Your totally wrong. She was 4-5 feet to the side of the roadway. And the other bikes were off far enough also.
It was the fault of the driver. No reason for them being in the other lane.

We couldn't go riding together anyway, because I would have no clue what you were trying to say.

Not to mention the car didn't "HAD to" do anything.  The appropriate thing to do would have been to stay in his lane and drive normally.

And you are clueless.

same here????

Eh, my phone ate part of my post once again.


The point remains.  The biker was hauling ass around a blind curve.  Once you're riding on the ASSsumption that the road ahead of you is clear, you're living on borrowed time.

Absolutely, but the question was who is at fault.  The bike wasn't going fast enough to have caused the accident and probably not fast enough to be considered wreckless.

The person at fault, legally, would be the car.  You would have a hell of a time trying to get the court to buy any other story.  Just go google some similar cases.

It's like saying she was on borrowed time cause she was drunk and walking home from the bar with a short skirt.  Stupid, maybe.  legally at fault, no.

I think he was clearly not going slow enough to remain wreckless. And his actions were also clearly reckless. He got himself killed because he was moving so much over the speed limit through a turn that neither he nor oncoming traffic could react in time to avoid him.

Who would be legally at fault would depend entirely on the exact wording of the yield law in Israel.  It might have something written along the lines of  'Driver shall be at fault if they fail to yield - as long as the oncoming traffic is moving at or below the posted limit of speed.  In the end, that doesn't even matter, because that could have been a car stopped to turn left or wait for crossing wildlife etc. that was going the same direction of the rider, and the result would have been 100% the same; the motorcyclist was driving too fast to avoid obstacles in the road and it got him killed.

The bike was actually going exactly fast enough to cause the accident. That's exactly what happened. The person crossing the dotted white line didn't cause shit; they could have done exactly what they did a thousand times and as long as someone didn't break the law coming the opposite way while showboating for a fucking camera, no accident would have happened. The guy on the motorcycle who was speeding caused the accident. It's simple, really, if you speed on a public road you are changing all of the posted 'rules' that people follow. If he was doing the speed limit and the car field to yield, you'd be right, but if someone is hauling ass at double the speed limit, it changes whether or not the car is at fault for not yielding.  The motorcyclist took away both his AND the car's ability to react and yield to eachother by driving way too fast around a blind turn.  The car was driving normally in a place that even indicated they could cross the centerline (dashed white line).  If the motorcyclist hadn't have been speeding, either party could have easily avoided the collision.

The car was following the law, passing in a place with a dashed white line, outside of the curve. The motorcycle was not, speeding around the corner at a high rate of speed and causing a head on collision because of his excessive speed. It's simple.

Ha,  good luck is all I have to say.  It would very rarely hold up in court that you could blame the speeder for not yielding.  Anyway I don't care to argue anymore, the car would be considered at fault.

Seems like it's situationally dependent, and changes by jurisdiction. Here's a post of a fellow who was cited for being at fault in an accident due to his speeding rather than the other person being at fault due to yielding right of way.  Looks like you lose your right of way in some places if you are speeding.

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67356

So it happens.  Sure, it's rare, but mainly because the problem with fault being assigned to the speeder is usually a lack of evidence that the speeder was actually speeding, where there is always evidence of someone not yielding right of way in the case of an accident.  But in this case there's a great video showing the motorcyclist driving way over the speed limit and that would likely put things on even footing with regards to fault at the very least.  How you can watch that video and deny that the motorcyclists speed caused that accident is beyond me, but whatever, keep telling yourself that he was in the right if it makes you feel better for some ridiculous reason.  While I'd be surprised if a jury blamed the woman driving a reasonable speed, passing roadside bystanders at a slow rate of speed, rather than the motorcyclist who was videotaped speeding around the corner and was obviously riding for a camera rather than trying to drive safely, you'd be surprised if they did blame the speeding motorcyclist because.... because he was in his lane.  Okay, I guess this why we have a jury :)

I think my favorite anecdote here was when someone on a motorcycle stuck his head out to look around a truck, a truck coming the opposite direction lopped off his head.  Lulz.

How about the one my momma tells about a supposed relative who used to go out riding at night with his two buddies back in the late forties or early fifties. Seems the relative would slow down while his buds would speed up for a few minutes then turn around and come back riding side by side. Well the relative would have sped up by then. When he approached his two buddies riding side by side, he'd go between them.

Well one night the pair of headlights was a coal truck.

I think mom believes that one.

He will not have the guts to do that again!

Was he riding a Kawasaki K2?  I had one and it would do two hunnert n' forty mile an hour.  Sold it 'cuz I got too scared.

I'd think you'd get scared long before you got to two hunnert n' forty mile an hour.

