Safest way to wreck a bike?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've been lane splitting since 1979 and I've been on the receiving end
a number of times... once while lane splitting in Japan a Hino pinched
off my path so between it and the guard rail I aimed for the center of
the door because not only is it softest part to land against but also
pivots like a spring to absorb energy... I avoided at all cost the
hard edge of the door... my Z400Fx Kawie was not damaged because I
thrust my shoulder into the door... the door caved but the owner was
apologetic and even offered Go Mien money on the spot...


Mary and our 1980 Z400Fx Kawie in Japan...
265309911_68cafa666f.jpg
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm


I just don't get this constant "splitting lanes" stupidity people on motorcycles insist
on doing. Isn't the whole purpose of divided lanes to keep traffic,um,divided?


A year-long California study of motorcycle lane-splitting has
concluded the practice is no more dangerous than motorcycling in
general, if the rider is traveling at speeds similar to or only
slightly faster than the surrounding traffic.

The maneuver becomes more dangerous, however, when a motorcyclist is
speeding or riding more than 10 miles per hour faster than the traffic
the cyclist is passing.

Lane-splitting occurs when a motorcyclist passes other vehicles by
riding between them along the lane line. California is the only state
that does not ban the controversial practice, frowned on by many car
drivers who consider it a safety hazard, and applauded by some
motorcyclists who say they consider lane-splitting a safety tool that
allows them to get out of risky situations.

Lane-splitting in California appears to be on the rise. The state
Office of Traffic Safety study found 62 percent of motorcyclists say
they lane-split on both freeways and other roads, a 7.5 increase over
2013. Seventy-five percent of riders between the ages of 18 and 24
report they lane-split on all roads, including freeways. Notably, the
survey found that motorcyclists were splitting lanes at slightly
slower speeds and in slightly slower traffic than the year before.
Related Stories Back-seat Driver: Motorcycle lane-splitters are
slowing down Related Links California Lane Splitting Habits Survey.pdf

The lane-splitting crash study, conducted by the University of
California, Berkeley, and commissioned by the California Highway
Patrol and the state Office of Traffic Safety, also found that
lane-splitters are less likely to be rear-ended by car drivers, but
are more likely to rear-end other vehicles.

Lane-splitters had a greater chance of being involved in a crash
during the morning and afternoon commute hours than motorcyclists who
were not lane splitting. The study also found that lane-splitting
cyclists who were involved in crashes typically wore safer helmets
than motorcyclists as a whole.

“What we learned is, if you lane-split in a safe or prudent manner, it
is no more dangerous than motorcycling in any other circumstance,”
state Office of Traffic Safety spokesman Chris Cochran said. “If you
are speeding or have a wide speed differential (with other traffic),
that is where the fatalities came about.”

The study was conducted statewide by 80 law enforcement agencies who
filled out a supplemental information sheet involving 8,262 motorcycle
riders in collisions.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
I've been lane splitting since 1979 and I've been on the receiving end
a number of times... once while lane splitting in Japan a Hino pinched
off my path so between it and the guard rail I aimed for the center of
the door because not only is it softest part to land against but also
pivots like a spring to absorb energy... I avoided at all cost the
hard edge of the door... my Z400Fx Kawie was not damaged because I
thrust my shoulder into the door... the door caved but the owner was
apologetic and even offered Go Mien money on the spot...


Mary and our 1980 Z400Fx Kawie in Japan...
265309911_68cafa666f.jpg



Love that bike!
 
Here is your answer: "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". Riding a motorcycle means driving for everyone on the road, anticipating their moves and , most of all, learning to use what weapons you have to protect yourself, namely using the brakes effectively (in the spirit of the numerous stereotypes raised during this discussion... right cruiser riders!!!!!) and learning evasive maneuvers (ie. countersteering). Inexperienced riders (ie. kids on "crotch rockets" and baby boomers on "chromed up land yachts") are typically over-represented because they fail to see the danger and don't know how to react when it comes knocking. Take a riding course, it may be the best investment you ever make. Oh, and if at all possible, learn to ride in the dirt, it's by far the best, most forgiving place to learn to master control of a bike...
 
So the "stiff" penalty for killing a man is 60 days.

There will be no justice for Pfc. Holden Jeffrey Philbrook, United States Army - as there is not for so many riders killed by careless driving.

Though none of us were present, no doubt that if the Tundra driver had not pulled his truck across a travel lane that he was unable to determine was clear, Pfc. Holden Jeffrey Philbrook would have ridden on that day.
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum


And its freaking LEGAL in some states (California, for one).


unless things have changed, it is NOT legal in all of Cali, only the greater Los Angeles area. and that is the only area in the usa that is legal to lane split and its supposed to be just 10mph over the traffic (up to 30mph).

i just returned from 2 weeks in Medellin, Colombia (city of 3+mil) and their the govt helps pay for people to buy bikes. bikes are allowed to lane split at any speed in any situation and there is a sea of them. at least as many bikes as cars. bikes do not pay tolls either.
 
