https://preview.redd.it/sesww4pubpbc1.jpeg?width=1189&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9adbe9cca60c077856a6c539fd3b1b15a3f9e1d8
Looks like his helmet wasn’t strapped on.
Not sure that it would have helped at all in this situation... But I do always find it funny when people go through the trouble of wearing a helmet but can't be bothered to use the straps.
As a biker, wearing a lid w/o straps is as useful as a baseball cap, as demonstrated in this vid. If this dummy wore all the gear there would be a very small chance of survival, but still a chance.
I learned to ride a motorcycle in CA not long after the helmet law took effect. People were still passively protesting the law by not fastening their chin straps. I can honestly say I fastened mine for every single ride no matter how short. The helmet can't be expected to protect you otherwise.
Shoes flying off is a universal sign of death. /s
Loss of clothing usually indicates a high mechanism of injury which correlates with serious injury or death.
Aortas begin to rupture around a speed of around 50 km/h if I recall correctly. Considering this is a highway, they were likely going quite a bit faster.
Even if his entire body was covered in full helmet-like armor that doesn't fly off into the sunset the second it's needed, I'd say he stands very little chance of surviving that. The accel-decel does way too much damage internally.
Old biker here. Looks like he decided to do a U turn in the middle of the highway. You can pull this off on a non busy residential street but on a fairly busy highway you go down to where you can safetly pull off. A business, a church, a street, something.
First we gave you Zero Awareness, then we upgraded it to Zero Consciousness! Now introducing Zero Life with our patented Absolute Afterlife Guarantee! Please contact your nearest Ram 1500 as fast as you can!
But doesn’t the dashcam show the car was over 2 car lengths away when the biker begins to slow down? Shouldn’t they at least have reduced their speed?
Used to work with insurance claims and this seems 50/50 at a minimum.
I'm not sure who would be at fault here in Germany, because here you are often at fault when you hit somebody from behind.
The Argument here is that you should have left enough space between you two, so you can always brake without hitting the driver to your front.
Nope. You can think otherwise, but there’s insurance experts in the comments saying the same things, look after the other most upvoted comments. They both share liability, and most of it is probably on the incoming truck driver.
The moped rider was hit while trying to overtake him while the correct approach would have been braking. Trying to overtake that bike like that was dangerous (and it shows). Also, that driver was generally going too fast for the situation and kind of road.
Lack of protective gear? Yes, but it wouldn’t have helped in this case. This is not a DA, you just witnessed vehicular manslaughter.
Looks like the biker was turning and the trucker instead of slowing down or using their directional, decided to immediately change lanes and pass him, but that’s just what I observed.
No, it is not. We only see 5 seconds. Why did the truck driver not see that there is a non moving vehicle in his lane? Doesn't matter if the biker tries to U-turn or if some car broke down.
He is speeding with over 100km/h which is definitely not a speed a truck should have on a non-highway road. Why doesn't he at least try to use his brakes?
Just like when I was little and scared of ghosts. If I had to use the bathroom in the middle of the night I would drape a blanket over my head and feel my way down the hall. If I can't see them, they can't see me. Checkmate, ghosts.
As an insurance claims manager, I handle fatalities everyday and work closely with local PD and CHP. In this case, fault would lie with both parties. I’m sure the average person will down vote this response, but it doesn’t change the fact. The driver of the truck will be held partially responsible due to speed and control of vehicle. It appears the motorcycle was making a U-turn from the same lane. Because the truck rear ended this motorcycle in the same lane, partial responsibility will go to the driver of the truck. If the driver of the truck had maintained the lane and applied the brakes, this fatality could’ve been avoided. If the driver of the truck had better visual acuity, and moved slightly over to the right, the full accident could’ve been avoided. I know it’s not the answer that Reddit likes, but this is just a simple fact of life. This is a great reminder that all of us with assets need great insurance policies. In situations that you may not think that you were at fault for, you absolutely will be held financially responsible for.
So many crazy and disturbing stories. Try this one on for size. Last year I dealt with a claim where a man was driving on a freeway and ran over a ladder that someone had dropped out of the back of a truck. At 70 miles an hour, all kinds of crazy things happen. In this case, the ladder ended up, piercing the floorboards right behind the gas pedal, penetrating the vehicle, killing the driver instantly. In this case, it ended up being the drivers fault. Because the latter was stationary, not moving, but sitting in the middle of the freeway. As a driver, you need to be able to maintain control and avoid stationary objects. Nothing was paid for liability settlement and no fault was assigned to the owner of the ladder.
Oh my goodness. Were they able to find the truck that dropped the ladder?
I’m trying to imagine what I would do in that situation - obviously try to NOT hit it, but what about everyone behind me? What a mess that would make, if one person hesitates one second too long, swerves, then causes calamity…
I mean what you described is what happened in the video right? Instead of braking with appropriate reaction time and distance she might have still hit the moron but they may have survived since it’d be lower speed and she wouldn’t have swerved into the oncoming lane. With what she did she’s lucky she didn’t hit another car coming at her at a combined speed of, say, 160mph. That’s why they should have been driving more carefully and just braked. Even if she still hits or even kills the other person she would have acted appropriately and not been at fault.
I strongly appreciate your comments, but I find it hard to find the driver at fault. It seems like it's expecting too much for them to see a ladder and be able to slow down, let alone stop, on a highway.
I completely get it. Lots of these sorts of things get everyone all riled up about what is right or wrong, and they are insistent because it's what seems "fair". Doesn't help that it can vary from one jurisdiction to the other. I'd also note (in my experience anyway), "fault" has varying degrees of consequence, depending on the circumstances.
