What NOT to do whilst leaned over in a corner . . .

[KMG_365]

[russell_bynum]

LOL! Close the throttle, weight goes to the front, and the next thing you know you're testing your frame sliders.

[AZKomet]

Yep. Toooooooo funny! Wonder if his drawers got some skids on them too!!!!!!!

[upflying]

No injury, solo vehicle collision means no collision report or point on his DMV record. You can bet though he got a ticket.

[John Ranalletta]

for what? falling?

[Twisties]

for what? falling?

 

Got to have been some sort of unsafe operation there. I'll think of it when I'm done LMAO!

[Scubaman]

"Failure to maintain control"

"Excessive speed for conditions"

 

They have a ton of bullshit, catch-all phrases for such situations.

[David]

If he'd have just cross-controlled it instead I'm sure he could have saved it!

[Polo]

That was an "Ohsh*t" moment. He freaked out when he saw the LEO.

[Couchrocket]

Just another good reason to not outrun your sight lines!

 

[Quinn]

Just another good reason to not outrun your sight lines!

 

Hey, he got stopped in time.

 

What a strange place to park a cop car. No line of sight for clocking. People coming from the direction opposite the motorcycle's would be taking up more than their lane to give the LEO plenty of room.

 

---

 

 

[Ken H.]

If he'd have just cross-controlled it instead I'm sure he could have saved it!

 

You're evil David.

[KMG_365]

That was an "Ohsh*t" moment. He freaked out when he saw the LEO.

If you listen to the audio carefully at the end of the clip, the female LEO accuses him of exactly that.

 

I too, question the LEO's vehicle placement--like shooting fish in a barrel and the person filming it obviously knew it too.

 

[butthead voice]

"Huh, huh . . . Hey Bevis . . . check it out. That guy's gonna eat sh!t when he sees that cop in the corner! Uhhhh . . . huh-huh . . . ."

[/butthead voice]

 

Too bad the pass on the right just before this was left on the cutting room floor!

[upflying]

for what? falling?

Excessive speed, unsafe turning and/or crossing the double yellow line.

[Polo]

for what? falling?

Excessive speed, unsafe turning and/or crossing the double yellow line.

 

I respectfully submit that there should be a citation:

 

"For doing something stupid out of guilt because the suspect had been doing, was doing or was planning on doing something illegal"

 

 

I don't know what the speed limit is there, but it doesn't seem like he's going too fast. Hard to say.

 

[markgoodrich]

If he'd have just cross-controlled it instead I'm sure he could have saved it!

 

You're evil David.

 

My thought exactly. A bad, bad man is David.

[upflying]

for what? falling?

Excessive speed, unsafe turning and/or crossing the double yellow line.

 

I respectfully submit that there should be a citation:

 

"For doing something stupid out of guilt because the suspect had been doing, was doing or was planning on doing something illegal"

 

 

I don't know what the speed limit is there, but it doesn't seem like he's going too fast. Hard to say.

California has a law called the "basic speed law". This law has nothing to do with the speed limit. It simply says you cannot drive faster than what is safe. For example, a freeway has a 65 mph speed limit, but the speed limit is zero if the traffic is stopped. In the case of the guy who dropped his bike, the basic speed law was clearly violated since he was riding his motorcycle faster than what was safe. A little slower and maybe he would have safely made the curve. In any event he could also be cited for unsafe turning and crossing the double yellow line .

[Spike]

... In the case of the guy who dropped his bike, the basic speed law was clearly violated since he was riding his motorcycle faster than what was safe. A little slower and maybe he would have safely made the curve.

 

Uh, stupid dude on a bike. However, how would you prove that he was going faster than was safe? (How fast is safe anyway) If he wrecked because he inappropriately applied a brake control inducing a front wheel skid (accepted as bad practice across industry) that says nothing of his speed. Conversely how do you prove that he would have not crashed if he were going slower? I would argue that he would not have crashed had he not touched the brake, even if going faster.

 

Spike

 

 

 

 

[StuGotz]

for what? falling?

Excessive speed, unsafe turning and/or crossing the double yellow line.

 

I respectfully submit that there should be a citation:

 

"For doing something stupid out of guilt because the suspect had been doing, was doing or was planning on doing something illegal"

 

 

I don't know what the speed limit is there, but it doesn't seem like he's going too fast. Hard to say.

