The case, People v Borzakian, resulted in a ruling that a police office who did not participate in the calibration , operation, or maintenance of a traffic camera, is not qualified to lay the all important foundation for the use of the resulting photograph in evidence. As a result, the case was tossed out. This follows the case of People v Khaled, in which an Orange County appellate panel made a similar finding.

Of course, police departments can get around this by having the person testifying prepped by participating in the camera set up, but this is a little more involved than it sounds, since these cameras are normally handled by private contractors. Another solution would be to have the private companies supply a witness in addition to the police witness.

The bottom line here is that most of the public doesn’t like a system where automatic tickets are given out by robotic equipment. Our system is based on facts and circumstances, and an inflexible ticketing scheme just doesn’t sit well.

If you’re like me, having a bike that just feels right is huge. When everything fits, I just ride better and enjoy it more. I adjust my levers to minimize bend in my wrists, and I adjust the levers so that the amount of pull matches my hands a much as possible. I almost always use an after market seat, Sargent if possible. I have had Corbin custom make a seat for me, which was decent, and I have tried Wunderlich, which was OK for BMW. Of course, we all differ, so this is a very personal choice.

There is a site that has most bikes, and I understand they will probably add a bike if you request one they don’t have. It gives information on how upright you ride, and how much bend there is in your knees.

Check it out: www.cycle-ergo.com

Most law-enforcement investigators and accident reconstructionists who are not trained in motorcycle accidents make a simple analysis based on the assumption that it takes the rider .75 seconds to perceive the danger, and another .75 seconds to react, for a total of 1.5 seconds. At the end of that period, the rider starts to brake (and/or steer), and the reconstructionist uses formulae to determine how much time, speed, and distance would elapse before impact. Since the rule of thumb is that feet per second is about 1.5 times the speed in mph, this is a simple and convenient way to figure out what happened.

For example, if the motorcycle is going 30 miles per hour, it travels at 45 feet per second. Once the left-hand turn starts, the rider takes 1.5 seconds to perceive and react, so he travels about 67.5 feet before he begins to brake.

Simple, elegant, easy to use. Unfortunately, also completely wrong.

These shopworn estimates of perception and reaction time come from experiments done long ago, using simulators with a fake steering wheel, accelerator and brake. When the light goes from green to red, the subject moves their foot from the accelerator to the brake, and a timer records the result; not very realistic.

Let’s try again, and see what you are faced with in a real accident.

Your perception time includes the time it takes to see, the time it takes to focus attention, and decision time. Only then can you begin to react, and only when your reaction is complete and you do something will your motorcycle begin braking or swerving. The whole time, you are moving towards disaster.

You’re not expecting an accident. You’re cruising along, enjoying the ride, as you approach an intersection. There’s an oncoming car in the left-turn pocket, but you expect it to wait for the light. As you get closer, you notice that the car is slowly pulling forward. You figure it’s just pulling closer to the line. You keep going, but pay a little more attention to the car. Now you are closer to the intersection. The car gets closer to the line, then over it, and accelerates into the intersection. At this point, you have to make sense of a complex and confusing set of facts, one that is contrary to your expectations, and you are beginning to panic. It takes time for your brain to understand what is going on, calculate the trajectory of the car, and deal with the danger.

It doesn’t take a scientist to realize that the perception of this set of circumstances is confusing, and it is going to take you longer than reacting to a green light switching to red. Precious time is gone. Studies show that perception and response time is greatly increased by situations that do not initially seem critical. Your motorcycle keeps going forward until you brake or swerve.

Included in “perception time” is the concept of attention. It took time for you to take attention from the tasks of riding and transfer attention to the task of tracking the now-dangerous left-turning vehicle, and analyze evasive options.

Attention is something we all agree is critical to accident avoidance. Attention is related to the ability to process information. Studies show the ability to switch focus of attention does not change with age. However, uncertainty about the location of information relevant to a certain task does change with age. This would suggest that older drivers are at a disadvantage in complex and demanding traffic situations. This may be one of the reasons many older drivers drive slowly. Vision, particularly night vision, is worse, and it takes longer to clearly see the situation.

Unfortunately, you’re not done. Included in “perception time,” is “decision” time. In that situation an internal dialogue takes place. How fast is the car going? How fast it is accelerating? Will the driver see and stop? Can I slow enough to go behind? Can I get in front? At what point should I get off the brakes and swerve? How much front brake should I use? How much rear? More time is gone. Your bike keeps going forward. While you sort this out, the car accelerates into the intersection in front of you.

Forget the theoretical 3/4th of a second. More like several seconds have been spent.

Finally, you begin deciding what to do. More time, more distance. Time’s up. You are now way too close to do anything successfully. You are going to hit the side of the car, and go flying over it. Even if you catch a little brake, expect to be six or seven feet in the air as your limbs flail towards a landing more than 20 feet away.

