Helmet Cam Captures Last Bike Ride

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

The guy on the motorcycle was killed by someone driving carelessly. Speeding or not he still had right of way.

Well he was driving careless too. 65kph over the limit is careless. His speed impacted the crash. His reaction is delayed (his speedometer didn't drop), the impact force is increased. Maybe he would have lived if he was doing the speed limit?

[Doodlebug]

Well I am not a lawyer, nor do I play on on TV..but looks to me like a court found the car driver at some fault for the accident.

Don't think I ever said it totally the car's fault...but in the end...like it was posted prior...you are making the turn...you have to ensure the way is clear...speeding motorbike or no speeding motorbike.

http://motorcyclelawyer.ca/stats/

[monkeyman]

Guy was going almost 160km/h? so about 44m a second, almost half a football field! every second!
I'd say both parties played a part in that accident.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Acey

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.

Not sure where I said it was ok to ride like he did. Clearly the court system sees things the way I do. This situation is really no different than if you get t-boned turning left by a car running a red. It's still your fault because you made an unsafe left turn. All I said was regardless of speed its the person turning left's responsibility to yield to oncoming traffic.

Both parties should have been charged if the guy survived. He was clearly driving dangerously, but his actions weren't the sole cause of the collision. Which is kinda the moral of the story, everyone should be a little more careful, both the rider and the drivers around them.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by polak

but I don't know if I trust myself to not do something stupid.

This is a variable that you at least can control. The much scarier thing about bikes is that people suck at driving and you're putting your life firmly in the hands of others every time you get on a motorcycle, even doing your best to drive defensively. I know two people who have been killed on bikes while abiding by all rules, and I'm sure some of you know even more than that.

[Doodlebug]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Guy was going almost 160km/h? so about 44m a second, almost half a football field! every second!
I'd say both parties played a part in that accident.

Both parties also paid a price for it....one just gets to walk away. If he wasn't speeding still a good chance the accident happens as the other driver admitted he wasn't paying attention.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

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 think this issue is completely black & white. What if the bike was doing 170 km/h? 180? 200? At what point in your mind is the car no longer at fault?

[Doodlebug]

Ok..your doing 30km/hr in a playground zone...but not paying attention..suddenly a kid comes running out 60% faster than a kid is supposed to run out....i'm thinking your still going to be held at fault for not paying attention. Naturally some posters here will also argue that the kid is partially or totally at fault.

[Table 5]

This is one reason why I'll always be a car guy and not a bike guy. Your fault, not your fault, it doesn't matter...if something goes wrong, you're the one who's screwed. It honestly feels like its just a matter of time before something bad happens when you're on a bike...especially in a place like Calgary where you have some of the most oblivious drivers around.

They do look really fun, but I'll stick to my 4 wheels and a safety cell, thanks.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Nyah

I don't think this issue is completely black & white. What if the bike was doing 170 km/h? 180? 200? At what point in your mind is the car no longer at fault?

No lawyer but I'd guess when the bike is travelling fast enough to not be in clear view of a driver who is acting in a reasonable manner over a reasonable time.

No idea how fast that is or how long we measure "being visable for a reasonable time" as but I doubt it's much faster than 165.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Clearly the court system sees things the way I do.

That's merely because there's no stupidity clause written into the law. Biker was stupid, now he's dead.

If someone in the middle of the night dressed in all black sprinted out into the middle of a crosswalk at night and you hit them, that is 100% your fault in court and failure to yield... but by your reasoning you would ask for no mercy and take the full brunt of the law. The person you hit was being kinda stupid though, no? Regardless of time of day, it is your responsibility to not hit the person, even if you couldn't see them.

Your argument holds water only if you have no regard for human life.

[polak]

You take a corner and enter a 500 meter straight at 165 and you're going 45.83 meters a second. If the intersection is half way down that straight, that gives a driver 5 seconds to notice the bike MINUS the time the bike would disappear behind the a-pillar (probably a second). That's 4 seconds before you get hit by a car on a half a kilometer long straight.

Probably only 2 second before it's too late to do anything.

Wow.

[GoinAllTheWay]

One thing that I keep thinking of. I was watching one of those brain game type TV shows where they touched on this subject. Basically what they are saying is that the human brain is conditioned to look for cars, not necessarily motorcycles. So because of that, your brain may ignore the incoming bike.

Certainly doesn't get the driver of the car completely off the hook but is most certainly a compelling reason to keep your speed under control.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Acey

That's merely because there's no stupidity clause written into the law. Biker was stupid, now he's dead.

If someone in the middle of the night dressed in all black sprinted out into the middle of a crosswalk at night and you hit them, that is 100% your fault in court and failure to yield... but by your reasoning you would ask for no mercy and take the full brunt of the law. The person you hit was being kinda stupid though, no? Regardless of time of day, it is your responsibility to not hit the person, even if you couldn't see them.

Your argument holds water only if you have no regard for human life.

I don't really see how that's a good comparable. You guys are talking like 160km/h is warp speed and you're just a barely visible beam of light.

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't take the charge and conviction as evidence of anything. If I was charged and the options were plead guilty and get 130 community service, or plead not guilty and get jail time, I would be pleading guilty as well regardless of the chances of a guilty verdict.

[cDnStealth]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

One thing that I keep thinking of. I was watching one of those brain game type TV shows where they touched on this subject. Basically what they are saying is that the human brain is conditioned to look for cars, not necessarily motorcycles. So because of that, your brain may ignore the incoming bike.

Certainly doesn't get the driver of the car completely off the hook but is most certainly a compelling reason to keep your speed under control.

The biker had also just passed a number of cars. Perhaps the driver saw a car off in the distance and figured he had plenty of time to make a turn. Doesn't really matter who is at fault. The biker is still dead. I am assuming, because none of those cars piled into that same driver, that had the biker not been speeding that accident would have been avoided and he would probably still be alive today.

[polak]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I don't really see how that's a good comparable. You guys are talking like 160km/h is warp speed and you're just a barely visible beam of light.

You cover 250 meters in 5 seconds at that speed. If you're passing a car or there is any obstacle blocking the drivers view than yeah. You are a barely visable blur and a soon to be barely recognizable streak.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I don't really see how that's a good comparable. You guys are talking like 160km/h is warp speed and you're just a barely visible beam of light.

It's not the absolute speed that's the problem, it's 160 kph relative to what the driver likely expected an opposing vehicle to be doing.

And for what it's worth, it's harder to see a motorcycle than a car. They're smaller.

[mrkajz44]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

One thing that I keep thinking of. I was watching one of those brain game type TV shows where they touched on this subject. Basically what they are saying is that the human brain is conditioned to look for cars, not necessarily motorcycles. So because of that, your brain may ignore the incoming bike.

Certainly doesn't get the driver of the car completely off the hook but is most certainly a compelling reason to keep your speed under control.

I think the term is "the invisible gorilla". I read a whole book about it (named the same thing). People say things like "I don't see how you could have missed something like that!", yet everyone has "blindness" at some times.

Regardless of the driver's statement, I'd say that he never saw the bike at all, both due to the excessive speed and due to this "blindness" as you typically do not look for motocyles on the roadway.

[FlamesAddiction]

I just see the biker as ultimately responsible for the whole situation. Every day when people drive, they have to make decisions on when to cross traffic. You really only have a second or 2 to decide a lot of the time or you miss your opening. As Polak pointed out, that time frame was radically diminished due to the speed of the biker. The biker took what should have been a normal traffic situation and turned it into something perilous. Sure, I can concede that the driver made an error, but the driver should never have been put in that position by the biker to begin with.