Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IF"he didn't look", HOW would he have noticed "how rapidly the motorcycle was accelerating"?
If he didn't look - and who doesn't look and who would admit it? - that was a huge mistake and he probably wouldn't have worded his response the way he did and privately would be working on plea-bargaining.
Possibly he didn't get an adequate look, but I have no idea if that's legally defined. I thought I read at least one article that his husband (gay theater stereotype) was with him. If so, he might have been in the passenger seat, reducing the view of oncoming traffic.
Quote:
And WHAT point would that be? And will it be prefaced with 'maybe' or 'likely' or 'probably as so many of the alleged points you've made have been?
In fact, none of those reasonable, realistic words was used.
Quote:
One FACT that is indisputable here is the SUV driver turned across the path of oncoming traffic in an unsafe manner.
In hindsight and not necessarily criminal. You are a motorcycle driver, it seems, and if you've also worked in law enforcement, that makes you extremely biased in this discussion.
Last edited by goodheathen; 08-06-2023 at 09:40 AM..
Apparently Vermont has a distracted-driving law for cell phone handling, and there has been no citation for that publicly disclosed, making it unlikely that the investigation found the driver was using a phone while turning.
Investigators might believe that the SUV driver thought he could beat the motorcycle, but I say that doesn't make sense. All indications are there was little traffic. Just wait a bit if the motorcycle seemed to be bearing down.
Also, investigators might have found that the SUV driver has a bad driving record and therefore color a belief that he screwed up, but that is largely circumstantial evidence and might be disallowed in court.
Last edited by goodheathen; 08-06-2023 at 11:01 AM..
There's been nothing reported that the SUV driver gunned it at any point in the turn, which would he would have done if he'd known a vehicle was bearing down on him, to avoid being hit.
Here is a hypothesis: there was glare on that late afternoon*, the driver wasn't wearing sunglasses, couldn't see oncoming traffic well, and guessed no vehicle was closing in on him. (And it would be a little odd to not gun it for extra safety.)
"Most sun glare accidents occur in the early morning or late afternoon when the sun is on the horizon."
On the other hand, from a study synopsis, "Results indicate that odds of glare crash occurrence are higher in east and west bound compared to north and south bound directions," and the accident road is a north/south one at that point.
Plus, a third source says sun glare is worst in fall and winter.
Anyway, investigators would know if glare crashes are common there, and if mishandling of a glare situation is the conclusion and the driver had no sunglasses nearby, I highly doubt the state will seek years in prison.
If not that, then I can't think of any realistic scenario the driver made a huge error that would earn him prison time.
Last edited by goodheathen; 08-06-2023 at 12:39 PM..
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodheathen
If he didn't look - and who doesn't look and who would admit it? - that was a huge mistake and he probably wouldn't have worded his response the way he did and privately would be working on plea-bargaining.
Possibly he didn't get an adequate look, but I have no idea if that's legally defined. I thought I read at least one article that his husband (gay theater stereotype) was with him. If so, he might have been in the passenger seat, reducing the view of oncoming traffic.
In fact, none of those reasonable, realistic words was used.
In fact, you used 'likely' in post #43 and #49 , 'probably' in post # 33 and above, 'maybe' in post #46 and post #47, and for good measure 'I assume' in post # 32, none of which lead to facts in evidence, and that's just at a quick glance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodheathen
In hindsight and not necessarily criminal. You are a motorcycle driver, it seems, and if you've also worked in law enforcement, that makes you extremely biased in this discussion.
No, approximately 200K miles on motorcycles make me experienced in the behavior of auto drivers and their lack of concern for turning left in front of motorcycles and other dangerous situations they create by doing things like texting while driving. What's your motorcycle experience you're basing your possiblies, maybes. and likelys on?
In fact, you used 'likely' in post #43 and #49 , 'probably' in post # 33 and above, 'maybe' in post #46 and post #47, and for good measure 'I assume' in post # 32, none of which lead to facts in evidence, and that's just at a quick glance.