California has a law called the "basic speed law". This law has nothing to do with the speed limit. It simply says you cannot drive faster than what is safe. For example, a freeway has a 65 mph speed limit, but the speed limit is zero if the traffic is stopped. In the case of the guy who dropped his bike, the basic speed law was clearly violated since he was riding his motorcycle faster than what was safe. A little slower and maybe he would have safely made the curve. In any event he could also be cited for unsafe turning and crossing the double yellow line .

********************************************************

Uh Bob, I'd like to expand on the "basic speed law"...

 

Lets say he was well under the posted limit, but hit a road hazard (as in sand)and went down. The momentum carries him across the double yellow.

 

You still cite him for all three???

 

And what's an "unsafe turn" as far as the CVC states for THIS instance?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

MB>

[Polo]

for what? falling?

Excessive speed, unsafe turning and/or crossing the double yellow line.

 

I respectfully submit that there should be a citation:

 

"For doing something stupid out of guilt because the suspect had been doing, was doing or was planning on doing something illegal"

 

 

I don't know what the speed limit is there, but it doesn't seem like he's going too fast. Hard to say.

California has a law called the "basic speed law". This law has nothing to do with the speed limit. It simply says you cannot drive faster than what is safe. For example, a freeway has a 65 mph speed limit, but the speed limit is zero if the traffic is stopped. In the case of the guy who dropped his bike, the basic speed law was clearly violated since he was riding his motorcycle faster than what was safe. A little slower and maybe he would have safely made the curve. In any event he could also be cited for unsafe turning and crossing the double yellow line .

********************************************************

Uh Bob, I'd like to expand on the "basic speed law"...

 

Lets say he was well under the posted limit, but hit a road hazard (as in sand)and went down. The momentum carries him across the double yellow.

 

You still cite him for all three???

 

And what's an "unsafe turn" as far as the CVC states for THIS instance?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

MB>

 

I believe that the LEO was just waiting for anything. So I think that the citation would be issued in any case, and it was up to the schmuck... er.. citizen to prove otherwise.

[russell_bynum]

Too bad the pass on the right just before this was left on the cutting room floor!

 

LOL!!!!! That was almost worse than Baker's cross-control comment. (Except most folks haven't been around long enough to get the joke.)

[KMG_365]

Too bad the pass on the right just before this was left on the cutting room floor!

 

LOL!!!!! That was almost worse than Baker's cross-control comment. (Except most folks haven't been around long enough to get the joke.)

Yeah, I knew I was dating myself there . . . but I was hoping someone would spit their Diet Coke (or Dr. Pepper) over the reference. Good times . . . good times!

 

Dang it! I've become an Old Fart!

[CoarsegoldKid]

Who said this chap was speeding anyway. No one likes a LEO in their rearview mirror. When I get one in mine I check my speedo every two seconds. Same can be said for seeing one parked on the side of a blind curve. So this chap goes around the curve looks to the outside of the curve sees a CHP, checks his speed and even if he wasn't going too fast for the curve he is still going to grab a little brake while leaned. There may have even been a bit of sand there or a wad of chew. Okay maybe his skill level wasn't high enough for braking in that condition. If he gets a ticket it would have to be for a bonehead mistake.

[Paul Mihalka]

"Dang it! I've become an Old Fart! "

 

Jamie, you are using a reserved trade mark!

[motorman587]

Why would have to write this guy a citation anyway? He locked the front wheel and went down. How many people lock the brakes and no citations issued? I would remind this guy to get proper training.

[Ken H.]

Why would have to write this guy a citation anyway? He locked the front wheel and went down. How many people lock the brakes and no citations issued? I would remind this guy to get proper training.

We are responsible for operating our vehicles on a public roadway in a safe manner at all times, yes?

 

He lost control of and crashed his vehicle! Crashing your vehicle solely of your own doing (failure to operate the vehicle in a manner appropriate for conditions) is hardly operating the vehicle in a safe manner.

 

Issues of why (e.g. the presence of the LEO’s vehicle) are just aspects of the condition of the moment in which he failed to operate his vehicle appropriately. IMHO he indeed can and should be sited on a number of counts.

 

 

[upflying]

Thank you Ken, we do occasionally agree on things. If you ride in such a way that you crash your bike, then you are riding at a speed that is too fast for conditions. Gravel, diesel and oil spilled in a turn would also constitute speed too fast for conditions if you go down. A low speed drop while making a u-turn is also speed too fast for conditions. Rear-ending stopped traffic is speed too fast for conditions. Driving 25 mph on ice and snow is too fast for conditions if you loose control. Would I cite this guy if I was the CHP officer? Depends on the rider and why the CHP officer was parked there. I am guessing the officer was part of a special enforcement team cracking down on squids. That officer is expected to produce statistics and writing tickets is an expected part of the job. My guess is the dweeb rider got a performance award.

