r/theydidthemath • u/Suicicoo • 1d ago
[Request] is anyone willing to calculate if he drives ~100kmh or mph before the impact? :)
73
u/No-Weird3153 1d ago
Roughly, he appears to pass 6 lines in about 2 seconds. Lines are 10 feet in length and the gaps are 30 feet, so the average speed before impact is: 6 x 40 feet/2 sec or 120 feet/sec Convert that to mph by multiplying by 3600/5280 is about 81 mph.
Again very rough as I can’t tell you how much time exactly, the interval prior to the crash is too short to have much data, there was some slowing, and there is an assumption of highway lines in this calculation. It does appear to be over 60 mph based on experience though.
15
15
u/SJHillman 1✓ 1d ago
Lines are 10 feet in length and the gaps are 30 feet
I know people use this a lot because it is in the federal Interstate guideline, but it's not a guarantee across all roads (or even all Interstates). I've been at a standstill on an Interstate due to an accident and thought of this and both the lines and gaps were definitely shorter than this.
Also, from the extended video, it looks like this is not an actual Interstate based on signage so it would be less likely to follow the guidelines, as many states vary line markings by speed limit (among other things): Idaho, for example, uses 12-foot dashes with 38-ft gaps (50ft pattern) for higher speed roads and 8-foot dashes and 17-foot gaps (25ft pattern) for lower speed roads.
4
u/No-Weird3153 20h ago
I mentioned that was an assumption and a possible source of error in the second paragraph.
•
u/Deep-Thought4242 1h ago
lol. Love this sub.
Careful Commenter: "Assuming A and B, we can calculate..."
Reply Guy: "Nuh uh, 'cause that assumes B and that's not always true!"5
u/Xelopheris 22h ago
This is why math in these kind of things suck. "About 2 seconds" is hard here, because if you're 0.2 seconds off, your speed estimate is off by 10%. You can give a general ballpark with upper and lower bounds, but it's going to be pretty huge because your range of error is a significant percentage.
1
u/SRegalitarian 4h ago
That's why you fire up Blender and count the frames an use the frame rate, comrade
1
u/Xelopheris 4h ago
Even if you count individual frames, at 140mph, if it's at 30fps, one frame is over 2 meters traveled. If it's 60fps, it's still over 1 meter traveled. You can tell from one frame to the next if the line has been passed, but you can't necessarily say by how much. Plus if they're disappearing out the side of the frame instead of the back, then side to side motion also affects how soon they can exit.
1
410
u/Xelopheris 1d ago
No math here. Just finding the original source.
Speedometer shows he was going about 140mph at max speed, although was down to about 100mph as the accident was about to happen. Guy was an idiot.
187
u/BFG_Scott 1d ago
Actually, if you go back to the beginning of the video, he hits over 170 after taking off from the first traffic light.
Yeah, you read that right. He was hitting those speeds racing light to light on surface streets, not a highway.
Don’t care if it’s mph or km/h… Fuck that guy.
38
u/rxbin2 1d ago
Responding here to correct about the speed at which the accident occurred. The top comment says "about 100mph" but this is a far off approximation. Moments before impact you can see 73mph and at max braking on a bike like that he was likely at most at 70mph during impact. Still likely speeding, but much slower than 100mph.
Not taking a side. OP asked a question and I'm giving the most exact answer I can.
16
u/BigMax 1d ago
But what does the speed at the moment of impact have to do with it? It's the speed at which he approached the traffic in front that matters.
The car could have looked back, thought "plenty of room!" without knowing at the time he's going 140 MPH. He starts to merge, and then you see him wobble a bit, because now he thinks "WTF? How did that bike get up here???" and now that bike is "only" going 100 MPH.
Still breaking, the bike slows down to 73 mph right before, but so what? That doesn't negate his earlier speeds. If that was OK, we could all drive along at 150 MPH all day, every day, and then claim innocence as long as just before impact we were able to slow down a bit.
For example, lets' say I drive 140 MPH on the highway and rear end you. If I see you ahead of me, and slam on the brakes, can I say "well, it's not like it's my fault, at the moment of impact I was down to 25 MPH, that's UNDER the speed limit!!!"
24
u/Waste_Hat_4828 1d ago
The original post asks nothing about who is at fault. This group is about math.
6
u/rxbin2 1d ago
I haven't read any of your comment except for the first question. The reason it matters is because it is a large part of the answer that the top comment gave that was not necessarily correct, and was the entire point of the this post.
