Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: plym ian on 05 September 2014, 14:45:28
-
Paid with his life and the driver of the car got in trouble as well and it was caught on camera :(
My argument in this case is a motor bike traveling at 97mph coming down a hill and the driver didn't see him. Surly a bike travelling that fast would be hard to spot anyway?
Gives motorbikes a bad name when people ride them like this then blame car drivers :y
link (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-29064891)
-
I saw a big thread about this on Facebook .. split between people saying the biker was going too fast (lets face it, at 100mph you cover a lot of ground very quickly) and bikers saying that "Cagers just don't understand!"
(OK, a few also pointing out that the car driver said he didn't see the other car let alone the bike, but.. predominantly the above)
-
Both at fault. The sad thing is the aftermath for both sides. Lets face it all they said about the driver was that they got in trouble but there is little doubt that they were hurt in that crash too. I cannot see how not.
Doing such speeds in any vehicle on such a road is just wrong. To not be paying full attention to the road ahead of you, regardless the nature of the hazard, is just as bad.
For me there is no argument as to who was to blame, they both were, just a very sad outcome where someone paid with their life.
-
You have to question the sanity of approaching a junction at that speed, whatever the chosen mode of transport. Other drivers wouldn't be anticipating traffic arriving at that speed, and most are unable to judge speed accurately, assuming they do see you in the split second available.
There was clearly blame attributed to the car driver too, so I'm assuming he was judged to have contributed by not having had a decent look. Most don't, let's face it. All the more reason not to put your life in their hands.
Guessing any approaching car would have been left for dust by the bike and well in the distance, assuming it wasn't also doing a ton, so not sure of the relevance of that. :-\ An approaching car behind the bike could actually have masked the outline of the bike, I suppose.
Had he been doing 60 MPH, not sure if the accident would have been avoidable, but I'd bet it'd have been survivable. :-\ Had the car driver also been fully awake...
-
At 100 MPH you travel 147 feet for each second. The car driver clearly didn't look.
Just my opinion but I think that bike riders make better/safer car drivers because we are more aware of just how quick a modern 200 BHP superbike can be. :y
-
Not sure that the speed on the oncoming vehicle has much to do with how much people pay attention at junctions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsDl7g6a1w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsDl7g6a1w)*
*caveat: yes I know there are a few things the cyclist does wrong too, but it's to demonstrate the point of paying attention at junctions :y
-
Not sure that the speed on the oncoming vehicle has much to do with how much people pay attention at junctions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsDl7g6a1w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsDl7g6a1w)*
*caveat: yes I know there are a few things the cyclist does wrong too, but it's to demonstrate the point of paying attention at junctions :y
Good find, Mr Guffer. No ambiguity there I think. :y.... The fault of the car driver.
-
Just my opinion but I think that bike riders make better/safer car drivers because we are more aware of just how quick a modern 200 BHP superbike can be. :y
I was about to say that I can't imagine how any driver - regardless of whether they've ridden a two wheeled vehicle - could not understand how quick a 200hp 200kg machine can be..
.. then I remembered how clueless 90% of the drivers on the road seem to be about anything (witness the thread about roundabouts from the other day) and realised how daft a statement that would be.
-
Not sure that the speed on the oncoming vehicle has much to do with how much people pay attention at junctions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsDl7g6a1w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsDl7g6a1w)*
*caveat: yes I know there are a few things the cyclist does wrong too, but it's to demonstrate the point of paying attention at junctions :y
I'm still impressed he lands on his feet..
Not as impressive as this manoeuvre, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApF7B4YqehI
-
Just my opinion but I think that bike riders make better/safer car drivers because we are more aware of just how quick a modern 200 BHP superbike can be. :y
I was about to say that I can't imagine how any driver - regardless of whether they've ridden a two wheeled vehicle - could not understand how quick a 200hp 200kg machine can be..
.. then I remembered how clueless 90% of the drivers on the road seem to be about anything (witness the thread about roundabouts from the other day) and realised how daft a statement that would be.
Indeed. Car drivers don't drive around calculating power to weight ratios. In fact, their brain is not normally active to any degree at all, unless they happen to be changing a CD.
