no motor?

Watch out for the cops if you ever come to Chicago. They regularly exceed the speed limit by more than that, and that's without using their lights or siren.

Keith99

The thing is at 60 mph the car would have easily cleared the intersection, no crash at all.

I'd really want to really see the road in question, especially from the position of the driver of the car. Completely open with good sightlines puts a lot on the car driver. If there is just a bit of a curve it puts things back on the biker. I've seen plenty of places similar to this where if one does not assume the oncoming traffic is not too much above the limit you will never be able to make a turn. E.g. if you wait until you can establish the speed of an individual vehicle you have waited long enough that it is no longer safe to turn.

Yan 

A) You are quoting me out of context. The phrase which you quoted isn't even a full sentence in my original post. It is an independent clause, the second half of a longer sentence which was constructed to juxtapose the responsibilites of the rider and driver. That point was followed up with an expansion of the idea which further clarifies my position. If you read my entire post, the phrase which you quote is clearly not used as a strawman. This is the second time you've brought up this point after I corrected you. At this point I have to assume that you are either intentionally attempting to mislead, or more likely you are actually unaware of what a strawman attack is (especially since you seem to be unaware that you used one yourself).

B) That's pretty dismissive of you. I wonder if that kind of behaviour gets you anywhere in real life? Those paragraphs explain my position. You may have disagreed with my position; you may have failed to comprehend my writing. Neither of these mean that I "explained nothing". Being that I am just as human as you are, I'm not sure why you think you're in a position to claim that you have an idea of how humans see things, whereas I don't. I think YOU don't have any idea of how humans see things. Your word against mine. How do you want to settle it? Put the beer down and head out back? I'm in Shanghai. Let me know next time you're in town.

C) I did read every post in this thread, which I followed with a post of my own thoughts. I then found myself confronted by Mr. One-liner, who calls my position into question and then weasels away every time he is requested to elaborate (that's twice now). The first time you said it was "too much effort"; the second time you asked me to read "other posts". What will you use next? "Dog ate my keyboard"?

Yan 

There is a video in the article linked. Here is a screenshot from the video. It is not very high resolution but I'm sorry, the road is straight as an airport runway and there are no obstructions. If a driver cannot see an oncoming vehicle under such perfect conditions, that driver is not paying attention.

njkayaker

It's not "out of context" since people can easily see what post I'm quoting it from.

No one is claiming that there a law that allows this. It's still a stawman even with context!



If you read them, then you ignored them.


Those other posts (some of them) are correct and you are not. I don't need to repeat all the things that other people said that refute you.

Yan 

Watch the video again. You really think so? At the time of impact the car is barely a third of the way across. The bike impacts the front of the car. The car would not have had time to clear the intersection under any circumstances unless the rider stops; perhaps if the rider was riding at 20 mph. I don't know about other places, but where I learned to drive we were taught that you weren't supposed to cause oncoming drivers to use their brakes when you cut across their path.

njkayaker

Another strawman.

No one is arguing that the driver didn't make a mistake.

Yan 

I'm sorry: no, no, and no. Three strikes.

1. a) You obviously have a different understanding of the meaning of "to quote" as compared to the rest of us; and b) the ultimate issue isn't the misquotation, it's the resulting misrepresentation of the meaning.

2. No it is not. Please see point 1b) above and start practicing some comprehension.

3. You are correct: other people have said things which refute me; meanwhile, your writing has only been a waste of forum space and time. My time spent responding to you (can't believe I bothered as you are clearly beyond reason), and everyone else's time spent reading our ridiculous exchange. This is the last time I'll be wasting my time on you. If you want to respond AGAIN so you can feel some symbolic sense of victory, go ahead. Good day.

Shimagnolo

After much digging, I figured out:

The motorcycle was traveling Eastbound on A47.
The car was traveling Westbound on A47, and turning right onto Wood Lane.
Here is the intersection: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.6669.../data=!3m1!1e3

BTW Anyone else notice that 3 seconds before impact, the word "SLOW" is painted on the road in front of the bike?

Shimagnolo

I dl'd the video off of Youtube, and walked through it frame by frame.
The biker swerved to his *left* and impacted the car almost on the fog line.
i.e. he swerved the same direction as the car was turning.
If the bike had not swerved, he would have hit the side of the car.

