Cager U-Turn's Into Biker

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by MyTriggaz

I'm not sure the accident was avoidable, that's my point. The rider is traveling a safe distance behind the car in front, reacted to the taxi pulling out slightly, then bam, the u turning car is there in his path of travel. He did what he was supposed to do, following safely, scan the area 2-5 seconds in front, deal with immediate threat (taxi), once safe continue scanning 2-5 seconds, unfortunately fit him, the car was not within the 2-5 second range but was an immediate threat.

Not all collisions are avoidable.

The 2 things I see that could have saved the accident from happening is if the rider was following WAY to close to the car in front. But then, everyone would be dogging on him for that, but that could have saved him from the collision. The other option would be to disregard the taxi threat entirely and hope for the best and the taxi stops, and continue scanning in front. But disregarding a possible immediate threat isn't what we are supposed to do. Both of these options are not what we are taught.

It's a safer bet to assume that someone is going to pull from an intersection and hit you, rather than someone illegally pulling a u turn in the middle of the block.

Not trying to be a d*ck about this, but hindsight is 20/20 but IMO, the rider did exactly what he needed to do and assumed the immediate legitimate threat, the taxi, needed his attention.

I'm not sure it was avoidable either, I said "could" be able to avoid the accident. We are discussing possibilities here.

I agree that he processed the threat of the taxi first, but I also agree with CSmith12 that he focused for too long on the taxi. Unfortunately I probably would have taken one of my hands off the bars to gesture towards the taxi driver in a one fingered salute.

Would that extra second have saved him a lot of pain? It might have, it might have allowed him to get on the brakes a bit sooner, he may still have hit the car, but he would have hit it at a slower speed.

The first time watching the video on a small screen I did not see the car pulling out until it was too late. Like I said we are Monday morning quarterbacking this, watching the video at slow speeds, frame by frame to pick apart his actions.

One other thing the rider could have done differently, he doesn't appear to be wearing any high visibility clothing. We also don't know if he had a headlight modulator.

That incident does make me want to get a helmet cam though. I do have a dash cam on my truck.

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by akima

Personally, my goal is to continually improve upon what I know, taking in the best advice I can find. If the Minnesota handbook has some good advice in it, I will happily incorporate it into my riding. If there is inapplicable advice in that book I would discard just that inapplicable advice.

Fixed it for you.

Your riding environment is different, some bits cross over, some do not. There are pro's and con's to everything.

[MyTriggaz]

Lots of great info to think about here. While I agree with most of what everyone is saying, I still believe the rider didn't do anything wrong. Lots of "maybe this" or "he shouldn't have" going on. I do think he didn't do anything "wrong" but could have done things "differently" to make the situation better or less painful.

The biggest thing I would like to know is if u turns are legal in the middle of the street where the rider is at or not. If they are, then I could see how the rider should be adapting to that scenario differently and riding as such.

As opposed to it being illegal, a rider might assume that most drivers are not going to pull a u turn in that spot, allowing focus to be in the legitimate, immediate, legal threat.

Maybe I'm just looking at this through a different set of glasses since u turns in Minnesota are allowed at all intersections unleased posted differently, no u turns are allowed in the middle of the block. While I'm sure it does happen here, I've never seen it or heard of anyone doing that.

It's something I don't normally look for, but will be more aware of now that I've watched the vid and read all your replies.

[RacinNinja]

IronicRebound is in Toronto, Canada.

The rules for Ontario are:

A: MTO spokesperson Bob Nichols replies: Section 142 HTA requires drivers to signal their intentions before making turns. All turns must be made in safety. Sec. 143 HTA prohibits U-turns in specific locations: No driver or operator of a vehicle upon a highway shall turn the vehicle so as to proceed in the opposite direction when: A) Upon a curve where traffic approaching the vehicle from either direction cannot be seen by the driver of the vehicle within a distance of 150 metres, B) On a railway crossing or within 30 metres of a railway crossing, C) Upon an approach to or near the crest of a grade, where the vehicle cannot be seen by the driver of another vehicle approaching from either direction within 150 metres, D) Within 150 metres of a bridge, viaduct or tunnel, where the driver’s view is obstructed within such distance. The information above is of a general nature only.

