DashCam - Caught accident

[4SUPER9]

Well; got the update over the weekend and plugged in our SD Card-USB.

Just in time to catch this today.

I just watched this video several times. I suggest those who watch it pause just before the motorcycle appears, then use your finger to slowly scroll back and forth many times. Watch carefully, as it appears that the motorcycle crossed not 1, not 2, but 3 lanes of traffic. While I cannot quote the California code, I am certain that it requires that a vehicle become “established” in a lane before proceeding to change to the next lane. How “established” is defined, I also do not know. A friend of mine did this exact same maneuver once, and lost his license for it. Two lanes is uncool; three lanes is reckless, which is what my friend was nailed for (and he was not even involved in a accident).
Leaving aside “intent” or “aggression”, which we can assume, but cannot readily prove, I don’t see how anyone in the Audi’s position could ever see that motorcycle coming. Any one of us making a simple lane change, without being aggressive, with or without using our turn signals, would have hit that cyclist. Ultimately, that’s what would determine fault.
I also agree with others: If the Audi left the scene, none of this matters.

 

[whatthe2]

I just watched this video several times. I suggest those who watch it pause just before the motorcycle appears, then use your finger to slowly scroll back and forth many times. Watch carefully, as it appears that the motorcycle crossed not 1, not 2, but 3 lanes of traffic. While I cannot quote the California code, I am certain that it requires that a vehicle become “established” in a lane before proceeding to change to the next lane. How “established” is defined, I also do not know. A friend of mine did this exact same maneuver once, and lost his license for it. Two lanes is uncool; three lanes is reckless, which is what my friend was nailed for (and he was not even involved in a accident).
Leaving aside “intent” or “aggression”, which we can assume, but cannot readily prove, I don’t see how anyone in the Audi’s position could ever see that motorcycle coming. Any one of us making a simple lane change, without being aggressive, with or without using our turn signals, would have hit that cyclist. Ultimately, that’s what would determine fault.
I also agree with others: If the Audi left the scene, none of this matters.

It's 100 feet. I quoted it earlier:
22107. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move
right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with
reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate
signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other
vehicle may be affected by the movement.


22108. Any signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given
continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before
turning.

If the Audi left the scene, which sounds like they did, it still matters that the motorcycle crossed three lanes abruptly and certainly bears some fault.

 

[Big Dog]

The video helps us by NOT be called to testify our viewpoint recollection. Our testimony would be to verify that the video is ours and we witnessed what we saw on the video. Done. So, it does help with the witness testimony

Fair enough, but the odds of a civil suit are miniscule. And since cops aren't gonna site what they don't see, the insurance companies will just fight it out. At best they call you for a 10 minute telephone report, which is not under penalty of perjury.

 

[whatthe2]

I just watched this video several times. I suggest those who watch it pause just before the motorcycle appears, then use your finger to slowly scroll back and forth many times. Watch carefully, as it appears that the motorcycle crossed not 1, not 2, but 3 lanes of traffic. While I cannot quote the California code, I am c

It's 100 feet. I quoted it earlier:
22107. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move
right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with
reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate
signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other
vehicle may be affected by the movement.


22108. Any signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given
continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before
turning.

If the Audi left the scene, which sounds like they did, it still matters that the motorcycle crossed three lanes abruptly and certainly bears some fault.

@KG M3, you are free to disagree with me, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I was a Level III Accident Investigator when I was a Police Officer, so I'll defer to my hundreds of hours of training, and stand by my claim that the lane change law is meant to keep people from crossing multiple lanes like the motorcycle did in this video.

As a side note, I was first on scene to an accident very similar to this back when I was a Police Officer. A motorcycle was crossing multiple lanes on I-25 North of Denver and collided with a Suburban. The motorcyclist fell off and took the bumper of a car to his head (wasn't wearing a helmet), and it ended tragically for the motorcyclist - the type of accident where I called the Coroner immediately and not an ambulance. This was way before the days of dashcams, but several people saw him cross multiple lanes at once before colliding. Needless to say, the motorcyclist didn't make it to be judged about his driving behavior.

25 years later and I still can't get the picture out of my head of the motorcyclist lying on the highway. It's just not safe, and against the law to cross lane that quickly.

I fully agree that the Audi was at fault, but so was the motorcyclist.

