yeah, the AMA American Motorcyclist Magazine just did an article on these types of incidents. Seems like it is happening more often. Just one more reason for everyone to be very careful out there.

 

Check out the crash statistics

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2004/809-734/index.htm


Thats too bad he died. Seems like one of those fluke things.

Kevin

 

One of the things that I gleaned from the article is that the guy was riding (without a helmet :) on a nice sunny day with little traffic, he goes through an intersection with an 89 year old woman sitting at a stop, and she doesn't see the guy and pulls out and hits and kills him. I think that that is a textbook example of being aware of your surroundings, I know that when I approach an intersection, I'm doing what I can to limit my exposure to an accident like the one that he had, including age/vehicle profiling, visibility, speed and lots of other things that I "hope" will lessen the chance of something like that happening to me. Yes, it was a tragedy, but I'd guess that it was avoidable or at least able to be made less deadly with more awareness on both the motorcyclists and the car drivers part.

 

Sorry to hear about this . I also don't think Capt.S read the artical very well either. The findings were he would have died from his injuries even if he was wearing a helmut even though he wasn't. Also to say that he wasn't aware of his surounds sounds like a crock .He may have only had seconds to respond to the car coming out from behind a parked car at the intersection . I know that sometimes I don't respond as fast as I should from the shear fact that I'm caught off guard by the stupidity of what seems like something so simple as stopping at a stop sign or not paying attention to what there doing . For all we know He could have seen her but didn't react because he figured he had the right of way or That a stupid old lady is about to hit me.

 

Actually, I did read the article well, and again what I got from the article is that this guy (R.I.P) is a rider who doesn't think that a helmet is necessary, which I think puts him in a special class of rider with the emphasis on "special". And I'm also a firm believer in a rider being constantly aware of his surroundings, if I'm approaching an intersection, and I think that the driver can't see around parked cars, then I'll change lane positions/slow down/speed up to make myself more obvious. If I can see blue hair, or a cell phone plastered to someone's ear at an intersection, I'll also take extra precautions, true some accidents can't be avoided, but if you ride defensively and consider that all cars can/will hit you, you may avoid a lot of pain and death. People make mistakes, even young people, so as a rider we must try to take as much responsibility on ourselves for our own safety, because even though the old lady was at fault, it doesn't matter to the guy because he is dead. Even if he only had "seconds" to respond to the impending crash, those "seconds" can be the difference between crashing, and avoiding the crash by the above mentioned tactics. I do feel bad for the guy, but do I think that the old lady should be charged with a crime? No way, she just made a simple mistake that people commonly make, and the only reason that somebody died was the fact that he was on a motorcycle, if he were in a car, it would probably have been a fender bender.

 

There's worse cases than this out there. I joined the AMA over one of them recently and will be making some noise.

Seems that someone should be punished when they kill someone, even if it is an accident. A friend of mine had an accident on his bike and a guy on another bike behind him crashed and the guy died. The Park Police charged my friend with reckless driving, seems to be a bit wrong to me.

RIP to both of them.

Dan

 

Well Capt I'll agree on the " special " part. I just have a problem with thinking that he had any fault to this accident. Weather he was riding defensivley or not. Know matter what he did it didn't make him responsable for his death. Shouldn't the lady be held responsable for his death with more than just her licsence being suspended .Big friggin whoop yes I think she should do jail time or some sort of community service but I also don't think that the mother should get a million dollars from a civil suit either and yes Capt I ride like every car is out to kill me .

 

I haven't had time to read the article, but that 89 year old lady shouldn't be riding a car on the streets in the first place.

 

I admittedly don't ride in heavy traffic often (pop. 126), but haven't all of us pulled out in front of somebody? Now consider that most of the time, either we or the other people are quick enough to stop/swerve/slow down and avoid the accident, or maybe not, and the accident usually results in a fender bender, and believe me, I've seen lots of those, they happen. Now same scenario, except the other person happens to be on a motorcycle, same story, except it's not a fender bender it's an injury accident, so just because the guy is on a motorcycle he is injured/dead and the driver is now not just a responsible party in an accident, she is a murderer. The only reason that the person died is because they chose to ride a motorcycle instead of a car, motorcycles are inherently more dangerous, and if the guy chooses to ride, and the type of accident that occurred was not something extraordinary, the guy paid the ultimate price for his choice to ride a motorcycle. Now we can all live in La La Land where we can fight for our rights of the road and the car drivers of the world will recognize our rights, and always lend us right-of-way, and pull over when we want to go past, and give us cool drinks when we are thirsty, but that is not going to happen, people are self-serving assholes who don't pay enough attention to what they are doing while basically taking our lives into their hands. I choose to be hyper defensive about riding techniques and take as much control as I can for my own life. I still believe that the accident that killed that guy "probably" could have been avoided or lessened to a great degree. I'm not saying that I'm perfect, I do stuff I probably shouldn't do, and don't always wear all my gear, and don't always pay attention, but again that is a choice I make. Right or wrong doesn't matter in this case, the guy died, so even if he was riding defensively, he wasn't riding defensively enough, do you think he gives a rat's crap about if the lady is found guilty? I bet not.

