Excess speed vs right of way violation

[griff2]

With an impact to that location on the car and with everything in the southbound lane despite the bike being northbound is consistent with the car having been northbound and then starting, but not completing, a U-turn and the rider taking an evasive swerve into the opposite-direction lane. It is not consistent with "pulling into traffic" - the angle of the car with a NORMAL "pull into traffic" is so shallow that an impact would be with the rear of the car, not the driver's side door.

If the car was pulling forward out of a driveway on the east side but making a right turn (north), the same type of impact angle is foreseeable but the car would have still been in the northbound lane. If the car was backing out of a driveway on the west side but re-aiming itself to travel north, the same impact angle is foreseeable but it's hard to understand why the rider would have swerved into the other lane into the path of the car.

The angle and lane position of the marked tire locations of the car is not consistent with a northbound car u-turning to go back south. It is consistent with someone starting to back out of the west-side driveway right there with intent to travel north.

I don't trust police collision reconstruction "experts".

Of course not. After all, what do they know? Or the witness that said the car was backing out of the driveway?

 

[hedo2002]

Many here are confusing two different items.

Blame VS no charges.

Yes the police spokesperson, (who would NOT be the investigating officer), stated that "the motorcycle speed appears to be a factor" He then also went on to state there would "likely" be no charges.

First, there may well be no charges laid in the long run, but that won't be fully decided until the investigation is completed, there "could' still be charges laid if a witness provides a different version which is supported by evidence. It is being investigated by the major collision branch. These guys are top notch, collision investigators, that is all they do. The spokesperson, is normally a PR guy who hasn't investigated anything in a while, he may have looked at the scene made his own conclusions and gave them or he could have gotten info from an officer who wasn't the lead investigator, (there would likely be 2 - 3 investigators involved but only the lead investigator makes the call). They will be pulling the data from the Civics computer for speed direction of travel etc. You can also bet the rider's family lawyers will be seeking this info as well.

As for "blame" or who is at fault, that will be determined by the insurer not the police. As I have said, police are not trained on the FDR's and often say someone is "at fault or to blame" but this has NO bearing on what the insurer rules as to who is actually at fault.

Stating "speed is a factor" could not even be referring to blame, but rather just stating that they felt the bikes speed contributed in some manner to the cager not being able to see the bike coming. I would guess the insurer will advise the civic owner he is at least 50% at fault for the collision, (after all they can't raise the riders rates)...

 

[Neil_V]

Let's say the bike was in the southbound lane. How does that really make it a different story? Vehicles backing out of a driveway would be expected to look to see if it is clear in both directions, right? Failing to do so would be a violation of right of way. Yet in this case no charges are being laid, which suggests that investigation placed the brunt of cause upon the rider for reasons of excessive speed.

If the rider was indeed in the opposing traffic lane when the collision occurred, the right of way would not have been his; that would indeed change quite a lot.

Operators are expected to exercise reasonable due diligence in ensuring that they do not violate the right of way of others, but there is no expectation of absolutely perfect diligence. Reasonable diligence is still measured by what an operator should reasonable expect of other traffic, and part of that reasonable expectation is speed in a given locale.

There is not, but if this driver failed to yield right of way, there should be some fault and charge. That said, I'm not advocating throwing the book at him (I'm never for excessive penalization as I'm sure you're aware) as the rider certainly had his share of fault. We all make mistakes, but the riders does not negate the cagers if the incident occurred in the riders right of way

Nobody can be expected to make allowances for an incoming missile when the speed limit is only 50 kmph. Similarly, in the at Burlington crash where a left turning SUV was nearly sliced in two by a motorcycle, even had the SUV driver survived, do you really think that he would be facing charges given that the motorcycle was doing twice the speed limit?

Not "similarly" at all.. not even close. I will concede; there is a speed where it may be impossible to accurately judge the speed of the oncoming vehicle... 200+ through an intersection in a 60 zone is quite different from this situation. Although I find it interesting that in the case of David Holmes, the UK courts found that travelling in excess of 60kph over the limit was not sufficient to negate the driver's error.

In the indecent I was referencing earlier (where the rider turned in front of a speeding car) the driver was probably 30kph over and didn't receive a charge. I can't help but think if the rider had been the one to pull into traffic, your idea of who was to blame would be quite different.. the hate is real

 

[griff2]

If the rider was indeed in the opposing traffic lane when the collision occurred, the right of way would not have been his; that would indeed change quite a lot.

The rider being on the road would ordinarily have right of way over any vehicle entering the road from a private driveway, regardless of what lane he was in and even if he was travelling contra-direction in that lane.

There is not, but if this driver failed to yield right of way, there should be some fault and charge. That said, I'm not advocating throwing the book at him (I'm never for excessive penalization as I'm sure you're aware) as the rider certainly had his share of fault. We all make mistakes, but the riders does not negate the cagers if the incident occurred in the riders right of way

Reasonable due diligence is a potential defence regardless of outcome, and egregious conduct on the part of the other operator can work to overcome all reasonable due diligence. If no charges are being laid in this collision, it is because of the combination of due diligence on one hand and egregious operating conduct on the other would make for no reasonable prospect of conviction if the car driver were to be charged..

