Friend of mine went down ...

[ersigh]

Clickie (http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=ersigh&itemid=102882#cutid1)

[Tine]

Looks like maybe the car made a u-turn in front of him? That is... judging by the damage to the left of the car, the cars position on the road, and his front-end damage.

Hope he's OK.

Tine

[ersigh]

"On September 2nd around noon I was riding down a residential street to my girlfriends house and BLAM.. A car turned left in front of me.

At first the car moved out of my path and appeared like it was going to turn right up a side street and then all of a sudden the car turned left directly in front of me and blocked any escape routes I could of had. The street was around 15 fee wide because there were cars parked on either side. I guess the kid that was driving the car does this often because his driveway has too many cars in it and he has to enter it at a certain angle. He apparently didn't see my highbeam on.. and also didn't look behind him becuase I only had about 6 - 8 feet to stop in. I was going at least 70 mph when he did this.

For some reason.. the case cover on the clutch side of the bike came into contact with the street and exploded and as you can see from the picture.. the bike basically disintigrated in front of me and tossed me over the errant car. I also lost the DMV tags I had paid for 2 days earlier as well as the Oakley sunglasses that somehow dissapeared from the trunk of the bike. At first I thought I had put the bike down to shrink the distance I needed to get the bike to clear the car and stop ( hence the case cover ) but by the intense damage inflicted upon the driver door of the car it looks like I centerpunced the car and did some air time. I then proceeded to bounce my head on the bumper of a car about 18 feet farther down the street. I suffered some road rash on my right leg. Intese large scale bruising to the bone on the inside of both my knees, scrapes and cuts over a large portion of my body. My wrists are sore as well as the thumb on my left hand. The doctors thought that it might of been broken, but it was just bruised and over extended. I also received some road rash on my right forearm and 10 stitches below my elbow. Lastly, I had to get 16 stiches above and below a large gash in my chin. :(

I'm now in the middle of signing papers to obtain a laywer to sue the guy that made me crash as well as dealing with my crappy insurance company. At best I hope to walk away from my bike and have it paid for.. then save up for the hefty down payment I'll need for another bike.

So, in a nutshell, some kid pulled an illegal turn in front of me and cost me my bike, and a lot of pain. "

[NukleoN]

I hate bad drivers..HATE HATE HATE..people really need to look where the F*** they are going. Sue him silly.

[ersigh]

Originally posted by NukleoN
I hate bad drivers..HATE HATE HATE..people really need to look where the F*** they are going. Sue him silly.

My mom has a sticker on her car that says ...

"Look twice. Motorcycles are everywhere."

[Little Mad Man]

Originally posted by ersigh
"On September 2nd around noon I was riding down a residential street to my girlfriends house and BLAM.. A car turned left in front of me.

At first the car moved out of my path and appeared like it was going to turn right up a side street and then all of a sudden the car turned left directly in front of me and blocked any escape routes I could of had. The street was around 15 fee wide because there were cars parked on either side. I guess the kid that was driving the car does this often because his driveway has too many cars in it and he has to enter it at a certain angle. He apparently didn't see my highbeam on.. and also didn't look behind him becuase I only had about 6 - 8 feet to stop in. I was going at least 70 mph when he did this

I find it interesting that your friend is getting a lawyer to sue the driver of the car when this accident was clearly your friend's fault. Considering in your friend's words that he was riding down a residential street AND was going 70 mph, he may want to reconsider this lawsuit. Then he should pray that the driver of the car does not sue him and take him to the cleaners. Just a couple simple points which clearly put the blame on the motorcycle rider.....1) There is not one single residential street the state of California that has a speed limit of 70 mph, the speed limit is 35 unless otherwise posted, and when is posted, is normally lower; 2) Additionally, considering that your friend hit the side of the car, he had to be either speeding or following too closely (both of which are obvious considering that he stated he only had 6 - 8 feet to stop and was doing 70 mph. :squid:

[Little Mad Man]

Originally posted by ersigh
My mom has a sticker on her car that says ...

"Look twice. Motorcycles are everywhere."

