2 dozen motorcyclist wreck in Oregon

[Baggsy]

Baggsy- Weight does come into play. F=MA. Force equals Mass (weight) x Acceleration.

Solve for distance

[Squadz]

If you're going 100, and the car in front of you as well, and are 30-40 metres away from car whos in front of you, and he slams on the breaks effectively going 0. Tell me it's your fault?

Don't know the full story (I wasn't there), but do not say the SUV driver isn't responsible when there is no reason for slamming on the brakes.

[FiReSTaRT]

If you're going 100, and the car in front of you as well, and are 30-40 metres away from car whos in front of you, and he slams on the breaks effectively going 0. Tell me it's your fault?

Don't know the full story (I wasn't there), but do not say the SUV driver isn't responsible when there is no reason for slamming on the brakes.

You are supposed to follow from enough of a distance to allow you to stop safely. By the way it always takes a certain amount of time to get from any speed to 0. Generally a bike will outbrake an SUV, but you have to give yourself enough time to notice the vehicle in front of you slowing down and stop before they do. A proper stagger gives you 2 seconds between your bike and the bike directly in front of you, while the leader should also maintain a safe following distance between him/herself and the vehicle in front.

[Squadz]

You are supposed to follow from enough of a distance to allow you to stop safely. By the way it always takes a certain amount of time to get from any speed to 0. Generally a bike will outbrake an SUV, but you have to give yourself enough time to notice the vehicle in front of you slowing down and stop before they do. A proper stagger gives you 2 seconds between your bike and the bike directly in front of you, while the leader should also maintain a safe following distance between him/herself and the vehicle in front.

I agree with you, and that's generally.. but you cant tell me that if there is no one in front of the car in front of you, that you are going to be watching for that brake.. I guess I should start doing that now, but if you're cruising in the left lane let's say and it's clear sailing no one expects the guy in front to brake suddenly.. I would still put all the blame on the guy in front (IF there was no one in front of him)

[Baggsy]

If you're going 100, and the car in front of you as well, and are 30-40 metres away from car whos in front of you, and he slams on the breaks effectively going 0. Tell me it's your fault?

Don't know the full story (I wasn't there), but do not say the SUV driver isn't responsible when there is no reason for slamming on the brakes.

30 metres at 100 kph is just over one second following distance 55 metres would be close to two seconds. At 30 metres you should be covering your front brake. How good is your reaction time. Remember the number one rule in group rides is don't hit the bike in front of you.

Personally, I don't believe that the average rider can out brake the average driver. I think the driver has a distinct advantage with being able to slam on the brakes without thought.

As far as responsibility - you are responsible for being able to brake within your site distance. As that distance closes up you need to react to the changes.

[KRFDPSSTI]

damn SUV's, no traffic, everyone going 70MPH in front of them and they slam on their brakes? Man this is serious stuff... jeez... hope the riders in critical condition survive and all of them do heal quick!!!!

You're actually gonna blame the suv in this? Arent you supposed to keep a big enough gap between you and the car in front of you so that incase something like this actually happens you can STOP?

[Buddhacide]

^^^ Although I believe that traffic just slowed down generally, if that were not the case, even if the bikers were following too close, slamming your brakes on in the middle of traffic would definitely have been the predominant factor in the accident - or at least significant enough to blame the SUV, partially anyway.


I dont know if anyone cares but it was apparently an "outlaw" club called Brother Speed from Oregon on a club run.

[FiReSTaRT]

I don't care what kinda bikes they were on and what the nature of their club was. I mostly blame the lead for disregarding the safety of his fellow club members. We have no idea what made the SUV driver to slam on the brakes. For all we know, he may have noticed a metal file cabinet in the middle of the lane (been there, done that). Here are 3 obvious ways everyone would have been kept safe:
1) Break up the bunch into 4 more easily manageable groups. Even if they kept a bad formation, only 6-8 riders would have got hurt
2) Stagger the group, thus giving everyone a 2 second following distance to the target directly in front of them
3) Don't tailgate!!!!

[mjavor]

This is why I love driving on highways in Germany. If you see a high speed highway coming to a dead stop, you put on your 4 ways to alert the drivers behind you.

Wish we could adopt that practice over here. =/

[Kuro]

just something found interesting about a comment made in the link.

“I know some people say they must be up to no good: They were racing or doing something. But anyone who’s familiar with Harley-riding knows you don’t race a Harley, you don’t do tricks on your Harley. You just ride,”

[Buddhacide]

I don't care what kinda bikes they were on and what the nature of their club was. I mostly blame the lead for disregarding the safety of his fellow club members. We have no idea what made the SUV driver to slam on the brakes. For all we know, he may have noticed a metal file cabinet in the middle of the lane (been there, done that). Here are 3 obvious ways everyone would have been kept safe:
1) Break up the bunch into 4 more easily manageable groups. Even if they kept a bad formation, only 6-8 riders would have got hurt
2) Stagger the group, thus giving everyone a 2 second following distance to the target directly in front of them
3) Don't tailgate!!!!