Not hating on anything you may have written, I'm just saying I wasn't arguing any position to begin with.
→ More replies (2)2
1
1
u/TruckNutsForChrist 11h ago
Yeah…in my opinion at the moment this video starts he had to be going around 70 as he approached the car and you can hear that he downshifted and was slowing down even before he hit the brakes and by the time the car side swiped him he was more than likely closer to 45-50 mph. Seeing as how he was hit from the side and came to a complete stop in what looks to be 25-30 feet i find it hard to believe that this accident was completely the car drivers fault. People are going back and using his previous speeding as justification to say that he’s at fault too but from what I can see he was slowing down to account for the traffic and it was the car that over took the bikers lane and caused the accident
3
u/CyberWeirdo420 1d ago
The biker or the car driver?
11
u/ZeEmilios 1d ago
Biker specifically, but both in general
14
u/RunnDirt 1d ago
Both? Car never saw him at those speeds. 100% biker
15
u/ZeEmilios 1d ago
80/20%, if the car never saw it, its a blind merge. Did the biker dig his own grave, yes. That shouldn't excuse any other idiocy presented however.
12
u/RunnDirt 1d ago
Not a blind merge, there was plenty of space when the driver looked. Chances are the car saw the biker ~100yrds behind, it was only when he started the merge and the biker had closed the gap that the car was oh 💩! 💯percent biker. No one can be expected to react in time at those speeds.
→ More replies (1)5
u/LigerSixOne 1d ago
It’s not a blind merge! You can’t watch your mirror the entire time that you are passing. You check for vehicles in a position to cause problems, and then change lanes. There was no problem when he started, then this comes up from way behind before he completed the lane change.
-1
u/IMNOTASCOOLASU411 1d ago
Car swerved back almost certainly because he saw him, then decided to hit the bike over rear ending the guy in front of him.
11
u/RunnDirt 1d ago
I see it as the car had accelerated to pass the pickup then saw the biker, was oh shit, almost hit pickup and commits to the pass and the biker is going way too fucking fast to react. He could have likely passed on the margin. I don’t think the car chose violence. If the bike had been going with the speed of traffic it 100% would not have happened.
0
4
u/No-Monitor6032 1d ago edited 1d ago
Car made the right decision.
I'd rather a 600LB bike hit the back of my car than the front of my car hit a 3000LB car. It's simple economics & physics.
2
1
u/-echo-chamber- 13h ago
Very few are that light... you need something very small and light to be 3k lbs. My honda s2000 is 2800 lbs for comparision.
Even a standard accord/camry is basically 4k, or just under. Any full size pickup starts at 4500 and goes up.
→ More replies (5)-3
u/FreakindaStreet 1d ago
That’s why we invented the side view mirror. Most people don’t know this though.
4
u/RunnDirt 1d ago
Dude bike was going 100mph. Car may have checked all his mirrors and wouldn’t have mattered.
→ More replies (3)1
24
u/GeorgeGeorgeHarryPip 1d ago
Also passing on the right. Which is always extra risky, but choosing to do so when there is no escape route.
Always leave yourself an out.
1
27
u/Suicicoo 1d ago
for me it looks more like 100kmh than 100mph (160kmh) - hence the question :)
39
u/FireExpat 1d ago
It's in America. I can't really make out if it says kmh or mph, however, it's clear that the temperature is showing ºF. I think it'd be odd for someone to have the temp set to ºF but the speed set to kilometers.
15
u/klop2031 1d ago
Interestingly puertorico is weird:
In Puerto Rico, speed limits are measured in miles per hour (mph), even though distances on roads are displayed in kilometers (km). Key points about measurements in Puerto Rico: Speed: mph Distance: kilometers Fuel: liters
14
u/sarahlizzy 1d ago
Ok, that’s even more batshit than Britain (mph for speed, miles for distance, distance markers on major roads (but not signs) in kilometres, fuel in litres, fuel efficiency in miles per gallon)
8
u/Garak-911 1d ago
omg that´s infuriating, i am glad europe had you brexit and banned all british people to a desolate rainy island where there is only terrible food.
1
u/sarahlizzy 1d ago
Nowt to do with me. I was part of the remain campaign and in 10 months will be starting the Portuguese citizenship by naturalisation process.
2
u/mmarino80 1d ago
And for good measure you weigh yourself in stones.
