Mandatory Roadside Motorcycle Stops

[MCSFTGUY]

To clarify this statement and the one in your previous post: Since 2000, the motorcyclist has been found at fault in 70% of motorcycle crashes in California. If we assume that the rider is at fault in all single-vehicle crashes (about 40% of the total), then the rider is at fault in half of multiple-vehicle crashes.

Fair enough... and dang you are good! I am guessing you don't sleep much....

But lets go one more step with this... I don't remember the exact number of rider fatalities in CA in 2008 I believe it was low 500 so lets say 550. If 40% are solo vehicle that would leave 330 as multiple vehicle. Half of these are the responsibility of the rider, the other half the car driver... 165 deaths are the responsibility of the car driver out of the 550 number.

One more little kicker on this. Over the last few years states have been going back over there rider fatality crashes and taking a closer look at them. WA and OR in particular have also found that riders are responsible for about 70% of the fatal crashes. One of the things that might make the numbers look better for riders is failure to yield sections. A lot of agencies will list a car driver at fault if he turns into the path of a motorcycle.... no matter what the motorcycle speed maybe, 25 or 150 mph, car turned, car at fault. However, states and agencies are now taking a closer look at crashes and are looking at things like sight lines and excessive speed. In some cases when the driver started his turn the motorcycle was not in his view, but was travelling at a speed that caused a crash because the car could not get out of the way.

I know of a couple of PD's here in CA that will completely reconstruct a motorcycle crash and if the rider is over 25 mph over the limit... they will show him at fault for the crash because the bike is significantly over the limit the average driver would expect to see on that street.

Don't shoot the messenger, I am just passing along info.

 

[fonseca]

I guess that means "some" are listening?

Judging from my daily 80 mile commute "not enough" are listening. Yesterdays commute was a doosey! Saw some amazing idiots on 17N that gave me a good laugh!


Sorry but I have had one too many LEO display less than professional conduct. Included are Santa Cruz city and county, Santa Clara county, and Watsonville PD. Don't even get me started about those Park Rangers good grief!!

The California Highway Patrol have been the most reasonable and professional without the "tough guy" attitude.


You sound like a good guy Sir and mean well but my opinions stem from experience. But I'd like feel commuters care about us but I get a reminder now and then what's really going down on the highway.

Funny thing is when I ride an authority BMW R12RTP "everyone" see's me and they even give me the entire fast lane.

Ride Safe out there

 

[fonseca]

I'll give you full credit for trying to help riders survive the dangers. My experience tells me that standard enforcement and ticketing was the most effective for me. I screwed up a couple of times and I got a good lesson (ticket). I think that really works. When I was pulled over for a bogus stop, that didn't help at all, it gave me a bad impression of law enforcement (yes it happens). There is nothing wrong with normal traffic enforcement and it is the most effective way to correct problems. Special enforcement, not so much.

Thanx, Russ

+1

 

[serazin]

I guess that means "some" are listening?

Many more listen than will admit it. They like to project the bad boy image.

Aside from that...Nice new avatar!!! Don't ride that clutch too much.

 

[DataDan]

I don't remember the exact number of rider fatalities in CA in 2008 I believe it was low 500 so lets say 550. If 40% are solo vehicle that would leave 330 as multiple vehicle. Half of these are the responsibility of the rider, the other half the car driver... 165 deaths are the responsibility of the car driver out of the 550 number.

Very close! 560 crashes--238 single-vehicle and 322 multiple-vehicle. BTW, that's from FARS. CHP's SWITRS has undercounted motorcycle crashes (by as much as 10%) since 2004, when some sort of reporting SNAFU arose that has not yet been completely fixed. SWITRS has the 2008 total at 537 fatal motorcycle crashes. I believe FARS because I have sampled a few counties and can confirm counts via news reports.

A lot of agencies will list a car driver at fault if he turns into the path of a motorcycle.... no matter what the motorcycle speed maybe, 25 or 150 mph, car turned, car at fault. However, states and agencies are now taking a closer look at crashes and are looking at things like sight lines and excessive speed. In some cases when the driver started his turn the motorcycle was not in his view, but was travelling at a speed that caused a crash because the car could not get out of the way.

I've written about motorcycle speed as a factor in crossing-vehicle crashes in 1Rider (for example, Good Speed / Bad Speed and Traffic Tactics: Left-Turning Vehicles). In my analysis of Bay Area crashes 2006-2008, I found many left-turner crashes where the motorcyclist contributed with excessive speed (as noted in FARS by a "driver-related factor"). I give the rider the benefit of the doubt (i.e., insufficient detail reported), but in other, clear-cut cases it's on the rider: 80 in a 40, 80 in a 35, 75 in a 45. A motorcycle going that much faster than the typical flow of traffic is hard to perceive as a threat, and the vehicle code does NOT favor the motorcyclist just because the car is turning left.