 

Why should they prosecute her? Reading that article, I didn't see any laws broken. Not even enough to give her a ticket, much less charge her criminally. It's not even "failure to yield", if you didn't see the other vehicle. Just a simple, yet unfortunate, accident.

I see his family is trying to win the lottery now. ???

 

of course it is failure to yield It is your responsibility to see the other person you can't go driving with your eyes shut and "duh I didn't see them coming" this whole it isn't my fault thing is way over the top. Maybe the old lady mother beat her and that make it all right for her to run someone over? ???

 

of course it is failure to yield  It is your responsibility to see the other person you can't go driving with your eyes shut and "duh I didn't see them coming" this whole it isn't my fault thing is way over the top. Maybe the old lady mother beat her and that make it all right for her to run someone over?  ???

No, failure to yield is where you see the other vehicle and don't give a crap. One can look, and still not "see". That's why they are called "accidents". I'll for throwing the book at some cager when there are mitigating circumstances like running a stop sign, driving impaired, driving aggressively, etc. But this one really appears to be just an accident of the type that happens everyday, but with unfortunate consequenses.

There was an accident here in TN a week or so ago where an 18 year old driving a Mustang ran into a group of Harley riders leaving a Renaissance Fair. He took off one rider's leg and killed two others, decapitating one of them. He was drunk. Now there's a case where the kid needs to be fried.

 

I was is a car accident a couple of years ago, i was driving straight and the person who I hit turned against traffic to enter a shopping center. I was blocked by a semi and was travelling at 50 mph's. She see's me at the last minute and stopped directly in my path of my and I t-boned her.
She got the ticket for taking the right away, or assuming the right away (can't remember exactly). My point is that even if it is an accident, and she didn't see me she still get's ticketed.
I think this woman deserves at least a traffic ticket of some kind.

Tanya

 

  I was blocked by a semi and was travelling at 50 mph's.  She see's me at the last minute and stopped directly in my path of my and I t-boned her.
She got the ticket for taking the right away, or assuming the right away (can't remember exactly).  My point is that even if it is an accident, and she didn't see me she still get's ticketed. 
I think this woman deserves at least a traffic ticket of some kind. 

The difference here is that she saw you and made a poor decision. If there was a semi alongside you which I assume you meant to be blocking you, what the hell was she doing pulling out in front of it?

 

Sorry but the Laws here are very specific about failure to yield. It doesn't matter if you don't see them or not . You as the driver are responsable for what happens with your car 100% that means even if you are driving as defensavly as you can and you fail to yield or what ever the infraction is you are at fault period. Case in point is we learned in defensive driving class was would you as a driver be reponsable for the death of a child if the child rolled out into the street behind the back of a parked car and you were the driver of a car travelling the posted speed limit and never saw the child because she/he was below your feild of vision. The answer is YES because as stated you are 100% reponsable for the operation of said vehicle. Capt I'm not saying your wrong with any of your points or that the world isn't perfect but like my dad would say you may be right but you'll be dead right.

 

I can see Capt. S's point and see myself agreeing with his view on this situation. This accident shouldn't of happened, especially at 28 mph... At twice that speed or more it still shouldn't of happened. There are no skid marks, and they believe that he didn't realize the car was pulling out. The questions I have are , how long was he riding, did he take an MSF course, did he have prior 2 wheel experience either dirt bike or pedal bicycle, how long has be been driving (car) etc... Before I got on motorized 2 wheels I spent my adolescence riding on pedal powered 2 wheels from town to town in West Germany, and spent my teen years BMX riding, both racing and some freestyle. From the first car I had I drove customized vehicles and when I was younger I only could afford liability insurance, so I spent a lot of years watching out for other drivers so that my pride and joy didnt get damaged, even when I made higher income and had full coverage with extra coverage for custom parts and such I still went out of my way to watch out for people, because it seems whether you're on 2 wheels or not, there are a great deal of people out there that just dont see you. So when I jumped onto motorized 2 wheels I had over a decade of experience watching and expecting people to do stupid things in traffic while in my cars, so it came natural on 2 wheels to still expect them to do stupid things. Could this accident been avoided? I guess at this point it doesn't matter, but everyone reading this article helps his death not be in vain, because a lot of you will learn, that even when you're trying to do everything right, the world out there is unpredictable...

As far as the insurance battle that will be going on in court, I would kind of expect the insurance company to pay out something, why do some of you have a problem with that? The guy died and the woman is at fault regardless of whether he could of done more to save himself, I guess that if someone hits you and it's an honest mistake they shouldnt have to fix your bike or pay your medical bills either?

 

It absolutely was a "failure to yield" situation. That is in part why she lost her license for 7-years. The question is not whether she was at fault or not, but rather whether she was criminally neglegent or not. IMHO she does not deserve jail as this clearly was an accident. There should be consequences though, and loss of license is a good start. I'd also like to see community service where she is forced to speak to seniors groups on the dangers of geezers driving cars.