Your buddy who wrecked should have a sticker plastered on the inside of his face shield which states "Look twice. Cars are everywhere." :squid:

[Little Mad Man]

Originally posted by NukleoN
I hate bad drivers..HATE HATE HATE..people really need to look where the F*** they are going. Sue him silly.
Yeah, if I was the driver of the car, I would definetly sue him for the following reasons....

1) Going twice the speed limit for a residential area.
2) Failure to maintain safe distance to vehicle in front. :eek:
3) Being a general ass hole in thinking that this wreck was the fault of the driver of the car when the motorcycle was clearly doubling the posted speed limit. :ass:
4) Being stupid enough to get a lawyer and think he has a case for which he, while being clearly at fault due to the facts mentioned above, could have easily avoided had he followed the laws posted for traffic in residential areas. :squid:
5) Having a friend post what really happened in a public message board!!!!!! :horny:

[Golden_Eternity]

Large colored fonts should be illegal.

[Golden_Eternity]

Originally posted by Little Mad Man 1) There is not one single residential street the state of California that has a speed limit of 70 mph, the speed limit is 35 unless otherwise posted, and when is posted, is normally lower;

Residential is 25; 35 is business.

[ersigh]

Originally posted by Little Mad Man
Your buddy who wrecked should have a sticker plastered on the inside of his face shield which states "Look twice. Cars are everywhere." :squid:

You should stop posting in all red ...

[ersigh]

Originally posted by Little Mad Man
Yeah, if I was the driver of the car, I would definetly sue him for the following reasons....

1) Going twice the speed limit for a residential area.
2) Failure to maintain safe distance to vehicle in front. :eek:
3) Being a general ass hole in thinking that this wreck was the fault of the driver of the car when the motorcycle was clearly doubling the posted speed limit. :ass:
4) Being stupid enough to get a lawyer and think he has a case for which he, while being clearly at fault due to the facts mentioned above, could have easily avoided had he followed the laws posted for traffic in residential areas. :squid:
5) Having a friend post what really happened in a public message board!!!!!! :horny:

Are you always an asshole? Or do you like to repeat yourself ... over and over ... in obnoxious colors??

He was speeding, yes. I think that he has quite obviously seen the lesson in this.

He was not following too closely. Since you seem to have read what I posted, you should have also read that this person pulled out from his driveway, in front of the bike.

Whether or not this is the car drivers fault, I could care less. The way I see it, my friend has insurance, they'll take care of it ... I wouldn't sue, because I know I was speeding. But I was not there in the situation to see what the car was doing exactly ... and neither were you.

There are many similiar types of accidents that happen AT RESIDENTIAL speed limits, caused by people pulling out in front and you have no way of knowing whether or not the accident could have been avoided if he was going slower. Idealy, it should be EASIER to avoid it, but it all depends on at what point the guy pulled out in front of him, how wide the road is, how fast the car was going ... etc ...

On top of all that ... the car should have seen him. If there are cars obstructing your view, you inch out slowly, giving others time to see you, and giving you the opportunity to make sure no one is coming. If he had done that, my friend would have seen him ... and he probably would have seen my friend.

There is nothing to be gained from jumping on a topic and ramming it in the ass like you have ... believe it or not, just saying what you think, without being obnoxious, might actually lead into a conversation ... where people might listen to you ...

:ass:

Oh yeah ... "having a friend post ..." he had me do no such thing. I chose to do it, to share with other riders ... in the hopes that it would make them more alert ... I see that you have learned the lesson ... (and i'm sure you NEVER EVER speed because you know, that's really fucking STUPID and IDIOTIC and FUCKING ILLEGAL and shit ...) so I guess I did my job ...

:finger:

[Aufaber]

Originally posted by Little Mad Man
I find it interesting that your friend is getting a lawyer to sue the driver of the car when this accident was clearly your friend's fault. Considering in your friend's words that he was riding down a residential street AND was going 70 mph, he may want to reconsider this lawsuit. Then he should pray that the driver of the car does not sue him and take him to the cleaners. Just a couple simple points which clearly put the blame on the motorcycle rider.....1) There is not one single residential street the state of California that has a speed limit of 70 mph, the speed limit is 35 unless otherwise posted, and when is posted, is normally lower; 2) Additionally, considering that your friend hit the side of the car, he had to be either speeding or following too closely (both of which are obvious considering that he stated he only had 6 - 8 feet to stop and was doing 70 mph. :squid:

None of which matters. Through traffic has the right of way. How fast the bike was going has no bearing ont he fact that entering traffic must yeild to through traffic.