In hindsight, the biker would have been better off to swerve to his right,
and might have been able to miss the car, or at least glance off the side of it.

Shimagnolo

The bike impacted the front of the car because he swerved into the direction the car was going.

lostarchitect 

I know I'm not adding much to this discussion, but as a motorcyclist myself, I think the rider gets most of the blame here. I'm not talking about legal blame, I'm talking from a personal point of view. IMO, the riding I see in the video is extremely reckless. I agree that the driver made a mistake as well, but if the motorcyclist was traveling at a reasonable rate of speed, he could have countered for the driver's error.

Mvcrash

Sometimes it is very difficult to judge speed, depending on angle of view, lighting and speed. Experience plays a tremendous part in judgement as well.

i use the term "accident" generically. It was a group I belong to that lobbied the NJ legislature to get the name of the NJ state report changed from NJTR-1 Accident Report to as it currently is know as the NJTR-1 Collision report.

We all make mistakes, I pray mine don't cause death or injury.

Leebo

How is this bike related?

baron von trail 

When looking up to see a motorcycle which is 500 yards away, a normal driver who is expecting the approaching vehicle to be traveling within a few MPH of the posted speed, will immediately assume he has plenty of time to complete a turn. Here's the math.

A vehicle approaching at 60 MPH will close the 500-yard gap at a rate of about 100 yards per second. This gives the driver of the turning car about 5 seconds to complete his turn from the moment he makes the decision to go. Well, if the idiot on the bike is traveling at about 100 MPH, and thus closing the gap at a rate of over 160 yards per sec, the automobile must now complete the turn in 3 seconds. Those missing 2 seconds are deadly.

FBinNY 

It's not directly related, but the issues of left cross and SMIDSY type accidents are common to both MC and bicycle. All two wheeled vehicles can be victims of driver's inability to see them against a cluttered background, or inability to properly estimate range and speed.

So there's a lot bicyclist can learn from motorcyclists about open road safety, and how to compensate for some of the visibility issues.

billyymc

60 mph is a mile a minute. One mile every 60 seconds. 1,760 yards in 60 seconds. 29.33 yards per second.

100 yards a second is over 200 mph.

Driver probably cut the turn too close even if the guy was going 60 mph.

Rider appeared to be riding quite recklessly in the video. Seemed like a really bad choice to go that fast on that road.

dynodonn 

Agree. My calculations are that the motorcyclist was traveling an extra 60 feet a second faster... a two second margin at the speed limit would have given the motorcyclist an extra 120 feet to make an evasive maneuver or additional stopping distance, plus lowering the impact force in the case of a collision.

baron von trail 

my bad, I meant feet. IIRC, 60mph is 88 ft/sec. Looks like I got my units mixed up.

mconlonx

Also a motorcyclist and agree with this. There are times when a motorcyclist can be obeying all the laws, riding responsibly, and still get cut off by a car in this exact situation. This is not one of those times... Not that the rider deserved to die, but his chances of doing anything evasive about it were diminished because of his own actions.

I rode motorcycles a lot more than bicycles before I really got into bicycles and it made me a better, safer bicycle rider.

asmac

I had an incident in which I, driving a car, and a motorcyclist both turned left from private drives about half a short block apart at about the same time. He turned north and I turned south. The motorcycle accelerated very rapidly: I was going slowly and he almost t-boned me. There was much yelling and shouting on his part and, much as I would regret having been involved in his death (had this been the outcome) I don't believe I would have had any moral or legal responsibility. People really have to take accept responsibility for their own misfortune when they operate way outside the rules or way outside the bounds of normal behaviour. And I hope they sign their organ donor cards so some good can come of their foolishness.

FBinNY 

I agree with you here. Having dealt with a significant number of left crosses, I've come to the conclusion that the alternative with the best odds of a decen outcome is to steer for the rear bumper of the crossing car and scrub off speed, assuming he'll continue the turn. This means that, if nothing changes, the window of opportunity is opening rather than closing. It also means that if an accident occurs, it'll be me hitting the car, rather than getting T-boned.