 

[KG M3]

I don’t see how anyone in the Audi’s position could ever see that motorcycle coming. Any one of us making a simple lane change, without being aggressive, with or without using our turn signals, would have hit that cyclist.

Speak for yourself! Look at the video again. The motorcyclist enters the #2 lane somewhere near the end of the 39 second mark. The Audi does not cross the divider between the 1 and 2 lanes until the 42 second mark. The bike was in the #2 lane for over 2 seconds before the Audi changed lanes and hit him. A competent driver making a simple lane change, with our without using turn signals, would have checked his mirror and done a head check, which would have revealed the motorcyclist there. He had over 2 seconds! A competent or non-aggressive driver would not have hit the bike.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

I would start with these code violations for both parties and then add in 23104 for the Audi driver, if the MC rider was injured. I drive a MC and that guy was driving like a JA. That Audi had no way to see the MC with his trip-lane change and attempt to lane split.

California Vehicle Code sections:
22107. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.
22108. Any signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.
23103 To prove the defendant is guilty of reckless driving under Vehicle Code 23103, the prosecution must prove that:

1. The defendant drove a vehicle (on a highway/in an off street parking facility);AND
2. The defendant intentionally drove with wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.

A person acts with wanton disregard for safety when (1) he or she is aware that his or her actions present a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm, and (2) he or she intentionally ignores that risk. The person does not, however, have to intend to cause damage.

23104 To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime under Vehicle Code 23104, the People must prove that:

1. The defendant drove a vehicle (on a highway/in an off-street parking facility);

2. The defendant intentionally drove with wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property; AND

3. Proximately causes bodily injury to a person other than the driver.

A person acts with wanton disregard for safety when (1) he or she is aware that his or her actions present a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm, and (2) he or she intentionally ignores that risk. The person does not, however, have to intend to cause damage.

The term highway describes any area publicly maintained and open to the public for purposes of vehicular travel, and includes a street.

An off-street parking facility is an off-street facility open for use by the public for parking vehicles. It includes a facility open to retail customers, where no fee is charged for parking.

12810
Under California Vehicle Code Section 12810(c), a conviction of reckless driving shall be given a value of two points.

12810.5
Under California Vehicle Code Section 12810.5, the DMV may suspend and place on probation, or revoke, the driving privilege of a negligent operator.

23152 and 23153 drugs and alcohol (do a sobriety test on both drivers)
(a) It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage to drive a vehicle.

(b) It is unlawful for a person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.

For purposes of this article and Section 34501.16, percent, by weight, of alcohol in a person’s blood is based upon grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

He didn’t travel 100 feet in each lane so he couldn’t have kept his turn signal on for the required amount in each lane. At least looks like less than 100 feet to me.

That's not what the law says.

 

[whatthe2]

@ItsNotAboutTheMoneyThat's your interpretation. Are you telling me that if I turn out of my street with my right turn signal on, then turn right again I don't need to use my turn signal because I used it previously? Same thing with lane changes. One lane change equals one 100 ft. requirement.

 

[KG M3]

@KG M3, you are free to disagree with me, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I was a Level III Accident Investigator when I was a Police Officer, so I'll defer to my hundreds of hours of training, and stand by my claim that the lane change law is meant to keep people from crossing multiple lanes like the motorcycle did in this video.

As a side note, I was first on scene to an accident very similar to this back when I was a Police Officer. A motorcycle was crossing multiple lanes on I-25 North of Denver and collided with a Suburban. The motorcyclist fell off and took the bumper of a car to his head (wasn't wearing a helmet), and it ended tragically for the motorcyclist - the type of accident where I called the Coroner immediately and not an ambulance. This was way before the days of dashcams, but several people saw him cross multiple lanes at once before colliding. Needless to say, the motorcyclist didn't make it to be judged about his driving behavior.

25 years later and I still can't get the picture out of my head of the motorcyclist lying on the highway. It's just not safe, and against the law to cross lane that quickly.

I fully agree that the Audi was at fault, but so was the motorcyclist.

Whatthe2, thanks for the recent post. It certainly helps me to understand where you are coming from. I can appreciate that seeing a fatality like that does affect you as a person and affect your view on similar situations. It certainly did for me.

Then I took a few minutes to try and logically analyze what you were saying.