If the guy had shot out of the driveway 10 feet in front of him and he was going 25 he still couldn't have stopped in time. Through traffic has the right of way. The cops can give him a speeding ticket if they want or maybe reckless driving, but the accident is still at it's base the fault of the entering traffic.

[NukleoN]

The motorcyclist may get a ticket, but the car failed to yield, and is thus at fault, regardless of speed or location. The car also seemed to be driving in a reckless manner.

You could try and sue if you were the cause of this accident (the car driver), but you'd simply bring attention to the fact that you failed to yield and face a countersuit yourself that you'd lose.

I *know* someone personally who *was* speeding and was cut off by a car driver and won a very large settlement. He may have been stupid for speeding, but that doesn't mean people can cut him off, knowingly or not.

[mistermiata13]

At first the car moved out of my path and appeared like it was going to turn right up a side street and then all of a sudden the car turned left directly in front of me and blocked any escape routes I could of had.

Am I reading this correctly?

It seems that the bike and car were moving the same direction, i.e. bike following the car since "the car moved out of my path and appeared like it was going to turn right up a side street." So if he was going 70mph and then chose to go around this car on a 15ft. wide street, then it seems liek the bike was at fault.

Of course, this is me interpreting the words written by another, but thats what it looks like. He certainly was not *leaving* a driveway.

Aaron

[Golden_Eternity]

Originally posted by mistermiata13
Am I reading this correctly?

You missed the line before it where it says "A car turned left in front of me. "

[Little Mad Man]

Just a few responses to the post.....

Yes, I have to use bold bright colored fonts when it comes to some asshole on a motorcycle who thinks he owns the road and not only causes an accident, but then tries to blame someone else for his own stupidity. In the mean time, he raises all our insurance rates, as they're based on number of claims.

Just to make a note, a motorcycle coming directly towards you or away from you is very diffricult to judge the speed of. Therefore, the driver of the car would have no reason to know that the bike was exceeding the speed limit by at least twice the legal limit.

Had the motorcycle rider been doing the speed limit, not only would there have been more than ample time for the car to make his turn, the rider would have had more than ample time to slow and come to a halt.

This rider is clearly at fault, and if the driver of the car gets ahold of this thread, the motorcyclist is going to get his ass sued off, if not ending up in jail before it's all over with.

[Stinky]

Originally posted by Golden_Eternity
You missed the line before it where it says "A car turned left in front of me. "

The car can still turn left in front of him if he was about to pass the car on the left after he thought the car was making a right turn.

Almost happened to me on the way to Palomar. Two lane road on the broken yellow, two cars in front of me. The one directly in front of me starts slowing down, so I pull to the left to pass it. Turned out the car in front of that one was signalling left and slowing down. I was past both cars before the turn even came up but it coulda been ugly. Never doing that anymore. Gregg told me a story of a guy that got hit doing that. Went to pass a car and that car ended up turning left right in front of him.

One thing about the picture though, it looks like the car was about to turn right into a parked car, unless that Busa pushed it down the street a little.

[Golden_Eternity]

Originally posted by Stinky
The car can still turn left in front of him if he was about to pass the car on the left after he thought the car was making a right turn.

That's true. I read the second "turned left" as a second maneuver, but it could have just been repetition.

[Golden_Eternity]

Originally posted by Little Mad Man
Yes, I have to use bold bright colored fonts when it comes to some asshole on a motorcycle who thinks he owns the road and not only causes an accident

If the rider were the only one looking at it, that'd be fine... but I'm not the idiot who was doing 70 in a residential, so please don't torture me like that... That's just wrong.

Just to make a note, a motorcycle coming directly towards you or away from you is very diffricult to judge the speed of. Therefore, the driver of the car would have no reason to know that the bike was exceeding the speed limit by at least twice the legal limit.