I worked my way up to it by strapping a JATO rocket to my El Camino.

As someone who almost had EXACTLY this situation in from the car side of things, let me put another possibility out there.   This has nearly happened to me (and several folks I know) going up Highway 14 in Colorado outside Fort Collins.   Its a similar road.   Its used up a lot of motorbikes, often plunging into the Poudre river.

The most common scenario has been this:  You approach a blind turn where the motorbiker just hit the turn from the other direction turning to HIS left.  The biker leans way into the turn and crosses into your lane, and there he is almost down on his knee and with his bike in your lane of travel.   The timing here is that he's at the apex of his turn....

The other scenario is where you approach a blind turn and the motorcyclist coming from the other direction is coming OUT of a hard turn to his right.   Sometimes on coming out of the the turn, they drift into oncoming traffic.   Its usually brief and if everyone's speed is int the realm of reasonableness, things work out.  The timing here is that the biker is out of the turn and went too far ....

When this happens, I brake and HOLD my lane.    But I have to tell you, my gut reaction, the one I have to overcome, is to swerve out of my lane where there appears to be an obstacle.  If one goes with that reaction, one would veer into the other lane Add speed and less reaction time?  Boom.

Not saying it happened here, especially as it looks like the main contributing factor was the driver giving too much space to the bikers parked to the right, and paying more attention to that risk than the speeding biker she didn't know was there until he came around the blind corner....

Look, there are always three laws.   I keep having to post this.    There's the law of society, the ones on the books.  There's the law of morality, the higher sense of "what's right."   But at the end of the day, there's the law of immutability.   The fact that the clock runs one direction, time goes forward, and there are no "do overs."

That last law is the one that suggests not to spend time on public roads showboating for the camera if you haven't hired traffic control for unwary motorists who are not otherwise going to be aware that you have set aside a part of the public roadway for your exhibition.   You may not be breaking a law, you may be morally entitled to be there as much as the guy (gal?) in the "cage mobile" but if things go south, as the one on the bike you're going to push daisies and you don't get another chance.    This was the law of immutability in action.   Legal fault may well land on the car, moral fault as well depending on one's point of view.   But the dead guy is not any less dead, and his refusal to recognize that legal and moral "rightness" always ALWAYS give way to the law of immutability should be a lesson here.

The term goes back at least fifty years that I know of.  Just another term for a car driver.  Kind of like bikers referring to their rides as "scooters" or "sleds" or even "bikes" for that matter.

When you go that fast on a public road you've made a bet.  You're betting that you can get away with it for just a moment.  If everything goes right you win, but the opposite is you lose.  The biker lost this one, he was the one betting he could get away with it.  

The cager made a bet too.  He bet that he could cross the center line to avoid the bikes on the side of the road and nothing would come around that curve before he could get back over.  He lost too.

Unless his lane was obstructed by the people messing about at the side of the road and he was giving them a wide berth, which is entirely possible. At that point the road was clear from the driver's perspective and their course of action may have been entirely appropriate.

Nobody in this thread has enough of the facts to be able to make a fair judgement on this.  

Tragic course of events for all concerned.

This video at 7:15 you can see how it looks coming from the other direction (going the way the car was). You'll see the gravel area on the right side at 7:20.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTmG8emhoUI



So first, note that the dashed lines aren't for passing but probably for turning traffic.



That's likely what happened: the car was turning right out of the gravel road area. As you can see most of this gravel area is being occupied not only by the bikes but by the camerawoman. This forces the following maneuver:







In effect, you could say had the camerawoman not been standing in the middle of the sideroad's exit, the car could've made a normal turn onto the road, and the guy could've gotten past him without hitting him. But still, I mostly blame the guy for clearly driving too fast for the situation. I've driven bikes on a few mountain roads like that with slowish traffic, and even then I went nice and slooow on the hard corners. If I couldn't stop in 40ft on those turns it was too fast, because that's the distance at which deathobstacles would present themselves.

Good analysis.   But depending on the speed of the biker and the aggression of his approach to the turn, he may have cut the corner so that the apex of his turn put him at or across the opposing lane of traffic.   As I said above, its a common hazard around here.

Yup, certainly looks like he came out of the turn and was just able to keep it right on the line as he straightened out. That was clear in the video at least. That plus the speed looks "reckless" to me, while the driver's actions are at most "negligent", probably not even that if he really had no choice to go around the people blocking up the intersection. As the driver, you can't expect some guy to come ripping out of the turn at 60+MPH right on the line, so even "negligent" might be going too far.





Just bad luck for the car driver, I think; very bad and avoidable luck for the rider. Accidents happen, this is why I'm glad I'm back on four wheels finally. A 30-40MPH head-on collision has gone from 10% survivability up to like 90%.