ace10134

Here's a hypothetical question...

• Speed limit is 45 mph
• Car A - vehicle driving the speed limit
• Motorcycle B - motorcycle driving 80 mph, swerving through traffic

Car A is driving down a 4-lane road in the right hand lane. He checks his mirrors and checks behind his shoulder and puts his turn signal on to move to the left lane.

Motorcycle B is zipping through traffic at 80 mph and coming up behind Car A. He switches over to the left lane to pass Car A just as Car A is in the process of moving over to the left lane.

Car A completes his move to the left lane when the motorcycle hits him.


Who would be at fault? I think the guy speeding (Motorcycle B) would be, since he was going far over the speed limit and it isn't reasonable for anyone on the road to expect someone going that fast.

Theoretically, when you look back in your mirror, everyone should be at the same distance they were before, since everyone would be going the speed limit. If someone's going faster, I say they deserve the accident and should be at fault, since the person changing lanes shouldn't have to expect someone breaking the law.

However, I'm curious if anyone knows what laws state about this? (in any state in general).

godesshunter

Speeding is breaking the law. He is at fault.

Orthonormal

In Indiana, if the car was fully in the new lane prior to the collision and the motorcycle hit the car from behind, then the motorcycle is at fault. If the motorcycle was in the lane and was struck by the side of the car as the car moved over, it's likely the car at fault, or perhaps shared fault if it can be established that the motorcycle was speeding and driving recklessly.

The Indiana law kind of sucks.

ace10134

Yeah my friend in Arizona (where I live too) said that it's usually a shared fault, but the one changing lanes is usually most responsible.

I guess best thing to do is change lanes super quick so that no one could sneak in to your side and then they would hit your bumper and they'd be at fault :P

cause it seems like if you're in the middle of lanes, you're going to take all or most of the fault, even if the other driver is driving like an idiot (which sucks, but laws aren't always fair)

Anyone else know more laws about this? I'm simply curious, since I was talking about it with a friend.


Seems like we've established that...

If Car A fully completed the lane switch and Motorcycle B rear ends him, then it is Motorcycle B's fault.

If Car A side swipes Motorcycle B, it is 100% or mostly Car A's fault.


Now I wonder, what if Motorcycle B rear ends Car A while Car A is still changing lanes? It's not a side swipe, and I'm thinking that would be Motorcycle B's fault then since you're responsible for avoiding things directly in front of you... but the lane change mixes it all up.

ARK

If you rear end something, you are at least 50% at fault in MA. If the car is in the process of changing lanes and the bike rear ends it, then the speed of the two vehicles would be taken into account. With the bike speeding by 35mph, the fault would mostly (if not completely) be put on the bike.

Bladecutter

I hope you have a witness to corroborate your "motorcycle speeding" theory, because if you don't, then the motorcyclist can tell the judge that you changed lanes without ever looking in your mirror, as they were there for a while, and watched as you never turned your head in order to look over your shoulder to see if anyone was really in that lane next to you.

Then when asked why they didn't avoid you, they just simply say they were out of options, as they were boxed in their lane, with you coming over fast.

Motorcyclists have been countering the "We never saw them" defense that car drivers take with "They never actually looked" counter-accusations, and its been working very well.

Unless you have a witness to agree that the motorcyclist was speeding, or unless they admit it themselves, you're going to lose big time.

BC.

tronicj

As a motorcyclist, that drives the speed limit. I have almost been hit numerous times by cars not looking.

Asking a police officer friend, he would site the motorcycle if he had any proof he was going over the speed limit.

He has seen a accident almost just like this. Motorcycle was not wearing a helmet, so he did not have to issue any citations. In his report he noted car was not at fault.

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

There is a pretty big flaw in this tactic. Granted, I could see it winning plenty in court for judges the don't know the value of properly positioned mirrors. But for a driver that has properly positioned mirrors, looking over your shoulder isn't required, and certainly adds plenty of risk of hitting something in front while you have your head turned (which happens plenty too).

usnidc

generally, regardless of other factors, if the motorcyle hits the car from behind, he was either following to close or speeding, in which case if the car was making a legal lane change, the fault lies with the motorcycle.

back in my motorcycle riding days, most of my time in traffic was spend dodging other drivers, I always assumed they didn't see me.

zoom44

which brings us to one of my driving pet peeves.

people when you are changing lanes, CHANGING FRAKING LANES. dont slowly ease into the new lane over the course of a fricking half mile or more. change lanes NOW. it shouldn't take you more than a couple of dashed white lines to completely change lanes.

for instance i hate those bastards that start changing into the turning lane right when it starts and barely finish the change at the intersection. then the guy in front of them stops for the light and slow changer has left the *** of his car hanging out blocking the straight lane.

monchie

Speeding is mostly the cause of an accident.

Bladecutter

Flawed or not, its the truth.

I spend plenty of time every time I ride my bike watching not only the traffic in front of me, but the occupants in the cars next to me, to look for signs of impending stupidity.

I remember one particularly fun event riding my touring bike on the Boulder Turnpike, cruising along in the left lane, when an idiot in a white Ford Explorer next to me turned on his left turn indicator, and came on over into my lane.

With my finger on my horn, and I'm right next to his window the WHOLE time, he still keeps coming over. He doesn't identify the horn, and it is VERY loud, nor does he ever turn his head to look to see if there's anything next to him. Never glanced in his mirror, never looked left at all.

