[TwistedTins39]

Ok here is the senario. This is for the state of Florida. Four lane divided road. In the slow lane is 2 motorcycles. Rider #1 is in the left portion of the lane, ahead of rider #2, by approx 7-10 ft. Rider #2 is in the right portion of the lane. Rider #1 starts having issues with the bike, it can be seen jerking forward. Rider #1 slows. Rider #2 is aproaching to go by rider #1. Rider #1 turns to the right to go into a parking lot and the two riders collide. Rider #1's back half of the front tire/front engine area, to rider #2 front wheel. I have read conflicting things on official web sites, from "cars or trucks may not pass the motorcycle in that same lane and must go around them by switching lanes. However, this does not apply to other motorcycles, as they are allowed to ride two abreast per lane, riding side by side and passing each other when they see fit.", to "It is also illegal in all but 2 states to pass another vehicle, and or motorcycle, in the some lane. FYI the 2 states that motorcycles can pass one another in the same lane are Massachusetts and California."

BTW, no tickets were given. Cops say rider #1 clearly at fault but because he was being cool and admitting it was his fault there were no tickets issued. Insurance says rider #2 is at fault. No police report available yet. :banghead:

 

[scarecrow]

in most circumstances the vehicle behind will be at fault, is my understanding.

but why was rider 2 riding so close to #1, is my question. if they don't know each other, they shouldn't be riding that close.

just my $.02

 

[Fatz]

#2 is following too closely. I'd hand that decision to a jury without hesitation.

 

[ImEvil1]

+1. Police in FL do not determine "fault", just issue appropriate citations for whatever violations occurred. If I'd have worked the crash, #2 would have been cited and listed as vehicle #1 on the crash report.

Fatz, all civil and no jury in FL, unless it's one of the few criminal traffic violations (this one is just a civil moving infraction).

 

[thumbsupracing]

#2 riding too close, but if I was rider #1 I'd have been checking pretty damn well before veering across to turn off the road. I would imagine at that close range rider #1 could/should have been aware that rider#2 was somewhere close, especially if he checks mirrors and looks behind before turning off.

 

[Malcomx]

Couldn't you say it was poor road design and incorrect signage then sue the state?

Just sayn.

 

[Fatz]

+1. Police in FL do not determine "fault", just issue appropriate citations for whatever violations occurred. If I'd have worked the crash, #2 would have been cited and listed as vehicle #1 on the crash report.

Fatz, all civil and no jury in FL, unless it's one of the few criminal traffic violations (this one is just a civil moving infraction).

No.

The people involved can agree to have a judge hear the matter, but no attorney worth his salt is going to allow that to happen. I don't think I've ever seen a negligence question left to a judge in a traffic accident before actually.

Concerning citations, etc., they've no bearing on a civil trial unless someone pled guilty. A guilty verdict returned by a jury or a judge is also inadmissible in the civil action.

But since no citations were issued, we're left with only a civil trial--and I'll leave the negligence question--and damages--in the hands of a jury.

 

[70roadrunner]

Ok here is the senario. This is for the state of Florida. Four lane divided road. In the slow lane is 2 motorcycles. Rider #1 is in the left portion of the lane, ahead of rider #2, by approx 7-10 ft. Rider #2 is in the right portion of the lane. Rider #1 starts having issues with the bike, it can be seen jerking forward. Rider #1 slows. Rider #2 is aproaching to go by rider #1. Rider #1 turns to the right to go into a parking lot and the two riders collide. Rider #1's back half of the front tire/front engine area, to rider #2 front wheel. I have read conflicting things on official web sites, from "cars or trucks may not pass the motorcycle in that same lane and must go around them by switching lanes. However, this does not apply to other motorcycles, as they are allowed to ride two abreast per lane, riding side by side and passing each other when they see fit.", to "It is also illegal in all but 2 states to pass another vehicle, and or motorcycle, in the some lane. FYI the 2 states that motorcycles can pass one another in the same lane are Massachusetts and California."

BTW, no tickets were given. Cops say rider #1 clearly at fault but because he was being cool and admitting it was his fault there were no tickets issued. Insurance says rider #2 is at fault. No police report available yet. :banghead:

twisted, you didn't say if rider #1 signaled to the right before pulling over to parking lot?

 

[Getsome122]

#2. He should have changed to the left lane to pass rider #1 or slowed to stay behind him. Anytime a vehicle slows in front of you like that be it a motorcycle or car or whatever it shouldnt take much common sense to know NOT to go to the right of them unless by some chance maybe you had another vehicle tailgating you and had to create more stopping distance.. But obviously this wasnt the case.

When a vehicle all of a sudden dies out many people will forget to use a signal and do their best to get the vehicle the heck off the road.... Unfortunate but true.

As motorcyclists especially thats why we have to pay more attention to everyone else and use some common sense. Unlike what #2 did here....

 

[Vambo]

I would never encroach or pass in another (unknown) bikers lane or even close to it without him/her signaling to do so or at least acknowledging awareness of my presence and probably not even then. That is simple bike educate.
Had bike 2 done this to me I absolutely would have made space /moved to another lane asap. It shows a lack of experience and/or perhaps under the influence. To many rookies on the road these days.
Bike 1 should have bolted asap and maybe been a bit more aware his own self but Biker 2 is at fault, get a jury of "seasoned" bikers.