So, given this information, the attempted u-turn was in fact legal.

However, failure to yield would cause the car driver to be at fault.

The motorcyclist had the legal "right of way" but always remember that "right of way" is nothing more than words.

This is a link to the section of the Ministry of Transportation Drivers Handbook for Ontario with the information: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dan...on2.6.11.shtml

[toEleven]

I can appreciate your perspective, but I'm personally unconcerned with the legality of other driver's maneuvers. I'm concerned with reaching my destination. The law itself does not stop anyone from taking a particular action. It's the actions of other drivers that may end or adversely affect my life; not the legality of those actions.

It's a very regular occurrence for me to watch drivers make U-turns in front of "No U-Turn" signs. I struggle to imagine parts of the US that are much different in that regard.

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by MyTriggaz

The biggest thing I would like to know is if u turns are legal in the middle of the street where the rider is at or not. If they are, then I could see how the rider should be adapting to that scenario differently and riding as such.

I live my daily life in a small quaint town in rural KY, sometimes I drive to Orlando FL. The difference in how people drive is immensely astounding, I might as well be on the moon. U-turns at intersections, in turn offs through medians, bla bla bla... And don't get me started on how they drove in Jamaica... OMG, 55mph just inches from pedestrians on the sidewalk like it was nothing new from yesterday. And to think I almost rented a bike... nah, I was not prepared, but people adapt as needed I guess.

[CaliGrrl]

Oh, yeah, here in L.A. people do just about anything on the roads. It's amazing.

[Motofool]

Originally Posted by akima

..........Watch any one of ....... "Daily Observation" videos and you can see just how gracefully, fluidly and safely a person can handle a traffic situation that is loaded with threats........

My hat is off to him ........... and to you, Akima, if you ride in that traffic !!!

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by MyTriggaz

Lots of great info to think about here. While I agree with most of what everyone is saying, I still believe the rider didn't do anything wrong. Lots of "maybe this" or "he shouldn't have" going on. I do think he didn't do anything "wrong" but could have done things "differently" to make the situation better or less painful.

The biggest thing I would like to know is if u turns are legal in the middle of the street where the rider is at or not. If they are, then I could see how the rider should be adapting to that scenario differently and riding as such.

As opposed to it being illegal, a rider might assume that most drivers are not going to pull a u turn in that spot, allowing focus to be in the legitimate, immediate, legal threat.

Maybe I'm just looking at this through a different set of glasses since u turns in Minnesota are allowed at all intersections unleased posted differently, no u turns are allowed in the middle of the block. While I'm sure it does happen here, I've never seen it or heard of anyone doing that.

It's something I don't normally look for, but will be more aware of now that I've watched the vid and read all your replies.

Drunk driving is illegal, but I still watch for drivers that are weaving and driving irratic.

Dogs run across the road, kids chase balls out into the street, deer jump out in front of you, all sorts of things that can happen to ruin your day on a motorcycle.

If you hit one not doesn't necessarily mean that you are wrong. But there might have been something you could have done to avoid the accident.

There also can be multiple causes to an accident. So while the driver of the car is at fault, the riders focusing on the taxi contributed to the accident. Other things like bike maintenance, rider training, rider alertness, can all come into play.

I think most of us are in agreement with you.

However there are people that feel there is no such thing as an accident and we are 100% responsible for what happens in our lives. Taken to the extreme they could say the rider was responsible for his injuries because he chose to ride a motorcycle that day.

You aren't going to agree with everyone on the Internet.

[csmith12]

Challenge question ... assuming he couldn't stop in time, where is his escape route and what is making that route harder to get to?

Let me rephrase the question. Why is this guy riding in a lane that limits his options?

[Panda]

Originally Posted by MyTriggaz

The biggest thing I would like to know is if u turns are legal in the middle of the street where the rider is at or not. If they are, then I could see how the rider should be adapting to that scenario differently and riding as such.

If you start viewing potential risks based on legality you may ignore “illegal” risks under the presumption they might not happen.

As a rider approaching a line of cars on the right you need to be watching for things like – children playing that can dart out between cars or throw a ball or toy on the road, small pets, people in cars that may be pulling out or about to open a door, a brake light that indicates the same, or a wheel turning toward the road, you should be looking for bicyclists, etc.

