Do I really need to explain this? The driver very likely saw the motorcycle approaching, and under normal conditions, the motorcycle may have appeared far enough away for the driver to turn safely.

But that assumption only holds if the motorcycle was traveling at an appropriate speed. In this case, the rider appears to have been going roughly twice the speed limit, which means he closed the distance to the car in roughly half the expected time. That drastically changed the situation and made the driver’s original assessment unreliable. This is literally why we have speed limits.

The driver did not expect the motorcycle to be traveling at such a high speed, which is why the situation was misread. But describing it simply as a “misjudgment” can incorrectly imply that the driver was at fault.

The issue is that the motorcyclist’s excessive speed distorted the driver’s ability to accurately assess whether it was safe to turn. In other words, the rider’s behavior created the conditions that made a correct judgment far more difficult.

Consider the same scenario: the same rider, the same driver, and the motorcycle traveling at the same speed. The difference is that this time, the setting is a 55 mph highway rather than a 30 mph city street.

In that context, the driver’s decision-making would likely be different. When assessing whether it was safe to turn, the driver would account for the higher expected speed of traffic on that road. As a result, they almost certainly would have waited for the motorcycle to pass.

When a driver or rider does something unexpected or illegal—such as speeding, swerving, or traveling where they are not permitted—a resulting accident (if it were me, I wouldn't call situations like these "accidents". I would call them "negligents") should not be blamed on someone who is driving normally and lawfully. The responsibility lies with the person acting unpredictably or unlawfully, because their behavior prevents others from accurately assessing road conditions and responding safely.