In addition, not all 200hp bikes are flying towards them at 100 MPH constantly, otherwise they might be conditioned to see them better. They come to a junction and expect to see the normal retard in a car, doing precisely 45 MPH, because that's how fast they travel everywhere, with a following queue of irate drivers who lack the confidence to overtake. ;)
After a nonchalant glance, that's not what they see, so they carry on. At fault, of course, but that is the standard of driver we have on the roads.
The biker, on the other hand, has no protection against impact and isn't riding the most visible vehicle in the world. Why on earth he's using that sort of speed whilst there is another vehicle anywhere near him I'm not sure.
-
Hard to tell exactly but looking at the road markings it appears that the car driver started turning when the bike was about 50 feet away.
........that's roughly a third of a second at 100 MPH. :-\
-
That vid is horrible. But as Guffer says... they're both to blame.
This is why I wouldn't ride a bike even if I could because any mistake you or other drivers' make usually ends in serious injury or death :'(
-
Its the risk you take if you chose to ride a bike and I suspect that a sensible rider would be a bit more hazard aware, possibly riding with their lights on to maximise visibility etc.
Clearly the car driver has made a bad judgement and been punished accordingly, the biker also has made a bad judgement and been punished sadly with his life.
-
That vid is horrible. But as Guffer says... they're both to blame.
This is why I wouldn't ride a bike even if I could because any mistake you or other drivers' make usually ends in serious injury or death :'(
Absolutely, you ride a bike and you know the potential risks and consequences are much greater than using a vehicle which has something more substantial than a bit of leather and skin to protect your internals.
-
That caught me out, I thought the presenter explained the car pulled out from the side road where he stood, not crossed in front from oncoming. So I was looking in the wrong place. :o which I wouldn't of been in real time.
Speed read. Apologies if inaccurate....
IMO, if the driver had seen the bike, that would be an error of judgement on his part. As there will be an accident he had the opportunity to see coming, and missed that opportunity. BUT YOU CAN GUARANTEE he would not of pulled out when he did if he had seen the bike. He might of pulled out earlier, but not just then, as if the bike was at legal speed he would of caused an emergency stop at least, most likely.
If the driver did NOT see the bike(or any other oncoming vehicle) then that would be a matter of timing and pure luck as to what he hit. Now, will someone please explain to me what the speed of the oncoming vehicle has to do with the cause of the accident, given the driver did NOT see the oncoming traffic and the type of road....? 30,60,90,190 makes no odds.
Obviously the bike would be prosecuted given the evidence, but the fact remains, if the car didn't pull out, there'd be no accident, no evidence to see as a result, and no, prosecutions regardless of the bikes speed. (Unless a copper or camera spotted it of course)
As a biker you have to envisage these situations and what you would do if the worst happened. My plan was always to jump. Up and over. Over the handle bars, over the car/ van whatever. A plan that stood me in good stead on several occasions, at various speeds some illegal, some legal, when the driver simply didn't see me with my dipped beam on. Always.
In all the 'I didn't see you' incidents, not all where RTA's as there's always the occasions when you see the muppets coming and avoid, not once was my speed a factor. If I'd been 5 seconds further up the road, or 5 seconds further back, no accident would of occurred if the driver pulled out just the same. That, is a fact. Just is.
...in fact you could argue for a faster average (or indeed slower) speed in such an incident, as you'd be somewhere else at the point the car decided to cross. Pure luck, sadly.
Speaking purely for the bike though, took too much risk at that junction without plotting the path of every vehicle before cracking on. (Bit obvious that so applogogies again) And be ready to jump. High...
...I like to crack on, but I was wincing a bit in the build up anyway. But then, the speed does build up and you become abit immune. It is the risk bikers take, and they do know it.
-
Now, will someone please explain to me what the speed of the oncoming vehicle has to do with the cause of the accident, given the driver did NOT see the oncoming traffic and the type of road....? 30,60,90,190 makes no odds.
Allow me to demonstrate with this tennis racket, tennis ball and your face... shout when you see the ball coming... *THWACK* OWW!! Unbelievable ::)
100% caused by motorcyclist. And very disappointing that this is released with the undertone of "look out for twunts on bikes y'all" as is so often the case when it should be " You there, yes you, you tax evading polluting undertaking muppet... DRIVE PROPERLY" >:(
High time they made a traffic law that says "If you're breaking the law, ANY of them, don't come crying to mummy when someone else breaks the law/does something you didn't expect."
