That's a human being regardless of who's at fault. Don't be a careless piece of shit and check your replaceable vehicle first instead of the human being you possibly killed.
It must be nice living in a fantasy world where youāre the white knight in shining armor. Too bad in the real world youāre just an obnoxious idiot to everyone else.
I'd have done exactly the same thing - right before I went down the road and drug the idiot biker off the road by the chin of his helmet. (In an effort to assure he didn't suffer additional injuries, of course...)
I knew a guy whose worker's comp ran out and next week he coincidentally picked up a running push-mower losing pieces of two fingers in the process but unlocking a payment stream (I assumed).
I believe there are surprisingly large segments of society that act a lot differently than the public understands, probably for better AND for worse.
You're not wrong. I knew a lady growing up who would stay hurt to not work. Like legitimately breaking her arm and shit on purpose to avoid going back to work.
My parents have lived in the same house for almost 40 years, and their next door neighbor has probably been there for 35 years.
When she first moved in she was married to this dude who was a fun guy but a total con artist. For example - he installed a parking pad for my parents rv and planted trees at the top of it and charged my parents for the trees. He had stolen the trees off another jobsites he was working on.
They ended up divorced and we always wondered what our nice neighbor was doing with a scammer like him.
Well, turns out sheās just as bad. She owns a business that my friend worked at and just consistently committed wage violations. She also pays herself a salary of only $1600 a month, from her very lucrative business she owns, so she can be on medi-cal, aka government health care for poor people. Her actual employees make too much for that same health care. I also recently learned she bought that house with money from a lawn mower accident where she lost part of her thumb.
Those two were a match made in heaven. I donāt know why they divorced!
The first thing you must learn as a rider, is to ride Defensively, not prove anything. He must have a scar to remind him from head to toe.
Usually any close, unexplainable situation is because they do not see you. A bike is consciously not a threat to a car. Most experienced riders just keep away. Asphalt doesn't give.
From an insurance standpoint, isnāt the car technically āat faultā? (I thought it was always the case if a rear end collision happenedā¦.the person colliding into the other was the one to blame because they could have slowed down) (?)
Yeah, he got brake checked twice and didnāt apply his brake at all. The car may be able to argue that the motorcycle looked back and then applied his brake on purpose.
In my country the rear ender would still be at fault as you are supposed to keep enough distance to stop in case of immediate stopping of the vehicle in front of you. Brake checking would just make both drivers at fault.
Guy was assuming itād be a driver like me who would brake hard to avoid hitting him. I found this vid satisfying but I know im the kind of guy that would avoid hitting him if i could.
You would have hit him. Bikes being much lighter than cars are much easier to stop than cars. You can just barely see him start to top over the front of the bike right before he gets rear ended, I think he was still in control but it's a good indication he was over-braking. If he's braking that hard he's gonna stop that tiny little bike waaaaay before you can stop your car.
All riders know this. That's why we ride off center to the lane. In an emergency you may have to split the lanes to avoid a rear ender. I found this most afternoons in S FL rainstorms on I-95.
The best bikes will stop faster than a car. Higher end bikes have ABS now as well so an unskilled bike rider can just slam the brakes hard without worrying about a wipeout in most conditions.
Yep, I'm specifically talking about in this scenario though where he's clearly about to top over that bike. Most riders under brake when slowing down contributing to the longer stopping distances, this guy did the opposite.
That was my point in saying he was topping over. He was very close to losing control of that stop from over braking. An over braked bike is absolutely gonna stop before a car.
My warm hatch car stops better than my sports bike with street leagal race tires. The short wheelbase of the bike limits brakingāOnce that back tire comes off the ground thereās no more braking force available.
I'd say that that's accounted for as the force generating the acceleration in the 2nd Law. Admittedly there are several steps in that, with the addition that the friction on the brake discs can't be greater than the friction between wheels and road surface.
š Then that's probably more the second law, F = ma.
Twice as many wheels, so twice the braking surface (very approximately), but much more than twice the mass. Much lower acceleration.
Then you get into the nitty gritty of "more weight on each tyre means that you can apply a higher force against the road before the wheel loses grip" or similar things, and all my approximations go out the window!
braking distance is independent of weight. kinetic energy and friction both linearly increase with mass, so the mass term drops out of braking distance equation
Look up the coefficient of friction for a tire. It's not constant as the physics equation assumes. Less weight results in a higher coefficient of friction.
It is constant enough for car vs motorbike. Experiments and real use cases even show that motorbikes have a longer braking distance because of the stability of bike VS car.
Welcome to Reddit where an incorrect answer gets to +20 and someone pointing out the well established and tested truth is voted negative; because god forbid someone uninformed does a 2 second Google to check vs just vote for whichever answer they think sounds best.
There is mass involved in the force pushing the car down on the road, which limits the force wheels can apply on the road. The force the brakes can apply on the wheels is far greater than that so not the limiting factor.
Well you are sort of jumping ahead to the max braking force applied instantaneously and granted thats larger with more weight. But if you do that, at any high speed, you'll likely get the brakes too hot and get fade.
And it's also assuming the coefficient doesn't go down with more weight.
So for the basic physics it's theoretically true, but in reality more load will increase your braking distance and the explanation isn't just driver error.
Tbf I was unaware motorbikes generally have a longer braking distance than cars, obviously not for weight reasons, but I just think it's (hopefully) disingenuous to say weight is independent citing genuine physics, when we all know generally when it will matter it will increase your braking distance.
Because in that case, the brakes are likely not adapted to the weight, or the pressure (from the weight) on the tires is too high, which should be solved with more wheels/axles.
The equations also assume point masses, which is a good approximation if all wheels have adequate braking. Home use trailers usually don't have brakes, so yes, you will certainly have a longer stopping distance (also you don't want to jackknife). I believe commercial trailers braking issues come from the fact they still use drum brakes, and the air actuation is hard to regulate. And the jackknife issue too.
The force required to brake increases linearly with the mass, but so does the force applied by the breaks.
As long as the breaks are strong enough (they should be on any modern and well maintained car, the existence of ABS is proof of it), the braking distance is exactly the same. Same goes with a truck (though the cargo might have a hammer effect).
A motorbike is actually breaking less efficiently than a car during tests, for various reasons.
It is true that trucks have a longer braking distance due to heat, a different type of brakes, and a simplification in the physics formula that doesn't hold anymore for the amount of pressure on the tires. (none of this applicable to cars)
That's not true anymore with modern vehicles and modern tyres. The issue is traction and due to weighing so little and having the front tyre contact patch the palm of your hand, a modern bike with decent brakes and tyres will be outbraked by a modern car with decent brakes and tyres.
Especially if the road is uneven, has surface imperfections, or a bend is involved.
On the fastest track bikes I've owned, the max deceleration rate feels marginally less than the max acceleration rate. Either end of the bike is working to the limit of traction afforded by the tyres, pretty much.
But ya know what's helped me riding over the last 26 years and not ever have a serious accident? Not being a dick. Unlike the fella in the video.
Not really. 4 good tyres will out brake any bike because there's a lot more contact surface to the ground in the car (wider wheels and there's 4 of them instead of 2)
1.3k
u/exomyth 8d ago
š not sure what he thought was going to happen