What constitutes reckless driving on a motorcycle?

I would agree. Do you ever ride 30+ over the posted speed limit in a residential? Just curious? I for one couldn't fathom doing that? Now on the freeway... that is different.. I use use speed and horsepower to stay safe.

In residential areas .. I use self control to stay safe.

 

in a car making a left turn you would?should mebbe slow down right?now twice the speed limit in a residential is in my neck of the woods would be betwix 60 and 70 miles an hour.when you decide to do that yolu assume a risk.you made the decision to play russian roullette.is it safe noooooo sir.i think it is reckless,i would hope it would be wreckless.as i ride in the city and exceed the speed limit frequently i know i am at fault.you can judge and flame if you like im easily criticized,thats how you learn right.but yes in my honest and humble opinion i believe the rider in question was at fault.

 

Rule of Law is what will dictate this scenario. What I mean is if the cager made a left hand turn, or did not yield the right of way, pursuant to the State law. The speeding biker is not at fault. The cager violated their right of way.

Now we can all agree, as reasonable people, the motorcyclist is a moron/ squid/ etc if they were speeding. But the court really won’t care. Again, it all depends upon the State this hypothetical situation happened. Both drivers could be cited, one for failure to yield, the other for reckless driving/ excessive speeding, or only the cager for failure to yield.

And flya750, I have to say this, since it hasn’t come up really. If you think a court or jury will decide in favor of the motorcyclist, even when it is clearly NOT their fault, you would be wrong. Hell, the cop will probably heep a bunch of charges on them, even for things they didn’t do!

In case nobody’s noticed there is a huge bias against motorcycles. Even if in you scenario the motorcyclist was doing the speed limit, wearing full gear, has taken every safety and training class known to man and goes to church on Sundays and helps Old Ladies take in their groceries. The Jury and/ or Judge ain’t gonna care. Why? Because of the bias. See when your into motorcycles, you are screwed. Your case won’t be heard in front of 12 VFRW members. The judge isn’t going to be Derstuka. It is going to be a non-rider. The person who’s windows have been rattled by loud pipes daily, the person who keeps getting passed on their commute home by squids or really even by us sensible riders only doing five miles and hour more are hated on by the general public. They probably know somebody who’s been maimed or killed while riding. They don’t have the bug, they don’t get it. So when your sitting in front of them, they don’t see the responsible motorcyclist you are, they see everything bad motorcycling sometime represents.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve been at a party and when people find out I ride, I have to defend motorcycling to its fullest. I don’t get asked, normally, how, when, why I started to ride. Instead it’s trying to explain why so many crash, why bikes are so dangerous, I have a wife and child how can I be so selfish to ride, etc, etc.

These are your jurors; good luck.

The bias has us all by the ….

BZ

 

Your insight in this scenario is honest VFRchick ! Thanks you for your honesty and opinion.

One thing I'm trying to gain here by posting this scenario is that us cycle riders need to be honest with the circumstances of accidents like this and I'm glad to see such great integrity by the fellow VFR riders on this site. Which is more than I can say for other fellow VFR riders on other VFR sites.

Once again... I truly appreciate your honesty.

 

I think Derstuka should be the judge of all incidents involving cars and bikes.

And I especially liked VFR Chick's ability to use the word "unbeknownst" in proper context.

I patiently await Nungboy"s response, take your time.

Go ahead and flame me, I know I'm being a smartass.

By the way, Bubba has probably called it, bikes get no love in court, the only time I've ever seen it go any other way or even heard of a biker getting a break in court is if the cop just doesnt show up.

So if youre on the cager side, congrats, you win, if youre on the biker side, sorry bout that .

Yes, both share some liability for what happened in the real world, but that's not what the final outcome will most likely reflect.

There's my honest opinion.

 

In this scenario no one wins IMHO. But I think there is certain blame for the squid rider for sure.

 

I used to testify in CA in bicycle accidents as an expert witness as to the standard of care for cyclists. The usual scenario is someone describes a situation hypothetically and I would testify whether the cyclist exhibited the right standard of care. These were civil cases having to do with insurance money, usually. There is nothing to say that a jury cannot find both parties partially to blame. It also rarely mattered what a police officer said in a police report. You would be amazed at the number of times, expecially in small towns where a cop might no one of the parties they cite the "stranger."

If a bicyclist was going twice the speed limit (presumably down a hill ) and was hit by a car turning left (also the most common bicycle-car accident scenario), I would certainly testify that the bicyclist was not riding safely and would be at fault for the accident. Though I wouldn't be asked to say anything about the car, clearly if the driver looks up the road and sees a vehicle far enough away to turn in front of it given the speed rules, then I would say it was reasonable for the car to turn. It the car had reason to think the bike was speeding, then it should try to avoid the accident and would be responsible to some considerably lesser extent if he or she didn't. I would certainly say that if the motorcyclist was found responsible in this case, I think justice had been done.

By the way, you have a right to make a left hand turn, at least the last time I checked. And if you start your turn safely and enter the intersection (used loosely) you have a right to that piece of the road and if some hits you who could have avoided hitting you, they are at fault. The law doesn't let say things like, "Gee, I don't think that guy should be in the lane so I am going to smash him." We don't get to decide if someone entered a part the road legally. If they are there, we have to avoid hitting them. This is a big issue for bicyclists who often have to "take the lane" to be safe. If car drivers decided that just because that doesn't look right to them they can hit them. We don't get to make the judgment that the person didn't belong there and therefore had not rights. If they are there, they have rights. If they entered it right in front of you, then they violated your right to the space you are in and moving into.