Not only that, but at that closing rate, the bike could have been some huge distance away and hidden from view by parked cars or a curve or a tree, etc, that he wouldn't have been behind if he were travelling at the normal, expected, legal and safe speed for that area.

Just thank god it wasn't some kid learning to ride a bicycle.

Either way, I hate that swerve right to turn left sh!#...

[Tine]

At first the car moved out of my path and appeared like it was going to turn right up a side street and then all of a sudden the car turned left directly in front of me and blocked any escape routes I could of had.

This is EXACTLY what happened to me in my first accident... except I was going the speed limit and I thought the car was parking on the right shoulder.

Now, if the car isn't signalling to the right, I honk before I pass or keep it plenty slow until I get past them.

In any case, glad your friend is alright. Actually, from the pix... AMAZED that he's alright. I do agree that he shouldn't sue though... that seems a bit excessive :clown:

Tine

[Little Mad Man]

Well, the accident was almost typical of that in which a car makes a left hand turn in front of a motorcycle.

However, in this case, the car actually did not make a left hand turn in front of the motorcycle....look at the original post in detail and you'll see what I mean....

First, the car did not pull out of a driveway or sidestreet, as the post said he was trying to pull into a driveway, but had to enter at a different angle due to the amount of cars already parked. Looking at the picture verifies that indeed, there were a lot of cars parked. This means that the motorcycle traveling at the excessive (putting it mildly) rate of speed was actually behind the other car, and, reading further, the motorcycle only had 6 to 8 feet before impact with the car. That would place the motorcycle directly behind the driver's side of the car, directly in the driver's blind spot.

Putting the motorcycle in that exact location just prior to the car turning left would account for the damage to the entire side of the car, because if the motorcycle slammed into the side, the damage would have been localized to just the area of impact, yet the entire side of the car is torn up, showing that the motorcycle actually impacted towards the rear and moved towards the front of the car as it was stopping.

So, just a few points....
1. It is illegal to pass in a residental zone.
2. It is illegal to tailgate in any zone.
3. The recommended following distance is one car length for every 10 mph, so this guy must be using match boxes for his car lengths.
4. It is illegal to travel at a speed of 70 mph in a residental zone.
5. It is not illegal for a car in a residental zone to make a left hand turn into a driveway.

The motorcyclist is clearly at fault. There is nothing that the driver can be charged with except maybe failing to use his turn signal at most (not that it would have made a difference with the bike doing 70, as being 6 - 8 feet behind the car, there is nothing the bike could have done to avoid the wreck anyhow). The rider of the motorcycle should also consider this...

1. Purgery is illegal.
2. Defrauding an insurance company is illegal.
3. His actions make the rest of the motorcycle community look bad.
4. His actions and those of others like him are why insurance rates are so damn high out here.

So, I give the motorcycle rider the big


:squid: award for putting another person's life in danger for no reason what so ever.

[Tine]

Originally posted by Little Mad Man

The motorcyclist is clearly at fault. There is nothing that the driver can be charged with except maybe failing to use his turn signal at most (not that it would have made a difference with the bike doing 70, as being 6 - 8 feet behind the car, there is nothing the bike could have done to avoid the wreck anyhow). The rider of the motorcycle should also consider this...


I agree that the motorcyclist is at fault... however there are a few factors to consider... the car was pulled over into the parking area on the right of the road... if the car had signaled his intention to turn (minimum 50 feet in advance of the turn...) the motorcyclist would have known that something different was happening and either slowed down or honked or otherwise made his presence more known.

In fact, if the car driver had signaled, the accident probably would not have occured at all.

I was about to say it's still the motorcyclist's fault... but if you pause and consider the difference if the car had done what it did after stopping on the right side of the road... Hmmm... he might have a case in spite of his reckless speed.

Also keep in mind that he may be initiating a preemptive strike by suing before the car driver has a chance to.

[NukleoN]

If the car was STOPPED on the right side of the road, and then essentially made an *illegal* left in front of the motorcylist, he does NOT have right of way because he is no longer on the road, but on the SIDE of the road. The person on the road has the right of way over someone coming back ON to the road. The motorcyclist is not at fault.

