Thankfully Volvo learned from Saab’s example. Doing a heater core on my 240 is at least an 8 hour job if I’m willing to hack my way in, 12-14 if I want to do it right. But on my 850? Half hour job.

This post puts the rest of your comments into context. The language seemed to indicate that you were saying cam-car was at fault for the loss, which is why I was arguing. I get what you’re saying now. You are talking a cultural fault, ie that attitude creates an environment of distraction which heightens odds for this…

First, yes, the accident could’ve easily been avoided. No question there.

Been there. Attorney successfully argued parallax and a few other factors and the judge bought it. Reasonable doubt and all that.

And you’re an assumptive douchebag. With name-calling out of the way, none of my comments are based on how I drive, but on what I do for a living, which is deal with accidents, liability investigations, etc.

The wreck that happened shows, yeah, it was a hazard.

Oh, if I were arguing beige’s side I would start at 100% too. It would be wrong, but that is how the game was played.

Naw, it doesn’t make you an internet tough guy. The rest of the statement does where you come off sounding like it couldn’t happen to you.

When it’s moving that much faster than surrounding traffic? Yeah. And I would say the video makes the case for why this was a prudent decision on the part of the camera car, ie the biker was very much a hazard.

The camera car swung left to avoid speeding motorcycle. I don’t know cali law, but part of the function of the shoulder is to have somewhere move in case of hazard, and I’d call that guy hazardous. Initially camera car swung partially onto the shoulder to avoid the bike, and then fully onto the shoulder to avoid…

What part of, “it’s legal to move out of the lane of traffic to avoid a hazard,” did you miss? Was it the “hazard” part?

You don’t sound like a dick. You sound like an internet tough guy.And in most cases when someone says, “I don’t want to sound like a dick,” it’s all but guaranteed that what follows will be Internet Tough Guy talk.

By the way, generally speaking, if your vehicle does not make contact with another vehicle, it is VERY difficult to allocate liability to you. Courts generally look down on this, as, technically speaking, that car hit no one and is thus not materially involved in the impact. There has to be very strong evidence of…

Can’t speak for everywhere, but, yeah, it’s legal to move out of the lane of traffic to avoid a hazard. That’s quite literally what that space is for. The camera car wasn’t driving on the shoulder out of preference. They were moving left to allow more space for the bike, which is common in California, and legal (so…

So let’s talk fault. My opinion, which is actively professional but not operating professionally in this case because 1) I’m not being paid to offer my opinion on this loss, 2) I don’t handle claims in California, and 3) I’m seeing one video perspective without any other facts of loss. In other words, even though this…

The driver that moved left has exactly zero fault/liability here. He moved over to allow a much faster vehicle to pass. Far from fault, that is actively smart driving.

Exactly. He had loads of room to move. There was enough space there for a small car. Not saying I personally would’ve done better (I hope so, but I’m not an internet tough guy), but it is incorrect to say he had nowhere to go. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve hopped onto the shoulder to avoid getting splattered on…

I’m okay with that. My current bike is probably about as twitchy as I can stand. The one “sportbike” I have access to is a triumph 900ST or somesuch, so a sport tourer more than a sportbike.

Technically, all I’ve ever owned was old beaters, honestly. Well, barring my first bike. Dad bought me a brand new 78 suzuki JR50 (that we still have) when I was six years old. Not a beater, but since then everything else has been.

I am SO not a sportbike guy, but this article makes me want to give one a shot.