-
Now, will someone please explain to me what the speed of the oncoming vehicle has to do with the cause of the accident.....
I guess it's possible that the car driver saw the bike and thought he had time to 'nip' across thinking the bike was doing normal speeds? :-\
Although the he did turn quite leisurely, so in this case i think it's obvious that he didn't look properly. ::)
-
Now, will someone please explain to me what the speed of the oncoming vehicle has to do with the cause of the accident.....
I guess it's possible that the car driver saw the bike and thought he had time to 'nip' across thinking the bike was doing normal speeds? :-\
Although the he did turn quite leisurely, so in this case i think it's obvious that he didn't look properly. ::)
Blatantly obvious. The bikes speed is only relevant if the driver sees the bike, then crosses thinking he has more time than he actually does. Misjudged the bikes speed, in effect.
....plus the fact he may be still alive if travelling slower of course.
But the bikes speed is not relevant to the cause. Car driver didn't see the bike OR the car behind it, allegedly. So there could equally have been a truck, or a 4x4 more realisticly that could of killed the car driver
-
Now, will someone please explain to me what the speed of the oncoming vehicle has to do with the cause of the accident.....
I guess it's possible that the car driver saw the bike and thought he had time to 'nip' across thinking the bike was doing normal speeds? :-\
Although the he did turn quite leisurely, so in this case i think it's obvious that he didn't look properly. ::)
Blatantly obvious. The bikes speed is only relevant if the driver sees the bike, then crosses thinking he has more time than he actually does. Misjudged the bikes speed, in effect.
....plus the fact he may be still alive if travelling slower of course.
But the bikes speed is not relevant to the cause. Car driver didn't see the bike OR the car behind it, allegedly. So there could equally have been a truck, or a 4x4 more realisticly that could of killed the car driver
Exactly, and if you've ever driven on an unrestricted section of German Autobahn it's very easy to misjudge other vehicles speed there. :o ::)
-
When I learned to drive (yes, a very long time ago) I was taught, and I still believe now, that you should drive at a speed that enables you to stop in the event of an emergency or the unexpected. The driver of the car, rightly or wrongly, pulled out. The bike rider should have been at a speed that enabled him to stop or take evasive action. No way was that possible.
Too much emphasis these days is on "who was in the right and who was in the wrong", rather than "what would have prevent this ?"
-
While speed is quite often a contributor, this is why I don't subscribe to the speed kills BS used to justify speed limits, cameras, and influence prosecutions above all else. It allows the morons that, don't look, don't care, looked but didn't see, looked but pulled out anyway etc etc to get away with it. By far a bigger crime IMO. As speed takes a distant back seat to luck in such instances wear the driver didn't look and ANYTHING could be approaching. Just in the case its a speeding biker.
Usually, speed is indeed a factor, but usually it's not the only factor. The fact there is a speed limit, the fact that its your right of way, the fact there is a zebra crossing that requires traffic to stop, does not mean we are immune and counts for nothing....if your dead.
None of that implies there shouldn't be speed limits, or that they are for no reason of course. Driving to conditions is far more important IMO. Rightly or wrongly. That can mean driving faster AND slower than any limit for quite legitimate reasons.
Let's see if my opinion changes after my speed awareness course. ;D for 35 in a 30 I might add.
-
Now, will someone please explain to me what the speed of the oncoming vehicle has to do with the cause of the accident.....
I guess it's possible that the car driver saw the bike and thought he had time to 'nip' across thinking the bike was doing normal speeds? :-\
Although the he did turn quite leisurely, so in this case i think it's obvious that he didn't look properly. ::)
Blatantly obvious. The bikes speed is only relevant if the driver sees the bike, then crosses thinking he has more time than he actually does. Misjudged the bikes speed, in effect.
....plus the fact he may be still alive if travelling slower of course.
But the bikes speed is not relevant to the cause. Car driver didn't see the bike OR the car behind it, allegedly. So there could equally have been a truck, or a 4x4 more realisticly that could of killed the car driver
Exactly, and if you've ever driven on an unrestricted section of German Autobahn it's very easy to misjudge other vehicles speed there. :o ::)
...so presumably, speed can't ever be a contributing factor on an autobahn.?
Seen or not seen. That's not to say lorries don't pull out in front faster moving traffic either, so by the same uk thinking then, the fact there us no speed limit must mean you can blat down there at whatever speed you like because the law is on your side right?
