Whose Fault Is It?

[Steve]

First, I've owned and ridden a lot of street bikes, so I've had people pull out in front of me and turn left in front of me. Fortunately I never laid one down. I did, however, see a good friend killed while riding with him when a lady pulled out in front of him. I was far enough behind to see everything but got stopped in time. So, I have no affinity or sympathy for anyone who turns left or pulls out in front of a bike.

Now the question: A few days ago here in 'Junction a motorcyclist was killed when a car turned left in front of him. It was in the middle of town on a busy street with a speed limit of 35 mph. The biker was estimated by several people to have been going at least 90, and was also seen splitting lanes and doing other stupid stuff. Someone had called 911 about him a couple of minutes before the crash.

So, who's at fault? The motorist who turned left in front of the biker, the biker who wouldn't have been even close to the car if he was riding anywhere near the speed limit, or both? Discuss.

(No tickets have been issued yet for the crash. DA isn't saying whether he's looking at charges for the motorist or not.)

[ZappBranigan]

Just from the details you've given us, it sounds like the biker was at fault.

Here's what I mean: Before turning left across traffic, a motorist is responsible for ensuring that the oncoming lane is clear of traffic. However, excessive speed on the part of the biker could mean that at the moment the driver initiated his turn the street in front of him was clear - it's just that the speeding biker came along faster than the turning driver could react.

There's a reason that streets in built-up areas have 30mph speed limits and this is one of them. Certainly it would be unreasonable for anybody turning left to assume that someone might be coming towards them at 3x the speed limit. If that was the case nobody would ever turn left.

[ColoJeeper]

Well, if I were on the jury, the motorist would walk away. There is no way the motorist should be expected to see or react to a bike coming at him three times the speedlimit and splitting lanes.
In fact, personally I think the DA should have his head examined if he were to try to press charges against the motorist in this case, based on information given here.

[jeeplvr79]

Unless there's a formal police report with measuring of the skid marks (if there were any) from the bike to go off... What the witnesses said they thought/estimated he was going 90MPH is just that an assumption... not really much to go on ... the only the fact in the OP is that the driver of the vehicle was turning left which according the the Colorado Motor Vehicle code (42-4-702) would put the driver of the vehicle at fault.

[JKTODD]

I've seen so many bikers (usually crotch rocket riders) just ride with complete oblivion. Cutting through traffic, going way to fast, etc. Even though I ride I can't defend behavior like that. Don't get me wrong either-I've been that guy going way too fast on city streets as well. I usually crack it open with minimal risk but not always. To me it's part of the risk of riding and the thrill of owning a big fast bike. In my opinion-based on the info given-the motorist isn't at fault. A bike going 90 in a 35 covers a lot of ground quickly and if the accident was at night then it would be almost impossible for the auto driver to judge distance. Just another headlight in the distance-coming at you at 90+mph!

[Steve]

... the only the fact in the OP is that the driver of the vehicle was turning left which according the the Colorado Motor Vehicle code (42-4-702) would put the driver of the vehicle at fault.

There was a rant letter to the editor in the paper here today basically saying this and that it's totally the fault of the motorist who turned left, which is what got me thinking about it.

What the witnesses said they thought/estimated he was going 90MPH is just that an assumption...

Eyewitnesses are only an "assumption"??? :confused:

It did happen after sundown. I've gotta agree that it's completely, or at least primarily, the bike rider's fault in this instance. :shrug:

[CLYDE]

Who is at fault will be for a jury to decide, I assume this is a fatality, which means CSP was likely involved, or at the least, all measurements were taken, and the speed of the vehicles is a known. My call would be bike at fault. I have ridden my whole life, and am a huge advocate for harsh penalties for motorists who run over bikers, But only where they really are at fault. This rider took chances, and paid for the risk he took, its a shame, but it is, what it is.

[Steve]

Who is at fault will be for a jury to decide, I assume this is a fatality, which means CSP was likely involved, or at the least, all measurements were taken, and the speed of the vehicles is a known.

It was a fatality. It was inside city limits, so no CSP involvement. Dunno what kind of evidence they have. There have been no charges filed so far, not even a traffic ticket, so unless the DA decides to file charges it won't ever be up to a jury.

[Budman]

If the biker was going anywhere near as fast as it was assessed, they are at fault. I would never trust an eye witness, some of those sport bikes look like they are going 90 when they are parked.