Originally Posted By: sunruh
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum


And its freaking LEGAL in some states (California, for one).


unless things have changed, it is NOT legal in all of Cali, only the greater Los Angeles area. and that is the only area in the usa that is legal to lane split and its supposed to be just 10mph over the traffic (up to 30mph).

i just returned from 2 weeks in Medellin, Colombia (city of 3+mil) and their the govt helps pay for people to buy bikes. bikes are allowed to lane split at any speed in any situation and there is a sea of them. at least as many bikes as cars. bikes do not pay tolls either.


It is legal in all of California, currently. I've never been aware of it not being legal in all of California.
 
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Is it also legal in those certain states for cars to lane split as well?


Yes, in California. The vehicle code allows for two vehicles to occupy the same travel lane. If the lanes were wide enough, cars could "split" lanes. Splitting lanes does not mean riding down the line, that is illegal. You have to be in one lane or the other.

Ed
 
Originally Posted By: sunruh


unless things have changed, it is NOT legal in all of Cali, only the greater Los Angeles


Its the same despite a bill proposal that would have made it legal to share a lane... its
still officially NOT illegal to split in all of California...
 
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
So the "stiff" penalty for killing a man is 60 days.

There will be no justice for Pfc. Holden Jeffrey Philbrook, United States Army - as there is not for so many riders killed by careless driving.

Though none of us were present, no doubt that if the Tundra driver had not pulled his truck across a travel lane that he was unable to determine was clear, Pfc. Holden Jeffrey Philbrook would have ridden on that day.



Did you miss the part where the O/P state that the Pfc. was hard on the throttle through the first couple of gears? He played a role in this too. The driver of the pickup was not the sole person to blame.
 
Blame doesn’t matter when someone is killed in a collision. There is
rarely a single cause of any collision. The ability to be aware, make
critical decisions, and carry them out separates experienced riders
from all the rest. It is up to you to keep from being the cause of, or
an unprepared participant in, any collision.

As a rider, you can’t be sure that others will see you or yield the
right of way. To reduce the chances of a collision:

Be visible. Wear proper clothing, use your headlight, and ride in
the best lane position to see and be seen.

Communicate your intentions. Use the proper signals, brake light,
and lane position.

Maintain an adequate space cushion. Allow yourself enough space
when following, being followed, lane splitting, passing, and being
passed.

Scan your path of travel. Look at least 10 to 15 seconds ahead.

Identify and separate multiple hazards.

Be prepared to act. Remain alert and know how to carry out proper collision-avoidance skills.

We are reminded that cagers don't cause accidents... they only cause
emergencies... it's up to the rider to avoid the accident... every
vehicle we face is potentially our death...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
So the "stiff" penalty for killing a man is 60 days.

There will be no justice for Pfc. Holden Jeffrey Philbrook, United States Army - as there is not for so many riders killed by careless driving.

Though none of us were present, no doubt that if the Tundra driver had not pulled his truck across a travel lane that he was unable to determine was clear, Pfc. Holden Jeffrey Philbrook would have ridden on that day.



Did you miss the part where the O/P state that the Pfc. was hard on the throttle through the first couple of gears? He played a role in this too. The driver of the pickup was not the sole person to blame.


No I did not, did you miss the part where Jason said he did not see the accident/impact? He only "heard at least two gears wind up before it went silent".

If there was much blame to be placed on Pfc. Holden Jeffrey Philbrook then Gordon Frank Gardner would likely not have been charged at all.

Jason is not (I assume) a traffic accident reconstructionist and doesn't know too much about bikes (hence this thread) so he probably does not know that the average redline of a 600 cc supersport is around 14000 rpm and redline in 2nd is probably around 95mph. (I haven't found what bike model it was, if it was a 1000 the redline may be lower) so what was perceived as "wound up" or "hard on the throttle" may have only been the normal power band.

But it is all up to the courts now I suppose. Gordon's lawyer will do his/her best to blame Pfc. Holden Jeffrey Philbrook and to use the bias against motorcyclist and the fact that every single one of the jury has done exactly the same thing Gordon Frank Gardner did. He or She will do his/her best to avoid referring to Pfc. Holden Jeffrey Philbrook by name. Then in the civil lawsuit Gordon's lawyer (and Gordon's insurance companies lawyer) will do his/her best to convince the court that Pfc. Holden Jeffrey Philbrook would have not amounted to much so as to place as low as possible value on his life.

