7 killed , 3 hurt in motorcycle-truck accident in Randolph NH

10thSFFD

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
20,883
Likes
12,510
Location
Camp Deplorable in the Blue Swamp
On the one hand, yes. But that can be handled through the civil courts, and it will be. The settlements will be quick and lucrative, I think, though The System won't really change until the people start firing their elected shitheads.

The other hand is seven dead people on the public highway because an unscrupulous employer put an incompetent on the road, and that kid lost control of his vehicle. That's the part I care more about.
I can't post what I have tried to post here already. But let me help you; Shine light on that unscrupulous employer and you will understand much more. Sorry for being brief.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,363
Likes
9,180
I get it now. You're intentionally trying to post idiotic drivel for amusement. Nobody (outside of the anti-gun / MADD crowd) could possibly come up with some mind numbing stupidity as some of the stuff you're posting tonight, which clearly means you're trolling for fun. Well done. Almost believed you but you overplayed the stupid...
Classy post......

The fact of the matter remains that no matter what the driver of the truck did......7 killed and 3 injured......thats a bare min of 5 bikes involved and likely more

5 bikes following at 5 second intervals instead of as a pack means that the last bike would have had at LEAST 25 second to avoid the first bike if it went down and approx half that (12.5) seconds to avoid an oncoming vehicle

Apply same to 4th bike, 3rd and 2nd bike and anyone with half a brain and a few miles in the saddle comprehends that in order for at LEAST 5 bikes to be involved in this crash they necessarily must have been following each other too closely according to NH RSA.....otherwise one or more of them would have had time to avoid the accident......even a lumbering cruiser/touring bike had sufficient time to take action.......remember this is a nice big wide section of road where this occurred.....it wasnt a narrow/twisting section of road with no where to go.

Dont be surprised when the report comes out that the driver of the truck predictably is assigned primary blame but the drivers of the bikes will be found to be partially at fault for following each other too closely.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,363
Likes
9,180
But that can be handled through the civil courts, and it will be. The settlements will be quick and lucrative
Nothing about our court system is quick and lucrative.......Mass gov is fundamentally corrupt and it will weasel/delay/deflect/make excuses and the judge(s) will permit it

If the courts even rule that the victims have standing this will go on for years and the only people that will win are the lawyers
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,363
Likes
9,180
Now you are making assumptions not in evidence from reports.
"5 seconds"? Now you're just making stuff up. I was taught 2 seconds. A quick Google shows either 2 or 3 seconds. And the
Now you are making assumptions not in evidence from reports.
"5 seconds"? Now you're just making stuff up. I was taught 2 seconds. A quick Google shows either 2 or 3 seconds. And the NH Driver's Manual states "3 seconds" on page 38.
states "3 seconds" on page 38.
Reading and Comprehension are two different things eh?

From the NH doc you quoted

How do you know if you are maintaining a “safe” following distance?
Use the 3 second
rule described
below.
Adjust
your following
distance
to your circumstance and situation. Start by maintaining a minimum
3 second following distance under ideal road and traffic conditions, at
lower speeds, in clear weather and ideal light conditions. Increase your
3 second following distance by an additional second for each negative
situation or condition. If you’re traveling at higher speeds add one more
second. If your are traveling on slippery roads add another second. If it
is dark or visibility is limited add another second. As the number of risk
factors increase, increase your seconds of following distance.
Most discussions/training/documents will get you to 5 seconds on the highway.

I've ridden in groups before and most of the time they dont maintain more than 1 second following distance......



We're talking about highway speeds not poking around
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
1,409
Likes
2,225
Location
Southwest NH
Classy post......

The fact of the matter remains that no matter what the driver of the truck did......7 killed and 3 injured......thats a bare min of 5 bikes involved and likely more

5 bikes following at 5 second intervals instead of as a pack means that the last bike would have had at LEAST 25 second to avoid the first bike if it went down and approx half that (12.5) seconds to avoid an oncoming vehicle

Apply same to 4th bike, 3rd and 2nd bike and anyone with half a brain and a few miles in the saddle comprehends that in order for at LEAST 5 bikes to be involved in this crash they necessarily must have been following each other too closely according to NH RSA.....otherwise one or more of them would have had time to avoid the accident......even a lumbering cruiser/touring bike had sufficient time to take action.......remember this is a nice big wide section of road where this occurred.....it wasnt a narrow/twisting section of road with no where to go.

Dont be surprised when the report comes out that the driver of the truck predictably is assigned primary blame but the drivers of the bikes will be found to be partially at fault for following each other too closely.
You continue to post about this 5 seconds vs. Pack formation as if it matters. Please post where this is stated by the investigators or how you have inside information. Im looking for FACTS not your opinion. I'm tired of rampant speculation when NONE of these facts are known.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,363
Likes
9,180
So if one has not seen that, you are speculating that this group, also, was not spaced properly.

