a claim is ludicrous and should be summarily dismissed.
Again, RIP rider, but he willingly and egregiously abused his privilege on a public roadway and, tragically, he paid the ultimate price. Even worse, IMHO, he risked the lives of everyone on the road (he was on a heavily traveled a thoroughfare) and has actually had a tremendously negative effect on the driver, who will, at a minimum, bear the psychological scars and baggage of the event for the rest of their lives.
I hope we all add this to our experience and are that much better armed to make better decisions on every ride (and drive) that allow us to enjoy the ride AND return home EVERY TIME!
Ride, but ride smart and ride safe!
Melodic
Backmarker: ?I Hate It When That Happens? - Motorcycle USA
good analysis of the riders mistakes.
cheers
ken
good analysis of the riders mistakes.
cheers
ken
ZRXMAX
Registered
I like the detail of your assessment of the situation, however, it still defends a decision that proved to be fatal. Here is where we differ.
Quote So, in reality, there is no way to be truly sure that the way is safe - there is always the potential for an accident.
Sorry, I can't cannot agree with you on that point. Speed and distance do not lie. If you and I sit on the side of the road for a couple days with a radar gun and take turns quessing the speed of oncoming cars with only one of us knowing what the radar gun is showing within a short period of time we will both be giving accurate estimates. ( You guess 10 then I guess 10 cars as an example. )
We know that for us to execute a safe turn with oncoming traffic we need about 6 seconds. Four seconds or less to clear the intersection. 6 seconds at 60 mph is 88 fps = 528 ft. We should be clear of the intersection with no less than 2 seconds before the oncoming car crosses that intersection. A two second gap is acceptible as it gives the oncoming driver time to adjust their speed if nessasary.
How do I know this to be true regarding the estimation of the speed of other cars? Its not uncommon for LEOs to do that at some point in their training. After a while we can all be good at it if we were to practice. In fact, in California and perhaps other states a CHP can estimate your speed visually and give you a ticket.
As I stated before, the motorcyclist was visible and the driver of the car decided to turn in front of a motor vehilcle he didn't see. I realize the car driver said he didn't see the motorcyclist. How long will we continue to hear that excuse? We all know the answer is "forever".
Bottom line, we are all responcible for our actions behind the wheel. We all do the best we can until a rare event occurs like this one did. I don't expect to see vehicles approaching intersections in the 100 mph range and neither did the car driver. I call it complaceny. The road is an uncontrolled environment with only traffic laws to keep us safe. The view was clear and yet the driver of the car never even saw the motorcyclist and I am willing to bet his headlight was on. Please don't try to explain to me how seeing a headlight in the daytime is a difficult thing to do. Its reckless behavior for any motorcyclist to drive that fast through intersections and only a matter of time before a close call or an accident will occur. I place the responciblity with both parties because they both made preventible errors in judgement. Car driver, failure to yield to oncoming traffic. Motorcyclist, driving well in excess of the posted speed limit and not taking preventive action prior to the collision.
Telling the story as only one person is at fault is not how I see it.
Quote So, in reality, there is no way to be truly sure that the way is safe - there is always the potential for an accident.
Sorry, I can't cannot agree with you on that point. Speed and distance do not lie. If you and I sit on the side of the road for a couple days with a radar gun and take turns quessing the speed of oncoming cars with only one of us knowing what the radar gun is showing within a short period of time we will both be giving accurate estimates. ( You guess 10 then I guess 10 cars as an example. )
We know that for us to execute a safe turn with oncoming traffic we need about 6 seconds. Four seconds or less to clear the intersection. 6 seconds at 60 mph is 88 fps = 528 ft. We should be clear of the intersection with no less than 2 seconds before the oncoming car crosses that intersection. A two second gap is acceptible as it gives the oncoming driver time to adjust their speed if nessasary.
How do I know this to be true regarding the estimation of the speed of other cars? Its not uncommon for LEOs to do that at some point in their training. After a while we can all be good at it if we were to practice. In fact, in California and perhaps other states a CHP can estimate your speed visually and give you a ticket.