Failure to signal was just another way the car driver failed to signal his intentions, and this combined with FAILURE TO LOOK resulted in an accident, regardless of the motorcycles speed. The motorcyclist will get a ticket for speeding, but the car driver is at fault here.

[Little Mad Man]

Originally posted by NukleoN
If the car was STOPPED on the right side of the road, and then essentially made an *illegal* left in front of the motorcylist, he does NOT have right of way because he is no longer on the road, but on the SIDE of the road. The person on the road has the right of way over someone coming back ON to the road. The motorcyclist is not at fault.

Failure to signal was just another way the car driver failed to signal his intentions, and this combined with FAILURE TO LOOK resulted in an accident, regardless of the motorcycles speed. The motorcyclist will get a ticket for speeding, but the car driver is at fault here.

Your nuts. How can you possibly say that the driver of the car was at fault? LOOK AT THE PICTURE YET AGAIN!!!! The damage starts at the trunk of the car and moves forward and deeping into the side of the car. Additionally, the front tires are turned to the left. The motorcycle rider said he had 6 to 8 feet to respond. Therefore, regardless of if the driver looked or not is irrelevant...the motorcycle would have been in the driver's blind spot. Try it on your own car, you'll see.

Nobody said the car did or did not use a turn signal, so that is speculation. Additionally, nowhere does it say that the car stopped on the right hand side of the road, so that too would be speculation. However, even if the car signaled 50 feet prior to making the turn, it takes more than 100 feet for ANY motorcycle in production today to stop at 70 mph. Therefore, he would have still impacted the car. But for sake of arguement, lets say the driver did see the motorcycle in his mirror. It would still be the motorcycle's fault, as you cannot tell closure speed of a vehicle by looking at a vehicle head on or tail on. You need to have a reference to tell closure speed, which means that he would have had to see the motorcycle at a side angle. The damage to the car proves that the motorcycle was NOT at a side angle. Since it is against the law to pass in a residential area, the car had the right-of-way, and had every legal right to make the left hand turn pending traffic oncoming traffic, not traffic to the rear of the car.

You've heard the term, a picture tells a thousand words. The picture of this car tells more like 10,000 words. So stop making excuses for the rider. He is a Squid, plain and simple! He was attempting to pass the car in a residential area at a speed of 70 mph while the car was turning left into a driveway. His luck ran out as the car moved to the left and the bike impacted near the rear of the car, and as the car moved more to the left, the forces grew stronger on the bike, increasing the damage to both the car and the bike. Look at the rocker panal of the car under the driver's door. That's the point when the motorcycle finally came to a halt throwing the rider. This motorcycle was not laid down on it's side as indicted by the original post, the damage to the car does not support that theroy. Nor did it slam directly into the side of the car. It clearly impacted the side at no more than about a five degree angle, which quickly changed as the car turned towards the left, driving the motorcycle deeper into the side of the car, with the most damage done at the driver's door.

There is absolutely NO WAY THE DRIVER OF THE CAR CAN BE AT FAULT. The motorcycle was in the following violations: Excessive speed for conditions, excessive speed in a residental area (doubling the speed limit = wreckless driving), and passing a vehicle in a residental area. The only charge that could be pushed on the driver is failure to use a turn signal (which is spectulative on if he did or did not, however, even if he did, the wreck would have still happened).

Pending the driver getting a decent attorny and an accident investigator to testify, the motorcycle rider may find himself paying out his ass. If I were him, this is one lawsuit I would avoid at all cost, as it's going to turn against him really fast.

[NukleoN]

If it were, there wouldn't need to be testimony and witnesses. I think we'd need to hear the driver's version...but regardless of the speed of the motorcyclist, the car should NOT be turning left in front of oncoming traffic from a stop on the *right* side of the road. This is plain and simple, an illegal left. Sure, the motorcyclist was a squid and speeding, but right of way is to the motorcyclist *if* the car was stopped on the right side of the road.

My friend was probably doing over 100 when he was cut off by a car...and he won a LARGE settlement because the car failed to yield. As I said, the speed of the motorcyclist was indeed inappropriate, but the person on the ROAD has right of way, not the person STOPPED on the side of the road.

