Who's at fault?

[birchyboy]

1st, this isn't me nor is it a friend. It's someone on another forum that posted a GoPro video of a crash saying that the car was at fault. Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=6jLZPh4dSiw

My contention is that that the rider is as much at fault as the car if not more. I think the car could have mistakenly thought the rider was staying in the far right lane because there was no signal when changing lanes. The car appears to be at fault as well because it appears they are attempting to make a U turn.

What say you?

[bulldog]

I feel the rider was more at fault; and basically just used bad judgement as a rider. He took the turn wide, then cuts back in without slowing down (listen to to bike keep reving as he continues to speed up) even though he sees that car. Any smart/experienced rider would have seen the car and at least slowed down in case they did that. Really trips me out when people are willing to "assume" and take that risk, I would have been on my brakes as soon as I saw that car cut in.

My .2 cents

[dirkterrell]

Yep, right or wrong in the legal sense, the rider should have taken actions to avoid the collision. He should have been scanning for cars as soon as he came around the corner and slowed/stopped when he saw the car moving. And if you are going to make the mistake of continuing toward the car, you certainly don't want to take a path that crosses the future path of the car. Go toward where the car has been, not where it is going to be.

[#1Townie]

Legally if he was speeding its the riders fault. Its been ruled time and time again that people fant judge the speed of a bike coming at them. As far as im concerned like bulldog said. His fault. He should have slown way down the moment the car pulled outn. The car looks like they will go right when it comes to cages fuck trust.

[The GECCO]

I agree with the others sentiments that the accident was 100% avoidable if the rider had been a bit more defensive.

That being said, it was 100% the car drivers fault. The knockdown poles and curb in the center divide are obviously there to keep people from turning left when exiting that lot and the driver had to turn slightly right and then come back left to go around the end of the poles/curb. Additionally, the parking lot exit has a triangle divider in the center, which means "right turn only". Both of those factors mean the driver had an obligation to exit the lot and stay in the far right lane for a reasonable distance. I think the rider assumed that's what the car was going to do.

It's true that the rider also committed an infraction by not turning into and staying in the far left lane, but that was not a contributing factor. In fact, had he (improperly) stayed in the right lane, the accident wouldn't have happened as the car would have turned out of his path. But again, he assumed the car was going to do the proper thing, and she didn't.

[Grim2.0]

I agree with the others sentiments that the accident was 100% avoidable if the rider had been a bit more defensive.

That being said, it was 100% the car drivers fault. The knockdown poles and curb in the center divide are obviously there to keep people from turning left when exiting that lot and the driver had to turn slightly right and then come back left to go around the end of the poles/curb. Additionally, the parking lot exit has a triangle divider in the center, which means "right turn only". Both of those factors mean the driver had an obligation to exit the lot and stay in the far right lane for a reasonable distance. I think the rider assumed that's what the car was going to do.

It's true that the rider also committed an infraction by not turning into and staying in the far left lane, but that was not a contributing factor. In fact, had he (improperly) stayed in the right lane, the accident wouldn't have happened as the car would have turned out of his path. But again, he assumed the car was going to do the proper thing, and she didn't.

This, looks like he made a left hand turn, merged over to the right lane while in the turn (which is not legal) then got back over to the left lane.

Both parties are at fault here IMO, the driver obviously making an illegal maneuver, but the rider did not make a legal turn and that accident was 100% avoidable, he did not make any effort to avoid the car and it was obvious the angle the car was at that she had the intent to go across. he didn't even brake you can hear him accelerate.

[longrider]

I agree with the others sentiments that the accident was 100% avoidable if the rider had been a bit more defensive.

That being said, it was 100% the car drivers fault. The knockdown poles and curb in the center divide are obviously there to keep people from turning left when exiting that lot and the driver had to turn slightly right and then come back left to go around the end of the poles/curb. Additionally, the parking lot exit has a triangle divider in the center, which means "right turn only". Both of those factors mean the driver had an obligation to exit the lot and stay in the far right lane for a reasonable distance. I think the rider assumed that's what the car was going to do.

It's true that the rider also committed an infraction by not turning into and staying in the far left lane, but that was not a contributing factor. In fact, had he (improperly) stayed in the right lane, the accident wouldn't have happened as the car would have turned out of his path. But again, he assumed the car was going to do the proper thing, and she didn't.