Jeff

 

It absolutely was a "failure to yield" situation.  That is in part why she lost her license for 7-years.  The question is not whether she was at fault or not, but rather whether she was criminally neglegent or not.  IMHO she does not deserve jail as this clearly was an accident. 

I agree with Jeff. It was simply a traffic accident and not a criminal act. She did all that was required under the law. She was faulted for the accident and had her license taken away. It wasn't a criminal act....she had no bad intent. You can't criminalize bad driving. Unless there was a mitigating factor, alcohol, drugs, speeding, reckless operation, they shouldn't prosecute. She did all that was required under the law and as such I think losing her license is a fair punishment.

The only reason that the person died is because they chose to ride a motorcycle instead of a car, motorcycles are inherently more dangerous, and if the guy chooses to ride, and the type of accident that occurred was not something extraordinary, the guy paid the ultimate price for his choice to ride a motorcycle.

This is another point to take into account. These types of accidents happen all the time. You can't criminalize it just because the guy died. If he were in a car he'd be alive. You can't prosecute the same set of circumstances two different ways. Traffic accident if the guy is in a car and lives.....manslaughter if he's on a bike and dies.

Sorry but the Laws here are very specific about failure to yield. It doesn't matter if you don't see them or not . You as the driver are responsable for what happens with your car 100% that means even if you are driving as defensavly as you can and you fail to yield or what ever the infraction is you are at fault period.

Correct. You are at fault if you fail to yield. And as such she had her license taken away. Failure to yield isn't a criminal act...it is a traffic infraction.

If you are drunk and fail to yield you will get a ticket for failure to yield and be charge with DUI....which is criminal.

No one is saying the lady didn't cause the wreck. But she wasn't criminally negligent.

 

I wonder if the outcome would have been different, or if there would be more public outcry, if it had been a 6 yr. old girl walking across the street and the driver didn't see her. Seems to me that if you make a mistake through negligence and someone dies that there ought to be punishment. Obviously the women shouldn't be driving; it shouldn't take a death to prove the point. The argument that the cyclist assumes increased risk is absurd. If the woman had hit another car who is to say what would happen next. Maybe the second car would have caused a head-on with oncoming traffic and maybe more people would have died. If I take a gun, look around and don't see anyone, fire off a round and kill someone, I'll bet I'm going to jail. Doing the same thing with a car shouldn't be any different.

 

Correct.  You are at fault if you fail to yield.  And as such she had her license taken away.  Failure to yield isn't a criminal act...it is a traffic infraction. 

State's don't take licenses away for "failure to yield". At worst, it's a ticket. They took her license away because she was 89 years old. And I'm willing to bet they did so at the request of her family who may have been trying to get the keys away from her for a while.

My 90 yr old mother still drives. She's unwilling to "give up her wheels." She was involved in an accident about two years ago, getting confused what a green arrow means and we asked the police to have the state "re-test" her. They never did and she just renewed her license for another 5 years without even so much as an eye test.
There but for the grace of God goeth she.

 

The argument that the cyclist assumes increased risk is absurd.

The argument that a motorcyclist assumes increased risk is a statement of fact. If you're not willing to admit this to yourself you're burrying your head in the sand. Honest risk assessment is a valuable mental tool for any motorcyclist.

David B.

 

Seems to me that if you make a mistake through negligence and someone dies that there ought to be punishment.

A similar situation with a twist will be tested in court here this summer. In a highly publicized traffic accident, a car and a pickup were racing down a rural highway last month. The pickup hit a car and killed all three occupants. Furthermore, the pickup driver was drunk, and had a prior record of DUI. Even though the racing car didn't hit anything and the driver was sober, both drivers that were racing have been charged with three counts of manslaughter.

 

Of course I agree there is an increased risk by choosing to ride a bike. What I find absurd is the idea that by assuming that risk you are relieving someone else of the responsibility to simply be aware of your prescence. Does that little girl crossing the street assume the same increased risk because she is walking and not surrounded by 4000lbs of steel and plastic? A car can be a lethal weapon and the responsibility should be the operators to be safe, not everyone elses to avoid them.

 

Of course I agree there is an increased risk by choosing to ride a bike.  What I find absurd is the idea that by assuming that risk you are relieving someone else of the responsibility to simply be aware of your prescence.   Does that little girl crossing the street assume the same increased risk because she is walking and not surrounded by 4000lbs of steel and plastic?  A car can be a lethal weapon and the responsibility should be the operators to be safe, not everyone elses to avoid them.

Point taken. But, society has decided to accept some level of tradeoff on absolute safety versus the "need" to drive cars. People often kill someone without jail time in a car, you'll usually only see jail time if there was street racing or alcohol involved. I doubt the little girl in a similar scenario would cause the old woman to get jail time, but there would certainly be more furor. At least the old woman isn't going to be driving anymore.

David B.

 

State's don't take licenses away for "failure to yield". At worst, it's a ticket. They took her license away because she was 89 years old. And I'm willing to bet they did so at the request of her family who may have been trying to get the keys away from her for a while.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply they took it away because of her failure to yeild. I meant that she was faulted for the accident. And as such her age and the death were taken into account and her license was taken away. It was merely a DMV related punishment and not criminal.