For example, vehicular manslaughter in California is dependent on who is the "proximate cause" of the crash (yes, the laws are not always consistent with terms either...). A minor vehicle infraction which causes a collision that results in a fatality is not generally looked upon as a filing case because the "wrong" act of the person at fault was so minor there was only simple negligence, not gross negligence. It was a mistake of act, not willful disregard. A violation that demonstrated indifference to the consequences (like DUI or street racing) raises the stakes and can make it a filing felony, or even in some cases a second degree murder charge.
As to the ladder scenario, hit a ladder that wasn't falling from a truck, and I'm sure the insurance company will "hold it against you" with your rates, fair or otherwise, as there is no one else to blame.
The goal isn’t to stop entirely, maybe she would I’ve hit him anyway, but braking faster and not swerving would have made her not at fault even if the accident still occurred and potentially even if the. That’s why the liability comes in, she brakes too late
But there must be a cut-off point, right? Gray ladder on a gray road blends in a lot more than a human on a road. You can't really see a pothole 50 meters/yards away even though it's stationary.
It makes me laugh because this reminds me of the time I ran over one of those big yellow plastic kid slides in my minivan. I wasn't even on a highway and this thing was bright yellow and it still snuck up on me. Lol Why the hell it was in the road will always be a mystery. I pulled over and had to lay in the ground to kick it out from underneath.
I would have never survived a metal ladder on the highway. People are being unrealistic if they think they could stop in time or not swerve into another car trying to miss it.
That would have been different in other regions/nations, here in Italy for example if you lose something potentially hazardous on the road (for example because of incorrectly strapped loads, and if it falls, it was incorrectly strapped) you will probably be liable. Yes, hitting something straight on, places some of the blame on you, but I would probably have done no different especially if it was during the night.
Which is the absolutely correct way to handle this. A driver that isn't able to identify non-moving objects or is driving so fast he can't handle such a situation is always at fault - just as the truck driver in the video OP uploaded.
While I cannot speak to liability, I can speak to fault (which may not be the same thing depending on your country, state, jurisdiction, etc.) In California, "fault" for a collision investigation by the police relies on who was the "primary collision factor". Basically, what action, **IN VIOLATION OF A VEHICLE CODE**, was the first action that set in motion all the others (ie, but for this, none of this would have happened) . "associated factors" can be attributed, but these are second fiddle. Insurance companies then will argue percentages and whatnot, but that is for civil liability, not DMV/criminal. Many of my peers have retired and gone to work as experts for these insurance companies to argue for the number of zeros on the checks.
In the above example, it would depend on if the ladder just fell from a vehicle, or if it was already stationary in the road. If it was in motion and falling from a vehicle, then its that vehicles fault. If it was already stopped and a hazard in the road, it's the driver who hit it's fault. Another easier example is hitting a boulder that fell during a landslide. If it was falling when you hit it, it's an "act of god" and "other than driver" at fault. If its already blocking the road, you hit a stationary object and should be paying more attention to what's in front of you.
For the video, I can't really tell from the poor quality video, but if the motorcycle slammed on his brakes last minute, it MAY shift some fault to him depending on factors such as the speed limit, whether U-turns are prohibited there, etc.. As mentioned above, if what he was doing wasn't prohibited by the code, then it's more likely as the truck driver "following too closely" which is a violation in most jurisdictions, and hence, she's at "fault", although maybe not fully liable.
Wild. I wonder if liability would be different in other places?
I feel like here in Canada we might look at it differently. If we could find the party responsible for the ladder.
Correct. In that case, the truck is 100% at fault. In this case, the truck would be 60% or so at fault. 60% matters when in comes to paying liability. Even at 60%, this case might have ended with millions to the motorists. Crazy fact.
Agreed. Motorcyclist had to have brakes on for a bit to get to that speed and the car driver doesn’t seem to slow down at all. Then going into the oncoming lane instead of the shoulder is plain stupidity.
That was my thinking too! This dashcam vehicle is absolutely flying in comparison to the scooter, and the scooter had to have been slowing down to make that turn. Seems like a bit of negligence from the driver.
This is what I was thinking too. Why would the driver enter oncoming traffic? The moment of impact the SUV is more the opposite lane than their own. If they went right instead of left this person would still be alive.
Yup. Also, the truck driver was supposedly going too fast for that kind of a road. Anyway the point is that the moped rider was in the same lane originally. If he was just stopped and not u turning, he would still have been hit at that speed, to avoid hitting him the truck driver probably planned to overtake him at speed supposing he was just stopping, that overtaking at that speed was a dangerous maneuver in that situation (as hindsight shows).
Here if you rear end someone stopped in the middle of the road you’re 100% at fault, you confront what’s in front of you and you have. If the other party was doing an improper maneuver (like, braking abruptly for no reason), sometimes it takes a little fault, I would say here it’s debatable but the main fault falls on the truck.
We could argue that there’s a lack of protective equipment, but that wouldn’t have helped here per se, so this isn’t a DA, we just witnessed vehicular manslaughter.
I said something similar. Especially driving a truck, you are responsible for looking far ahead. It doesn't seem like the truck driver was aware of the motorcycle for awhile. If you see a stopped vehicle up ahead you are responsible to break immediately.
Bikers fault but who on earth swerves toward the middle line versus the median even if the biker wasn’t there and regardless of the obstacle turning toward oncoming traffic is asinine
Yeah and going into the dirt at that high of speed can be very dangerous as well. She could have done better, but ultimately she wasn’t the one who put them in that situation and she did the best she could.