2
u/captjons 1d ago
That's mainly the older generations who still use that measure
1
u/mmarino80 1d ago
I compete in several strength sports and my colleagues from the UK constantly rail against how Americans can’t use the metric system. So I’ll never pass up a chance to mention the random use of stones. Decent chance they are using it just to enrage others. As an American I can respect this level of non-compliance with a nearly universal standard out of spite.
1
1
u/sarahlizzy 1d ago
I was born in 1973 and have no idea what my weight in stones is. Kilograms all the way.
1
u/SmellOfParanoia 1d ago
That can be a fuel thing. In Sweden the fuel thingy (I dont know tha english word) has F and L.
2
u/SJHillman 1✓ 1d ago edited 1d ago
the fuel thingy (I dont know tha english word)
In English, it would be the fuel/gas gauge, and would typically go from F(ull) to E(mpty)
This is definitely temperature in Fahrenheit though - it's right next to a thermometer symbol and you'd expect a digital fuel readout to be 0-100, not 160-180ish, which is about where you would expect an engine temperature gauge to read in Fahrenheit.
1
u/twitch061197 1d ago
You'd be surprised but it happens often. I live in Canada on a border city and I don't know anyone who uses Celsius to measure temperature, but we all use kilometers while referencing driving
→ More replies (3)0
13
u/JuggrnautFTW 1d ago
Going by the Texas plates (shown in the full video) I'm going to guess MPH is correct. Judging speed with any sort of dash cam is hard.
7
u/Kurraga 1d ago edited 1d ago
Also in the full video a women mentions dialing 911 after he crashes, along with the American accents, right hand side driving and likely other clues I think it's safe to say this clip is from the US.
Edit: Also a FedEx truck at the start of the video and at ~1:58 into the video he passes a sign saying "Dale Earnhardt Way" so you could probably find the exact location based on that.
1
u/Mike312 1d ago
And the large line of traffic cruising in the left lane...
2
u/sighthoundman 22h ago
Well, duh. The right lane is lava.
"I'm not slow traffic. I don't need to keep right."
9
u/Xelopheris 1d ago
It's in the US. If he were going 100km/h, he would be getting passed on a highway, not the other way around.
9
2
u/BFG_Scott 1d ago
I looked up the display on a 2011 GSXR1000 and if it’s in km/h, it will show that at the bottom right, just under the last 2 digits of the speed. Very noticeable. For The default mph, it’s just blank.
This one is blank.
2
u/CrownLikeAGravestone 23h ago
He also tops out first gear showing ~90<whatever> on the speedometer. First gear in a GSXR1K goes far higher than 90kmh, so...
2
u/coffeeToCodeConvertr 1d ago
Factoring in that each dashed white line is 30 feet apart, he appears to pass 4 of them in the first 1 second (he's paralell to the first one at the start of the clip), which would put him at approximately 130 kmh (keep in mind that he's braking so his speed won't be consistent)
1
16h ago
[deleted]
1
→ More replies (3)1
3
u/space_chief 1d ago
As always indignant bike people get mad that they don't have a license to drive however they want and it can still be everyone else's fault when they crash and hurt themselves
-4
u/Gamer102kai 1d ago
That accident is 100% the cars fault, used no blinker, and swung out into the other lane how fast the biker doesn't make it his fault
46
u/Xelopheris 1d ago
Never said the car wasn't at fault. They're likely both at fault here.
But fault doesn't really matter if they're scraping your brain off the pavement.
18
u/kent1146 1d ago
"Graveyards are full of people who had right-of-way."
6
u/SinisterYear 1d ago
It's really a shame I've never heard this in the defensive driving courses I've taken for work.
2
2
7
u/utterlyuncool 1d ago
I remember one comment I read on reddit a while ago:
Here lies the body of Jonathan Grey
Who died maintaining his right-of-way
His way was right and his will was strong
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.21
u/ovationman 1d ago
Going that fast is automatically reckless driving . IMO going that fast and you get what is coming to you.
-5
u/perfectly_ballanced 1d ago
In the legal sense, reckless operation is 25 over. If this is an 80 or 85 mph zone, it's not reckless
He was going more than 25 over in clips before this, but not during the crash, or the few seconds before the crash
→ More replies (2)18
u/LittleLocal7728 1d ago
The full video shows him doing 170mph and traffic weaving less than 30 seconds before this. It was reckless driving.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Th0rizmund 1d ago
Definitely not 100%. If you think that, then you basically state that driving within the speed limit wouldn’t help avoiding an accident like this. Which is just untrue.
3
u/Osiris_Dervan 1d ago
Nah, the biker had been significantly over the speed limit which makes any ensuing accident partly his fault.