IMO- the decision window for these maneuvers is very narrow, which is why I think in terms of Preflexes vs. reflexes, when I see a car the even looks like he's going to cross, I'm already looking to my left for room to move that way, and if he starts the turn I'm swinging to my left and getting ready to adjust if necessary. Also the advance move left changes my profile and might make the driver notice.

However, as I posted early on, I agree with the driver and the court, that the driver's left turn was the proximate cause of the accident, and while the MC's speed made things worse, the accident would have occurred anyway had he been riding below the speed limit, though it might (might) have been avoidable if the MC rider made all the right adjustments.

Joe Minton

This is a big subject, in that it is complicated and emotional.

The rider was going irresponsibly fast.
Normal right-of-way laws should and usually do not apply in such and similar cases. This accident needs to be judged on the particular facts of this unfortunate collision.

One excuse/reason to forgive a driver in my state (CA) is the expectation by the driver that the rider is going no more than the speed limit. This also applies to pedestrians and crosswalks; if a pedestrian enters the walk running then the driver is usually off the hook. It is a practical matter which most law enforcement authorities recognize. Drivers, riders, etc. cannot be held responsible for extreme and usually unlawful/irrational behavior by other roadway users. As I said, it is a practical matter.

One of the great problems with riding motorcycles in mostly automotive traffic is the fact that motorcycles/bicycles are more difficult to see. We (both type bikes) are a minority and folks aren’t looking for us. Not only are we hard to see, it is even more difficult to judge our distance and speed. I think it is likely that the driver did not see the bike when he/she started their turn, and, if they did see the motorcycle, could not properly judge the speed of the, in this case, offending motorcycle.

I cannot judge the contribution of the driver to the sad death of this man since I do not have the forensic facts with which to make such a judgment. However, I wonder if the matter was expertly and sufficiently considered.

Joe

no motor?

I'm not so sure about that, at least in Illinois. My car was struck on the right front corner by an old guy who didn't stop after the traffic light turned red as I was turning left to exit the intersection. The cop told me I was legally obligated to wait for him even if he was breaking the law by running a red light. Illinois has not fault insurance and no tickets were issued then, but I was even more upset to find out I would have been the one who got the ticket if one had been issued then.

dnett_tex

Sorry if this point was already made. I did not read all 98 responses. I thought this comment from the original article made a very good point.

I'm finding it hard to see how the car driver was at fault. Every day, whilst driving, you have to pull either into, or across, oncoming traffic. Very rarely do you pull up at a junction and not encounter another vehicle, even if it is some distance away. Every time this happens you have to make a judgement as to whether there is sufficient time for you to safely execute your manoeuvre before the oncoming vehicle reaches you. If you are basing your judgement on the fact that the oncoming vehicle is abiding by the speed limit, but then turns out to be travelling 30% faster, a collision is inevitable. Should we all wait until the road is completely clear before we pull out?[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Arial]

I live in Houston where traffic is very heavy, even on roads with 50-60 mph speed limits. It is impossible to wait until the road is completely clear to make a turn across oncoming traffic. You arrive at the point where you need to make the turn, assess the situation to determine if the oncoming traffic is far enough away to turn safely, then when it looks safe you go. The difference between a vehicle traveling towards you at 97 vs 60 is tremendous.

Having said that, if you look closely at the photos (I was not able to view the video for some reason) the rider does appear pretty close to the intersection when the car began it's turn. In my opinion, I don't think he would have been able to stop completely even had he been going a more reasonable 65-70 mph. Again, not sure what it's like in other areas, but almost no one drives the speed limit in Houston, so I wouldn't assume anyone is going 60 on that road. Also, the rider made a HUGE mistake by veering left rather than right as he approached the car. You can see this by his position within his lane in the series of photos.

All-in-all, I believe I have changed my opinion since I first started to read this thread. (even as I've been writing this) I believe that the motorcycle was far too close to the intersection at any speed for the car to make it's turn. Therefore I think that the authorities ultimately made the correct decision in assessing blame, although I also think the punishment may have been a bit too harsh given the irresponsible speed at which the bike was traveling. Even at 60 I believe there would have been a collision, or at the very least the bike would have gone down. But it's entirely possible that at 60 the rider would have lived.