All because Gordon Frank Gardner pulled his truck across a travel lane that he was unable to determine was clear.
 
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
So the "stiff" penalty for killing a man is 60 days.

There will be no justice for Pfc. Holden Jeffrey Philbrook, United States Army - as there is not for so many riders killed by careless driving.

Though none of us were present, no doubt that if the Tundra driver had not pulled his truck across a travel lane that he was unable to determine was clear, Pfc. Holden Jeffrey Philbrook would have ridden on that day.



Did you miss the part where the O/P state that the Pfc. was hard on the throttle through the first couple of gears? He played a role in this too. The driver of the pickup was not the sole person to blame.


No I did not, did you miss the part where Jason said he did not see the accident/impact? He only "heard at least two gears wind up before it went silent".

If there was much blame to be placed on Pfc. Holden Jeffrey Philbrook then Gordon Frank Gardner would likely not have been charged at all.

Jason is not (I assume) a traffic accident reconstructionist and doesn't know too much about bikes (hence this thread) so he probably does not know that the average redline of a 600 cc supersport is around 14000 rpm and redline in 2nd is probably around 95mph. (I haven't found what bike model it was, if it was a 1000 the redline may be lower) so what was perceived as "wound up" or "hard on the throttle" may have only been the normal power band.

But it is all up to the courts now I suppose. Gordon's lawyer will do his/her best to blame Pfc. Holden Jeffrey Philbrook and to use the bias against motorcyclist and the fact that every single one of the jury has done exactly the same thing Gordon Frank Gardner did. He or She will do his/her best to avoid referring to Pfc. Holden Jeffrey Philbrook by name. Then in the civil lawsuit Gordon's lawyer (and Gordon's insurance companies lawyer) will do his/her best to convince the court that Pfc. Holden Jeffrey Philbrook would have not amounted to much so as to place as low as possible value on his life.

All because Gordon Frank Gardner pulled his truck across a travel lane that he was unable to determine was clear.



I didn't.

It just occurred to me that you were placing sole blame on the driver of the pickup and from what I could glean from Jason's post, the motorcycle rider was rapidly accelerating into the intersection.

I suppose the simple truth is this: Neither you nor I know 100% what happened in that intersection. You appear to be a motorcycle rider who sees people in cars and trucks doing stupid things all the time and may be a bit biased, and I am going off of Jason's account, which places some of the responsibility on the rider too. It may be that neither of us are "right".

I'd like to add that while the LEOs and the investigators are usually pretty good at what they do, they are not infallible. There many accounts- both here on BITOG and out on the interwebs of investigators making blatant mistakes. After all, everybody is human...
 
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
...
It just occurred to me that you were placing sole blame on the driver of the pickup and from what I could glean from Jason's post, the motorcycle rider was rapidly accelerating into the intersection.

I suppose the simple truth is this: Neither you nor I know 100% what happened in that intersection. You appear to be a motorcycle rider who sees people in cars and trucks doing stupid things all the time and may be a bit biased, and I am going off of Jason's account, which places some of the responsibility on the rider too. It may be that neither of us are "right".


I am a motorcycle rider, but I don't need to be to see stupidity on the road, I see stupid things from car truck and motorcycles on the road on at least a daily basis.

My point, two of them actually, is simply this:


  • Whatever anyone else did wrong that day, motorcyclist, other motorist waving across, the state - If the driver had not made a decison to cross the travel lane without a clear line of sight and verification that it was safe to cross the motorcyclist would not have been killed.
  • The motorcyclist was a person, with a name and a future, and a Warrior in the service of the United States, no one should forget that.


By his own admission Jason has a bias in this case, I also find for whatever reason his account of 2 gears wound out - doubtful, the bike would have been well in excess of 90MPH if that were truly the case. Also Jason did not report hearing the impact which I find strange. It could be that the silence was simply the end of the acceleration (vs the point of impact) and the cyclist was coasting or braking.

Conjecture yes, but no more than some of the other postings.

Non-riders seem to identify heavily with someone like Gordon, probably because it is easy to see how most anyone could find themselves in this sort of situation on most any given day with the right set of circumstances. Even Jason (whom I have a great deal of respect for, and makes many thoughtful post) stopped short of saying he felt sorry for Holden, while feeling sorry for Gordon.

My position is that Gordon should feel pretty bad since he was involved in a fatal accident. But I wish him no ill will, perhaps he can use his experience in some way that can save other drivers and riders from the same experience.