None of these things is illegal per se but a basketball that some kid threw in front of your front tire doesn’t care if it’s legal or illegal.

[MyTriggaz]

Originally Posted by Panda

If you start viewing potential risks based on legality you may ignore “illegal” risks under the presumption they might not happen.

As a rider approaching a line of cars on the right you need to be watching for things like – children playing that can dart out between cars or throw a ball or toy on the road, small pets, people in cars that may be pulling out or about to open a door, a brake light that indicates the same, or a wheel turning toward the road, you should be looking for bicyclists, etc.

None of these things is illegal per se but a basketball that some kid threw in front of your front tire doesn’t care if it’s legal or illegal.

All I'm trying to say is that if the u turn is legal, it's something that needs to be watched for very closely, if it is not legal, then one can assume that MOST people wouldn't do it, thus presenting less of a risk than a taxi pulling out in front of you.

I'm not saying you shouldn't watch for the car busting the u turn, but you can assume the risk is lower if it is illegal, since people shouldn't be doing it.

But since it was a legal u turn (crazy Canadians), and I'm assuming a more common occurrence than here in Minnesota, I agree that he fixated to long on the taxi, and should have been looking past the taxi sooner than he did. However as previously stated, I'm not sure that would have caused a different out come.



On a side note. I am going to side with you guys a little more, not all the way though. Reason? I actually had an SUV bust an illegal u turn in front of me yesterday. Thankfully, I was a safer distance away and it was from the oncoming traffic, rather than my side of the road. I have him a nice little head shake and a wtf look, and pointed to the helmet cam. Then they proceeded to run the red light at the next light.

[toEleven]

Originally Posted by MyTriggaz

All I'm trying to say is that if the u turn is legal, it's something that needs to be watched for very closely, if it is not legal, then one can assume that MOST people wouldn't do it, thus presenting less of a risk than a taxi pulling out in front of you.

I'm not saying you shouldn't watch for the car busting the u turn, but you can assume the risk is lower if it is illegal, since people shouldn't be doing it.
...

Your phrasing reminded me of something here. If we were to put together a risk analysis and mitigation matrix for street riding threats, we'd probably come up with similar ratings for probability and level of impact. A legal maneuver is high probability and high impact in the case of collision with a taxi. An illegal U-turn is lower probability, but still high impact. We could go on and on for a very long list of threats. If one multiplied the probability by the impact, they could assign each threat a score.

What you've written above explicitly points out the difference in probability. What seems implicit to me in the posts so far is that we have varying thresholds when it comes time to make a mitigation strategy. So, one homework assignment from the discussion may be to review where our thresholds lie, and possibly consider shifting them.

[snot]

U turns are legal in Ohio, expect where posted.
Just throwing that out there...

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by snot

U turns are legal in Ohio, expect where posted.
Just throwing that out there...

And as many states as I have traveled through up and down the east, they are legal in most states unless posted otherwise.

[InvisiBill]

FYI, U-turns are also legal in Michigan as long as you can complete them "safely" and "without impeding traffic", unless there are signs specifically prohibiting them.

https://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=100178 is Jiggles' thread, for others who haven't seen it. WARNING: Picture inside of a leg bending in a place where it shouldn't.


I agree that the rider spent too much time focusing on the taxi area. He's completely through the intersection and still got his head turned 45° (0:38, looking at the white minivan). That's the root cause of not seeing the car in time to avoid it. His head is turned so far that his helmet actually blocks most of the car from view of the camera. As others have pointed out, you can see the car starting to pull out at 0:36, before he even gets to the intersection. He should've been keeping an eye on the taxi as he went through the intersection, but his scanning also should've already picked up the car as a possible danger.

He looks a bit to the right at the taxi as he goes through the intersection, starts to look ahead again, then looks even further to the right. I wonder if something else over there caught his attention...

And yes, we're totally commentating on this in a way that's completely different from being there. We can watch it over and over in slo-mo. We're stuck with the limited view the camera provides. While the camera does follow the rider's head, we don't have the option of moving his eyes to see other things. If any of us were in his place, we may have done things completely different or exactly the same.