As I stated before, the motorcyclist was visible and the driver of the car decided to turn in front of a motor vehilcle he didn't see. I realize the car driver said he didn't see the motorcyclist. How long will we continue to hear that excuse? We all know the answer is "forever".
Bottom line, we are all responcible for our actions behind the wheel. We all do the best we can until a rare event occurs like this one did. I don't expect to see vehicles approaching intersections in the 100 mph range and neither did the car driver. I call it complaceny. The road is an uncontrolled environment with only traffic laws to keep us safe. The view was clear and yet the driver of the car never even saw the motorcyclist and I am willing to bet his headlight was on. Please don't try to explain to me how seeing a headlight in the daytime is a difficult thing to do. Its reckless behavior for any motorcyclist to drive that fast through intersections and only a matter of time before a close call or an accident will occur. I place the responciblity with both parties because they both made preventible errors in judgement. Car driver, failure to yield to oncoming traffic. Motorcyclist, driving well in excess of the posted speed limit and not taking preventive action prior to the collision.
Telling the story as only one person is at fault is not how I see it.
MelodicMetalGod
Registered
ZRXMAX,
While I appreciate the "it takes two to tango" philosophy and I will certainly concede that the "I didn't see him (the motorcyclist)" defense as generally being abused, I will respectfully disagree with you on the final assessment in this particular incident.
In particular, you have contended that you disagree with the concept that there is no way to be truly certain that the way is safe. I stand behind this concept, again, with respect. I challenge you to be 100% certain, EVER, about ANY traffic situation. The reality is that we, humans, ALL make mistakes from time to time, for a multitude of reasons. Is there ANYONE among us that can claim to have made ZERO mistakes in our riding careers? And are there no accident survivors among us? The answer, of course, is that we have all made mistakes and many of us have been in accidents. Accidents are, by definition, an event that occurs contrary to intent, i.e., a mistake of some kind. That mistake, ultimately, boils down to us being somewhere that when it was not safe to be there. Thus, we either chose to go somewhere unsafe or we thought the way was safe and were found to be in error.
As for holding the driver accountable, did he do EVERYTHING he could to avoid the accident? Well, technically, no or it wouldn't have happened. He could have waited. He could sit by the side of the road for an extended period of time practicing his ability to judge the speed of passing motorcycles until he was "SURE" that he could judge that speed accurately. Of course, then he'd have to navigate that particular turn and do the same thing over and over again, hoping to face a motorcycle and not a car each time, ya know, for practice. And then he'd have to do the same with motorcycles traveling nearly 40% above the limit, again, for practice. He could calculate the time needed to make the turn and add the minimum 2 second surplus as you suggest we all know to do (I can't say I know anyone that has considered this at all, let alone on a regular basis). He could have stayed home. He could have waited until no traffic was visible. He could have taken the LEO training that you mentioned. He could have taken a route in which no right turns were required. I realize this is all quite ridiculous, but it does make the point. And the point is, that the driver was probably an average driver that had no special training or awareness and that we, as motorcyclists KNOW comprise the majority of the driving population.
IMHO, the driver is guilty of nothing more than not expecting the rider to have been approaching at a speed 40% greater than the limit. And that is why I place the responsibility on the rider. The driver is guilty ONLY IF the rider has already egregiously broken the law and created an exceptional circumstance for which no average driver is EVERY trained or prepared for.
In addition, there is the additional potential that the rider’s final pass was completed only moments prior to the intersection and could have easily obscured the rider’s position and speed for the driver. At a great distance, one might easily misinterpret the rider as traveling the same speed as the car he was passing.
All that said, I certainly agree with you that drivers need to be vigilant and do all they can, reasonably, to be aware of us (riders) and ALL road users. And certainly, we agree that all road users have a responsibility to not engage risky attempts, such as "squeaking" a left turn in front of oncoming traffic.