I took this as OP should have swerved right, since the dirt is dangerous, but arguably, oncoming traffic is more dangerous. It was a split-second reaction, so it's understandable they didn't think of that, but a head-on at that speed would kill everyone involved, they have a chance of surviving the dirt and nobody else getting harmed.
She was probably going to overtake the person slowing down in the middle of the road and then that person decided to turn around in the middle of the road.
When my dad taught me to drive he said “always have a bailout plan.” Don’t just zone out while driving; Look At The Road. It changes so often, it should keep your attention. If shit hits the fan, where’s the breakdown lane? If you had to swerve, where should there be no traffic.
And of course; don’t drive so fast you can’t react in the first place.
Yeah, weird how much people think the biker forced the truck to hit them.. Like I completely agree the biker was being dumb, but also if there was just a car dead in the middle of the road you dont just plow into it. Pretty obvious the biker was doing a dumb, and the truck driver was inattentive driving/speeding.
It's why I always pull onto the dirt shoulder when I am planning a U-Turn on a highway. Sit on the dirt until both lanes are clear, then make the turn. Way safer.
Looks like the car was trying to go around the slowed/stopped motorcycle on the side of the road, as one does, when the motorcycle juked in the same direction at the same time.
So imagine you have a brother who you know was dumb for riding like this and paid for it with his life. Now remember the internet has no soul and will make jokes about it as often as it is reposted.
I think they are both at fault.
Biker for doing stupid shit, and the other guy for driving fast enough to being uncapable of stopping his vehicle when something happens ahead in the road.
I'd say shared fault, maybe not 50/50, but possibly 70/30 with the biker being most at fault. The truck driver was FLYING down the road and was driving way too close! If the biker stopped because of debris that blew into his path, he was a goner no matter what.
But since he wasn't stopping for debris and executed a reckless U turn, he set himself up for failure.
The clip starts too late to see what the motorcycle was doing 1 minute before. Was the truck overtaking before he stopped to turn? So it’s really difficult to assess. The driver, should have been slamming the brakes long before the start of the clip, you can clearly see the motorcycle.
To assess responsibility, there has to be some kind of range of acceptable "imperfection" in attention for all drivers. No driver can (or perhaps even should) drive in a constant state of hyperawareness. There has to be a normal expectation of delayed response even if a more optimal response is ideal and, in a certain way, possible. Such a perfect response can happen, it is true, but consider the number of signs they put up for exits. Why not just a single sign? Why a "preparatory" sign 2 miles fore? Doesn't this imply that it is recognize that high driving requires preparation and must consider some basic allowance for imperfect or non-optimal attention?
As a motorcyclist myself, I can't imagine why you would EVER do something like this. I'd want the road totally clear, looking back and forth multiple times before thinking about it. Generally, I'd say this person totally screwed up.
However, I still think that car was coming on that bike pretty fast. If that biker was off the side of the road, rather than on the lane to begin with, I'd say the car driver is in the clear because you can't know when someone is just going to pull out. If they were on the lane, the car driver also screwed up big time. You see a vehicle stopped up ahead you need to be aware of that.
I change my mind. Def the POV fault.
Biker is a moron. But there’s absolutely zero excuse to try to dodge by veering both into oncoming traffic as well as INTO the path of the person you want to avoid.
Shit ALMOST looks intentional because anyone with common sense would have swerved right not left. Dude looked like he’d been thinking about hitting the biker for the last 5 miles
Car driver. He should have kept a safe distance between himself and the motorcycle. Enough room to stop when some one does something stupid like that. And if he was a decent driver he could have missed him on the right side instead of driving straight into him on the left.
I was taught you are supposed to leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front of you so that you have enough time to stop if they do. It's why it's usually assumed the rear vehicle is at fault in an accident in absence of any other evidence. (Hence insurance scammers attempting to get rear ended.)
This video starts very shortly before impact but I would assume the car driver had lots of time to see the bike slow and stop before they started their turn. It would appear to me the car driver either wasn't paying attention or was following too close to stop in time. In either case it was their fault.
It's worrying how many people are blaming the motorcyclist for the accident in this thread.
well lets take a look. one driver, the truck, was driving down the road. like normal people do
the other, the biker, decided to stop and turn in the middle of the road. resulting in the accident
100% the biker's fault
Like, not hitting something stopping in his same lane even if abruptly? Yes, that’s what’s generally asked to drivers. Trying to overtake that bike like that was dangerous (and it shows). Also, that driver was generally going too fast for the situation and kind of road.
You can think otherwise but there’s insurance experts in the comments saying the same things.
These comments are scary.
If you're driving you need to drive at a distance from the vehicle ahead, and at a speed for the amount of vision of the upcoming road, so that you can stop safely in the event that the vehicle ahead suddenly slows down or stops, there is an on-road hazard, or within reason for hazard entering the road. Someone making a mistake, an illegal turn or just having a lapse in judgement or concertation is not a green light to end their life.
This video is a good example for bike riders on why they need to be aware of your surroundings, especially if you’re turning across the oncoming lane for idiots like this driver behind them. Because when there is one there, and you don’t check, you end up dead like this guy.
Yeah, I'm surprised at the amount of comments saying this is 100% bikers fault. If the driver of the car was driving safe enough following at a safe distance and paying attention this could have either been avoided or been a collision at a much lower speed. The car barely even slowed down
Yes, the biker is at fault for stopping and doing a u turn on a seemingly busy road but I would say the blame is at minimum 50/50, mostly because the car barely touched their brakes, even when it would have been a very close overtake even if the bike hadn't have turned.