You start with an appeal to authority (I am an expert, because. . . )

You then relate a terrible experience where a motorcycle collided with a car 25 years ago and noted that it bothers you today, which is certainly understandable. But you are conflating an experience from the early 1990s where a bike hit a car with a contemporary situation where the car hit the bike. And the emotional trauma from that earlier accident may be coloring how you view this situation. It certainly undercuts the appeal to authority.

Yes, the motorcyclist did violate the CVC (and a belated thanks for the citations there). But he was in the #2 lane for over 2 seconds before the Audi crossed over from the #1 lane and hit him. If it had been a much shorter time, I might agree with your assessment. But to hold the motorcyclist at fault does not seem reasonable here. Could the motorcyclist have avoided the accident? Certainly. But the failure to avoid someone else's unsafe maneuver does not rise to the level of fault.

The argument in the first paragraph is essentially that had the motorcyclist not violated the vehicle code, he would not have been in the position to be hit by the Audi. Logically, this is identical to the argument that any vehicle exceeding the posted speed limit is at fault for any accident they are involved in since, had they not been exceeding the speed limit, they would not have been in the vicinity of the other vehicle when it happened. So this is unpersuasive as well.

I am glad the motorcyclist here seems to be OK. I hope they catch the Audi driver and successfully prosecute him for leaving the scene, preferably as a felony. I also hope the Audi's insurance compensates the motorcyclist for his losses.

 

[whatthe2]

Whatthe2, thanks for the recent post. It certainly helps me to understand where you are coming from. I can appreciate that seeing a fatality like that does affect you as a person and affect your view on similar situations. It certainly did for me.

Then I took a few minutes to try and logically analyze what you were saying.

You start with an appeal to authority (I am an expert, because. . . )

You then relate a terrible experience where a motorcycle collided with a car 25 years ago and noted that it bothers you today, which is certainly understandable. But you are conflating an experience from the early 1990s where a bike hit a car with a contemporary situation where the car hit the bike. And the emotional trauma from that earlier accident may be coloring how you view this situation. It certainly undercuts the appeal to authority.

Yes, the motorcyclist did violate the CVC (and a belated thanks for the citations there). But he was in the #2 lane for over 2 seconds before the Audi crossed over from the #1 lane and hit him. If it had been a much shorter time, I might agree with your assessment. But to hold the motorcyclist at fault does not seem reasonable here. Could the motorcyclist have avoided the accident? Certainly. But the failure to avoid someone else's unsafe maneuver does not rise to the level of fault.

The argument in the first paragraph is essentially that had the motorcyclist not violated the vehicle code, he would not have been in the position to be hit by the Audi. Logically, this is identical to the argument that any vehicle exceeding the posted speed limit is at fault for any accident they are involved in since, had they not been exceeding the speed limit, they would not have been in the vicinity of the other vehicle when it happened. So this is unpersuasive as well.

I am glad the motorcyclist here seems to be OK. I hope they catch the Audi driver and successfully prosecute him for leaving the scene, preferably as a felony. I also hope the Audi's insurance compensates the motorcyclist for his losses.

Thanks for the post, and understanding my position. As I mentioned earlier, the Audi is certainly at fault, I am just trying to convey the position that the motorcyclist bears some responsibility as well. Maybe it's 90% Audi, 10% motorcyclist. I didn't mean to infer that the motorcyclist caused this, in fact I've said the opposite earlier in this thread. Just trying to point out that the motorcyclist shouldn't be driving this way either, that is all. But completely agree with you, the Audi should have seen him and was driving aggressively.

Edit: And my prior experience isn't coloring my view on this situation, I stand by my view that the motorcyclist shouldn't be crossing three lanes that quickly. It's just not safe for anyone.

 

[4SUPER9]

Speak for yourself! Look at the video again. The motorcyclist enters the #2 lane somewhere near the end of the 39 second mark. The Audi does not cross the divider between the 1 and 2 lanes until the 42 second mark. The bike was in the #2 lane for over 2 seconds before the Audi changed lanes and hit him. A competent driver making a simple lane change, with our without using turn signals, would have checked his mirror and done a head check, which would have revealed the motorcyclist there. He had over 2 seconds! A competent or non-aggressive driver would not have hit the bike.