That said, I fear that one of the most easily avoidable risky behaviors is speeding when there is a reasonable expectation of accident potential. And that, my friend, is where I see this particular accident boiled down. A simple case of too much speed when there wasn't enough room for the speed to be safely managed.
You say that the driver of the car was complacent. That may be true. But it is no less true for the rider and, IMHO, it is SO MUCH MORE SO for the rider because he is one of us, a RIDER! We KNOW that drivers are not to be counted on in NORMAL circumstances and yet this rider chose to create an EXCEPTIONAL circumstance which relied on EVERY other road user to abide by the law and make no mistakes in their driving...
...so that HE could make the mistake of going far too fast. Unfortunately for him, one of his fellow road users was NOT perfect. And I will NOT hold the driver accountable for an honest mistake that was made after the INTENTIONAL mistake of the rider.
Again, with respect, in this singular circumstance, both the rider and the driver made mistakes, but I hold the rider at fault.
Merry Christmas Eve and Safe Riding!
:santa:
piratediverjefff
Registered
I watched it several times and couldn't make out his exact speed,though the speedo needle was vertical so doubtful he was traveling more than 80-90 mph(GoPro always makes it look like you were going faster than you actually were,I have dozens of my own recorded videos and when going 40 mph[looking at the speedo needle]the camera makes it look like you were doing 60 mph,anyone who uses a GoPro regularly is aware of this).Even if he was doing 65-70 mph instead of maybe 85-90 mph(as his speedo possibly suggests,and that's taking into account that his speedo even maxes out at 186 mph-300 km/h,if not then he wasn't even doing the estimated 85-90),20 mph slower wouldn't have made any difference at all.Time it yourself,he had approx. 1 second to react once he saw that car turning in front of him.I don't care who you are,Mark Marquez traveling at 65 mph couldn't have avoided that collision either.That's 99% the fault of that blind ass car's driver who obviously wasn't paying attention and focusing on what was in front of him.I really feel sorry for that kid(and his family),he had nowhere to go and and absolutely no chance of avoiding that car regardless of how fast he was riding(remember the 1 second he had to react before impact,he'd have been screwed at 50 mph).Screw that car's driver,I was almost killed and spent two months in the hospital because of some yoyo pulling out in front of me(and I was doing 60 mph in a 65 mph zone),and had the exact same "Oh Shyt!" reaction because I knew I was screwed and couldn't do anything about it.
ZRXMAX
Registered
ZRXMAX,
While I appreciate the "it takes two to tango" philosophy and I will certainly concede that the "I didn't see him (the motorcyclist)" defense as generally being abused, I will respectfully disagree with you on the final assessment in this particular incident.
In particular, you have contended that you disagree with the concept that there is no way to be truly certain that the way is safe. I stand behind this concept, again, with respect. I challenge you to be 100% certain, EVER, about ANY traffic situation. The reality is that we, humans, ALL make mistakes from time to time, for a multitude of reasons. Is there ANYONE among us that can claim to have made ZERO mistakes in our riding careers? And are there no accident survivors among us? The answer, of course, is that we have all made mistakes and many of us have been in accidents. Accidents are, by definition, an event that occurs contrary to intent, i.e., a mistake of some kind. That mistake, ultimately, boils down to us being somewhere that when it was not safe to be there. Thus, we either chose to go somewhere unsafe or we thought the way was safe and were found to be in error.
As for holding the driver accountable, did he do EVERYTHING he could to avoid the accident? Well, technically, no or it wouldn't have happened. He could have waited. He could sit by the side of the road for an extended period of time practicing his ability to judge the speed of passing motorcycles until he was "SURE" that he could judge that speed accurately. Of course, then he'd have to navigate that particular turn and do the same thing over and over again, hoping to face a motorcycle and not a car each time, ya know, for practice. And then he'd have to do the same with motorcycles traveling nearly 40% above the limit, again, for practice. He could calculate the time needed to make the turn and add the minimum 2 second surplus as you suggest we all know to do (I can't say I know anyone that has considered this at all, let alone on a regular basis). He could have stayed home. He could have waited until no traffic was visible. He could have taken the LEO training that you mentioned. He could have taken a route in which no right turns were required. I realize this is all quite ridiculous, but it does make the point. And the point is, that the driver was probably an average driver that had no special training or awareness and that we, as motorcyclists KNOW comprise the majority of the driving population.