 

Reference California driving laws

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.

 

22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed

greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather,

visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the

highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of

persons or property.

 

 

[Spike]

 

Ridiculous.....

 

... A low speed drop while making a u-turn ...

 

... generally indicates to low of a speed to successfully complete the maneuver. Your own example proves the fallacy of the statement.

 

[upflying]

Ridiculous.....

 

... A low speed drop while making a u-turn ...

 

... generally indicates to low of a speed to successfully complete the maneuver. Your own example proves the fallacy of the statement.

But if you drop the bike while making the low speed u-turn and break a leg it becomes and injury collision and a reportable event to a LEO and DMV. Unsafe turning or speed too fast for conditions will be the conclusion of the LEO. If you loose control and have a solo vehicle crash while operating a motor vehicle, you are going too fast (or too slow) regardless of speed. Did ya read 22350VC?

"and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of

persons or property".

[Polo]

 

for what? falling?

Excessive speed, unsafe turning and/or crossing the double yellow line.

 

I respectfully submit that there should be a citation:

 

"For doing something stupid out of guilt because the suspect had been doing, was doing or was planning on doing something illegal"

 

 

I don't know what the speed limit is there, but it doesn't seem like he's going too fast. Hard to say.

 

 

California has a law called the "basic speed law". This law has nothing to do with the speed limit. It simply says you cannot drive faster than what is safe. For example, a freeway has a 65 mph speed limit, but the speed limit is zero if the traffic is stopped. In the case of the guy who dropped his bike, the basic speed law was clearly violated since he was riding his motorcycle faster than what was safe. A little slower and maybe he would have safely made the curve. In any event he could also be cited for unsafe turning and crossing the double yellow line .

 

 

C'mon Bob, it seems that there's no way out from under it.

 

If you're riding and make a right turn at 20 MPH in a 35 MPH zone on green light at noon with clear skies, and there's diesel on the road you turned onto right at the moment of top lean, you'll go down. If you take the turn barely rolling, maybe 2-5 MPH where there is minimum demand for traction you probably wont go down. Is it reasonable to say that the rider failed to control for conditions, or conditions were beyond reasonable and foreseeable expectations? Wouldn't slowing down to 2-5 MPH endanger the rider and others behind him by causing a disturbance in the normal flow of traffic?

 

A car would just spin or fishtail, but it has 4 wheels and traction goes from one tracking tire to the other; a bike has just one tire tracking and is subject to gravity in ways the car is not.

 

Why is it that road conditions are included and become part of the fault of a motorcyclist, and not a driver?

 

No too long ago I was riding in rain at or below the speed limit on a straight line when I rode over something (perhaps antifreeze) that wasn't visible or detectable due to the overall wetness of the road. I had my rear wheel spun. If I had gone down,. would it have been fair to say that I failed to control?

 

Now, since I theoretically failed to control, that would be evidence that I was going too fast for conditions.

 

However, since I didn't encounter the same conditions during the remainder of that ride, I would say that I was riding at a speed safe for reasonably expected conditions as my not having lost control during the remaining 199.999 miles.

 

On the other hand, you may here argue that since I didn't lose control I was indeed riding at a speed safe for conditions, right?

 

No beef here, it just seems that the traffic codes leave a wide berth for the officer to exercise judgment leaving the schmuck with a traffic ticket, on top of a repair bill, adding insult to injury.

 

So when I get a ticket its unfair for conditions, but when I'm not caught its right for conditions.

[John Ranalletta]

If the leo in question was really more interested in creating safer conditions at that turn rather than writing tickets, he'd have parked the cruiser so it could be seen before entering the turn.

[upflying]

Yes on all counts, Polo. Road surface appraisal is a responsibility of all drivers. Unexpected road surface coefficient of friction modifiers do happen and can occur at anytime. If reportable crash occurred because of the road snot, the driver would be considered "driving too fast for conditions" on the collision report.

 

[upflying]

If the leo in question was really more interested in creating safer conditions at that turn rather than writing tickets, he'd have parked the cruiser so it could be seen before entering the turn.

So what if the motorcycle was going in the opposite direction? Could the cruiser be seen in that circumstance?