Yes, I admit that I am speaking for myself. I also think that I am a careful driver. You keep saying “2 seconds” as if that is a long time. It is not. Looking over your shoulder to see that the lane is clear, then looking forward and back again, while engaging the wheel to change lanes, will not necessarily allow sufficient time when someone crosses over several lanes of traffic into your path. Sorry, we all have limitations and this could have happened to any safe driver. Note, I did not say that it WOULD happen, but COULD (though I admit I did say “would” in my prior post, and take that back). Maybe you would have done better than me or others. The Audi driver was not perfect, but the motorcyclist to me was clearly reckless, and could not have been reasonably been anticipated by a safe driver. I weigh fault just the opposite of what someone said above: 90% motorcycle, 10% Audi (again though, if the Audi fled, I no longer care about giving him a pass)

 

[KG M3]

Yes, I admit that I am speaking for myself. I also think that I am a careful driver. )

You are not. If you believe that someone can be in the lane next to you for over two seconds and you do not expect to see them before making a lane change, then you are a hazardous driver.

Do us a favor and let us know where in California you drive, and if possible, what type of car. We all need to stay far, far away whether in the M3 or on a bike.

At least we can agree that fleeing an accident is criminal.

 

[KG M3]

Thanks for the post, and understanding my position. As I mentioned earlier, the Audi is certainly at fault, I am just trying to convey the position that the motorcyclist bears some responsibility as well. Maybe it's 90% Audi, 10% motorcyclist. I didn't mean to infer that the motorcyclist caused this, in fact I've said the opposite earlier in this thread. Just trying to point out that the motorcyclist shouldn't be driving this way either, that is all. But completely agree with you, the Audi should have seen him and was driving aggressively.

Edit: And my prior experience isn't coloring my view on this situation, I stand by my view that the motorcyclist shouldn't be crossing three lanes that quickly. It's just not safe for anyone.

I apologize if I was overly harsh earlier. I, too agree that the motorcyclist bears some responsibility here. I just hope his insurance company does not try to claim that he was at fault and not cover all (or even part) of his damages.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

@ItsNotAboutTheMoneyThat's your interpretation. Are you telling me that if I turn out of my street with my right turn signal on, then turn right again I don't need to use my turn signal because I used it previously? Same thing with lane changes. One lane change equals one 100 ft. requirement.

No. I'm saying that if you do the following:

Put turn signal on.
Wait for at least 100 feet.
Turn. (Turn signal stays on)
Turn. (Turn signal stays on)
Turn.

Then at every turn your turn signal has been on for at least 100 feet, which satisfies the wording of the law.

When you can show me wording in California law that says the distance resets with each lane change, then I can say that the motorcycle changed lanes illegally, otherwise to me it's a matter of judgment covered by the general "safely" wording. It didn't look like they made a sudden move, they didn't cut anybody off and they had no obvious visual indication that the Audi driver was going to try to change lanes either by signal or lane position.

If they want crossing multiple lanes in a steady turn to be illegal there's a really simple solution: put it in the statute.

 

[whatthe2]

No. I'm saying that if you do the following:

Put turn signal on.
Wait for at least 100 feet.
Turn. (Turn signal stays on)
Turn. (Turn signal stays on)
Turn.

Then at every turn your turn signal has been on for at least 100 feet, which satisfies the wording of the law.

When you can show me wording in California law that says the distance resets with each lane change, then I can say that the motorcycle changed lanes illegally, otherwise to me it's a matter of judgment covered by the general "safely" wording. It didn't look like they made a sudden move, they didn't cut anybody off and they had no obvious visual indication that the Audi driver was going to try to change lanes either by signal or lane position.

If they want crossing multiple lanes in a steady turn to be illegal there's a really simple solution: put it in the statute.

It's pretty clear to me that each lane change is considered a separate event. If it applies to the initial lane change, why would it not apply to a subsequent lane change, even if it's during a continuous motion? It's a turn, just like the first lane change.
22108. Any signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.

But we can certainly agree to disagree.

Edit:

BTW, this conversation reminds me of this scene from A Few Good Men.

[As Ross returns to his seat, Kaffee gets up and snatches the Rifle Company SOP out of his hand]
Kaffee: Cpl. Barnes, turn to the page in this book that tells me how to get to the mess hall.
Barnes: Lt. Kaffee, that's not in the book, sir.
Kaffee: You mean the whole time you've been at Gitmo, you've never had a meal?
Barnes: No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.
Kaffee: Then how did you find the mess hall if it wasn't in this book?
Barnes: Well, sir, like everybody else, I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir.
Kaffee: No further questions.

It shouldn't have to be spelled out not to change lanes like an idiot.