Okay, you got me - one "likely" and I'm almost sure you actually agree with that point but I suppose refuse to admit it.
Rather than argument with assertion, there's this, which seems to indicate that point, maybe the most important, is fact. It is especially hard to estimate motorcycle speed. https://trid.trb.org/view/1403038
Quote:
No, approximately 200K miles on motorcycles make me experienced in the behavior of auto drivers and their lack of concern for turning left in front of motorcycles and other dangerous situations they create by doing things like texting while driving. What's your motorcycle experience you're basing your possiblies, maybes. and likelys on?
Bitterness is an antonym to objectivity, and once again, there's no evidence of device usage while driving.
I have more operating experience with manual bikes and off-road vehicles than SUVs (zero). I quickly concluded that motorized bikes and similar are dangerous, but I'm also anti-SUV and have had multiple problems with drivers in them and only one with a motorcyclist (yes, while I was turning but no collision). Er, I forgot, there was an accident with a motorcycle, but it was weird and nobody was on/in a vehicle - the bike's owner seemed to have an attitude, but insurance didn't blame me. Plus, someone on some type of bike might have done a hit-and-run on that same car while parked, but it also could have been a passenger vehicle or even a truck; no investigators to the rescue
Last edited by goodheathen; 08-06-2023 at 01:21 PM..
I got a friendly rep from someone who seems to have experience in Vermont and agreed with a one-off comment that shadows from trees might have reduced visibility (and also said a bad thing about motorcyclists). I think that or glare likely contributed significantly, but investigators might have glossed over it, quite possibly due to not going back out there at the same time of day with similar sky conditions (and maybe with sunglasses the driver didn't wear). If the SUV driver experienced mild or moderate glare, he might not have explicitly said so at the scene and instead set himself up for trouble by only stating he didn't see the motorcycle.
Also, a hot take: I don't think the family of Treat Williams wants a trial and probably doesn't even want the SUV driver to spend years in jail. Just more reasons to think the situation will end with not much of a punishment.
I agree on two possibilities, but the second probably is much worse than the first (especially if on a cell phone, which probably wasn't the case). If the former, not realizing the oncoming driver was (likely moderately) speeding would make it not a criminal matter, in my opinion.
Blame is blame, it almost has to happen, but it's unclear if all fault has been attributed to the SUV driver and jail would not make sense from what I've heard. I'm not used to people being prosecuted for what probably happened, and I doubt it's a typical prosecution in Vermont.
A Yahoo quote:
"If this was anyone else the driver would not be charged. People here don't want to admit that maybe the guy was speeding on his bike." Or his always-on headlights somehow weren't on - for example, maybe intentionally disabled at some point or malfunctioned due to bike age.
There are too many things that we don't know, and if the prosecution also doesn't know some of them, I think it should back off.
I always know when motorcycles are driving near me. Why? Because I've ridden legally since 1983. When the weather is nice, bikes are out. It's a fact since a hundred years ago. People who don't ride just don't know or care about bikes until they run into one.
My guess, he didn't look right before turning. He may have looked when driving, but could have had a hundred things on his mind, he forgot to look to see if it was clear to turn. Unfortunately, he not only hit the motorcycle, he hit a celebrity, will forever be known as killing someone famous.
As for the bike headlight. My first motorcycle I bought brand new, a 1982 Kawasaki 440LTD had the headlight always on. So did my next bike, a 1992 Harley 1200 sportster. I've had a 1972 Sportster that was all chromed out, that did not have the always on headlight.
At present, so few details are available that who knows, but I'm very skeptical that this is a one-sided situation where someone deserves years in jail as punishment.
It dawned on me this morning that maybe Treat Williams was accelerating rapidly. I don't think there is an intersection near the collision spot, but maybe something that temporarily limits speed doesn't show on a map or maybe he was like me and enjoyed the feel of rapid acceleration when seemingly in a safe spot to do it. I suspect that's a practice that feels extra fun on a motorcycle.