Obviously that's not going to keep you alive either. It's the conditions that count.
-
every driver have to drive in a manner to compansate other drivers possible mistakes.. no ifs no buts..
whatever the transportation size is.. otherwise either you die or someone else..
-
and one more; how does this biker decide to arrive at a junction with that speed,
basically assuming people will see him and no one will turn .. wrong assumption..
-
...so presumably, speed can't ever be a contributing factor on an autobahn.?
Seen or not seen. That's not to say lorries don't pull out in front faster moving traffic either, so by the same uk thinking then, the fact there us no speed limit must mean you can blat down there at whatever speed you like because the law is on your side right?
Obviously that's not going to keep you alive either. It's the conditions that count.
No I'm not saying that, just giving it as an example where it is easy to misjudge others speed and in a place where you expect other vehicles to be travelling at extreme speeds. A junction in Norfolk however.... ::)
-
...so presumably, speed can't ever be a contributing factor on an autobahn.?
Seen or not seen. That's not to say lorries don't pull out in front faster moving traffic either, so by the same uk thinking then, the fact there us no speed limit must mean you can blat down there at whatever speed you like because the law is on your side right?
Obviously that's not going to keep you alive either. It's the conditions that count.
No I'm not saying that, just giving it as an example where it is easy to misjudge others speed and in a place where you expect other vehicles to be travelling at extreme speeds. A junction in Norfolk however.... ::)
.... I wasn't suggesting you where. Sorry that's not what I meant. Just using the example... :)
-
I`m a big believer in fate. When your time is up etc. :(
A tadge quicker he`d have cleared thru the junction & got home safe & sound. Fate decided otherwise. All the bikers on here are thinking "that last close one........ was too damn close".
-
lets us comment about a crowded road mathematically,
- the road has a certain fix width
- the cars passing in all directions has also a fix width (although changing with bigger vehicles) which covers most of the road leaving momentary narrow gaps
- the road has an avg traffic flow rate
if you are moving faster than that avg traffic speed, you have to use those narrow gaps which opens and closes unless you fly .. and thats even without a junction complexity on a straight road.. and sometimes some random pedestrians or animals run to the road which even disables the traffic flow..
thats not fate.. there is a high probability that any vehicle,pedestrian, object can close your passage and cause a fatal accident.. and if you ignore this probabilty now you are in the hands of fate..
and if you think speed is not the main factor causing death watch the complete video in youtube and count the seconds he flied on the air before he drops on the ground.. and also lets ask what would happen if he reached that junction with more speed I bet none of the drivers here would have time to see him becaue the road is covered with trees in both sides cutting the visibility and also it was a cloudy day.. he had no chance imo :(
-
Once again cem you choose to miss the point. The driver didn't see him. Anything approaching at ANY speed could have been involved. Speed has nothing to do with THIS instance or the CAUSE of the accident.
-
Once again cem you choose to miss the point. The driver didn't see him. Anything approaching at ANY speed could have been involved. Speed has nothing to do with THIS instance or the CAUSE of the accident.
Car driver admitted that,if he/she had said they mis-judged the bikes speed they probably would have escaped prosecution :-\
-
lets us comment about a crowded road mathematically,
- the road has a certain fix width
- the cars passing in all directions has also a fix width (although changing with bigger vehicles) which covers most of the road leaving momentary narrow gaps
- the road has an avg traffic flow rate
if you are moving faster than that avg traffic speed, you have to use those narrow gaps which opens and closes unless you fly .. and thats even without a junction complexity on a straight road.. and sometimes some random pedestrians or animals run to the road which even disables the traffic flow..
thats not fate.. there is a high probability that any vehicle,pedestrian, object can close your passage and cause a fatal accident.. and if you ignore this probabilty now you are in the hands of fate..
and if you think speed is not the main factor causing death watch the complete video in youtube and count the seconds he flied on the air before he drops on the ground.. and also lets ask what would happen if he reached that junction with more speed I bet none of the drivers here would have time to see him becaue the road is covered with trees in both sides cutting the visibility and also it was a cloudy day.. he had no chance imo :(
Exactly. As the prosecution said of the police officer who crashed at 90mph in a 30 zone : "you had surrendered to the laws of physics" :y
Once again cem you choose to miss the point. The driver didn't see him. Anything approaching at ANY speed could have been involved. Speed has nothing to do with THIS instance or the CAUSE of the accident.