 

[MCSFTGUY]

In my analysis of Bay Area crashes 2006-2008, I found many left-turner crashes where the motorcyclist contributed with excessive speed (as noted in FARS by a "driver-related factor"). I give the rider the benefit of the doubt (i.e., insufficient detail reported), but in other, clear-cut cases it's on the rider: 80 in a 40, 80 in a 35, 75 in a 45. A motorcycle going that much faster than the typical flow of traffic is hard to perceive as a threat, and the vehicle code does NOT favor the motorcyclist just because the car is turning left.

It is not that the VC favors one driver or the other, it is how it is written,

21801. (a) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left or to complete a U-turn upon a highway, or to turn left into public or private property, or an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to the approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be made with reasonable safety.

The way it is written it basically says any vehicle that is a hazard any time during the turning movement, there is no reference to speed just hazard and some say that based on how the section is written it is the turning vehicles responsibility to avoid any other traffic that is a hazard period.... if the turning vehicle gets hit, the other vehicle must have constituted a hazard, no matter what it was doing or how fast it was traveling and the turning vehicle had the responsibility to avoid it. I never prescibed to this, but others have.

 

[snowface]

Are they going to pull cars over and tell them to watch out for motorcycles?

i drive and i ride, and i swear to god if another ahole in a black helment and black jacket sneaks up in my blind spot again i'm going to pull this minivan over and...

i bought a yellow aerostitch in '08 and have had my 'invisibility' issues with it drop about 98% since.

motorcycles are inherently difficult to see. ride appropriately and do what you can to be visible. that or stop complaining.

 

[DataDan]

It is not that the VC favors one driver or the other, it is how it is written,

21801. (a) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left or to complete a U-turn upon a highway, or to turn left into public or private property, or an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to the approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be made with reasonable safety.​

The way it is written it basically says any vehicle that is a hazard any time during the turning movement, there is no reference to speed just hazard and some say that based on how the section is written it is the turning vehicles responsibility to avoid any other traffic that is a hazard period.... if the turning vehicle gets hit, the other vehicle must have constituted a hazard, no matter what it was doing or how fast it was traveling and the turning vehicle had the responsibility to avoid it. I never prescibed to this, but others have.

I think you omitted the second half of 21801:

(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a), and having given a signal when and as required by this code, may turn left or complete a U-turn, and the drivers of vehicles approaching the intersection or the entrance to the property or alley from the opposite direction shall yield the right-of-way to the turning vehicle.​

It was apparently the intention of the legislature to make it a judgment call rather than hard-and-fast rule.

 

[MCSFTGUY]

I think you omitted the second half of 21801:

(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a), and having given a signal when and as required by this code, may turn left or complete a U-turn, and the drivers of vehicles approaching the intersection or the entrance to the property or alley from the opposite direction shall yield the right-of-way to the turning vehicle.​

It was apparently the intention of the legislature to make it a judgment call rather than hard-and-fast rule.

This was enforced or used in collision cases where the car approaching the turning vehicle had enough time, distance and an opportunity to stop but did not. This is kind of the reverse of A, if you have time to safely stop, you have to yield to the left turning vehicle. This is how we use to use it in crashes and back when I enforced... If the car turns in front of me and I can't safely stop how can I comply with this section? Again, there is no reference to approach speed, which is how the "completion of an action" parts came into play.

 

[GAMBLER]

I'm not "required" to do anything relative to motorcycle safety (with exception of some grant mandated enforcement efforts).

I work hard to promote motorcycle safety because it's important to me. I've dragged my PD down this road because I believe it's a just cause and someone needs to start the effort to reduce all the RIP threads we see all too often on BARF.

If Traq thinks I'm whining so be it. I do what I do because I have a passion for our sport and our fellow riders. Whatever the reasons are, we lost far too many motorcyclists in fatal collisions in the last few years. There is no way the government can save everyone, and I am not advocating violating people's rights, but I do think it's important that we make/take every opportunity to make our roadways safer .

thank you for promoting mc safety.

 

[Ant]

I look at it this way:

It's not a bunch of government office jockeys that decided to fuck with our rights so they can turn us into a police state.

It's the guys on the streets that have to see one mangled, bleeding, dead or near dying motorcycle rider after another and are trying to do something about it.

