Almost killed a Motorcyclist today

"Straightsix9904" (Straightsix9904) 11/10/2013 at 22:03 • Filed to: None

0

35

Today, I came the closest to killing somebody than I ever have. I was driving in the right lane and was about to pass a car, looked in my side mirror and didn't see anything, as I had just crested a hill. Put on my turn signal and started to move when a motorcycle buzzed me at approx 150 MPH, maybe more. He then proceeded to split 2 cars at the same 150 MPH speed. If I would have pulled out, it would have been over. He popped up so fast I couldn't even see him.

Had I pulled out in front of him, would I have been at fault? I mean, there is only so much you can expect, and that guy going 150+ is kind of outside my expectations.

getchapopcorn > Straightsix9904 11/10/2013 at 22:05

4

The following is in no way to be construed as legal advice or creating a lawyer-client relationship but:

pdthedeuce > Straightsix9904 11/10/2013 at 22:07

8

excessive speed = his fault . at that speed , YOU would have been lucky to survive the impact .

POD > pdthedeuce 11/10/2013 at 22:09

1

You speak the truth.

Reigntastic > Straightsix9904 11/10/2013 at 22:09

1

Yeah, at that speed he's taking his life into his own hands. It's irresponsible for himself and especially others.

Straightsix9904 > pdthedeuce 11/10/2013 at 22:10

0

that is honestly what I was thinking. I saw a story once where a motorcyclist, traveling at excessive speeds, crashed in the back of a minivan and killed I think all 3 on board, bike was poking through the windshield.

shinsen > POD 11/10/2013 at 22:11

1

oh my god, thank god nothing happened

pdthedeuce > Straightsix9904 11/10/2013 at 22:14

1

above 100 mph , that bike starts turning into a kinetic kill vehicle .

BlazinAce - Doctor of Internal Combustion > Straightsix9904 11/10/2013 at 22:17

0

Pfft, no way in hell. I don't really know how this works in the US, but here in Brazil, the law would have put the blame on him because, if he hits you from behind, it means one or more of three things:

He was going too fast for traffic conditions
He was riding too close for traffic conditions
He was not paying attention to traffic conditions

More likely all three at the same time, from waht you've told.

Casper > Straightsix9904 11/10/2013 at 22:20

0

It would completely depend on how fast he was actually going. Do you have a lot of track/motorcycle experience so that your estimates of speed are accurate? If so, you can be pretty sure you would have been ok legally so long as visibility were on your side. If that isn't the case, it's hard. People are terrible judges of speed when startled or feeling pressure. They have a tendency it massively overestimate the speed of something unexpected because we use the lead up time to establish our estimates. If you aren't someone with experience with seeing speeds like the mid 100's and passing you stationary, it's far more likely it was traveling fast, but not that fast. In fact that would be nearly the top speed of most bikes before gearing or electronic limitation had set in.

If a sport bike were to hit you at 150 MPH it would be about the same as being hit by a car at 50-60 MPH. It would a dramatic impact. So if he was traveling that speed it would have hurt.

Casper > pdthedeuce 11/10/2013 at 22:23

1

That's not correct in most places. One person doing something illegal does not absolve the legal responsibility of the other party without specific provisions. With speed it comes down to visibility distance, reaction time, etc. If you pull into traffic and cause a collision, you are always at fault. It depends on if the accident investigators decided you did everything you could reasonably do to make the maneuver safely.

As far as the odds of surviving the impact, if it were really a sport bike at 150 MPH, it would be like being hit by a midsize car at around 60MPH... so it would certainly be likely to have serious injury.

Straightsix9904 > Casper 11/10/2013 at 22:25

0

I'm not going to say I have extensive experience, But i judged it by seeing how much ground he covered over what I covered. I was going a touch under 80 and he was about double my speed. He was on an R1, which i know is capable of speeds faster than that.

The only way I knew that though was because he passed me, had he not, well...I wouldn't really even know.

pdthedeuce > Casper 11/10/2013 at 22:30

0

the speed he is talking about is considered criminal in many places in and of itself . while simply speeding does not make you liable , I believe the behavior the OP describes speaks for itself , and would be the dominant factor in a court decision . p.s. where I live if you hit someone from behind , it's your fault.