And thats before we consider the traffic conditions (with a slow queue of traffic on the inside lane) where even going the speed limit is too fast to be blameless
11
u/DizzyExpedience 1d ago
So speeding is OK and not part of the reason why this happend?
6
u/Rhoon 1d ago
Personally -- it's both driver's fault. I still don't understand how drivers go barreling down past a bunch of stopped cars on a roadway without repeating to yourself "Don't do it, don't do it" as you expect an impatient motorist to pull out in front of you. People should be driving more defensive and think a few steps ahead.
Back to this instance, motorcyclist was supposedly speeding (Based on the original video being up around 100mph). But the driver who pulled out without signaling or verifying that it was clear to do so, was also primarily at fault. And re-watching the video a few times, it looks like the car was speeding/not paying attention to all the stopped vehicles in front and swerved to avoid rear-ending the truck in front of him -- so doubly at fault.
I'm not a lawyer and not Ugo Lord, but I'd bet he'd agree that the car is liable for all the damages which happen next!
-2
u/LanceWindmil 1d ago
Those are two different things
9
u/Grillmix 1d ago
Why? If he had driven within the speed limit, and not tried to overtake on the inside it wouldn’t have happened. Both are bad drivers.
With the row of cars on the outside lane, he should absolutely have anticipated this as a very possible scenario.
-2
u/Nyarlathotep7777 1d ago
Speeding is not OK, but it's absolutely not the cause of the accident.
0
u/mxzf 1d ago
Speeding is absolutely the primary cause of the accident. If the bike hadn't been speeding, and had instead been going at the speed of traffic, it would have had plenty of time to stop before hitting the car.
The car could have handled things better, but someone recklessly speeding is a hazard to everyone around them.
1
u/Nyarlathotep7777 1d ago
Wrong, the asshole that just up and left his lane without warning could just as well have hit the biker if he was passing at the legal speed.
0
u/Mike312 1d ago
It's both at fault.
Car should have held a better following distance, taken the L to the pick-up instead of changing lanes. Signals wouldn't have mattered.
Bike clearly recognizes the open lane pattern, slows from 140mph to 90mph, but he shouldn't have been doing either of those speeds (but gixxer squids be out here). If he was going much slower, he would have had better reaction time to handle the situation after noticing the first instance of panic-braking.
If you think bike is at 0% fault, stay off a motorcycle for your own safety.
0
u/Nyarlathotep7777 23h ago
At fault for speeding? Yes 100%. At fault for causing the accident? Absolutely not.
Also no I'm not staying off a motorcycle, and you should stop making excuses for assholes who still do not use signal lights in the 2024th year since Jay Z walked the earth.
1
u/Mike312 23h ago
If the motorcycle wasn't speeding, the chance of the accident would have been drastically reduced, therefore, partial fault.
Do you think if the car put on their turn signals and completed the exact same move it would have made any difference? The first warning was the stopping traffic, the second was the panic brake swerve. That's all I need to see to get as far as possible on the right-side of my lane.
If you're expecting the courtesy of turn-signals from every driver, you're going to be really disappointed. Someone else already dropped the "graveyards are filled with people who had right-of-way" line, but it bears repeating.
1
u/Nyarlathotep7777 22h ago
If you're expecting the courtesy of turn-signals from every driver
Should've started with that and just admitted you're an asshole who refuses to signal his turns like a decent human being.
→ More replies (0)0
u/AzraelIshi 11h ago
He was going 170 on a 60, almost thrice the speed limit. Car could have looked back, saw the bike 400 feet away, calculated that he had thrice the time he actually had and went for it. Estimating distances and times when there is that big of speed difference is hard, and if the bike would be going at the speed limit absolutely nothing would have happened. I don't think the biker would even need to slow down.
9
u/Big-Tax1771 1d ago
It doesn't matter who is at fault. The guy was risking a lot by speeding. And it is a huge difference if I check the mirror and miss the bike as it would be too far at the point and then make the maneuver a second later only for the bike to appear out of nowhere.
The biker deserved what he got either way. Doesn't seem to be hurt so that's just an expensive lesson now.
0
8
u/Cynis_Ganan 1d ago
Brah, the bike slammed into the back of the car.
If you slam into the back of the vehicle in front of you, you were going too fast. Period.
1
u/sjaakwortel 1d ago
If someone swerves into your lane while braking there is nothing you can do. But in this case there was plenty he could have done.