Now of course..if I had more information (other than wild speculation about a picture), then I could probably review this more accurately. However, if what the motorcyclist says is true, then the car is at fault.

But there's only so far we can go with this without more info. I cannot say whether the car signaled or not because we don't have the car driver's testimony, but failure to yield still applies even if a signal is utilized.

[Golden_Eternity]

The thing that seems clear to me is that we don't have enough information here to make a clear decision about who is at fault... So take your lessons where you find 'em and I think its time to stop saying the same things over and over in larger and redder text. ;)

[NukleoN]

I think the fact that otherwise reasonable people disagree means that we're probably missing information or don't know the law. I am fairly certain about the right of way taking precedence over speed because a personal friend of mine did have a car cut him off, on a public highway, while he was doing over 100. He won the lawsuit.

I agree though Golden, more info needed! :)

[Little Mad Man]

Nowhere in your friend's story does it say that the car stopped on the right hand side of the road, so that is pure speculation. It does not mention if a turn signal was used or not, so that is pure speculation.

He did say that the crank case cover impacted the pavement, but the damage to the car does not support that, as the damage starts in the trunk area of the car. And considering that the damage does start in that area of the car means that the car could not have been all the way over to the right hand side of the road unless the motorcycle was trying to pass him on the right hand side (which incidently, is also illegal on any road (including highways), just as passing in a residential area is also illegal).

The damage to the car says it all, and your friend can testify till he is blue in the face, he cannot win this one. Your buddy that won when he was going over 100 mph and got cut off probably only won because he either did purgery or the driver of the car had an idiot for an attorny.

This wreck was caused by your squid friend, plain and simple. The damage (lenght, hight, and depth) says it all. All the owner of the car needs to do is get even an amature accident investigator to explain the picture and your buddy will be up shit creek in a chicken wire canoe without a paddle. Then when the driver countersues, your buddy is going to loose his ass, especially if the DA sees these post.

[NukleoN]

At first the car moved out of my path and appeared like it was going to turn right up a side street and then all of a sudden the car turned left directly in front of me and blocked any escape routes I could of had.

My bad...I guess he didn't say that the car stopped on the right, just that he *thought* the car was going to turn right. Hmm...in my mind I am picturing some guy on a Busa doing nearly 70 in a residential, giving the car ahead of him a split second to figure out what it's going to do, passing on the left and getting nailed.

Mad Man...I think you're right. I am guessing the motorcyclist would lose this case...I just wasn't picturing this thing correctly (I am a visual person).

Forgive my density...I had it in my head that the car was *stopped* on the right...but he was on the road and merely swerved to the right a bit before making a left....some people turn that way and it's something we motorcyclists should plan for.

This case shows the motorcylist being impatient, and it got him nailed. He should have just let the car finish what it was doing, and he shouldn't have been doing 70 down a residential anyway.

I think the driver of the car didn't properly signal his intentions, and was misleading about what he was about to do, but as long as he was on the road the motorcyclist should have yielded...especially true if this was a street with only 2 opposing lanes (like most residential streets). I am certain a judge would rule in favor of the car in this case.

Whether anyone signals or not doesn't matter. So Mad Man...you're right! If I had a diagram this would have been much easier heh.

[Little Mad Man]

Yup, it is the scrapes on the side of the trunk that tell the real story of what happened here. They are at handlebar hight, which means he impacted the car while on two wheels, and did not lay the bike down.

Now, had that car pulled out in front of him, it would have been center punched (and with that size of bike, had it hit the driver's door, most likely would have killed the driver). Regardless, a center punched car would show no damage on the rear quarter next to the trunk at all.

Had the car been center punched, chances are that he would have seen the motorcycle at an angle enough to tell it was going at a high rate of speed (pending other cars where not parked in the way), and in that case, yes, I would have blamed the driver despite the speed of the motorcycle. (I would have ticketed them both).

I've seen cars move slightly to the right to make a left turn plenty of times, especially in residential areas. I just try to do the speed limit in such areas, as not only is there a chance that a car will pull out in front of you (I've lost count of how many times that's happened to me), but a child may suddenly appear from between parked cars too. Its best to save the speed for the deserts, where we don't have to deal with kids, cars, etc.... that appear unexpectly.