 

Thanks for your input Bubba. I agree that there most likely is a biased against bikes, probably for good reason. A squid is a Squid... but we wouldn't be riding sport bikes if we didn't love the thrill of speed. And I would hope the police/judge would take into account witnesses citing the cycle riding faster than the posted speed limit. I think allot has to do with the attorneys as well. In how they try and defend the case.

 

Good stuff Ewryly.

 

I'm not a lawyer (I have a soul and a conscience - heeheehee), but I seem to recall that in cases like this, awards are based upon the degree of fault (contributory negligence) of each party, e.g., 60/40 or 70/30 or 90/10 or the like. I guess that would be in the case of a civil suit. Oh, hell. What do I know! But what I do know is that there is absolutely no excuse for exceeding the speed limit in a residential area. In addition to be against the law, it's just plain morally wrong.

 

Basically it's this, just add a motorcycle in place of the car as it's a person that's charged not what one was operating.

reckless driving legal definition of reckless driving. reckless driving synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

WOW!... So you sound like you have had real life experiences with these cases such as this and it also sounds like I am correct in saying the left turn law is NOT always in favor the oncoming traffic. At least in terms of civil cases. There can be fault found in both cases.

 

Bubba, in this particular case.. the cager was charged big time and not the cycle rider. Let's just say the cycle rider didn't fair well either. What do you think happens to a cycle rider that is being squid like? Nothing good I assure you.

 

Being an ex-officer in another life and only going off the scenario that was given (I really dont like what if questions)..... A decent officer should unfortunately cite the cager for failure to yeild the right of way in the intersection if the intersection is marked with a stop sign on the cars side of the road and none for the motorcylest. Thats just based on the scenario given. Now if you have witnesses that says that the cyclest was speeding then an investigation would insue. This last scenario the car would be citedfor the same thing and the cyclest would be cited for wreckless endagerment and a speed estimated by damage to the vehicles skid marks ect.ect. Now we can go on with the what ifs from here. But the citation is not saying that your guilty. The citation just says that this what the judge has to reveiw and make a judgement. A judge can change the charge as needed for better or worse.:soapbox:

 

Anybody doing 30+ MPH over the limit in town is an idiot, regardless of the vehicle they are driving....

 

Excellent post diVeFER!!!

Yes the cager was cited for failure to yield..and Yes there were witnesses of the cycle speeding. (Several)

This goes back to my point that the cager should have a good attorney but in this case they did not. IMHO

But you add great insight into the matter thanks.

Let's just say the cycle rider didn't fair well hitting the cage. But I would think the cager should counter sue for reckless endangerment? Trauma caused etc.? Heck.. the cager could have been seriously injured as well directly due to the reckless cycle riding. What if the cycle hit the passenger door where there was a passenger? That cycle traveling @ a high speed would make for a real bad day for that passenger.

 

Reckless driving is usually defined something like the willful disregard for the safety of persons or property. (speeding excessively and what have you)


Car failed to yield. Obvious ticket for the cage.


If police can confirm from accident reconstruction and the amount of damage caused, they can issue the motorcycle a speeding ticket or reckless driving. But that's hard to do given the only witnesses you mentioned were the vehicle operators.

The case so far is in favor of the motorcyclist given the number of cases where vehicles have been known to make left turns in front of them.

 

In this case the witnesses were all 3rd party. I have not fully confirmed yet... but I do believe one of the witnesses was a cage that was passed by said cyclist going very fast prior to the accident? Again. I am still confirming that. But I am told that was the case and is in the police report along with other 3rd party witnesses. I'm awaiting a copy of the police report.

If anything.. this thread may not teach us much about the law of the left turn...maybe it does? But it clearly shows that cycle riding is dangerous enough as it is... when you add excessive speed in a residential area you are asking for BIG trouble. So be careful out there fellow VeeFR'ers. I know that I went riding this past weekend all I could think about was how important constant concentration and safe riding is essential to making it home safely to kiss my loved ones. Safe riding got me home and it will again in the future. So hopefully the noobs will take this thread to heart.

 

lets see by law I am correct.. but courts determine by what?(law) oh yeah whats writen in law book so therefore based on that conclusion case closed..as a cyclist a car pulling out in front of me should get death penalty if I die(by fire)if injured pay twice as much as all bills, medical expenses ,lost work, lawyer fees,and suffering, with mental anguish if I have any of that....then have 100 hours commuity service helping motorcycle accident victims..:thumbsup:

 

My point of view.

The Cager:

He is making a left turn, presumably on a green light. and not a green arrow. Regardless of how fast an approaching vehicle is going, he must not pull into the path of that vehicle until such a time he is sure he can complete his maneuver in safety. In this case, he could not. He has committed the offense of Fail to Yield to Oncoming Traffic. That stands alone.

The Biker:

The bike is traveling at 2 X the speed limit. If the evidence is there, he stands a strong probability of being cited for speeding at least. And rightfully so. Does this constitute reckless driving. That depends on the jurisdiction you are in. Here, reckless driving amounts to either Driving Without Due Care and Attention, or Driving Without Reasonable Care and Consideration. If there was something more than plain speed, I would suggest the latter. Had a collision not taken place here the charge would be Excessive speeding. Here, speed alone does not constitute dangerous or Reckless driving. There needs to be another factor, ie: frequent and unsafe lane changes, one handed driving, Wheelies and the such.

This covers the legal aspects. Now the Civil side is another story. Insurance companies will assess blame either totally one party, or divide the fault between the two. It can be 50 - 50 or as an example 70 - 30, depending on the circumstances. Insurance companies do like to find both partially at fault. This opens the door for loss of Safe Driving discounts and the increase of insurance costs.

I am not an insurance adjuster, but I would tend to find this about 70 for the cage and 30 for the bike. It was the cage's movement that resulted in the accident. The bike's speed is a factor that led to the misjudging by the driver of the cage.

Next case.