I have a lead foot. So did my father who used to drive an ambulance. Neither of us were stupid on a motorcycle, we didn't speed when driving local, a highway maybe. It's fun to open the throttle every now and then when it's safe to do so.
I'm pretty sure I posted that I was 15 when someone turned in front of my moped pulling out of Macy's, we collided. Thankfully I wasn't going fast, the light was red. Of course she didn't see me according to her but I had the right of way, which will most likely be a fact here too with Treat being the one who has the right of way.
It really sucks to be the guy that hit Treat, even worst since he claims he personally knew him from the theater.
Personally, I think the guy either didn't look right twice or he simply thought he could turn before any of the vehicles on the other side got near him. I'm guilty of doing that. Anyone who knows me knows I occasionally do that, but as long as I know it's safe to do it, with the cars being pretty far away. I've been driving about 40 years.
Fact is both the SUV driver and Treat are locals so the driving habits of both could be well known.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodheathen
If others can see this. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lo...jj0s?entry=ttu
There is an intersection not far from the crash site. Treat Williams had just passed it and some occupied properties. He likely was entering an open-road situation where a driver would be accelerating. I don't know if the speed limit increases in that stretch. If he'd been behind a vehicle that had just turned off the road, that would also predict him increasing his speed. Furthermore, motorcycles as a rule accelerate much faster than passenger vehicles, and to an SUV driver that could easily be a surprise. I suppose an investigation might have pieced that together, but not if few or no witnesses and with intent, as sometimes is, to blame one driver for another's death.
Between that and the driver's implication that he did look before turning (as part of law-abiding driving), I predict that he won't go to jail for a long time and ultimately the sides might agree to a very minor punishment.
Where are you getting that motorcycles accelerate faster then cars? That is up to the person riding the motorcycle. Not everyone guns the throttle when taking off. My dad didn't, in a car and a motorcycle. He was all about conserving gas.
You keep posting to try to get everyone to say you're right. A lot of what you're posting is the same thing, so why bother? Do you know the SUV driver?
The fact is that no one knows what happened. Cops are not sharing their thoughts. We all can speculate what happened. I guess we'll see next month who is right.
I personally think it was the SUV drivers fault. Treat was 71, I doubt he was gunning his bike. He was out for a mellow ride.
Of course I don't know the SUV driver. I hardly knew of Treat Williams - knew the name and what he looked like, but little else, which probably makes me less biased about this than most people. Basically two drivers who collided, blame could go either way. I like to be right but I don't insist I'm right about blame on both drivers (seemingly more so the SUV driver), and it's frustrating that few people seem willing to acknowledge anything I've said is borderline fact or quite possibly could be right. It's forum culture and the atmosphere in many places online for users to simply ridicule arguments they don't want to believe.
Furthermore, it is borderline offensive to me that people can insist that one side in an accident that ended badly for the other driver deserves all the blame or the driver with technical right way automatically is blameless and worse, scary, that because police believe something and successfully push for charges that that narrative is accurate. (Most murders go unsolved!) In this case, considering possible years of jail time, they darn well need real evidence of for example the unlikely not-looking on a main route on a late Monday afternoon while signaling and apparently not under the influence or on a device. I worry that the delay before court is lengthy to deliberately make the SUV driver antsy and plead guilty to a lesser charge. (However, it could just be an overwhelmed small court system or vacation-related.)
Re vehicle acceleration times, I looked it up before I wrote it. I meant maximum acceleration, which I agree is unlikely. But I've driven multiple vehicles, some performance (speed-oriented), some not, and I know which kind tends to accelerate faster with mild- or moderate pressure, and I assume that motorcycles are built that way (some more so than others, of course). Additionally, I doubt that Treat Williams cared about saving gas, and it's close to ridiculous to think he was accelerating like someone does with a cheap, 20-year-old sedan. It almost automatically would have been fast acceleration by SUV standards. Yes, it's possible he wasn't accelerating and was basically cruising, but my hunch says accelerating. I don't assume that info will be released in court next month.