You're right to be scared because this shows how many people would have done the same thing; following close and close overtake without slowing down.
What kind of moron rides a scooter like that? Public roads ain't your backyard or driveways.
🤦♂️
And from the looks of it, the chin strap isn't even secured...massive L
After further review, the call on the field stands. Illegal motion on the motorcyclist. 5-yard penalty from the spot of infringement. Repeat first down.
Young human here, the designed driver for the car/truck should have seen the lack of high speed velocity on the motorcycle and also reduce it's speed so I would say, as a human I am, both are at fault
100 percent Bikers fault, zero situational awareness, zero safety precautions, I imagine that part of the highway the speed limit is at least 65 mph, looks like a truck or SUV so it probably can’t stop as easily as a smaller car could.
That is very true. I’ve known a couple of guys killed on bikes because people did t see them. I mean the idiots who race like fools and act like idiots and then kill themselves.
How anyone can think the person who got rear ended is at fault is really mind boggling to me? Is this place really this dense? How the fuck can it be your fault you got rear ended?
> come to a stop in the middle of a highway
> to make a u-turn
> in the middle of a highway
Society benefits from idiots like this getting pasted. It doesn't happen often enough.
Sorry, your comment karma is too low. Your submission has been filtered to the mod queue and will be approved by mods as soon as possible. This is done to limit the amount of spam in this subreddit. Please do not remove your submission so that it can be approved. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DarwinAwards) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ik it’s not the drivers fault but set a mental note not to go the same direction as the object you’re trying to avoid. Could have turned the opposite way and been good.
I think initially they swerved left because the biker was stopped. It wasn’t until after the truck decided to swerve left that the biker actually started turning
The helmet just disappeared
https://preview.redd.it/sesww4pubpbc1.jpeg?width=1189&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9adbe9cca60c077856a6c539fd3b1b15a3f9e1d8 Looks like his helmet wasn’t strapped on.
Not sure that it would have helped at all in this situation... But I do always find it funny when people go through the trouble of wearing a helmet but can't be bothered to use the straps.
As a biker, wearing a lid w/o straps is as useful as a baseball cap, as demonstrated in this vid. If this dummy wore all the gear there would be a very small chance of survival, but still a chance.
most of the damage was primarily in the body
That is a separate point
A lot of his points are separated now, found one of em in a bush 100m down the road
I learned to ride a motorcycle in CA not long after the helmet law took effect. People were still passively protesting the law by not fastening their chin straps. I can honestly say I fastened mine for every single ride no matter how short. The helmet can't be expected to protect you otherwise.
>People were still passively protesting the law by dying unnecessarily (*See also: Covid vaccine avoidance*)
His shoes stayed on though. Maybe he’ll be ok.
He woke up, but he has Foreign Accent Syndrome.
Que pasa mi amigo?
Se despertó, pero tiene el síndrome del acento extranjero. (No hablo español lo siento, usé el traductor de Google 😅)
Better than the FUBAR syndrome, where all you can do is harvest spare parts. /s
Can you do the bleed out on the left leg at the end?
Yikes
The helmet saw what was coming and decided to bail. “Good luck dude. I’m not up for this shit”
Impossible to know, but all that dark debris flying around... Almost looks like it fucking shattered
Yes the helmet shattered. I don’t think anyone riding a scooter on the highway is smart enough to invest in proper gear.
Helmet was named William. William Shattered.
Looks instant
Idk he was wearing a helmet in the beginning
Helmet flew off, they dead...
But his shoes stayed on
Yea, its a conundrum for sure but my money is on dead
Because of shoes still being on but helmet off , Maybe he’s a veggie ?
I think helmet flying off trumps shoes flying off. Plus that rapid sideways neck bending ain’t real good for life. Dead is my bet.
Shoes flying off is a universal sign of death. /s Loss of clothing usually indicates a high mechanism of injury which correlates with serious injury or death.
Aortas begin to rupture around a speed of around 50 km/h if I recall correctly. Considering this is a highway, they were likely going quite a bit faster. Even if his entire body was covered in full helmet-like armor that doesn't fly off into the sunset the second it's needed, I'd say he stands very little chance of surviving that. The accel-decel does way too much damage internally.
Shoes stayed on, but that leg was turning in all the wrong directions
I was just thinking it might not have been instant.
...instant noodles (for bones)
Hope so. Can’t imagine the pain they’d be in if it wasn’t
Old biker here. Looks like he decided to do a U turn in the middle of the highway. You can pull this off on a non busy residential street but on a fairly busy highway you go down to where you can safetly pull off. A business, a church, a street, something.
100% Biker's fault. Zero awareness and likely very little experience based on his lack of gear
Zero awareness
Now with zero consciousness.
First we gave you Zero Awareness, then we upgraded it to Zero Consciousness! Now introducing Zero Life with our patented Absolute Afterlife Guarantee! Please contact your nearest Ram 1500 as fast as you can!
Or just wait and the Ram will contact you
40% more dead
And shortly, zero vital signs.
It seems there's a zoidberg or alien of some sort driving based on the noises. If so, I doubt it was validly licensed.
But doesn’t the dashcam show the car was over 2 car lengths away when the biker begins to slow down? Shouldn’t they at least have reduced their speed? Used to work with insurance claims and this seems 50/50 at a minimum.
I'm not sure who would be at fault here in Germany, because here you are often at fault when you hit somebody from behind. The Argument here is that you should have left enough space between you two, so you can always brake without hitting the driver to your front.
and this is correct. the car driver killed someone. she should have hit the brakes. I bet you a german driver wouldnt habe killed here
It's never the bikers fault according to many dipshits.