We can talk about things that will help avoid a collision. Covering the front brake can save a small amount of time. Having a foot on the rear brake saves time, but can lead to a skid-induced highside. But we need to stop looking at motorcycle accidents using methods designed for car accidents.

Mike Padway is a motorcycle lawyer with a passion for riding and riding safety. He handles cases throughout the state and can be contacted by email: mike@michaelpadway.com.

This article was originally published in Citybike Magazine.

This was an actual conversation I had with a motorcycle expert sometime in the 1980s, about the time that John Danforth was proposing legislation to ban Japanese superbikes. I think that Senator Danforth was a patsy, set up by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the insurance industry nonprofit. Since its inception in 1959, the IIHS has been focused on promoting the interests of insurance companies through press releases, publishing its crash-test results, and reports from its Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDA).

While the IIHS has almost an ambiance in the press that is somewhere between the federal government and Consumer Reports, in fact it has never been more than a spokesperson for big auto insurance carriers. The addition of the Highway Loss Data Institute allows the IIHS to effectively quote itself, with statistics tailored to support any claim they want to make. Certain topics have been a consistent part of the IIHS platform since day one.

No one should be surprised that motorcycles are not a favorite of the Insurance Industry, except when it comes to advertising for premium dollars.

In the early to mid ’80s, the IIHS put out a film prominently featuring canyon racing in the Los Angeles Area. The theme of the movie was the shocking speed and danger involved in Japanese superbikes that were being sold to American kids just old enough to drive. The IIHS accompanied the film with seriously flawed statistics showing that the Japanese superbikes were overwhelmingly the source of motorcycle deaths, and they started a whispering campaign highlighting specific instances of death by superbike.

Soon it was commonplace to hear stories. One kid bought a superbike as a first motorcycle, and was killed leaving the shop. Another rider left 150 feet of motorcycle and tissue scrapings leaving Laguna Seca Raceway. A certain superbike averaged two
weeks from purchase before a rider was dead. Even the best test riders were refusing to ride these too fast motorcycles.

Of course, the anti-Japanese import tone of the period was the attractive sub-plot.

John Danforth, a senator from Missouri, quickly patched together a bill to limit these motorcycles. He was genuinely so concerned and so naive, that after viewing the IIHS materials, he introduced his bill. It never occurred to him that there might be a motorcycle enthusiast lobby. To his credit, he withdrew the bill when the motorcycle industry responded with the facts.

Fortunately, Harry Hurt and others were able to show that, not only was the IIHS data flawed, but in fact the larger motorcycles were statistically safer than the smaller bikes promoted by the IIHS. The bill died a quick death, and life goes on. Are we done?Nope, not yet.

In 1998, the French Industry Commission proposed setting a power limit on motorcycles of 100 bhp. The Dutch Road Vehicles Research Institute produced a timely study concluding that there was no relationship between amount of engine power and accidents. Simon Wilward, of the Federation of European Motorcyclists, described this as common sense, noting that most accidents involve smaller motorcycles and are the result of error not just on the part of motorcyclists, but also drivers of cars. In a replay of the U.S. experience, data seems to have saved the day.

The IIHS never gives up. A 2007 IIHS special report regarding “superbikes” claims “these machines are designed for the racetrack but you’ll only find them on the highway. Supersport motorcycles have engines that deliver more horsepower per pound than a typical NASCAR vehicle, reaching speeds of nearly 190 miles per hour, and some of their riders treat public roads like private racecourses.” And an IIHS website FAQ repeats the sportbike libel:

“Motorcyclists who drive supersport motorcycles, which make up a small fraction of registered motorcycles, are overrepresented in fatal crashes. The driver death rate per 10,000 registered motorcycles for supersports is about 4 times higher than the rate for motorcyclists who ride cruisers, standards, or touring bikes.

“The driver death rate per 10,000 registered motorcycles for sport motorcycles is about 2 times higher than the rate for drivers of cruisers, standards, or touring bikes.”

The data (which is mostly from the HLDI) now is no better than it was then. In some ways, it may be worse, because the study completed by Harry Hurt in 1981 was relatively fresh. The motorcycles attacked by the IIHS in the ’80s had up to 130 horsepower. Today, that is not such a big number.

John Danforth is gone from the scene and now practices law in Saint Louis. The 1987 Ninja that the IIHS attacked so vehemently is a museum piece.

At the end of the day, as motorcycle riders we face ongoing threats to our enjoyment of riding. Organizations such as the AMA, and enthusiast publications such as CityBike are our best protection (God help us all!–ed.).

Senator Danforth was contacted for, but did not want to recall his interaction with the IIHS for this article. It is hard to blame him. We invite the IIHS to respond to this column.

