Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[plym ian]

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

link

[aaronjb]

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)

[Gaffers]

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.

[Kevin Wood]

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...

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

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.

[Gaffers]

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*

*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

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

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*

*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

Good find, Mr Guffer. No ambiguity there I think. .... The fault of the car driver.

[aaronjb]

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.

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.

[aaronjb]

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*

*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

I'm still impressed he lands on his feet..

Not as impressive as this manoeuvre, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApF7B4YqehI

[Kevin Wood]

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.

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.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

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.

[Webby the Bear]

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 

[Marks DTM Calib]

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.

[Marks DTM Calib]

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.

[chrisgixer]

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. 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.