IMHO, the driver is guilty of nothing more than not expecting the rider to have been approaching at a speed 40% greater than the limit. And that is why I place the responsibility on the rider. The driver is guilty ONLY IF the rider has already egregiously broken the law and created an exceptional circumstance for which no average driver is EVERY trained or prepared for.
In addition, there is the additional potential that the rider’s final pass was completed only moments prior to the intersection and could have easily obscured the rider’s position and speed for the driver. At a great distance, one might easily misinterpret the rider as traveling the same speed as the car he was passing.
All that said, I certainly agree with you that drivers need to be vigilant and do all they can, reasonably, to be aware of us (riders) and ALL road users. And certainly, we agree that all road users have a responsibility to not engage risky attempts, such as "squeaking" a left turn in front of oncoming traffic.
That said, I fear that one of the most easily avoidable risky behaviors is speeding when there is a reasonable expectation of accident potential. And that, my friend, is where I see this particular accident boiled down. A simple case of too much speed when there wasn't enough room for the speed to be safely managed.
You say that the driver of the car was complacent. That may be true. But it is no less true for the rider and, IMHO, it is SO MUCH MORE SO for the rider because he is one of us, a RIDER! We KNOW that drivers are not to be counted on in NORMAL circumstances and yet this rider chose to create an EXCEPTIONAL circumstance which relied on EVERY other road user to abide by the law and make no mistakes in their driving...
...so that HE could make the mistake of going far too fast. Unfortunately for him, one of his fellow road users was NOT perfect. And I will NOT hold the driver accountable for an honest mistake that was made after the INTENTIONAL mistake of the rider.
Again, with respect, in this singular circumstance, both the rider and the driver made mistakes, but I hold the rider at fault.
Merry Christmas Eve and Safe Riding!
I can appreciate the civil discourse path you have taken here is dicusssing the details of this heart wrenching accident. We will simply have
to agree that we disagree on where "some" of the fault lies.
I mentioned complacency before because we have a nation of complacent drivers. How do I know that? Its been recorded that a percentage
of drivers are driving in a distracted state of mind.
The statistics bear that out and LEOs on on the lookout for it because of the spike in traffic accidents when some idiot thinks texting and driving is ok and has cost the lives of many
innocent people... old news.
So... one final thought to argue the point about what a left hand turn means ( right hand in that part of the world ) when the time comes to
make a decision. We have 2 important factors ( or more ) to consider before
we make a turn across traffic. 1. How fast is oncoming traffic going? 2. How far away are they ?
Even though you don't see the numbers in your head... you are making a mathematically based decision in your
head relative the the surface your driving on. You are actively computing speed and distance as it relates to time.
When you say this is no way to ever know that crossing the path of oncoming traffic is safe or not...
I don't buy that statement. Its not true for me in my experience.
The driver of the car was complacent in making a calculation before making the ill fated right hand turn.
The motorcycle was visible and we can be accurate in saying that. The visibility was good, the road was clear
and no other conditions existed that would impair the vision of the driver in the car. Didn't the car driver say he didn't see him?
That pretty much tells the story right there even at a legal speed
the motorcyclist was probably going to have a collision though it may have not proved fatal at a lower speed. Unfortunatley the motorcyclist
contributed to his own misfortune by driving to fast for "traffic" conditions.
Jeff's post above ( Post number 18 above ) illustrates what happens to somebody driving under the speed limit when a car turns in front of them.
In this case the car driver made a driving error and the speed of the motorcyclist compounded the end result.
Peace to you my 2 wheeled brother. May all your rides be safe ones!
Similar threads