From what I can see in this thread, you are pointing out that there is too much speculation and a lack of facts. I would suggest that your statement would be included.
I would agree with you.......but there's no other way you get a minimum of 5 bikes involved in a crash with another vehicle unless those bikes are in close proximity to one another.

Am I speculating? Yep.......am I shitposting and calling for a pound of someone's flesh proclaiming guilt? Nope
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,363
Likes
9,180
You continue to post about this 5 seconds vs. Pack formation as if it matters. Please post where this is stated by the investigators or how you have inside information. Im looking for FACTS not your opinion. I'm tired of rampant speculation when NONE of these facts are known.
OF COURSE it matters......how else to you get a bare minumum of 5 bikes involved in a crash if they were not in close proximity to one another......

Marines among 7 dead in Randolph crash; witness describes aftermath
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,363
Likes
9,180
A distinction without a difference.
So no diff between information sharing/discussion on HOW 5-6 bikes get involved in an accident at once and people shitposting and calling for a pound of flesh well......thats precious.

My bet is that in the end the investigation will conclude that no one party is entirely at fault.

Tragic and unnecessary accident with loss of life......

You think anyone is going to reflect on the overt danger associated with riding in close proximity?

I'm not going to hold my breath.....
 

Jason Flare

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
8,930
Likes
5,967
Location
Berkshires
These were former marines.

What group of people would it take for posters to be saying, “PSGWS. They had to be following too close for seven to lose their lives.”

Maybe if they were a group of anti-gun bikers riding for Moms Demand Action.
 

meh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
895
Likes
741
Location
Massachusetts
I would agree with you.......but there's no other way you get a minimum of 5 bikes involved in a crash with another vehicle unless those bikes are in close proximity to one another.
The phrase "close proximity" has no fixed meaning here. Relative velocities matter, and in the case of a head-on collision, relative mass matters. I'm sure it would be easy to take out a half-dozen motorcyclists who are following one another at a safe distance if the oncoming vehicle is a large truck traveling at 90mph and the motorcyclists are traveling at 10mph. When you re-analyze with the truck traveling at less speed and increasing the speed of the bikers to approach something probably more like what happened there, the expected number of fatalities may decrease as the speeds are changed, but I have no idea what the number of fatalities could or would be. I'm not convinced that you're taking enough variables into account to have a very good idea.
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
9,813
Likes
2,793
Location
Toy Town
Reading and Comprehension are two different things eh?
Speak for yourself. It was not night time, it was not slippery, the speed limit on that stretch of road appears to be 50 mph, which may or may not qualify as "higher speed", particularly given they had just started on the road about 1000' feet before. Most one gets is 4 seconds.
Most discussions/training/documents will get you to 5 seconds on the highway.
Citation please. Note that the road in question is a 2 lane 50 mph road, not a +4 lane +55 mph interstate.
I've ridden in groups before and most of the time they dont maintain more than 1 second following distance......
Assumption that your past experience equates to this situation.

5 bikes following at 5 second intervals instead of as a pack means that the last bike would have had at LEAST 25 second to avoid the first bike if it went down and approx half that (12.5) seconds to avoid an oncoming vehicle
5 bikes means 4 intervals, 20 seconds front to back, and 16 seconds if you use reasonable 4 second intervals given it was not dark or slippery.

Furthermore consider that 4 of the 5 bikes could have been riding as abreast pairs which appears to be legal in NH and not a violation of the 2/3/4/5 second rule. Assuming the bikes were legally riding 1x2x2 at 4 second intervals the last pair only has 4 seconds, not 12.5 seconds, to react to an oncoming truck & trailer hitting the first bike at a closing rate of ~100 mph.
 
Last edited:

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,363
Likes
9,180
Repeating garbage doesn't make it true. It just makes you look (more) like a troll.
Its a basic physics problem...you can deny all you want

The closer operators are to one another and the higher the speed, the less time they have to react and avoid one another

In other news you can bet that this will be the proverbial 'Never let a crisis go to waste"

The NTSB investigates every civil aviation accident in the country, but only up to 20 per year involving other modes of transportation, spokesman Peter Knudson said. The agency investigates, he said, when "there are safety gains to be had from our investigation."

7 Dead in Crash Between Pickup Truck, Motorcycles

That means this will be politicized and you'll see lobbyists pushing for all sorts of new laws/requirements.......at the top of the list you can be sure will be helmet laws here in NH
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,363
Likes
9,180
Speak for yourself. It was not night time, it was not slippery, the speed limit on that stretch of road appears to be 50 mph, which may or may not qualify as "higher speed", particularly given they had just started on the road about 1000' feet before. Most one gets is 4 seconds.
Citation please. Note that the road in question is a 2 lane 50 mph road, not a +4 lane +55 mph interstate.
Assumption that your past experience equates to this situation.

Let's look at the math with a 4 second spacing. Assuming the bikers were riding in side-by-side pairs going 50 mph with a 4 second spacing between the 3 pairs. Also assuming the truck driver was only doing 50 mph, that gives a 100 mph closing rate. Given that math the first group of riders only had as much warning as there was when the trailer came across the road, the second group only had 2 seconds more, and the last group only an additional 4 seconds from the first group. Even if they got their bikes down, that's not going to do much good against a low trailer coming at you at 50 to 100 mph.

I get it, you want more facts, but the way you state things and ask your questions make it sound like you're wanting to place blame on the riders. IMNSHO, based on the closing speeds and nature of the truck & trailer behavior most if not all of the riders were f'd regardless if they did everything perfectly.
You know that stretch of road?

I do......

Its wide open with broad shoulders and good visibility.....when was the last time you did 50mph on a wide open road with good visibility and broad shoulders in good weather when conditions would allow for 60 easily

The truck/trailer were unloaded so I would bet we'll see black box data from the truck that shows that he was above the speed limit too.

If each of the bikes were following at 4-5 second intervals then there wouldnt have been at least 5 bikes involved and as per the photos they wouldnt have come to rest in close proximity

But the signature photo of the accident shows 3 bikes within about 3 bike lengths of one another



That doesnt happen when people are following at 4-5 second intervals
 

deerdad

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
1,357
Likes
972
Location
Gill, MA
It will happen that way when the get PUSHED and Dragged.


You know that stretch of road?

I do......

Its wide open with broad shoulders and good visibility.....when was the last time you did 50mph on a wide open road with good visibility and broad shoulders in good weather when conditions would allow for 60 easily

The truck/trailer were unloaded so I would bet we'll see black box data from the truck that shows that he was above the speed limit too.

If each of the bikes were following at 4-5 second intervals then there wouldnt have been at least 5 bikes involved and as per the photos they wouldnt have come to rest in close proximity

But the signature photo of the accident shows 3 bikes within about 3 bike lengths of one another



That doesnt happen when people are following at 4-5 second intervals
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,363
Likes
9,180
Lets throw some math at this

At 50mph you cover 73.3 feet every second
At 60mph you cover 88 feet every second

Assuming for a moment the bikes were doing the 50mph speed limit AND they were following at 4 second intervals then each of the 5(?) bikes would have been a minimum of 293 feet apart.

The distance between first to last of 5 bikes there would have been a spread of almost 1200'

Yet the signature photo of the crash scene shows 3 bikes in very close proximity.....

Bikes 1 and 3 from the photo are consistent with bikes that were laid down and slid....these are cruisers with all kids of shit/foot rests, kick stands/center stands and other shit that hangs low and tends to contact pavement when attempting to avoid stuff/trying to turn

Bike #2 in yellow is strewn about with at least one wheel having come detatched........the condition is not inconsistent with a bike that was high sided/tumbled
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,363
Likes
9,180
It will happen that way when the get PUSHED and Dragged.
The condition of the bikes in the photo is not consistent with having been pushed/dragged....if those three bikes had been pushed/dragged they would be in a pile and likely in flames under the front end of the truck
 

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
9,234
Likes
7,257
Location
MA
Lets throw some math at this

At 50mph you cover 73.3 feet every second
At 60mph you cover 88 feet every second

Assuming for a moment the bikes were doing the 50mph speed limit AND they were following at 4 second intervals then each of the 5(?) bikes would have been a minimum of 293 feet apart.

The distance between first to last of 5 bikes there would have been a spread of almost 1200'

Yet the signature photo of the crash scene shows 3 bikes in very close proximity.....

Bikes 1 and 3 from the photo are consistent with bikes that were laid down and slid....these are cruisers with all kids of shit/foot rests, kick stands/center stands and other shit that hangs low and tends to contact pavement when attempting to avoid stuff/trying to turn

Bike #2 in yellow is strewn about with at least one wheel having come detatched........the condition is not inconsistent with a bike that was high sided/tumbled
But, y’know, it’s wrong to speculate before the official report comes out. Right?
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
1,409
Likes
2,225
Location
Southwest NH
The condition of the bikes in the photo is not consistent with having been pushed/dragged....if those three bikes had been pushed/dragged they would be in a pile and likely in flames under the front end of the truck
More speculation. No valuable or reliable information can be ascertained from that photo. There is nothing of fact, specific to this crash, in any of your posts. I appreciate your interest in arguing your point, but I will wait until there are verifiable facts known.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,363
Likes
9,180
More speculation. No valuable or reliable information can be ascertained from that photo. There is nothing of fact, specific to this crash, in any of your posts. I appreciate your interest in arguing your point, but I will wait until there are verifiable facts known.
Three wrecked bikes at the scene of the accident in close proximity to one another isnt valuable info?

How about a crash violent enough for a wheel to be forcibly removed or the ginourmous divit/crater in the pavement just to the side of the double yellow

What pray tell would be considered valuable info if all of that doesnt qualify?
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,363
Likes
9,180
The group was pulling out of their hotel. They had not formed up. Even if your insanity had any basis in reality you would be wrong. Some of the riders in the group had not even gotten out of the parking lot.

For a guy that claims he only wants the truth you sure don't seem to give a damn for any truth but your own.
The only thing that matters is the 5+ bikes involved in the crash

Here's a map of the site which allegedly happened 500 feet from the motel

Mount Jefferson View Motel in Randolph at DuckDuckGo

You ever ridden a bike let alone as part of a group ride?

I have.....

Folks pull out together in close proximity ALL THE TIME.

Folks also have a habit of gunning it up to speed as a group as well

So how exactly do we get at least 5 bikes involved in an accident if they were not close together?....ESPECIALLY if they were going slow/not doing the limit at the time of the wreck?

What are some possible explanations that involve the riders NOT following each other closely?

I dont have one and the ME has now stated that all of the deaths were blunt force trauma

Y'all better gear up to fight against a major push for helmet laws in NH next year because you know the dems are going to push for it
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
1,409
Likes
2,225
Location
Southwest NH
Three wrecked bikes at the scene of the accident in close proximity to one another isnt valuable info?

How about a crash violent enough for a wheel to be forcibly removed or the ginourmous divit/crater in the pavement just to the side of the double yellow

What pray tell would be considered valuable info if all of that doesnt qualify?
Yes, that is all speculation. I know nothing definite from looking at that photo. Were the bikes moved to reach a victim? What is the angle the pic was taken from? What is the scale? Where are they in relation to the truck? There are just far too many questions that are unanswered, and that photo, while maybe valuable to the investigators does not tell us anything. I am certain you will come back and tell me how dumb I am and that you know everything by looking at it. But that's not possible. I was with you when you were warning against speculation, but now that you are speculating on everything you have lost me.

Again, I will wait for facts and wish you luck.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,363
Likes
9,180
Oddly, I have ridden in packs from 2 to several hundred. Usually around a dozen.

And despite your fantasies, these were full grown men that had nothing to prove to anyone. They were leaving for a relaxing group ride and in no hurry.
There are no fantasies involved.

I've ridden with a bunch of different groups and I can count on one hand the number of times that a merge onto a 50mph road was leisurely

If what was reported accurate and that the accident was 500 feet from the motel then there's no way around the simple fact that the 5 or 6 bikes involved in the accident were by necessity in close proximity to one another.

There's no way around this.

There's also no way a bike like that yellow one takes a tumble/high sides and shatters like that without speed.....the bike isnt crushed as if it was hit, its shattered on all sides as if it was high sided/tumbled

I think its pretty clear that the driver of the truck shouldnt have been on the road but I'm also pretty sure that the investigators are going to find that there's a much larger story to tell
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,363
Likes
9,180
Yes, that is all speculation. I know nothing definite from looking at that photo. Were the bikes moved to reach a victim? What is the angle the pic was taken from? What is the scale? Where are they in relation to the truck? There are just far too many questions that are unanswered, and that photo, while maybe valuable to the investigators does not tell us anything. I am certain you will come back and tell me how dumb I am and that you know everything by looking at it. But that's not possible. I was with you when you were warning against speculation, but now that you are speculating on everything you have lost me.

Again, I will wait for facts and wish you luck.
ever tried to move an 8-900# cruiser like the ones in the photo?

All I'm saying is that you're almost certain to find the investigators rule that no one party is at fault and there is almost certainly blame to go round.......
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,363
Likes
9,180
And despite your fantasies, these were full grown men that had nothing to prove to anyone. They were leaving for a relaxing group ride and in no hurry.
If you had read the news you would know that the accident was at 6:30p and that they were heading to post 82 in Gorham for the weekly raffle at 7pm.........post 82 is 19 miles away from the motel.

Do the math....
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
15,363
Likes
9,180
You've clearly done most of your riding with inexperienced little t**ts.

If it's "pretty clear that the driver of the truck shouldnt have been on the road" then why are you advocating for him?
I'm not advocating for him

I'm pointing out that this wasnt a simple clear cut accident

There were a minimum of 5 bikes involved and several if not all of them had passengers

They were all in close proximity

Including the driver of the truck thats a minimum of 6 operators of different vehicles involved in this accident...each of them trying to make a decision/take action on how to avoid one another at the same time?

You going to try to assert for a moment that this wasnt a contributing factor?

How about the impact of the passengers and their reactions when riders likely tried to avoid collision?

You going to assert that somehow you've got time on a bike and havent for even a second considered any of this?
 
Top Bottom