[Polo]

If the leo in question was really more interested in creating safer conditions at that turn rather than writing tickets, he'd have parked the cruiser so it could be seen before entering the turn.

So what if the motorcycle was going in the opposite direction? Could the cruiser be seen in that circumstance?

 

Know what Bob? Whenever I'm in your neck of the woods, I'll let you drive or lead the ride. We can take a cab to go for some beers so neither of us will be DUI; I'll buy the beers, you get the cab.

Talk about damn if you do, damn if you don't. Sheesh!

[GreatDaysAhead]

[John Ranalletta]

If the leo in question was really more interested in creating safer conditions at that turn rather than writing tickets, he'd have parked the cruiser so it could be seen before entering the turn.

So what if the motorcycle was going in the opposite direction? Could the cruiser be seen in that circumstance?

At the apex.

[Polo]

[MotorinLA]

 

Classic example of "Black and white fever". My speculation is that the CHP officer was there looking for squiddies riding too fast and ending up on the wrong side of the double yellow lines. In order to catch these guys you must necessarily sit around the bend.

 

The best way to jack this guy would be for the chippie to take a traffic collision report, resulting in a point on the driving record of the rider for the at-fault collision and thus higher insurance fees.

 

There is no arguing that this collision occurred due to operator error. You can literally see the "oh %@$#!" moment occur as the rider comes around the curve.

 

For those of you that sympathize with this rider, just remember that this is the same guy that'll take you out some day, because he rides beyond his skill level.

[motoguy128]

The correct response in mid corner to suddenly seeing a LEO, is to wave but maintain your throttle and line.

 

Whenever I'm going a little fast, but it's too late to slow, I figure I'll just wave and act like I'm out for a relaxed afternoon cruise not carving up a few turns. I haven't had a LEO turn around and pull me over yet after waving. Althouhg that might jsut be a coincidence.

 

At least he didn't overreact to the cycling and lowside into him.

 

I figure he gets cited for "improper lane use" for crossing the yellow line or just a plain ole "careless driving" citiation.

[motoguy128]

If the leo in question was really more interested in creating safer conditions at that turn rather than writing tickets, he'd have parked the cruiser so it could be seen before entering the turn.

 

That is a valid point. The location of his vehcile creates a situation where oncomming traffic might target fixate. The better position is so that you're seen when exiting the previous corner.

 

Then again, perhaps he's parked furher down the road and had motorcycle lowside into his vehcile. Now that would ahve been classic.

[BlueTools]

Bob,

 

You have stated the rider made an unsafe turn and you quoted CVC to back up your position. But I can't see how the rider turned "a vehicle from a direct course" because he was only following the natural path of the road. Just because a road is windy or curvy does not make it indirect. Also, when and how should he have given "an appropriate signal?" Is a signal required each time a vehicle deviates from a straight line even if a naturally windy road is the only way to get from point A to point B?

 

I understand your arguments about too fast for conditions and crossing double-yellow but not this one.

 

 

Reference California driving laws

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.

[dhanson]

Youse guys are clear as mud. It is a video, take a break. He was flying around a turn, and lowsided. Clear and simple, he was unable to maintain control of his bike.

 

He is not on a track, he must expect the unexpected, on coming traffic, passing traffic, dog, rabbit, turtle or in this case CHP. TICKET!

[sabre]

Just another thought on the officer's position. Perhaps he was not in that particular spot to monitor traffic at all. Perhaps he had just finished ticket another motorist, who had left the scene moments earlier. Just a thought.

[upflying]

Bob,

 

You have stated the rider made an unsafe turn and you quoted CVC to back up your position. But I can't see how the rider turned "a vehicle from a direct course" because he was only following the natural path of the road. Just because a road is windy or curvy does not make it indirect. Also, when and how should he have given "an appropriate signal?" Is a signal required each time a vehicle deviates from a straight line even if a naturally windy road is the only way to get from point A to point B?

 

I understand your arguments about too fast for conditions and crossing double-yellow but not this one.

 

 

Reference California driving laws

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.

Ed, I'm just giving possible citing examples that a LEO could consider in this case. At some point the rider was straight up and traveling straight even for a brief moment between curves. In this case, the rider turned (or moved) to the right as he followed the curve. The resulting turning movement by the rider was not "reasonable safety". Obviously the turn need not be signaled in this situation.