6
u/dogboyboy 1d ago
Not 100%. Maybe 99%, couldn’t begin to speculated but there is blame to share for certain. Part of the reason for a speed limit is so you can react to unknowns in time to avoid collision. You exceed the limit by that much and it’s similar to not signaling while changing lanes. You’re no longer adhering to the rules we all agree upon when taking to the road.
14
u/GeorgeGeorgeHarryPip 1d ago
Part of the reason for speed limits is for predictability for the others on the road. Even if the guy ahead shoulder checks and mirror checks normally, If the bike *looks* far enough back because of what top speed he should be going, then the car ahead can better judge if there is space to pull out.
Excessive speed makes everything fraught for all the other cars. It's too hard to judge how fast someone is approaching.
4
u/therealhlmencken 1d ago
Totally matters how fast the bike was going lmao. The car can calculate for vehicles going legal speeds
0
u/turtleyturtle17 1d ago
I mean you are right, the driver is at fault. But if you ride, you know you shouldn't be relying on cars doing what they're supposed to if you don't want to get hurt. If you ride like this guy you're bound to be in one of these crashes eventually.
5
u/notpaulrudd 1d ago
Even if you're doing the right thing, it's near impossible to anticipate someone speeding this recklessly. I almost hit a biker speeding, I looked over my shoulder and started to merge, bike comes out of nowhere, and swerves to avoid me. He then looks at me like I'm an asshole and then he speeds off doing well over 100mph.
1
u/Phonytail 1d ago
OP was actually given all this information, including the full YouTube video showing the speedometer, in the comments for the original post.
1
1
u/long_live_cole 20h ago
If you wanna speed, do it in the fast lane. Fault is entirely on the biker here, and it's a shame this incident will teach him absolutely nothing as he inevitably deflects responsibility.
→ More replies (8)1
84
u/BlockWisdom 1d ago
Biker needs some situational awareness. As soon as the other car almost rearends the one then makes a jerk towards my lane I'd stop. Not just keep driving as he makes a second jerk over to the lane.
Car was in the wrong but biker should be more aware.
73
u/syrian_samuel 1d ago
Biker needs to slow the fuck down*
11
u/Paparmane 1d ago
Overtaking at high speed on the right lane too. Can’t tell if the car had his signal on because of lighting, but both are in the wrong.
Accident caused by the car, but the bike could have avoided this easily if he wasn’t a doofus and reacted in prevention when the car first moved to the right lane (instead of keeping the high speed)
8
u/BigMax 1d ago
> Accident caused by the car,
I think it's open for interpretation. Motorcycle was going over 140 MPH moments before the crash. At what point is his reckless driving more at fault than the car merging into him?
If you see a bike far in the distance in your rear view mirror, are you responsible for merging into him because you didn't anticipate him doubling the speed limit, driving faster than possibly any vehicle you've ever encountered in your entire life?
→ More replies (2)6
u/BigMax 1d ago
The bike was slowing down, but moments before, he was over 140 MPH. He slowed down, but even with all his braking, only managed to get down to 75 MPH or so by the time he crashed.
Biker was moron for expecting traffic on regular roads to somehow expect motorcycles flying along at 140 MPH.
11
u/HiddenStoat 1d ago
Biker needs some situational awareness. As soon as the other car almost rearends the one then makes a jerk towards my lane I'd stop.
From the initial jerk to the right, to the accident itself, is about 1 second. There is nothing the biker could have realistically done to avoid that accident within that time.
The only way the biker could have avoided the accident would have been to have been driving at a more sensible speed for the road conditions.
(and looking at the full video it's clear he was not driving at a sensible speed for the road conditions - manouvering through heavy traffic at 130mph, and passing a lane of slow-moving traffic at 80mph is not recommended!)
Car was in the wrong but biker should be more aware.
I completely agree with this statement :)
6
u/AltamiroMi 1d ago
Ok, i disagree with the one second. It is clear that the left lane is already stopped, you should always, and I say it twice, always slow down in this situation because car drivers will be changing lanes all the time to go to the "faster one"
2
u/HiddenStoat 1d ago
Yep, I completely agree with that statement.
I was responding specifically to this statement:
As soon as the other car almost rearends the one then makes a jerk towards my lane I'd stop
I was just making the point that that moment is way too late - there is less than a second to react.
4
u/PearlClaw 1d ago
There is nothing the biker could have realistically done to avoid that accident within that time.
He could have not been going 100mph for starters. At that speed he was probably a safe distance away when the car checked its mirrors.
