I used to think single vehicle crashes were the fault of the rider. However a rider could have been cut off, non contact, and was unable to recover a safe track. Judge not.
|
|
|
Single vehicle crash
- Thread starter nobbie48
- Start date
I was just in one. Oddly, a deer isn't considered a vehicle.
I’ve always thought it’s a sad state of affairs when the legal/insurance perspective says a motorcyclist is “better off” getting into a multi vehicle collision that could likely take your life rather than avoid and be harshly penalized as a single vehicle accident.
Either way I’ll do what’s best for my life.
Sent from my iPhone using GTAMotorcycle.com
Either way I’ll do what’s best for my life.
Sent from my iPhone using GTAMotorcycle.com
If you didn't hit anything and you fell off, could you have stayed on?
After all the stopping distance is shorter if the tyres are in contact with the ground.
Your position makes an excellent argument for having ABS on the street.
The other issue is that many single vehicle collisions are FTNTAS (failed to negotiate turn at speed).
After all the stopping distance is shorter if the tyres are in contact with the ground.
Your position makes an excellent argument for having ABS on the street.
The other issue is that many single vehicle collisions are FTNTAS (failed to negotiate turn at speed).
I'll take the ditch over a head-on with a car any day.
In insurance parlance when you crash when you're cut off, and don't contact another vehicle it is called an "collision in avoidance" and is easy for the insurance to deny.
You say you were put in a position where "crashing" was the best outcome, where the insurance will argue that there is an infinite number of outcomes, and if ONE of those outcome didn't end up with you crashing: YOU DID THE WRONG THING.
It is on you to prove the ONLY reasonable action was the one you took. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.
If it wasn't this way, everyone that got into a single vehicle collision would just say " A dog ran out in front of me".
... but MOST single vehicle accidents ARE the driver's fault.
I vividly recall seeing my 1968 Honda 305 Superhawk bouncing on it's side across those treacherous tracks on Ontario St in St Catherines......welll it was his idea to borrow the bike and I was in a car behind him. Lost a mirror and a bent clutch lever but I picked it up and rode it home.
Dropped that bike dozens of times in the snow riding all winter.
Actually had to put a lit paraffin can under the casing one chilly morning to get it to start.
Wow - that bike sold for $7100 US !!!!
bringatrailer.com
Dropped that bike dozens of times in the snow riding all winter.
Actually had to put a lit paraffin can under the casing one chilly morning to get it to start.
Wow - that bike sold for $7100 US !!!!
No Reserve: 1968 Honda CB77 Super Hawk
Bid for the chance to own a No Reserve: 1968 Honda CB77 Super Hawk at auction with Bring a Trailer, the home of the best vintage and classic cars online. Lot #100,802.
bringatrailer.com
Last edited:
I honestly can't see any situation where "laying the bike down" can be better than trying to keep it upright. Maybe in the Action Movie scenario where the bike and rider slide underneath a combine or 18-wheeler?
Even in the slipperiest of surfaces, the coefficient of friction of rubber is far superior to metal/plastic/human body sliding on the ground.
Also, the claim that "riding a machine to the ground... can be done without hurt to the rider at 50-60 mph" doesn't take into account all the things on the street that will interrupt a rider's slide to 0mph instantly - things like curbs, hydrants, light standards, other vehicles.
It's not the crash that hurts. It's the sudden stop.
Were dispatch riders on asphalt or soft surfaces? Coefficient of friction is out the window when you have parts of your bike actively digging into the surface (dumping a bike in deep sand should stop you faster than keeping it up for instance).
Will it though? At 50-60 mph, there will still be inertia and momentum making the bike (and rider) tumble and roll for quite a while even in deep sand.
In my mind, I still think it would be better threshold braking in that circumstance instead of bailing. Much less painful too, for sure, if done successfully.
I suspect that most of the time dumping it in sand stops you faster but injures you more often as pushing more weight out of the way vastly exceeds the energy dissipation ability of the layer of sand affected by the tires. Definitely not my preferred approach and I will not be trying both ways to confirm my suspicion.
Me too.
I just fundamentally disagree with "laying the bike down". Motorcycles are so much more capable of stopping and maneuvering than what most people are able to exploit.
I truly believe with proper training, remaining on the motorcycle is almost always the safer and more preferred option than bailing.
Entirely agree. The one scenario where the dump may make sense is if you push the bike one way so you body goes the other and misses an obstacle (center of mass of combined bike plus rider didn't need to change directions). Not sure how you train your brain to think that quickly. My brain is conditioned to ride the bike at all times until the bike decides my riding is over.
|
|
|
|
|