Looking at the side of that car and the condition of the bike, I am really glad that your friend is okay. Someone was smiling down on him that day, as most riders in such a situation would have been 6 foot under. He's been given a second chance in life, I hope he don't blow it.

[Tine]

Originally posted by Little Mad Man
Yup, it is the scrapes on the side of the trunk that tell the real story of what happened here. They are at handlebar hight, which means he impacted the car while on two wheels, and did not lay the bike down.


Two quick things...

I didn't say that the car had stopped, but if the car had stopped on the shoulder, would the bike have had the right of way?

I'm not seeing any scrapes by the trunk. I do see a pretty good reflection of the bike there though. It looks to me like the impact occured directly on the drivers door. The impact was enough to move the car several feet to the right of the driveway or the car driver saw the bike at the last second and didn't turn as hard. But given the angle of the car... it looks like it was moved many feet to the right (in the direction of the bike's travel.)

So... if you agree that the picture is showing reflection and not scratches... the car driver is at fault here???

Tine

[NukleoN]

I am not going to analyze scratches since I am no forensic expert. But I know that if the car was stopped on the right side of the road, he has then lost right of way and must yield to traffic in front or behind, and the car then would be at fault for making an illegal left.

If the car was on the road, and merely feigned right a bit before making a left...then I believe the car retains right of way since it is still on the road, the speeding motorcyclist should have waited a tic before trying to blow by on the left. Fault is with motorcyclist. Instead of the car turning left in front of the motorcyclist, you could say the motorcyclist 'rear ended' the left side of the car by not yeilding.

More info needed to be clear though.

[Golden_Eternity]

Originally posted by NukleoN
More info needed to be clear though.

:angel: :D

[Little Mad Man]

I'm not seeing any scrapes by the trunk. I do see a pretty good reflection of the bike there though. It looks to me like the impact occured directly on the drivers door.

You must be blind. Not only are there scrapes on the side by the trunk, but there are also dents. If that was a relection of the motorcyle, you should see a motorcycle in the relection, but you don't. You don't see a reflection of the truck in the side of the car either for that matter, yet that is being used to move the motorcycle.

If you look by the fuel cap, you will see the scrapes...and note the angle which they move....forward, towards the front of the car, and they get deeper and deeper as they go, with the majority of the damage at the driver's front door. However, if you look even closer, you will see that the frond end of the car is damaged too, as it appears to have been pushed into the side of the car on the street by the weight of the motorcycle.

[Stinky]

You guys are STILL on this thread?

[Tine]

Originally posted by Little Mad Man

You must be blind. Not only are there scrapes on the side by the trunk, but there are also dents. If that was a relection of the motorcyle, you should see a motorcycle in the relection, but you don't. You don't see a reflection of the truck in the side of the car either for that matter, yet that is being used to move the motorcycle.

If you look by the fuel cap, you will see the scrapes...and note the angle which they move....forward, towards the front of the car, and they get deeper and deeper as they go, with the majority of the damage at the driver's front door. However, if you look even closer, you will see that the frond end of the car is damaged too, as it appears to have been pushed into the side of the car on the street by the weight of the motorcycle.

Yep, I must be blind... since I clearly see the reflection of the motorcycle... and the tan wall and the people (in the glass.)

OK, so your theory is that the bike slid along the side of the car (with the handlebars able to scrape the paint) and then somehow managed to push the driver side door in about a foot?

How did it do that?

Tine

[DanMan]

Originally posted by Aufaber
None of which matters. Through traffic has the right of way. How fast the bike was going has no bearing ont he fact that entering traffic must yeild to through traffic.


That, thank god, isn't true at all. Speed limits are there to allow drivers time to react to different situations. A good friend of mine was pulling though an island to make a u-turn when she was nailed by a car going about 3 times the speed limit.

Even though she pulled into traffic, his rediculous speed made it impossible for her to judge his distance. Luckily here car was skimmed and not t-boned. The jerk that hit her was held completely liable after a nice bit of insurance rastlin'.