Okay I'm watching the news closely down here.

[SeaCat]

Recently we had a motorcycle accident which ended with the deaths of two people. (Both on the motorcycle.)

The accident came about when the couple were riding their bike through an intersection. A young driver decided to make a left turn through the intersection right in front of them. The bike ended up hitting the car.

The accident is under investigation but so far the only potential charge the teen is facing is "Failure to yield right of way".

I will be watching this case with great interest. If all the young driver gets is the "Failure to Yield" then I will be writing a nice little letter to the state asking about this.

I will be asking if the charges against him were tempered by his age or by the fact he was driving a car and the victims were riding a bike?

Cat

 

[Iconoclast99]

Nope, it's not because he was young. I think the stats on this are that the majority of bike accidents happen at an intersection where the car driver is turning left and does not yield. Another big excuse is that "I didn't see him."

Personally I think it's because the car driver feels in no personal danger from a bike and therefore takes more chances than he would with a car. I have no stats on this but everybody I know who drove a bike was real wary of Volvos. Built like tanks, so the drivers just don't care who or what they hit. Paranoid? Yes. But that can save your life.

Iconoclast

 

[Weird Harold]

...everybody I know who drove a bike was real wary of Volvos. Built like tanks, so the drivers just don't care who or what they hit. Paranoid? Yes. But that can save your life.

I can't add any statistics on Volvos or Volvo drivers, but I've experienced the "feeling of invulnerability" from driving a vehicle that is bigger and "tougher" than almost everything else on the road and seen it in SUV drivers.

It's not paranoia when everything is bigger than you are and considers you unworthy of notice.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Nope, it's not because he was young. I think the stats on this are that the majority of bike accidents happen at an intersection where the car driver is turning left and does not yield. Another big excuse is that "I didn't see him."

Personally I think it's because the car driver feels in no personal danger from a bike and therefore takes more chances than he would with a car. I have no stats on this but everybody I know who drove a bike was real wary of Volvos. Built like tanks, so the drivers just don't care who or what they hit. Paranoid? Yes. But that can save your life.

Iconoclast

Assuming the intercection thing is true, and it sounds pretty reasonable, I would suggest that it is more of just not noticing the motorcycle is there. Motorcycles tend to appear suddenly and not always where your brain expects to see them. I find it difficult to believe someone would make a concisous decision to hit a bike because it would not cause as much damage as a large vehicle....

I suspect that the intersection problem is probably even more common with bicycle riders... for the very same reason.

It is just part of the increased risk that comes with riding a motorcycle..... I love them.... and I loved riding them "in the day".... but all you can do to protect yourself, is expect drivers to act as if you are not there... they sometimes just don't know you are!

As for the penalty.... granted he failed to yield the right of way... but surely the offense was failing to watch what is happening around him; i.e. "reckless driving".

-KC

 

[sr71plt]

Nope, it's not because he was young. I think the stats on this are that the majority of bike accidents happen at an intersection where the car driver is turning left and does not yield. Another big excuse is that "I didn't see him."

Personally I think it's because the car driver feels in no personal danger from a bike and therefore takes more chances than he would with a car. I have no stats on this but everybody I know who drove a bike was real wary of Volvos. Built like tanks, so the drivers just don't care who or what they hit. Paranoid? Yes. But that can save your life.

Iconoclast

Personally, I think it's because the driver of the car didn't focus on the existence of the motorcycle. The mind is programed to see cars in that situation, not motorcycles, bicycles, or kids on roller skates or skate boards. Just because the object is actually there doesn't mean that the brain focuses on it (well or soon enough) and registers that the eye has seen something other than the expected car-sized/shaped vehicle. Cars run up the tails of motorcycles on the highway and pull into the lane occupied by a motorcycle too for the same reason--the brain hasn't registered an object of that size/shape there fast/well enough. It's not what the brain was conditioned to expect there.

 

[Weird Harold]

I suspect that the intersection problem is probably even more common with bicycle riders... for the very same reason.

I don't think it is more common with bicycles -- they move slower and are generally in the same check-zone as pedestrians so they're more likely to be spotted.

But the "I never saw him" problem happens with almost anything on the road -- I've had more than one "WTF did he come from" moments involving anything up to an eighteen-wheeler.

 

[SeaCat]

Nothing much new on the story, except some comments on the story page online. Several of them were from friends of the couple. One of the comments made was this couple had what is called a Headlight Modulator, which flips the headlight from high to low beam rapidly. (If you have never seen one of these they will get your attention, in fact they are actually kind of annoying which is good as that get's your attention as well.)

Several of the other comments went off topic, some of the people were talking that it wasn't the teens fault at all because the riders weren't wearing helmets. (Granted this may have changed the outcome of the accident but it wouldn't have prevented it.