Originally written for CityBike Magazine

But miraculously, Reed got up. After dusting himself off and restarting his bike, he was back in the race, unscathed by the superman flight he had just undertaken. He even managed to finish 14th overall in the race, which was high enough for him to maintain his overall top position on the leader board.

This particular crash reminded me of when Scott Russell crashed his bike back in 1995 during the Daytona 200.

Here, Russell wipes out in the middle of the race, gets back up and continues. Russell eventually won that race. Boy do these guys have a lot of guts.

Non-motorcycle riders can’t really appreciate the amount of grip force on the tires to get over this far.  Just thinking about it is enough to get your heart pumping a little more.

Of course, this arises because I am getting ready for the annual trek to Laguna Seca for the Red Bull Grand Prix.  Honestly, a lot is missed watching the races simply because of the speed. Looking at it in slo-mo provides a lot more information.

A track day is always a good way to push your riding skills a little harder.  I really believe that this translates into safety on the street.  Not only do you improve your riding skills, but the experience makes you a calmer rider if an emergency does crop up.

As regular readers know, one of the big causes of injury to riders in an accident is that the emergency situation interferes with the ability to operate the motorcycle with the same level of skill that riders exercise in planned emergency practice maneuvers.  Track time is a possible way of improving the ability to function under pressure.

Of course, in this kind of a situation, an attorney looks for a deep pocket that may be a viable defendant. Here, it turned out that the intersection near Little Italy in San Diego had been causi

San Diego paid $1.8 million for a motorcycle accident

ng accidents for 12 years.

The family of motorcyclist Kenneth Charles Sully, 58, sued the city after he was hit and killed by a Toyota Corolla in April 2009 at the intersection where the Pacific Highway and Cedar Street meet. City records show a dozen other accidents at that location had occurred from 2006 to 2009, including two after Sully was killed.

The Ducati Sully was riding was cut off by a Toyota Corolla driven by a 17 year old female. However, the intersection not only needed a turn signal, but the setup of it was misleading as well. When the Ducati hit the car, the driver suffered brain injuries that killed him later.

The City Council unanimously approved the settlement as civic watchdogs questioned why the city was paying anything at all in an accident that involved two private parties. The city doesn’t acknowledge any wrongdoing under this deal.

City Attorney Jan Goldsmith explained that the city had been slow to address the complaints about the intersection’s dangers after a left-turn lane was created on southbound Pacific Highway back in 1997. The city didn’t make a left-turn yield sign or a turn signal at all, which left the impression that drivers could turn left — into oncoming traffic — once the signal turned green.

Many attempts to fix the problem failed through the years because of budget problems and employee incompetence, Goldsmith said.

“In this case, I am appalled and I have communicated that,” he said. “We have to understand that public safety is not just police and fire, but the engineers and our streets and transportation division that protect us every day by making our flow of traffic safe. They are extremely important budget-wise and safety-wise and they cannot skimp. They must do better.”

Goldsmith added, “A word to the wise of those working in this city who are responsible for the safety of our people – there is a zero tolerance in this city for this kind of ignoring of public safety and well being.”

Motorcycle Peg

The first topic is the effect of weighting the pegs. All good riders know that weighting the pegs seems to help a lot of things. The standard explanation is that by weighting the pegs, the rider is lowering the center of gravity. By weighting the inside or outside peg, the rider is supposed to be assisting the turning process. No one with experience on a motorcycle would question that weighting the pegs works.

For tight low speed maneuvers, one of the best ways to speed up the learning process is to stand on the pegs, then see how easily the bike turns. On the track, weighting the inside peg seems to likewise do wonders. Trials riders seem to never sit down.

The problem is, that weighting the pegs doesn’t seem, as a matter of physics, to actually change the center of gravity. Particularly when standing up, the center of gravity would seem to actually be higher.

I am not sure what the correct explanation is. On the one hand, weighting the pegs would seem to put additional weight low on the bike. On the other hand, doing this through two flexible legs would seem less efficient that moving the weight lower by transferring it through the hard frame of the motorcycle, by simply sitting on the seat. Clearly, shifting weight seems to make a huge difference, weighting the pegs seems to do the same. What is the real explanation?

I discussed this whole thing with a Hall of Fame ex racer, and his explanation made sense. It was that, by weighting the pegs, you are also moving your body in a way that shifts weight forward on the motorcycle. This makes sense.

In the end, it doesn’t matter. The important thing is that riders know weighting the pegs helps control the motorcycle.

A second interesting topic is the question of why, at low speeds, it is so much easier to turn and control the motorcycle by keeping a steady throttle at, say, 2,000 rpm, and just using the clutch to speed up or slow down. For those of you who use the throttle to modulate speed at low speeds, you really need to try this – it is hugely effective.

