Salt Lake City Motorcycle Crashes Caused by Drivers Who “Never Saw” the Rider: How Liability Is Proven

After a Salt Lake City motorcycle crash, one explanation keeps coming up: “I never saw the rider.”

A driver may say the motorcycle seemed to appear out of nowhere before a left turn, lane change, or intersection collision. From the driver’s perspective, that may explain how the crash happened. But it does not necessarily excuse it.

Motorcycles are smaller and can be harder to notice than passenger vehicles, especially in heavy traffic. Drivers still have a responsibility to observe surrounding traffic and make sure a movement can be completed safely. Utah law also expressly gives motorcycles full use of a traffic lane.

When a driver claims they never saw a rider, proving liability often means determining why.

“I Didn’t See the Motorcycle” Can Raise More Questions Than It Answers

A motorist may genuinely believe they looked before turning or changing lanes. The investigation does not have to stop with that recollection.

Instead, the circumstances can raise important questions. Was the motorcycle already established in the lane? How long was it visible? Did the driver check mirrors and blind spots? Was anything actually obstructing the driver’s view?

A driver who looks but fails to notice an approaching motorcycle can still create a dangerous situation.

This matters because Utah recognizes a motorcycle’s right to full use of its lane. Other motorists cannot operate their vehicles in a manner that deprives a motorcycle of that use.

Left-Turn Crashes Can Put Visibility at the Center of the Case

One common scenario occurs when a driver turns left across the path of an approaching motorcycle.

After impact, the turning driver may insist the road looked clear. The rider may have had only seconds to brake, swerve, or otherwise attempt to avoid the vehicle suddenly crossing the lane.

Establishing what the driver reasonably should have seen can require looking beyond what either person remembers.

The vehicles’ location, sight distance approaching the intersection, surrounding traffic, lighting, road design, and possible visual obstructions can all help establish whether the motorcycle was visible before the driver began the turn.

Lane-Change Collisions Present Similar Problems

A motorcycle can also disappear from a driver’s immediate view when traveling beside a larger vehicle.

Before changing lanes, however, drivers must account for traffic already occupying the adjoining lane. Utah law requires drivers to determine that a lane movement can be made safely, and motorcycles are legally entitled to occupy the lane just as other vehicles are.

When a vehicle moves into a motorcycle’s path, the investigation may examine whether the driver checked mirrors, looked over their shoulder, used a turn signal, or made an abrupt movement that left the rider little opportunity to respond.

Physical and Electronic Evidence Can Challenge a Driver’s Account

A rider seriously injured in a collision may have no memory of the moments immediately before impact. That can leave the other driver’s version of events as the first account given to police or an insurance company.

Other evidence can help fill the gap.

Depending on the crash, investigators may examine:

• Dashcam, traffic, or nearby surveillance footage.
• Witness accounts.
• Vehicle damage and points of impact.
• Skid marks and other roadway evidence.
• Photographs from the collision scene.
• Electronic vehicle data.
• Cellphone records when distraction is suspected.

For example, video showing a motorcycle traveling steadily in its lane for several seconds before a vehicle turned across it may tell a very different story from the assertion that the rider suddenly appeared.

Visibility and Conspicuity Are Not the Same as Fault

Insurance companies may also focus on the motorcycle itself. They may question whether its headlight was operating, what the rider was wearing, where the motorcycle was positioned in the lane, or whether its speed made it harder to judge its approach.

Those facts may be relevant, but they should be evaluated in context.

The central question is not simply whether the driver noticed the motorcycle. It is what each person was doing before the collision and whether reasonable care could have prevented it.

If an insurer alleges that the rider contributed to the crash, Utah’s comparative fault rules can also make an accurate allocation of responsibility important to the rider’s ability to recover compensation.

When a Driver Says “I Never Saw You,” Look at What the Evidence Shows

Motorcycle riders can suffer catastrophic injuries because another driver missed something that was directly in their path. A statement that the driver never saw the motorcycle may help explain the collision, but it does not establish legal responsibility.

Waddoups Law represents motorcyclists injured in Salt Lake City and throughout Utah. Our personal injury attorneys investigate the moments leading to serious motorcycle crashes, including driver visibility, vehicle positioning, witness accounts, video, and other available evidence.

If a driver turned or moved into your path and later claimed they never saw you, contact Waddoups Law for a free consultation to discuss what the evidence may reveal about your motorcycle accident.

About the Author

George Waddoups

George T. Waddoups has practiced law since 1982 and is experienced in personal injury and wrongful death, with over $300 million recovered for clients. He is nominated as a Super Lawyer and a member of The National Trial Lawyers Top 100. George is committed to community service and enjoys time with his five children.