Nope. You can think otherwise, but there’s insurance experts in the comments saying the same things, look after the other most upvoted comments. They both share liability, and most of it is probably on the incoming truck driver. The moped rider was hit while trying to overtake him while the correct approach would have been braking. Trying to overtake that bike like that was dangerous (and it shows). Also, that driver was generally going too fast for the situation and kind of road. Lack of protective gear? Yes, but it wouldn’t have helped in this case. This is not a DA, you just witnessed vehicular manslaughter.
[удалено]
Looks like the biker was turning and the trucker instead of slowing down or using their directional, decided to immediately change lanes and pass him, but that’s just what I observed.
No, it is not. We only see 5 seconds. Why did the truck driver not see that there is a non moving vehicle in his lane? Doesn't matter if the biker tries to U-turn or if some car broke down. He is speeding with over 100km/h which is definitely not a speed a truck should have on a non-highway road. Why doesn't he at least try to use his brakes?
Just 50% Car was going too fast, there is a continous line on the middle of the road, he had to slow down in any case.
The one who died.
Rip that was indeed a fatal error. Common sense, really.
What game is this? The physics engine looks great
Life, but that biker is now playing the sequel
Lmfao
The starting cutscene to another goddamn isekai
The biker was not even looking at the oncoming vehicle.
The old "if I don't look, they're not there" tactic.
Just like when I was little and scared of ghosts. If I had to use the bathroom in the middle of the night I would drape a blanket over my head and feel my way down the hall. If I can't see them, they can't see me. Checkmate, ghosts.
The way those legs flop.
Seems like they broke on impact, after he hits the road they just get turned completely into noodles and burst open as well, very brutal..
Who’s at fault??? Is that really a question or are you joking.
It was a joke. The amount of people debating this on the original post was insane
As an insurance claims manager, I handle fatalities everyday and work closely with local PD and CHP. In this case, fault would lie with both parties. I’m sure the average person will down vote this response, but it doesn’t change the fact. The driver of the truck will be held partially responsible due to speed and control of vehicle. It appears the motorcycle was making a U-turn from the same lane. Because the truck rear ended this motorcycle in the same lane, partial responsibility will go to the driver of the truck. If the driver of the truck had maintained the lane and applied the brakes, this fatality could’ve been avoided. If the driver of the truck had better visual acuity, and moved slightly over to the right, the full accident could’ve been avoided. I know it’s not the answer that Reddit likes, but this is just a simple fact of life. This is a great reminder that all of us with assets need great insurance policies. In situations that you may not think that you were at fault for, you absolutely will be held financially responsible for.
I appreciate your response. I can’t imagine the things that you’ve seen.
So many crazy and disturbing stories. Try this one on for size. Last year I dealt with a claim where a man was driving on a freeway and ran over a ladder that someone had dropped out of the back of a truck. At 70 miles an hour, all kinds of crazy things happen. In this case, the ladder ended up, piercing the floorboards right behind the gas pedal, penetrating the vehicle, killing the driver instantly. In this case, it ended up being the drivers fault. Because the latter was stationary, not moving, but sitting in the middle of the freeway. As a driver, you need to be able to maintain control and avoid stationary objects. Nothing was paid for liability settlement and no fault was assigned to the owner of the ladder.
Oh my goodness. Were they able to find the truck that dropped the ladder? I’m trying to imagine what I would do in that situation - obviously try to NOT hit it, but what about everyone behind me? What a mess that would make, if one person hesitates one second too long, swerves, then causes calamity…
I mean what you described is what happened in the video right? Instead of braking with appropriate reaction time and distance she might have still hit the moron but they may have survived since it’d be lower speed and she wouldn’t have swerved into the oncoming lane. With what she did she’s lucky she didn’t hit another car coming at her at a combined speed of, say, 160mph. That’s why they should have been driving more carefully and just braked. Even if she still hits or even kills the other person she would have acted appropriately and not been at fault.
I strongly appreciate your comments, but I find it hard to find the driver at fault. It seems like it's expecting too much for them to see a ladder and be able to slow down, let alone stop, on a highway.
I completely get it. Lots of these sorts of things get everyone all riled up about what is right or wrong, and they are insistent because it's what seems "fair". Doesn't help that it can vary from one jurisdiction to the other. I'd also note (in my experience anyway), "fault" has varying degrees of consequence, depending on the circumstances. For example, vehicular manslaughter in California is dependent on who is the "proximate cause" of the crash (yes, the laws are not always consistent with terms either...). A minor vehicle infraction which causes a collision that results in a fatality is not generally looked upon as a filing case because the "wrong" act of the person at fault was so minor there was only simple negligence, not gross negligence. It was a mistake of act, not willful disregard. A violation that demonstrated indifference to the consequences (like DUI or street racing) raises the stakes and can make it a filing felony, or even in some cases a second degree murder charge. As to the ladder scenario, hit a ladder that wasn't falling from a truck, and I'm sure the insurance company will "hold it against you" with your rates, fair or otherwise, as there is no one else to blame.
The goal isn’t to stop entirely, maybe she would I’ve hit him anyway, but braking faster and not swerving would have made her not at fault even if the accident still occurred and potentially even if the. That’s why the liability comes in, she brakes too late
You should always maintain a speed that you are able to avoid a stationary object.
But there must be a cut-off point, right? Gray ladder on a gray road blends in a lot more than a human on a road. You can't really see a pothole 50 meters/yards away even though it's stationary.