+1

While the accident was definitely avoidable by defensive riding it is still 100% the car drivers fault. Her move was completely illegal even if there had been no traffic on the road. I see it almost daily the way people refuse to respect right turn only exits

[Filo]

I am sort of with the Gecco. It was clearly avoidable. In fact, watching it I thought "there is no way this is the car he hits - he has too much time to react". Also, he didn't even try to slow down. So, from that point of view it was the rider's fault. From a legal point of view, I would say the car driver will end up with the ticket and be faulted from the accident. But really, there should not have been an accident as it was completely avoidable from the rider's part.

I'll bet the car driver never saw the rider coming around the corner before she started across the road.

[kawasakirob]

Looks like he was going about 30 when he and the car collided. Granted this is not fast and the brakes could be applied pretty firckin hard to slow down. It looks like it could have been avoidable....but it also looked like the car was going to head straight until the very last second. Tricky. But since everyone is a superhero rider on here I'm sure we ALL would have avoided it. The guys route around the car was getting pinched off pretty damn quick.

[#1Townie]

Looks like he was going about 30 when he and the car collided. Granted this is not fast and the brakes could be applied pretty firckin hard to slow down. It looks like it could have been avoidable....but it also looked like the car was going to head straight until the very last second. Tricky. But since everyone is a superhero rider on here I'm sure we ALL would have avoided it. The guys route around the car was getting pinched off pretty damn quick.

Considering i have avoided closer calls with a fucking semi hauling 80k pounds... im very certain i could have avoided this in a bike that needs very little room to stop.

Because we are the so called super riders i will just point out the mistakes he made from the moment leaving his drive. First he is a throttle junky. The speeds he used on his own damn street was much higher than they should have been. After every stop he was all about hearing that bike. His first left feom his drive. His right out on to that main street. Finally after the left. As a rider its up to him to make sure he makes it home safe. A car turning onto the street in front of you should always be a big part of your focus at that moment. Why? Because people are dumb and do dumb things. So this fuy in my eyes could have avoided this accident many times over. He never even gave his tires a chance to warm up. He also never even gave himself a chance to warm up. Accelerating at a car that showed many signs of not knowing where it wanted to go could have been fatal.

[Wrider]

I agree with the others sentiments that the accident was 100% avoidable if the rider had been a bit more defensive.

That being said, it was 100% the car drivers fault. The knockdown poles and curb in the center divide are obviously there to keep people from turning left when exiting that lot and the driver had to turn slightly right and then come back left to go around the end of the poles/curb. Additionally, the parking lot exit has a triangle divider in the center, which means "right turn only". Both of those factors mean the driver had an obligation to exit the lot and stay in the far right lane for a reasonable distance. I think the rider assumed that's what the car was going to do.

It's true that the rider also committed an infraction by not turning into and staying in the far left lane, but that was not a contributing factor. In fact, had he (improperly) stayed in the right lane, the accident wouldn't have happened as the car would have turned out of his path. But again, he assumed the car was going to do the proper thing, and she didn't.

Yup +3.

Car driver at fault, rider being stupid. Pretty easy to avoid something like that, and if you've been on the street for more than 2 or 3 months, you've probably avoided at LEAST one idiot like that...

[Filo]

Looks like he was going about 30 when he and the car collided. Granted this is not fast and the brakes could be applied pretty firckin hard to slow down. It looks like it could have been avoidable....but it also looked like the car was going to head straight until the very last second. Tricky. But since everyone is a superhero rider on here I'm sure we ALL would have avoided it. The guys route around the car was getting pinched off pretty damn quick.

When I see a car pulling out like that one did, the first thing I do is slow down because I assume the car will do something stupid. Just like he did. So, yes, I would have avoided that accident. I have been riding on the street for 26 years and haven't had an accident yet. Your mileage may vary.

[DemonRider]

Yup +4

Cars Fault, but Rider should have used better Judgment. Lesson Learned hopefully. JMO

[~Barn~]

"Fault" in a court of law is not always the same as fault in the court of public opinion. Sadly these two vehicle operators were destined for one another.

[dapper]

Drivers fault.

[TransNone13]

Classy, woman just stands there.

[kawasakirob]

I have been riding on the street for 26 years and haven't had an accident yet. Your mileage may vary.