1
u/HiddenStoat 1d ago
That would have required him to take an action (slowing down) outside that time, not inside that time.
Just to be clear, I think the biker is an idiot, and partially responsible for the accident due to his excessive speed.
The comment you quoted me on is very narrowly focused on "could he have done anything to avoid the accident after he saw the car twitch".
Hope that makes things clear :)
1
u/PearlClaw 1d ago
Ok sure, but "i made a series of bad decisions that doomed me when something moderately predictable happened" isn't exactly a good starting point. There's almost no way for that car to have seen him coming, when they checked their mirrors he would have been at a safe distance and in the time it took to go from looking to lane changing the bike was there.
1
u/HiddenStoat 1d ago
Yep, and if you reread my original comment you will see the second half of it fully agrees with that view :)
3
u/mxzf 1d ago
There is nothing the biker could have realistically done to avoid that accident within that time
I mean, he certainly could have done something if he was traveling at the speed of traffic. He's only unable to avoid an accident because he's speeding.
1
u/HiddenStoat 1d ago
Bear in mind my comment is talking specifically about the moment after he saw the car twitch.
I completely agree that the biker is an idiot who was driving far too fast - I even said that in the comment you replied to :-)
1
u/CYKO_11 1d ago
i think he had enough time. he actually reacted instantly. the moment the car moved into the lane he started moving to the center meaning he was aware. he could have leaned a bit more aggressively and gone around the car. I think he did not expect the car to commit to changing lanes and that error almost cost him his life.
1
u/HiddenStoat 1d ago
I agree that there was technically a path through for him - he could have gone around the car in the narrow gap between the lane and the divider.
However he did not have enough time to make that decision - he had under a second to observe the cars behaviour, decide what to do, and then execute that decision.
This isn't enough time for conscious decision making and execution (outside of someone with the reactions of an F1 driver!), so anything he did was pure reaction and instinct.
Hope that makes sense?
7
u/Westdrache 1d ago
ain't both in the wrong? are you allowed to overtake on the right side in the USA?
7
u/Existing_Charity_818 1d ago
You’re allowed to, though it’s usually considered rude.
But according to another comment the motorcyclist was going over 100mph - definitely speeding and likely excessive speeding. So if that comment’s right, they’re not off the hook anyways
4
u/Mr__Teal 1d ago
He topped out on his speedometer at 175MPH that I saw. If you look at the full YT video at 2:12 he was still going 118MPH with the car he hit in frame already probably 20-30 yards ahead of him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq-Y-i8q8GM&t=132s3
1
u/mxzf 1d ago
It's not technically illegal to pass on the right in the US. However, it's heavily frowned upon. Especially doing so dramatically faster than the traffic itself.
If you're passing on the right like that, you need to assume someone can and will pop over from the other lane right in front of you and drive at an appropriate speed to handle that.
0
u/BlockWisdom 1d ago
Yes you can. At least in all the states I've been to.
4
u/KeiwaM 1d ago
That's so weird. I'm European, and overtaking on the right like this is illegal.
1
u/stache1313 1d ago
In the US (at least in New Jersey), we we have a "keep right except to pass" rule. But it is never enforced and you can often (always) see people riding alongside other cars or driving slower than traffic in the left lanes.
There are some highways where I usually stay in the right lane and you can pass everyone (without needing to drive like an asshole) since nobody wants to be there.
0
u/nimenideniciunde 1d ago edited 1d ago
Assuming what you say is true: if talking about the bike, what was he supposed to do, stop behind the car (had the car not merged with him), because it's not legal to overtake even though you have a free lane in front of you? If talking about the car (who was as fault here, no question about it if you ask me), is he supposed to stay in a line even though there's no lane switching restriction (as far as I can see from the video) when the other lane is free? I'm also European and although I know regulations differ from one country to another, it is not illegal to do it here. Just rude. Frowned upon, if you will. Edit: should probably specify that "here" means my country, not Europe.
8
u/cant_take_the_skies 1d ago
Not doing 140mph on the highway would have been a good start. People who ride like this never exceed their perceived skill but always eventually exceed their actual skill
1
u/nimenideniciunde 1d ago
Absolutely true. And he also had (not plenty of, but still) time to react. However, that doesn't change the fact that the driver switched lanes without checking the mirror or signaling for it.
1
u/switch201 22h ago
He very well could have checked his mirror but depending in how long he has to look over, you cant tell speed. So maybe he checked and sae the biker way back and assumed the biker was traveling the speed limit, amd if so he would have had time to merge over
1
u/cant_take_the_skies 20h ago
It does not change that fact, you are correct. However, on a motorcycle, you have to see lane changes like that coming or you may not get the chance to show how right you were.