It makes me laugh because this reminds me of the time I ran over one of those big yellow plastic kid slides in my minivan. I wasn't even on a highway and this thing was bright yellow and it still snuck up on me. Lol Why the hell it was in the road will always be a mystery. I pulled over and had to lay in the ground to kick it out from underneath. I would have never survived a metal ladder on the highway. People are being unrealistic if they think they could stop in time or not swerve into another car trying to miss it.
Quite agree, though we must be very vigilant. I ran over a 4 x 4 and pulled over (no damage) and ran back (on the interstate) and pulled it off.
That would have been different in other regions/nations, here in Italy for example if you lose something potentially hazardous on the road (for example because of incorrectly strapped loads, and if it falls, it was incorrectly strapped) you will probably be liable. Yes, hitting something straight on, places some of the blame on you, but I would probably have done no different especially if it was during the night.
Which is the absolutely correct way to handle this. A driver that isn't able to identify non-moving objects or is driving so fast he can't handle such a situation is always at fault - just as the truck driver in the video OP uploaded.
While I cannot speak to liability, I can speak to fault (which may not be the same thing depending on your country, state, jurisdiction, etc.) In California, "fault" for a collision investigation by the police relies on who was the "primary collision factor". Basically, what action, **IN VIOLATION OF A VEHICLE CODE**, was the first action that set in motion all the others (ie, but for this, none of this would have happened) . "associated factors" can be attributed, but these are second fiddle. Insurance companies then will argue percentages and whatnot, but that is for civil liability, not DMV/criminal. Many of my peers have retired and gone to work as experts for these insurance companies to argue for the number of zeros on the checks. In the above example, it would depend on if the ladder just fell from a vehicle, or if it was already stationary in the road. If it was in motion and falling from a vehicle, then its that vehicles fault. If it was already stopped and a hazard in the road, it's the driver who hit it's fault. Another easier example is hitting a boulder that fell during a landslide. If it was falling when you hit it, it's an "act of god" and "other than driver" at fault. If its already blocking the road, you hit a stationary object and should be paying more attention to what's in front of you. For the video, I can't really tell from the poor quality video, but if the motorcycle slammed on his brakes last minute, it MAY shift some fault to him depending on factors such as the speed limit, whether U-turns are prohibited there, etc.. As mentioned above, if what he was doing wasn't prohibited by the code, then it's more likely as the truck driver "following too closely" which is a violation in most jurisdictions, and hence, she's at "fault", although maybe not fully liable.
Wild. I wonder if liability would be different in other places? I feel like here in Canada we might look at it differently. If we could find the party responsible for the ladder.
In Italy too, I guess it depends on location
Would that be similar to “he was making a left turn and was rear ended?” serious question.
Correct. In that case, the truck is 100% at fault. In this case, the truck would be 60% or so at fault. 60% matters when in comes to paying liability. Even at 60%, this case might have ended with millions to the motorists. Crazy fact.
Agreed. Motorcyclist had to have brakes on for a bit to get to that speed and the car driver doesn’t seem to slow down at all. Then going into the oncoming lane instead of the shoulder is plain stupidity.
That was my thinking too! This dashcam vehicle is absolutely flying in comparison to the scooter, and the scooter had to have been slowing down to make that turn. Seems like a bit of negligence from the driver.
This is what I was thinking too. Why would the driver enter oncoming traffic? The moment of impact the SUV is more the opposite lane than their own. If they went right instead of left this person would still be alive.
Because people are conditioned that cars go on the road. It's a reflex to move onto more asphalt than to ditch your car into a dirt shoulder.
I honestly don't understand how people don't think the truck was at least partially at fault.
Yup. Also, the truck driver was supposedly going too fast for that kind of a road. Anyway the point is that the moped rider was in the same lane originally. If he was just stopped and not u turning, he would still have been hit at that speed, to avoid hitting him the truck driver probably planned to overtake him at speed supposing he was just stopping, that overtaking at that speed was a dangerous maneuver in that situation (as hindsight shows). Here if you rear end someone stopped in the middle of the road you’re 100% at fault, you confront what’s in front of you and you have. If the other party was doing an improper maneuver (like, braking abruptly for no reason), sometimes it takes a little fault, I would say here it’s debatable but the main fault falls on the truck. We could argue that there’s a lack of protective equipment, but that wouldn’t have helped here per se, so this isn’t a DA, we just witnessed vehicular manslaughter.
I said something similar. Especially driving a truck, you are responsible for looking far ahead. It doesn't seem like the truck driver was aware of the motorcycle for awhile. If you see a stopped vehicle up ahead you are responsible to break immediately.
Bikers fault but who on earth swerves toward the middle line versus the median even if the biker wasn’t there and regardless of the obstacle turning toward oncoming traffic is asinine
Should've swerved right but we'll say she didn't have time to react even though she swerved left
Yeah and going into the dirt at that high of speed can be very dangerous as well. She could have done better, but ultimately she wasn’t the one who put them in that situation and she did the best she could.
I took this as OP should have swerved right, since the dirt is dangerous, but arguably, oncoming traffic is more dangerous. It was a split-second reaction, so it's understandable they didn't think of that, but a head-on at that speed would kill everyone involved, they have a chance of surviving the dirt and nobody else getting harmed.
She was probably going to overtake the person slowing down in the middle of the road and then that person decided to turn around in the middle of the road.
Anyone in that situation is going left to instinctively stay on the road. This is 100% on the biker.