No big conspiracy, no big plan to generate revenue, just trying to save a life by educating if possible. I can't find anything wrong with that.

 

[Audacious Nick]

I look at it this way:

It's not a bunch of government office jockeys that decided to fuck with our rights so they can turn us into a police state.

It's the guys on the streets that have to see one mangled, bleeding, dead or near dying motorcycle rider after another and are trying to do something about it.

No big conspiracy, no big plan to generate revenue, just trying to save a life by educating if possible. I can't find anything wrong with that.

Society has nearly destroyed humanity's evolutionary process.

 

[Ant]

Society has nearly destroyed humanity's evolutionary process.

Maybe so but to be able to get a 40" flat screen HDTV for under $700 makes up for it in spades.

 

[fonseca]

No big conspiracy, no big plan to generate revenue, just trying to save a life by educating if possible. I can't find anything wrong with that.

Who should pay for the "education"? I don't think the tax payer should. Do we just add it to California's growing budget deficit ?

We have enough government jobs that are useless.

 

[Ant]

Who should pay for the "education"? I don't think the tax payer should. Do we just add it to California's growing budget deficit ?

We have enough government jobs that are useless.

Who pays for the medical expenses for an uninsured squid that goes splat? The tax payer.

 

[Human Ills]

Get a GTA cop to check license and VIN.

2805. (a) For the purpose of locating stolen vehicles, (1) any member of the California Highway Patrol, or (2) a member of a city police department, a member of a county sheriff's office, or a district attorney investigator, whose primary responsibility is to conduct vehicle theft investigations, may inspect any vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code, or any identifiable vehicle component thereof, on a highway or in any public garage, repair shop, terminal, parking lot, new or used car lot, automobile dismantler's lot, vehicle shredding facility, vehicle leasing or rental lot, vehicle equipment rental yard, vehicle salvage pool, or other similar establishment, or any agricultural or construction work location where work is being actively performed, and may inspect the title or registration of vehicles, in order to establish the rightful ownership or possession of the vehicle or identifiable vehicle component.

As used in this subdivision, "identifiable vehicle component" means any component which can be distinguished from other similar components by a serial number or other unique distinguishing number, sign, or symbol.

(b) A member of the California Highway Patrol, a member of a city police department or county sheriff's office, or a district attorney investigator whose primary responsibility is to conduct vehicle theft investigations, may also inspect, for the purposes specified in subdivision (a), implements of husbandry, special construction equipment, forklifts, and special mobile equipment in the places described in subdivision (a) or when that vehicle is incidentally operated or transported upon a highway.

(c) Whenever possible, inspections conducted pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) shall be conducted at a time and in a manner so as to minimize any interference with, or delay of, business operations.

Doesn't say anything about stopping any vehicle. Still requires PC.

 

[Human Ills]

I don't care what the laws are. If they pull me over without "probable cause" and it turns out they are just wanting to "talk to me about safety" then I'm taking it to court. Period. Particularly after my recent ride... ok, flight. I think I know quite a bit about safety. I ride in full gear and I ride 100% stock bikes on the street. They have NO reason or justification for stopping me at a check point. And if only motorcycles are being stopped that's awful close to discrimination if not crossing that line.

Long story short, there's this little thing called the constitution. I'm innocent until proven guilty and the state bears the burden of proving that I'm guilty of ANY thing and there's another little part of that same piece of paper about illegal search which does require probable cause to search a vehicle without warrant. Again, checkpoints don't equal probable cause. Not a fan of sobriety checkpoints either even though I don't like drunks on the road.

^this

 

[Brown81]

Not much use posting in here, because most already have their minds made up about law enforcement and whether or not we do any good.

But just to point out, there is no movement to do this in California. Where they have done this in the past, New York, they were not pulling people over to lecture them.

It would be a cheap shot for me to point out that it doesn't appear that some posters here have read the thread, or comprehended what they have read, but it seems that the pertinent information is not getting through.

Booofuckingwhoo.cry

Many of us have followed the thread, and still disagree with you. We might even have more life experience, and more motorcycling experience, than you. Unfreekingbelievable isn't it?

I realize that one does get used to people repeatedly saying: "Yes Sir. No sir." But, that does not mean they agree with you or think you are some kind of genius. It is because they do not want a ticket for doing the same thing you do: speeding.

If you are really passionate about motorcycle safety, you can start by talking to some of you peers. One passed me splitting lanes at like 90mph on 680 yesterday! Saw him at Starbucks like 5 minutes later.

:|




Really, Datadan is bringing the useful facts in this thread.