::) A take home message that only a biker could conclude.... "Travelling at 37mph (ie over 50%) OVER the speed limit,
a. through a junction
b. (having observed a car about to turn right... or not... cos I was going to fast officer...)
was not a contributing factor in this accident".
Unreal.
-
When I learned to drive (yes, a very long time ago) I was taught, and I still believe now, that you should drive at a speed that enables you to stop in the event of an emergency or the unexpected. The driver of the car, rightly or wrongly, pulled out. The bike rider should have been at a speed that enabled him to stop or take evasive action. No way was that possible.
Too much emphasis these days is on "who was in the right and who was in the wrong", rather than "what would have prevent this ?" 'Spot on' Rog. All that needs to be said...
-
Once again cem you choose to miss the point. The driver didn't see him. Anything approaching at ANY speed could have been involved. Speed has nothing to do with THIS instance or the CAUSE of the accident.
Had the biker been doing 40mph through the junction and the car pulled out in front of him he might have survived. :-\
-
A friend mine died in a similar way sadly. The car didn't see him, pulled out of side road. To me it is one of those where blame can be apportioned equally. This video is there to highlight it to all users, bike or car. If it saves one more life from this being shown then all is well.
-
If I ever get another bike, I think I'd get a helmet cam or camera of some sort. I had an accident in 2009 where I was turning right on a roundabout and a car coming the other direction didn't stop. I hit the brakes, the car swerved but I went into the side of the car. ::)
Another biker gave me his details and said he'd be my witness. The woman driving said to the insurance that she was already on the roundabout and I appeared out of nowhere and slammed into her side. Her insurance company took her version as the truth and declined to pay out. The phone number that the witness gave me was wrong, so I had to turn detective and track him down. Once I got his witness statement and presented it to the insurance company via a solicitor they backed down and paid out. Eventually! ::)
I think if I had footage that showed my clear exit off of the roundabout and then suddenly a car appears, the process would have been a lot easier. :-\ In fact I've been thinking about one for the car as the amount of people you see driving and fiddling with mobiles is scary! ::) >:(
-
On autobahns lorries are restricted to lane 1 and 90 kmh.
If the biker had survived he would have been prosecuted for dangerous driving, the car driver would probablyhave had no charge to answer.
iirc the single carriageway sections of the A47 in Norfolk are 50mph, except the stretch between Acle and Yarmouth which is two long straight sections joined by a 40mph blind bend.
The manner of his riding prior to the accident was ignored by the look of it. If he hadn't have died that day, then I doubt he would have made forty tbh :-\
Just my tuppence worth and you can keep the change...
-
I would say that the biker was riding quickly yet 'reasonably' responsibly. Yes, he could have been riding slower, but if some idiot slings 1200kg of car in front of you then there will be tears before bedtime regardless of how fast the biker was going.
Who was to blame?
70% the car driver......30% the biker. Cyclists, as Mr Guffers video shows, have the same problem of cars turning right in front of them.
-
Once again cem you choose to miss the point. The driver didn't see him. Anything approaching at ANY speed could have been involved. Speed has nothing to do with THIS instance or the CAUSE of the accident.
if you walk with slow steps I can see you.. ;D
so at any speed claim is fatally wrong :( and I hope you dont continue this mistake Chris.. may cost you a life..
just a simple example.. sometimes our cats ran through garden and I cant be sure I see a big rat or cat.. but definitely I cant distinguish which cat it was... and compare their speeds with a bike..
-
I would say that the biker was riding quickly yet 'reasonably' responsibly. Yes, he could have been riding slower, but if some idiot slings 1200kg of car in front of you then there will be tears before bedtime regardless of how fast the biker was going.
Who was to blame?
70% the car driver......30% the biker. Cyclists, as Mr Guffers video shows, have the same problem of cars turning right in front of them.
Although Bicyclists are less likely to die if a car pulls out in front, than a Motorcyclist doing say 90mph..... ::)
-
I suppose if the biker had kept on or near to the speed limits he wouldn,t have been anywhere near the junction
at that time anyway. A horrible thing for his family and friends to endure, RIP.