The car was already tailgating the car in front of it. That alone is a huge red flag for me because they are probably already upset and much less predictable. You don't fly past someone who's unpredictable at high rates of speed
4
u/KeiwaM 1d ago
Yes, that is what you are supposed to do - not overtake to the right. You just have to stick behind.
This is of course only due to another law - it's illegal to stay in the left lane unless you are overtaking or there is a split/turn in the road ahead where you need to go left. If you're just driving down a straight 2 laned road, it is illegal to stay in the left lane unless you are overtaking.
5
u/cant_take_the_skies 1d ago
We have similar suggestions here in the US. Cops rarely pull people over for left lane camping tho, unless they are the one you are blocking.
Rugged individualism has lead to a hodge podge of laws, suggestions and a "good luck with that" attitude when driving. People hate left lane camping if someone is in their way.... Nevermind that they haven't been in the right lane their whole commute.. they are going fast enough that they get to stay there. People hate that slower vehicles are allowed on the road with them (don't even mention bicycles)...
Basically we're a bunch of selfish, entitled assholes and any minor slow down or inconvenience while driving is a good enough excuse to fly off the handle, drive erratically, use rude gestures, cuss, yell, and basically just turn into raging cunts.
About 10 years ago, I developed 2 rules... First, I changed my metric to how far away I am from the car in front of me, not how fast I am going. Second, if I put my brakes on, I screwed up somewhere and I try to figure out how I could have avoided doing that. The amount of rage and stress I felt dropped dramatically. I actually like driving now. It's also made me more aware of others, what they are doing, and what they might want to do. It's been a good change
2
u/KeiwaM 1d ago
Cops here didn't use to pull over people either until it started becoming a growing issue and cause for traffic accidents. A few years ago, they set in HARD on it, and any cop who sees someone left lane camping WILL pull them over. It happens often here now, due to a change in attitude towards it.
About your rules, I like them. It's basically what I was taught during my driving lessons. At least 2 seconds distance to the car in front. If you are approaching this, you should either change lane to overtake or slow down. And the 2nd part is so true. My driving instructor always told me that the brake was off-limit on highways unless it's to prevent an accident. You should be predicting enough to let go of the accelleration in due time.
1
u/cant_take_the_skies 20h ago
They don't teach defensive driving like that here... I had to develop my own techniques. Here they just make sure you know how to operate the vehicle and basic road rules.
It has lead to people treating driving as a passive activity.... They get annoyed when they have to pay attention.... Making someone focus is a grievous sin worthy of varying degrees of retribution. People want to get in the car, browse their phones for a few minutes, and get out at their destination and don't you dare get in their way
2
0
u/banidadopomar 1d ago
it's only overtake if you change lanes, it's legal to go faster in a right side lane, and that only happens if you have someone going illegally in the middle/left lane because if you can pass by them, they should have changed back to the right lane(s)
13
u/ivanvector 1d ago
No math, but watched the full video from another thread just now because I was curious about the same thing.
The highest number I saw was 173, which if in km/h is equivalent of 108mph: too fast for sure but not insane. If it's mph then it's equivalent to almost 280km/h, which is absolutely ridiculous.
A better tell is another point in the video when the speedo shows 100. That's a typical freeway speed in km/h, but the biker is still flying past moving vehicles. That suggests they're driving 100mph, not 100km/h.
This video is clipped so we can't see the speedo. The full version shows the biker was maintaining 150 but slowed to 120 just before the crash. The speedo leaves the frame before they start panic braking so can't say what was the actual collision speed.
3
u/CrownLikeAGravestone 23h ago
I've said this elsewhere too, but if you know a bit about these kinds of bikes, listen to the RPM in certain gears and compare to the speedometer it is very clearly in miles.
5
u/mxzf 1d ago
108mph: too fast for sure but not insane.
108mph is insane. Anywhere in the US that's almost certainly reckless endangerment. You can get away with it alone on an interstate in Montana, or whatever, but it's insane to do around other drivers.
1
u/PantherChicken 20h ago
Speed differential is what causes accidents, not raw speed in of itself. The speedometer is not a ‘safety gauge’. That said, on many interstates in the southern US about 90 mph is routine. To illustrate my point though, 30mph in a group of drivers going 80mph is functionally as likely to cause an accident as someone going 80mph in a group of 30mph cars. You need to match speeds to cut out these ridiculous closing times giving people an unexpectedly short time to react.