Thats great. Glad you have never been down on the street. My mileage is significant, although I have not logged as many years in the saddle, I have definetely logged many-many- miles. I've been down...as my introduction to the street was more trial by fire/stupidity - although not to my dads liking as he tried teaching me as much as possible (he's another person who's been riding forever- while logging some SERIOUS miles- and has not been down yet)....but who cares? Yes this guy looks like a newb....and that is probably part of the issue why he went down. Looking at it, he could have squirted by if he had the juice, slowed down if he had the feel, swerved to the left...or swerved to the right....or just gone turtle speed once the car pulled out.

[mdub]

cars fault period!!!!

see how car came onto road? car should've stayed in inside lane instead of going all the way to left. that is basic driving knowledge. get in closest lane first, make sure farthest lane is clear before getting into.

[Drano]

I agree with everyone else as well, 100% driver's fault, 100% avoidable.

cars fault period!!!!

see how car came onto road? car should've stayed in inside lane instead of going all the way to left. that is basic driving knowledge. get in closest lane first, make sure farthest lane is clear before getting into.

I don't know if that video was shot here in CO or not, but my experience with the majority of drivers making ANY turn is that they rarely ever turn into their designated lane. Armed with that knowledge, it's unwise to ever approach a turning car without at least slowing down whilst preparing to make an evasive maneuver.

[Aaron]

It's already been settled it seems, but I'll clear a few things up.

In Colorado at least, we hardly ever assign partial fault, we typically go 100% in one direction, or list it unable to determine (he said she said). In this case, 100% fault to the car.

As a rider, clearly it was avoidable. But he hated his SV and wanted a new bike. I know the feeling actually

Now one thing, Townie mentioned the riders speed. Although stupid, it does not contribute to fault until he is over 20 over the speed limit. Under that and the Judges in my jurisdiction have ruled the vehicle with the initial responsibility to yield still has enough notice to judge speed and yield, and should assume vehicles oncoming are traveling above the posted speed limit anyway. Not that fault matters in my opinion, because in a car vs motorcycle, the winner is the one with the most lug nuts.

[Clovis]

Car's fault, totally avoidable.

But I want to fault the rider because he had his go pro pointed down towards his speedo... Did anyone else find themselves moving their head to "look up" while watching this???" I know the average driver only looks 50 feet ahead but riding has taught me to look at the road ahead, not at the road itself. You know, "look through the turn" -- scan a half mile down the road, ect.

Camera focused on the speedo tells me he just wants to show off how badass he is by showing his high speed (not in this video obviously but a general observation - it's like the youtube videos that consist of the speedo climbing to 300kph and that's all you see... whoopdie doo... )

This says new rider to me, which makes sense given the accident was a rookie mistake and 100% avoidable.

[#1Townie]

It's already been settled it seems, but I'll clear a few things up.

In Colorado at least, we hardly ever assign partial fault, we typically go 100% in one direction, or list it unable to determine (he said she said). In this case, 100% fault to the car.

As a rider, clearly it was avoidable. But he hated his SV and wanted a new bike. I know the feeling actually

Now one thing, Townie mentioned the riders speed. Although stupid, it does not contribute to fault until he is over 20 over the speed limit. Under that and the Judges in my jurisdiction have ruled the vehicle with the initial responsibility to yield still has enough notice to judge speed and yield, and should assume vehicles oncoming are traveling above the posted speed limit anyway. Not that fault matters in my opinion, because in a car vs motorcycle, the winner is the one with the most lug nuts.

Thank you for the added info.

[birchyboy]

The OP said that the driver of the car was found at fault and the insurance company is totaling his bike. He said that the other insurance company asked for his GoPro video and he gave it to him, and that the insurance company said the video corroborated the driver being at fault. I think he's a lucky guy.

[bulldog]

The OP said that the driver of the car was found at fault and the insurance company is totaling his bike. He said that the other insurance company asked for his GoPro video and he gave it to him, and that the insurance company said the video corroborated the driver being at fault. I think he's a lucky guy.

Yeah not surprising at all as in the "law" the driver was at fault. Hopefully this rider learned though that inexperience is what caused this to not be avoided. Like others said just because you are not at fault doesn't mean you really win in the long run if you are sitting in a hospital bed messed up....

Worst part about this all is I bet since they totalled his bike he goes and gets a faster one when it is pretty clear he hasn't learned the skills he need to advance yet