 

[4SUPER9]

You are not. If you believe that someone can be in the lane next to you for over two seconds and you do not expect to see them before making a lane change, then you are a hazardous driver.

Do us a favor and let us know where in California you drive, and if possible, what type of car. We all need to stay far, far away whether in the M3 or on a bike.

At least we can agree that fleeing an accident is criminal.

I don't think that your response is appropriate, and certainly a little overboard and aggressive. You do not know me, have not seen me drive, and are in no position to make such a judgement. I expect more from TMC members.

I apologize if I was overly harsh earlier.

Maybe we have a pattern here?

As far as the timing goes, you are counting 2 full seconds (I personally think it is a tad less) from the exact moment the motorcyclist crosses into the #2 lane until the collision. That seems a little biased in the motorcyclist's favor. He was clearly not fully established in the lane when the clock started counting, and you are including the time of movement initiated by the Audi. While your driving skills may be exceptional, I stand by my belief that many safe drivers could have a similar unfortunate result (putting aside the aggressive nature the Audi driver showed earlier). I certainly hope that my skills would prevent such a scenario too.

I remember as a child when my father taught me to drive, that lane changing is the most dangerous thing that one can do. That is why I do as little of it as possible, and strongly believe that slower traffic should keep right in order to minimize people trying to get around others.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

It's pretty clear to me that each lane change is considered a separate event. If it applies to the initial lane change, why would it not apply to a subsequent lane change, even if it's during a continuous motion? It's a turn, just like the first lane change.
22108. Any signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.

Let x, y and z be distanced traveled in feet with the turn signal on continuously before each lane change 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
The turn signal was never turned off between lane changes, and the biker was not stopped.
Therefore
z > y > x

If the biker traveled at least 100 feet with the turn signal on continuously before the first lane change then
x >= 100
=>
z > y > x >= 100
=>
x >= 100
y >= 100
z >= 100
Therefore before each lane change (turn) the turn signal was on "continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning".

 

[4SUPER9]

Let x, y and z be distanced traveled in feet with the turn signal on continuously before each lane change 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
The turn signal was never turned off between lane changes, and the biker was not stopped.
Therefore
z > y > x

If the biker traveled at least 100 feet with the turn signal on continuously before the first lane change then
x >= 100
=>
z > y > x >= 100
=>
x >= 100
y >= 100
z >= 100
Therefore before each lane change (turn) the turn signal was on "continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning".

I understand your logic. I guess what makes the lane changes inappropriate, in my eyes, is that he never paused in one lane before entering the next. He made one continuous and linear movement straight across 3 lanes of traffic. And, within a short distance. This is what I mentioned upthread about being "established" in a lane prior to changing lanes again. There has to be a cop from California here somewhere who can give us some insight as to the legal reason why this is bad. In the meantime, we can analogize the reckless driving to porn: we know it when we see it.

I have a few motorcycle cops in my practice. I will certainly show them the video and ask them the next time I get a chance.

 

[whatthe2]

Let x, y and z be distanced traveled in feet with the turn signal on continuously before each lane change 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
The turn signal was never turned off between lane changes, and the biker was not stopped.
Therefore
z > y > x

If the biker traveled at least 100 feet with the turn signal on continuously before the first lane change then
x >= 100
=>
z > y > x >= 100
=>
x >= 100
y >= 100
z >= 100
Therefore before each lane change (turn) the turn signal was on "continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning".

This may come as a shock (), but here's how I see it.

X (lane 1) = no idea if he traveled 100 feet before changing lanes as he was out of camera
Y (lane 2) = no way he traveled in lane 2 for 100 feet, so he couldn't have had his signal on for 100 feet
Z (lane 3) = see Y

 

[whatthe2]

I understand your logic. I guess what makes the lane changes inappropriate, in my eyes, is that he never paused in one lane before entering the next. He made one continuous and linear movement straight across 3 lanes of traffic. And, within a short distance. This is what I mentioned upthread about being "established" in a lane prior to changing lanes again. There has to be a cop from California here somewhere who can give us some insight as to the legal reason why this is bad. In the meantime, we can analogize the reckless driving to porn: we know it when we see it.

I have a few motorcycle cops in my practice. I will certainly show them the video and ask them the next time I get a chance.

My view exactly. He couldn't have changed lanes any more quickly, short of going perpendicular to traffic.