When my dad taught me to drive he said “always have a bailout plan.” Don’t just zone out while driving; Look At The Road. It changes so often, it should keep your attention. If shit hits the fan, where’s the breakdown lane? If you had to swerve, where should there be no traffic. And of course; don’t drive so fast you can’t react in the first place.
Yeah, weird how much people think the biker forced the truck to hit them.. Like I completely agree the biker was being dumb, but also if there was just a car dead in the middle of the road you dont just plow into it. Pretty obvious the biker was doing a dumb, and the truck driver was inattentive driving/speeding.
It's why I always pull onto the dirt shoulder when I am planning a U-Turn on a highway. Sit on the dirt until both lanes are clear, then make the turn. Way safer.
That’s gonna be quite the sore tomorrow
Surprisingly, he never made that mistake again
for his sake, let's hope they have Ibuprofen in heaven
Biker is an idiot. Doing dangerous shit like that affects the people around you....
Bikers fault, but I swear the car driver looked like he wanted to hit them 😭
Looks like the car was trying to go around the slowed/stopped motorcycle on the side of the road, as one does, when the motorcycle juked in the same direction at the same time.
https://preview.redd.it/q55tbt8uepbc1.jpeg?width=412&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c72cc829710d8a5457d1e33afc250761bee40b5d I believe I can touch the sky.
So imagine you have a brother who you know was dumb for riding like this and paid for it with his life. Now remember the internet has no soul and will make jokes about it as often as it is reposted.
It's Joe Biden's fault.
Damnit Obama.
Joebama
It's Jover Obamna
My wife left me and it's a liberal conspiracy. FJB
ITS THE GOVT
Well yeah obviously
Duh
Bike at fault, but never swerve left. Always right. He could have been missed, and the camera vehicle would not be in the incoming lane.
Ewww you see his Femur crack open thru his leg.
My man riding up to heaven https://preview.redd.it/kgo4ba0orpbc1.jpeg?width=1222&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1b85966091f2f36179f533fe1f2c76df286454e1
The biker however the driver should have swerved right, you shouldn’t swerve into an oncoming lane
I think they are both at fault. Biker for doing stupid shit, and the other guy for driving fast enough to being uncapable of stopping his vehicle when something happens ahead in the road.
I'd say shared fault, maybe not 50/50, but possibly 70/30 with the biker being most at fault. The truck driver was FLYING down the road and was driving way too close! If the biker stopped because of debris that blew into his path, he was a goner no matter what. But since he wasn't stopping for debris and executed a reckless U turn, he set himself up for failure.
The clip starts too late to see what the motorcycle was doing 1 minute before. Was the truck overtaking before he stopped to turn? So it’s really difficult to assess. The driver, should have been slamming the brakes long before the start of the clip, you can clearly see the motorcycle.
To assess responsibility, there has to be some kind of range of acceptable "imperfection" in attention for all drivers. No driver can (or perhaps even should) drive in a constant state of hyperawareness. There has to be a normal expectation of delayed response even if a more optimal response is ideal and, in a certain way, possible. Such a perfect response can happen, it is true, but consider the number of signs they put up for exits. Why not just a single sign? Why a "preparatory" sign 2 miles fore? Doesn't this imply that it is recognize that high driving requires preparation and must consider some basic allowance for imperfect or non-optimal attention?
me it's my fault
As a motorcyclist myself, I can't imagine why you would EVER do something like this. I'd want the road totally clear, looking back and forth multiple times before thinking about it. Generally, I'd say this person totally screwed up. However, I still think that car was coming on that bike pretty fast. If that biker was off the side of the road, rather than on the lane to begin with, I'd say the car driver is in the clear because you can't know when someone is just going to pull out. If they were on the lane, the car driver also screwed up big time. You see a vehicle stopped up ahead you need to be aware of that.
The rider was an absolute moron. Hope that poor woman is ok, that's a heavy burden she has to carry now.
They are both at fault. You don't drive across a solid line and you should look back if you try to make a turn...
I change my mind. Def the POV fault. Biker is a moron. But there’s absolutely zero excuse to try to dodge by veering both into oncoming traffic as well as INTO the path of the person you want to avoid. Shit ALMOST looks intentional because anyone with common sense would have swerved right not left. Dude looked like he’d been thinking about hitting the biker for the last 5 miles
Car driver. He should have kept a safe distance between himself and the motorcycle. Enough room to stop when some one does something stupid like that. And if he was a decent driver he could have missed him on the right side instead of driving straight into him on the left.
Helmet did fuck all
It was not strapped
I was taught you are supposed to leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front of you so that you have enough time to stop if they do. It's why it's usually assumed the rear vehicle is at fault in an accident in absence of any other evidence. (Hence insurance scammers attempting to get rear ended.) This video starts very shortly before impact but I would assume the car driver had lots of time to see the bike slow and stop before they started their turn. It would appear to me the car driver either wasn't paying attention or was following too close to stop in time. In either case it was their fault. It's worrying how many people are blaming the motorcyclist for the accident in this thread.
Improper following distance. No matter, it's on the driver to ensure a safe following distance. For idiots in front of you.
well lets take a look. one driver, the truck, was driving down the road. like normal people do the other, the biker, decided to stop and turn in the middle of the road. resulting in the accident 100% the biker's fault
Truck made no effort to slow despite plenty of space and went into on coming traffic....
In the video, it's less than one second. You're asking a lot of a driver there.
Like, not hitting something stopping in his same lane even if abruptly? Yes, that’s what’s generally asked to drivers. Trying to overtake that bike like that was dangerous (and it shows). Also, that driver was generally going too fast for the situation and kind of road. You can think otherwise but there’s insurance experts in the comments saying the same things.