I am flummoxed to hear a few people somehow blame the position of the CHP officer as a reason for the crash. No doubt about it, the rider was surprised to see the officer and his reaction resulted in the loss of control of his motorcycle. The rider is fully to blame for his actions. LEO's can and will lurk anywhere at anytime either openly or concealed for the purposes of enforcing vehicle laws. The CHP officer was in a public place and lawfully parked in an open area. The rider was focused on riding 9/10th's in the twisties and preoccupied with violating speed laws. The concentration required to control the motorcycle resulted in a mental fixation that prevented the rider from reacting properly to external stimulus such as roadway hazards and oh mother of God, a parked cruiser.

The rider deserved what he got, rash not only on himself and his bike but a point on his DMV record. He may have had to clean his underwear too. The CHP officer also had a story for the locker room banter.

[russell_bynum]

The correct response in mid corner to suddenly seeing a LEO, is to wave but maintain your throttle and line.

 

Yup. I've done that dozens of times and never had any issues.

[BlueTools]

OK, Bob. I'm with you on the rider making a turn to the right without reasonable safety; i.e., he was too hot going into the curve. Citations are justified for unsafe operations. But CVC 22107 is a single, complete sentence with two clauses separated with an "and" conjunction. This makes the first clause dependent on the second. Since the signal (mentioned in the second clause) is obviously not needed in this situation I don't see how CVC 22107 applies here. It seems to me that 22107 is meant for turns made to get off the roadway or when changing lanes. What do you say?

[John Ranalletta]

LEO's can and will lurk anywhere at anytime either openly or concealed for the purposes of enforcing vehicle laws.

One might ask is that's the best use of the LEO's time; or would it be better spent preventing, not pouncing. If corner speed at that location is an issue, move the cruiser so it can be seen from both directions. Problem solved...for that corner as long as the cruiser's in place.

 

This reminds me of my school job at Penney's. Our store was across from a high school in a tough part of town. When classes let out, hoards of kids would come in to buy candy. There were a couple of kids who'd "lurk" around in departments that didn't make sense for them. I suspected they were looking for an opportunity to shoplift. My response was to create a presence...to make sure they knew I was around and aware. A couple of other dept managers took advantage of my day off to hide and, sure enough, one of the kids took a pair of cuff links. During the pursuit, they cornered the kid in an alley where he lofted a brick toward them.

 

The kid was a thief and a jerk, but we had a choice: prevent the theft or deal with the aftermath. The decision was simple, at least to me.

[MotorinLA]

OK, Bob. I'm with you on the rider making a turn to the right without reasonable safety; i.e., he was too hot going into the curve. Citations are justified for unsafe operations. But CVC 22107 is a single, complete sentence with two clauses separated with an "and" conjunction. This makes the first clause dependent on the second. Since the signal (mentioned in the second clause) is obviously not needed in this situation I don't see how CVC 22107 applies here. It seems to me that 22107 is meant for turns made to get off the roadway or when changing lanes. What do you say?

 

Read the VC section that talks about signaling and it will make sense to you (or at least it should). Signaling is only required during certain circumstances. You can change direction all day long without a signal, if your turning movement will not affect another driver.

 

So, Bob's reasoning holds - no signal required here , only "safe" turning.

[MotorinLA]

LEO's can and will lurk anywhere at anytime either openly or concealed for the purposes of enforcing vehicle laws.

One might ask is that's the best use of the LEO's time; or would it be better spent preventing, not pouncing. If corner speed at that location is an issue, move the cruiser so it can be seen from both directions. Problem solved...for that corner as long as the cruiser's in place.

 

Only works as long as the police officer is present. Visual deterrents have a much shorter effect than a ticket. The only way you keep people guessing is by hiding and changing things up frequently.

 

We have a No U-turn sign in my work area where we get a lot of violations. You can see drivers looking around for you when they come up to the sign. Many officers sit in the same spot repeatedly to enforce the sign. When drivers see the police officer they don't do it. So, I switch it up. Now they pull up, look to the usual spot, see no officer and make the U-turn. I pull them over and the usual question is, “Where were you?” I see many of these drivers days/weeks after I issue the ticket and they find some alternate (and legal) way to turn around instead. Mission accomplished.

 

We’re not here to allow you an easy out. We’re here to try correct your driving behavior and make it last as long as possible (which usually is about 18 months following a ticket for many drivers in California).

 

[MotorinLA]

The correct response in mid corner to suddenly seeing a LEO, is to wave but maintain your throttle and line.

 

Yup. I've done that dozens of times and never had any issues.

 

Just make sure you wave with all five fingers...