Now he's 3/4's into my lane, I can't accelerate forward, there's a concrete wall to my left, and lots of 70 mph traffic behind me, so slamming on the brakes isn't the best choice either, and now his mirror is in my elbows range. So I whack it three times real quick, while staring right at his head.

Finally, he looks at his mirror, and then looks out his window, right at my face.
That's when I scream at the top of my lungs "YOU STUPID F*****G A*****E!!! WAKE THE F**K UP!!!"

His reaction was instantaneous:

All the blood drained out of his face, leaving him ghost white, he ripped the wheel hard to the right, ran off the road, and spun his Ford Explorer out at nearly 70 mph.

This event happens way more than I prefer, but if a car driver DOESN'T turn their damn head, they probably will not see a motorcyclist at all.

Turn your damn head, please. It only takes a second or two for you to look over, and answer the question "Is there a motorcyclist there?"

I ask this question every single time I drive, and am about to change lanes, or make a turn. I have never nearly hit a motorcyclist, not matter how fast or slow they were going.

BC.

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

I do agree with the necessity of awareness, and agree that people often never look. I get merged into in a car often enough that I can really see and believe the motorcycle trouble with the same. Even driving a car I watch people's body language quite a bit, or at least keep aware of it as much as possible.

That being said, my point is not that checking around you isn't needed, it's that with very few make/model exceptions, you can set up the mirrors in a modern vehicle so that you CAN see all around you, including the danger zones, without having to turn your head.

Most people simply fail to do so.

The side mirrors are specifically there so they can cover the adjacent lane from the far edge of your peripheral vision to at least a few feet farther back of your rear bumper, if not more. Awareness of objects approaching from the rear in any lane is easily accomplished via the rear view mirror well before they enter the area where they would have to take evasive action if you were to merge over. Being aware of everything around you and paying attention is what is missing from far too many people.


It scares me when I see someone twisting half around in their seat, or leaning forward and putting their cheek on the steering wheel trying to see into their side mirror, just to check what should be entirely possible by simply moving your eyes slightly. Plenty of THOSE people have been ones to merge into me because they no longer have directional control of their vehicle for a critical few seconds.

wrightcomputing

iTrader: (5)

The question is obviously very biased. A motorcycle rider would never hit a car that appropriately changed lanes. On a bike you pay so much attention to the traffic around you and if you hit a car it is because they pulled out in front of you. Regardless of whose fault the law says it is, 99% of Bike (both Bicycle and Motorbike) are caused by drivers not correctly checking what is going on around them.
When I did my motorbike test it was called a lifesaver look. It's that last glance you have when you move into the lane that covers all the blind spots in your mirrors, you should do it on a bike of in a car.

Also hitting a bike on the highway often results in a dead biker, I hope that is not the case here but do you really want that on your conscience. Look twice save a life!

pistonhater

Please allow me to play devil's advocate here for a moment

Although I agree with what has been said, I've also come across a good number of motorcycles (mostly speed bikes with younger kids) that scared the **** out of me by cutting in front of me at super mega high speeds.

So....there's a lot of reckless bikers out there too.

And with respect to those who are actually good riders and responsible all along; I'm sure there's a percentage of motorcycle accidents that were indeed provoked/caused by the riders themselves (not saying that's the case with the scenario the OP shared above)

ace10134

I think people's perception about cars not seeing motorcycles is a bit distorted... I've road a motorcycle for 2+ years and never got cut off any more than I do in a car. It happens to both cars and motorcycles. Now one of my friends who goes nearly double the speed limit a lot of the time says that "Car drivers are terrible and never see me!". I drive the speed limit, and haven't had problems.

I like your police officer friend, he sounds intelligent haha.


Lol no, it's not a biased question. I own a motorcycle and have been riding for 2+ years, I have nothing against motorcycles (motorcyclists who go stupid fast are another story).

If a motorcycle is going double the speed limit swerving through traffic and a car changes lanes, the motorcycle has a good chance of hitting the car. It's nearly physically impossible for the car to react to someone going that fast who is also constantly changing lanes. The car driver is being 100% safe. The tough part is proving that the other person was speeding drastically.

And your statistic about 99% caused by cars is completely incorrect. I suggest you google "[YOUR STATE] crash statistics", and your state most likely has that information publically available.

Something like 45% of motorcycle crashes in Arizona were caused by "No improper action by the driver", meaning that a car caused it. The remaining percent are due to the motorcyclist (I should mention that car crash stats are very similar to this too, the reasons for crashes are nearly identical whether it's a motorcycle or a car).

ace10134

This is still a question we haven't resolved:

Now I wonder, what if Motorcycle B rear ends Car A while Car A is still changing lanes? It's not a side swipe, and I'm thinking that would be Motorcycle B's fault then since you're responsible for avoiding things directly in front of you... but being in the middle of the lane change shakes things up. I'm guessing it'd be partial fault.

usnidc

I think is all comes down to if there is enough proof (witnesses, skid marks, etc) to show that motorcycle B was traveling at an excessive speed.

I commute on I66 in northern virginia everyday. I carpool with my wife and we travel in the HOV lanes. We are often passing much slower traffic in the normal travel lanes and cars often (usually a Prius) will try to get into the HOV lane when there is not really enough gap. In this case, it would be the car's fault, because the motorcycle is not necessarily speeding, but still moving much faster than the car but close to the speed limit. if the bike was doing 100 and the car changed lanes in front of it, then it should be the bike's fault.

A turn signal does not give you the right-of-way, it just lets other cars know your intention.