In the indecent I was referencing earlier (where the rider turned in front of a speeding car) the driver was probably 30kph over and didn't receive a charge. I can't help but think if the rider had been the one to pull into traffic, your idea of who was to blame would be quite different.. the hate is real

Different country, different circumstances, different outcome. As for the rest, I don't discriminate between car drivers or motorcycle operators as far as expectations go. If there is hate, it has to do with the manner in which one chooses to operate their vehicle regardless of how many wheels it has. I have little tolerance for those who would turn public roads into test tracks.

 

[Neil_V]

The rider being on the road would ordinarily have right of way over any vehicle entering the road from a private driveway, regardless of what lane he was in and even if he was travelling contra-direction in that lane.

You may very well be right... If so, the driver should indeed be charged

I don't discriminate between car drivers or motorcycle operators....

You say the words, but...

 

[Blackfin]

I find it hilarious the comments and conclusions (and subsequent arguments) people can draw from a couple of media-angle photos of a collision scene. Pretty sure Peel Police have enough trained Collision Reconstructionists to figure out what happened....

Well, something doesn't jibe here: griff's OP included this:

"Police said it appears the driver of the car pulled over to let out a passenger at a residence on Rutherford. When the driver tried to merge back into northbound traffic, the collision with the motorcycle occurred."

That alone doesn't make sense given the point of impact on the side of the car nor its position on the street.

So, yeah, maybe they'll get it right at some point but right now all we have is the pic.

I have to think, given the damage done, that the rider's choice of helmet may have played a role in the fatality. The damage to the car and bike don't look severe enough to fatally injure someone unless they were wearing the motorcycling-equivalent of a yarmulke and took the A-pillar square on the temple.

 

[Bagman]

So, yeah, maybe they'll get it right at some point but right now all we have is the pic.

Well that's just it. That's what's funny to me. A fatal accident; a quick post about it, and three pages of Amateur Hour Crime Scene Investigators arguing over who, what, why, when, how, insurance, traffic laws, etc, etc..

 

[Brian P]

My first thought when seeing the first available photo of the bike and car was that this shouldn't have been a fatality, either. It didn't look like a hard enough hit. But if there was no protective gear, or inadequate protective gear ...

As for the impact direction and location, I can see that impact angle and location resulting from the car backing out of a driveway on the west side, but why would the northbound impact have been in the southbound lane?

 

[slowbird]

I used to work for Peel Police for many years and they had a habit of blaming the motorcyclist for the majority of accidents.
I used to hear things like "He was probably speeding." or "He must have been going fast" and other vague guesses and assumptions even before the MCB would show up.

I can't understand how someone pulling into the path of someone else and killing them would not get charged. It's utterly ridiculous.

 

[griff2]

As for the impact direction and location, I can see that impact angle and location resulting from the car backing out of a driveway on the west side, but why would the northbound impact have been in the southbound lane?

And there-in lies the question. Was the bike passing other north-bound traffic on the outside of the bend in the southbound lanes? Was it attempted crash avoidance, in which case why not use the bicycle lane to the right?

This is where the witnesses that the police have access to come into play. If charges are not going to be laid, there has to be a very good reason for that decision.

 

[conundrum]

My first thought when seeing the first available photo of the bike and car was that this shouldn't have been a fatality, either. It didn't look like a hard enough hit. But if there was no protective gear, or inadequate protective gear ...

Maybe, but also remember it is how you hit/land more than anything. That's why sometimes the guy in $5000 worth of protective gear gets killed on impact, meanwhile the squid in a beanie helmet and t-shirt/shorts walks way with minor injuries. Similarly, you can have someone fall off a roof and live, or someone fall down 2-3 stairs and become paralyzed or die.

Back on topic though, like others have said, I'll wait until the final police report, as this one isn't as telling as the SUV accident a few months back. End of the day, it wouldn't surprise me though if a bad/inattentive driver and a marginally speeding to actually speeding motorcycle lead up to the tragic events of that day. The sad part is correct either of those and maybe it wouldn't have been as bad, or correct for both, and we wouldn't be discussing anything today (and one individual would still be going about their life).

 

[Brian P]

And there-in lies the question. Was the bike passing other north-bound traffic on the outside of the bend in the southbound lanes? Was it attempted crash avoidance, in which case why not use the bicycle lane to the right?

This is where the witnesses that the police have access to come into play. If charges are not going to be laid, there has to be a very good reason for that decision.

If the bike was passing other northbound traffic then the car would have been backing out of the driveway across the road into the path of THAT northbound traffic even if the driver DIDN'T see the motorcycle.