Personally, I know that I like to scan down sidestreets as I pass through intersections. If nothing else, this is a reminder not to ignore the street in front of me while doing so.

[VaFish]

Originally Posted by InvisiBill

He looks a bit to the right at the taxi as he goes through the intersection, starts to look ahead again, then looks even further to the right. I wonder if something else over there caught his attention...

There is another small car that is letting a passenger off that is kind of blocked from view by the taxi until he goes past, that may have caught his eye, but if that was a threat it was too late to do anything about it.

[ZeroGravity360]

Originally Posted by MyTriggaz

I'm not sure the accident was avoidable, that's my point. The rider is traveling a safe distance behind the car in front, reacted to the taxi pulling out slightly, then bam, the u turning car is there in his path of travel. He did what he was supposed to do, following safely, scan the area 2-5 seconds in front, deal with immediate threat (taxi), once safe continue scanning 2-5 seconds, unfortunately fit him, the car was not within the 2-5 second range but was an immediate threat.

Not all collisions are avoidable.

The 2 things I see that could have saved the accident from happening is if the rider was following WAY to close to the car in front. But then, everyone would be dogging on him for that, but that could have saved him from the collision. The other option would be to disregard the taxi threat entirely and hope for the best and the taxi stops, and continue scanning in front. But disregarding a possible immediate threat isn't what we are supposed to do. Both of these options are not what we are taught.

It's a safer bet to assume that someone is going to pull from an intersection and hit you, rather than someone illegally pulling a u turn in the middle of the block.

Not trying to be a d*ck about this, but hindsight is 20/20 but IMO, the rider did exactly what he needed to do and assumed the immediate legitimate threat, the taxi, needed his attention.

I completely agree with you on this. I do not see how the rider could have avoided this. One of my good friends also got hit when he was going through a green light and a driver trying to turn left turned INTO him, not in front of him. In these situations there is VERY little if anything at all that can be done to avoid such accidents.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by ZeroGravity360

I completely agree with you on this. I do not see how the rider could have avoided this. One of my good friends also got hit when he was going through a green light and a driver trying to turn left turned INTO him, not in front of him. In these situations there is VERY little if anything at all that can be done to avoid such accidents.

Do you recognize the clues of what was going to happen. There was plenty of time to do a lot but the rider allowed himself to get distracted and missed them.

There are unavoidable crashes, but that number is less than 10% and does not include this one.

More than half of motorbike crashes happen in the first 3 months of riding. How are experienced riders able to avoid crashes at a much higher rate than even experienced cagers?

[ZeroGravity360]

Originally Posted by allanoue

Do you recognize the clues of what was going to happen. There was plenty of time to do a lot but the rider allowed himself to get distracted and missed them.

There are unavoidable crashes, but that number is less than 10% and does not include this one.

More than half of motorbike crashes happen in the first 3 months of riding. How are experienced riders able to avoid crashes at a much higher rate than even experienced cagers?

I do see what has happened. however, the speed he was going (keeping up with traffic) and the distance from him to the car when the car pulled out, there still was no time to react. I would have hit her in my CAR if this exact same scenario happened. What was he going to do? swerve? swerve where? she was taking up both lanes with her car and if he went into the lane with on coming traffic, she would have still hit him because she was going forward!

[RacinNinja]

Originally Posted by ZeroGravity360

I do see what has happened. however, the speed he was going (keeping up with traffic) and the distance from him to the car when the car pulled out, there still was no time to react. I would have hit her in my CAR if this exact same scenario happened. What was he going to do? swerve? swerve where? she was taking up both lanes with her car and if he went into the lane with on coming traffic, she would have still hit him because she was going forward!

The problem is that the rider was not paying attention to what was in front of him. By the time he noticed, I agree, it was too late. Had he noticed the car pulling out before he turned his head to look at the taxi, he could have been braking and either reduced impact speed or bled off enough speed to pull in to the curb at the rear of her car.

Learn from mistakes, even if others make them.

[allanoue]

@ZeroGravity360 I would have done a SMIDSY swivel (some would flash high beams) long before to alert the taxi, which would have alerted the u-turn cager as well. Also look when the u-turn starts. Plenty of time to slow and or stop.

