Holy crap guys!

[Wasted]

Looking in your mirror well driving is really hard right? Forget the shoulder check....all it would have taken was a quick glimpse to see the rider.

[video=youtube;LbYZZHGkDio]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbYZZHGkDio[/video]

 

[Brian P]

In Germany, when on the autobahn , you are supposed to look waaaaaaaay back before changing lanes, because it is entirely reasonable in those circumstances to expect overtaking traffic in the left lane at much higher speed, and it happens regularly, so German drivers are used to it.

But ...

Point 1 ... people are imperfect. Even in Germany.

Point 2 ... American tourists. 'Nuff said! The lack of turn indicator usage might point to this being a factor ... My observations from Germany, Switzerland, Austria is that they are religious and fanatical about use of indicators. (Italy, not so much) If the "polizei" had seen that car do that lane change, they would have been ticketed for sure - and it would have been on video, so there would be no disputing either the carelessness of the lane change or the failure to use the indicator.

Overtaking other traffic with a very large speed difference is going to carry substantial risk by doing so, and it doesn't matter where you are ...

 

[Dresden]

I take it your not European.......or have any experience over there, it's a shame.....

what takes them to cover on the highways in a few hours, takes us 2 to 3 times longer because of slower speeds......

Take a vacation out in Europe one day and then tell me if you still feel the same.....

.

I have. And you are wrong.

Doing 250 km/h for extended lengths is NOT the norm. People do drive fast in the fast lane, and then move over to the middle and cruise at 150.
Sitting in the passing lane doing 300 for an extended stretch on a motorcycle is a death sentences.

Watch what happens when he reaches traffic:
[video=youtube;utOX6R4ImNg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utOX6R4ImNg[/video]

 

[Dresden]

[video=youtube;qgpRB4AU3L8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgpRB4AU3L8[/video]

 

[rye]

Can I start posting all the videos of people sustaining 240 on the autobahn safely?

Fact is, idiot cager should have just looked, but the rider should always presume people are never going to look, which he did, and why he was able to avoid death.

There's not really more to it than that.

 

[hedo2002]

Well, your point is wrong. We all have our own opinions, but opinions don't change fact. Fact is everyone is taught the same thing; look, signal, look, change. Situations like this are the reason that is important enough to warrant being taught to new drivers. If you look and see a headlight at least 400 feet behind you, and one second later when you look again that same headlight is now 200 feet behind, you can be pretty certain that in another second, whatever that headlight is attached to is going to be right next to you. THAT is the reason we are taught to look twice. You can choose to not address it, you can ignore it and call me "dr. physics"; but fact is fact




Nobody has brought up Ontario's FDR; mostly we're shooting the breeze about a video and I took fault to mean our opinion of fault. If you want to bring law into though, we can do that. This is not a simple case of one vehicle rear ending another vehicle in an established lane. This is a case where an accident was (nearly) caused by a vehicle overtaking another; luckily for us, the Ontario HTA has something very specific in it about just these circumstances:

Passing vehicle going in same direction
( No person in charge of a vehicle shall pass or attempt to pass another vehicle going in the same direction on a highway unless the roadway,
(a) in front of and to the left of the vehicle to be passed is safely free from approaching traffic; and
(b) to the left of the vehicle passing or attempting to pass is safely free from overtaking traffic. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (.

Actually you quoted the wrong subsection. Subsection (a) refers to vehicles which are oncoming, Hence the word "approaching"

In this case subsection (b) would have applied as the vehicle he would hve been involved in the collision with, (the bike), was overtaking or passing already.


Obviously, as we can see from the video, the roadway to the left of the vehicle being passed was NOT free of approaching traffic; So, yes, according to Ontario law, the vehicle overtaking was breaking the law and probably at legal "fault" while simultaneously being an enormous *********.



Actually, no. My example is a perfect analogy. In the video and in my example, the bikes are both breaking the law in their actions. Both in the video (nearly) and in my example the accident would have been cause by the illegal actions of those driving the car. Yes, the bikes were also violating the law, but in no way the the bike's actions cause the hypothetical incidents we're discussing.




Yeah, well I can't argue with you on that one. Doesn't mean that it's right though. Either way, I stand by my opinion that although the biker is an idiot with mad braking skills, the real ********* in that video is the driver of the car.

Now if this incident happened in Ontario the SUV driver would have been charged with the subsection listed above. The rider would have also faced a Careless driving charge. He was driving at a rate of speed which made it impossible for him to avoid the collision. As for the insurance FDR I won't go into that, I am merely speaking of HTA charges which would have been laid. Good on the rider that he was able to avoid the collision but doesn't appear he really learned from that incident given his rate of departure from the scene...lol

 

[Craneopbru]

Now if this incident happened in Ontario the SUV driver would have been charged with the subsection listed above. The rider would have also faced a Careless driving charge. He was driving at a rate of speed which made it impossible for him to avoid the collision. As for the insurance FDR I won't go into that, I am merely speaking of HTA charges which would have been laid. Good on the rider that he was able to avoid the collision but doesn't appear he really learned from that incident given his rate of departure from the scene...lol

Read carefully:

Passing vehicle going in same direction
( No person in charge of a vehicle shall pass or attempt to pass another vehicle going in the same direction on a highway unless the roadway,
(a) in front of and to the left of the vehicle to be passed is safely free from approaching traffic; and
(b) to the left of the vehicle passing or attempting to pass is safely free from overtaking traffic. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (.

Actually you quoted the wrong subsection. Subsection (a) refers to vehicles which are oncoming, Hence the word "approaching"

In this case subsection (b) would have applied as the vehicle he would hve been involved in the collision with, (the bike), was overtaking or passing already.

There is a whole other section that deals with oncoming traffic, but that whole section is specific to vehicles travelling in the same direction. That's probably why the heading of the section is called:

Passing vehicle going in same direction


Subsection a) makes reference and applies only to the vehicle being passed. The reference to approaching traffic applies to traffic approaching the vehicle being passed from behind in the next lane to the left of said vehicle.

Subsection b) refers to the vehicle doing the actual passing.

But, yes, I agree with you, had there been an accident, the rider would have been charged too and obviously he did not learn. That still doesn't take away from the fact that the car driver was an enormous d-bag that nearly caused a serious accident. That driver will ultimately one day kill somebody with that kind of inattentive driving. Just as that rider one day will probably get himself killed with that kind of riding.

Just because it ain't your fault, don't mean it ain't gonna be your problem !!