Casper > Straightsix9904 11/10/2013 at 22:31

0

At that speed he would be covering 220 feet per second. It would honestly be so fast you would be lucky to tell what color it was as they would be several hundred feet away in only 2 seconds even at 80 MPH.

If it were an unregulated R1 I could certainly see the speed being possible. I would just have my doubts you would be able to tell what it was in the brief (1-1.5 seconds) you could see it unless it was just a bike you were really familiar with.

Casper > pdthedeuce 11/10/2013 at 22:32

0

It doesn't matter. It's not a moral matter. If you can't walk up and shoot a person for doing it, you are still subject to all laws governing the situation. One person acting incorrectly doesn't allow you to instantly be absolved of responsibility. It would all come down to whether the DA decided you were negligent or not. If you had 500 feet of visibility before he appeared, and they showed he was traveling that fast, you would probably be fine because he would close the distance too fast for you to verify your path. If you had a mile+ of visibility, you would have to work a lot harder to prove you weren't negligent.

POD > Casper 11/10/2013 at 22:35

0

assuming a 4000 pound car and a 600 pound bike (450 for the bike plus 150 for the rider)

4000*60^2= 14400000

600*150^2=13500000

So yes, very similar. The bike, however, is more likely to penetrate. It's putting that force through a much smaller surface area. You are also more likely to have the bike and/or rider fly into the cabin.

I'd rather take my chances being hit by another car at 60 than a bike at 150.

pdthedeuce > Casper 11/10/2013 at 22:38

0

i'm not talking morality , i'm talking about a discussion I had with a judge about a similar instance and what he told me .

Casper > POD 11/10/2013 at 22:38

0

It's not as solid, so it would come down to composition, but yes, that's a possibility. More often than not that kind of energy causes motorcycles to simply explode on impact. If the car is very low quality/poorly made it very well may adsorb energy fast enough to let the bike punch right through it.

Straightsix9904 > Casper 11/10/2013 at 22:39

0

Yeah, My roommate used to have one. i saw the tail light 4x a day. He drilled sport motorcycle knowledge into me and flipped out on me when I said I was thinking about buying a Triumph.

I didn't buy the triumph because 3 days before I was going to buy it, my buddy got T-boned in his SUV and I realized that if it would have been a bike, he would have been dead at no fault of his own. Sheet metal is now my friend.

Also, I have 5/20 vision. ergo, the detail somebody sees at 5 feet I see at 20.

Casper > pdthedeuce 11/10/2013 at 22:42

0

Well it won't be a matter of the judge unless for some reason they went for a bench judgement. If that happened and he was killed it would be up to the DA to decide if it were a criminal matter and then turn into a jury trial. The entire probability of being charged would be how the entire situation was evaluated. If you have 5200ft to see something traveling 150 MPH or 220fps while you are traveling 80MPH, it could be argued you had enough time to make a reasonable decision.

POD > Casper 11/10/2013 at 22:46

0

You're probably right about the bike disintegrating.

What I was thinking (but didn't describe well) is that the bike will hit the bumper, and the rider will go into the cabin.

Like hitting a deer, but worse, since the rider's momentum will carry him. I've seen a few accidents where the deer ends up in the cabin of a standard sedan or coupe.

Casper > Straightsix9904 11/10/2013 at 22:47

0

You would have nearly eagle vision. I have surgically enhanced vision at 20/15 (20/10 immediately after and healed to 20/10).

Anyway, motorcycles are dangerous, but the vast majority of accidents are the riders fault. In fact, the vast majority are single vehicle accidents, usually in corners.

Casper > POD 11/10/2013 at 22:48

0

Oh, that's fairly likely at that speed. The rider would be a meat missile and being such a high percentage of water the compression ratio would be low enough to do serious damage.

POD > Casper 11/10/2013 at 22:49

1

Agreed. Heh, meat missile, too true.

pdthedeuce > Casper 11/10/2013 at 22:55

0

ok , here's the deal . I was a twenty-something motorcycle rider who had gotten in trouble with some non-speed related tickets I was having handled by my lawyer , who was a municipal judge . around that time , a 900 ninja nearly bisected a station wagon . the woman driving the wagon backed out of her driveway onto a two lane paved road which was perfectly straight for over 10 miles . he hit her at an estimated 140 mph . she was critically injured , he died instantly . a wrecker driver showed me pics of the inside of his helmet...I've never forgotten it . I , as a youngster , told my lawyer I thought it was the lady's fault . he , in no uncertain terms , corrected me . that's where I get my information on the subject .