Last edited by goodheathen; 08-07-2023 at 12:51 AM..
Of course I don't know the SUV driver. I hardly knew of Treat Williams - knew the name and what he looked like, but little else, which probably makes me less biased about this than most people. Basically two drivers who collided, blame could go either way. I like to be right but I don't insist I'm right about blame on both drivers (seemingly more so the SUV driver), and it's frustrating that few people seem willing to acknowledge anything I've said is borderline fact or quite possibly could be right. It's forum culture and the atmosphere in many places online for users to simply ridicule arguments they don't want to believe.
Furthermore, it is borderline offensive to me that people can insist that one side in an accident that ended badly for the other driver deserves all the blame or the driver with technical right way automatically is blameless and worse, scary, that because police believe something and successfully push for charges that that narrative is accurate. (Most murders go unsolved!) In this case, considering possible years of jail time, they darn well need real evidence of for example the unlikely not-looking on a main route on a late Monday afternoon while signaling and apparently not under the influence or on a device. I worry that the delay before court is lengthy to deliberately make the SUV driver antsy and plead guilty to a lesser charge. (However, it could just be an overwhelmed small court system or vacation-related.)
Re vehicle acceleration times, I looked it up before I wrote it. I meant maximum acceleration, which I agree is unlikely. But I've driven multiple vehicles, some performance (speed-oriented), some not, and I know which kind tends to accelerate faster with mild- or moderate pressure, and I assume that motorcycles are built that way (some more so than others, of course). Additionally, I doubt that Treat Williams cared about saving gas, and it's close to ridiculous to think he was accelerating like someone does with a cheap, 20-year-old sedan. It almost automatically would have been fast acceleration by SUV standards. Yes, it's possible he wasn't accelerating and was basically cruising, but my hunch says accelerating. I don't assume that info will be released in court next month.
I only knew who Treat was from Chicago Fire. I was upset they killed him off. His "son" on the show had a dark cloud where he couldn't be happy, even a girl he was dating who had cancer was killed off, breaking his heart of course.
I know a lot of older riders who don't ride fast, they like to go out and cruise. I'll be surprised if Treat wasn't doing that.
As I said, I think the SUV driver looked once, then started to go before looking again and by that time, Treat was crashing into him. IIRC, Treat had just gone through a light that he was stopped at. That makes the most sense to me. SUV driver error. It also could be as you said, he turned while thinking he had ample time, mis-judging that Treat had accelerated fast. Maybe he didn't look the second time when Treat started off fast.
I only knew who Treat was from Chicago Fire. I was upset they killed him off. His "son" on the show had a dark cloud where he couldn't be happy, even a girl he was dating who had cancer was killed off, breaking his heart of course.
I know a lot of older riders who don't ride fast, they like to go out and cruise. I'll be surprised if Treat wasn't doing that.
As I said, I think the SUV driver looked once, then started to go before looking again and by that time, Treat was crashing into him. IIRC, Treat had just gone through a light that he was stopped at. That makes the most sense to me. SUV driver error. It also could be as you said, he turned while thinking he had ample time, mis-judging that Treat had accelerated fast. Maybe he didn't look the second time when Treat started off fast.
Did you read somewhere that Treat Williams had been stopped at the red light? That would be an important piece of evidence, and I believe the investigation determined whether or not he was.
I don't think someone is required to look twice in one direction when making a turn. I wasn't aware that that is taught in some places re motorcycles. I was not taught that, and I never heard of the nationwide campaign. A driver shouldn't be jailed for years for not doing that. Unless for example he'd had a similar accident with a motorcycle and failed to learn a thing from it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In fact, none of those reasonable, realistic words was used.