Originally Posted By: The_Eric
...I'd like to add that while the LEOs and the investigators are usually pretty good at what they do, they are not infallible. There many accounts- both here on BITOG and out on the interwebs of investigators making blatant mistakes. After all, everybody is human...


No doubt this is true, in fact I have personal knowledge of a case where a driver was charged with vehicular homicide, yet further investigation revealed the charge was unwarranted and the charges were dropped.

Still, as a general rule drivers are often not charged in car vs bike incidents. You can read countless accounts on ADV or most any other motorcycle forum you choose of drivers not being charged.

To the original question, much of it has been answered much more eloquently than I could, but one thing covered in an MSF course is that motorcycles frequently have more escape routes than a car if the threat is recognized.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I witnessed a motorcyclist get killed on Monday evening. He was on a crotch rocket and flew down the open right-hand turn lane (left and center lanes had stopped traffic) when someone turned across his lane in a Tundra.


The dreaded left turn in front of you at the intersection. One of the most dangerous scenarios. Especially dangerous if only the curb lane is open and other vehicles in your direction are obscuring your view AND the view of the oncoming turning vehicle. THIS IS A KILL ZONE. All left hand turns in front of you are dangerous but if you cannot see what is there DO NOT GO IN THE KILL BOX (which is the blind intersection).

I have been riding almost 40 years. I have had that scenario multiple times. What do I do? A) slow down to a crawl if necessary until I can see who or what is there. Then proceed. B)Pull up to the intersection slow down and turn right.

But NEVER-EVER enter a blind intersection unless you have a large "blocker" vehicle next to you that reduces the chance anyone in their right mind will turn in front of both of you at the same time.

This was taught to me by my MC safety instructor years ago.

As for the OP's question: There is no "safe way" to dump a bike. Low side is bad. High side is worse. I have done both.
I survived the high side just by chance when a drunk driver crossed yellow on me and I was able to actually clear his vehicle. So I grew wings and flew away.(about 40 feet)
grin2.gif


I can joke about it now.Not funny then.
mad.gif


The drunk ay hole went on to kill someone later.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Even Jason (whom I have a great deal of respect for, and makes many thoughtful post) stopped short of saying he felt sorry for Holden, while feeling sorry for Gordon.


As a rule, I never feel sorry for the deceased: they have no feelings and don't live on with any pain or suffering. There's no malice along with that. It probably comes from my dad joking (correctly) that his funeral plans aren't of much concern to him -- he won't be there to watch it! That said, I know his loss will be felt among his friends, his family, his unit, etc. I'm sure he was a valuable person in many circles.

I did say that I feel sorry for Holden's family, and I do, as they'll have to life with the grief. And I do relate to Gordon because, as you said, I've been in a similar situation before (so I'd fall for it as a member of the jury) -- you so often don't see the bike until it's already on you, for any number of factors. I will say that there's a distinct difference, at least in my perception, in riding styles that seems to correlate with the type of bike. Riders on Goldwings and Harleys are generally pleasant to ride with. They're not cruising at 20+ mph faster than others and they don't make choices like was made that day. I think it goes with experience, as you and others have pointed out. Riders with more experience aren't likely to make the same choices as riders without experience will make.

For Gordon's part, I think it was a dumb move to try to turn left at this particular intersection -- traffic always backs up into solid lanes with an open right turn lane. People fly down that open lane all the time, and not only at this intersection, but in situations like this everywhere. But the bottom line was he turned into an occupied lane. I believe in my heart of hearts that he didn't believe it to be occupied. Again, I think this was avoidable from that perspective alone: go up and make a clear U-turn instead of trying to cross traffic.

That said, I think that both of them contributed to the collision. It's very possible to be following the law and, at the same time, putting yourself into a very avoidable situation. There would likely have been no collision if either: Gordon hadn't turned in front of him; or if he hadn't accelerated down an open turn lane into what someone else termed a "blind intersection". One of those intangible "driving too fast for the conditions" things.

I intentionally stopped short of judging Holden's speed or his RPM, because it's very difficult to tell that. You could hear the bike wind up one one gear (not necessarily to redline, but with throttle opening that was loud enough that it was very apparent in my closed cabin with A/C on blast), pause for shift, and continue to accelerate in the next gear. I've since observed a complete lack of a skid mark. Did the bike have ABS and not leave a mark? I don't know. Was he skilled at riding enough to brake hard without leaving one? I don't know. Could he even have not seen the truck at all, due to looking down and watching his gauges or something? I don't know that either. I did not see the impact to know where he was looking. I did not hear the impact because, again, I was in a closed cabin with A/C on blast and the impact happened some 30-50 yards ahead of me, occluded by other vehicles.

All I thought at the time was, "that's not a good idea", when he accelerated down the open turn lane.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom