Lets say a right turning motorist is doing 35 mph that’s 51 feet a second so it would take 0.14 of a second to get 7′ of their car in front of the cyclists.<\/p>\n
Now let’s say the right turning motorist is doing 20 mph that’s 29 feet a second so it would take 0.24 of a second to get 7′ of their car in front of the cyclists.<\/p>\n
OK this is a bit over simplest so lets double the numbers to get a rough maximum time which would give us a range of 0.14 to 0.48 of a second<\/p>\n
So the big question on everyones mind is why didn’t the cyclists stop in time or avoid? After all he had a half a second. \ud83d\ude41<\/p>\n
The wrong question to ask is how much negligence the cyclists had by not hitting the front of the vehicle.<\/p>\n
What should be ask is how much negligence the motorist had because of how far up from the rear bumper the cyclists hit.
\n
\n.
\nAny physics wizards out there who can come up with a plausible explanation that the cyclists had at least 2 seconds to react assuming the car is in constant motion? oldId.20110305175629908<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Lets say a right turning motorist is doing 35 mph that’s 51 feet a second so it would take 0.14 of a second to get 7′ of their car in front of the cyclists. Now let’s say the right turning motorist is doing 20 mph that’s 29 feet a second so it would take 0.24 … <\/p>\n