Total Motorcycle Community Forums

jaskc78 wrote:i honestly think you could take away every distraction possible in a car and it still wouldn't matter. the lady that caused the accident was 73 years old. here in tucson, that's a very common sight--the grey-maned silverback. there are a few of them that seem to still be aware of the fact that there are other drivers on the road, but many more of them seem oblivious to their surroundings. i don't think that 73 year old was blaring rap music through her aftermarket stereo or watching a DVD or probably doing anything other than staring directly ahead at her dashboard because she was, in all likelihood, too short to see over it.

yes, it's tragic and yes it's horrible, but no, i don't think any amount of bright clothing or brake-light flashing would have made any difference in this case. the only thing that would have saved that man's life was either him not being on the road or him breaking the law and passing on the right to get around the minivan. either way, that old lady was gonna cream that minivan just for making a perfectly legal left-hand turn.

I think (but I'm not sure) that the rider was going to make the left as well [it doesn't actually say in the article]. About the whole breaking the law thing to pass right....

You know, I had some relatives over from Pennsylvania (years ago) and I apparently scared the crap out of them passing a left turning vehicle on the right.

But in NJ - this isn't illegal (correction - passing on the right is illegal - avoiding a left turning vehicle and going around to the right is not).

I wouldn't think twice about going around the right in a single lane each direction with a vehicle making a left turn.

I do think old age had something to do with this. The whole re-verification of driving skills after a certain age and repeating every x years - doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. Some people won't give up driving until something happens.

Gunslinger wrote:How many times have you guys seen those shows where someone runs in to the back of a patrol car that's lit up like a christmas tree? You know, the cruisers you can see from over a mile away? You can wear all the neon green in the world and rest assured some moron will still manage to run you down. I don't know how this guy could have prevented this "accident". I would need more info to make that assumption.

I've been driving for 22 years. Driven probably 350,000 miles during that time. I hit a fence back in 1988 but I damn sure never killed anybody. Why should I give up my CD, power steering and A/C because of someone else's mistake?

Sometimes you can do all the right things and still lose the battle. I feel bad for this guy's family and to a lesser extent the driver. How do you live with yourself after something like that. Yet another reminder for us all to stay vigilant.

I've seen it, didn't think of it until you just mentioned it - and I remember thinking "That's unbelievable" ever time I see it. Most of those turn out to be drunk drivers.

edited to add: Hey, that's so cool, I've got around 350K miles driving as well. 101000 on my current car, 222000 on my car before this and 20K on my pickup before the Civic and an assortment of miles on the pieces of crap I drove when I was in high school.

sapaul wrote:After going through the K53 test here, we re educate riders. the K53 advocates that bikes stop in the middle of the lane effectively cutting off any escape route and also giving the impression that the bike's rear light could be a rear window car light.

We teach that the bike should be off centre and far enough back to allow an escape route, also, ALWAYS in first gear and check your rear mirrors before you stop and while you are stopped.

The latest stats we have are that in 80% of rear enders, the brakes were not applied at all. Cellphones being the biggest culprit

I don't know if it will help me much, but I tend to stop in the left side of the lane.

In this case I doubt if much would have made a difference, but I tend to think that if the blinkers on bikes were marker lights as well - it would help (well maybe at night). I was behind a bike yesterday night and after a brief distance all he was - was a floating tail light. In any lane position a bikes tail light might look like one of the three car tail lights, but with marker lights it would be pretty clear that no car has marker lights on either side of a brake light - at least at most distances.

But of course - those 80% of rear enders probably had no idea that they were going to stop - without using their brakes.

jstark47 wrote:My problem is I come to a full stop at stop signs, and a lot of impatient jacka$$ drivers around here assume I'll roll through just like they do. They end up stopping inches from my back wheel.

I come to a full stop because my 54-year old eyes need a second to scan the street onto which I'm going to pull out -- too many times I've been about to roll through and at the last split-second I see a car coming I didn't notice at first glance. There's some nice drab colored cars that blend in with the road (and don't use daylight running lights.... or even worse, don't use any lights at all at dusk.)

I come to a complete stop as well. Fortunately, in my part of NJ most of the intersections have advanced to traffic lights because stop signs just don't cut it. What I have been doing is going slowly to the stop sign to indicate - hey I'm actually going to stop. I may not be 54 yet, but I like taking my time in determining if it is safe to go or not.

Re: the original accident posted by RhadamYgg:

I'm really paranoid about being rear-ended, but aside from doing something proactive about it (staying in gear and always having an escape route), I was also (slightly) reassured by a statistic I read that a relatively small percentage of rider accidents actually involve rear-end collisions from other vehicles. Most are caused by rider-error on a curve, IIRC. Does anyone out there remember the actual statistic?

Grey Thumper wrote:Re: the original accident posted by RhadamYgg:

I'm really paranoid about being rear-ended, but aside from doing something proactive about it (staying in gear and always having an escape route), I was also (slightly) reassured by a statistic I read that a relatively small percentage of rider accidents actually involve rear-end collisions from other vehicles. Most are caused by rider-error on a curve, IIRC. Does anyone out there remember the actual statistic?

I always thought that the car turning left(right in Japan and England) in front of the motorcylist was the most common accident.

According to a 2007 NHTSA report only 5% of motorcycle fatalaties were from being rear ended. I do not know the % of motorcyclists that have been hit like this and walked away but I suspect it's much higher than 5%. What we need are bikes that are made from Nerf material so we can shoot through the intersection like a pinball. Come on HD I know you're listening.

Grey Thumper wrote:Re: the original accident posted by RhadamYgg:

I'm really paranoid about being rear-ended, but aside from doing something proactive about it (staying in gear and always having an escape route), I was also (slightly) reassured by a statistic I read that a relatively small percentage of rider accidents actually involve rear-end collisions from other vehicles. Most are caused by rider-error on a curve, IIRC. Does anyone out there remember the actual statistic?

I forget the stat - but it was a low percentage comparably to other causes - like single vehicle accidents due to speeding.

Gunslinger wrote:According to a 2007 NHTSA report only 5% of motorcycle fatalaties were from being rear ended. I do not know the % of motorcyclists that have been hit like this and walked away but I suspect it's much higher than 5%. What we need are bikes that are made from Nerf material so we can shoot through the intersection like a pinball. Come on HD I know you're listening.

That would be fun! It could be used as an added thrill of riding.

This article indicates that statistically training isn't having the desired effect on accidents. Personally, though, even if it doesn't affect accident rates - I'd rather have the interest and time to take the courses to learn to be proficient and keep safety in mind than not. It does mention that the type of person - even if forced to take a course to get a license, doesn't necessarily change their behavior. It also indicates that ABS appears to play a large role in reduced accidents. Since 50% of accidents are rider/single vehicle - it seems to indicate reduced accidents due to some of us not knowing how to brake and ABS coming to the rescue.

I had read about this Tragic Accident - on the lines of the start of this thread - multiple motorcyclists rear-ended at a traffic light by an apparently meth addled dump truck driver.

I've seen a little bit more about the original article, but the problem with all these motorcycle accident articles is that they tend to show the start of the story - but never follow through to who was charged with what - how long they spent in prison and etc.