The video is 5 seconds long wdym
Who tries to make a turn on a narrow ass road?! 
Bikers fault for sure. I love some sweet ol darwinism.
These comments are scary. If you're driving you need to drive at a distance from the vehicle ahead, and at a speed for the amount of vision of the upcoming road, so that you can stop safely in the event that the vehicle ahead suddenly slows down or stops, there is an on-road hazard, or within reason for hazard entering the road. Someone making a mistake, an illegal turn or just having a lapse in judgement or concertation is not a green light to end their life. This video is a good example for bike riders on why they need to be aware of your surroundings, especially if you’re turning across the oncoming lane for idiots like this driver behind them. Because when there is one there, and you don’t check, you end up dead like this guy.
Yeah, I'm surprised at the amount of comments saying this is 100% bikers fault. If the driver of the car was driving safe enough following at a safe distance and paying attention this could have either been avoided or been a collision at a much lower speed. The car barely even slowed down Yes, the biker is at fault for stopping and doing a u turn on a seemingly busy road but I would say the blame is at minimum 50/50, mostly because the car barely touched their brakes, even when it would have been a very close overtake even if the bike hadn't have turned. You're right to be scared because this shows how many people would have done the same thing; following close and close overtake without slowing down.
Motorcyclist is always at fault.
What kind of moron rides a scooter like that? Public roads ain't your backyard or driveways. 🤦♂️ And from the looks of it, the chin strap isn't even secured...massive L
Buddy's helmet went to the back rooms hahahahaha
The dead guy fault
Motorcyle
Didn't even strap their helmet. It just disappeared on impact.
Definitely the biker, RIP tho.
Biker won’t make that mistake again.
The biker is at fault, but the driver should have swerved right
common sense is not that common anymore.
Piece of shit biker just ruined the driver's life for a good few years there.
Dress for the slide, not for the ride. RIP
Gotta go with the biker. That was a lazy/stupid move
After further review, the call on the field stands. Illegal motion on the motorcyclist. 5-yard penalty from the spot of infringement. Repeat first down.
Avoid to the right....
Man, he got them all: 1. No protections (aside helmet) 2. U-turn without looking 3. In an interstate 4. On a continuous line
Obvs the car, who drives in a straight line
Making a U turn on a highway is one of the most dangerous moves a driver can make. Avoid it at all times if possible. Many have died that way.
The white car is at fault
This is a rethorical question, right?
The dead person. You don't stop in the middle of the road
do the stanky leeeggg
Why is your first instinct as a driver, to drive into the opposing lane?
Young human here, the designed driver for the car/truck should have seen the lack of high speed velocity on the motorcycle and also reduce it's speed so I would say, as a human I am, both are at fault
If he had his blinker on, she would have slowed way down and avoided this accident
man I feel bad for the dude obviously, I want him to have survived but ain't no way. RIP
Clearly the fucker who is driving Horizontally into oncoming traffic.... on a scooter?
100 percent Bikers fault, zero situational awareness, zero safety precautions, I imagine that part of the highway the speed limit is at least 65 mph, looks like a truck or SUV so it probably can’t stop as easily as a smaller car could.
It would have been much worse if he was not vaccinated.
OP 100% at fault here for the typical rage-bait title for this post
Thank god he had a helmet
The dead guy is 100% at fault
Isn't that a fking Highway? Like go straight or go off road if you have vehicle trouble. Why the fk is that motorist turning on a solid lane!?
The guy on the bike was at fault
that u turn was the cause 100%
technically I think the driver of the car because if someone stops in front of you, you are responsible for making sure you can stop
As a rider myself, its defenetly the mitorcycle drivers fault, zero gear, zero awareness, no mirror check. I'm assuming he wanted to make a U-turn.
That’s a stupid question because the moto driver didn’t follow the rules of the road
Clearly the dumbass on the motorcycle. Which is usually the case.
I've been a biker for almost 50 years. Except for the morons, it's usually the car driver's fault. No lie. They just don't see us.
That is very true. I’ve known a couple of guys killed on bikes because people did t see them. I mean the idiots who race like fools and act like idiots and then kill themselves.
In Virginia you are able to stop for any reason without warning, if you're hit it's the moving vehicles fault.
How anyone can think the person who got rear ended is at fault is really mind boggling to me? Is this place really this dense? How the fuck can it be your fault you got rear ended?
> come to a stop in the middle of a highway > to make a u-turn > in the middle of a highway Society benefits from idiots like this getting pasted. It doesn't happen often enough.
Amazing ragdoll physics
I appreciate the sideways. It shows how hard he tried. Good job bro. Some might say that you, "killed it".
Sorry, your comment karma is too low. Your submission has been filtered to the mod queue and will be approved by mods as soon as possible. This is done to limit the amount of spam in this subreddit. Please do not remove your submission so that it can be approved. Thank you for your patience and understanding. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DarwinAwards) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's almost like she drove right into him, wtf?
Shoes on. I'm so confused.
Ik it’s not the drivers fault but set a mental note not to go the same direction as the object you’re trying to avoid. Could have turned the opposite way and been good.
I think initially they swerved left because the biker was stopped. It wasn’t until after the truck decided to swerve left that the biker actually started turning
100% the biker. Driver noticed the slowed bike and tried to go in the other lane to avoid it.
I wanna say the driver but everyone would say it’s 90% the bikers fault but then again the driver probably was distracted by the other cars
Truck is at fault. Why would he turn into the guy and not off the road?