I think from reading other articles that traffic just stopped. I dont think the SUV was to blame, i just think it was the vehicle closest to the riders.

I didnt mean to imply the nature of the club was in any way to blame. Only that it is not inconceivable for an SUV that stops dead for no reason to be at least partially responsible for causing an accident. Certainly people behind said SUV should always be practicing proper riding techniques, but people that stop dead in traffic need to be looked at and judged as well.

Of course, if the person has a good reason to stop thats one thing. My experience so far is that this is not always the case. Just the other day I was riding to work and some woman in an SUV didn't seem to know where her turn was, and was alternating between speeding and hard breaking at each possible turn. She was driving like a complete idiot. I was keeping my distance, but if I would have been oblivious to her, she would be at least partially at fault, to me anyway, if I would have smacked into her. Clearly motorcyclists have to be more responsible practically speaking, but that doesnt mean the other driver is not to be considered when allotting blame.

Also, to play devils advocate, traffic doesnt always allow us to keep the distance we should be. In Toronto drivers take anything close to a car length as an opportunity to bully there way in front of you, and your lucky to even get an after the fact signal. I almost get smacked constatly and it has little to do with how closely I am following behind (Believe me, I hate tailgating too)

I'm just saying its not always a clear cut case of right and wrong, and the biker doesnt always deserve the blame.

[Riceburner]

...... She was driving like a complete idiot. I was keeping my distance, ....

so you were practising safe driving....the group in question probably were not. They were following each other too close. Period. For argument sake even if the SUV was at partial fault, it's only at fault for the first couple maybe....not the rest that were following too close to the bike in front.

[Buddhacide]

Again, not debating the importance of keeping proper distance. Only stating that fault is is not always unilateral. People that stop dead in traffic for unnecessary reasons exist, and are not blameless when people hit them.

[Android Cat]

1) Break up the bunch into 4 more easily manageable groups. Even if they kept a bad formation, only 6-8 riders would have got hurt
2) Stagger the group, thus giving everyone a 2 second following distance to the target directly in front of them
3) Don't tailgate!!!!

4) Don't just watch the vehicle directly in front, look past them to anticipate what they're going to do.

In a group that's too close, if everyone waits for the tail lights directly ahead to go on before breaking, tail-end charlie is going to have no time at all due to the accumulated reaction-time delays.

[Baggsy]

Again, not debating the importance of keeping proper distance. Only stating that fault is is not always unilateral. People that stop dead in traffic for unnecessary reasons exist, and are not blameless when people hit them.

We need Viffer or Rob or someone to verify, but I thought that they were blameless if you run into the back of them.

Otherwise, there'd be an all out war with fast vehicles plowing into the backs of slow vehicles, and claiming that it was the slow vehicles fault.

[bitzz]

Accident "fault" is determined by a chart called the "Fault Chart", imagine that, and #1) if you are backing up, you're at fault; #2) you hit the back of another vehicle, you're at fault. (The fault chart changes from state to state/ province to province to reflect local laws but is generally the same across the continent).

The Fault Chart is ONLY used for property damage.
Personal injury, where the real money is, is determined by the courts... meaning: How good is your lawyer?

For all of yoose that want to blame an SUV in this collision: The bikes immediately behind the SUV did not collide with the SUV (You did read the article didn't you?).
Ergo the rest of them were either following too close or riding with their heads up their rectum, or both.
END OF STORY.

When stuff like this happens in the movies, we laugh.
Too bad in real life stupid people get hurt... or killed.
I held back the laughter when I read the article, but roared when you guys started blaming the SUV driver.

[Buddhacide]

We need Viffer or Rob or someone to verify, but I thought that they were blameless if you run into the back of them.

Otherwise, there'd be an all out war with fast vehicles plowing into the backs of slow vehicles, and claiming that it was the slow vehicles fault.

No I think, as of others have stated, that according to the law the blame goes to the person doing the rear ending. My point, is that its ridiculous to apply an either/or sort of reasoning to this when its clearly possible in many instances that the person being rear ended has acted stupidly and contibuted to the cause of the accident.

And again, if bitzz's comments were at me, i'm not debating the fault of the SUV involved in this accident. It seems that the bikers were at fault if traffic just happened to stop and they were following too closely. However, that does not generally mean that all rear endings have the same causes.

but roared when you guys started blaming the SUV driver.

Yeah god forbid. No way an SUV could ever be involved in an accident.

When this was first posted the assumption was the SUV driver stopped for no reason, something I have seen drivers do many times. We now know otherwise. Noone is blaming the SUV in this accident.