The Opponaut formerly known as MattP123 > Straightsix9904 11/10/2013 at 22:57

1

*Motorcyclist almost killed himself today*

tromoly > Straightsix9904 11/10/2013 at 22:57

0

Dude, that is insane. Good to hear you are alright and nothing happened.

My dad and I had a similar event happen over the summer. We were getting onto an off-ramp with a tractor-trailer next to us in the lane to our left staying on the highway. Some guy on a motorcycle split between our truck and the semi, cutting us off onto the off-ramp at something north of 120mph. Neither of us saw the bike coming, it was seriously the most scary thing we have ever encountered.

Casper > pdthedeuce 11/10/2013 at 23:09

1

A) They were looking to scare you straight about safety (good idea, we do that to people a lot).

B) It was his opinion. Unless he counseled the DA it's unlikely he knows exactly why the case wasn't brought.

C) The most likely case is the DA looked at the situation and decided that because she was backing into a road with multiple lanes, she did everything minimally required to be obviously clear of negligence and due to injuries sustained.

Each situation is very dependant on where and what you are doing, politics, and the opinion of the cops and DA. They will look at the history of those involved, the scene, equipment, etc, and it will all impact their determinations.

desertdog5051 > Straightsix9904 11/10/2013 at 23:14

0

That is a difficult question. to put it in Autobahn terms, you should have been checking more closely, more often. In everyday terms, someone going that fast is risking their own life by doing so. Documenting their speed is difficult. You would need more than you to argue the excessive speed.

Just glad it did not turn into a fatality.

pdthedeuce > Casper 11/10/2013 at 23:15

1

I tend to believe what a judge tells me on legal matters .

Jeff-God-of-Biscuits > Straightsix9904 11/10/2013 at 23:38

0

figure if he passed you at ~150, it would be like standing next a a freeway with traffic going 75.

JGrabowMSt > Straightsix9904 11/10/2013 at 23:45

0

I had something similar happen a couple months ago, though realistically the jackass on two wheels was doing maybe 95-100ish MPH, definitely no more than 110. I don't wish they hit anyone, I just wish they'd split lanes into a damn pot hole because karma's a bitch, and no one else should have to be involved in that.

His Stigness > Straightsix9904 11/11/2013 at 00:51

0

Many people it seems believe the cyclist would have been at fault due to the estimated speed, but it all depends on where you hit him. If he rear ends you its his fault and speed will be a contributing factor. He's at fault because he hit you in your lane.

Now if he were to have side swiped you then you could potentially be found at fault because you came into his lane, and speed has not become a factor. Now if you side swiped him you could argue speed was a contributing factor, and if he was doing approx 150 mph then he would die and possibly make a better case, but it's tough to call.

All this is also relevant when considering how cyclists split lanes. If a cyclist is your lane while passing you, and you signal and move into the next lane and hit him because he came up on you, he's at fault because he was in your lane. But if you hit him while changing lanes and he is splitting lanes in the lane your changing into, you're at fault because you made an illegal turning motion, but if he said going fast, whether that be 81 while you're doing 80, speed becomes a contributing factor.

fink stinger > pdthedeuce 11/11/2013 at 08:53

1

I have an eerily similar story, though I didn't get to see any snuff pictures (did see the truck and bike afterwards...and the closed casket). A childhood buddy of mine pickup truck right behind the cab as it was backed out into the road. His H2 750 looked almost exactly like this (he had aftermarket pipes) before the hit:

They only estimated his speed at "way over 100", but didn't have much else to go on. Knowing my buddy, that bike was going as fast as it was aerodynamically limited. The old guy was hurt pretty badly, but was lucky to have survived. My buddy didn't stand a chance. The truck, an 80's F150, was all but broken into two parts. If that truck had backed out two feet further before being hit, there would have been two deaths for sure.

pdthedeuce > fink stinger 11/11/2013 at 12:55

0

fortunately , I didn't know the guy in my story , it just happened in my town .

Casper > pdthedeuce 11/11/2013 at 13:24

0

I guess working judges makes me have a very different perspective.