I don't understand why the driver of the car was charged at all. Even if he were to have spotted the bike as it was passing the other car, how could he have known how fast it was travelling?
That's what I was thinking. I'm sure we've all been there when you go to make a left hand turn and the gap turns out to be a little smaller than you anticipated because the next car was travelling significantly faster than the speed of traffic.
The Following User Says Thank You to kevman For This Useful Post:
That's what I was thinking. I'm sure we've all been there when you go to make a left hand turn and the gap turns out to be a little smaller than you anticipated because the next car was travelling significantly faster than the speed of traffic.
Yeah, it happens a lot (probably daily in most cities)... and with cars it usually ends up being a minor accident. Most of the time when people are "cut off", it is because they are speeding.
I don't blame the car driver at all on this one... that guy on the bike was cruising. It doesn't make it any less sad though.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The car was completely at fault. 100 mph isn't fast enough to justify not seeing him coming. This was a straight road and he turned in front of him at the last second. I knew a guy killed in similar circumstances because some idiot forgot he was towing a horse trailer and turned in front of him.
Regardless of speed its the responsibility of the driver turning left to do so safely.
I have to disagree. The driver of the car can't control anyone but him or herself. They certainly can't stop speeding motorcycles from running into them.
Think about the amount of time that passed from the time the biker saw the car and then made contact with it. It was less than a second. It's reasonable that the car driver saw an opening, which under normal conditions was enough to proceed safely, and couldn't have anticipated a bike coming that quickly. It happened that fast for both parties.... but only one was breaking the law at the time.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
That's ridiculous. The person turning left has to yield to oncoming traffic. Driving isn't about doing what's reasonable, its about doing things correctly. The guy on the motorcycle was killed by someone driving carelessly. Speeding or not he still had right of way.
I don't understand why the driver of the car was charged at all. Even if he were to have spotted the bike as it was passing the other car, how could he have known how fast it was travelling?
I was wondering the same thing. Perhaps because the driver admitted he didn't see the bike? The bike was also going 65kph over the 100kph limit.
Intersections are one of the most common places for a motorcycle accident, and usually caused by the other vehicle violating the motorcyclists right of way. This point was repeatedly hammered home in my motorcycle safety course. As an FJR rider myself, I am book marking this video as a constant reminder.
Intersections are one of the most common places for a motorcycle accident, and usually caused by the other vehicle violating the motorcyclists right of way. This point was repeatedly hammered home in my motorcycle safety course. As an FJR rider myself, I am book marking this video as a constant reminder.
You're in a motorcycle course, a company whose livelihood depends on motorcycle enthusiasts and they tell you it's everyone else's fault, not the motorbiker? Sounds pretty objective.
You're in a motorcycle course, a company whose livelihood depends on motorcycle enthusiasts and they tell you it's everyone else's fault, not the motorbiker? Sounds pretty objective.
What he said is true. Not sure where you're coming up with it's everyone else's fault. The eye roll is better suited for anyone reading your post.
That's ridiculous. The person turning left has to yield to oncoming traffic. Driving isn't about doing what's reasonable, its about doing things correctly. The guy on the motorcycle was killed by someone driving carelessly. Speeding or not he still had right of way.
You seem to be oblivious to the fact that the objective of travelling in a motor vehicle is to make it home alive. Who gives a fata if he had the right of way, the kid is an idiot and now he's dead, and interestingly he's not any less dead because he had the right of way.
Yes, theoretically he has the right of way so he should be able to travel at infinite speed; but meanwhile in the real world, he's dead because he thinks like you.
The Following 24 Users Say Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
That's ridiculous. The person turning left has to yield to oncoming traffic. Driving isn't about doing what's reasonable, its about doing things correctly. The guy on the motorcycle was killed by someone driving carelessly. Speeding or not he still had right of way.
The dude was going 150ish km/h. His speed was the reason that the driver in the car had his ability proceed safely removed from the equation.
It would be like going hunting and having someone run out right in front of your target right as you take a shot.
Honestly, had the biker survived, he is the one that should have been charged.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 11-13-2014 at 03:06 PM.
I can't watch the video but I see the classic motorcylclists response has arrived.
"It's EVERYONE ELSES fault but mine".
Just ignore the fact that this biker was going 65 over the speed limit, like that had no factor in the accident.
Yes the driver is technically at fault for not yielding to the bike but going that fast over the limit creates difficulty in estimating the gap and seeing a smaller object like a bike. A bike coming head on can easily go out of view behind a cars A-Pillar, combine that with going 65 over the already 100 km/h speed limit leaving no reaction time and add some bad timing and you have a terrible accident.
Put it this way: If the bike was travelling at a reasonable speed, is there a good chance the accident is avoided? If yes, then the biker is at least partially at fault (if not 50/50 or fully as other people are saying. Like I said, I can't watch the video so I don't know).
This is why I can't decide if I want a bike or not. I mean I really want one, I think they are badass, but I don't know if I trust myself to not do something stupid. I'm calming down a lot on the road since my stupidity filled days in my teens and early, early 20's but still...
Last edited by polak; 11-13-2014 at 03:01 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to polak For This Useful Post:
This is why I can't decide if I want a bike or not. I mean I really want one, I think they are badass, but I don't know if I trust myself to not do something stupid. I'm calming down a lot on the road since my stupidity filled days in my teens and early, early 20's but still...
I say don't do it. Leave the motorcycle driving to joyriding in Grand Theft Auto games. And even then use a Faggio, it's slower and won't hurdle you 300 yards if you get into an accident.
Helmet Cam Captures Last Bike Ride