 

[bproulxvrod]

Also most states it is illegal to pass on the right so rider #2 would be at fault, regardless of the situation (at least up here in RI).

 

[ImNoPrince]

Rider #2 without a doubt Rider #1 while in his Lane has control of entire lane from line to line . Once #2 encroached that space he became at fault right then and there. #2 should not have been close or tried to pass in that same lane under any circumstances .

 

[jack the ripper]

most insurance decisions are determined what the official police report says
id put my money on that for sure !!

 

[usanigel]

rider 2 following much too close to react to anthing, rider 1 not fully aware of whats around him. BOTH messed up but rider 2 has the edge on that!

 

[vroder]

I'm with most everybody else here...rider # 2 is at fault for following too close and trying to pass on the right. The lane belongs to rider # 1. The only thing # 1 might be guilty of is making the turn without a signal (you don't discuss), but even then the collision is the fault of # 2.

This scenario sounds eerily like the time my wife almost ran over me (on the right) because she wasn't paying attention, with me picking my bike up off the ground, after locking up the front, and apologizing because, after all, she can't have made a mistake! (I didn't want to sour her on the whole riding-her-own thing.) Is it possible these two really were riding together, and why no citations were issued?

 

[AOW]

ALL :them:
rider #2 following far too closely, but I'm assuming rider 1 used his turn signals to let rider 2 know he was pulling off to the right. If no signal was used it would be the fault of both riders with #2's insurance company footing the bill since he followed too closely, made an unsafe pass, and did not yield.

 

[ImEvil1]

No.

The people involved can agree to have a judge hear the matter, but no attorney worth his salt is going to allow that to happen. I don't think I've ever seen a negligence question left to a judge in a traffic accident before actually.

Concerning citations, etc., they've no bearing on a civil trial unless someone pled guilty. A guilty verdict returned by a jury or a judge is also inadmissible in the civil action.

But since no citations were issued, we're left with only a civil trial--and I'll leave the negligence question--and damages--in the hands of a jury.

You and I are talking about two different issues.

Traffic citations, issued in FL, are CIVIL infractions (moving and non-moving). If contested, they are heard in front of a judge, the person the citation was issued to, and the officer that issued the citation. Attorney's sometimes participate, but NEVER a jury. That's what my comment related to. There's never a "guilty verdict returned by a jury" for moving/non-moving citations.

Criminal traffic in FL (ie. DWLSR) is a little different.

No one is going to any civil trial, either, unless someone files a civil action. FL is a no-fault state, and most of the time, insurance companies work it out amongst themselves.

 

[TwistedTins39]

I'm with most everybody else here...rider # 2 is at fault for following too close and trying to pass on the right. The lane belongs to rider # 1. The only thing # 1 might be guilty of is making the turn without a signal (you don't discuss), but even then the collision is the fault of # 2.

This scenario sounds eerily like the time my wife almost ran over me (on the right) because she wasn't paying attention, with me picking my bike up off the ground, after locking up the front, and apologizing because, after all, she can't have made a mistake! (I didn't want to sour her on the whole riding-her-own thing.) Is it possible these two really were riding together, and why no citations were issued?

Rider #1 does not have signals on his bike he says he used hand signals. Rider #2 found this statement, " Operating motorcycles on roadways laned for traffic.-- (1) All motorcycles are entitled to full use of a lane and no motor vehicle shall be driven in such manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection shall not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane." I was not at the scene, but it was told to me that since rider #1 was telling the cop it was his fault, that he turned in front of rider #2 and did not see him the officer would not give any citation.
Thanks for all the input everyone has been helpful.

 

[Vambo]

Rider #1 does not have signals on his bike he says he used hand signals. Rider #2 found this statement, " Operating motorcycles on roadways laned for traffic.-- (1) All motorcycles are entitled to full use of a lane and no motor vehicle shall be driven in such manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection shall not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane." I was not at the scene, but it was told to me that since rider #1 was telling the cop it was his fault, that he turned in front of rider #2 and did not see him the officer would not give any citation.
Thanks for all the input everyone has been helpful.

They were not riding 2 abreast, they were offset ......strangers to each other. 2 bikes in the same lane does not qualify as 2 abreast.

 

[Z16monte]

Rider #1 does not have signals on his bike he says he used hand signals. Rider #2 found this statement, " Operating motorcycles on roadways laned for traffic.-- (1) All motorcycles are entitled to full use of a lane and no motor vehicle shall be driven in such manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection shall not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane." I was not at the scene, but it was told to me that since rider #1 was telling the cop it was his fault, that he turned in front of rider #2 and did not see him the officer would not give any citation.
Thanks for all the input everyone has been helpful.

My reading of that would be: #2 at fault. Rider # 1 was entitled to full use of the lane he was occupying until he left it. Rider 2 infringed on that right when he hit him. Should have been cited for following too closely. While rider 1 SHOULD have been aware of rider 2, He had no legal obligation to allow him to pass before turning.
Ed