Motorcycle crash experts

[waggy]

Originally posted by: 911paramedic
We are trained to observe a few things so we can have an idea of the mechanism of injury, so here's my professional opinion.

That kid was going very fast at the time of impact, it's a Lincoln Towncar, very heavy and well built. (EDIT: 5 star rating, 5,534 lbs.)

[*]The passenger side tire was blown from the car being pushed laterally from the impact.
[*]The frame is twisted. (look at the roof deformity, rear window blown)
[*]The front quarter panel/drivers door is pushed in ~10 inches, and that is on the post which is the most reenforced part.

Who is at fault? Kid was driving waayyyy too fast and that lady had no chance of seeing him coming if she was pulling out of that driveway with cars parked along her side of the road. You can see a minivan parked right where she needed to see down the road as she pulled out here. There is no way she could have seen that kid coming down the street on a motorcycle, the kid was probably crouched down to boot. She does have a responsibility to pull out safely, but with him traveling at that speed she never had a chance of seeing him.

P.S. If she pulled out 1/2 a second earlier she probably would have been killed too, that would have put the impact squarely in the center of her door and not on the post.

yap this is what i thought. he had to be going pretty fast to do the damage he did. Combined with the how he was ticketed for doing 100MPH in a 25mph zone says a lot.


The cbr and its like are really poweful bikes. It does not take much to get that bike up to 60+mph.


either way its a sad story.

 

[bsobel]

Otherwise, these "a kid that young had to have been at fault simply because he shouldn't have been riding that bike" arguments are invalid, because society thinks that he should.
Clear?

No Vic, the argument isn't invalid because you've declared it as such. You can apply the same to cars. There is no law that says my sons first car can't be a corvette or ferrari, however it won't be (sorry son) since drivers need time to learn the proper skills. I'm sure the kid wanted that bike very badly, the parents where idiots for allowing it.

Bill

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bsobel
No Vic, the argument isn't invalid because you've declared it as such. You can apply the same to cars. There is no law that says my sons first car can't be a corvette or ferrari, however it won't be (sorry son) since drivers need time to learn the proper skills. I'm sure the kid wanted that bike very badly, the parents where idiots for allowing it.

Bill

You miss my point. I was referring to prejudicial comments like:

" I ride bikes and my father teachs a motorcycle class and I know of NO 16 year old that is mature enouhg to have a motorcycle. " -- the state of California, through its representative government, believes otherwise

"i dont think the kid was going 45.. moose is right though.. in some of the actions but i think he was going faster.. about 60 i would say.. those F4i's are very fast.. a 16 yr old was not going 45.. (or less)"

etc.


edit: so quit bitching about it and change the law. I wouldn't mind. Personally, I think they should raise the driving age to 19, lower the alcohol age to 19, and then bar anyone 19 or older from attending high school (i.e. no 2nd-year seniors, if you don't graduate before your 19th Bday, goodbye!).