Interesting situation... this kind of polarizes folks toward two driver stereotypes. Was it the speeding motorcycle heathen or past prime passer who was at fault. I suspect the lawyers for each party will help decide. Based on the little information posted, here are my thoughts:

[Soap box on] I hear way too often about motorcycle/car accidents where the cager failed to yield right-of-way and says, "I just didn't see the motorcycle". It seems that some folks develop tunnel vision just for other 4+ wheeled vehicles... Watch out pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and other small animals. This is a fact and something we all have to live with... get a modulating headlight, wear bright clothes, and drive defensively. But absent these items does not negate a driver's right-of-way obligation. [Soap box off]

When I look at this situation, I ask myself.. "whose action, if not executed properly, was more likely to create deadly consequences... and where there mitigating or exacerbating circumstances."

A few posts back, it was determined that the rider's speed was the cause of the accident. Witnesses said he was traveling at 110 to 120 MPH in a 55 zone. Evidence indicated an impact speed of 75 MPH. In a 55 zone, maximum impact speed of the two vehicles of 110 MPH is possible without braking... so an impact speed of 75 MPH does not provide evidence of speeding unless additional speed can be determined by skid mark length. As far as the witness statements, I think it's difficult to accurately estimate speed of a vehicle... especially at those speeds. What has been their experience watching vehicles travel 110 to 120 MPH. I think most people judge speed by perceived size difference over time. A motorcycle looks small in the distance, but it's closer than most people think. The conclusion is the motorcycle is speeding because it covered a greater distance over time based on a person's assessment of that distance based on size. Time and time again we deal with cages turning or pulling out in front of us due to this phenomenon. So how fast was the rider really going... and would it have an impact on your decision of who was at fault if they were traveling 60 and 65... they were speeding, but did they forfeit their right-of-way protection by doing so?

Now let's look at the cager... she made a decision to move into oncoming traffic to avoid the inconvenience of a vehicle making a right hand turn in front of her. To do so safely, she needed to judge the speed and distance of oncoming traffic to determine if their was sufficient time to execute the maneuver safely. IMO, moving into oncoming traffic should be done with extreme caution and there should be no doubt about having sufficient time... regardless of the speed of oncoming traffic. The evidence is that she did not accurately assess oncoming traffic to determine if there was sufficient time to execute a passing maneuver... if she had, no accident would have occurred. So what caused her to inaccurately assess the timing? As explained above, a big part of this is visual... being able to determine size change at distance over time to estimate passing interval. Her state DMV had determined that corrective lenses were required for her to drive safely.

I have to conclude that her decision to not wear corrective lenses inhibited her ability to accurately assess speed and distance of on coming traffic before executing an inherently dangerous maneuver which caused the accident described.

But that's just my opinion...