Again a SMIDY would have kept the taxi back, so I would not have been distracted by said taxi. Likely the u-turn cager would have seen the SMIDY, but if not, there was plenty of time to slow and or stop.

The taxi did not see the rider until just in time to stop out in the intersection followed closely by a u-turn cager who did not see the rider until to late. The rider needs to be doing something differently or someone else will not see him in time.

Link to original page on YouTube.

[allanoue]

@MyTriggaz I have owned 12 cars, each of them I put over 100,000 miles on and a couple 200,000 miles. My current car is a 2014 with 82,000 miles. I started riding after over 1,000,000 miles in a car. How people react to you is very different on a bike vs a car.

[akima]

Originally Posted by ZeroGravity360

I do see what has happened. however, the speed he was going (keeping up with traffic) and the distance from him to the car when the car pulled out, there still was no time to react.

For me, "keeping up with traffic" isn't ever on my mind while riding. When it comes to setting a speed, I choose my speed based on the potential hazards around me. If the other vehicles on the road are going faster than I feel is safe I wont try and keep up.

It just so happens that it's very rare I hold up traffic because much of the time I assess that it's safe enough to carry more speed than the traffic around me. This usually means I pass cars and have no one behind me. When it gets to a point on the road where I feel the need to slow right down (perhaps because I've seen parked cars with wheels turned out towards the road), there usually isn't anyone behind me that I'm holding up, because I had previously created distance.

Speed is a variable that we have full control over (via throttle and brakes). Hazard perception is a skill that we are empowered to develop to a high degree. As such, the situation in the video is something that is completely within the realm of bringing under our control. We can learn to spot potential hazards like the car that u-turned before the hazard becomes an immediate danger. We can adjust the speed of our bike to ensure we have enough time to stop if we need to.

I definitely think there are times where the universe throws something at a biker which the biker cannot save themselves from. But if I really believed that common situations like the one in that video fell into that category, then I'd quit riding and buy myself one of these:

[InvisiBill]

Originally Posted by ZeroGravity360

I do see what has happened. however, the speed he was going (keeping up with traffic) and the distance from him to the car when the car pulled out, there still was no time to react. I would have hit her in my CAR if this exact same scenario happened. What was he going to do? swerve? swerve where? she was taking up both lanes with her car and if he went into the lane with on coming traffic, she would have still hit him because she was going forward!

By the time the collision started, yes, it was too late. What people are pointing out is that he should've seen the car starting the U-turn long before that. You can see it in the video before he even gets to the intersection. He should've been expecting the car to pull out in front of him and had an escape route planned already. There wasn't time to be reactive, but he probably could've avoided it by being proactive.



Look at how far out the car is already. Camera footage isn't the same as actually seeing it with your own eyes on the bike, but you can see the car angling out onto the street a full 4 seconds before he hits it. Sometimes you misjudge a situation and a car will do something crazy after you thought the threat had been addressed. In this case, he doesn't seem to pay any attention at all to the U-turn car though. He looks at the taxi, then really looks at the next car/whatever, then he looks back at the street and the U-turn car is pulling out in front of him.

allanoue makes a good point that the taxi seems to pull out quite far, which could be an indicator that the bike wasn't easy to see. That could be a signal to try to make yourself more visible, and expect people to not see you (more than usual).


As a newer rider, I think it's best if you get into the mindset of figuring out what possibly could've been done to avoid an accident. There's usually something that could have been done differently. It's bad to get thinking that there's just nothing you can do and crashes are unavoidable, like the "I had to lay it down" myth. Most people "have to lay it down" or "there was nothing I could do to avoid the crash" because they didn't plan ahead well enough.

90% of all accident avoidance comes down to situational awareness. When I’m out there on the street, I see cars that I know are going to change lanes into my lane before that driver even knows that’s what he’s gonna’ do.

But the last 10% of accident avoidance hinges on your ability to brake, find an escape lane, and steer into it. It is almost never, ever acceptable to think, “Well, this is it—nothing I can do about it.” In fact, having that idea living anywhere in your subconscious is f***ing dangerous.

This crash couldn't be saved in the last 10%, as you said. But he should've avoided it with the first 90%.