Evasive action is plausible. The rider may have made a judgement that with the direction and speed of the car backing up, it would clear the left lane by the time he got there, but could conceivably be backing all the way across the road and thus blocking the right (bicycle) lane. "aim for where the space is going to be, not where it is now". Either this was attempted but the timing did not work out, or the car driver saw the bike at the last moment and panic-braked, stopped while still blocking the left lane (this sort of thing happens all the time)

 

[PLau]

Well, something doesn't jibe here: griff's OP included this:

"Police said it appears the driver of the car pulled over to let out a passenger at a residence on Rutherford. When the driver tried to merge back into northbound traffic, the collision with the motorcycle occurred."

That alone doesn't make sense given the point of impact on the side of the car nor its position on the street.

So, yeah, maybe they'll get it right at some point but right now all we have is the pic.

[video=youtube;qtQoq_zIW1k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtQoq_zIW1k[/video]

This scenario sounds a lot like an instance that happened to me a couple weeks ago.

Had I been doing 15-20km/h faster, it likely would have been a different outcome with less time to notice the hazard and react. I would hate to think 15km/h over the limit would be considered "speeding excessively" though.... (I was doing about 5km/h over in the video)

If the driver had pulled a U-Turn, I could see it resembling the collision in question - almost exactly what was seen in the picture.

 

[Paul]

Well that's just it. That's what's funny to me. A fatal accident; a quick post about it, and three pages of Amateur Hour Crime Scene Investigators arguing over who, what, why, when, how, insurance, traffic laws, etc, etc..

That's the whole point of a discussion forum.

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[PrivatePilot]

My first thought when seeing the first available photo of the bike and car was that this shouldn't have been a fatality, either. It didn't look like a hard enough hit. But if there was no protective gear, or inadequate protective gear ...

Impossible to say. I was involved in a not at fault wreck on my bike 20 years ago and came uncomfortably close to cutting my carotid and have quite the scar to show for it...and I had a full face on. They didn't provide the details on the cause of death in this accident in particular, but what may look like or seem to be a reasonably minor accident that results in an injury that causes catastrophic uncontrolled blood loss (because of a slice in just the wrong spot) can quickly end things.

Just sayin'. Ultimately it's all speculation, but the body is a fragile thing - even breaking your noise the wrong way can kill you.

 

[Bagman]

That's the whole point of a discussion forum.

Well, duh.... lol. As an admin, perhaps you'd feel inclined to bump this thread over to the Amatuer Collision Reconstruction Discussion Forum (ACRDF). Surely there it is more related to the overall theme of the forum rather than 'GTA Motorcycle.' Beyond the fact that the accident involved a motorcycle the original post had little else to do with motorcycling. Perhaps this thread is better suited to the Archive of Fatal Collisions Board (AoFCB).

I'm sure I can find a bunch of applicable quotes, but certainly there are discussions of quality worth having and others not. The point of where this conversation has gone is lost on me.

Drivel on....

 

[happycrappy]

See post 4; it's not just this loser GTAMer who thinks speed is no excuse for violating right of way... but go on, make comments about what can be taken from a forum comment; at least I provide some context when I post

Lol, that link from the UK? Sorry you're so butthurt dude. I couldn't care less how you view it, or how sacred you hold a right of way, just don't whine when it ends poorly for you (like the incomprehensible twat in the UK link)

 

[conundrum]

...and three pages of Amateur Hour Crime Scene Investigators arguing over who, what, why, when, how, insurance, traffic laws, etc, etc..

Can we at least get a cool theme song, like the other CSI shows did? Also waiting for someone to pull DNA evidence off a pixel in the photo of the bike...or at least zoom in on a reflection in a mirror or eye to somehow read the speedometer right before the point of impact, to tell if he was speeding or not.

 

[Neil_V]

Lol, that link from the UK? Sorry you're so butthurt dude. I couldn't care less how you view it, or how sacred you hold a right of way, just don't whine when it ends poorly for you (like the incomprehensible twat in the UK link)

Would you like to add something of value to the discussion? Or you sticking to insults?

 

[Riceburner]

Well, duh.... lol. As an admin, perhaps you'd feel inclined to bump this thread over to the Amatuer Collision Reconstruction Discussion Forum (ACRDF). Surely there it is more related to the overall theme of the forum rather than 'GTA Motorcycle.' Beyond the fact that the accident involved a motorcycle the original post had little else to do with motorcycling. Perhaps this thread is better suited to the Archive of Fatal Collisions Board (AoFCB).

I'm sure I can find a bunch of applicable quotes, but certainly there are discussions of quality worth having and others not. The point of where this conversation has gone is lost on me.

Drivel on....

How does this not belong on a motorcycle discussion board? It involves a motorcycle. If it was 2 cars, it wouldn't belong. The fact is that because it's a motorcycle, the rider is dead. Chances are if it was 2 cars there wouldn't be a death. Boils down to right of way or not, you can get killed riding a motorcycle. Any discussion to prevent it from happening again is worthwhile.