A friend of mine is a Traffic Officer. He spends his days investigating accidents for the F.H.P. When I asked him the most often given excuse or reason for accidents it was the "I didn't see them". In almost all of these though there were other things in play, things that came to light under further questioning. Usually the person who caused the accident was doing something other than driving and concentrating on their driving.

He said that in only one case during the past two years was there an accident caused by something other than a lapse in concentration by the driver. This was a case where the driver was blinded by sunlight flashing off glass being transported on the side of a truck.

So what is the answer? (Other than writing even more laws?)

Cat

 

[TheeGoatPig]

So what is the answer? (Other than writing even more laws?)

Cat

Enforcing the laws already on the books would be a nice change of pace.

I almost hit a bike the other day. He would have been at fault though. I was making a left at a left turn only lane. There was one lane making the left. He was passing me on my right, making an illegal left, and illegally passing me, and then cutting me off and illegally passing someone else on their right before cutting up the middle of the road between two lanes of traffic.

That was someone I wanted to see get hit by something large though.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CAT

The law always assumes bikers are imbeciles whever there is a collision between bike and car.

 

[christabelll]

Actually the real problem is this
close ro 85% of all drivers rarely look more than 10 feet beyond their own bumper.
The dont look beside or behind them either. THey get in their car and they are in 5 thousand pounds of Bubble. I have seen time and again where the honestly dont see anything around them unless its ON them...
Hence the "I never saw then.. of They came out of No where!"
I have seen more people doing stupid life endangering stuff in the past year than ever before...cell phones aside... if you arent paying attention to EVERYTHING on the road with you front side and rear than you really should take a refresher course on how to drive... I think actually before you can get your license you should be forced to take defensive/offensive driving classes and ride shotgun to accidents scenes.... (well sort of anyway), and when you renew... you should take a refresher course in a sim machine... and if you dont pass you dont get renewed... hehehe... thats me being a beyach

I have also seen quite a few irresponsible bikers too... splitting lanes (passing between two cars) niggling in and out at high rates of speed... Running without lights or signals or nothing... and at NIGHT??? idiots!

And Bicyclists do it to! They are sometimes worse than cars or Bikes!

I put on average 80 thousand miles a year on my car because I travel so much... Magic and prayers only go so far... intelligence and awareness and knowing how to be a conscious present driver is the key.......

I am sorry those two lost their lives to a reckless, undertrained driver. Its should be classified accidental homicide... regardless of helmet use on the part of the victims....

 

[oggbashan]

I drive a Volvo

...but I'm a former motorcyclist with the scars, aches and pains of multiple accidents to remind me.

I am very conscious about the vulnerability of motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians.

Despite the weight of metal around me, in reality I'm sitting in a tin eggshell that can be smashed to pulp by a heavy truck or a head-on collision with another car when both of us are travelling at 60 or 70 mph and have an impact speed of 120 or 140 mph. My eggshell may have slightly thicker metal than a budget car but that extra thickness won't make much difference in a high speed impact.

I drive a Volvo because the driving seat can be adjusted to be comfortable for my damaged back. I can drive several hundred miles in the Volvo and get out with no more aches and pains than I started the journey with. Driving some cars I hurt more after 50 miles, 100 miles or 150 miles. In my wife's Ford, 75 miles is my limit. After that I'm walking with a cane for the next few hours.

I try to consider motorcyclists whenever I drive. I wish some of them would consider their own behaviour. Last week I was on a wet two-way road, leaving a roundabout in a 40 mph zone and beginning to accelerate just at the start of a 60 mph zone. I was passed by a motorcyclist exceeding 100 mph and accelerating with his/her front wheel in the air. Oncoming traffic had to swerve to the road edge to avoid being hit head-on. That motorcyclist is an accident statistic waiting to happen.

Later that day I was slowing down at the back of a traffic queue. I could see a motorcyclist approaching from behind so I moved to my left to allow the bike to pass. The motorcyclist acknowledged by a wave as he/she passed me. He/she was still within the speed limit but able to pass the queue because there was no traffic coming the other way and he/she was still on the correct side of the road. That motorcyclist will survive.

Og

 

[Iconoclast99]

Cat wrote "So what is the answer? (Other than writing even more laws?)"

Intimidation works well. I rode a Harley for a long time, a bike that is usually driven by only driven by two types of people: hardcore bikers and cops (this was before your suburbanite accountant types started buying them in mass quantities.) I commuted on that bike for quite a while and never had a problem, but I did see Goldwing (a much bigger bike) riders get cut off in traffic because the car driver just didn't consider them a threat.

I really learned the value of this when I and another rider were heading up a fairly busy interior highway and we were passed by two Hells Angels. These two also passed every car on the road in front of us. For the next half hour at least every car in front of us pulled to the far right to let us pass. Great ride, thanks to the fear that loud pipes can cause.

Iconoclast