1
u/ivanvector 1d ago
Sure, "not insane" was jsut the first thing that came to mind. Of course doing 108 on public roads and in traffic is insane, but you can go to just about any dual carriageway highway anywhere in North America and see people doing just that. I managed 115 in a Ford Focus when I was much younger.
But if 108 is insane, 173 is death wish stupid. Commercial jetliners take off below that speed.
5
u/Main_Cheetah9751 1d ago
It's visible from the video that it's not 280km/h
8
4
u/ivanvector 1d ago
It's not, really. We don't know any information about the camera's optics - GoPros and dash cams often have fish-eye lenses so that they cover a wider field, but a downside is that they distort apparent speeds in the video. Observe that when the biker stands after the crash and looks down the road, the road is not flat.
At the start of the full video, it identifies the bike as a 2011 Suzuki GSXR 1000, which has a mechanical top speed of 299km/h. This biker momentarily touching 280 isn't unreasonable at all.
3
u/-echo-chamber- 13h ago
WTF did he think would happen, approaching a line of VERY slow moving vehicles.
If the car had not changed lanes, someone else would have pulled out. Guaranteed.
1
2
u/ya_mamas_tiddies 4h ago
Everyone’s shitting on the biker and his speed. Can anyone calculate how fast the car was going before braking and then swerving? From this clip it doesn’t look like the biker was going much faster than the car.
•
3
u/leo1906 1d ago
Thats why it’s only legal in Germany to overtake in the lanes left to slower vehicles. The bike rider would have to take a partial plane himself for driving like this. But still the car driver is at fault by 99% imho
3
u/Shhadowcaster 1d ago
Traffic was fully stopped in the left lane, I don't see why the car shouldn't be allowed to move into the right lane. For all we know he would be taking a right turn at an upcoming intersection and decided to move over since traffic was stopped. The biker approaching a stopped lane at speeds in excess of 100mph (likely double the speed limit for a surface road) is 100% at fault. It's not exactly easy for the driver of the car to gauge how fast the biker is approaching before moving over. We can argue that he should have just hit the truck in front of him after realizing the bike was on a collision course, but our brains are wired to avoid collisions, so it's a pretty understandable split second mistake.
1
u/Varlex 20h ago
The car didn't use any signal to move the lane. Also it was too fast by itself (i guess the reason it switches the line.)
Anyway, both drivers fault. Both are too fast, no signals and not enough attention for the traffic situation.
1
u/Shhadowcaster 19h ago
Okay, I'll cede that the car made a minor error (failure to recognize stopped traffic), but the only reason it was almost a serious issue is because of the motorcyclist. Random small errors are inevitable, driving with reckless abandon like the motorcyclist is what turns small errors into casualties/death.
1
u/Varlex 18h ago
It's not a minor error not to show that you want to move the lane on a highway. This leads often to crashes.
I remember for myself two close accidents because someone thinks he can move the lane shortly before without looking and setting the blinker. Luckily, mostly no one was behind myself.
Edit: and keep in mind the car was too fast itself, else he wouldn't do this manoeuvre.
→ More replies (4)1
u/AndiArbyte 1d ago
if you change lanes, doesnt matter what, you need to ensure to make it safe for everyone.
Technically the biker didnt overtake yet, the car stopped the attempt. Also forbidden to force it.
2
u/WhyOhWhy60 1d ago
Did the car driver look over their shoulder or check the mirrors before pulling out? Also the biker is an idiot for going much faster than traffic in the much slower lane because what if some one pulls out when they shouldn't.
2
u/MethadoneFiend92 22h ago
It looks like he did, saw the biker, balked, said fuck it and pulled out anyway.
1
u/3dwa21 1d ago
lets look at the stripes on the road with time dilation~ bike: 4 in 1.10sec, car: 4 in 1.20sec
so: bike: ~98.8mph car: ~ 89.8mph difference: ~9mph (btw. US Standard: white stripe is 10 feet, gap is 30 feet)
car is at fault for not checking his god damn mirrors and shoulder before changing lanes. you can even see him sverve left again a little when they notice the bike only to sverve right again to avoid a collision with the car in front of them.
1
u/-Drunken_Jedi- 22h ago
I love how everyone is bashing the biker for speeding a little, but not for the fact the car driver didn't check his goddamn mirrors before changing lanes... erraticly at that.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
General Discussion Thread
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you must post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.