How Fast Was the Other Vehicle Going to Launch Me 25 Meters in a T-Bone Crash?

[chrisso]

Anyone admitting that they "MAY have been going too fast" knows that they were - been there, done that.

have you? you've been in the same situation where you've been sent flying over the road and hit your head and been in a coma for 6 weeks? and broken almost every bone on the left side of your body?

well I'm sorry to hear that cos it ain't fun.

the speed limit is 60k/hr there, i worked that out to be 96 miles/hr... my apologies, it is around 38mile/hr.

the reason i say may is because i do not remember anything from the crash but the witnesses said they "heard" me speeding. however the bike was extremely loud.

 

[mender]

As you said, he was fortunate enough to only get hit from the side. Likely his speed, not the other car's, is why he flew so far after the collision. From the reverse side, had he been going any slower, he would have t-boned the car. As you said, lucky, but when riding one cannot depend on luck when your life is on the line; I certainly don't!

A relative of mine was the one pulling out from a stop sign in a similar accident. Unfortunately for the rider, he was driving a gravel truck and didn't stop for the stop sign but kept rolling through. The fast approaching motorcyclist had no time to stop and nowhere to go. He survived.

 

[mender]

have you? you've been in the same situation where you've been sent flying over the road and hit your head and been in a coma for 6 weeks? and broken almost every bone on the left side of your body?

well I'm sorry to hear that cos it ain't fun.

the speed limit is 60k/hr there, i worked that out to be 96 miles/hr... my apologies, it is around 38mile/hr.

the reason i say may is because i do not remember anything from the crash but the witnesses said they "heard" me speeding. however the bike was extremely loud.

No, not that bad a wreck, thank goodness; pretty minor comparatively, although it didn't feel very minor at the time! I'm glad you survived!

As I said, that was my take given the information presented so far. You might want to study this thread to see why I got that impression and make sure your court case doesn't follow the same path! I apologize for making assumptions but be very aware of how this happened when presenting your defense.

The angle of where you ended up will tell a lot about the speed of the other vehicle, and the distance you traveled should lend some insight as to your speed as well. Measure as accurately as you can.

"Wtinesses" that only heard you cannot present facts, only impressions, and those will be prejudiced.

ETA: I made another assumption, that you were hit on the side by the front of the vehicle. If you contacted the van on the corner, the angle will change. You'll need to have good pictures of the van and the accident scene for anyone to possibly decipher the speeds of both vehicles at the time of the collision. You might want to consult with an accident specialist.

It also sounds like you were hit from the right - yes? The broken bones were from the landing, not the accident?

 

[JaredJames]

You might want to consult with an accident specialist.

He's already mentioned they were called out. He won't tell us their findings though.

This is what raises my suspicions further. They've had a serious crash unit investigate and at some point something has made them doubt who's to blame. So what are we not being told?

If the motorbike was "perfectly legal" then the car would be to blame regardless.

However, there's something here being withheld from us.

 

[DaveC426913]

the speed limit is 60k/hr there, i worked that out to be 96 miles/hr... my apologies, it is around 38mile/hr.

OK. From 95mph to 38mph.

We are chasing geese here. We are on post 33 and we are just getting the most basic data required to even begin formulating a meaningful response.

I am going to recommend that this thread be locked so as not to waste any more time or phosphor. (Imagine moving forward, people join in, trying to follow it without having read every single post!)

The OP should rewrite his question, providing all the facts necessary, and repost it.

 

[JaredJames]

the reason i say may is because i do not remember anything from the crash but the witnesses said they "heard" me speeding. however the bike was extremely loud.

"May" implies you do all / some of the time. So there is immediate doubt and you very well could have been speeding, if not probably were.

 

[Borg]

Here's the picture from chrisso's earlier link.

Keep in mind that the OP is in Australia where they drive on the left. The van was making a right turn which is the equivalent of a left turn in the US and many other places.

Also, the driver side is the side that was impacted and is damaged.

 

[JaredJames]

Wow, so not even a T-bone.

The OP needs to really evaluate the explanation, especially before taking it to court.

Assuming the van has little to no motion in the direction of the freeway (so pulling out of a t-junction style), it would be easy to know if the biker is speeding looking at how far he is thrown on impact with the van.

 

[chrisso]

ok when the wife got home i got out of the house to take a few measurements. so have attached a quick rough drawing i have made up

and i said may because, yes, i sometimes did speed and whilst i like to believe he was at fault i want to be certain before i go any further with it..

i had not asked for anyones opinion (jj and mender) on whether i was at fault or not. i simply asked if anybody knew of a website that might help me make this calculation. thanks for your help dalespam.oh, and yes i realize it wasn't 25m i traveled after the crash - i had been told (what a surprise, media exaggerated) it was and i didnt know otherwise till i actually got the tape measure out and measured it myself

 

[xxChrisxx]

Threads like this really shouldn't be allowed, or a be made to have a stupidly large disclaimer.

It's all speculation with absolutley no hope of aquiring the level of detail required for an accurate answer. The OP clearly intends to try and use that 'information' to 'defend' something or as some kind of evidence. Not only would none of this idle chit chat be admissible as evidence, but it has the potential to make the OP look like an idiot.

We also can't say who is at fault, as we simply don't know. Surely this could be argued to be an 'overly speculative thread'.

 

[JaredJames]

i had not asked for anyones opinion (jj and mender) on whether i was at fault or not.

1. What mender and myself have said is correct, whether you like it or not. If we can tear your defence apart here, they'll destroy you in court.

2. This is a public forum, you will get opinions whether you like it or not (and regardless, everything here is opinion anyway). Especially when you are asking us to prove the van is at fault and ignore the fact there must be a reason to doubt the van isn't at fault (by default in this situation, if you are legally driving, the van is at fault).

3. As above, either the van didn't stop (he's at fault) or he didn't check properly (he's at fault). It's only if you are not legally driving that puts you at fault, so what have you done to inspire said doubt?

4. You mentioned that they had a team of experts out to analyse it. What was their conclusion?

5. Based on your drawing, the van would have had to hit you at one hell of a speed to get that resultant path (I'd even go so far as to say it would have to be greater than 60kmh). Not to mention the fact it was driving into the oncoming traffic.