-
I would say that the biker was riding quickly yet 'reasonably' responsibly. Yes, he could have been riding slower, but if some idiot slings 1200kg of car in front of you then there will be tears before bedtime regardless of how fast the biker was going.
Who was to blame?
70% the car driver......30% the biker. Cyclists, as Mr Guffers video shows, have the same problem of cars turning right in front of them.
Although Bicyclists are less likely to die if a car pulls out in front, than a Motorcyclist doing say 90mph..... ::)
True, Sir Tig. The principle remains the same though. :y
-
I would say that the biker was riding quickly yet 'reasonably' responsibly. Yes, he could have been riding slower, but if some idiot slings 1200kg of car in front of you then there will be tears before bedtime regardless of how fast the biker was going.
Who was to blame?
70% the car driver......30% the biker. Cyclists, as Mr Guffers video shows, have the same problem of cars turning right in front of them.
Although Bicyclists are less likely to die if a car pulls out in front, than a Motorcyclist doing say 90mph..... ::)
Still happens though, a lot more than you think and not just from people turning right in front of you. Many get crushed by vehicles which don't even see them on the road ahead. And judging by the space left to me by some motorists on my ride today, it is only a matter of time before I am knocked off by a motorist by is too lazy/ignorant/stupid/cocky/impatient* to give me more than a few inches when they pass.
*delete as appropriate (unless all apply)
-
I would say that the biker was riding quickly yet 'reasonably' responsibly. Yes, he could have been riding slower, but if some idiot slings 1200kg of car in front of you then there will be tears before bedtime regardless of how fast the biker was going.
Who was to blame?
70% the car driver......30% the biker. Cyclists, as Mr Guffers video shows, have the same problem of cars turning right in front of them.
Although Bicyclists are less likely to die if a car pulls out in front, than a Motorcyclist doing say 90mph..... ::)
Still happens though, a lot more than you think and not just from people turning right in front of you. Many get crushed by vehicles which don't even see them on the road ahead. And judging by the space left to me by some motorists on my ride today, it is only a matter of time before I am knocked off by a motorist by is too lazy/ignorant/stupid/cocky/impatient* to give me more than a few inches when they pass.
*delete as appropriate (unless all apply)
Yep Bicyclists die all the time on our roads. :(
-
I would say that the biker was riding quickly yet 'reasonably' responsibly. Yes, he could have been riding slower, but if some idiot slings 1200kg of car in front of you then there will be tears before bedtime regardless of how fast the biker was going.
Who was to blame?
70% the car driver......30% the biker. Cyclists, as Mr Guffers video shows, have the same problem of cars turning right in front of them.
Although Bicyclists are less likely to die if a car pulls out in front, than a Motorcyclist doing say 90mph..... ::)
Still happens though, a lot more than you think and not just from people turning right in front of you. Many get crushed by vehicles which don't even see them on the road ahead. And judging by the space left to me by some motorists on my ride today, it is only a matter of time before I am knocked off by a motorist by is too lazy/ignorant/stupid/cocky/impatient* to give me more than a few inches when they pass.
*delete as appropriate (unless all apply)
Yep Bicyclists die all the time on our roads. :(
I feel far safer on a superbike than a pushbike......that's for sure. :y
-
Hardly the Car drivers fault...partialy to blame yes,but certainly not there fault.
Regards the speed if he was traveling with in speed limit...id say a prang would be likely but who"s to say at 60mph how different his reactions would have been,could he have avoided it.
Sure it was the GPZ600 that had the advert 60mph to 0mph in under 3 seconds,then the tarmac rippled where they stopped so quick.
High sped collisions can be survived....friend was redlining his KR1-S (flat out) his pillion landed so hard his lid split (moto style) and ended up in a coma fpr 3 weeks,the rider amazingly walked away with a sore arse,so just luck of the draw.
-
I would say that the biker was riding quickly yet 'reasonably' responsibly. Yes, he could have been riding slower, but if some idiot slings 1200kg of car in front of you then there will be tears before bedtime regardless of how fast the biker was going.
Who was to blame?
70% the car driver......30% the biker. Cyclists, as Mr Guffers video shows, have the same problem of cars turning right in front of them.
Although Bicyclists are less likely to die if a car pulls out in front, than a Motorcyclist doing say 90mph..... ::)
True. But it will still be the car driver that caused the accident. Be it a cat a cyclist or a truck. As said the principle still stands.