The standard explanation is that this technique, by using the engine as a gyroscope, allows the engine to turn much faster than it would if you just used the throttle, or if you used the throttle plus some clutch.

This makes sense to me. If you have ever played with even a small gyroscope, a little extra speed generates a lot more stability. With a gyroscope as large as a motorcycle engine, the difference is dramatic.

In contrast to an attorney who is constantly investigating every corner of motorcycle control and dynamics, imaging the disadvantage of having a lawyer who does not even ride a motorcycle regularly.

I see ads for these lawyers all over the internet, and it makes me cringe. It makes me cringe even more when I get calls from injured riders who ask me to take over the messed up files these lawyers create.

The internet and television are great mediums for getting the message out. Unfortunately, there is a difference between attorneys, even those claiming to have motorcycle claim experience. Buyer beware!

If you don’t know, a full reconstruction using vehicles identical to those in the actual accident is relatively rare, because it is so expensive. Only those cases with the most serious injuries will justify the cost. Not only is it necessary to get the exemplar vehicles there, but videotaping or filming must be arranged, and experts have to be on hand to make sure that the work is accurate and that it will meet evidentiary standards.

My latest effort required finding a motorcycle in the right color, with the same accessories as the bike involved in the accident. It took a full day of work to get examples of what could be seen by the various parties in the accident from various angles, all while moving at freeway speeds in real traffic.

On one hand, this is a major undertaking, requiring a lot of skill. On the other hand, it is fun and satisfying, because the videotape gives an accurate depiction of the vehicles as they actually looked at the time of the accident, and the tape shows what the various drivers and witnesses could actually see.

A lot of care must be taken, because the last thing anyone wants is to actually recreate the accident. Safety must be in everyone’s mind at all times.

It has been decades since the first time that I did this, so I have learned a lot about making these events run smoothly, and I have learned how to avoid a lot of problems that plague some attempts at accident reconstruction.

Because it takes so many hours to complete one of these, I also have a lot of time to think about what I do for a living, and how important it is. This case involved a motorcycle that was hit from behind, throwing the rider into the air above a busy freeway. The rider hit his head, and cannot remember the actual accident. The woman that hit him with her car is trying to blame the motorcycle rider, and claims she didn’t see him before she hit him. It seems preposterous that anyone could claim they didn’t see a motorcycle dead center in front of their car, but when you handle these cases regularly, nothing is surprising.

Of course, the videotape clearly shows what we all know – motorcycles never come “out of nowhere” – they all come out of somewhere. If you look at a motorcycle, you see it. If you are looking at your mirror, playing with the radio, or texting, it does become more difficult to also keep track of traffic. For a vigilant driver, motorcycles are quite easy to see.

I must admit to a sickening feeling watching the reconstruction, and realizing how many drivers are out there not paying the least bit of attention, or at least momentarily drifting off. We all count on each other on the road, and we have to rely on others to pay attention and obey the rules of driving. For a rider that is wearing the proper gear, paying attention themselves, who has taken a motorcycle safety course, there should be a feeling that riding a motorcycle is a safe and fun activity.

Seeing such a vivid reminder of the importance of the work I do for injured riders, and thinking about how it helps make riding safer for all of us, made this day of work memorable and inspiring.

Image by twm1340 via Flickr

BRANDO GIVES HARLEY THE BOOT

I had to laugh at a lawsuit filed by the estate of Marlon Brando against Harley for using Brando’s image on some boots Harley calls the “Brando”. There are several levels to the humor in this.

We all know, or should know, that Brando’s image became linked with motorcycles when he starred in a movie loosely based on a Life magazine article that falsely painted an AMA event in Hollister california as being a drunken debauchery. Turns out the heart of the article was a staged photo. This led to the legend of bikers taking over a town, which became the story line in the movie “The Wild one”.

Important details (to motorcyclists only) are the fact that Brando wore a Langlitz jacket, and that his ride was a Triumph – not a Harley.

Unlike many Hollywood stars, such as James Dean or Steve McQueen, there is little evidence that Brando personally became a motorcycle enthusiast.

I guess the humor for me is that the motorcycle industry has done at least as much for Brando and his image as Brando has done for the motorcycle industry, by instilling a negative image that resonates 50 years later. Brando, on the other hand, used and re-used the “bad boy” image for his own public persona.

At the same time, Harley itself is so protective of its intellectual property that the sound of the engine is protected as unique. There is more than a little irony in the fact that they appropriated Brando’s image and name for themselves without considering the fact that Brando, through his estate, has ownership rights.

The Harley Brando Boot

We have to assume that this will end up with a quiet settlement, and everyone will go back to their own business. In the meantime, we can all share a quick laugh.
-